Bottom of the Barrel

Gregg Easterbrook Not One to Miss a Chance to be Haughty Chimes in on the Saints Bounty Scandal

2012-03-09T16:17:00.000-05:00

It was a few years ago, and I was standing in a high school football locker room in Montgomery County, Md., where I live. A favored school trailed a perennial loser at halftime, and the coach of the favored team was screaming -- I've deleted the many obscenities -- that he wanted his boys to intimidate the other team by injuring players.

How it affects the kids. That's the real tragedy. Now Pee-Wee football players will grow up dreaming of playing in the NFL in order to make $1000 injuring an opposing player by knocking the shit out of him, instead of growing up dreaming of playing in the NFL in order to make millions of dollars knocking the shit out of opposing players.

The coach got his wish -- two opposition players were helped off in the second half, and his team rallied to victory.

Obviously this type of behavior is unacceptable from a coach, no matter what level. No children should be taught to intentionally injure another competitor during a competition. Having said that, football is an incredibly violent sport and it still involves rough play and the possibility of severe injury. So it isn't like we are taking a docile sport and dirtying it up with bounties. Bounties are simply a way of a team incentivizing even more violent play with the specific goal of injuring another player in mind. It is not right, but it also isn't a hell of a lot different from the normal goal in football.

The league is setting a terrible example for the overwhelming majority of football players who, unlike NFL players, never receive a dime from the sport.

This is why Roger Goodell is probably going to come down hard on these players and coaches who participated in this bounty program. Gregg will be criticizing the NFL a lot for the Saints actions. In some way, the NFL is guilty, but they do deserve some credit for investigating the Saints' bounties and punishing the offenders.

But high school players are exposed to injuries that at minimum cause pain, expense and lost school time, and at worst may bring lifelong physical or mental debilitation

This is not going to change regardless of whether teams run a bounty program or not. Football is, and always will be, a violent sport.

If the example being set by the NFL is one of a Super Bowl team acting gleeful over injured opponents, the worst harm isn't done to the pros.

In his own special way, Gregg Easterbrook misses the major issue involving these bounties. It isn't the defensive player's reaction that is the issue. Anytime an NFL player gets injured on the field teams usually don't start celebrating that player's injury publicly. So "the kids" aren't going to see Jonathan Vilma dancing over an injured quarterback once Vilma knows the quarterback is injured. The issue are the bounties, which "the kids" usually know nothing about until they hear about it in a news story. Being gleeful over a fallen opponent isn't the issue, it is the act of paying a player to intentionally injure another player.

Each year, all NFL clubs receive a memo reminding them, "No bonus or award may directly or indirectly be offered, promised, announced or paid to a player for his or his team's performance against a particular team or opposing player or a particular group thereof. No bonuses or awards may be offered or paid for on field misconduct, for example, personal fouls to or injuries inflicted on opposing players."

That the Saints, and perhaps the Bills and Redskins, violated this clearly stated rule is bad enough.

What's worse is the effect it has on the kids? WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS?

The deeply troubling offense of Sinnersgate is that the pros, who are looked up to by the young, are setting a terrible example for the high school players and coaches who emulate what they see on Sundays in the NFL.

High school coaches are grown-ass men. They should be able to coach their team how they see fit without emulating their favorite NFL team's head coach. You can't blame the NFL for the actions of a grown-ass man who coaches high school players, just like the one Gregg described earlier in this column, who want their players to intentionally injure the opponent. These adult high school football coaches can't blame the NFL and should take responsibility (yes, responsibility, what a concept!) for their actions.

This is much worse than Spygate, bringing a new low to the National Football League.

Different. This is much different from Spygate.

With football being hammered by scandal after scandal, where is the person of honor who will take a stand to return integrity to the sport?

Oh dear God. I want to just answer this with "Tim Tebow" and move on.....................but you know I am not capable of doing that.

Where is the person who will take a stand and BRING integrity to the sport of football. This is a sport where four players I can name off the top of my head playing in the NFL have been paralyzed on the field, drug abuse is rampant (which drug you ask...name one, it's probably rampant or was rampant at one point...except for crack of course. Everyone knows rich people would NEVER do crack.), and it took fifty years for the league to realize "Oh yeah, our sport involves players violently tackling an opposing player to the ground often leading with their helmet. I wonder if that could potentially cause any long-term injury to a person."

The NFL is a great sport to watch and enjoy, but integrity can't leave the sport until it has arrived.

Here are points to consider:

1. I can be an idiot.

2. I am pretentious.

3. Here is an overly long explanation of why a science fiction show isn't realistic.

There will always be injuries in football. But the intent of a football player never should be to injure; the intent should be to hit hard, legally. American law places considerable emphasis on intent

Which is exactly why the NFL is so concerned about this bounty program and seems prepared to punish those who participated severely.

Hard-hitting football games need not involve harm.

Football shouldn't involve harm, other than the proven effects playing the sport has on a person's brain over a long period of time which could lead to depression and severe physical debilitation at an early point in a person's life. Other than that, football shouldn't involve harm at all...just as long you avoid playing the sport.

Michael Vick went to prison for nearly two years for harming dogs, which he should not have done.

(Checks the byline of this article. It is not dated August 2007. Bengoodfella is confused.)

Williams offered players money to harm people. And there was no misunderstanding: Williams told the league Friday, "We knew we were wrong while we were doing it.'' The situations are not directly analogous.

"This situation has nothing to do with the bounty program, but fuck it, I have to fill 2500 words so I'll just keep motoring along towards a terrible analogy."

But if prison was the fair punishment for causing harm to animals, the punishment Williams faces must be severe.

The only punishment severe enough for Gregg Williams would be for him to be forced to spend an entire year living with Gregg Easterbrook. During this year Gregg Williams would be unable to speak with any other human other than Gregg Easterbrook. That'll learn him a lesson he will never forget.

Torturing and killing dogs who lack free will and therefore could not prevent this torture from occurring is now analogous to running an NFL team running a bounty program with a group of players who willingly participated in trying to injure opposing players who willingly play a violent game. It's pretty much the same thing, outside of the whole "not having free will to make decisions for yourself" issue.

Often, athletes are severely sanctioned for minor failings, while coaches and front-office personnel receive a slap on the wrist.

No penalties have been handed out yet. Perhaps wait until the punishments are handed down before you start bitching about the inequity of it all.

Williams, along with Sean Payton and New Orleans general manager Mickey Loomis, who the NFL says did nothing to prevent the bounty system, thumbed their noses at NFL integrity. Why should they be allowed the privilege of remaining in the league?

Probably because the players are at-fault as well. They didn't have to participate in the bounty program. So I agree Payton, Loomis and Williams should be punished, but this doesn't mean Goodell should go lighter on the players.

On the game's first snap, Favre handed off, turned away from the play and was hammered with a forearm to the chin by New Orleans linebacker Scott Fujita. Not only should a personal foul have been called -- Fujita should have been ejected on the game's first offensive snap. Instead, no call. Scott, were you paid for behaving like a street thug?

Perhaps because he inherently likes contact, much like other NFL players. Or maybe it is because he is a lowly drafted, unwanted player (he was traded at one point in his career...he's unwanted!), which is the exact type of player Gregg absolutely loves.

Beginning midway through the first quarter, whenever Favre handed off, he immediately ran backward 10 yards -- to get away from New Orleans late hits.

Oh yes, I forgot about Gregg's ability to read minds and decipher exactly what a player's intent may be on a certain play.

Football players are elaborately conditioned to please coaches. They also know that if they want to get on the field, they must do what the coach instructs.

While this is true, I'm not so sure this is as true at the NFL level. I have a hard time believing Roman Harper, Darren Sharper or Jonathan Vilma were concerned they would be benched for not participating in the bounty program. In the NFL, talent trumps a lot of things. Those three players have/had talent.

If you wish to review the Saints-Vikings championship game for yourself, good luck finding it on NFL Network. By coincidence, the league's TV outlet long had been scheduled to re-air the game on Monday afternoon. Viewers who tuned in and pressed the "info" key on their cable controls saw the game identified as Minnesota at New Orleans for the NFL title. But on the screen, a 20-year-old Cowboys game was airing.

Yet NFL Network pulled a hot product off the air, substituting a stone-cold product. Knuckleheaded business judgments do happen. But unless the people running NFL Network are knuckleheads, there may have been an agenda here. Perhaps the league did not want viewers to see for themselves how many vicious late hits went uncalled in the game that put the Saints into the Super Bowl.

What hypocrisy on the part of Gregg. Gregg pretends to be concerned football players of all ages will see the actions of the Saints and think it is fine to intentionally injure an opposing player. This appears to be Gregg's #1 concern in relation to the Saints bounty scandal, that younger football players will emulate the Saints. Yet Gregg also criticizes the NFL Network for not showing the Vikings-Saints game that was scheduled to air. If Gregg is so concerned about "the kids" wouldn't he want NFL Network to not air the Vikings-Saints game in an effort to make sure the actions of the Saints' defenders can't be emulated?

In reality, just like usual, Gregg wants it both ways. He wants to criticize the NFL for having a negative effect on kids, while also criticizing the NFL for not airing the Vikings-Saints game. It can't worth both ways. If Gregg is really concerned about the effect the Saints bounty program had on kids then he would celebrate the game not being show on NFL Network.

Gregg Williams has a classy first name, but may be a man of twisted values.

I'm not sure why, but this sentence makes me want to punch a puppy.

Not just Williams, but all Saints players and coaches knew rules were being broken. NFL spokesperson Greg Aiello told me, "The prohibition of noncontract bonuses has been a formal part of the collective bargaining agreement since 1993...It would not be plausible for anyone in our league to say, 'I didn't know about that rule.'"

Which is convenient because NOBODY HAS SAID THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE RULE AND GREGG WILLIAMS HAS ADMITTED HIS WRONGDOING.

Other NFL defenses besides those run by Williams may have offered cash bounties or related rewards for vicious hits. But when is "other people are doing it" an excuse?

I don't understand this at all. The Saints are the only team that got caught offering cash bounties. No team or player has ever said "other people are doing it" as an excuse. So "other people are doing it" is not an excuse and doesn't really pertain to this certain situation.

If other NFL teams rewarded vicious hits, this is totally, utterly irrelevant to the Saints' sins. Williams, and perhaps Payton and Loomis, knew they were breaking a clearly stated rule.

The fact other NFL teams rewarded vicious hits is also utterly irrelevant to the discussion about the Saints bounties being offered since neither Williams or any other member of the Saints organization has indicated other teams (outside of other teams Williams coached) were rewarding vicious hits.

(By the way, I accidentally wrote "vicious shits" three times as I was writing this last sentence. I'm not sure what that means, but it definitely sounds more painful than a vicious hit.)

The Saints' Super Bowl win is now tainted. The Saints' feel-good story is over.

I don't like the Saints and think Sean Payton is an asshole. There was never a feel-good story for me.

The larger question is whether Sinnersgate shows there is rot throughout the structure of America's most lucrative sport.

This is the same type of question that eventually gets posed anytime there is a sniff of controversy or scandal in the NFL. The NFL is what it is and any attempts to sanitize the NFL's past in order to make it seem like the Saints' bounty program is a crippling blow to the sport willfully ignores the NFL has never been nor will it ever be perfect.

That's the way they teach Pop Warner kids. Certainly Aikman is correct -- and that is why football must be reformed, from youth leagues up to the NFL, to eliminate the encouragement of vicious play.

"No, no, Billy tackle the opposing team's ball carrier and make sure he is on the ground. Just don't do it as hard as you would normally do. When making full-body physical contact in order to bring another human being to the ground while both of you are in motion at a high speed you should be as careful as possible not to be overly physical."

Football will never be a non-vicious sport. The sooner Gregg accepts this the sooner he can retire and annoy someone else with his inaccurate football musings and unwanted/undrafted player bullshit.

Spygate threatened the reputation of a coach. Sinnersgate threatens the entire sport.

Now THAT's a dramatic way to end an article. Gregg Easterbrook's writing threatens the sanity of civilization.

Bleacher Report Is Now Including Other Site's Original Content on Their Slideshows

2012-03-08T13:40:00.000-05:00

I have started a Fantasy Baseball league and Fantasy NCAA Tournament Bracket in Yahoo if anyone cares to join. The league ID is 76959 and password is "eckstein" for the Fantasy Baseball league and the league ID is 5876 and password is "eckstein" for the NCAA Tourney bracket. We have about three spots left in the Fantasy Baseball league and feel free to give feedback on the set up of the league if you would like.

What do you think when you hear there is list of the 50 most overrated players in the NFL circulating among the Interwebs? You would probably think this has to be a Bleacher Report production and you would be absolutely correct. Today, we are all lucky that we are going to discover the 50 most overrated players in the NFL right now. Actually, the author found 33 overrated players and then stole (sorry, "borrowed") 17 of the players from a list NFL players made earlier this year for The Sporting News. Don't worry, it will be seem even more egregious in a minute when the author explains it since uses the word "we" to describe The Sporting News poll.

My biggest issue is many people link other people's articles and content on a site for others to read, but where is the line for this. I link other people's articles all the time and for every post. I present another site (or person's) work as a way to discuss/refute what is being said. Without the original content, the reader would be very lost as to what I was complaining about. The issue for me is at what point does citing the content allow you to include your own original content along with the content from the other site? Can these two be mixed into one list? I don't think it is unethical or anything like that, but is it right to create a (supposedly) original list of 50 overrated NFL players and include 17 players based on information gathered from another site? Isn't that cheating the idea of creating original content by piggybacking another site's work, even if you do provide some commentary? What makes it worse is the author who wrote this Bleacher Report article states he doesn't agree with some of the 17 overrated players chosen by NFL players. So he potentially disagrees with a third of the original content he is creating for his slideshow.

I think if you are a site like Bleacher Report and an article about the 50 most overrated NFL players is being written, you owe it to your readers for 100% of that to be original content and not have 33% of the content in your slideshow be from another site. I don't think there is an issue in taking original content from another site and posting it as a part of a larger discussion (for example, if I included another person's criticism in with my criticism of an article), as long as the original content is part of the larger discussion and isn't intended to BE the discussion (for example, if I included another person's criticism of an article as my critique of an article). At the very least, including 17 slides (out of 50) from a poll The Sporting News did is lazy.

Who would be on your list of the top 10 of the most overrated players in the NFL today? If you are struggling to come up with 10 names, maybe you need to think about the question in a different way.

Or perhaps I just need to extend my list to 50 players in order to increase my pageviews. Yeah, I'll do that.

What if we asked who are the first 10 NFL players who come to your mind, the ones who receive far more publicity than their play on the field merits? Is it easier to come up with 10 names from that perspective? What if we plugged in the term "over-hyped"? Are the names coming easier now?

No, they are absolutely not coming easier now because being overhyped isn't the same thing as being overrated. They are two completely different things. LeBron James is overhyped, but he isn't overrated. Bleacher Report needs to hold a meeting very soon to explain their writers have to stick to the dictionary meaning of words. Overhyped and overrated are not the same thing. This seems to be a continuous problem in Bleacher Report articles I have read.

NFL players who make more money than their play warrants is another way to identify overrated players.

Nope. These players are overpaid. Again, this is different from being overrated.

Another way to think about this topic is, if you see an NFL story on a player and as soon as you either see the player on the screen or hear his name, and your first reaction is that you want to change the channel, there is a very good chance that you have identified a player who is overrated.

No, you haven't (Bengoodfella pulls all of his hair out), you have found a player who is overhyped or perhaps you have found a player you just don't like hearing about from the media. Jeremy Lin is a player like this for me. The fact I don't want to hear about Jeremy Lin doesn't mean he is overrated.

An overrated player is a player whose reputation and standing in the minds of many exceeds his actual output on the field. At least that's my definition.

We were asked not to just come up with 10 names, but rather the top 50 NFL players who are the most overrated in the NFL today.

Who is "we?" Do you have a squirrel in your pocket or something? This column only has one author from what I can see.

To help me out with this assignment—which is sure to make fans of the individual players who are named to this list jump up and defend their player—I am going to turn to some NFL players for help.

What he means by this is he is going to attempt to set a new low for Bleacher Report. He is going to use data that a real sports media entity (The Sporting News) gathered, link an article from CBSSports.com about this data, and then incorporate this data into his list of the 50 most overrated NFL players. Basically, he is going to attempt to pretend Bleacher Report partnered with The Sporting News to gather this data. That's why he uses the word "we" a few times. I can't think of another reason the plural "we" would be used in an article with one author.

Of course this act immediately passed the smell test of the Bleacher Report editor (assuming they exist). There may be nothing wrong with using data someone else gathered as long as you provide a link to the data, incorporate this data into your article, and then use the word "we" to repeatedly to make it seem like you personally had something to do with the gathering of this data. What's wrong with this? Maybe nothing. At the very least it is incredibly lazy to use 17 of your 50 slides based on data someone else collected. This is data that isn't even your own opinion included in a slideshow that is supposed to be an opinion-based slideshow.

We located a collective group of 111 NFL players from 31 NFL teams that agreed to participate in a poll by the Sporting News, to identify the NFL's most-overrated player.

"We." Who the hell is "we?" Were you or Bleacher Report part of the study? If not, then there isn't a "we" and you are merely taking someone else's work, including it in your slideshow as part of your opinion and indicating you were a part of the study when this isn't true.

If you feel the need to question their opinion, then I would have to wonder who else is in a better position to appreciate who the most overrated players are than fellow NFL players?

Apparently you are in a better position to judge who the most overrated players are, since 33 of these 50 players are players you chose for your own list.

Also notice how the author vouches for the ability of NFL players to accurately choose which NFL players are overrated and which aren't, but then the author disagrees with the NFL players' assessment of whether a few of these players are overrated or not. I'm not even sure why the results from The Sporting News poll are thrown into the slideshow, especially considering the author doesn't agree with some of the results of the players poll.

These players voted, and their votes are good enough for me to qualify their choices for the final 17 names on the list.

Since "we" gathered the data you may as well use the data "we" gathered, no?

As for the other 33 names, I came up with those, not because I have any personal issue with these players, but because that is my job.

Yes, you and The Sporting News. It's your job.

Get your Viewmaster ready and let's start the slideshow!

Bob Sanders

Ever since Bob Sanders joined the NFL in 2004, he has never played in all 16 games in the regular season. Not once. In fact, from 2004-present, he has only appeared in at least seven games in any year just twice in his entire career.

So he has been injured a lot. This doesn't make him overrated. This makes him oft-injured.

Sanders was named the NFL AP Defensive Player of the Year in 2007, and even since then he has been trying to live up to that reputation, failing miserably to do so due to his inability to stay healthy.

Thanks for proving Sanders isn't overrated and contradicting your own opinion. So Bob Sanders is one of the best defensive players in the NFL when he is healthy, but he's never healthy. Therefore Sanders isn't overrated because he is what we believe him to be when he is healthy.

Because he was the Defensive player of the year, that would imply a certain level of toughness.

Outrageous. So Bob Sanders is injured every year because he isn't tough enough? And Sanders should be tougher because he is a great defensive player when healthy? So Sanders' implied non-toughness makes him overrated.

Matt Leinart

He seems to be content to exist as a backup quarterback, as if he is resigned to the assessment that his days as a starting NFL quarterback have passed him by.

I don't know if anyone rates Matt Leinart that high anymore. He is a backup quarterback at this point. I don't know of anyone who thinks differently.

The Houston Texans gave Leinart a great chance to be in the spotlight in 2011, but he couldn't even last one game as the starter after Matt Schaub went down for the year.

What a misleading sentence. The reason Leinart couldn't even last one game as the starter for the Texans had nothing to do with his performance, but he didn't last the entire game because he broke his collarbone. Of course, based on the author's comments about Bob Sanders, I am sure he believes Matt Leinart should have just played through this injury.

Nate Clements

Clements had 12 passes that he broke up in 2011, which was tied for the Bengals lead. While on one hand you might look at that and think that it was a good thing, the reality was that Clements skills have been starting to fade in pass coverage, so more teams are now throwing his way to pick on him.

I am not arguing one way or another for Nate Clements, but wanted to show how the author uses passes defensed as a negative statistic for why Clement is overrated. Again, I will agree with passes defensed not always being a sign of how good a cornerback actually is. I want to compare his use of passes defensed in this situation and with the next player on the list.

A.J. Hawk

In the 2011 season, Hawk's production dropped in most key categories. He played in 14 games in 2011, and his tackles dropped from 111 to 84.

A.J. Hawk had a terrible 2011 season. I don't know if he is overrated or not though. He only had one bad year and has been pretty solid prior to 2011.

He defended 10 passes in 2010—that number dropped to three in 2011.

But wouldn't this be a good thing? Also, are we really using passes defensed for a linebacker in a 3-4 defense?

Fine though, we can use passes defensed. If we are going to use passes defensed as proof a cornerback isn't very good in coverage because teams throw at him a lot, wouldn't it also make sense to say a drop in passes defensed means a linebacker covered well and teams didn't throw at him as much? You can't just flip-flop when you want passes defensed to be a positive and negative statistic based on the point you are trying to prove. If you use an increase in passes defensed as a negative, then you can't use a decrease in passes defensed as a negative because it fits what you are trying to prove.

He came up with three interceptions in 2010, and had none in 2011.

Again, interceptions can be a result of a quarterback throwing in the direction of a defensive player. A decrease in interceptions doesn't mean a player didn't play as well in a given year, it can mean a player didn't have as many passes thrown in his direction.

Michael Crabtree

It is the Crabtree Curse!

If you are a top 10 draft pick, there is a certain level of production that is expected from you.

Granted, Crabtree's production has been on the rise every year since he turned pro. The third year is the year you are supposed to break out, and it is true that this past year was the best year of his career.

"While it is true Crabtree has improved every year he has been in the NFL and this was the first year he had consistently quality quarterback play, let's not let this get away from the fact I want to believe Michael Crabtree is overrated."

But when the San Francisco 49ers were in the national spotlight, playing the New York Giants for the NFC Championship game, Crabtree basically disappeared, as he only caught one pass for three yards in the entire game.

Why use a larger sample size of 14 games to judge Crabtree when you can use one game where he didn't play well to help prove your point? Use whatever sample size helps to prove your point. It's about convincing us you are right, not about whether the facts support your contention or not.

Also, Crabtree is only 24 years old and has improved every year in the NFL. I think this is important to know. He needs to step it up this year, I will agree with that, but I don't know if he is overrated.

Crabtree has had the opportunity to work with his quarterback, Alex Smith, for three straight years. By now you would think that their chemistry was such that they would be able to connect more than one pass play in a crucial game.

This is the first year Alex Smith has started 16 games for the 49ers with Crabtree on the roster. They haven't been able to work on their chemistry because they haven't been on the field together for three straight years.

Hines Ward

Hines Ward isn't overrated. He is 35 years old and not able to play at a high level anymore.

As emotionally attached as Steelers fans appear to be to having Ward remain with the team, the only way that I can see that happening is if another team signs away Mike Wallace in free agency.

I don't believe Hines Ward is the backup plan for Mike Wallace's potential free agency departure. I would hope the Steelers are deciding Ward's fate independent of Wallace's contract situation.

That would create a roster opening, and free up money for Ward.

But who would Steelers fans rather have in the lineup, Wallace or Ward? Case closed.

No, case re-opened. Hines Ward is old and no longer useful to the Steelers. Ward isn't overrated based simply on the fact the Steelers would rather keep a 25 year old Pro Bowl receiver on the roster over him. The case for a 35 year old Hines Ward to be overrated is based on the fact the Steelers would rather keep a 25 year old Pro Bowl receiver over him. That's not a very convincing case for Ward being overrated. Though I do have to respect the confusing logic behind using Wallace's value to the Steelers to call Hines Ward overrated, while ignoring the 10 year gap in age between them.

Michael Turner

Turner had a 4.5 ypc average, 11 touchdowns and 1300 yards last year. He isn't considered a premier running back, but is considered to be very good. I think those numbers back this contention up.

But when I conducted research on players who were overrated in the NFL, I was rather surprised to see how often Turner's name popped up.

Quick question...is conducting research on players who are overrated in the NFL actually doing research or simply finding out which players other people think are overrated so you can include them on your list also? I'm just wondering since whether a player is overrated or not is purely an opinion. If you are doing research on other people's opinion, doesn't this mean you are not using your own opinion and are merely using a consensus of what others think and passing it off as your own opinion? I can see doing research as to why a player you believe is overrated actually is overrated, but I'm not sure about "researching" other people's opinion to come to a conclusion about a player.

From an article by WalterFootball.com, Turner is thought to look sluggish and came up with too many rushes that resulted in negative plays.

If you take a look at that overrated list by Walter Football, you will see quite a few of those players end up on this Bleacher Report list of overrated players. This again goes back to my question of whether this is good research on if a player is overrated or simply a matter of one writer parroting what another writer has written?

If you look at forums for Falcons fans, you will see a number of complaints that Turner's stats are misleading because he has many one- and two-yard runs, and then he will break off a 20-yarder. The stats don't tell the whole story.

You could say the exact same thing about Barry Sanders. He lost yardage all the time on runs and then would break a long one. Was he overrated?

It is very conceivable that he has taken enough of a pounding over the years that his legs and body are starting to wear out and that he has lost at least a step, if not more.

So the fact he will wear down as he gets older, just like most running backs tend to do, makes him overrated right now?

Miles Austin

Austin's receiving yards have dropped from 1,320 to 1,041 to 579 in the last three years.

Of course Miles Austin only played in 10 games last year due to injury. If he has an overrated quarterback throwing the ball to him (whoops, spoiler alert), then can we consider him overrated? At what point does Romo's overratedness affect the perception of Miles Austin? If Tony Romo is overrated then wouldn't that make Austin look overrated as well? That's the problem with naming two players who rely on each other as both being overrated. It is possible one player's performance has an impact on another player's performance.

If you look at the numbers Austin would have had 926 yards receiving on 68 catches in 2011 if he had played in all 16 games. Those statistics are below his 2010 numbers, but it is also reasonable to think Austin's performance was affected by his injuries.

Is it possible that Austin has peaked already by the age of 27?

It is possible. It is also possible he isn't a superstar, but a receiver who catches 60 passes for 1000 yards and 7 touchdowns on a yearly basis. I'm not sure his contract of 6 years at $54 million with $18 million guaranteed makes him overrated if he keeps putting up these type of statistics.

Jermichael Finley

Now that the contract is done, Finley can go out and start focusing on catching the football again. In 2011, Finley had nine drops in 13 games, according to this article from the Journal Sentinel.

If the drops continue in 2012, Aaron Rodgers will not have any trouble looking for his other targets. As Finley's level of compensation goes up, so does the expectation that the drops will be a thing of the past.

That's it. That's all the reasoning we get that Finley is overrated. He had trouble with drops this past season, so this makes him overrated. Finley isn't considered to be one of the best tight ends in the NFL and his statistics reflect he is really good, but not great.

DeSean Jackson

Jackson has been impacted due to several concussions and he prefers not to run routes over the middle that could lead to some devastating hits.

The author basically parrots the opinion from the Walter Football overrated list that was linked earlier...

But here's the thing - they shouldn't have been so afraid. Jackson's bark is way worse than his bite; after suffering concussions last year and taking a vicious hit against the Texans in an early December battle, Jackson apparently decided that he would run nothing but go routes.

Then comes this comment...

Not only that, but he has too many drops to be relied on, and then when you factor in his attitude,

From Walter Football...

If that's not enough, Jackson's frequent drops and poor attitude make him undesirable in my book.

Obviously the author didn't copy this directly and he does make a point or two that are sort of different from Walter Football's opinion. We do know he used Walter Football for his research, so it is a bit suspicious. Still, this is a list of 50 overrated NFL players where 17 of the players are taken from a list already formed and some of the other overrated players seem to be taken from other lists that were researched by the author.

Dez Bryant

So we have Dez Bryant as being overrated, Tony Romo as being overrated, and Miles Austin as being overrated. A smart person might think it is impossible for all three players to be overrated and would understand how one player's performance could possibly be linked to another player's performance. So is the entire passing game of the Cowboys overrated?

What is of more importance to us is how his production numbers will either improve or decline in 2012. So far, there have been enough concerns posted about Bryant that make us wonder how high the ceiling will truly be for him.

He's been in the NFL for two years, is 23 years old and posted 63 catches for 928 yards and nine touchdowns this past season. I can't see how he is overrated.

James Harrison

I am not necessarily arguing against Harrison being overrated, just arguing against the reasoning.

In 2011, Harrison didn't have a single interception, defended pass or fumble recovery.

So we are judging 3-4 linebackers on how many interceptions, passes defensed and fumbles they recover? I've already described the issue with using passes defensed. The statistic is being used in a positive way or a negative way, depending on which way this author chooses to use it.

Harrison has 18 career passes defensed, with a season high of 5. He's probably lost a step in coverage, but he hasn't always racked up the passes defensed and 0 passes defensed isn't necessarily bad. It could be good. It could mean quarterbacks didn't throw in his direction while he was in coverage. It could mean Harrison didn't drop back in coverage as much in 2011 as he did in previous years.

Harrison has seven career fumbles recovered, so what if he didn't recover one in 2011? This is a weird statistic to use. Why not use forced fumbles?

Harrison has five career interceptions and plays linebacker. He only had one interception in 2008 when he was named Defensive Player of the Year, so it isn't like this is the statistic that can easily tell us if he is overrated or not.

Note: The final 17 slides include the most overrated players as voted on by their peers in the Sporting News poll.

Oh yes, the slides that "we" came up with. The author states in the comments that he doesn't necessarily agree with these 17 choices, which doesn't explain why the hell he put them on his list if he doesn't agree with them.

These players are the ones who got multiple votes and eight of them got 2 votes, which doesn't seem like a whole lot of votes to call a player overrated. It does make me wonder what the players are thinking for some of these players. Here are the players who received multiple votes as being overrated which I disagree with...

Darrelle Revis
Eli Manning
Maurice Jones-Drew
Tom Brady

Then Tim Tebow was named the most overrated player in the NFL. This survey was taken among NFL players halfway through this past season, which could explain why Eli Manning was on the list.

Either way, I don't get why a third of the slideshow consists of players the author didn't even have a hand in choosing, including some of whom he disagrees with in terms of being considered overrated.

MMQB Review: Bounties for Everyone Edition

2012-03-06T14:45:00.000-05:00

I have started a Fantasy Baseball league and Fantasy NCAA Tournament Bracket in Yahoo if anyone cares to join. The league ID is 76959 and password is "eckstein" for the Fantasy Baseball league and the league ID is 5876 and password is "eckstein" for the NCAA Tourney bracket. We have about three spots left in the Fantasy Baseball league and feel free to give feedback on the set up of the league if you would like.

After two weeks of Combine (Andrew Luck/Robert Griffin III) coverage, Peter King is now focused on the Saints and the bounty program they were running. This story has dominated the news with ex-Saints and defensive players generally not seeing the big deal and offensive players generally thinking the bounty program was terrible. While I have a general distaste (that's putting it mildly) for the Saints, I know they aren't the only team who runs a bounty program. They just got caught. I don't hate they got caught because the Saints aren't one of my favorite teams. I really don't like them. The positive stench of having Saint Drew Brees on the team has masked a prescription drug scandal, Saint Sean Payton running up the score on the Falcons this year and the fact I've always thought they were a little dirty. Mostly because of plays like this one. Still, I know other teams run a bounty program, they just haven't got caught.

Peter talks at length about the bounty program in MMQB and he'll talk more about this bounty program in Sports Illustrated this week. So look forward to that. You will be able to easily locate Sports Illustrated by seeing the cover, which will undoubtedly have QB Broncos or Jeremy Lin on the cover. You may be asking yourself, "but Ben how does this bounty program affect Brett Favre?" I'm glad you asked this question. Naturally in MMQB, Peter manages to bring the bounty program back around to Brett Favre, because that's just what he does. Everything in Peter's world comes back to Brett Favre. Sure there is a famine throughout the world, but how does this famine affect Brett Favre?

I found myself thinking about this scene over the weekend, with the news that the Saints of defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, two years after Gleason left the team, began paying defensive players bounties to knock opponents out of games, and for making difference-making plays.

This does such a shameful disservice to Steve Gleason that I almost puke thinking about it.

It could also be the nine lattes and two trips to McDonald's before lunch that has Peter wanting to puke. I'm not going to suggest Steve Gleason had anything to do with the bounties on players and it certainly doesn't make his current situation less sad. Knowing Gleason's team intentionally put bounties on certain players and made an effort to injure a player at the exact spot where that player recently had surgery does a disservice to Steve Gleason. Football is a rough sport even without players being targeted for big hits.

"At times, players both pledged significant amounts and targeted particular players,'' the memo said. "For example, prior to a Saints playoff game in January 2010, defensive captain Jonathan Vilma offered $10,000 in cash to any player who knocked Favre out of the game.''

This the same Jonathan Vilma who was being protected on Twitter by George Atallah on Friday. Atallah said any person harassing Vilma over Twitter would be recorded by the NFLPA. Vilma is a big enough boy to offer $10,000 to knock players out of football games, but he needs the protection of the NFLPA from mean comments on Twitter once this allegation comes out. Words can hurt, I guess. Just leave Vilma alone! Can't he put a bounty out on a player and then not face an angry reaction from fans? I thought this was America. I thought Vilma could do whatever he wanted and never have to face any negative feedback for his actions. How unfair.

Anyone who thinks the Saints defense didn't go over the line to try to do just that wasn't watching the game -- and didn't see the three plays I reviewed over the weekend. Early in the game, Favre handed off to Percy Harvin, and after the handoff -- a handoff, mind you, a running play -- defensive lineman Bobby McCray ran at Favre and hit him flush in the chin. That brought a 15-yard unnecessary roughness flag from referee Pete Morelli and a fine from the league five days later.

In the third quarter, defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove got 15 yards for pile-driving Favre into the ground after a pass. Four plays later, Morelli missed an egregious high-low hit from McCray and tackle Remi Ayodele; maybe Morelli figured he'd just flagged Hargrove and he couldn't throw a flag every time Favre got mugged.

There is a difference in defensive players playing hard and accidentally causing injuries and defensive players intentionally trying to injure an opponent. The problem I have with pointing out every single play where an opposing player got hurt is we are judging the intent of the defender trying to make the tackle. Sure, these hits looked bad, but it is possible they were not a part of a bounty program. Of course, on the other hand they could have been a part of the bounty program. It is hard to judge intent, so it is entirely possible the Saints wanted to make Favre feel uncomfortable in the pocket and get some hits on him, regardless of a bounty on Favre's head.

In defense of the Saints, after spending three summers hearing Brett Favre stretch our patience thin with his "will he retire or won't he retire" decision I thought about putting a bounty on Favre's head. About the time Favre wanted more publicity for a decision he had already made simply to keep his name in the spotlight where he prefers it, I would have offered a bounty on Favre's head. So perhaps the Saints were just doing what 95% of NFL fans wanted to do to Favre.

Fair or unfair, whether everyone does it or not, the Saints got caught urging their players to hurt players on other teams -- and paying them through a players' slush fund to try to do it. It's beyond reprehensible. If Goodell doesn't come down very hard, just what will he come down hard on?

What would we consider to be coming down "hard?" Is this bounty scandal worth taking away draft picks? Should there be suspensions or heavy fines? Peter doesn't realize suggest much in regard to this, just says the NFL will come down "hard" on the Saints. This is a fairly unprecedented issue in the NFL, so I am not sure if an organization-wide punishment and individual punishment would be appropriate. I'm betting the NFL hits the Saints hard with fines, loss of draft picks, and suspensions. Goodell has to keep up the appearance of the NFL as a "safe" league.

He has to worry about the message he sends to other teams and make sure they scurry to stop all such off-the-books payment and bounty systems. He has to defend the league against head-trauma-related lawsuits and show that the NFL is aggressively trying to make the game safe.

The game of football is inherently unsafe. The sooner we come to terms with this fact, the happier we will all end up being.

And there's the specter (idiotic, in my opinion) of the 18-game schedule, which only has a chance if somehow the league can prove through safer equipment and maniacal attention to erasing things like bounty programs that more games won't be an overt safety risk to players.

I haven't met a person who wants the 18 game schedule any time soon. I think the only people who want the 18 game schedule are Roger Goodell and his close relatives. Other than that, a 16 game schedule seems to work for everyone else.

Vilma is going down, and I suspect other player leaders could be banned for games too. Not that they're all still Saints, but I have to wonder how the league will manage the suspension if, say, six Saints are banned for a game or more. Will Goodell stagger them?

Why the hell would Goodell stagger these suspensions? Isn't the point to deter other teams from starting bounty programs like the Saints did? Wouldn't suspending players for two games, but staggering the suspensions so as not to adversely affect the Saints (or whatever teams these players now play for) seem to go against the very reason to suspend these players? The suspensions are intended to serve as a deterrent and aren't supposed to be worked around a team's preferable schedule so as not to negatively affect their chances of winning a game.

Or will the Saints be missing half their defense for Week 1?

This is what should happen if suspensions are handed down. I see no reason why they would be staggered and the very idea of staggering suspensions goes against the idea of using the Saints as an example to deter other teams from starting (or continuing) their own bounty program.

Favre isn't that angry -- but he is glad the truth is coming out

Peter will use any excuse to get in touch with Brett Favre. Any excuse will do.

"I have to pee. I wonder what Brett Favre will think of this new development? (calls Favre 19 times until he reaches him."

I caught Favre at the end of a day planting soybeans on his ranch in southern Mississippi Friday.

Peter loves to paint Favre as a man of the land working on his ranch, getting dirt under his fingers and callouses on his hands. In reality, I can see Favre sitting on a recliner, playing Wii on one television and watching a continuous loop of highlights from his career on another television. Whenever Peter calls and asks what Favre is doing I get the feeling Favre makes up something about planting soybeans, putting up a fence, or building a spaceship to move to a world that isn't tired of hearing his name.

When I told him the extent of it, and the Vilma story, I waited for his reaction. "Hmmmm,'' he said, and paused. "That's about it.''

But we all know that isn't it. Brett Favre is a notorious liar. He is constantly saying, "That's about it" and then holding a press conference saying that isn't "it." There will be more. The rules holds true here. If Favre says, "That's all," there will always be more.

With Favre, the reaction is rarely three words long. "I'm not pissed,'' he said. "It's football. I don't think anything less of those guys. I would have loved to play with Vilma. Hell of a player. I've got a lot of respect for Gregg Williams. He's a great coach. I'm not going to make a big deal about it.

After reading these words, we now know Brett Favre will immediately make a big deal out of it.

Now, in that game there were some plays that, I don't want to say were odd, but I'd throw the ball and whack, on every play. Hand it off, whack. Over and over. Some were so blatant. I hand the ball to Percy Harvin early and got drilled right in the chin. They flagged that one at least.

It isn't a big deal, but the game was odd and it is clear Favre thought the Saints should have been flagged more often. But there's more from Favre about the Saints. Not that it is a big deal of course.

"I've always been friends with Darren Sharper, and he came in a couple times and popped me hard. I remember saying, 'What THE hell you doing, Sharp?' I felt there should have been more calls against the Saints. I thought some of their guys should have been fined more.''

So in summary...Brett Favre is not pissed, he doesn't think any less of the Saints, and he won't make a big deal out of it. Brett Favre also thinks there was something funny about the 2009 NFC Championship Game, he thinks the hits were blatant, he thinks there should been more calls against the Saints and they should have been fined more. But again, IT ISN'T A BIG DEAL. If you want, Brett can do another interview next week for Sports Illustrated about how these bounties were no big deal at all. He'll be glad to do another interview if you want. He'll do it, just ask him dammit!

We can all see that Favre's lying really didn't stop after he left the NFL. It seems he thinks these bounties are a big deal and he is still a little irritated about the 2009 NFC Championship Game.

The only thing that really pisses me off about the whole thing is we lost the game. That's the thing about that day that still bothers me. And that's the way it goes. If they wanted me to testify in court about this, they'd be calling the wrong guy.''

Not that Brett Favre will ever be called to testify about anything, but I like how Favre won't even show up if he is subpoenaed. Apparently Brett Favre doesn't consider himself to be subject to the rules of United States judicial system. There are no certain rules down where Brett lives in Mississippi. Only rules men of the land like Brett follow.

Can Peyton Manning's neck injury be traced to Gregg Williams?

What did Gregg Williams know about Hurricane Katrina before it hit New Orleans? Did he cause the levies to break?

What does Gregg Williams know, and when does he know it, about the rash of car bombings in the Middle East?

Can the Great Depression be traced back to Gregg Williams?

Abraham Lincoln's assassination? What exactly was Gregg Williams' role?

I wish we could avoid looking back at every injury caused by a Gregg Williams coached defense and link these injuries to a bounty that was on the player. Peyton Manning's neck injury very well could have been caused by the bounty on him. There may never have been a bounty on Manning. Injuries do happen in the NFL without a player getting paid $500 for a hit. So while I know it is a great story for the media to link the injuries of two Hall of Fame quarterbacks to the Saints bounty, the truth of this assertion has to be somewhat questioned.

I'm not defending the Saints or Gregg Williams, trust me, I would love to see every Saints draft pick taken away and Sean Payton get some karma thrown back on him. The whole prescription drug scandal involving Payton went away very quietly. I also believe this bounty is bad karma for having run up the score on the Falcons at home in Week 16 in order to chase personal achievements, when the Saints easily could have reached the personal achievements in Week 17 at home. I just want to avoid the hysteria of every injury caused by a Gregg Williams-led defense being blamed on a bounty program. This bounty program shouldn't be the boogeyman for every injury suffered by an NFL player.

Last fall, during an NBC telecast, Tony Dungy said Manning's current neck injury stems from that game. Manning's neck got wrenched and his helmet ripped off on a hit by two Washington defenders. We showed the highlight on our show. Manning, after being hit and crumbling to the ground awkwardly, lay there for a second, and when he rose, he stretched his neck and shook his right arm for a second, as if trying to get the feeling back in it.

Of course the head coach for the Redskins was Saint Joe Gibbs. We all know he NEVER would have approved of a bounty program because he is a saint and would never allow that to happen.

You'll be hearing a lot of Will Wilson in the next few weeks. He's Andrew Luck's agent.

I was saddened to learn Andrew Luck's agent isn't in fact Satan. So I was wrong in speculating about that in last week's TMQ. It would have made for a great story though.

Luck is Wilson's first client. Luck is also Wilson's nephew. Wilson, 44, joined the Wasserman Media Group of California as the executive vice president of football when Luck signed on with him. Luck is Wasserman's first client. Wilson, a veteran executive of several sports ventures (World League of American Football, Arena League, Major League Soccer, CART auto racing) got his agent certification within the last year and suggested to Oliver Luck, Andrew's father and the former NFL backup quarterback, that he be considered Andrew's agent.

Later in this MMQB, Peter will mention the large amount of first-time agents who have gotten into the business. He does this in a non-ironic fashion after detailing this story about Andrew Luck's agent who has never been an agent before this year and how this agent landed the executive vice president of football at a global media group immediately after signing Andrew Luck as his client. This doesn't seem to sound fishy at all to Peter. Peter seems to support the suggestion players drafted in the 3rd or 4th round don't need an agent. I guess Luck does need an agent since he is going to be the #1 overall pick. We wouldn't all those other newly certified agents to come in and use their personal connections with naive athletes in order to take advantage of them and try to advance their own careers. You know, like when a player hires a family member as his agent and then the family member-turned-agent gets a great job at a media company immediately after signing his relative as a client.

Fifty-one days 'til Christmas -- actually, the first round of the April 26 draft -- and here are my odds of who gets the big prize, Baylor quarterback Robert Griffin III, via a trade with the Rams for the second pick in the draft:

1. Washington, 3-1. But this means GM Bruce Allen, as I suspect, will lose out on Peyton Manning because he won't bid as much guaranteed money as star-famished Miami owner Stephen Ross.

Plus, Mike Shanahan is a quarterback genius. He's a master at taking a quarterback and making him into the greatest quarterback in the history of the world...just like he did with John Elway, John Elway and John Elway.

5. (tie) Philadelphia and Kansas City, 25-1. Never eliminate Andy Reid in the quest for a quarterback. He loved RG3 when they met at the combine, as did Chiefs GM Scott Pioli.

Mike Vick can then teach Robert Griffin how to throw incomplete passes, get injured, and make excuses for why he doesn't do the work necessary off-the-field. This gets you two $100 million dollar contracts if you do all three of these things well enough.

"In a sick way, I guess it's flattering. If you had a bounty on you, you were a good player and they wanted to get rid of you.''

-- Former Washington quarterbacks Joe Theismann, to the Associated Press.

Sure, Joe. It's flattering. Just like it is flattering when a school shooter kills all the jocks while going on a shooting rampage.

"It's a good thing he targeted our son, honey. It means our son was popular!"

There is a reason no one listens to Joe Theismann and many of us are glad he isn't calling Monday Night Football anymore.

Sad to see the Steelers divest themselves of Hines Ward as a cap casualty. While we wait to see if he plays somewhere else in 2012, it's interesting to compare Ward to his two Pittsburgh predecessors who made the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Lynn Swann and John Stallworth. Each was a better deep threat than Ward. Ward blocked downfield better than either. And though they played in different eras (mostly) -- Stallworth retired in 1987, 11 years before Ward was a rookie -- it's notable that Ward caught more passes than Swann and Stallworth combined.

It is not odd. Lynn Swann should not be in the Hall of Fame compared to the statistics put up by modern receivers. I recognize it was a different game when Swann played, but if we compare Swann's statistics to every receiver up for the Hall of Fame, we are going to have a lot of receivers in the Hall of Fame. That's the issue I have with comparing Hines Ward in any way to Lynn Swann.

Lynn Swann played nine seasons, had 336 receptions, 5462 yards, and 51 touchdowns in his career. He is in the Hall of Fame.

Muhsin Muhammad had 578 receptions, 7951 yards, and 44 touchdowns during the first nine seasons of his career. He is not a Hall of Fame receiver.

So yes, it was a different time, but that's also my point. Swann should not be used as a comparison for modern receivers. For God's sake, Calvin Johnson has been in the NFL for five seasons and had more receptions and receiving yards than Lynn Swann had for his entire career.

"Dolphins' Joe Philbin, in the row behind me on flight home, spent hours reading Pat Riley's The Winner Within, taking notes on yellow pad.''

-- NFL.com's @JeffDarlington, on his plane-mate on the way home from the Scouting Combine in Indianapolis last week.

Do you know what was sad about Joe Philbin spending hours reading this book? The book is only 50 pages long and he was taking notes with a crayon.

"People who tell me they're tired of reading about Peyton are same ones who said they got tired of OJ coverage -- and watched every minute''

-- @bkravitz, columnist Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star, on the apparently insatiable desire of his readers for more Peyton Manning coverage.

Great point, Bob Kravitz. I like how you used your over-generalization to prove a point that supports you shouldn't change the way you are currently writing.

1. I think I'm more convinced than ever: The Patriots, who need major help on defense, should be at the front of the pursuit pack for Mario Williams, assuming the Texans don't put the franchise tag on him.

Why? The Patriots era of domination is over. Haven't you heard? It's been all over the Interwebs. There's no future in New England.

2. I think if any of the 22 players implicated in the Saints' bounty program ever ends up in one of the burgeoning concussion or football-as-long-term-damage lawsuits 10 years from now, I hope the judge takes one look at the suit, chuckles, and says, "Are you kidding? Get out of here.''

Just don't ask Brett Favre to attend this court proceeding...because he's not fucking coming nor is he testifying. He has some televis---some corn to plant and ten houses he has to have built by the end of the week by using his own two hands.

Just remember -- in 1998, the Chargers moved up one spot, from three to two, in the first round by dealing two ones, a two, a three and a Pro Bowl running back. Ryan Leaf was talented with baggage. Griffin is talented with no baggage.

Just remember--Ryan Leaf was neck-in-neck with Peyton Manning among many draft boards and Andrew Luck is most likely the consensus #1 overall pick. So there is a difference in the perception of Manning-Leaf as compared to the perception of Griffin-Luck. Just remember this too--Leaf's baggage wasn't as apparent to everyone before he was drafted as it was after he was drafted.

7. I think the admirers for Ryan Tannehill continue to grow, despite the fact he was a part-time wide receiver at Texas A&M. This from GM John Schneider of the Seahawks: "The guy was a quarterback in high school, just a football player. First and foremost, that's what we're looking for. Especially at that position. Guys that have always been in the quarterback schools, the special camps, and all that kind of stuff -- they make me a little nervous to a certain extent.

Riiiiiiight. I love some of the shit that comes out of a GM's mouth this time of year. I can't help but think it is bullshit that guys like Andrew Luck make John Schneider nervous because he has always focused on playing quarterback his entire life, while Ryan Tannehill doesn't make him as nervous because he hasn't always focused on playing quarterback.

This guy is a real football player. He played defense.

Is this as opposed to a fake football player? Also, how is having played defense qualify a player to be a better quarterback?

You could see him last year when he stepped in, he just went out and played. He had this natural toughness about him that the players really rallied around and went on a winning streak. And he did a great job.''

I'm not a Ryan Tannenhill fan. Perhaps I should be, but I'm not. I simply don't buy that his being a wide receiver for some of his career at Texas A&M will make him a better quarterback.

8. I think that was a good hire of Bill Polian, ESPN. You'll be able to get him to talk, and about important things.

Oh good, Bill Polian will still be in our lives. Just don't put him on set with Chris Berman. Two egos of similar size would cause the ESPN set to spontaneously combust.

9. I think this comes from one agent, who is ready to retire early because of the sharkiness of the business (235 new agents are registered this year in an already-jam-packed pool: "After about the first 15 picks in the draft, the rookies don't even need agents. The slotting system for every pick eliminates the need until a player is finished with his rookie deal. Pretty soon, the smart kids are going to realize they should just pay an attorney $750 to go over the contract just as insurance. It's a myth that we're going to be able to get more money for a kid picked in the third or fourth round.''

It is a myth that you can get more money for a kid picked in the third or fourth round, but an agent's job is to negotiate other contracts (endorsements, etc) and possibly convince a team to draft his player or go from drafting a player in the 3rd round instead of the 4th round. So in regard to contracts, this guy has a point, but otherwise I think having an agent isn't a bad deal. Maybe I'm wrong. It seems this agent just doesn't like all the competition.

c. Dick Ebersol has urged me not to mention anything about politics in this presidential-election year. And so I won't. But as a college grad and father of two college graduates and a husband of a college graduate, boy, am I dying to.

And boy, am I dying to tear apart what thoughts Peter has about politics.

e. I can't believe you didn't know who Adrian Gonzalez was, Adam Schefter.

Yes, Adam Schefter how dare you not know who a Red Sox player is. In fairness, to Schefter, Peter probably didn't know who Adrian Gonzalez was until he got traded to the Red Sox. I say that because in this MMQB Peter says this about his fantasy team:

As usual, I've done no homework on the draft, and the only non-Sox thing I've read about baseball in the last couple of weeks is that Mike Stanton is now calling himself Giancarlo Stanton. I'd better get on with the serious business of draft prep.

So it is obvious Peter isn't always up on baseball matters that don't involve the Red Sox. I can't believe you don't know any other baseball news, Peter King.

g. I've seen a couple of ads for the Masters, which starts a month from today. After going last year and crossing it off my bucket list, I strongly, strongly urge any of you who've thought twice about doing it to act on it, if you can afford it.

Peter can afford to go to the Masters by the way. He makes a ridiculous amount of money you know.

i. Trading Rondo, Danny Ainge? Linsane.

So now we are making Jeremy Lin puns in reference to events that have nothing to do with Lin or the Knicks? Also, trading Rondo isn't insane because he probably has the most value and could get the Celtics the most in return.

k. I am either old or out of touch with modern sports or both, because these first two paragraphs of a USA Today story confused me: "This weekend's title bout for Strikeforce will mark the first time a major promotion leads a card using a women's division with staying power. Bantamweight champion Miesha Tate and challenger Ronda Rousey will enter the cage Saturday (10 p.m. ET, Showtime) at Nationwide Arena more than 2 years after Christiane 'Cyborg' Santos defeated Gina Carano in the main event of s Strikeforce card in August 2009. This time the women have a realistic chance of producing future headliners.''

I can't believe you don't understand anything about MMA, Peter King!

But I still have no idea what the first sentence in this story means. I guess I must be lower than the lowest common denominator the paper is trying to reach. I don't get it.

So in summary, Adam Schefter is out of touch and lacks knowledge for not knowing who Adrian Gonzalez is. Peter King just isn't trashy enough to understand anything about MMA. If Peter weren't better than you, he would understand what that sentence about MMA said.

This is the old "everyone should like and know the things I like, but if I don't know something other people know then it must be incredibly stupid and irrelevant because I have knowledge of everything that has relevance in this world" train of thought. So MMA is about the lowest common denominator, so it doesn't matter Peter knows nothing about the sport, but baseball is awesome so Adam Schefter should know who Adrian Gonzalez is.

m. Beernerdness: Don't know how good you've had it until you walk into a restaurant in Manhattan, far from Portland, Maine, and they have Allagash White on the beer menu. Heavenly.

It's better than planting soybeans on a warm spring day in Mississippi.

Tim Keown Completely Misinterprets Kobe Bryant's Comments

2012-03-05T14:30:00.000-05:00

I have started a Fantasy Baseball league and Fantasy NCAA Tournament Bracket in Yahoo if anyone cares to join. The league ID is 76959 and password is "eckstein" for the Fantasy Baseball league and the league ID is 5876 and password is "eckstein" for the NCAA Tourney bracket. We have about six spots left in the Fantasy Baseball league and feel free to give feedback on the set up of the league if you would like.

I am sure we have all heard or read about Kobe Bryant's comments directed towards Lakers management. If you haven't, take a look at the article that shows how screwed up the Lakers front office currently is. Ken Berger wrote that and it is very well written. There you go. One example of good journalism. Who says I am negative all the time?

So yes, Kobe is back at whining about the state of the Lakers team a few years after his whining resulted in the Lakers trading for Pau Gasol. Tim Keown heard Kobe's comments and either (a) wanted to have an original take on the story or (b) completely misinterpreted Kobe's comments. Since Keown's original take on the story made him look pretty silly, I am guessing Keown is misinterpreting Kobe's comments. I think you will agree.

Kobe Bryant threw down the gauntlet to Lakers management Sunday afternoon, telling those in charge to do one of two things: (1) trade Pau Gasol or (2) don't.

I think Kobe is in the right on this one. Of course beating up on Kobe Bryant is low hanging fruit for sportswriters, so the idea of acknowledging Kobe is doing his best to be a team leader and send a message to management isn't discussed at all. It's just assumed he is a huge jerk who believes Pau Gasol isn't carrying his weight on the Lakers team. I'm sure Bill Simmons has a really interesting "6 for 24" joke to go along with any future comment Kobe Bryant makes and T.J. Simers has already come out and called Kobe an asshole for calling out management. I would link the T.J. Simers article, but does anyone want to voluntarily read what he wrote? I doubt it.

Really, I blame David Stern for this whole problem. The Lakers wouldn't have to trade Gasol if Stern had allowed the Chris Paul-to-the-Lakers trade to go through. If you want to bash someone for the Lakers current situation that resulted in Kobe's comments, then see if you can find Stern up in his ivory tower so you can blame him. He started this chain of events with his veto of the Lakers-Hornets trade.

It is assumed that Mitch Kupchak and his guys already knew their options on this one, but Bryant is there for them, just in case.

You are being snide, I get it! It's interesting Tim Keown is being snide about what Kobe's comments meant since he is about three paragraphs away from completely misinterpreting Kobe's comments.

Set aside for the moment whether Bryant should have said what he said. Set aside whether he's right.

I say he is right. It is hard to set aside whether Kobe is right or not knowing Tim Keown is about to misinterpret Kobe's comments, call Kobe a ball-hog and portray him as a person who thinks Pau Gasol is a wimp. It would be easier to ignore whether Kobe is right under the correct interpretation of his comments if the incorrect interpretation didn't reflect poorly in some ways on Kobe. So I can't ignore if Kobe was right or not in this case, because to ignore if he was right or not goes to the very heart of what his comments really meant and who they were intended towards.

Set aside the possibility that Gasol's problems extend beyond the external issues of trade talk, and that something internal -- say, Kobe's near-pathological insistence on taking every possible shot -- is part of his big sag.

This is probably very irrelevant. The Lakers won two titles with Kobe's near-pathological insistence on taking every possible shot. Why would it be a problem now?

Tim Keown refers to Gasol's "big sag" here, yet Keown will acknowledge in a few paragraphs that Gasol's play hasn't dropped off at all. Then Keown says because Gasol's play hasn't dropped off, then he hasn't been affected by the trade talk. Finally, Keown gives an example of Gasol looking at trade rumors on the Lakers' team plane, which shows he has been affected by the trade talk. This is a disaster of a column is my point.

The headlines dwell on the Kobe-rips-management angle, suggesting that Kobe's message had just one audience. On its face, that's a legitimate interpretation.

There is really only one interpretation.

"It's just tough for a player to give his all when you don't know if you're going to be here tomorrow," Bryant said. "I'd rather them not trade him at all. If they're going to do something, I wish they would just [expletive] do it. If they're not going to do it, come out and say you're not going to do it."

"They" are Lakers management. It's the only interpretation, unless you believe that Kobe Bryant believes there is a higher being who controls the fate of NBA teams and controls the minds of the GM's running those teams. Now that would be news if the "they" Kobe is talking about is a higher being with this mental power over NBA teams and their front offices. Otherwise, "they" are Lakers management so that's a huge clue as to who Kobe was referring to in his comments.

But it seems to me the true target of the message was Gasol himself.

It seems to me you are very wrong.

"It's hard for Pau because of all this trade talk and all this other stuff; it's hard for him to kind of invest himself completely or immerse himself completely into games when he's hearing trade talk every other day."

What do you hear in those words?

I hear Kobe Bryant sticking up for a teammate that has already been traded once this offseason (to the Rockets) and has been on the trade block for nearly three months now. I hear Kobe Bryant saying Pau Gasol is being affected by the trade talk and the team as a whole is tired of it.

Is Kobe really telling the Lakers -- through the media -- that the trade either needs to be made now or not made at all? (His preference, he said, was for Gasol to stay.) Or is he not-so-indirectly addressing not only management but also Gasol and his effort?

Nope, Kobe is pretty much just telling the Lakers through the media that he hasn't been updated on any of this trade talk and he would prefer it if the Lakers make a decision. Shit or get off the pot. In the (semi) words of Tony Soprano, it isn't so important what the decision is, but it is important that a decision be made in a timely fashion. That's what Kobe is saying.

Most people, whether they play for the Lakers or not, probably feel that a guy making more than $18 million a year (as Gasol is) can put aside the rumblings from the front office and manage to give an undivided effort a few times a week.

And Gasol has done exactly that. He is averaging 16.6 points, 10.7 rebounds, and 1.3 blocks per game. Kobe was probably being hyperbolic in an effort to get Lakers management to make a move or don't make one at all. I don't think Kobe's intention was to say, "Pau isn't playing well and it is completely management's fault because they are looking to trade him."

There's no question that these guys aren't robots, and ancillary events undoubtedly play a role in what happens on our fields and courts, but we've found a new definition of "sensitive" if Gasol's attention on the court somehow drifts in and out because Kupchak might be talking to the Bulls about Carlos Boozer.

So ancillary events undoubtedly play a role in what happens on the court...but Gasol is being overly sensitive if his attention on the court is distracted because of the trade rumors? So the trade rumors undoubtedly have an impact on what happens on the court, but generally they shouldn't have an impact on what happens on the court? I'm not sure this makes of sense.

(The weird thing is, Gasol's performance doesn't seem to reflect an uninvested, nonimmersed Pau. He seems to be about what he always is -- roughly 17 points and 11 boards -- and he's doing it on 10 fewer shots a game than Bryant.

Which is exactly why the idea of Bryant criticizing Gasol's performance on the court is a misinterpretation of Bryant's comments.

Maybe it came to a head Sunday because Gasol reportedly was busted by Lakers coach Mike Brown on the team plane Sunday morning. Gasol's offense? Looking up trade rumors on his laptop. Which, if true, is kind of weird.)

Seriously? Tim Keown's interpretation of Kobe's comments are that they were directed at Gasol and the part that said:

it's hard for him to kind of invest himself completely or immerse himself completely into games when he's hearing trade talk every other day."

is Kobe saying Gasol needs to get his head in the game. That's how Tim Keown read them. Meanwhile the rest of the free world believes Kobe was saying Gasol is being adversely affected by the trade rumors. A position which is completely rational to believe considering we now know this anecdote of Gasol reportedly looking at trade rumors on the Lakers' team plane. Doesn't this anecdote pretty much completely support the idea Gasol is distracted by the trade rumors and Kobe wasn't directing his comments at Gasol, but at Lakers management? I'm convinced. Tim Keown still isn't convinced.

He can address his comments to management much more easily than he can to Gasol, and this way the message gets to all the right people while potentially annoying only those with whom Kobe doesn't share the court.

That's a great theory...except for the fact Kobe's comments were clearly directed towards Lakers management. In fact, there is a chance the comments weren't even directed at Mitch Kupchak, but at Lakers management above Kupchak to get their shit together. One thing I know for sure is these comments weren't directed at Pau Gasol, even though they were about Pau Gasol.

But given that there hasn't been that much Gasol-trade talk since the demise of the Chris Paul deal --

Really? Perhaps Tim Keown should do an internet search for "Pau Gasol trade rumors." A lot of the stories are about Kobe's comments, but there are also plenty of trade rumors concerning Gasol going another team through trade prior to Kobe's comments.

it's safe to assume the message was meant mostly for his teammate.

It really isn't safe at all to assume the message was meant for Gasol. There is only one piece of information that helps us assume the message was meant for Gasol. That piece of information is that Tim Keown believes the message was meant for Gasol. On the other hand, there is much more evidence the message was meant for Lakers management. Here are the facts that support Kobe's message was meant for Lakers management and therefore it is ridiculous to feel safe in assuming the message was for Gasol.

1. The content of the message was entirely directed towards Lakers management and how they need to decide whether to trade Gasol or not. We know Lakers management is looking to trade Gasol.

2. Lakers management has already traded Gasol once, to the Rockets.

3. The supporting facts around the situation (Berger's report the Lakers front office is a mess) directly support Kobe's contention of indecision in the message intended for Lakers management.

4. The message would not be meant for Gasol because Gasol's statistics on the court have not declined this year. Pau doesn't seem affected by the trade rumors going around him, at least while on the court. So Kobe has no reason to covertly call him out for his performance.

5. There is proof the rumors do have Pau Gasol worried when he isn't off the court. He was reportedly found to be searching trade rumors on the team plane. So Kobe's comments seem to have some merit.

6. It is clear from Ken Berger's column that Lakers upper management and ownership don't exactly have their shit together. It is safe to assume they also aren't communicating with Kobe on what moves they want to make, which is why Kobe would have a problem with the trade rumors. They are prolonged rumors and he is being left out of the loop. He doesn't like this.

So the facts surrounding the Lakers and Kobe Bryant seem to indicate there is very little reasoning to assume Kobe's message was meant for Pau Gasol. Yet, this doesn't stop Tim Keown from still believing this to be true.

Bryant has his faults, but his basketball acumen isn't in question -- and neither is his desire. You've got to believe this issue -- fully investing under duress -- is close to Kobe's heart. He has played through personal and professional issues his entire career, maybe more than any other player in the Internet era: rape allegations, the Shaq stuff, divorce -- yet his intensity seems to rise in relation to the severity of the scrutiny.

This means Kobe also understands how off-the-court distractions can affect a person's mindset and the Lakers team as a whole. This doesn't mean he thinks Gasol is an emotional wimp.

Judging by his words, he doesn't see the same qualities in Gasol right now.

No. Judging by Kobe's actual words, he wants the Lakers to either trade Gasol or not trade Gasol.

He might think a vote of confidence from management is the solution to the problem, or maybe he believes such a vote will settle -- once and for all -- the issue of whether Gasol remains a viable candidate to share his court.

Or he may, and I know this sounds crazy because it is backed up by the words that Kobe actually said, want Lakers management to stop submitting Gasol and the Lakers team to trade rumors. The Lakers have already tried to trade Gasol once, and Kobe would like for the Lakers to change the makeup of the team or keep the team the way it is. I derive this conclusion from what Kobe actually said, not speculation on what he could have maybe possibly meant if you think about it he really could have perhaps meant if you look at it from a certain angle.

In the end, the headlines were right; Kobe was directing his message at Lakers management.

Tim Keown from earlier in the column:

But it seems to me the true target of the message was Gasol himself.

So the true target was Gasol, but it was directed at Lakers management. I don't get it. Tim Keown has come to the conclusion Kobe's comments were meant for Gasol, but were actually sent to Lakers management, but were really meant for Gasol. Tim Keown bases this conclusion on...umm...on...a...if you...well frankly Tim Keown had a deadline to meet and didn't know what else to write about. He had to come at this from a different angle and he stretched it as much as he could. You're welcome.

But what he was saying was this: Gasol is unable to play through distractions.

Kobe thinks this despite the fact Gasol has been able to play through distractions. Or perhaps, just maybe, Kobe believes Gasol CAN play through distractions and was directing his comments towards Lakers management. Is there a chance Kobe isn't trying to mindfuck us all? Nah, that's too obvious of a conclusion.

MMQB Review: Anyone Remember That 'Seinfeld' Show? Edition

2012-03-02T15:35:00.000-05:00

Last week Peter King previewed the pre-draft Combine in Indianapolis by previewing the only two college players who have declared for the NFL Draft, Robert Griffin III and Andrew Luck. This week Peter follows up on last week's discussion of what makes Griffin and Luck so great by telling his MMQB-reading audience what makes Griffin and Luck so great. They are nice guys, they were great quarterbacks in college, and more importantly, they give Peter King attention in order to help him write stories about them. They are not like that asshole #1 pick from last year, Cam Newton, who doesn't seem to want to bow down at the altar of Peter King and give Peter material to write stories. This week we will find that Andrew Luck doesn't think as much about the Stanford learning experience as we once thought and Peter still isn't over chicken and beer in the Red Sox clubhouse. This week we also learn the second overall pick is valuable now and apparently someone compared Peter to Michael Jordan.

It's impossible to not like Stanford's Andrew Luck and Baylor's Robert Griffin III.

And we all know "being liked" is the #1 prerequisite for being a good NFL quarterback. Plus good hygiene is important. Also, letting Peter King interview you and lightly touch your inner thigh. That's another indicator of a good NFL quarterback.

Luck is humble; you can tell he's uneasy saying nice things about himself,

And yet he continues to say nice things about himself. HOW HUMBLE IS THIS GUY? HE DOESN'T EVEN LIKE IT WHEN HE SAYS NICE THINGS ABOUT HIMSELF!

or things designed to paint him as the Next Big Thing in the NFL.

Luck is very humble. That's why he has said all along he plans to start for whichever team drafts him. That's not Luck not being humble, that is Luck being a competitor. It doesn't make him not humble or anything like that. Luck just expects he will be a better quarterback after training camp than any other quarterback on the roster of the team that drafts him and he knows this without knowing (though he does know) which team will draft him and he says this before the Combine even begins. That's being humble.

Griffin's humble too, but charismatically so; he has no problem telling you anything you want to know about him.

I'm not sure charismatically humble is really any type of descriptor for a person.

"He's a humble guy. Depressingly humble with a slight twist of melancholy joy."

Two moments I liked.

1. When Andrew Luck looked deep into my eyes.

2. When RGIII touched my hand upon shaking it. I'm still getting shivers.

I was asking Luck, in his agent's hotel room, about a lot of things educational -- his reading habits, his college experience, living in Germany and England in his formative years,

the size of his penis, what his favorite class in college was, and whether he thought we could lock eyes for 15 minutes without either of us looking away."

And almost like he could read my intentions, he swatted them away. Not in a derisive way, but just to make sure I understood him. "Yes, school's important,'' he said. "But football's always been more important.

Remember kids this is a role model for you. Sure, academics are important, but sports are always more important. Also try heroin at least twice in your life, punch a cop at least once a year and if a woman is screaming "no" then that means just keep doing what you are doing because she is enjoying it.

Wasn't it just last year the media was heralding Andrew Luck for making academics the biggest part of his life by staying in college and not entering the NFL Draft? Now we come to learn that Andrew Luck doesn't care as much about academics when it comes to that or playing football. Will you find the media take back all the "His architecture degree was more important than money so that's why Luck didn't enter the NFL Draft" stories from last year? Hell no. The media has created a narrative and they will be damned if reality messes that narrative up.

The more I play, the more I love it. I've gotten to the point where, the more you learn about the game, the less you know. I love it. I want to learn more about it all the time. So, yes, academics were important in our household. Both of my parents were lawyers. They went to school forever. Stanford, Silicon Valley, the opportunities they presented were a big plus. But on top of that, coach [Jim] Harbaugh was so infectious. The staff was so good. If I didn't think we could win there, I wouldn't have gone.''

Wait, so let me get this straight. Academics and going to Stanford were important, but Andrew Luck went to that college because he knew he could win football games, not because of athletics? Doesn't he understand this doesn't jive with things that were written about him? Does this mean Andrew Luck is no different than any other highly recruited college athlete who chooses a college so he can make it to the pros while winning games in college? This confuses me. It's just the media has painted him as a guy who really gives a shit about his degree, that's the narrative chosen, and it seems Andrew Luck chose Stanford based on the football team. Luck also just said football was more important than academics to him. This is confusing because this isn't how the media has portrayed Luck.

I'm not going after Andrew Luck and I think he is going to make a great NFL quarterback. I also believe the personal created by the media is fake and Luck isn't really that humble. Last year he was painted by the media as a shining example of a college athlete who wanted to get his degree before he went to the pros. He wanted to get an architecture degree to "fall back on" after the NFL. It's just the cutest damn thing I'd ever heard, but we know it was bullshit. He wanted to stay in college one more year and then go to the NFL. He didn't go to Stanford because of a chance to get a degree, he went there to play football. I don't blame Andrew Luck for this portrayal of him. He's just gone around and tried to be the picture the media has painted of him. He isn't different from other college athletes though, he is just more savvy when he knows what the media wants from him. I think that's my biggest takeaway from these comments and I think no different of him as a result.

As far as being humble, Luck isn't any more humble than any other college quarterback who projects to be a top draft pick. He wants to start immediately in the NFL and actually believes he deserves to start immediately in the NFL. There is nothing wrong with this either. Last year Cam Newton got shit for saying he wanted to be "an entertainer and an icon." Andrew Luck wants this too, he's just smart enough not to say it. Luck wants to do commercials and be on the cover of magazines, video games and anything else he can sell his likeness to. He knows he can be one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL if he works hard enough at it.

This portrayal of him as a kid who cared about his education and went to Stanford for architecture is bullshit. I am sure Luck worked hard to do well in his courses, but he knew he was at Stanford for football. How Peter King is claiming he is humble is also bullshit. You can read what Luck says and know it is bullshit. He is as humble as a person can be who knows he was the best player on the field 95% of the time through his career. Stanford was partly a place to get an education, but mostly a way to get drafted into the NFL. There is nothing wrong with this of course.

I just get the feeling the media doesn't want Luck to be seen this way. The media has just chosen a different form of this narrative to tell their readers.

Throw away the draft trade value chart. It's meaningless when there's a player creating the buzz of Griffin. Same thing with Ryan Leaf 14 years ago.

Now there is a comparison that should make General Managers more eager to trade up to draft Griffin.

The Rams will drive a hard bargain. Cleveland (fourth overall pick), Washington (sixth) and Miami (eighth) will be in the derby to move up; Seattle (12) and a couple of mystery teams could be too.

I know the Rams will drive a hard bargain, but they already have what they think is their franchise quarterback in Sam Bradford. So if you are the Browns you will offer a good deal to move up and take Griffin, but the Browns also know if the Rams can't make a trade, and neither do the Vikings, then they have a good chance of drafting Griffin anyway. I know this is a long shot, but if the Rams hold out for more than teams are willing to pay and their pick doesn't get traded (which I don't think will happen, but it is a possibility), then the Rams probably aren't taking Griffin. Neither are the Vikings since they have Ponder. So the Browns are in a good position because they can try to top any teams offer for the #2 spot or if no trades are made, Griffin could fall to them. It's just a thought. I don't believe it will happen, but the Browns have excess the draft picks to outbid the Redskins and Dolphins and they are the only team with a chance of landing Griffin if no trades are made. It is a good position to be in.

"The whole paradigm has changed in several ways,'' said Rams COO Kevin Demoff Saturday night. "Griffin could be cheaper than Flynn. The fact that you can get a potential franchise quarterback for what the top picks are paid now makes it easier to justify trading a lot for it.''

I'm not sure I completely agree. Making a move to get a potential franchise quarterback like Griffin has less long-term risk now because he isn't going to be paid as much, but I don't know if the fact Griffin gets paid less under the new rookie cap justifies trading a lot for the pick. If you are a team like the Browns or Redskins those picks you have at #4 and #6 respectively have a lot of value because those players don't get paid as much either and a trading draft picks is still a risk because you could miss out on other good players being available in the spot you traded out of. I think a trade for Griffin carries less long-term risk, but trading a lot of picks for the ability to draft Griffin isn't more justified now because those draft picks a team would trade still have as much value now as they did prior to the new rookie salary cap. It isn't like a 2nd round pick has less value now. So there is less risk in drafting a player, but just as much risk in trading up to draft a player...at least in terms of draft picks given up.

Stephen Hill (who?) was The Man this weekend.

I like how Peter writes "(who?)" because he doesn't know who Stephen Hill is. Because Peter's lack of knowledge on college football means his readers lack the same amount of knowledge that Peter lacks. It just irritates me that Peter acts like Stephen Hill is a nobody simply because he hasn't heard of him. Peter's lack of knowledge says more about how he doesn't doesn't follow college football more than it reflects on Stephen Hill's anonymity.

His 2011 season was odd. He didn't have a 100-yard receiving game in his last nine games; only twice did he catch more than three balls in a game. In three seasons, he caught only 49 passes ... but he did average 25.5 yards per catch in his career.

In Hill's defense, he is like Damaryius Thomas in that he had a terrible passing quarterback trying to get him the ball. So his season wasn't so odd because Georgia Tech runs the triple option offense, so Hill doesn't get a lot of catch opportunities...plus his quarterback throws like a 9th grader.

After Luck and Griffin, Ryan Tannehill is the hot guy -- though Brandon Weeden of Oklahoma State, Brock Osweiler of Arizona State and Michigan State's Kirk Cousins, who threw well at the combine, are more pro-ready right now.

Ah yes, that elusive term "pro-ready" which was conferred upon Jimmy Clausen and other college quarterbacks to mean "they played in a pro system and probably don't have the upside of the other quarterbacks available in the draft."

Among coaches I spoke with over the weekend, Tannehill's got some gaps in his game and could be picked higher than he should go, the same way Christian Ponder and Jake Locker went higher than most football people expected last April.

I will be the first to admit I am terrible at evaluating quarterbacks (I thought Newton would be average and Locker would be bad...so far I'm wrong), but Tannehill has never really impressed me that much. It seems to me he is going to be benefiting from NFL teams needing quarterbacks and convincing themselves over the long few minutes until the draft that a certain quarterback can be good in the NFL. It's like when you get stuck in a room with a bunch of people for a long period of time. Eventually, those people who aren't attractive are going to start looking attractive to you. I call this the Campbell University Rule.

Remember "Seinfeld,'' a show about nothing?

Of course we remember "Seinfeld." Who the hell can forget about that show when it has been off the air for only 15 years?

And so on Sunday, I went into an NFL Network television truck to watch, as Kramer and George and Jerry and Elaine did for so long so well, a show about nothing, televised by 16 cameras all over the field at Lucas Oil Stadium.

I wonder what is with the weak "Seinfeld" comparison to the Combine? It feels very, very forced.

"So I went home and spent time with my wife over the weekend, much like Jesse and Becky on 'Full House' did for so long..."

The visuals are often good and the commentary interesting, as on Sunday when Rich Eisen pointed out that Andrew Luck was standing on the sideline he'd likely be standing on for years with the Colts once Indy drafts him;

Intriguing! Get this though...Andrew Luck is standing in the very building where the 2010 NCAA Tournament Final Four was played. What team played in the NCAA Tournament Final Four that year? The West Virginia Mountaineers. Whose father is the Athletic Director for West Virginia University? Andrew Luck. Amazing!

It's there, and it's pleasant to look at, but if you don't have content piece after content piece, you're going to be changing the channel to "F Troop" after the quarterbacks throw.

So Peter asks us if we remember "Seinfeld" and then makes a random mention to "F-Troop" as if we are supposed to remember a television series that ran for 3 years in the mid-1960's.

Rex Ryan looks like he's losing weight. Odd, too, to see Ryan sitting alone, reading the paper for a few minutes Sunday at a Starbucks without being bothered

Rex Ryan wasn't bothered at Starbucks, except by Peter King's leering and staring at him the entire time he was there.

The Seahawks like Ryan Tannehill and Brock Osweiler. If they don't end up with Peyton Manning or Matt Flynn, I bet they end up with one of those two quarterback projects ...

Really? Didn't Peter King just refer to Osweiler by saying,

Ryan Tannehill is the hot guy -- though Brandon Weeden of Oklahoma State, Brock Osweiler of Arizona State and Michigan State's Kirk Cousins, who threw well at the combine, are more pro-ready right now.

Apparently Osweiler is a project who is also pro-ready right now. Doesn't seem like that is confusing at all. It appears Osweiler is ready to play quarterback in the NFL, but not quite ready to actually play quarterback in the NFL.

I think Denver picks a quarterback in the first two rounds ...

And Woody Paige just had a heart attack. How dare the Broncos draft a quarterback to compete with President Tebow.

Who said Woody's Tim Tebow articles are getting out of hand? He just has Tebow penciled in as the President of the United States in 12 years. That's reasonable.

I can't see Trent Richardson going very high, The Jets would think seriously of Trent Richardson at 16.

I guess it depends on your point of view, but I think Richardson at #16 is him going fairly high. Maybe it doesn't meet the imaginary threshold for "very" high though.

Tomorrow: The NFL alum who won an Oscar, and the surprise agent for Andrew Luck.

Satan? Is Satan Andrew Luck's surprise agent? If so, I'd love to see the fawning NFL media drool over how great of a negotiator Satan is going to be. I wonder which sportswriter will be the first to write a "Colts make a deal with the Devil headline" if Satan ends up being Andrew Luck's agent? I'm guessing Mike Lupica.

"We lost two coaches from our offensive staff and the prospect of going forward, the responsibility that I have, while I am very interested in his career, I think he will be an outstanding coach for the New York Giants going forward, but we have to put our hands around our situation first.''

-- Giants coach Tom Coughlin, on the club denying permission to Kevin Gilbride Jr., an offensive assistant, to interview with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to be their quarterback coach.

This generated intense interest from several coaches at the combine -- one head coach, four or five assistants -- whom I spoke with. Gilbride is the son of the Giants' well-respected offensive coordinator, and when Coughlin denied him permission (which was in his rights), it rubbed coaches the wrong way.

Get Howard Bryant on the phone immediately to right this injustice! Kevin Gilbride Jr, doesn't get a chance to coach for the team he wants to coach for and isn't free to get out of his contract whenever he wants. This is just another example of the owners keeping the players and coaches down. Oh that's right, no one cares if coaches can't get the opportunity to receive a promotion with a different team.

and if Coughlin gives Gilbride Jr. the vacant Giants quarterback-coaching job, which he may do, all will be well. If he doesn't, I would expect it could -- could, I stress; not will necessarily -- create some tension on the staff.

Well, we will look forward to hopefully not hearing anything further about this.

Don Banks made this wish-I'd-thought-of-this point Sunday afternoon in the press room at the combine: Jim Harbaugh was replaced as Indianapolis' quarterback by Peyton Manning in 1998. Jim Harbaugh coached Andrew Luck to replace Peyton Manning as Indianapolis' quarterback in 2012.

To make this situation even more interesting...they are all white quarterbacks who throw right-handed. It's almost like Andrew Luck was destined to play for the Colts.

To make this situation even more interestingier, Chuck Pagano is the head coach of the Colts now. Who did he work under this past season? John Harbaugh. That's Jim Harbaugh's brother. Who plays quarterback for Jim Harbaugh in San Francisco? Alex Smith. Who was Alex Smith's college coach? Urban Meyer. Guess who else played quarterback under Urban Meyer? Tim Tebow. Who does Tim Tebow love? God. Who hates God? Satan, who just happens to be Andrew Luck's agent. Amazing and phenomenal. Pointing out coincidences like this sure manages to kill space in MMQB, doesn't it?

"Can't wait to not watch The Artist when it's on HBO or Showtime.''

-- @PeteAbe, Boston Globe baseball writer Pete Abraham, following the awarding for Best Picture Sunday night at the Oscars.

I agree with this. Hollywood just likes to pretend they are cultured every once in a while. This year is one of those years, so they named a silent movie in black and white the best picture of the year. Either that or the Oscar voters were nostalgic for movies that looked like movies from their childhood. Either way, in 10 years we will look back and think this wasn't the best picture of 2011.

Switching it up today, post-combine. Handing off five of the Scouting Combine thoughts to Mike Mayock, who spoke with me off the NFL Network set Sunday afternoon:

You mean the same Mike Mayock who didn't like Cam Newton very much last year? He had Blaine Gabbert as his best quarterback in the draft. It's not a huge issue and people make mistakes, but this also goes to his evaluation of college players at the quarterback position coming out of college. This is just something to be aware of I think.

(I think Gabbert deserves another year in Jacksonville to prove what he may be able to do, but at this point the evaluation of Gabbert as the #1 quarterback in the 2011 class looks pretty far off. I'm fairly optimistic for Gabbert this upcoming season under Mike Mularky.)

1. "I think Andrew Luck is more athletic than people will ever give him credit for. When you compare his numbers this year to Cam Newton's numbers last year, they're almost identical. We all gushed about the athlete Cam was, but we don't with Luck, whose athleticism is underrated.

Almost identical? As long as you don't count the rushing yards each had during their junior year and the fact Luck had 663 more passing yards on 124 more passing attempts than Newton. Other than that, they were exactly alike.

Whereas Robert Griffin's pocket awareness is underrated also. It's an interesting juxtaposition between those two guys. We kind of want to push them into categories we're comfortable with,

Then stop doing this. Stop comparing Cam Newton to Griffin/Luck. Stop comparing Luck to Peyton Manning. Just stop. But he won't and neither will anyone else.

5. "I think the tight-end class is a bad class. And that's not good, given that everyone is looking for the next Gronkowski and Hernandez. I don't have a tight end with a first-round grade.''

But what about Coby Fleener? He's the next Rob Gronksowski! Isn't that what I keep hearing?

3. I think when I went to Indy and looked forward to seeing Justin Blackmon, I thought I was going to see someone bigger than he is. I thought I'd see a slightly smaller Calvin Johnson, from having watched enough highlights of Blackmon. But what I saw is more Brandon Lloyd than Calvin Johnson. Seems like a very good kid, and a good player certainly. And as a couple of NFL people told me over the weekend, he plays big. Understood. If I were about to make him the fourth or fifth pick in the draft, I'd like a guy more imposing than an eighth of an inch shorter than 6-1 and who weighs 207 pounds.

Out of the Top 10 wide receivers in terms of yardage for 2011, five of them are listed as 6'0" or shorter.

In 2010, out of the Top 10 wide receivers in terms of yardage, six of them are listed at 6'0" or shorter.

In 2009, out of the Top 10 wide receivers in terms of yardage, five of them are listed at 6'0" or shorter.

So while I respect Peter King's idea of drafting taller wide receivers earlier in the draft, I don't know if height is necessarily the end-all-be-all for determining whether a player should be a Top 10 pick at the wide receiver position or not. Every year it seems receivers that aren't imposing or below 6'1" in height. It very well may not matter that much.

d. Wondering what it must have been like for longtime Giants VP and scout Chris Mara to sit at the Oscars last night and listen to Colin Firth say of his daughter Rooney that her role in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was "dazzling perfection?''

It must have been dazzling perfection to hear this.

e. Congrats to the Vancouver Canucks. In the span of 24 hours, they went to Detroit and broke the Wings' 23-game home winning streak and then won in New Jersey against one of the hottest teams in the league.

The Vancouver Canucks respond by accepting Peter's congratulations and then asking who the hell Peter King is.

f. Finally saw Ides of March. Disturbing, if you know the outcome, but well done and politically smart.

George Clooney can now rest easy now knowing his movie has Peter King's approval.

g. Lord, who is doing the Red Sox PR? More shooting the messenger after an offseason of ignoring the drinking-in-the-clubhouse-during-games stories from last season.

They are ignoring the story because it is irrelevant. Only morons believe the Red Sox drinking beer in the clubhouse should have any effect on the 2012 season and a person is half of a moron for thinking the Red Sox collapsed last year because of beer and chicken.

The team never addressed it, except to say it wants it buried and wants everyone to look ahead, not behind.

The team never addressed it...except when Bobby Valentine banned alcohol from the Red Sox clubhouse. Other than that, it wasn't addressed. I guess the "problem" being solved isn't enough for Peter. What the hell does he want? People to get fired over this? Does he want an hour long press conference? It is only an issue because people like Peter King are fixated on this issue and falsely believe the Red Sox owe the community some sort of apology for doing things in the clubhouse the players did when the Red Sox were successful. Let it go.

"It's a new chapter, beginning today," Red Sox CEO Larry Lucchino said at spring training the other day. "Our idea is, let's write this new chapter. Enough has been said about the last chapter.'' But not by you. Not saying, "It'll never happen again, and it's a disgrace it ever happened in the first place.''

It is not a disgrace it happened in the first place. Teams drink in the clubhouse all the time and starting pitchers (gasp!) even get drunk the night before a game when they don't have to pitch. Shockingly, starting pitchers getting drunk the night before a game doesn't have an effect on the team's performance when he isn't pitching. Amazing isn't it?

Whoever in the organization had the grand plan of eliminating the issue by ignoring it and sneering at the media when it was brought up has no idea that such an irresponsible issue doesn't go away in the eyes of many followers -- like me -- if you bash people over the head for bringing it up.

The issue wasn't ignored by the Red Sox, it was eliminated. A detailed apology really isn't necessary. If Peter King really believes the Red Sox struggled in September last year because pitchers drank beer in the clubhouse on their off days then he is even more ignorant and ridiculous than I ever thought he was.

h. Coffeenerdness: Ordered my latte at the JW Marriott Starbucks in Indianapolis Sunday morning. Turned around to see 49ers quarterback coach Geep Chryst. "Ordering behind you at Starbucks,'' Chryst said, "is like going after Michael Jordan in a dunk contest.'' Why, thank you.

I have no words for this. I don't even understand what this means really.

Maybe Peter King believes he is the greatest ever at ordering coffee? Or does Geep Chryst believe Peter is an incredibly incompetent owner, as well as general manager, of coffee?

Are You Being Serious? What Did You Expect From a Bill Simmons-Barack Obama Podcast?

2012-03-01T16:47:00.006-05:00

Many of you have may have heard Bill Simmons got Barack Obama as a podcast guest. The questions and answers that followed were what you would expect from a non-journalist asking the President questions. It was about The Wire, Jeremy Lin, and various other easy to discuss topics. If you expected any differently from Bill Simmons then you aren't very bright for three reasons:

1. It is Bill Simmons. He isn't a natural interviewer. He has strengths. Interviewing the President of the United States wouldn't speak to his strengths.

2. He is interviewing the President of the United States. One would expect the questions to be vetted to where nothing controversial is asked or answered. The coup for Bill Simmons is getting the President to do a podcast. You shouldn't expect controversy to follow.

3. Seriously, it is Bill Simmons doing an interview. This is a guy who talked shit about Isiah Thomas for years and then immediately made up to him when he met him face-to-face. He makes Piers Morgan look light a hard-hitting interviewer. Again, Bill has strengths, but I wouldn't count interviewing as among them.

Well, this wasn't enough for Dan Levy. He wanted hard-hitting questions and answers. I can't believe he is being serious. I can't believe I am defending Bill Simmons.

Here are some choice quotes detailing what Levy wanted from this podcast/interview between Barack Obama and Bill Simmons:

Yes, I assume the questions had to be vetted, both by ESPN and by the White House, but that doesn't mean there weren't a host of questions Simmons could have asked the President of the United States of America other than "[s]ettle an office debate. Best Wire character of all time?"

I'm sure Simmons had other questions he wanted to ask, but couldn't because he wouldn't be allowed to do the interview if he was going to grill Obama on his foreign policy or his stance on immigration. This was going to be a vanilla "Obama picks his bracket" type interview. To expect otherwise is silly.

It wouldn't be as disheartening to read this interview if it wasn't so obvious that Simmons comes off inexplicably unprepared. He asked President Obama about taking the time to watch his daughter play basketball and when the President explained that he did some coaching last season, Simmons replied, "Really?"

Really? That's your response? How did you not know Obama coached last year? Heck, we talked about it a few weeks ago, and you know how we found out about it? ABC News emailed me the story. ABC News, part of the same media company Simmons works for, emailed sports writers their story about President Obama and Reggie Love coaching Sasha's basketball team less than a month ago and Simmons didn't even know about it?

I can see how Bill may have known this and is why he asked the question. But this is an interview and he is supposed to pretend to be shocked or pleasantly surprised at the answers. It isn't like Obama will say something and Bill will dismiss him by saying, "I knew that already." This is a staged podcast. There is nothing off-the-cuff about it considering the President of the United States is the person being interviewed.

But Simmons completely sidestepped any juicy questions in the entire conversation.

I am sure he sidestepped tough questions and in no way did the President's "people" tell Bill what he could and could not talk about.

How does a writer from Boston interview the President, ask six questions about different championship teams coming to the White House and not address the issue of Tim Thomas, the Boston Bruins goaltender, skipping his team's trip due to his very-public disdain for the current political climate?

Because this is a somewhat political question Obama would not want to answer. He isn't going to answer anything 1% political...especially about a hockey player who didn't visit the White House because he didn't agree with Obama's policies.

I could give Simmons the benefit of the doubt and assume the White House nixed questions about Thomas, but President Obama will answer 50 tougher questions than one about Thomas before lunch.

From actual journalists! Not from Bill Simmons, a guy who references pornstars and 70's and 80's television shows/movies in his writing. It's not Bill's place to ask tough questions.

There was also nothing from Simmons about the potential candidates the President might face, albeit in a sports context.

I am betting $100 anything related to other candidates was off limits. Dan Levy has to realize this, right?

He totally should have asked who would win a game of one-on-one between Romney and Rick Santorum.

This isn't exactly a hard-hitting question.

Those softballs would be a hit.

So basically Bill Simmons should have asked the softball questions that Dan Levy wanted him to ask.

Were questions about race in sports vetted out of the interview too?

I'm guessing they absolutely were vetted out. I don't know if Dan Levy has hard, but race is sort of touchy issue sometimes.

That said, Simmons had nearly four years since ESPN nixed his last chance to come up with questions. If that's the best he could do, it's a huge disappointment for those of us who fight every day to have podcasts treated with the same respect as more traditional forms of audio-visual media. The opportunity speaks volumes for online media. The execution fell on deaf ears.

Anything more hard-hitting from a guy who edits a sports website and the interview would never have happened. That's the bottom line. I hate defending Simmons, but if he wanted the interview he couldn't ask hard-hitting questions. The questions were stupid and softball. What did you expect?

At least he didn't get the President to ask if Reggie Love can hook Grantland up with Duke press credentials. Though perhaps that came after they stopped taping.

Ok, that was kind of funny.

Overall though, criticizing Bill Simmons for not asking tough questions. Dan Levy you are being serious? What else did you seriously expect from a guy who isn't an actual journalist and has no experience in asking hard-hitting questions that don't deal with making lists of the 76 (or whatever it is) greatest NBA players of all-time?

Bleacher Report: Looking at 3 Terrible Articles

2012-02-29T15:15:00.000-05:00

I have three articles I am going to write about today from Bleacher Report. I don't necessarily enjoy picking on writers from Bleacher Report, but sometimes I just can't help it. Many of the articles I write about from Bleacher Report highlight the many things wrong with the site. Excessive lists, "bold" predictions, or a summary of a story from another site all are negative aspects of Bleacher Report. Sometimes I run across lists and articles so asinine I just can't ignore them. For example, the title of the first one is "MLB: The All-Unfilled Potential Team." I never have heard the word "unfilled potential." I always thought it was "unfulfilled potential." So this article immediately piqued my interest and then it just absolutely delivered on it's potential to be written about on this blog.

Let's look at the definition of unfulfilled potential.

"of persons; marked by failure to realize full potentialities; "unfulfilled and uneasy men"; "unrealized dreams and ambitions"

So clearly, the definition of whether a player reached his full potential can be a matter of opinion, but it is also unfair to say a player who has reached some measure of success has unfulfilled potential simply because you think the player should be better than he is. Does LeBron James have unfulfilled potential? Probably, but he shouldn't be on this list.

Had I written this article a year ago, Matt Kemp would have made my team. However, he had a monster season in 2011 and is now miles away from being considered an underachiever.

One good season means a player no longer has unfulfilled potential! Go back to just being a really good baseball player now Matt Kemp and you could find yourself right back on this list next year.

Inclusion on this list can be easily erased if the player has a stellar season in 2012.

One good season takes you off the list and puts you on the list of players who have fulfilled potential. Unfortunately as we will find out, one bad season puts you back on the list. Unfulfilled potential lists are fickle bitches. Really a player's inclusion or exclusion depends entirely on the last season's performance.

Catcher: Chris Iannetta

Iannetta appeared ready for stardom in 2008 when he hit .264 with 18 home runs and 65 RBIs. His OBP was .390 and OPS was an extremely strong .895.

Iannetta was a fourth round draft pick as a college catcher. How does a fourth round pick have tons of unfulfilled potential? I think Iannetta is playing as well as I would expect a fourth round pick who is a college catcher would play.

In the three seasons following his breakout year, Iannetta's batting average fell to .228 in 2009, .197 in 2010 and then slightly back up to .238 in 2011.

Iannetta hit .238/.370/.414 with 14 home runs this year. He had 70 walks to 89 strikeouts. He played well. Don't be a slave to batting average, it can mislead you.

Iannetta is a good defensive catcher, so there is no concern with him behind the plate.

So Iannetta is an above average hitter for a catcher and plays good defense...sound about like a 4th round pick to you? How does he have unfulfilled potential?

1st base: Justin Morneau

When a player has four consecutive seasons of over 100 RBI, it's hard to say there is unfilled potential there.

Then let's not say this and move on. Morneau was injured last year. Prior to that year he had four All-Star appearances and an MVP to his credit. How can one good year take a player off the list of players with unfulfilled potential, but one bad year in a career of great performances puts a player back on the list?

The answer: It can't. Morneau may never be the same player, but he fulfilled his potential when he was healthy.

Shortstop: Hanley Ramirez

He won the Rookie of the Year award in 2006 and had four consecutive seasons hitting over .300 with over 20 home runs, from 2007-2010.

BUT HE HAD ONE BAD YEAR! OFF TO THE "UNFILLED POTENTIAL" LIST FOR YOU HANLEY RAMIREZ!

At the age of 27, when he should be in the prime of his career, Ramirez had the worst season of his life.

So how does one bad year cancel out five previous seasons of great play? What in the hell do you expect Ramirez's potential to be? His career splits are .306/.380/.506. He's averaging 25 home runs and 83 RBI's in a 162 game season. If that's not meeting his potential, then I don't know what is.

Outfield: Jason Heyward

Of course he is on the list. He's 22 years old and hasn't hit his potential yet. What's he waiting on? Being in the majors for more than two years? Two full seasons without injury issues? I don't know if Heyward will ever hit his potential if he hasn't hit it by the age of 22.

Whether it was a sophomore slump or more of an indicator that opposing pitchers had adjusted to Heyward, he had a poor 2011.

Heyward hit just .227 with 14 home runs and 42 RBI, last year. His OPS decreased to .708.

So one good year as a 21 year old and one bad year (with injuries) as a 22 year old and a player has unfulfilled potential? If this is the standard, do you know who else should be on this list? Every minor league player and any MLB player who hasn't been in the majors longer than two years.

Outfielder: Carl Crawford

Carl Crawford ended the 2010 season with the Tampa Bay Rays with a .307 batting average, 19 home runs and 90 RBI. He also stole 47 bases and scored 110 runs.

He was an All-Star, a Gold Glove winner and recipient of a Silver Slugger award.

Well, that could very well be his potential. So Crawford doesn't have unfulfilled potential, he just has seen his potential. Crawford just needs to put up those same numbers in this upcoming season. At the age of 30, what does the author expect Crawford to do that he hasn't done already?

Pitcher: Ubaldo Jimenez

Prior to his trade in late July, Jimenez was 6-9 with a 4.46 ERA and 1.374 WHIP.

In 11 starts with the Indians, Jimenez went 4-4 with an ERA of 5.10 and WHIP of 1.454. Jimenez has a live arm and electric stuff, but seemed to lose command inside the strike zone last season.

He was an undrafted free agent and has had one bad season in his four years in the majors. I would give him more than one bad year before saying he had unfulfilled potential. That's just me though.

Now we are going to an article/slideshow from Bleacher Report about the 13 biggest contract steals of the offseason. Off to the slideshow!

Yet, from a fan's standpoint, I don't really see what all the hubbub over certain contracts is all about. Some are screaming overpaid, when in reality, the contract in question is quite a steal.

Take C.J. Wilson, now of the Los Angeles Angels. According to Mike DiGiovanna of the Los Angeles Times, the lanky lefty was looking for a deal in the $100 million range. When push came to shove, Wilson signed for much less than that.

So because C.J. Wilson had unreal expectations of what he was worth on the market that makes him a steal? This is idiotic thinking. A pitcher's own biased perception of his worth on the free agent market doesn't mean what he eventually receives on the free agent market makes him a steal. If Jimmy Rollins wants a 5 year deal for $150 million, it doesn't mean if he gets 3 years at $42 million he is just a fantastic deal. A contract doesn't become a steal because the market doesn't bear what a player feels he is worth.

Bartolo Colon

He is an overweight 39 year old pitcher who had his best year since 2005. I'm not so confident he can duplicate his success from 2011.

Now, entering free agency again, one would think that a solid comeback year would warrant another one-year deal worth at least $4 million. Instead, surely taking Colon's age (he turns 39 in May) and conditioning into consideration, the Oakland A's signed him for $2 million.

Oh, well because Colon's contract exceeded your expectations of what he should receive on the free agent market he is quite the steal. Nothing like pulling a Bill Simmons and using your own opinion as empirical evidence that proves you are right. This is like citing your own opinion in support of your opinion.

Casey Kotchman

Most first basemen today are power hitters with the ability to hit 30-plus home runs a year and also hit for a decent average.

Yes, most first basemen today are power hitters who can hit 30 home runs and hit for a good average. Most first basemen in the majors can do this. Let's see if this is true.

In 2011, twelve total first basemen hit over .270 last year and seven first basemen hit over 30 home runs. Five first basemen had 30 home runs and hit above .270 last year.

In 2010, eight first basemen hit 30 home runs and nine first basemen hit over .270. Five first basemen had 30 home runs and hit above .270.

In 2009, eighteen first basemen hit over .270 and twelve first basemen hit over 30 home runs. Nine first basemen had 30 home runs and hit above .270.

So I wouldn't exactly say "most" first basemen can hit for a decent average and hit 30 home runs. Over the past three years 19 first basemen hit this arbitrary marker. Does this mean Kotchman isn't a steal? No, it means I like to nitpick when words like "most" or "all" are thrown around and this isn't true.

Jason Kubel

He hit .282 with 61 home runs and 246 RBI in three full seasons at the Metrodome, compared to a .259 mark with 33 homers and 150 RBI in two years at the new stadium. As a result, it's not exactly surprising that he didn't receive a substantial raise from the $12.1 million he received from 2009-2011.

Ready for some fun with numbers? Kubel made $12.1 million over three years, which comes out to $4.03 million per year. Keep this number in mind.

This winter, the Diamondbacks enhanced their offense by signing Kubel for two years and $15 million, plus an option for a third year.

2 years at $15 million is $7.5 million per year. That's a 186% per year raise from his previous salary. That's not substantial? Just for fun, take what you earn right now in your job (if you have a permanent job as of yet) and then multiply it by 186%. Would you consider that to be a substantial raise? I would.

It's a good contract for him, but far less than what I would have expected.

What the hell were you expecting a (soon to be) 30 year old guy with a career line of .272/.335/.459 to receive? Jason Kubel is in no way a bad hitter, but I think $7.5 million per year sounds about right for him.

C.J. Wilson

As I mentioned in the introduction, C.J. Wilson entered the offseason looking for a $100 million deal, preferably over five years.

Wilson's expectations of what he should receive in the free agent market isn't to be used as the basis for whether he was a steal or not. This is illogical.

He got his five-year contract, but it was for $77.5 million with the Los Angeles Angels.

If a $22.5 million discount isn't a steal, then I don't know what is.

(Bengoodfella attempts to give self fatal paper cut wounds with an envelope)

It isn't a $22.5 million discount because Wilson was never worth $100 million. That was never the market value for Wilson. C.J. Wilson and his agent wanted $100 million, but if a team gave him $90 million that doesn't mean that team got a good deal nor did the team get a $10 million discount. A seller's expectation of the value of his service doesn't set the market for what his services are worth unless there is a person (or people) willing to pay that value. So C.J. Wilson wasn't signed at a discount.

Yu Darvish

Yu Darvish hasn't played one major league game yet, so there's no telling just how much of a steal he could be.

Well good. I'm glad he's #1 on your damn list as the majors biggest steal of the offseason then. That makes sense.

The Rangers ended up paying $111.7 million, and while that is over the $100 million mark, I wouldn't call it "well over."

Of course the author also thinks a raise of 186% isn't substantial and if a pitcher values himself at $200 million and then signs for $120 million a team is getting a great deal. So I am not entirely certain I would trust his opinion or ability to have perspective on a free agent contract.

Also, look at Darvish's career numbers in Japan. The guy went 93-38 with a 1.99 ERA and 0.98 WHIP with 1,259 strikeouts in just seven seasons. In MLB, a guy with those numbers would probably be earning upwards of $20 million.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight...but the author is also assuming Darvish's performance will be at this level against better American competition. That's a huge assumption to base Darvish's title as "a steal" off of. Any logical person knows these Japanese statistics will probably not translate directly to the majors. Darvish won't be putting up a 1.99 ERA in the majors for his career.

Instead, the Rangers are only paying him $10 million a year. Look up "steal" in the dictionary, and you'll see a picture of Darvish's contract next to his stats in Japan.

He would be a steal if he was still playing in Japan at $10 million per year. Considering he is now playing in the United States against better competition, this doesn't mean his Japanese statistics compared to his United States salary makes him a steal. This author needs a class on economics so he can understand the value of services on a free market. It is not advisable to project Darvish's statistics in Japan to the United States as a sign he is underpaid, just like it isn't advisable to project the statistics of a college player who gets selected in the Top 10 of the MLB Draft and call him a steal if he is given a $10 million signing bonus. Mostly, we should leave Darvish off all overpaid/underpaid lists until his first season in the majors has concluded.

The third article from the disaster that can be Bleacher Report is the 40 most overpaid players in MLB. The author primarily uses projected WAR (projected from where? I have no idea) for 2012 to determine whether a player is overpaid or not. I'm concerned I don't know where this projected WAR is coming from. Some of these players are in the latter stages of their last contract. Teams sometimes have a tendency to sign a player fully knowing they won't get the maximum value later in the contract, in the hopes the early years of the contract will provide value in excess of their contract.

Yu Darvish

2012 Cost: $56.7 million

Projected WAR: 3.5

As I stated in the previous article, there is no way to know if Darvish is underpaid/overpaid at this point in time.

Prince Fielder

2012 Salary: $23 million

Projected WAR: 5.0

On the other hand, Fielder will have to go through an adjustment period given the change in leagues. The aggregate pitching he will face should be better, and Comerica Park is not friendly to left-handed power.

An adjustment period? Fielder has hit .269/.353/.560 with 26 home runs in 350 at-bats in interleague play. I would say he isn't going to have a terrible time adjusting to American League pitching.

To be worth $23 million, though, you have to play a position that is not first base.

If first basemen aren't worth $23 million per year, then what position is worth that much? This comment just doesn't make sense to me. I would love to know what position is worth $23 million per year? I would guess catcher, but I know it isn't catcher because the author has Joe Mauer as his #2 most overpaid player and he makes $23 million per year.

Frank Francisco

2012 Salary: $5.5 million

Projected WAR: 0.5

For that, New York will pay him about $1 million more than the Pirates will pay Erik Bedard this season. Pittsburgh got a much better deal.

Why are we comparing a starter and a relief pitcher in terms of how much they got paid? I don't get this comparison at all. It's like the author just picked a random player and compared him to Francisco. I would agree Francisco is overpaid, but I don't see how the contract Bedard received has any bearing on what Francisco should receive.

Francisco Rodriguez

2012 Salary: $8 million

Projected WAR: 0.8

He makes $8 million. He pitched really well last year in a set up role for Milwaukee. He had a 1.86 ERA with a 1.138 WHIP. Relievers with his skill set require a high salary.

Still, they find themselves in the unenviable position of owing $8 million to a setup man, since John Axford will close for them. For the Yankees or Red Sox, that would be an acceptable, if not ideal, circumstance. For Milwaukee, it pretty well blew the budget.

So if Rodriguez put up the same statistics as the set up guy on the Red Sox or Yankees he wouldn't be overpaid? But because he is getting paid $8 million for the Brewers to close he is automatically overpaid? I get that some teams can afford to pay $8 million for a set up guy, while others can not. I'm just not sure this has a bearing on whether a guy is overpaid or not if he would put up the same statistics with either team.

Chris Carpenter

2012 Salary: $10.5 million

Projected WAR: 1.0

Carpenter is an enormous injury risk. No pitcher is more likely to blow out their arm in camp this year, or really to blow out their arm anytime in 2012.

This is pure hyperbole and doesn't serve any purpose as proof of anything. Carpenter has made 28 starts or more for three consecutive seasons now. Carpenter had a high workload last year, but saying Carpenter is overpaid by predicting a future injury seems thin to me.

He endured a workload unprecedented since 2001 in order to lead the Cardinals to the World Series title, but at his age and with his track record, he just is not in position to repeat or even approximate that performance.

Carpenter's recent track record is to throw 200 innings and have a sub-3.50 ERA. Carpenter also had the equivalent of two years off because of injuries, so I think it is completely reasonable he could be worth $10.5 million to the Cardinals this year.

30. Chad Billingsley

After a 2010 that looked like the permanent and significant step forward that Billingsley should have taken even sooner,

2010 was Billingsley's fourth full year in the majors and he was 25 years old. I'm not sure why he should have taken a significant step forward sooner than that.

he instead took a giant step backward in 2011. His walk rate, always the problem, shot up sharply, and his strikeout rate plunged for the third straight year.

Billingsley's BB/9 for his career:

2006: 5.8
2007: 3.9
2008: 3.6
2009: 3.9
2010: 3.2
2011: 4.0

Actually Billingsley's 2011 walk rate was more in line with his career average, admittedly a little bit higher than his career average in 2011, but still fairly in line. I'm not saying Billingsley isn't overpaid, but instead saying he isn't overpaid simply because of his 2011 season.

Jon Lester

Lester's cost is rising at roughly the same rate as that at which his value is falling. Both are fast.

Zing!

He gutted out a solid start on the last day of the season to keep Boston in position to make the 2011 playoffs, but if the Red Sox make it in 2012, it will be no thanks to their nominal co-ace.

So a 15-9 record in 191.2 innings with a 3.47 ERA and 1.257 WHIP isn't worth $7.625 million for a left handed pitcher? I'm not sure how this author comes up with a WAR of 2.0 for Lester in 2012, but he has never had below a 4.8 WAR in a full season of pitching. There isn't any indication as to why his WAR would be 2.0 this year or that Lester is overpaid in any way. I think he's reaching to call Lester overpaid.

Jose Valverde

He had 49 saves last year with a 2.24 ERA and did not blow a save. His contract goes for one more year. He is not overpaid.

Valverde got lucky not to blow a save in 2011. He is a tightrope walker (and if he isn't, he should be, given his tiny legs and sturdy frame), teetering and bending but never falling off the wire in ninth innings all the time.

So even though the facts don't support his being overpaid, the author will just stick with this contention out of pure stubbornness. Dammit, Valverde should have blown a save last year and that makes him overpaid, even though he did not blow a save.

He walks batters, doesn't strike out enough of them for a top-flight reliever

He struck out 8.6 batters per 9 innings. That is close to striking out a batter an inning. I think he strikes out enough batters.

Paul Konerko

He slumped a bit in the second half in 2011,

He hit .272/.385/.447 in the second half of 2011. That's not great, but he still got on-base and had 37 walks to 40 strikeouts in the second half of 2011.

and at his age, any chink in the armor is a warning sign not to be missed.

So we should ignore Konerko's overall batting line of .300/.388/.517 last year with 31 home runs and focus on how he had an only average second half? This means he is overpaid and will have a WAR of 3.1 in 2012...despite the fact Konerko had a combined WAR of 8.7 over the last two seasons.

Dan Uggla

He's a good hitter, most of the time, though his first-half flop in 2011 causes concern.

But Uggla's great second half doesn't alleviate any of the concerns? He was on fire in the second half of the season...unless you think .296/.379/.569 and 21 home runs is just average. His batting average did stink overall, there's no doubt about that.

More pressingly, he's a miserable defensive second baseman who belongs in left field

Right, because the best place for a big-bodies, non-speed guy is to put them in left field. Uggla should thrive out there. Rather than screwing up ground balls, he'll just screw up fly balls.

or at third base, but both player and team are in denial.

Of course none of this has anything to do with whether Uggla is overpaid or not at the current time. He's a second baseman who can hit for power and get on-base, those types of players tend to have a high value.

Yoenis Cespedes

In either case, it seems like they blew it by not convincing Cespedes to commit to the usual MLB service-time arrangement, whereby he would have been under team control for six seasons.

We can't evaluate Cespedes at this point as overpaid. I do find it interesting the author believes the A's could "convince" Cespedes to take a longer deal, as if Cespedes was not a free agent and didn't have the ability to ignore or decline any deal he didn't like. He wanted four years, so the A's gave him four years.

Joe Mauer

Mauer has to play catcher to be worth anything close to $23 million per season,

What if he moves to left field? Would that make him worth $23 million per season? Or is Mauer overpaid because he plays for the Twins and if he played for the Yankees then he wouldn't be overpaid? I need to know the rules for these types of things.

The author has Mauer's projected WAR at 2.4. He had a 1.7 WAR last year in an injury-filled season and has never had a WAR below 4.6 since 2005. I'd love to know where this projected WAR of 2.4 is coming from.

but has to play a different position in order to stay healthy.

So Mauer can't stay healthy if he continues to play catcher? Is that what I'm hearing? Maybe he can play first base in place of that overpaid Justin Morneau (who is on this list too). Now is Mauer worth $23 million? Probably not because as we learned earlier first basemen aren't worth this much money. Apparently only catchers are worth $23 million per year.

I think that's about all the Bleacher Report I can take for today.

Mike Lupica Goes All Mike Lupica and Throws Out Baseless Accusations

2012-02-28T15:30:00.002-05:00

We all know by now that Ryan Braun appealed his positive drug test and won based on arbitrators voting 2-1 in his favor. He won on a chain of custody issue. Not a very sexy ending to this story with it being decided by a chain of custody issue. Apparently the guy who tested Braun and collected the sample kept it in his refrigerator for two days before shipping it off. This broke the chain of custody and the arbitrators decided to overturn his positive drug test in a 2-1 decision. As it has been pointed out 100 times, this doesn't mean Braun is innocent and he still needs to explain his high levels of testosterone in his system at some point.

A few months ago Doug Glanville thought Braun should be stripped of his MVP award and some of you agreed. Braun still has some explaining to do, but at least we know MLB's drug testing system works. That's not enough for Mike Lupica though. He suspects foul play and is eager to lean forward in his chair, potentially interrupt others and describe in a loud voice what he believes happened.

(I know it is a written article, but I imagine Lupica leaning forward and yelling at us while typing this article)

Ryan Braun says he is innocent and that he is clean, that he never used synthetic testosterone. Braun says that even though when he had to defend himself in front of an arbitration panel, he didn’t question the science that had his testosterone level ring the bell the way it did,

The title of the article says Braun was "acquitted." He wasn't acquitted, his positive drug test was overturned. He didn't commit a crime, so an acquittal isn't really the appropriate language to use in this situation...at least I don't think so.

Also, Braun didn't need to question the science because he thought the chain of custody was broken. The fact Braun didn't question the science could be irrelevant because it never got to that point. He thought the chain of custody got broken and argued his case on merits of this argument.

he questioned language in baseball’s collective bargaining agreement about the chain of custody and baseball’s collection procedures for drug testing.

And he won because the chain of custody was broken. There was no questioning of the language in the agreement, but pointing out the rules laid out in the agreement and how they seem to be broken in this situation. He pointed out the chain of custody of his urine sample was broken and two out of three arbitrators agreed with him. MLB and the player's union wrote the rules for drug testing and rules were broken. So of course Braun isn't going to question the evidence on the merits of whether his sample was positive or negative when he believes the evidence gathered is faulty or possibly tainted. If we insist on comparing this to a criminal trial, this is what any defense attorney would do as well. A defense attorney would make sure the evidence to be presented wasn't tainted and then argue on the merits of the case after he is satisfied the evidence presented isn't tainted in some fashion.

If MLB didn't break the rules they had written, Braun very well could have not won his appeal. I'm all for Braun's positive drug test being upheld, but it is good to hear the system works.

In the end, it just means that Braun, MVP of the National League and darling of Brewers fans, one of the big young talents in the game, just beat the game here.

He didn't beat the game. The rules weren't followed so his positive drug test was overturned. That is the game and why MLB has an appeal system. I could not have more faith in the way baseball's drug policy is run at this point. It seems they are serious about testing players and holding fair appeals to where the testing and collection of urine is held to the standard set in the drug testing policy.

Understand something: The overturning of Braun’s 50-game suspension doesn’t mean Braun is clean, no matter what he says or how many times he says it or what he expects reasonable people to believe.

Sure, whatever you want to believe. The overturning of Braun's 50-game suspension also doesn't mean the cloud of "steroid user" can be cast above Braun to where he gets put in the "Jeff Bagwell" category when it comes time to discuss his candidacy for the Hall of Fame. The Jeff Bagwell category is for players who writers believe used steroids, but since there isn't proof his candidacy for the Hall of Fame is dismissed for some other vague reason that can't really be explained, but the real reason is Bagwell is suspected of using steroids.

So Braun of the Brewers becomes the first positive test to win this kind of appeal in baseball. So he goes on with his career now, and his huge contract, no suspension, because a triple-sealed sample, one that no one ever suggested had been tampered with, didn’t make the last FedEx shipment on a weekend, didn’t go out until Monday morning.

This is how it works. This is the testing system and policy set up by MLB and the player's union. They wrote the rules and then broke the rules. You can whine about it all you want, but the details in drug testing are very important. The details are what the public, the player's union, and MLB rely upon to know their drug testing policy is effective and legitimate. The arbitrators can't just say, "Fuck the details" when the chain of custody was broken at some point and uphold Braun's suspension.

If you want to think justice was served, have at it.

"Justice?" It is a drug testing involved with a sport. This isn't a conviction overturned that let a suspected murderer go free. Let's get a grasp on some perspective on the issue and save the word "justice" for issues that are really important and don't involve a drug testing policy in a sport.

Of course, there is Braun’s version of the truth — they always want to tell you about how many tests they passed with flying colors —and there is a baseball version of the truth, based on the science of what they believe was a process that wasn’t corrupted in any way because Braun’s sample went out on Monday instead of Saturday.

It sounds like nitpicking, but Braun never contested the result of the test. So Mike Lupica isn't even arguing this on the issues. He is basically saying MLB should ignore the drug testing guidelines they themselves laid out in order to uphold Braun's positive drug test. The rules weren't followed and the process was corrupted because the guidelines set out for testing were broken when the chain of custody was broken. The positive test and 50 game suspension can not be upheld in this case.

Do I believe Braun used some sort of PED? Probably, but I don't have any proof other than the positive drug test and a commenter on this blog who claimed Braun was using steroids in college at Miami. So I won't judge him as a steroid user until he tests positive and his appeal fails or some other evidence of his PED use comes to light.

(I apologize, but for the life of me I can not find the comment that said this. I've searched and just can't find it.)

Still, the chain of custody can't be broken. There is a reason there are rules. Mike Lupica is like a child stomping his feet that he can't get his way. So instead of continuing to stomp his feet, he starts making up conspiracy theories. It's pretty irresponsible and ridiculous for Lupica to make these allegations, but what's the point of having your own column if you can't make serious accusations with no factual backing?

And by the way? Nobody was looking to get Ryan Braun here from the start, get him good or pin a drug rap on him, or take down one of the sport’s golden boys.

So it was a conspiracy by Major League Baseball to undermine their own drug testing policy in order to prevent a MVP being tainted as a PED user? I'm not sure this logically makes sense for MLB to undermine their very own system.

Braun does play for the Milwaukee Brewers, a team once owned by the current commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig, a commissioner who still has his office in Milwaukee and a statue outside Miller Park.

So Bud Selig had the arbitrator rule in favor of overturning the positive drug test? Is that what Mike Lupica is "sort of but not really because that would be a serious accusation which Mike Lupica has no proof of so he can't just come right out say it but he is definitely insinuating" saying? That's a pretty serious accusation.

I've always enjoyed the picture Bud Selig's critics paint of him. They paint him as a bumbling idiot who screws up everything, except for the times he is a mastermind behind baseball's conspiracies who ingeniously works behind the scenes on cover ups to make sure his dastardly plans succeed. It is as if some of Selig's critics portray him as someone who alternates between complete ineffectiveness at being commissioner and total control over all baseball-related issues, depending on the situation and when it is convenient for what they want to prove.

So that's all Mike Lupica says about Bud Selig. I like how Lupica leaves the theory out there to give the reader pause, but falls short of saying anything else since he has absolutely no evidence to back up his theory. Any good tabloid writer knows how to do this. Do just enough to where you can get your half-baked theory heard, but not enough to get hit with a lawsuit for libel.

He got tested in October, and the sample was sealed along with two others and the lab got it early the next week. He reportedly rang the bell, big-time. Now Braun says he was clean all along and will always be able to say that, whether baseball believes Ryan Braun was dirty or not.

Lupica can re-phrase his sentences that all say the same thing as many times as he would like, but my answer is still the same. The chain of custody was broken and baseball's drug testing policy worked. It may not have given us the result Mike Lupica wanted, but the drug testing policy isn't implemented to give us the result we necessarily want, it is to have a system where a player can appeal and have an honest shot at his case being heard fairly. This happened.

A three-man panel heard Braun’s appeal. Rob Manfred, baseball’s executive vice president was on that panel, so was Michael Weiner, head of the Major League Baseball Players Association. The third man was arbitrator Shyam Das, the tiebreaker who saved Braun the way Braun saves the Brewers with big hits in the late innings.

This last sentence was terrible and forced. I'm pretty sure a third grader can write a paper with a better sentence than "...saved Braun the way Braun saves the Brewers with big hits in the late innings." What makes the sentence even worse is Lupica is saying Das "saved" Braun, as if the appeal had already been decided before it even began. As if Braun somehow had Das on his side in this appeal. This speaks to the integrity of Das as an arbitrator...which we know Mike Lupica would never question since he just questioned the commissioner of baseball's integrity.

Want to know who Shyam Das is? It appears he is pretty decorated. What does this all mean to Mike Lupica? It means Das was in on the conspiracy as well. Just wait for it here in a minute. Again, Lupica doesn't say it, because those damn libel lawsuits are a pain in the ass.

And now here is the money quote from Manfred:

“While we have always respected the process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das.”

Well of course MLB doesn't agree with the decision. The disagreement of MLB over Braun's positive drug test being overturned isn't shocking. Any time a case is heard by an arbitrator or in a court of law, those who "win" agree with the decision and those that "lose" disagree with the decision. MLB isn't going to come out with a statement saying,

"We respect the process and it appears the chain of custody was broken. You can no longer trust positive drug tests from players because the collectors tend to be pretty incompetent when it comes to keeping chain of custody intact. Major League Baseball vehemently agrees with the decision and frankly are embarrassed we took up Mr. Braun's time like we did. The positive news out of this turn of events is the conspiracy begun and put in motion by the Commissioner of MLB, Bud Selig, turned out to work perfectly. Bud Selig managed to undermine the very drug testing policy he helped to implement and worked tirelessly to have the player's union accept."

What Manfred is saying about one of the young stars of his game, the current MVP of the National League, is that Braun did exactly what the results of his drug test said he did, and that means he used a synthetic testosterone and got careless and got caught, the way a lot of other guys did before him.

Of course this is MLB's position. Why would their position be any different? The chain of custody outlined in the drug policy agreement was broken. That's a game-ending scenario and why Braun's positive drug test was overturned.

Maybe he can continue all the way to Cooperstown and say for the rest of a long and glorious career in Milwaukee that he was always clean, and that somehow the whole thing was a huge mistake.

Which Braun will probably do...assuming he doesn't test positive again and this drug test isn't overturned upon appeal.

Maybe it was.

Maybe. What we do now is the arbitration panel is serious about holding MLB to the drug policy the way it is laid out.

But you know what, however you weigh in on this? Floyd Landis probably wishes he could have found a legal loophole like this through which to ride his bike.

I don't know what Floyd Landis has to do with this. Also, this wasn't a legal loophole. The chain of custody was a part of the drug testing agreement between MLB and the player's union. The chain of custody is a part of the process. Missing a part of the process for drug testing is not a legal loophole.

Or found himself an arbitrator like Das.

I don't think I am reading too much into this, but it seems Lupica is hinting, yet again, that Das somehow was on Braun's side in this case. Sort of saying Das was on Braun's side from the get-go is a really wimpy thing to do. If Lupica has something he wants to say, then he should just fucking say it. If what he wants to say doesn't have any evidence, then he should shut the hell up about it. Either way, to suggest Bud Selig or one of the arbitrators was on Braun's side from the beginning is irresponsible. Of course, that's Mike Lupica for you.

Columnist Believes Bud Selig Should Randomly Nix Trades

2012-02-27T14:15:00.000-05:00

Fans, teams and players don't generally like it when a trade is nixed by the commissioner (see: nixed Chris Paul trade). Commissioner interference in two teams conducting business screams of league interference in an issue that many fans believe should stay between the teams involved in the trade. There are special circumstances when this rule doesn't apply. Richard Griffin thinks the AJ Burnett trade is an example of this. You all may have experienced your own outrage at the Yankees-Pirates trade that involved AJ Burnett. The Interwebs were abuzz with the anger from all around the league at this trade happening, with many columnists immediately suggesting Bud Selig step in and nix the trade. Various columnists like Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star and Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star said Selig needed to step in. Another columnist, Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star, said it was in the best interest of baseball to nix this trade. Needless to say, this was a controversial trade that shook up the very foundation of baseball and caused outrage.

Fine, I was lying. Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star is the only person who had an issue with this trade. Let's read why.

Back on June 15, 1976, as the first wave of MLB serfs-in-spikes was about to hit the open market under the original rules of free agency, a commissioner’s decision cited as “in the best interests of baseball” was made by then-commissioner Bowie Kuhn.

I love a good history lesson.

Dear Bud Selig,

"One time thirty-six years ago this one thing happened and so it should happen again because it happened one time before."

Sincerely,
Richard Griffin

Those 36 years ago, cantankerous, contrarian A’s owner, Charles O. Finley had reacted pre-emptively to free agency with a fire-sale of all-stars, shipping soon-to-be-free outfielder Joe Rudi and closer Rollie Fingers to the Red Sox and lefty Vida Blue to the Yankees for cash totalling under $2 million (U.S).

So naturally, shipping off an expensive pitcher who no longer has a spot in the New York Yankees' rotation in 2012 is the same thing as a team in 1976 holding a fire sale to get rid of many of their All-Star players. Naturally. It's the same thing really.

Selig should have taken the same critical look at the Yankees deal with the Pirates,

One team needed some payroll relief and the other team needed a starting pitcher with the occasional ability to be a #2 starter. The trade is the Yankees admitting they made a mistake in signing Burnett, but there is no interest in baseball that is being hurt here. In fact, the Yankees are paying a guy $20 million who isn't even on the roster, so they really aren't winners. The Pirates have AJ Burnett pitching for them, so they really aren't winners either...and yet both teams are happy.

a trade of pinstriped convenience that sent the underachieving Burnett and a huge chunk of cash to Pittsburgh for two prospects with ceilings lower than Snow White’s eight-bedroom cottage.

Every trade is a trade of convenience. What isn't convenient is the commissioner of a sport stepping in and nixing a trade both teams have agreed upon.

Also, was that a Snow White reference? Really? Is that how they roll in Canada, making Snow White references?

The Yankees, after obtaining right-hander Michael Pineda from the Mariners, no longer needed A.J. But they do need some available cash to sign a left-handed hitting DH, like Johnny Damon or Raul Ibanez, and a utility player like Eric Chavez.

Which is exactly why they traded Burnett. First, Griffin is complaining the Yankees have too much money and now he is criticizing them for lowering their payroll. We will find out very soon that Griffin pretty much just hates anything the Yankees do.

The Yanks under the ownership of the Steinbrenner Lite brothers are trying to bring payroll down to about $189 million by the end of 2014.

Steinbrenner Lite. I am not sure I like that. The indication is the younger Steinbrenners aren't good owners of the Yankees like their father was. I thought everyone remembered George Steinbrenner wasn't always the best owner in sports. This is true, right? I feel like the Brothers Steinbrenner may actually be more emotionally stable in terms of how they run the Yankees franchise. I haven't heard of them firing and hiring the same manager a few times, hiring a private investigator to get dirt on a player or anything of the sort.

Nothing against George Steinbrenner, but his sons do seem to be more stable...at least at this point. Granted, George Steinbrenner is dead, which has greatly helped his reputation, but in calling the Brothers Steinbrenner "Steinbrenner Lite" it seems Richard Griffin is willfully forgetting Daddy Steinbrenner's actions as owner during the 1980's and early 1990's. He wasn't exactly a model owner.

But with Burnett, the Bombers needed a dance partner that has far less at stake, far more modest goals.

Not at all. The Yankees needed a trade partner willing to pay part of Burnett's salary and wanted to trade for him. There isn't some grand scheme where the Yankees sign the best players from other teams to large contracts and then a few years later sell them back to those teams for a small price. I know it seems like there is a grand scheme like this, but there isn't. Also, this would be a horrible scheme from the perspective of the Yankees to sign a player to a huge contract with the plans to trade the player three years into the contract, while still having to pay the majority of the contract.

What is interesting is the Yankees actually had a trade set up with the Angels. The same Anaheim (or whatever they are called) Angels that just signed CJ Wilson and Albert Pujols to a huge contract. AJ Burnett nixed this trade. Are the Angels a team with far less at stake or modest goals? No, they are not. So Richard Griffin wants us to forget about this trade so we believe he has a point.

Round up the usual suspects.

????? (cue the drama button)

What does this mean? Have there been multiple instances over the last two or three years where the Yankees have traded a player to a small market team for payroll relief? I'm thinking of this instance and then...and then...maybe Javier Vazquez being traded to the Braves a few years ago, but I'm still not sure that counts. It isn't like big market teams are consistently selling off underachieving players to small market teams. Even if they are, how is this taking advantage of these teams?

The Yankees get two mediocre minor-leaguers and pay $20 million of the final two seasons on their own bad contract for Burnett to pitch in Pittsburgh, while the Pirates pay just $13 million.

Both sides are happy with this deal. So far, there has been a lot of summation and very little explaining why Bud Selig should nix this deal...other than for the reason Richard Griffin just doesn't seem to like AJ Burnett, a cohesive argument or the New York Yankees.
The prospects in return are right-hander Diego Moreno and outfielder Exicardo Cayones.

Is that a baseball deal?

No, it is a deal to clear cap space and get a minor league outfielder and pitcher back in return. The Pirates became a better team and the Yankees cleared out room in their rotation. It is a win-win trade that doesn't threaten the competitive balance of baseball in any fashion.

It’s great for the Pirates because they are not a real contender and now have a short-term starting ace who won’t get attached and be looking for something awkward — like, say, an extension. It’s great for the Yankees because now they can add in other areas and win it all again.

No risk for the Yankees and plenty of reward.

There is still a risk for the Yankees. They are swallowing $20 million for a pitcher who they don't currently need, but could be needed if the Yankees pitching staff suffers from injuries or ineffectiveness. The risk is they are paying for a player who isn't pitching for them and got very little in return. The reward is they won't have to pay $13 million of Burnett's salary and probably didn't need his services this year.

Something doesn’t make sense.

Bucs GM Neal Huntington obviously feels that with Burnett at the top of the rotation, pitching for his next contract, no Big Apple pressure, no longer in the uber-tough AL East and for an average of $6.5 million per season the next two years, the trade is worth it.

So Richard Griffin thinks the Yankees got a great reward with no risk and the Pirates think Burnett can be a top starter...so what doesn't make sense about this trade, again?

The irony, and the reason Selig should have stepped in, is that Burnett’s not worth the same to a contender.

I am not sure this is really ironic. So because Burnett isn't worth $6.5 million per season to a contender then the trade should be vetoed? Where was all the outrage from Richard Griffin earlier this year when Atlanta traded Derek Lowe for a minor league pitcher and only had to pay $5 million of Lowe's $10 million salary? Why wasn't there outrage from Griffin then? Probably because it didn't involve the Yankees. Simply because it was a middle market team trading a highly paid player to a lower market team, it doesn't merit outrage because the Yankees aren't involved.

Face it ... the Yankees are dealing from the strength that comes with wealth. They have always acted in the best interest of the Yankees.

Who else should they act in the best interest of?

Who can blame them, but when you are the team with the largest payroll in baseball, handing out the largest contracts, your decisions have spinoff effects that are not always in the best interest of the other 29 teams.

Again, this isn't the Yankees problem. I know it seems hard to ignore the economic disparity between MLB teams when discussing topics like this, but the Yankees shouldn't have to think about the effect a free agent signing has on the rest of the teams. Individual teams should not necessarily have to do what is in the best interest of the other 29 teams.

Such was the case with the bloated Burnett contract after he opted out from the Jays following 2008. With A.J. coming off an 18-win, 231 strikeout season, the Yanks outbid all comers.

I would say in 80% of free agency cases, the team that eventually signed the player outbid all comers. So this really isn't saying much. Burnett did have other bidders though, so it isn't like the Yankees overpaid for Burnett based on the market.

They offered an outrageous five years and $88.5 million for a guy who was barely .500

It's not outrageous if that is what Burnett is worth on the open market. Also, it was a 5 year $82.5 million contract. But what good are facts when you are trying to prove a point? Facts are secondary.

Burnett was 87-76 in his career until the point he signed with the Yankees. That's a 0.533 winning percentage and I don't know if I would qualify that as "barely" .500, especially over 163 games. I do get Griffin's point that this team seems like a lot of money for Burnett.

Of course, the Toronto Blue Jays signed Burnett to a 5 year $55 million contract when he was 49-50 for his career in 2005. I'm not so good at math, but that's $11 million per year for a pitcher who was below .500 for his career at that point. So it is a bit hypocritical to criticize the Yankees for giving $5.5 million per year more in 2008 for Burnett when Griffin's local team signed Burnett to a large contract in 2005 when Burnett had a losing record for his career at that point.

and has always required the presence of better pitchers on his own staff to be most effective.

This makes absolutely no sense. A pitcher's performance is not dependent on how other pitchers on the staff perform. Burnett can pitch well or terribly independent of how other pitchers on the staff pitch. This is a really stupid comment.

The commissioner’s office should consider how that bad Burnett contract impacted other similar free agents in the winter of 2008-09 and the next off-season and how it had a negative trickle down effect that hurt small market teams like Pittsburgh.

So Bud Selig should nix this trade because the original signing of Burnett by the Yankees three years ago hurt small market teams? Does Richard Griffin realize how illogical it is to nix a trade between two teams because one of the players involved in the trade was a bad free agent signing three years ago?

Now, the Yankees are cavalierly buying their way out of trouble, refinancing happiness, manipulating the long-suffering Pirates’ fans and the baseball system that permits big mistakes to become smaller mistakes,

No one forced the Pirates to trade for Burnett. If they didn't want him, they would not have traded for him.

maxing out on the money-back they can save on the final two years of a bad-for-baseball deal, while accepting two less-than-mediocre prospects they don’t want and don’t need just so Selig would approve it as a baseball-first deal.

The one thing we all learned from the nixed Chris Paul-to-the-Lakers trade is that a commissioner doesn't need to get in the middle of two teams making a trade. Who cares if the Yankees are dumping Burnett for two crappy prospects? The Pirates are getting a fairly good deal on Burnett and if he plays well enough perhaps they can trade him for better prospects at the trade deadline this year or next. I bet Richard Griffin never thought about that possibly occurring. So I fail to see how this trade was not in the best interests of baseball.
The Bucs weren’t the only suitors for Burnett this winter.

Knowing this only further serves to submarine Griffin's point. If it was such a terrible trade and the Yankees were taking advantage of a small market team, then why were multiple teams interested in Burnett?

The World Series contending Angels also inquired, but Burnett nixed those talks, preferring to go to the least successful franchise in baseball for the last 20 years.

I am supposed to believe this was a terrible trade where the Yankees were taking advantage of a small market team, yet a large market team was also in talks to trade for Burnett? How am I supposed to believe the Yankees are ripping off small market teams and the trade should be nixed because of this, while also knowing large market teams were interested in Burnett? Isn't this proof the Yankees weren't merely picking on small market teams? The proof being the Yankees were completely willing to trade Burnett to the Angels?

He’s now a big fish in baseball’s smallest pond.

For those like Richard Griffin who seem to believe Burnett only went to Pittsburgh to take pressure off himself, Burnett has a history of choosing to play close to where his wife lives. From this article:

"All I will say is that we made a very competitive offer," said Braves general manager Frank Wren, while only confirming that Burnett wouldn't be coming to Atlanta. "I would say geography was a primary factor."

One thing the Braves couldn't offer was a geographical overhaul that might have made Atlanta more appealing to Burnett's wife, Karen, who chooses not to fly. "We knew we couldn't move Maryland closer to Atlanta," Wren said. "We were swimming upstream all along."

Burnett has been pretty consistent about wanting to play close to Maryland. So it isn't as if Burnett didn't want pressure on him or wanted to be a big fish in a little pond. Nor does the trade have anything to do with the Yankees picking on the Pirates.

The Jays thought they created something special when they paired Burnett and Roy Halladay at the top of the rotation in 2006. They got less than expected.

Therein lies Richard Griffin's bitterness and astounding insistence Bud Selig veto a trade in 2012 because of a bad free agent signing in 2008.

At least the Yankees won a World Series in A.J.’s first season, but the fact is for three years of electric stuff and erratic command, they will have paid $75.5 million

Actually, they will have paid $69.5 million. I'm not sure how this trade is a huge positive for the Yankees. Nor do I see how a large free agent contract given to Burnett and his eventual trade to the Pirates isn't in the best interests of baseball.

Howard Bryant Hates the Franchise Tag

2012-02-24T16:22:00.000-05:00

Howard Bryant doesn't like the franchise tag the NFL allows team to use in order to keep restricted or unrestricted players under contract for one more year. He thinks NFL free agency should be adjusted to not allow teams to franchise players and NFL players deserve full free agency if they don't want to play for a certain team. Specifically, Bryant thinks DeSean Jackson deserves the right to leave the Eagles if he doesn't want to play for them. Jackson is being "forced" to get the franchise tag at $10 million this year...assuming the Eagles choose to franchise Jackson. Bryant thinks this gives teams too much power and he commits several violations of wrongness on the way to making his point.

He was the public scapegoat for a dream season gone horribly bad, so the smart money might've been on the Philadelphia Eagles letting DeSean Jackson go. They could've just let him become a free agent, let him start a new life as a football player.

It sounds mean, and this comment may only serve to prove the point Howard Bryant believes he has, but why would the Eagles let Jackson become a free agent when they could franchise him or try to trade him? The Eagles know what Jackson is capable of, so why would they let him go in free agency and not try everything they can to keep him?

The organization gave big-money contracts to Michael Vick, Jason Babin, Cullen Jenkins, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Vince Young and Nnamdi Asomugha, but they ignored Jackson -- ostensibly because the club had reservations about his character and behavior. Jackson responded by holding out of training camp.

Reservations proven.

Then he missed meetings and supposedly wasn't giving maximum effort, supposedly was one of the reasons the Eagles didn't live up to their preseason marquee billing.

I would say if the Eagles best receiver is missing meetings and not giving maximum effort he probably is a part of the reason the Eagles underachieved during the year. That and the fact the Eagles probably could have used better linebackers.

But this being the NFL, the Eagles get to have it both ways.

This is very short-sighted analysis when making this comment. Didn't DeSean Jackson want it both ways also? He wanted a multiyear contract, but didn't want to prove to the Eagles he was worth a multiyear contract.

They don't have to think enough of Jackson to commit to him with a multiyear contract, while at the same time they think too much of him to allow him to leave town.

Just like Jackson wants a multiyear contract, but he doesn't want to show the Eagles he is worth investing a mulityear contract in his skill set. There is a reason fans joke about a player having a "contract year." This is because a player gets all of his shit together and tries extra hard for one year to prove he deserves a contract extension. If a player can't even get his shit together and try hard for one more year to earn a contract extension, shouldn't this give the team pause about guaranteeing him $20-$30 million in a contract extension?

Jackson will receive big money, probably about $10 million for the 2012 season. As a franchise player, he'll be one of the highest-paid receivers in football.

What a horrible state for DeSean Jackson to be in. He essentially gets to play his contract year all over again and possibly increase his value on the open market next year. Jackson gets a do-over while making $10 million for playing football. Yeah, he wants a multiyear extension, but he will only be 26 years old when he hits the free agent market. That's not old and maybe by then he will have answered some of the questions about his maturity.

But the lack of an opportunity for him to be an unrestricted free agent is exactly what the players should have been fighting against during last year's lockout. Unrestricted free agency should have been the line in the sand for them then, and they should still be after it like the holy grail now.

I wonder if Howard Bryant was saying this during the lockout or he just conveniently forgot about this line in the sand he believes the player's union should have drawn in the sand? Let's look at Bryant's archive. I can't seem to find any article he wrote while discussing this line in the sand the union should have drawn. For an issue Bryant considers to be so important now, he certainly didn't mention it very much (or at all) during the lockout.

Outside of the military, it is difficult to think of an industry other than professional football in which an individual is not afforded the right, after some reasonable amount of time, to change jobs within his or her given field.

It is also difficult to think of another profession where a person can work for one year and earn as much as the top five other professional individuals in the same position. Most jobs don't offer large raises like this for one year's work.

Being able to choose a place to live and work is a simple American concept -- this isn't Cuba ... except in the NFL.

Employees in "the real world" can also be subject to working with a restrictive covenant such as a non-compete agreement to where they can't work in their field of choice for a given amount of time. Also, Americans can't simply choose where they want to live and work, they are subject to budgetary restrictions. This simple American concept isn't like the NFL where a player like Jackson can almost choose with which team he would like to sign. So the simple American concept of choosing a place to live and work doesn't necessarily apply to all Americans due to budgetary restrictions. Maybe I'm being argumentative, but what Jackson lacks in choosing where he works, he makes up for with fewer budgetary restrictions.

The lack of freedom and power on the part of the players is, of course, the fault of the players themselves and their leaders who came before them.

Of course, that's why Howard Bryant is framing this as an NFL problem where the owners are too greedy to give this to the players. Naturally, because the players can't/won't negotiate complete unrestricted free agency the owners are the bad guys for just not handing it to the players.

The players have been too short-sighted to envision a world of unrestricted free agency, or have been too afraid to take on the owners, or have been too selfish to see the world in a larger context.

But again, the owners are bad for not ruining any future bargaining position by simply handing complete unrestricted free agent to the players.

Baseball owners responded with anger, frustration and collusion, of course, but they've never rolled back free agency. And look at baseball now: a different World Series winner every year, $200 million players and nearly $100 million in average payrolls -- and guaranteed contracts.

As a fan, I am pretty torn about this. Baseball does have guaranteed contracts, which can prevent small market teams from taking on the burden of signing top tier free agents because that player could take up a good portion of the payroll for the next 5-6 years. Some baseball teams spend a lot of money on players and other teams don't spend much money on players. The infield for some baseball teams make more than another team's entire roster. Some teams have no chance of re-signing their best players who aren't willing to either take a hometown discount or sign an extension early in their career to take away their arbitration years. Baseball's economic structure probably isn't terrible, but it isn't the greatest success either.

The NFL also has a different Super Bowl winner every year and teams can turn around their entire fortunes in one year. So it isn't like the NFL doesn't have close to the parity baseball has with non-guaranteed contracts. There is also a salary cap in football so teams won't have a $200 million payroll regardless of how free agency is given to players. The existence of a salary cap is another difference from baseball that works for the NFL. I don't know if the NFL needs to be more like MLB in payroll structure.

In major league baseball, free agency boosts the game and the individual players.

In the NFL, free agency boosts the game and the individual players. The NFL has had free agency boost competition around the league and individual players who have deserved large contracts have gotten the large contracts. I don't see the franchise tag as being this all-encompassing evil that Howard Bryant does.

It just doesn't make sense for a team to spend a good portion of their salary cap room on a player who doesn't want to be there for 2-3 seasons. It isn't as if keeping Jackson on the roster for one more year at $10 million is probably going to happen every year going forward. So Jackson should have a great year, up his free agency value and enjoy being paid $10 million to do it. Then after this upcoming season Jackson will either be a free agent or get paid by the Eagles.

Basketball players, too, fought for free agency; and while they had to wade through restrictive free agency in the form of matching offer sheets, they eventually won their freedoms.

And we all know what a rousing success NBA free agency has been with the combination of guaranteed contracts and idiot owners handing out these contracts.

But football players, who are the engine driving the train of the most lucrative, popular sport in America, still can't choose where they play.

Yes, they can. Players can usually choose where they play unless they are tagged with the franchise tag, which would mean they will make as much as the top players at their position for that one year. The very next year these players often become unrestricted free agents if they don't sign with their current team during the season.

The predictable response in support of the NFL's rules is to frame an argument around money, and the conventional wisdom that the fans just want players to shut up and play.

No. The conventional wisdom says NFL players many times are able to reach free agency and choose where they want to go. The exception are the players who are given the franchise tag. Generally players who are franchised tagged either (a) don't mind the tag or (b) are tagged until a long-term deal can be reached. There is maybe one player every year who gets tagged, doesn't want to be tagged, and doesn't want to play for that team anymore. This isn't a huge issue.

This is a thin and specious contention at best, and plain stupid at worst. Money cannot patch everything.

Boy, you really bitch-slapped down the fake argument you just created and stated the opposing side of this issue believed. Also notice how Howard Bryant's entire argument revolves around money...yet he says the opposing side is over-fixated with the money issue.

That the NFL is willing to compensate a player at such a high rate is indicative of how much the league fears the power of the player to have unrestricted free agency, and how much it understands the true value of real free agency --

Howard Bryant is complaining the franchise tag is unfair to players, but he is also arguing the large amount of money players who have been franchised make is also a negative. It's just financial proof of how much the owners know they are screwing players over for a benefit they haven't fought to receive. You have to work hard to paint $10 million for one year as a bad deal for a player. The NFL does understand how valuable free agency can be to a team, so they compensate the player for receiving the franchise tag, but I don't see this as further proof of the owner's greed.

The league is happy to let Jackson be paid an enormous amount for one season because it knows his franchise-tag salary will be just a fraction of what he could command on the open market.

Maybe in terms of a long-term contract, which Jackson will probably receive next year one way or another, the guaranteed money is larger. In terms of getting paid for 2012 I am not sure Jackson could make $10 million in 2012 on the open market. Howard Bryant himself said Jackson seems to have personality problems and is coming off a bad year (for him). It actually makes sense for Jackson personally to get franchised and have an incredible year to raise his stock in the eyes of other teams for next season. Making $10 million for a year's worth of work and getting to possibly increase your value on the free agent market isn't a bad deal.

The Patriots' Brady, who has been a starter for 11 years and has played in the Super Bowl five times, has never been an unrestricted free agent. Neither has Peyton Manning nor Drew Brees.

Drew Brees is a free agent right now. Like in a few weeks he will be a free agent. He was also an unrestricted free agent in 2006. So that's twice Brees has been a free agent. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady haven't ever been free agents because they (a) haven't wanted to be free agents at this point and (b) were given huge contracts by their current team.

Using an example of two quarterbacks who didn't want to leave their current teams and a player who has been a free agent once, and perhaps twice, isn't very persuasive.

Brees' contract has expired. Chicago running back Matt Forte's contract is up, too. But the Saints and the Bears can use the franchise tag to keep those players from the open market.

Here is the big question for Howard Bryant...do either of these players want to leave their teams to become free agents or do they just want to be paid? I will submit Brees doesn't want to leave New Orleans and Forte just wants to get paid. I will grant the franchise tag is holding Forte back, but earning $8 million this season probably isn't the worst worst-case scenario for an athlete when it comes to wanting a new contract. Yes, Forte wants a long-term deal, but $8 million isn't a bad consolation prize and he will be 27 years old after the 2012 season is over. Supposedly the Bears are working on a long-term deal with Forte, so it makes sense to franchise tag him, especially if Forte wants to still play in Chicago.

In effect, teams rarely lose control over their best players.

Because they usually end up giving them large contracts.

Manning is owed $28 million by the Colts, who can opt not to pay it and allow him to become an unrestricted free agent; but the critical element is that the option belongs to the club.

This was part of the contract Manning and his agent negotiated. How the hell can Howard Bryant use a negotiated part of a contract as proof the franchise tag is evil? This has nothing to do with the franchise tag, but is a club option the Colts and Manning negotiated into his contract extension last year. This is Bryant trying to mislead readers by bringing up bilateral agreements as if they were unilateral agreements used by the NFL team to keep the player down.

Manning cannot choose to reject it and test the market. If he becomes a free agent, it will be the Colts' decision. Not his.

As negotiated by Peyton Manning. Also, Manning will either be an unrestricted free agent or make $28 million. There isn't a bad part in this deal.

The players have no one but themselves to blame.

But it is more fun to blame the owners.

During the lockout, the league was shrewd enough to structure its public commentary around money (there was a $9 billion pie that needed to be divided), when two real issues -- eliminating the franchise tag and curbing commissioner Roger Goodell's power -- were nearly as important.

Funny how Howard Bryant didn't mention these two important issues in print at the time of the lockout.

The only players who become unrestricted free agents are the ones whose teams no longer want them. (See: Moss, Randy; or Owens, Terrell. And perhaps quite soon, a damaged Peyton Manning.)

That is pure bullshit. Here is a list of 2012 NFL free agents. Granted, some of them will be hit with the franchise tag, but there is still talent in this list.

Last offseason the following players were free agents and were not franchised:

Matt Hasselbeck
DeAngelo Williams
Darren Sproles
Vonta Leach
James Jones
Sidney Rice
Santonio Holmes
Kevin Boss
Brian Waters
Ray Edwards
Charles Johnson
Nnamdi Asomugha
Jonathan Joseph
David Akers
Quintin Mikell

In 2010, Julius Peppers, Karlos Dansby, and Dunta Robinson all hit free agency AFTER they had previously gotten the franchise tag and still received long-term deals. It is true most teams keep their best players by either re-signing them or giving them the franchise tag and then re-signing them. Most of these situations aren't applicable to DeSean Jackson's situation in that these players don't mind being franchised and usually those that want to leave their current team are able to do so.

the owners must be aware of just how morally illegitimate it is to run a league that does not allow players the freedom to change teams.

Players are allowed the freedom to change teams. Some players get the franchise tag until a long-term deal can be worked out. Here is a list of players who have been franchised since 2008.

If you notice, nearly all of these players have two things in common.

1. They are currently still with the team they were franchised by.

2. They did reach free agency the year after they were tagged and weren't tagged two years in a row.

Karlos Dansby is an exception. He got franchised two years in a row, then signed a large contract with the Dolphins.

Terrell Suggs is another exception. He got franchised twice and then signed a long-term deal with the Ravens...the same team that franchised him twice.

Jeff Reed is the last exception. He was franchised two years in a row and then released because he wasn't playing well...and in general seems like kind of a douchebag.

So the franchise tag is used as a way to keep a player around, but I don't believe it is used often as a way to restrict a player from leaving his current team over the long-term or as a way to prevent a player from ever hitting free agency to receive a long-term deal.

But no convincing argument can be made that pro football will collapse if, say, Aaron Rodgers is given the option to test the open market after five years with his current club.

No convincing argument can be made the NFL will collapse if DeSean Jackson gets franchised this year. His situation isn't representative of most players who get franchised. If Howard Bryant wants to use a good example of a team refusing to pay a player and possibly franchising him to decrease his value, it is the Bears with Matt Forte. Running backs have a limited shelf life and Forte is 26 years old. It is probably in his best interests to be a free agent. I'm not sure it is in DeSean Jackson's best interest to be a free agent if he can get paid $10 million and possibly increase his free agent value after a great 2012 season.

The Jackson case should be the latest example for the players of how football is an unpalatable business for them. They run the risk of career-threatening, even life-threatening, injury. Yet they have little financial certainty and a minimal amount of freedom.

I'm sorry, I'm not buying a guy who is going to be paid $10 million this year has little financial certainty. Howard Bryant just said the opposition (me) frames their argument around money, which is ironic since Bryant is framing his entire argument around money.

They are subject to a disciplinary system in which their appeals are heard by the same person -- Goodell -- who levies the original penalties. And after their careers are over, far too many of them die early, evidenced again this week by the death of former star wideout Freddie Solomon, who was only 59 years old.

So more guaranteed money and becoming a free agent will make all of this worth it? So much for the opposition being the only ones to frame their argument in terms of money. Money seems to be Howard Bryant's only argument.

But compared to the other three major sports leagues in this country, professional football certainly isn't that great to play.

It's a shame we are forcing these NFL athletes to play football at gunpoint. It seems like many NFL athletes aren't worried about the safety issues in their sport nor are they overly concerned about completely unrestricted free agency. If the franchise tag was such a huge issue, why didn't the player's union fight to get rid of it during the lockout?

What Josh Hamilton Can Learn from Whitney Houston, or Why Forbes Should Not Cover Sports

2012-02-23T15:40:00.000-05:00

Forbes Magazine has a sports section. This comes as a shock to me since I didn't know this before today. While searching for really good (okay fine, I was looking for bad journalism) journalism about Josh Hamilton's relapse I found the least insightful article on the topic. It is about Josh Hamilton's relapse and what he can learn from Whitney Houston. This is one of the most tenuous ties between a pop culture event and sports that I can think of over the past few years.

Weren't there baseball players who struggled with drugs that Josh Hamilton could learn from...like maybe Oil Can Boyd or any number of baseball players who had drugs affect their career in a negative way? Whitney Houston though? I feel like the author, Patrick Rishe, was just waiting for a tie-in to another celebrity who used drugs so he can write a column about Josh Hamilton. He should have waited longer or just not tried to tie another celebrity's drug issues in with Josh Hamilton's own drug issues.

For any of us who are children of the 80s, it was sobering and saddening to learn of Whitney Houston’s passing on Saturday afternoon.

And then when Patrick Rishe heard of Whitney Houston's passing he realized this is the perfect time to make a tenuously-related connection between Whitney Houston's drug issues and Josh Hamilton's drug and alcohol issues. After all, all druggies and their situations are the exact same, so it should be easy to compare one to another.

The economics of substance abuse is pretty cut and dry.

Economically, hard drugs are expensive.

Most of us don’t allow ourselves to become addicts because – either consciously or subconsciously – we know that the costs associated with substance abuse (e.g. monetary, physical health, emotional health, external trauma exerted upon loved ones) far exceed the benefits.

I'm arguing semantics here, but I wouldn't say addicts "allow" themselves to become addicted. Sure, they take the steps necessary in using drugs or alcohol, but I don't think it is a conscious decision for a person to wake up and say, "I think I'm going to become an addict now." It tends to start slowly and then slowly develop into an addiction without a lot of conscious thought.

Unfortunately, those individuals that develop an addiction – no matter how irrational it may appear to the rest of us – believe the personal benefits derived from drug usage exceed these costs.

I don't think addicts think rationally about their addiction in this way. This is a very economist-like way of looking at addiction in believing addicts take the time to weigh the cost and benefits of using drugs versus the cost and benefits of choosing not to use drugs. I think part of the definition of the addiction is this ability to weigh the benefits and costs of using drugs no longer functions for a person. They don't care about the cost of using the drugs as long as they receive the benefit, no matter how much the cost may hurt them personally or professionally. That's why they call it "addiction" because rational thinking goes out the window.

Hey, maybe individuals who develop an addiction are doing a cost-benefit analysis and I am just not aware of it. This does seem like an incredibly rational way of determining whether to use drugs or not, but maybe addicts are way more rational in their decision-making than I believe. After all, I don't write for Forbes Magazine.

Of course, Ms. Houston’s demise comes just weeks after Texas Rangers All-Star outfielder Josh Hamilton fell off the wagon for the 2nd time since returning to Major League Baseball after fighting his own substance abuse issues that drove him away from the game.

And there are not enough parallels between these two events that would enable a person to write an article about the similarities of these two events. Of course I say this fully knowing the same article that says Josh Hamilton can learn from Whitney Houston also believes addicts are capable of rational thinking about their addiction. So all bets are off at this point.

Days after Mr. Hamilton’s relapse, the Rangers hired Shayne Kelley to essentially play watchdog to ensure that Mr. Hamilton will stay clean going forward.

Perhaps, Mr. Kelley, you should have Mr. Hamilton sit down and read all about the rise and fall of Ms. Houston.

Right, because Josh Hamilton's own firsthand experience with using drugs, relapsing, recovering, and relapsing again isn't quite as memorable as a timeline of Whitney Houston's career. Sure, it may seem like Hamilton would be best served feeling some pain firsthand seeing on how relapsing hurt his family and friends, but I think the most convincing way of seeing Hamilton stays on the straight and narrow is experiencing Houston's drug problems vicariously through her interviews and music videos.

Have him YouTube some of her best performances when she was at the height of her career,

I did tear up earlier today while watching "I Wanna Dance with Somebody" on YouTube.

and then look-up photos and videos of her during her troubled times.

Completely ignoring the forced comparison between Houston and Hamilton, this YouTube therapy would be better served on children or for a person who has no firsthand experience with drug addiction. Considering Hamilton almost lost his career in baseball once because of drugs, and almost like his family in that time as well, I'm not sure comparing Whitney Houston's decline through the viewing of music videos is the best way to ensure Hamilton stays clean.

In fact, it is actually pretty insulting to Hamilton to suggest he watch music videos in order to see what drugs can do to a person, especially considering he probably has a laundry list of regrets caused by drugs and alcohol consumption.

Because this will remind Mr. Hamilton that nothing is forever and that substance abuse destroys.

This forced comparison really never gets any better. Just know that there is no improvement as this article goes along.

Hamilton could also look at his own life to see nothing is forever and substance abuse destroys. The idea Josh Hamilton needs to look at a 48 year old singer as an example for his life is just laughable to me.

It will remind Mr. Hamilton that his 2010 MVP award and back-to-back appearances in the World Series won’t save him from weak moments in the future that could – in the extreme – cause irreporable harm to himself and others.

Yes, Whitney Houston's death is the key to this knowledge because no other baseball players have ever struggled with addiction. Hamilton's role model has to be a singer...at least for the purposes of this article. Also, I'm not sure that's how you spell "irreparable."

Perhaps Ms. Houston’s tragedy can serve as the ultimate teaching point to Mr. Hamilton,

OR PERHAPS JOSH HAMILTON'S OWN LIFE CAN SERVE AS A TEACHING POINT FOR JOSH HAMILTON!

who has already likely jeopardized his chance for a long-term contract with the Rangers after his current deal expires at the end of the 2011 season.

I am sure since Hamilton is struggling with addiction right now, one of his biggest concerns is getting a long-term contract. He will only make $22.5 million for 2011 and 2012. How will he survive on such a small income? I am sure that long-term contract is forefront in Hamilton's mind right now. If Hamilton is as concerned about his long-term contract as much as he is concerned with getting sober then his priorities need to be realigned.

I applaud the Texas Rangers for making a “Bodyguard” investment in an effort to increase the likelihood that one of their prized assets has every chance to maximize his productive potential.

Oh yeah, that's a reference to a Whitney Houston movie. I bet Patrick Rishe has been waiting this entire column to make this reference. I would say he was "Waiting to Exhale" from anticipation over using this reference. Perhaps Hamilton should have a "Preacher's Wife" follow him around to make sure his "Cinderella" story still "Sparkles" after he gets his life back on the straight-and-narrow.

(See what I did? All of Whitney Houston's movies in one paragraph. I could write for Forbes!)

Because substance abuse will be the toughest foe Josh Hamilton ever faces.

As such, the Texas Rangers and Josh Hamilton himself should spare no expense to ensure his sobriety.

Including spending the time watching Whitney Houston videos on YouTube. This is crucial to Hamilton's recovery.

Perhaps in some odd way, Ms. Houston’s passing could reinforce to Mr. Hamilton the most important reason to stay clean.

I don't like to use the word "odd" here, but prefer to use the phrase "ever so tenuously tied" in regard to how Whitney Houston can teach Josh Hamilton a lesson on staying clean. I like to think Hamilton's greatest lesson can be learned from his own actions, attending meetings about addiction and talking with other baseball players (people who have actually have more in common with Hamilton than a middle-aged singer). But again, I'm not trying to write an article tying Whitney Houston and Josh Hamilton together.

Not just so he can hit home runs and lead the Rangers back to the World Series.

I don't see why Hamilton doesn't weigh the economic costs and benefit of having an addiction and then just making a rational decision to stay sober. Hamilton needs to do two things over the next week:

1. Watch a lot of Whitney Houston music videos and interviews.

2. Do a real cost-benefit analysis and convince himself the cost of being an addict outweighs the benefit of using drugs so he can make a decision to never use drugs/alcohol again. He needs to just stop allowing himself to become an addict.

So he can be around in 40 years to share stories of a great career with his grandchildren.

Whose great career does Josh Hamilton need to be around to share stories of? Whitney Houston. Josh Hamilton needs to get sober so he can pass her story along to other generations.

Ben Reiter Announces the End of the Patriot Way

2012-02-22T14:53:00.000-05:00

There is a trend I have noticed among sportswriters over the last few weeks. This trend started when the Patriots lost the Super Bowl. That trend is to announce the Patriots dynasty is over, Bill Belichick is no longer a genius, Tom Brady should retire and most likely Robert Kraft is going to sell the team to North Korea. Ok, I made that last part up, but there is a lot of panic going on among sportswriters that the Patriots may never make the playoffs again. Ben Reiter of FoxSports, better known as the guy Jason Whitlock trumps up on Twitter on a consistent basis by always saying things like,

"Ben Reiter is awesome. (The Wire reference) (Racist remark) Here is the link to his newest article, he did the damn thang (comment about how he is capable of understanding race relations better than anyone else in the world)."

jumps on the bandwagon and says "The Patriot Way" is headed down a rocky path. He thinks it's all over and the Patriots will never reach such heights again. It's almost like the team wasn't one touchdown away from winning the Super Bowl.

Bill Belichick, in the aftermath of yet another Super Bowl letdown at the hands of the New York Giants,

Because at a certain point merely making the Super Bowl is apparently no longer enough to impress Ben Reiter. He needs the Patriots to win the Super Bowl in order for him to be impressed.

I like how he writes "yet another" Super Bowl letdown as if the Patriots have lost three or four Super Bowls to the Giants under Belichick. The Patriots lost two Super Bowls to the Giants in a four year span. This isn't the start of a trend.

should contemplate the following two questions. Patriots fans should hope he takes the second one as seriously as the first.

We need to take a step back and realize this is a team that made the Super Bowl and were a touchdown away from winning the damn Super Bowl. It isn't like this is the Baltimore Ravens (not picking on the Ravens, they are just the first team that came to mind) or another team that consistently makes the playoffs, but can't seem to make it to the Super Bowl. As flawed as this Patriots team was, they certainly played very well this year. That's why I don't buy all this talk about the Patriots going downhill in the future.

Let me explain: The Patriots don't have a pass rushing defense, don't really have impact wide receivers, and the secondary is an absolute mess. They still made the Super Bowl though. I know Tom Brady will be one year older (it is weird that Peyton Manning is not only older than Brady, but coming off major neck surgery and sportswriters are acting like he can come in and immediately take his next team to the playoffs, yet I get the feeling sportswriters think Brady is declining rapidly), but he isn't old to the point he is a liability or isn't one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL. He needs receivers and a better defense. Fortunately, the Patriots already have two excellent tight ends, a great offensive line, and four of the Top 63 picks in this year's NFL Draft. The defense and receivers can be fixed. So this was a flawed Patriots team, but I can see next year's team being much better. This is scary in my mind and a testament to the idea the Patriots Way is not over.

1. What went wrong in Super Bowl XLVI that again cost him, his star quarterback and his team another notch at even more lasting greatness?

Well, the Patriots were playing without their best offensive weapon at 100% and weren't able to make the plays necessary to win the game. It actually is that simple.

2. What went wrong afterward — from the quarterback’s wife to the team’s tight end to the revelation of Belichick's strategic mistake —

The quarterback's wife is irrelevant, and the team's tight end went dancing after the game, which is fairly irrelevant as well.

that allowed an organization steeped in silence and secrecy to allow so much of its personal business to be displayed for all the world to see?

Right, because the Patriots personal business being revealed for all to see has a direct effect on how good the Patriots team will be in the future. God forbid it be acknowledged the Patriots organization has the same issues as every other NFL organization, just with more Super Bowl appearances over the last ten years.

What, exactly, happened to the Patriots Way?

It was a fictional concept perpetuated by the media in order to create a definite narrative to explain everything that happens on or off the football field.

This is not a dissertation on whether Brady’s supermodel wife was wrong or right to let her emotions unleash themselves in such a way.

This is mentioned only because it was the opening act in a series of events this week that’s seen the Patriot Way go decidedly sour.

I'm already tired of hearing about "the Patriot Way." Whatever off-the-field events happen between now and the beginning of the football season, they most likely won't determine how good the 2012 New England Patriots team will be. What Brady's wife said is irrelevant to how the Patriots go about improving their team for the 2012 season.

The Patriots Way was about silence and loyalty — about top-down management, about control, about an almost freakish need to guard information and about a CIA-like approach to the media,

And what great revelations about the Patriots do we know now? Rob Gronkowski likes to dance? We knew a few months ago he liked to hang out with porn stars and was kind of a funny guy and miraculously this didn't stop the Patriots from going to the Super Bowl.

Did we learn Tom Brady's wife is frustrated with how well the Patriots' receivers played during the game? The Patriots receivers themselves were frustrated with how well they played, just ask Wes Welker.

We learned Belichick didn't want Cruz and Nicks to beat them on the final drive? How is this revelatory information? Wouldn't any head coach whose head isn't up his ass tell his defense to not let the opposing team's best two receivers catch passes and force the passes to the lesser receivers? Are there really idiots out there who were shocked to hear Belichick implore his defense to take away the Giants best offensive weapons? I assumed this was Belichick's strategy the entire game. Logic would dictate this to be true.

Control, always, was the Belichick way. He dispatched Terry Glenn without fanfare or ceremony in 2001, going so far as to ensure Glenn did not receive a championship ring despite playing four games that season.

The fact Ben Reiter knows this little tidbit, doesn't it mean the Patriots veil of secrecy was lifted a decade ago and the Patriots still managed to win two more Super Bowls? This whole "veil of secrecy being lifted" crap stems completely from writers searching for original storylines after the Super Bowl. Belichick and the Patriots keep a lot of things close to the vest, but there probably isn't a high correlation between the Patriots veil of secrecy being lifted and their immediate probable decline.

He cut the talented but some say troublesome Albert Haynesworth.

Really? "Some say troublesome?" Who are these "some" people? Coaches/players/executives for every team Haynesworth has ever played on?

It was the family way or the highway, and guys like Randy Moss and Chad Ochocinco were allowed in only if they understood. Once anyone did not — like Moss — they were out.

Which is why the Patriots cut Haynesworth.

Not every political system lasts forever, and not everyone can be exported elsewhere. Ask Scott Pioli and the Kansas City Chiefs how the Patriots Way is playing in the Midwest.

I'm not big on excuses, but the Chiefs made the playoffs last year and had quite a few key injuries this year. I don't think Pioli in Kansas City has been a rousing success, but it also hasn't been a failure.

Family business always discussed among the family. You could almost imagine, in the early days of the Patriots dynasty, Belichick leaning quietly into one of his deputies who’d said too much and muttering, Godfather-esque: “What's the matter with you? I think your brain is going soft with all that comedy you are playing with that young girl. Never tell anyone outside the Family what you are thinking again.”

Wow, great analogy. So what does this have to do with the Patriots not winning the Super Bowl again? Would this be an issue if the Patriots had won the Super Bowl? Probably not. So why is it an issue after they lose the Super Bowl by four points?

Well, Don Belichick, the family suddenly has a problem.

But he doesn't really have a problem. I haven't always been a huge fan of how the Patriots have drafted, but the Patriots hold a lot of good picks in this year's NFL Draft. They have the 27th, 31st, 48th, 63rd, and the 94th pick. So if the Patriots draft fairly well, they could get at least two impact players out of this year's draft. Patriots fans (and media) go crazy when Belichick trades his picks, but the Patriots could use these picks to make a trade up or back in the draft and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. My point is the Patriots have options and whatever you think of the failures they have drafted, they have also found a few good players in the draft as well.

Contrary to everything you read the Patriots aren't the Raiders. They aren't a team that has dwindling talent on the roster and no draft picks to replenish the talent. The Patriots simply need to draft well in order to fill the holes on the roster. Take a look at this mock draft. There are quality players available that would fit the needs of the Patriots. That doesn't include the players available in the second round that would fit the needs of the Patriots.

This "problem" the Patriots and Don Belichick have will go away as long as the Patriots keep winning. Winning cures all.

It’s that, in the Patriots Way, we should never have known that dance, shirt or otherwise, happened. That’s family business. That tape isn’t supposed to make its way to outsiders.

Reeeeeeeeeeeaching for a storyline, I see. The Patriots are the mafia and Rob Gronkowski made family business public. Will Belichick have him killed or just ignore the situation and wait until next season when no one remembers or gives a shit about whether Gronkowski danced spastically after losing the Super Bowl? I'm on the edge of my seat to find out.

This is all disconcerting enough, but then Thursday it was revealed Belichick was caught on tape during the game saying the plan in the closing and key moments of the fourth quarter was to ensure that the Giants be forced to throw to Mario Manningham.

Belichick wasn't "caught on tape" like he was trying to keep this hidden and it came out through a tape hidden in the jacket of a person standing on the sideline. I'm willing to bet Belichick knew the microphone would pick up what he said, but didn't care. It isn't like someone was wearing a wire and caught Belichick doing/saying something illegal/unethical and it isn't like the Giants could use that comment to game plan during the Super Bowl.

This "veil of secrecy" crap that Reiter perpetuates is completely disproven when knowing Belichick allowed NFL Network to do an entire behind-the-scenes documentary on his life as an NFL head coach earlier this past NFL season. Of course, in sports journalism facts are easily forgotten when they don't support a point that is trying to be proven. That documentary revealed a lot about Belichick and how he interacts with his own and opposing players. So Belichick is very secretive, but the idea Belichick would never want one of his statements on the field made public is just absolutely false. The documentary proved that already.

“This is still a (Victor) Cruz and (Hakeem) Nicks game,” Belichick said in audio recorded for NFL Films. “I know we’re right on them. It's tight but those are still the guys. Make them go to Manningham. Make them go to (Bear) Pascoe. Let’s make sure we get Cruz and Nicks.”

How the fuck is this controversial? This is a sound strategy.

Make them go to Manningham

Right. Because Cruz and Nicks are better receivers, so you would rather they not catch a bunch of passes on the final drive.

Well, they sure did go to Manningham — for a spectacular catch that changed the tide of the game.

So would it have been better if Belichick told his secondary and coaching staff to focus on Manningham and let Cruz or Nicks beat them? If Belichick had allowed Nicks or Cruz to catch 3-4 passes on this drive he would be getting beaten up even worse than he already is. NFL teams prioritize the offensive players they want to prevent from beating them.

For example, when teams play the Vikings they want to stop Adrian Peterson. If Michael Jenkins has 9 catches for 119 yards and the opposing coach is heard saying, "Stop Peterson and force them to throw the ball to their receivers," will everyone freak out this coach is an idiot? Probably not, because there was a defensive strategy to take away the strengths of the opposing team and force them to rely on their weaknesses to win the game.

Again, Belichick is entitled to coach as he wants. And to make mistakes. And to get burned, sometimes, by those mistakes.

Apparently he isn't entitled to this or else Ben Reiter wouldn't be acting like Belichick committed the worst of all strategic mistakes.

Belichick caught on tape talking so openly about family business — especially family business that might have cost the Pats a championship — would be like listening to Don Corleone caught on tape saying, “I really like that Barzini guy. See if he can take care of Michael until this trouble is over.”

At the time, no one on the Giants sideline could hear what Belchick was saying. So his airing of the family business didn't cost the Pats a championship. The strategy Belichick was espousing turned out not to work, but there were other factors that cost the Patriots the championship. Not to mention, it isn't like Manningham was wide open. It took a great throw and a great catch for Manningham to beat the Patriots. So I'm not even sure I could say the strategy backfired.

Thing is, the problem with a system that works is that it always works — until it doesn’t.

The Patriots came within a touchdown of winning the Super Bowl. That's a system that still seems to be working.

Once they sense you're weak, they come after you. No doubt.

The suggestion a team that made the Super Bowl and lost in the last few minutes is weak happens to be an incredibly stupid and inaccurate suggestion.

Take what happened earlier this week, when an online pawnshop dropped 900 pounds of Butterfinger candy bars off at Copley Square in Boston to mock Wes Welker and the key fourth-quarter drop that surely prompted Gisele’s comments.

There were other drops in the game as well. I think can think of one ball dropped over the middle of the field on the final drive of the game specifically.

Is she to blame for the mockery — for the fact the Patriots have become ordinary enough to warrant, to some, that level of disrespect?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

It doesn't matter. NFL teams don't respond or pay attention to mockery that surrounds. No one cares about disrespect and if anything the disrespect will drive the Patriots to play better next year. I have read some of Ben Reiter's other writing and he isn't this stupid. He isn't stupid enough to believe the Patriots are now ordinary because Gisele gave an opinion, Gronkowski danced and Belichick spoke a defensive strategy. If the Patriots do become ordinary, it is because of on-the-field performance and personnel reasons. It won't be due to the Patriot Way failing due to the veil of secrecy being lifted.

What’s certain is, following a setback, the New England Patriots failed to keep it in the family. And that alone could be enough to change the Patriots Way indefinitely.

Dun-dun-dun!

Man, I can only imagine what would have been written if the Patriots didn't go 13-3 this year and almost win the Super Bowl.

MMQB Review: Pre-Combine (i.e. Luck/Griffin-only) Edition

2012-02-21T14:50:00.000-05:00

This Thursday the most important (overhyped) event leading up to the NFL Draft takes place, the Combine. We all know the Combine as the draft-related event where the media takes it seriously enough to intensely cover it, but also want us to remember it may mean nothing (the Mike Mamula-type stories get told every year of a player looking good at the Combine and shooting up the boards) in terms of whether a player will be a good NFL player. In preparation, Peter King has prepared things we didn't know Robert Griffin III and Andrew Luck. And...um, that's pretty much all he does discuss in reference to the Combine. Apparently they are the only two players worth discussing prior to the Combine.

We understand Peter writes shorter MMQB's, because as Peter warned us last week he doesn't have many interesting things to write about during the NFL offseason, so his MMQB will be shorter. Of course, many would argue he doesn't have very much interesting to write about during the season and that doesn't stop him writing a MMQB that is up to 6 pages long. Either way, to prepare us for the media hyping of Luck and Griffin Peter is going to start hyping Luck and Griffin.

Starting Thursday in Indianapolis, 326 players, 750 media members and 900 agents or so will collide at the stadium the Manning brothers made famous, Lucas Oil,

I'm not sure Eli Manning made Lucas Oil Stadium famous by winning the Super Bowl this year any more than the stadium is famous for hosting the NCAA Tournament in 2010 or for being the site of the Combine. Whatever, I will try not to nitpick, but my basic point is Eli Manning didn't make the building famous.

Every combine has a story, just as every draft has one. Often it's about the quarterback.

I'm guessing Gregg Easterbrook is going to name a Non-RB, Non-QB Combine MVP in his very next TMQ as a response to the focus at the Combine on quarterbacks and running backs.

Fourteen years ago, with a significantly smaller media crowd (maybe 10 or 12 reporters) on hand, Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf competed to be No. 1, and Leaf came in overweight and botched his interview with the first-picking Colts,

Obviously there were no signs Ryan Leaf wasn't worth investing the #2 overall pick in him. The Chargers were blindsided.

Five years ago, it was the duel (yikes!) between JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn, two guys who clearly did not like each other,

Brady Quinn thought JaMarcus Russell needed to sparkle up his outfits a little bit and drop a few pounds in order to show off his body a little more, while Russell thought Quinn needed to stop touching his ass and asking if he wanted to wear a mini-skirt, lipstick and heels around town "just to screw with everyone" and "be ironic." These two just couldn't get on the same page.

This year, there's about as much drama accompanying the top pick as 2007. Al Davis wanted the big arm of Russell then. I believe Jim Irsay wants the risk-averse Andrew Luck of Stanford to lead the Colts now.

If Irsay (is he the co-GM now? Why do I feel like he has named himself co-GM?) doesn't draft Andrew Luck then he should be shot. Luck is the right choice.

But prepare this week for an onslaught of news about Luck and the quarterback sure to be taken very soon after him (likely second if St. Louis trades the pick, or third or fourth if the Rams don't deal), Baylor's Robert Griffin III.

I like how Peter tells us to prepare for an onslaught of news about Luck and Griffin...and then writes his MMQB main feature about Luck and Griffin. I find it interesting he warns us about the onslaught of a story and then uses that story as his main feature in a column.

I spoke to their two coaches late last week, Art Briles of Baylor and David Shaw of Stanford, just to get a flavor of the two top prospects in the draft, and what impressed me was how similar the two quarterbacks are in many ways.

Peter King is always very interested in comparing two objects/people/places/events and then finding out they are EXACTLY ALIKE! Peter must have really enjoyed matching games as a child.

Both are 22 (born exactly five months apart).

Not really shocking considering they were both redshirt juniors in college. In fact, knowing they were both redshirt juniors being five months apart in birth seems like a long time. Morris Claiborne was born five days before Robert Griffin. I think that is a much more interesting fact.

Both declared for the draft with a year of college eligibility left.

Again, both were juniors in college. Knowing this, you would know they had a year of eligibility.

Both Luck and Griffin went to a college that had not only an "A" in the school name, but Baylor are the "Bears" and Stanford are the "Cardinal." Both schools have animals as their team name! Now get this, the mascot for the Cardinal is a tree and Bears fucking love trees. It's almost like Griffin and Luck went to the same college.

Both are athletic, though Griffin's more of an athlete.

In case the NFL ever installs hurdles in the middle of the field this will come in handy.

He had a Cam Newton-type career, with 2,199 rushing yards and 32 rushing touchdowns at Baylor.

Cam Newton had 1473 rushing yards and 20 rushing TD's in one season as a starter at Auburn. Griffin started nearly three full seasons at Baylor to get to the statistics he put up. Let's just stop comparing the two players.

But what's most interesting aside from the football is what both coaches stressed about their players. I asked both coaches to tell me about the life each man is about to dive into. In college, there was pressure on the shoulders of both Luck and Griffin, obviously.

I disagree with Griffin having pressure on him as compared to Luck. I'm not down on Griffin as a quarterback, but the Baylor program was bad until Griffin got there and simply getting to a winning record was good. Obviously there was some pressure, but expectations were also fairly low for the Baylor program. I don't know if Griffin had as much pressure on him as Luck may have had.

"One other thing: I remember early on at Stanford, I told him one time, 'Andrew, this is your huddle, take charge of the huddle.' He looked at me and said, 'Coach, before that can be my huddle, I have to earn it. I don't want it handed to me.' That is how he will approach the NFL -- like whatever he gets, he'll earn.

What is weird about Luck having this attitude of wanting to earn everything is that he expects to play right away in the NFL. I'm sure he expects to earn the starting job, but it is clear Luck wants to play right away, so I would also guess he probably doesn't want to compete with an established quarterback. I'm being hard on Luck, but he states in the article that "Every competitor wants to play every down, every play. So, of course, who wouldn't want to start?" I'm probably reading too much into this, but if a person doesn't expect to start from Day 1, would Andrew Luck think this person isn't a competitor?

More importantly, what is the difference in attitude when it comes to "expecting to start from Day 1" and "expecting to start from Day 1." It seems Luck doesn't want the starting quarterback job handed to him, but he also probably doesn't want a ton of equal competition for the job either. I'm probably just being hard on him.

Briles, on Griffin: "The thing about Robert is he's a football player.

Which is incredibly convenient since the team drafting Griffin probably isn't looking to draft a basketball player or figure skater with one of the first picks in the 2012 draft.

More about Griffin and Luck from Indy later in the week.

Oh, please, please, please can we have more? Please? I want the coverage saturated with stories about Griffin and Luck. Because they are such interesting stories knowing they will probably go in the Top 5 picks of the draft. I don't care about the players who can increase their draft position from the Combine nor do I want to hear any clues about what teams choosing in the first 10 picks think about other players. I want you to repeatedly tell me the same things I already know.

But the sense you get from the scouts and GMs who are studying both players is you won't find many holes in either one -- and certainly not on the personal side.

And we all know being a good quarterback in the NFL depends mostly on how nice you are personally.

I'm hearing Rice wants an Adrian Peterson-type of contract; Peterson signed a seven-year deal worth up to $100 million last September, with the major provision that he'll make $40 million in the first three years.

This is a tough situation because I'm not even sure Adrian Peterson is worth $100 million over seven years, but don't the Ravens have to eventually pay Rice since he is such a large part of their offense? But that's a lot of money to pay a running back. Running backs are the hardest because they seem to have such a short shelf-life and there is a history of running backs getting big deals and then underachieving (DeAngelo Williams/Chris Johnson/Shawn Alexander).

Even though they paid Haloti Ngata $12.2 million a year on a five-year contract in September, I don't see them going anywhere near that for Rice -- and certainly not in the Peterson league.

He may be worth that much, but there is no way I see him getting Adrian Peterson-type money.

I'm sensing the Ravens really want Rice back, but the Ravens have too many great players to sign to go nuts on him.

Plus, they have Joe Flacco who apparently believes himself to be one of the best five quarterbacks in the NFL. Clearly, he hasn't watched enough game tape on himself.

The Packers have $14.42 million available to spend. The franchise number for Flynn would be $14.41 million.

This is a tough decision. If the Packers franchise Flynn they can get some value for him when they trade him. Otherwise, the Packers probably wouldn't get anything for Flynn if they don't trade him and let him go in free agency. So do they franchise him and hope they find a trade partner or just let him go in free agency? I would almost just let him go if I am the Packers. They have other needs and tying up their cap space until they are able to trade Flynn seems like it would be a result of getting a little too greedy by wanting to get value for a pending free agent like Flynn.

"I appreciate the enthusiasm for it and I hear it from the fans consistently. People want more football. I think they want less preseason and more regular season and that's the concept we are talking about here. We wouldn't add an extra two games without reducing the preseason and we are not going to do it without the players' support, so we did that in the collective bargaining agreement instead of having the unilateral right, which we had. We determined that we were going to do this together. We are going to make changes in the offseason and during the preseason and during the regular season to make the game safer. If we can accomplish that we'll look at the idea of restructuring the season and taking two preseason games away and the potential of adding regular season games, but I don't think that will happen until at least 2013 or 14."

-- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, on ESPN radio in New York, via sportsradiointerviews.com.

Just who exactly is the commissioner hearing from "constantly?'' And if you're out there, I'd love to hear from you.

I'm actually with Peter King on this. Who the hell are these fans that consistently tell Roger Goodell they want a longer season? Do they exist solely in his imagination? Is there an anonymous group of fans out there who really want more football and I've just never met one of them? Or is Roger Goodell lying?

On average, veteran players play all of a regular season game. So to say the four series a veteran would play in the preseason (at less intensity, for the most part) is equivalent in any way to a regular season game is misleading at best. I've asked fans, by Twitter poll, if they'd like to see 18 regular season games, and the overwhelming answer was no.

What fans overwhelmingly want are for the owners to not line their pockets with ill-begotten cash by selling preseason tickets at face value. Perhaps Roger Goodell is functionally retarded and believes the fans want to pay less for preseason tickets or want two less preseason games, so this naturally means they want two more regular season games in place of two preseason games. This would be a wrong of Goodell to believe. I would hope he isn't that stupid. The fans (At least the ones I have talked to) don't want two more regular season games, they want the NFL to stop ripping them off for the preseason games. NFL teams will never get rid of two preseason games and lose the revenue from those games, so they will want to make up the games elsewhere.

Goodell is completely missing the point though. Fans don't want an 18 game season, they just don't want to pay full price for two shitty home preseason games. Clearly, it seems Goodell is only hearing from the fans what he wants to hear. Fans say, "We don't want to pay full price for preseason games. If we have to pay full price, then get rid of two preseason games." Goodell hears, "We want to replace two preseason games with regular season games!"

Four teams -- the Giants, Raiders, Steelers and Panthers -- were over the league's projected $120.4 million salary cap at the close of league business Thursday. They have until 4 p.m. March 13 to get under, and all of them certainly will.

Yes, they will. I'm pretty sure each team will have an easy time of getting under the salary cap.

Oakland and Carolina, though? Not exactly coming from a position of strength, having to cut away with definite needs.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't expect Peter King to know every NFL team's strengths and weaknesses, but if he is going to criticize a team at least know if you have a point or not. I do know Carolina's situation. Carolina isn't going to have to cut from anywhere to get under the cap. They can release Thomas Davis (and re-sign him at a cheaper price as is expected), restructure Steve Smith's deal (which they will look to extend him anyway), and release Jimmy Clausen. That puts them under the cap and they don't lose any players from a position of definite need.

Peter can't know every team's cap situation, but if he is going to start spouting off his opinion about a team cutting away from definite needs I would expect him to at least see if reality reflects this statement as being true.

1. I think, ESPN, that most of America is going to tune into "Monday Night Football'' for your opener Sept. 10 and say, "Who's the idiot who thought 'Monday Night Football' would be better without Ron Jaworski?'' Jaworski is without question one of the five best analysts doing NFL games. And now he's not doing NFL games. Great! Throw another log on the fire of the studio shows! Add the 942nd analyst!

I get Peter's point, but he does work on NBC which has a studio show that has Dan Patrick, himself, Bob Costas, Rodney Harrison, Mike Florio and Tony Dungy doing a pregame/in-game show. That's sort of bloated. Regardless, ESPN was stupid for getting rid of Ron Jaworkski, for a couple reasons. I like Jaworski more than I dislike him because I think he gets into X's and O's that helps the viewer understand what he/she is watching. Jaworksi's departure also means those who tune into MNF will have to deal with Jon Gruden speaking in hyperbole about how great "this guy" or "that guy" is. He's not my favorite analyst, but also not the worst. Still, that's a lot of Gruden in one broadcast.

4. I think Cliff Avril is the 6,781st NFL player to say what he said last week -- that he may hold out from training camp if the Lions tag him with the franchise designation this year. Cliff: You know that 10-year deal you rubber-stamped last July, the one the players agreed to with the owners? The franchise tag thing is in that. What, you didn't know it was possible to be an emerging star and the Lions would give you a one-year deal at the average of the top five defensive ends in football, $10.6 million? You're not getting a lot of sympathy from anyone, complaining about that deal, in the first place; in the second place, it's been a part of the football landscape for two decades. If you hated it so much, you should have pushed your player reps to fight harder to rid the game of it.

I, and this is scary, agree with Peter King on this. I know players don't like the franchise tag, but there are worse lots in life than to be "stuck" making as much as the average of the top 5 players at your position. Avril is going to be 26 years old when the season starts. He will have time to get his free agency payday.

9. I'll be at the Scouting Combine in Indianapolis this weekend, and will be having a Tweetup Friday at 6 p.m. at the Sun King Brewery in Indy. Look forward to seeing you all with your draft and free agency questions.

Just make sure your Scouting Combine questions are about Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin. As long you have questions about them, Peter will answer your questions. Be careful though, a lot of the media is going to try to shove the stories of Luck and Griffin down your throat.

a. Was that Spike Lee with a Jeremy Lin Harvard replica jersey Sunday at Madison Square Garden? Wow! That guy has some serious friends in high places to be able to pull that one off.

No one knows how to jump on a bandwagon like Spike Lee.

Then Peter rattles off three more points about Jeremy Lin. As we learned with the three summers-long Brett Favre saga, Peter has very little idea of when his audience is growing tired of a story.

j. This political season is going to be so depressing. It's all I can do to not make a fool of myself commenting on it. I wish you'd let me.

It's Peter's column, so I don't get why he won't comment on politics. He talks about when he is having a colonoscopy, so hearing his opinion and listening to him think through political matters would probably feel a lot like a colonoscopy to the audience. If Peter's opinion of Red Sox-related matters is any indication, I would love to hear him discuss politics in order to give me more to write about here.

k. Not a big fan of the Pekingese winning Best in Show at Westminster. The Dalmatian or German Shepherd would have been my choice.

Of course Peter would have an opinion on a dog show.

l. So Josh Beckett on Sunday talked about "lapses in judgment'' in his clubhouse behavior in 2011. Why, oh why, oh why, can't he come clean and say, "I was wrong to drink beer in the clubhouse during games.''

Perhaps because he really wasn't really that wrong to drink beer in the clubhouse? Beckett is a starting pitcher. Should he have drunk beer in the clubhouse during a game? Perhaps not, but is this why the Red Sox collapsed down the stretch last year? Probably not. Peter just wants to blame someone or something for the Red Sox collapse, because the collapse sure as hell couldn't have happened because the Red Sox didn't play well...even though that is why it happened. It was drinking beer in the clubhouse and it is over now. Teams drink champagne after clinching a division/league title and this doesn't cause this team to play poorly in the next round of the playoffs. So why would Beckett drinking beer in the clubhouse when he isn't pitching cause him to pitch poorly?

If that's what happened -- and with no one ever denying it, it's hard to imagine it didn't happen -- a full apology to the fans is what's needed from the Red Sox and the offending players.

If Peter writes a bad column, does he need to apologize to us when he has also listed what kind of beers he drank during the week in his "Beernerdness" portion of MMQB? After all, poor performance is directly involved with alcohol consumption.

Based on what I've heard in the last few months, and over the weekend, that apology is never coming. Sad. Just sad.

What is sad is you want an apology. It's over. Move on to this upcoming year.

m. Thanks, Tim Wakefield.

So he is thanking Wakefield? Isn't Peter supposed to be super upset about the Red Sox collapse? Does it make it fine for Wakefield to have had a 5.25 ERA in September and October of 2011 because he didn't drink beer in the clubhouse during games? I guess, a poor performance is fine as long as you suck without help from drinking alcohol.

A Bleacher Report Slideshow That is Chock Full of Wrongness

2012-02-20T14:15:00.000-05:00

I realized earlier this week I haven't picked on Bleacher Report lately, so I went to the site and found a doozy of an article. What I love about many Bleacher Report articles is you can tell they are bad simply from the title. You hardly need to read the slideshow/article. The title for this one is "The Contract Every MLB Team is Dying to Get Off the Books." You know it will contain contracts that aren't bad, poor reasoning, too much focus on one year's results and using the scope of EVERY MLB team is way too large. So let's get to the contracts teams are DYING to get off their books, even though in some cases that team just signed or traded for that player.

In fact, 13 of the 15 largest sports contracts ever signed were inked by baseball players. So it's easy to assume that each major league roster has at least one contract that they wish they could get off of the books right now.

Of course. It is so easy to assume because baseball has 13 of the players on this list, every MLB team has a bad contract. Because baseball has so much payroll parity and all to where every team has a grossly overpaid player or two.

Let's start the slideshow!

Arizona Diamondback- Joe Saunders

The soon-to-be 31-year-old is on the books to make $6 million for the Arizona Diamondbacks in 2012 while their ace is making $600,000.

The Diamondbacks signed Saunders to a new contract just over a month ago. It's very unlikely they are dying to get this money off their payroll. A common theme we will see if the author's inability to understand the economics of baseball. The economics of baseball are such that quality or decent pitching is scarce, so decent or average pitchers tend to make more money due to this scarcity. If a pitcher is decent AND he throws 180-200 innings most years, then he could make even more money.

Atlanta Braves- Dan Uggla

In 2011, Dan Uggla didn't live up to the expectations with his new club, the Atlanta Braves. He only hit .233 with 82 RBI after having struggled for most of the first half.

I dare you to find a Braves fan that wants this contract off the payroll. Uggla hit .296/.379/.569 with 21 home runs and 48 RBI's in 69 games during the second half of the season. There is absolutely no reason the team would want to be rid of Uggla because of a tough first half of the season. This is stupidity. He is still one of the best second basemen in the National League.

Yes, third baseman Chipper Jones will be making $13 million at the age of 39, but he would have had much better numbers than Uggla if he had played a full season in 2011.

Jones would have had much fewer home runs if he had managed to play a full season, which is why the Braves want Uggla. Uggla has stayed fairly injury-free (I just jinxed him, I know it) and he hits home runs. Chipper hit 18 home runs in 455 at-bats while Uggla had 36 home runs in 600 at-bats. If anything, this is a tribute to how Chipper can still hit well at this age more than it is a sign Uggla sucks or the Braves regret his contract.

Chicago Cubs- Alfonso Soriano

The worst part about it is the fact that the Cubs won't likely be contenders until after Soriano is gone because of the change they need to undergo and the fact that his contract is holding them back.

Yes, because the main reason the Cubs aren't contending is because Alfonso Soriano's contract is preventing them from making the moves necessary to compete. I'd love to hear how the $134 million 2011 opening day payroll is being completely held back by the $18 million that Soriano is making. The fact they were paying Carlos Zambrano $18.5 million and Kosuke Fukudome $14.5 million apparently wasn't hurting the team at all. Yes, Soriano is overpaid, but the Cubs have problems that go deeper than his contract.

Cincinnati Reds- Bronson Arroyo

Unless leading the league in earned runs and home runs is a good thing, Bronson Arroyo is being over paid.

He may be overpaid, but does this mean the Reds are dying to get rid of his contract? Let's consider last year was the worst year of his career and he has pitched 178 innings ever year since 2004. As bad as Arroyo was, it is not easy to find guys who make 30 starts per year and have consistently pitched close to or above the league average. The Reds understand they have to pay for a pitcher who makes 30 starts and has a tendency to be slightly above league average.

In 2012, he will make $12 million followed by $11.5 million in 2013 after compiling a 7-9 record with a 5.07 ERA in 2011.

But he had a 3.88 and 3.84 ERA the previous two years. No one is claiming the Reds love paying Arroyo paying $12 million, but he is a consistent pitcher who makes 30 starts and can pitch at the league average. Believe it or not, that's probably worth close to $12 million to some teams.

Florida Marlins- Ricky Nolasco

He means the Miami Marlins. Editors are needed at Bleacher Report.

Houston Astros- Brett Myers

Brett Myers had a terrible 2011 where he only won seven games, compared to his 14 losses.

Why are we only focusing on 2011 as to why teams are dying to get rid of these player's contracts? It's almost like Myers 14-8, 3.14 ERA in 2010 doesn't exist. I'm not saying Myers is a great pitcher, but don't ignore his past successes and only focus on last year's failure. Myers isn't so bad when healthy and the Astros have to spend money on somebody. I would guess they regret Carlos Lee's contract more than Myers' contract.

Also, do not make me lecture you about wins and how it is a stupid way to measure the value of a pitcher. Myers won seven games on a team that won 56 games. It isn't like he had a ton of help from his offense.

The Astros were horrible last season and have to deal with paying Myers $11 million this season and at least $3 million in 2013 in the event of a buyout.

So the Astros are on the hook for one more season and they have to pay $3 million to get rid of Myers in 2013...and this is a contract they are dying to get rid of? Who the hell would they sign with this money that is better than Myers and wants to play for the Astros right now?

Kansas City Royals- Jonathan Broxton

Jonathan Broxton has had his fair share of good seasons and was a two-time All-Star. But in 2011, he suffered multiple injuries to his shoulder and elbow.

Those injuries only let him pitch in 14 games where he went 1-2 with a 5.68 ERA.

Bum! How dare you get injured!

I also have to mention the Royals just signed Jonathan Broxton in November. What the hell happened since then that makes them regret signing him?

The Royals signed him for $4 million this season in a move that doesn't make much sense,

Unless the Royals were looking to sign Broxton on the cheap in the hopes he turns into an All-Star again. Why would they do that though? It's just madness to try and sign talented players on the cheap. This move doesn't make sense if you believe MLB teams only need one quality reliever in their bullpen.

given the fact that they already have Joakim Soria as a closer.

Has the author ever watched or attempted to understand baseball? If not, he should realize relief pitchers that were once closers can also be a set up guys. Having a quality set up guy is like having a closer that doesn't close the game out. So a team wouldn't want have a great closer and then decide not to sign any more quality relievers due to the 9th inning being covered. This is especially true for the Royals, who don't have great starting pitching. They want to make sure they have a good bullpen that can hold any lead for the starters. So this signing makes a lot of sense for the Royals.

Los Angeles Dodgers- Andruw Jones

The Dodgers are only paying $3.2 million to Jones this year. It is obviously not an ideal situation, but that isn't much money.

Jones only spent one season with the Dodgers where he hit .158 with 14 RBI and three home runs and was a terrible signing by the team.

Yes, he was a terrible signing, but they are paying Juan Uribe $8.0 million this year, will pay him $7 million next year and are paying Manny Ramirez $8.3 million...but the Jones contract for $3.2 is the one they want to get rid of?

Milwaukee Brewers: Francisco Rodriguez

Francisco Rodriguez had 23 saves last season, but all came with the New York Mets. Once he got traded to the Milwaukee Brewers, he spent the rest of the season as a setup man for John Axford.

What does the author have against set up guys? For a great set up guy $8 million per year isn't bad. Plus, the Brewers just signed Rodriguez to a new contract in January and it is only a one year contract. So I don't know why they would regret it.

He did a good job of it, but he will be getting paid $8 million to do the same in 2012.

Rodriguez likely can, but is that worth $8 million?

Yes, he is absolutely worth it if he has a 1.86 ERA, just like he did last year with the Brewers. So basically this boils down to the author not understanding the economics of baseball, and isn't related at all to the Brewers wanting to get rid of Rodriguez's one year contract. Quality set up guys can get $8 million per year.

Minnesota Twins- Joe Mauer

Yes, Joe Mauer. This guy thinks the Twins are dying to get rid of Joe Mauer and his contract. This is the same Joe Mauer who has comparable numbers to Hall of Fame catchers at this point in his career. He got injured for one damn year and this moron thinks the Twins want to immediately get rid of his contract. The guy is two years removed from an MVP award. I really believe the author fails to understand how much top baseball players are worth on the free agent market. Of course the Twins would like to pay Joe Mauer $400K to play for them, but because they pay him $23 million it doesn't mean they are dying to get rid of his contract. What insanity. He's the cornerstone of their franchise.

When he's healthy, Joe Mauer is one of the best players in the game—he was the 2009 AL MVP and has won the batting title multiple times.

BUT OMG HE GOT INJURED ONE YEAR SO HE IS NEVER GOING TO RECOVER AND THE TWINS SHOULD RELEASE HIM IMMEDIATELY!

It's like the author doesn't have a memory of any baseball games prior to the 2011 season. He probably thinks David Freese should be in the Hall of Fame. He bases all of his opinions on the 2011 season, completely ignoring all past seasons.

But even when he's healthy, is he worth $23 million each year from now through 2018?

Yes, based on the marketing money he brings in and his performance on the field he is probably worth $23 million. Is this article worth the 5 minutes I spent reading it? No, not at all.

Add to that the fact that Mauer only played in 82 games in 2011 and got 30 RBI and the Twins must be wishing they could restructure his contract.

Every team wants to restructure the contract of their best players so they make less money.

Oakland A's- Kurt Suzuki

On one hand, Kurt Suzuki is one of the most underrated catchers in the game when it comes to handling inexperienced and young pitchers. But on the other hand, he hasn't gotten the job done offensively.

Consider my mind blown. So Kurt Suzuki is an underrated catcher who makes $5 million in 2012, so that makes him overpaid, which means the A's would love to get him off their payroll. So Suzuki is overpaid AND underrated.

Take a guess why Suzuki is overpaid? I'll give you a hint...he didn't play well last year.

But he put up the worst offensive numbers of his career last season with a .237 batting average and only 44 RBI.

RBI's are a function of how many batters are on-base for a player to drive in. It isn't fair to judge Suzuki based on that. Reality sucks when it doesn't support your contentions.

Also, Suzuki's career average is .258, so it isn't like .237 is way below his career average.

Philadelphia Phillies- Ryan Howard

I know Howard gets paid a lot and is probably going to be overpaid in the future, but I simply don't believe the Phillies would love to get rid of him. They wouldn't have signed him to such a huge deal a few years prior to him becoming a free agent if they didn't want to pay him that money.

Pittsburgh Pirates- Jose Tabata

Jose Tabata is an unproven player with a career .284 batting average and an average of 47 RBI.

He has 739 at-bats in his career. Tabata made $428,000 in 2011 and will make $750,000 in 2012. He hit for a line of .266/.349/.362 with 16 stolen bases at a 22 year old. As a 22 year old. As a 22 year old.

The Pirates haven't invested a ton of money in him, but it is a sizable amount for a player of his caliber.

No, it is not a sizable amount. Tabata performed at about league average last year and he made $428,000. That's very near the minimum. That is not a sizable amount.

Tabata will make $1 million this season, and if the team picks up all of his club options, he will make $8.5 million in 2019 at the age of 30.

Think about that number. $8.5 million at the age of 30 in 2019. That's the peak amount in a year the Pirates would have to pay Tabata. That's not a bad deal for the team. The Pirates have options on Tabata beginning in 2017, when they would pay him the exorbitant amount of $6.5 million, so they will have control over Tabata until he is 30 years old, no matter what. The most the Pirates have invested in Tabata is $13.25 million from 2012-2016 and can get rid of him after that day if he isn't performing well. Since he is only 22 years old, one would assume he will continue to improve. This isn't a contract the Pirates want to get rid of, this is a contract the Pirates would love to replicate a few times with other young players.

If Tabata sucks, the Pirates won't pick up his option and be out $250,000 in 2017. Seriously, Tabata very likely could end up being underpaid, and very soon.

His signing could really pay off for the Pirates, but it could be a total bust as well.

I can't call $13.25 million invested in a player over 5 seasons a total bust, even if Tabata never improves from his 2011 year. It will still be a bargain at that point if he is just a league average outfielder.

St. Louis Cardinals- Matt Holliday

This is madness. After losing Albert Pujols in free agency, the last thing the Cardinals would like to do is lose another All-Star. There is no way the Cardinals want Holliday's salary off their payroll.

Matt Holiday is much like Ryan Howard in that he is getting older (32) and will still be getting paid a significant amount of money in 2017.

Apparently this author believes any time a player is being paid a lot of money, that player's team immediately wants to rid themselves of the player's contract. Nevermind if that player is still productive. That doesn't matter. What matters is the player makes a lot of money and that means the team no longer wants the player around.

This guy compares Holliday to Ryan Howard. He must read Joe Morgan's old ESPN chats. Morgan loved to compare Howard's contract to Holliday's contract. This is despite the fact they play two different positions and have completely different body types, yet Morgan and the author act like they are comparable players.

Holiday will get paid $17 million all the way up to 2016 and could be making the same amount in 2017 if the club decides to pick up his option.

OMFG! That's a lot of money! Who cares if he is still a productive player? Get rid of that contract!

After only playing in 124 games last season, his RBI total dropped all the way to 75.

Holliday had one bad year where he got injured. Because the author is too stupid/lazy to ever look at previous years' statistics he doesn't realize this is the first time since 2005 that Holliday hasn't played in at least 139 games. So Holliday is durable and his career line is .315/.388/.541. In fact, during Holliday's down year in 2011 that has blinded the author to the point he refuses to acknowledge any season previous to 2011, Holliday hit .296/.388/.525. That's pretty damn good.

Throwing out Holliday's RBI total is completely unconvincing when trying to prove your point because RBIs are very dependent on games played and runners on-base. Holliday only played in 124 games and Albert Pujols had a down season (for him), so Holliday didn't have as many chances to drive Pujols in when Holliday was healthy. So of course he didn't have many RBIs during 2011. If Holliday had played 158 games in 2011 like he did in 2010 then he would have been on pace for 96 RBIs, which is still pretty good.

If you are going to write about how a team wants to get a player's contract off their books, don't base it entirely on one injury-filled season and don't base it on how many RBIs that player had. It's very short-sighted and often inaccurate.

Tampa Bay Rays- Wade Davis

Wade Davis is 26 years old and will make $9.1 million over the next three seasons. The Rays do not want him off their books. That's cheap for a guy who has pitched 352 innings his first two full years in the league.

Davis is only 25-22 with a 4.22 ERA on his career and will be making $1.5 million, $2.8 million and $4.8 million over the next three seasons.

Does the author have even a somewhat firm grasp of the economics of baseball? Davis has been pretty average during his career, but $9.1 million for his output over the next three seasons isn't unreasonable.

After that, he has multiple club options that can be picked up. They start at $7 million and end with $10 million in 2017 when Davis is 31.

These are TEAM options. This means if Davis sucks then the Rays haven't lost too much because they won't ever have to pay him $7 million or $10 million per year and can cut ties with him. There's no way the Rays want this contract off their books.

Texas Rangers- Adrian Beltre

Adrian Beltre played a very big role on getting the Rangers to the World Series in 2011 and has a great bat that is suited for Arlington, Texas.

Look at how much money he makes! Why should a team have to pay a lot of money for great production? Again, every team wants their best players to make less money, but it doesn't mean they regret the amount they are paying a player. Beltre hit .296/.331/.561 with 32 home runs last year. He's a pretty good hitter at a key infield spot where teams want power. Did he cost a lot to sign? Yes, but it doesn't mean the Rangers regret it.

What's more is that he will be making $15 million, $16 million, $17 million, $18 million and finally $16 million in each year. That's a ton of money for a 37-year-old.

And of course there is no way Beltre could ever be a DH nor will be be worth this money prior to the year he turns 37 years old.

Toronto Blue Jays- Brandon Morrow

Brandon Morrow is owed $4 million in 2012 and $8 million in both 2013 and 2014. There is also a club option in his contract worth $10 million in 2015.

He signed this contract on January 24. Why the hell would the Blue Jays want to get a contract they just negotiated off the books one month after negotiating this contract?

This is the type of thing that happens when a premise gets stretched thin in an effort to maximize pageviews. It's unbelievable to think some of these teams would be dying to get rid of some of these contracts.

Look! It's Jon Heyman's Hall of Fame Ballot

2012-02-17T18:03:00.000-05:00

While waiting for Spring Training to begin and for the MLB season to begin, I thought it would be fun to enjoy the annual tradition of looking at Jon Heyman's Hall of Fame ballot. Heyman has made the switch from CNNSI.com to CBSSportsline.com. Nothing else has changed though. He is still considered Scott Boras mouthpiece, is a little bit douchey on his Twitter account, he blocks fellow MLB sportswriters on Twitter for no apparent reason, and he isn't always persuasive when defending his Hall of Fame votes.

At this point, we all know Barry Larkin was the only candidate to receive enough votes for induction in the Hall of Fame, but it is always fun to read Heyman's reasoning for his Hall of Fame vote. Heyman is one of the many writers who sets out a standard for voting concerning suspected/proven steroid users to pretend he is open-mined and then ignores this standard.

The ballots we get now contain not only the usual many borderline cases but also great and near-great players with a variety of steroid taints attached to their names. Some may have failed a test, others pleaded the Fifth when under oath, other may have been accused in a book.

I will admit voting for or not voting for suspected/proven steroid users is a tough decision to make. As I have written in a previous post, there are about five ways I can see a Hall of Fame voter considering suspected/proven steroid users. It appears Jon Heyman uses Method #4, but his ballot is pretty much straight Method #3, which means he doesn't vote for suspected steroid users at all.

Others still may only possess the taint of whispers (though some whispers are louder than others).

And because the rumor is louder, this means there is more validity to the rumor.

In navigating this ridiculous morass, I consider two things: 1) This isn't a court of law, so the standard needn't be "beyond a shadow of a doubt," or even "a preponderance of evidence," as steroid associations are judged. No one is getting convicted of anything here, and no one is going to jail. The Hall of Fame is a privilege, not a right.

Translation: Jon Heyman can accuse Player X of using steroids, but not Player Y, even if there is no evidence for either to have used steroids. That's how I translate it at least.

2) the steroid taint doesn't automatically eliminate anyone from my ballot. It's all a judgment call, and if in my judgment I still believe a player would have fashioned a Hall of Fame career without his artificial help, I reserve the right to vote for him.

Translation: I am very open-minded about considering suspected/proven steroid users, I just won't vote for any of them.
If someone else wants to automatically vote no on all the players with taint,

If you judge players on who has taint and who doesn't, there would be zero members of the Hall of Fame because they are all males.

The biggest thing I look for is impact. That means impact on the game, and on the games.

"Impact," huh? Is voting for a player based on "memorable moments" just not vague enough?

While I do look closely at the numbers, and I certainly consider them all, some numbers seem more meaningful than others.

Translation: Numbers will be used when Jon Heyman wants to support a player who gets his vote and ignored if the numbers don't support another player who gets his vote. Really, the relevancy of the player's numbers depends completely on whether Jon Heyman thinks this player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame or not.

In any case, it's not the Hall of Numbers, the Hall of Stats or the Hall of Sabremetrics.

It also isn't the Hall of Impact, Hall of He Made 10 All-Star Teams or the Hall of I Have a Really Good Memory About This One Time When Jack Morris Pitched Well in a Big Game.

Also, it is spelled Sabermetrics, not "Sabremetrics."

The game is played by people, and the judges are people too, not computers. Until that changes, I'll consider somewhat murkier criteria than only the hard stats.

Translation: If I want a player in the Hall of Fame, I will vote for him statistics be damned.

Jon Heyman pays attention to hard stats, but wants us to know this won't be the final judge because the game is played by people, since statistics don't tell the whole story. He doesn't have the same policy when it comes to voting based on impact. Even though the game isn't played by a person's memory, it is obvious he won't second guess his memory of a player's impact, yet will second guess what hard statistics say.

Without further ado, here's this year's scorecard.

1. Jack Morris: Sadly, it looks like that unsightly 3.90 ERA is going to continue to haunt him.

I hate it when a player's statistics don't support a player's Hall of Fame candidacy. Jon Heyman has made up his mind, dammit, about Jack Morris getting in the Hall of Fame. It's just sad reality doesn't match Heyman's perception of Morris's talent. But wait, what about Morris's impact on the game! Jon Heyman just knew creating an undefinable and vague definition for why a player should be in the Hall of Fame would pay off!

This guy is one who's much better if you were around to witness it. The back of his baseball card just doesn't do him any justice.

Your memory of how great Jack Morris pitched does him too much justice.

This guy is one who's much better if you were around to witness it. The back of his baseball card just doesn't do him any justice.

The whole "you should have been there, it was so awesome" defense for Jack Morris absolutely stinks. It is the basis used for electing a player into the Hall of Fame who isn't on par with other pitchers statistically, but he had some unseen impact on the game that probably wasn't actually there.

The Hall of Fame is for the best of the best. So 70 years from now when Jack Morris is in the Hall of Fame (which he will be voted in next year), people are going to visit the Hall of Fame or look at Jack Morris's stats and say, "How the hell did he get voted in the Hall of Fame?" That's one of the big problems with a "you had to be there" vote for Jack Morris. If Morris is a Hall of Fame pitcher based solely on some imaginary impact he had while watching him pitch then his candidacy won't stand the test of time once everyone who had seen him pitch dies.

Maybe we should vote Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame-Visual Aid Wing. This would be for players who weren't really Hall of Famers but the sportswriters who voted him in have fond memories of eating boneless chicken wings and sucking down a Diet Coke in the press box while watching this guy pitch.
Morris had great games,

I didn't know he had great games. That completely changes my mind.

great seasons (seven times he received Cy Young votes) and a great decade.

Blah, blah, blah. This is all pretty irrelevant to me. What was the highest Morris ranked in the Cy Young voting? 3rd. He was never even considered the second best pitcher in a given year, much less one of the greatest pitchers of all-time. I'm not all about using Cy Young votes to determine whether a player should be in the Hall of Fame, but if Heyman brings up how many times Morris got votes it is important to know where Morris placed overall as well.

He was the ace of three different World Series-winning teams and he started 14 Opening Days. Some will argue that's a meaningless statistic, and while it certainly does depend on circumstance, the only others who've started as many are Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young, a quintet of all-time greats.

It is a meaningless arbitrarily-chosen statistic. It doesn't matter to me what other pitchers share this honor.

Morris shouldn't make it. He just wasn't one of the best pitchers of all-time, no matter how much Heyman wants to reach for ties to other Hall of Fame pitchers or talk about Morris's impact outside of his statistics. He was really good and that should be good enough.

2. Barry Larkin: He's a 12-time All-Star. That's twelve times.

OMFG! He won a popularity contest 12-times? He'll definitely be voted Homecoming King!

Larkin deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. His candidacy should not be started off with a listing of his All-Star appearances.

3. Tim Raines: One issue is, he seemed to have had two careers -- one in which he was a superstar for seven years; the other when he was just a good player for a very long time.

Much like Jack Morris's two careers. One in which you look at his statistics and see he isn't a Hall of Fame pitcher; the other in Jon Heyman's mind where Jack Morris was one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history.

While I don't tend to favor compilers,

Two players into his ballot and Heyman is already contradicting himself. He doesn't favor compilers? Really?

About Morris:

he started 14 Opening Days.

About Larkin:

He's a 12-time All-Star.

he was a seven-time All-Star and did finish in the top 20 in MVP balloting seven times.

So tell me how Barry Larkin's twelve appearances in the All-Star Game is the first thing Heyman mentions for his candidacy, yet he says Raines is a compiler for making seven All-Star Games. Then he quotes Raines' finishing in the Top 20 of the MVP ballot seven times, just after he didn't call Jack Morris a compiler for making the Cy Young ballot seven times. I realize Raines had a 23 year career, but he barely played four of those years. Morris pitched consistently for 17 seasons, so you could also call him a "compiler" and possibly have a good point.

4. Don Mattingly: Some will argue this is geographic bias. But if anything, it's greatness bias. I like players who were great for a little while a lot more than those who were merely very good forever.

And yet, you vote for Jack Morris. A pitcher who was never really great, but was really good for a long time. This makes not of sense.

He didn't last forever because of a bad back I suspect was earned twisting his 185-pound body into a power hitter.

Dr. Jon Heyman, chiropractor.

5. Dale Murphy: He was great for a while (two straight MVPs), but is also known as one of the greatest guys to ever play the game.

If he was a nice guy then absolutely elect him to the Hall of Fame. It is the Hall of Fame for really nice guys, isn't it?

His refusal to take a day off (not to mention his clean living) may have led to a steeper, quicker decline.

What? So Dale Murphy's clean living caused him to have a shorter career? Does this mean he could have extended his career if he had done lines of coke off a hooker's ass?

But he still represented a whole era of Braves baseball.

This is irrelevant. He was my childhood hero, but he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

6. Fred McGriff: I feel a little guilty about this one. He's 26th in both home runs and RBI, a consistent and pure power hitter. He didn't quite make 500 home runs; he had 493. But that shouldn't be the barometer. He ranked among the top five in OPS for seven years. Not bad.

Those are statistics. What about McGriff's impact? What was the Crime Dog's impact, besides having an absolutely awesome nickname?
It's not really fair, but his Q rating is low

I wasn't aware the Hall of Fame shouldn't consider statistics as much as they consider a player's Q rating.

and his totals aren't flattered by the steroid set.

So let me get this straight. Jon Heyman won't vote for a player who used steroids, but he will compare a (presumably) clean player to the numbers the players on steroids put up? How in the hell is this fair? If you discount the steroid players' numbers, then you have to discount their numbers when comparing them to (presumably) clean players. It isn't fair to not vote for a player because he put up great numbers, then discount another player's candidacy because he didn't put up as great of statistical totals as a steroid user did.

7. Jeff Bagwell: The percentages (.540 slugging, .408 on-base) are worthy, and that he won only one Gold Glove

Shows that the Gold Glove is an award that shouldn't be used to base a player's Hall of Fame candidacy upon?

Isn't relevant?

Is nitpicking him?

and one MVP may have been a matter of timing and the era

He only won one MVP? He appeared in the top 10 of the MVP voting six times. The MVP is the hitter equivalent of the Cy Young (in many cases). So receiving Cy Young votes seven times is enough to get Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame, but being in the Top 10 of the MVP and actually winning an MVP puts Jeff Bagwell out of the Hall of Fame in Jon Heyman's mind.

Also gets points for uniqueness; not many huge first basemen could run like him (202 stolen bases, 100 runs in eight seasons). Still thinking about it.

Here's really why Jon Heyman is not voting for Jeff Bagwell. He is tied circumstantially to steroids. Jon Heyman doesn't bring this up of course because it is stupid to leave a player out of the Hall of Fame without proof he used PEDs, so Heyman pretends to base it on Bagwell's numbers. If Bagwell doesn't get in the Hall of Fame and Don Mattingly does, I am going to punch a kitten.

8. Bernie Williams: Tremendous hitter who benefited by being in the right place at the right time. He is first all-time in postseason RBI and second in home runs. A lot of hardware, and some unreal moments. Very close.

As I showed previously, Williams statistics aren't that different from Mattingly. I would go with neither player deserving the Hall of Fame.

10. Alan Trammell: You probably had to be there to even understand why he's close to worthy.

No, you don't have to be there. Trammel has a good case for the Hall of Fame.

11. Edgar Martinez: Maybe this is a little low as a reaction to the campaign on his behalf, but I don't think so. His percentages were great (.515 slugging and .418 on-base) and I'm not going to hold it against him that he was the fourth-best player on a team that never reached the World Series

By saying "I'm not going to hold it against him that he was the fourth-best player on a team that never reached the World Series," Jon Heyman is holding this against him. Who doesn't matter if he was the fourth best player on a team that never reached the World Series? The other players on that team who were better than Martinez are Randy Johnson (a pitcher, nonetheless), Alex Rodriguez, and Ken Griffey Jr...all Hall of Fame players.

13. Larry Walker: Terrific talent whose .565 slugging percentage is 13th all-time and who won seven Gold Gloves and stole 230 bases. On the numbers, a case could be made. Feels like Coors helped a little too much, though.

Coors helped a little too much? How about a lot?

Walker's career road/home splits:

Home: .348/.431/.637, 215 home runs in 3429 at-bats.
Road: .278/.370/.495, 168 home runs in 3478 at-bats.

That's a pretty severe difference. Walker goes from a really good hitter to a historically great hitter depending on whether he is playing at home or on the road over his career.

15. Javy Lopez: His .491 slugging percentage for a catcher ain't bad.

I am showing it is 3rd all-time among catchers. That is very, very good...not just "ain't bad."

22. Terry Mulholland: Did start an All-Star Game, and you can't take that away from him, either.

I think this helps speak to the irrelevance of a pitcher not only (a) making an All-Star team, (b) starting an All-Star Game, but also (c) the irrelevance of how many opening days a pitcher started. None of these random facts really prove too much about how good a pitcher was during his career.

I think we can all agree Tom Glavine is a Hall of Fame pitcher. How many opening days did he start during his career? Four. That's it. So does this reflect poorly on him? Not at all. So the fact Jack Morris pitched 14 opening days doesn't reflect positively on him.

24. Tony Womack: Had huge hit to help the Diamondbacks win the 2001 World Series. But I'm going to guess the .317 on-base percentage and .356 slugging percentage work against him.

25. Eric Young Sr.: A better player than Womack.

So why did Heyman rank Young below Womack if Young was a better player?

Now, let's review Heyman's statement on players accused/found to use PEDs:

1) This isn't a court of law, so the standard needn't be "beyond a shadow of a doubt," or even "a preponderance of evidence," as steroid associations are judged. No one is getting convicted of anything here, and no one is going to jail. The Hall of Fame is a privilege, not a right. And 2) the steroid taint doesn't automatically eliminate anyone from my ballot. It's all a judgment call, and if in my judgment I still believe a player would have fashioned a Hall of Fame career without his artificial help, I reserve the right to vote for him.

26. Mark McGwire: On accomplishment alone, he would be the top guy on my ballot. Just can't do it. The 70 home runs were a mirage.

Jon Heyman has a right to vote for whomever he sees fit to vote for. Are we assuming Mark McGwire used PEDs his entire career? If so, don't vote for him. Otherwise, check out his career statistics. He was an incredible hitter from 1987-1992. Then he was fantastic from 1995-1997. Maybe he did use PEDs, but I think McGwire is a hitter who could have made the Hall of Fame regardless of his use of PEDs during the late 90's and I don't believe he used PEDs over his entire career. Maybe I'm wrong.

McGwire admits to using PEDs, but he is somewhat vague about how often he used during his career. It seems he used them on and off during the 90's and briefly at the end of the 80's. Would he have made the Hall of Fame if he had not used PEDs? It's nearly impossible to say, but I think a case can be made he would be in the Hall of Fame if he had never taken PEDs. Therefore, Heyman should consider McGwire more seriously rather than focus on his one season of 70 home runs to dispute his candidacy.

27. Rafael Palmeiro: I will never vote for him, period. I don't know how to say it more clearly than that. Never.

In actuality, it doesn't seem Jon Heyman is too open-minded about voting for players suspected/proven to use PEDs. I would think a discussion of how Palmeiro's statistics were affected by his use of PEDs would be justified in this case, at least according to Heyman's own rules, but I guess this isn't happening. Again, Heyman can vote for whomever he would like to vote for, but I would like to see some justification for Heyman's refusal to ever vote for Palmeiro other than his mere statement that he won't vote for Palmeiro.

Maybe if Scott Boras called and told Jon Heyman to vote for Rafael Palmeiro he would do so.

Tim Keown Thinks Uncontested Touchdowns Are Undignified and Unworthy of the Super Bowl

2012-02-16T15:10:00.000-05:00

Don't worry, this is going to be one of the last examples of bad journalism coming from the Super Bowl. It is just the Super Bowl brings out the bad, the overreacting and the hyperbolic in so many writers. Tim Keown must have been desperately searching for an angle to cover on the Super Bowl that had not been covered yet. So he settled on an article about how Ahmad Bradshaw's game-winning touchdown was an undignified way to end the Super Bowl. It's a reach, but you can't tell that to Tim Keown as he stares at us disapprovingly in his ESPN mugshot.

And so the pivotal, deciding play in America's biggest sports showcase, the pinnacle moment in the most bloated spectacle in our culture, came when the defense gave up and the offense didn't want to score.

It does seem bizarre for the final score to go in this way, but these type of end game strategies happen in other sports as well. At the end of basketball games, teams will intentionally foul the other team at the end of a game to stop the clock and hope the opposing player misses the foul shot(s). It may sound weird for the defense to allow the offense to score, but it was a strategy the Patriots used to get the ball back. Then the Patriots tried to go the length of the field in less than a minute with one timeout left. The game was decided on a Hail Mary that barely went out of the reach of a Patriots player. That was fairly exciting.

When the Patriots' defense simply gave up (metaphor alert!) and allowed (forced?) Ahmad Bradshaw to score a 6-yard touchdown he tried to take back, we witnessed a true sports anomaly.

An exciting, interesting part of a game that was actually pretty dull through the entire middle half of it, but exciting in the first and second quarters?

There is no other situation in American sports in which a team would make a similar strategic decision.

This is true, unless you want to count when a basketball team intentionally commits a foul allowing the other team to shoot free throws or when a baseball team will intentionally walk a player to face the next batter. The fact football is original in that one team might allow the other team to score really emphasizes how football is a timed game more than anything else. It makes more sense to lose the lead in order to get the ball back, rather than allow the clock to run out and allow the opposing team an easy field goal attempt to win the game. The fact this strategy seems backwards doesn't make it a bad strategy or make a touchdown resulting from this strategy undignified.

There are loose parallels in other sports, but none that call for a team to relinquish its lead at the end of a game as a means of facilitating a comeback win.

This is true. But, there are instances in basketball when a team will allow another team to score in order to get the ball back. So it isn't completely unprecedented.

In baseball, teams play the infield back and trade outs for runs all the time, but never late in a game when the run would result in losing a lead.

Baseball is not a timed sport. In this situation, the clock was the biggest enemy to the Patriots. The Giants were probably going to score while running the clock out and the Patriots had to get the ball back in order to win the game.

Tennis players have been known to drop the last couple of games in a lost-cause set to conserve energy for the rest of the match. Golfers concede in match play when a hole is deemed unwinnable.

Is it undignified for an individual competing in sports to intentionally lose a game or a match because it is unwinnable or for strategic purposes? I say no. Apparently Tim Keown seems to agree. If Roger Federer wins Wimbledon in the fifth set, but he conserved his energy in a couple of his opponent's service games, does that mean his win is tainted? Not at all. So why would it be undignified or taint a win if a team intentionally allows another team to score for strategic purposes?

No matter how bad it looked -- just iso on Vince Wilfork to see how truly bad it looked -- it was the proper decision and probably should have been made one play sooner.

So this was an undignified way to decide the Super Bowl, but was also the right decision and should have been done earlier? This is what happens when a writer tries to come up with a new angle to the Super Bowl and it turns out half-assed. We get a flimsy premise for a column and an opinion given in the article that somewhat contradicts the premise.

That doesn't alter one fact: It was not a proud or particularly dignified way to decide the Super Bowl.

Who cares? What does it matter if the Super Bowl ended with one of the teams intentionally giving up a touchdown in order to get the ball back? The resulting attempt by the Patriots to score a touchdown with one timeout left was an exciting way to end the game. The Giants drive which led to the intentional touchdown was also exciting.

It seems especially satisfying -- ironic even -- that Bill Belichick, the great defender of all that is manly and stoic and arrogant in the world of the National Football League,

????????????

I get the arrogant part, even if Belichick probably isn't more arrogant than too many other NFL coaches, but manly and stoic? Not so sure about that one. Mostly, this isn't ironic at all.

had to resort to such an emasculating tactic to give his team a chance in the final minute.

Because it is emasculating to try do whatever it takes to win the Super Bowl? If this tactic had worked so many people would have been calling Belichick a genius. We all know being considered a genius is really manly.

Belichick's ploy didn't work, which doesn't mean it was incorrect. It's just a bad look. It runs contrary to every known principle coached by guys like Belichick.

Every known principle in basketball says not to foul a player intentionally and let them shoot foul shots. Teams will do this in order to get the ball back. Yet this happens in nearly every basketball game.

Every known principle in basketball says a player should not intentionally miss a foul shot so the opposing team doesn't have time to organize and get off a good shot. Yet, Coach K had a player intentionally miss a foul shot at the end of the 2010 National Championship Game.

Every known principle in basketball says a team with a three point lead should not intentionally foul a player on the opposing team in order to send him to the foul line so that he can only score two points. Yet, teams do this.

Football isn't the only sport where the best strategy sometimes goes against widely coached principles. It doesn't make it undignified to use these strategies.

You might consider the failure of such strategy to be justice meted out by the football gods, or karma, if you were inclined to think that way. (The world would really be a better place if you didn't.)

How can this be karma paying Belichick and the Patriots back for using this strategy? There was no justice paid out because the Patriots were probably going to lose the game anyway. The Giants had the ball and could have bled the clock down and attempted a field goal. If the field goal were successful, it would have given the Patriots very little time to score. Karma doesn't even fit this situation because the Patriots were going to most likely lose anyway if they didn't consider the strategy.

And so Monday, we were treated to this written description of the Pats' Surrender Formation: "The gutsiest call in Super Bowl history." Please. It wasn't gutsy; it was desperate.

Yes, it was desperate because Bill Belichick wanted to do whatever he could to ensure his team didn't lose the Super Bowl. It was a gutsy call because he let the Giants score a touchdown in an effort to get the ball back. Belichick essentially tried to put his team back on the offensive (no pun intended) by allowing the Giants to score instead of passively letting the Giants run the clock out and kick a field goal. Tim Keown is criticizing him for breaking the principles of football because Belichick gave up the lead in the Super Bowl intentionally. I call that gutsy. It was desperate, but still gutsy.

But there's no way to dress up a move that -- logical or not -- looks blatantly pathetic as it's happening. And even though it's nothing new -- not even for the Super Bowl -- it does raise a question: Is it better to lose traditionally, with your pride intact?

No, it is better to win. How was allowing the Giants to score leaving with Belichick's pride no longer intact? He was trying to win the game. That was his goal. If the Patriots had to take a step back, accept the Giants were going to score, and try to save time on the clock to get the ball in the hands of the New England offense in order to win the Super Bowl, that is what would have to happen.

It is better to try and win a game than to lose traditionally, pride be damned.

Since late Sunday night, we've been told the percentages were with Belichick and the Patriots. Their chances of scoring a touchdown with 57 seconds and one timeout remaining were better than their chances of stopping the Giants from kicking a chip-shot field goal. But if the Legend of Billy Cundiff taught us anything, it's that no field goal is a guarantee,

If the other 90% of the time told us anything, it is that an NFL kicker will not miss a field goal from 30 yards or less. Tim Keown can have his one-time events to prove anything can happen and I will take what the percentages say...especially when a Super Bowl title is on the line.

regardless of percentages, especially when the time is short and the pressure is big.

Yes, but time wasn't short for the Giants. They could have run the clock down and Lawrence Tynes would have had plenty of time to line up and prepare to kick the potential game-winning field goal. The pressure would have been big, but Tynes has hit big kicks before and all indications are that he would have had plenty of time to line up his kick and the ball would have been set perfectly in the middle of the field. So time was on the Giants side and there was time for Tynes to deal with the pressure involved with such a kick.

In the end, we were left with the empty feeling that it could have been better. It could have been so much better.

Whatever. The end of the game was the most exciting part. For me, the first and the fourth quarter were the most exciting parts of the game. So I don't have the feeling the game could have been better. What was exciting about watching the Giants run the clock out and then kick a potential game-winning kick, as compared to the Giants scoring and watching the Patriots go the length of the field to score a game-winning touchdown? If anything, watching the Patriots scramble to score, and failing after tossing up a Hail Mary to the end zone, is a more exciting ending then a game-winning field goal.

New England linebacker Jerod Mayo said the Patriots were given specific instructions in the event a Giants player successfully fought human nature and stopped himself short of the goal line. What were the Patriots going to do? "We were going to drag him into the end zone," Mayo said.

it would have been quite a sight: America's most sacred sporting moment reduced to a group of defenders dragging an unwilling running back into the end zone.

Yes, but this didn't happen. Don't use hypothetical situations that didn't occur (hence, being hypothetical) as further proof the strategy employed by the Patriots was undignified. Bradshaw fell into the end zone and the Patriots got the ball back. As a strategy for the Patriots, it beat passively watching the Giants run the clock out and then hoping there was enough time left to get a Hail Mary into the end zone.

Talk about lost opportunities.

BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THIS WAY!

Oh well, there's always next year.

Yes, and if this strategy is employed next year it could still be considered a good strategy. Allowing the other team to score in order to get the ball back is a sound strategy when in the situation the Patriots were in. Basketball teams use a similar strategy and it isn't unmanly nor does it violate some core principle of sports. I think perhaps a blank web page with Tim Keown's name on the byline would have been a better angle on the Super Bowl then what was written.

The Anatomy of an Apology of Sorts

2012-02-15T15:10:00.000-05:00

I feel like I have become one of the official Tom Brady apologists out here on the ol' Interwebs. I have defended him from being called overrated a few times on this blog. I still feel he isn't overrated and I don't really blame him necessarily for the Patriots loss in Super Bowl 46. Sure, some of the blame falls on him, but I don't think we can point all the blame on him. I was going to cover Eric Wilbur's angry message board-type rant about the Patriots loss, but I noticed by the time I had a chance to start writing about it there had been several other developments. Wilbur wrote the article, the day next day stood by the story and then the day after that he apologized for it. So apparently he is sorry, though I don't know for what exactly. He wrote a shitty column, he didn't commit a crime of any sort, but he apologized the day after he wrote the column. Color me confused. Let's look at the original column, the "standing by my story" comments and then the somewhat forced apology seemingly made so people would quit emailing him about how bad he sucks.

This column is written about on par with a message board rant. Wilbur states he was trying to mirror the emotions of a Patriots fan in writing this. I'm not sure what holding a mirror up to the Patriots fan base would accomplish, but that's neither here nor there. What we do learn is the loss was mostly Tom Brady's fault. This screed was written on February 5th.

Sorry, Tommy Boy, this one's on you. Your hideous performance led to the Giants' 21-17 Super Bowl title win. How embarrassing for your coach, your teammates, and your fans.

Tom Brady's line from the three Patriot victories compared to his line from Super Bowl 46:

2001 Super Bowl: 16-27 for 145 yards, 1 TD, 86.2 rating.
2003 Super Bowl: 32-48 for 345 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT, 100.5 rating.
2004 Super Bowl: 23-33 for 236 yards, 2 TD, 110.2 rating.
2011 Super Bowl (Super Bowl 46): 27-41 for 276 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 91.1 rating.

You can clearly see his hideous performance in Super Bowl 46 wasn't too different from his other hideous performances in the three Super Bowls the Patriots managed to win.

It was one thing when you led the game off with a safety, which surely put plenty of faith into the heart of Patriot Nation, but just when you have the game, just when you might be able to run off the clock, you huck the thing downfield.

I will say again...I take Gronkowski over Blackburn in that situation. Was it a great decision by Brady? No, it wasn't. It also wasn't the primary reason the Patriots lost the game. Brady took a chance and it didn't pay off. If Manning's pass to Manningham down the sidelines had gotten intercepted everyone would be asking how he could throw into double coverage along the sidelines like he did.

fans will place the blame either way, but what happened to being safe in that situation? What happened to the Patriot Way and clock management?

The Patriots, at least from my point of view, aren't known for playing it safe and running the ball down team's throats. You have Tom Brady as your quarterback, have him throw the ball and trust him to do this well.

What an embarrassment for the Patriots organization and Bob Kraft.

Yes, losing the Super Bowl with the 31st ranked defense by four points to a team that beat you earlier in the year is the height of embarrassing. I don't see how a Super Bowl loss by four points is in any way embarrassing.

So now the Giants have taken Lombardi from you twice, and you haven't looked this bad in a playoff game since...well, two weeks ago against the Ravens.

That playoff game where the Patriots looked bad was against the Ravens. This win caused them to make it to the Super Bowl. Let's not act like an entitled brat. Whining the Patriots looked bad in the AFC Championship Game, a game they won, is acting entitled.

The Patriots haven't won a title in seven years,

Seven years! You are such a cursed city! Get Dan Shaughnessy and Bill Simmons writing articles about this immediately!

Even if Wilbur is trying to write like the Patriots fans think, this is obnoxious. The Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl in seven years? That's his complaint? There are teams that haven't made the playoffs in seven years, much less whined like an entitled brat the local team hasn't won a Super Bowl in that time.

but even worse, they're now turning into the Buffalo Bills, with the Giants being their Cowboy daddy.

Buffalo got pretty well beat in three of their Super Bowl appearances and never won one. The Patriots have been competitive in the last two Super Bowls they lost. They aren't the Buffalo Bills.

But, there you are, Tom. That's what you have become. Your legacy has been stamped, but you're turning your Joe Montana status into one of Jim Kelly.

Jim Kelly: 0-4 in Super Bowls.

Tom Brady: 3-2 in Super Bowls. Brady is exactly like Jim Kelly, if Jim Kelly had won three Super Bowls.

Granted. But when you begin the game with such a boneheaded play, then proceed to make random mistakes, sorry, Tom, game is on you.

I don't know if Brady's safety was a boneheaded play. Brady isn't the most mobile guy and if he had gotten sacked by Justin Tuck then the Giants would have had a safety anyway. So Brady threw the ball to an open area and hoped intentional grounding wasn't called. There weren't too many other options other than to escape the pocket and throw the ball out of bounds. Sure, maybe he should have been more decisive with the football, but that area of the field is where a quarterback has to be careful not to throw an interception.

These "random mistakes," I don't really get what those are. Maybe Brady was inaccurate on some passes, but I'm a little confused as to what other "random mistakes" he made during the game.

Welker was the closest thing to Asante, and the eeriness compared to the Tyree play will be discussed for decades to come.

Yes, the eerie comparison between a fourth down play which resulted in a receiver catching a ball on his helmet with a defender draped all over him and a second down play where a receiver drops a pass thrown a little behind him while he was wide open. They were pretty much the same play as long as you ignore all of the differences.

Tom, it's not all your fault, but you're the poster boy, you had opportunities, and you failed to make them. Add to that your blunders, and it all becomes about you.

The Giants didn't win the game. Tom Brady lost the game.

You denied your coach No. 4. You let down your teammates.

You aren't a real Patriot either! Ever since you married Gisele you are too focused on anything but football!

Eli and Peyton now have as many rings as you combined over the past five years.

That's right. Two Hall of Fame caliber quarterbacks have as many Super Bowl titles COMBINED as Tom Brady has. Clearly, Brady is a huge bum.

You haven't sniffed one in seven. How's that hit you?

I would say going to two Super Bowls over that seven year span is sniffing a Super Bowl, but what do I know? I'm not a reactionary sportswriter/fan.

Maybe it doesn't hit you as hard anymore, and maybe that's the problem.

TOM BRADY DOESN'T CARE ANYMORE BECAUSE HE'S TOO FOCUSED BEING MARRIED TO HIS SUPERMODEL WIFE AND HANGING OUT IN HOLLYWOOD! THIS IS A COMPLETELY NEW OBSERVATION AND COMMENTARY ON TOM BRADY'S INABILITY TO WIN A SUPER BOWL!

The safety killed the Patriots. Killed them.

Because the game was over at that point in the first quarter and the Patriots had no chances to come back during the game. It's not like the Giants fumbled the ball three times, any Patriots dropped passes during the game nor was Tom Brady under any type of pressure when he threw the ball which drew the intentional grounding call.

And there's nobody to blame but Tom Brady.

Absolutely, the offensive line isn't at fault for not blocking. The Patriots receivers aren't responsible for not getting open. The Patriots coaching staff isn't responsible for calling a passing play that close to the goal line which resulted in no players being open. It's all on Tom Brady. The same Tom Brady that completed 16 straight passes at one point in the Super Bowl.

However hard it might be to swallow, the glory days are gone.

The Patriots will have a hard time finding any talent in this upcoming draft with only two 1st and 2nd round picks. It's all over. The Patriots only made the Super Bowl this year and are in a position to only get 1-2 impact players in the upcoming draft.

Even Montana handed off to Mallett at some point, right?

Joe Montana never handed off to Ryan Mallett. Burn! Also, the indication that Tom Brady should hand off his starting quarterback job to the backup is so stupid it doesn't even merit a response.

Then in an interview with 98.5 The Sports Hub, Eric Wilbur stood by his story. This was on February 6th. Wilbur still seemed defiant and stood by what he wrote. All indications are that he didn't write a knee-jerk article and really believed what he wrote. He apologized a day later in a column, but does it sound like 24 hours earlier he regretted what he wrote?

Why he thinks so many people were upset with his column:

“I guess because I dared criticize the god of New England. If he had won that game we would’ve lauded him as the greatest quarterback ever so if he messes up in the game and loses it why can’t he take some of the poison? It seems like fans can’t admit that.”

If Brady had won that game I would not have lauded him as the greatest quarterback ever. What Wilbur is doing here is proving a fake argument wrong and only looking at the extremes. If you believe Wilbur, his article was him giving Brady some of the poison for the loss. That's not what the article was though. Of course Brady is somewhat responsible for the loss, but the article put the loss nearly completely on Tom Brady. That's not "some" of the poison, that's nearly all of the poison.

If he still believes what he wrote last night now that he has had some time to sit back and reflect on it:

“I still believe it.

He would issue a mea culpa 24 hours later. So was he forced to issue the mea culpa, really had a change of heart or just issued the apology to get the fans off his back?

There were a lot of people saying ‘you know sleep on this and you’re going to look bad in the morning.’ It was a little over-the-top and I admit that but I think that was purposely so just because like I said if he would’ve won the game it would’ve been ‘oh Tom Brady’ so you know what? Let him get a little bit of the criticism. I guess that’s what people don’t get. It was a little over-the-top and purposely so but then again you don’t understand Vancouver writers either so.”

Not to mention the article got Eric Wilbur in the national discussion. How great is that for him?

Again, he fails to understand what his own article was saying. It wasn't placing a little criticism on Brady. It was placing nearly all of the blame for the Patriots loss on Brady. Remember this part?

Tom, it's not all your fault, but you're the poster boy, you had opportunities, and you failed to make them. Add to that your blunders, and it all becomes about you.

Or this part?

Sorry, Tommy Boy, this one's on you. Your hideous performance led to the Giants' 21-17 Super Bowl title win. How embarrassing for your coach, your teammates, and your fans.

So the article wasn't giving Brady some of the blame, but giving him nearly all of the blame and repeatedly saying the loss was on him.

Whether or not he thinks Welker should’ve made the catch:

“The pass was bad but he should’ve had it. I think the most egregious play was the interception that Brady threw. It was ill-advised, it’s not what they would do in the past in that situation, and was a real head-scratcher.”

Was it an ill-advised throw? Probably. Gronkowski usually gets that jump ball and it wasn't like Brady threw the ball directly to a Giants defender. It was an ill-advised gamble that didn't pay off.

So it doesn't seem Eric Wilbur really feels differently about what he had written the night before. Notice there isn't a mention of him trying to write like Pats fans think in this excerpt from the radio interview. This reasoning for the article being written magically appears in Wilbur's mea culpa as to what his aim in writing the article truly was. Speaking of mea culpa, on February 7th Wilbur writes a column where he suddenly realizes the error of his ways. It's entitled "Uncle." I see four reasons Wilbur would write his original article, back up what he was saying in a radio interview a day later and then the day after that appear to change his mind.

1. He really did think what he wrote was wrong and after a time of reflection on what was written thought he was being a tad harsh.

2. Wilbur's article had served the purpose it was intended to. It got his name in the national discussion, got him some radio interviews, and got his columns some press. So it was time to not make himself look like a huge asshole.

3. His editors asked that he issue a mea culpa. I hope this didn't happen.

4. Wilbur really isn't issuing a mea culpa, but he believes if he says he was somewhat wrong everyone will get off his back.

To the hundreds that have demanded my immediate dismissal, the fan who hoped I got clipped by the Green Line, and even the Neanderthal who wished cancer upon me, I issue a mea culpa.

Clearly, I never intended Sunday night's column, written in the immediate aftermath of the Patriots' loss in Super Bowl XLVI, to garner quite the widespread attention - and negativity - it happened to find over the course of the next 24 hours.

Because thrashing the local starting quarterback immediately after he performed slightly above average in the Super Bowl is sure to avoid any type of attention. Where did all this negativity come from? All he did was write a screed about how Tom Brady should give way to Ryan Mallett, blamed the entire loss on Brady and compared Brady to a quarterback who never won a Super Bowl in four tries. Where's the controversy?

As I've tried to convey, perhaps with illustrious failure, the over-the-top tone of the piece was intentional, meant to convey the frustration that Patriots fans had to be feeling after the crushing loss to the Giants.

So it was meant as a parody of Patriots fans? Consider your attempt at hilarity and satire to have fallen short of its goal then, which I am sure Wilbur is aware of at this point.

The biggest problem I find with this excuse is that nowhere in the article did Wilbur talk about Patriots fans or any of their feelings after the loss. Nowhere in the article did Wilbur feature any of the anger directed at the Patriots defense, Wes Welker or the bad luck of Rob Gronkowski being injured. I could probably accept this excuse if anything but how this game was all Tom Brady's fault had been mentioned. Since only Brady was mentioned, I can't believe it was meant to convey the frustrations of Patriots fans. I'm guessing Patriots fans would have more angry over other aspects of the loss, rather than just focused on Brady's performance solely.

I intended to write something while the emotions were still bubbling, creating a destination where Pats fans could vent their own frustrations over another devastating Super Bowl loss.

There are so many other various places Pats fans can go to vent their frustrations. This is weak. Also, you just wrote "another devastating Super Bowl loss." Cry me a river and stop acting like the Patriots are entitled to win a Super Bowl every four years.

I still think Tom Brady was most at fault for the loss, but it wasn't directly because of the safety as I noted.

Granted, it did lead to forcing the defense on the field for most of the first quarter, but it wasn't the quarterback who happened to be the 12th man on the field.

The day before Wilbur said he knew what he wrote was over the top, but he stood by it. Now, he is mealy-mouthing his way around not fully blaming Brady anymore.

But rational thinking doesn't come to head in such a moment, and frankly, that was my intention; to present the knee-jerk reactions of what the fan base had to be feeling at that very moment.

Even if this was the intentions of Eric Wilbur, which I don't necessarily believe, why didn't he put any blame in the column on Welker for not making the catch or for Belichick for challenging the catch by Manningham on the sidelines? I'm not saying these two plays caused the Pats to lose, but why only blame Tom Brady and then insinuate Ryan Mallett should take over as the starter? Did Wilbur not believe any of the Pats fan base would blame Welker or blame the coaching staff for having 12 men on the field? How about the Pats fan base being upset the team couldn't recover a Giants fumble? Wouldn't that be a part of the knee-jerk reaction? The original article was way too focused on Brady's shortcomings for me to believe it was supposed to represent the reaction of the Pats fan base.

As it turned out, there was little anger directed toward the Patriots. Disappointment, yes, but the anger was at a minimum.

There was little anger because the Patriots lost a close game and didn't play terribly in the loss.

That, apparently, was reserved for me.

When you pin the blame solely on a player who should not have the blame pinned solely upon him, these things tend to happen.

As many Twitter commenters noted, my avatar's four picks in a Super Bowl is embarrassing, to which I say, "Lay off Drew." But that's a debate for another time.

Lay off Drew Bledsoe, who threw four interceptions in one Super Bowl, but let's blame Tom Brady for throwing one interception in a Super Bowl game. Makes sense to me.

It was an intentional, heat-of-the-moment analysis that did not work.

Come on. This wasn't even analysis. It was an angry message board screed. It was heat-of-the-moment, but I fail to see what kind of analysis involved comparing Brady to Jim Kelly. Even though Wilbur takes this comparison back, he still characterizes this as analysis, which it isn't.

Tom Brady is not Jim Kelly. At worst, he's John Elway in reverse, but the story has yet to be completed.

Except John Elway's teams got blown out in the Super Bowl, while Tom Brady's team lost two Super Bowls that came down to the final minute.

The erroneous blame I laid on Brady was a commentary that wasn't fully-flushed out, and thus immensely unsuccessful.

So far the article has been described as intending to be a reflection of the feelings Pats fans were feeling at the time, an analysis of Tom Brady's performance and now is being characterized as a commentary on Tom Brady. I'm not sure it can be all of those things. Specifically, if the article was intended to be a heat-of-the-moment reflection of the feelings Pats fans had at the time, I'm not sure how it can also be called an analysis of his performance.

If the Patriots had won the game, the initial reaction would have been that Brady is now Montana, that he had joined the ranks - like he hadn't already - of the greatest quarterbacks to play the game. He would have graced Sports Illustrated (again), gone to Disney World as the MVP, and sat in the Letterman chair occupied by Eli Manning last night.

And the Patriots didn't win, so Brady gets some blame.

But when they lose, everyone labels it a "team game."

You can't have it both ways.

Here Wilbur goes with this "everyone" argument again. He seems to enjoy characterizing a point of view that supports his contention as a point of view "everyone" holds. Quarterbacks usually get too much credit for a win and too much blame for a loss. No one is arguing the loss wasn't some of Brady's fault, but to go to the extent Wilbur did to blame Brady was a bit overboard.

In a rush to present a forum, I incredibly misjudged the audience, and that is my most crippling error.

It was a pretty short article. I'm a little confused how it could have served as a forum for the frustration of Pats fans, an analysis of Brady's performance, as well as a commentary. It certainly didn't come off as anything but the venting of a frustrated fan.

So, to the fans who called me one step below Skip Bayless (gulp),

Eric Wilbur wrote one bad article. Let's not get into calling him vile names that can't be taken back or forgotten.

Spring training starts next week, though I can't promise many gumdrops and rainbows about the Sox. I'll apologize for that now, too.

I can't wait for the first "Every Red Sox loss in the month of April was the fault of Adrian Gonzalez" article.

So what do you think? Think Wilbur regrets the article and his intention was to provide a commentary or a forum for Pats fans to vent? I think he probably regrets writing it, but it wasn't intended as a commentary, and he only regrets the response the article got and not what he wrote.

MMQB Review: The Rise of Eli Edition

2012-02-14T15:10:00.002-05:00

A few weeks ago Peter revealed to the shock and scorn of his readers that Super Bowl 46 was the exact same game as Super Bowl 42. Unfortunately, this revelation wasn't exactly true. This week Peter King has more shocking revelations for his readers. Apparently, and this may shock you so I hope you are sitting down, the Giants were really impressed by Eli Manning as he was coming out of Ole Miss. I am guessing, and this is just a guess, but this very reason could have been why the Giants traded for Manning. I can't say for sure, but that's just my guess. Peter discusses, yet again, the trade that brought Eli to New York on draft day in 2004. In his defense, it has been two weeks since he brought up that draft day trade. Peter then throws in a remembering of Whitney Houston (didn't know he was such a fan) and he has other Super Bowl leftovers for us to (not) enjoy.

The week-after-the-Big-One column is heavy on the Giants, as it should be.

Rightfully so. Justly done. Also, when Peter says MMQB is heavy on "the Giants" he means "Eli Manning and I won't mention the Giants defense but once or twice and I will never mention the part they played in helping the Giants win the Super Bowl." Really, 1/3 of this column is probably about matters relating to Eli Manning and not the Giants as a whole team.

For example, rather than tell us how the Giants picked Jason Pierre-Paul over Derrick Morgan (who was higher ranked on a lot of boards), Peter tells us yet again what led the Giants to trade for Eli Manning on draft day in 2004.

And I'd be remiss if I didn't touch on the greatest Anthem I've ever heard at a game -- the late Whitney Houston's, 21 years ago.

I'm pretty sure the anthem was pre-recorded. That took a lot of the magic out of it for me. It was a great sound record or pre-recorded. Not sure this really merits too much mentioning in a football column. Still, Peter needs to kill space and even the loosest of ties to the NFL will do during the offseason.

We'll start in the stands at a football game in the small city of Oxford, Miss., a little more than nine years ago.

Scene 1: Nov. 2, 2002, Oxford, Miss.

"Scene 1." Sweet God, is Peter really pretending this is a play? I hope there is at least two intermissions. This is ridiculous.

Scene 2: Dec. 12, 2004, Baltimore. The one thing Eli Manning always has had is poise. That's what makes this horror show at the Ravens so weird, and so troubling.

This was a horror show because it was Eli Manning's rookie year and he was going up against a very good Baltimore defense. I remember this game because Manning was absolutely terrible, but a rookie quarterback struggling against a very good Ravens defense isn't troubling.

In the fourth start of his Giants' career, Manning was the definition of pathetic, four of 18 for 27 yards, with no touchdowns and two interceptions ... for a 0.0 passer rating. In the press box, one veteran Giants scribe took to calling Eli "Billy Ripken'' over and over again. As in, "The brother of a great player who'll just never make it.''

This veteran Giants scribe is now probably signing the praises of Manning and saying how he will be in the Hall of Fame. I feel like this scribe is Mike Lupica, even though I'm not sure how much he covers the Giants in-depth enough to be at a game. The one guarantee I feel comfortable making is this veteran Giants scribe (who will remain nameless for fear he will be shown as the reactionary sportswriter I imagine he would have to be in order to make a declaratory judgment on a quarterback based only on four starts) doesn't feel this way about Manning now and doesn't want this comment mentioned. God forbid a sports journalist is judged for making knee-jerk reactionary statements that are eventually proven completely wrong so we can put his (probable) current columns praising Manning in the right perspective. Absolutely don't give us this sportswriter's name.

The other day I asked Gilbride to pick the plays on that drive he thought were the crucial ones. He picked two. "The one to Manningham, of course,'' he said, "and a quick slant to Nicks. We were not settling for the field goal. No way.

Absolutely no freaking way the Giants were going for a field goal there. None at all. Not gonna happen.

Not unless we had to.

Unless they needed to of course. They would settle for a field goal if necessary. I mean, it could happen.

Two vital passes against Auburn, a streak down the left side and, on a Manning audible, a quick slant: Gain of 52.

Two vital passes against the Patriots, a streak down the left side and, on a Manning audible, a quick slant: Gain of 52.

Peter King is fascinated by parallels like this. He'll find one game where a quarterback led a 75 yard drive in college and then he will put it right below a 75 yard drive that quarterback had in a big game in the NFL and act like he just discovered the Ark of the Covenant.

Remember what happened in 2004. The Giants could have stayed where they were on draft day, at number four in the first round, and taken Miami of Ohio's Ben Roethlisberger. But Accorsi traded a bushel full of picks to San Diego to get Manning.

Oh my God, if Peter talks about this trade one more time I'm probably going to scream. I know of three separate times when Peter King has talked about the Giants-Chargers trade from 2004 this year. It was a very important trade, I know that, but can we stop mentioning it just once? We know Eli got traded to the Giants. We remember this.

In his split-second look to the left, Manning saw Manningham with a step or step-and-a-half on corner Sterling Moore, with Chung, hips open to the left and inside the numbers, with very far to turn and run to break up the play if Manning threw left to Manningham.

Peter is going on and on about Eli Manning now. When he said the Giants deserved credit so that's why he would be talking about them, I assumed he would mention the Giants defense a few times. He doesn't. Peter focuses on Eli Manning and how well he throws the football, so screw you New York Giants' defense.

I have been thinking about this throw by Eli Manning and I don't want to seem like I am taking anything away from the throw, but while it was an excellent throw it was also a fairly safe throw. I mean that as a credit to Eli Manning, not a criticism. I'm not taking anything away from Eli. The way he threw that football over Manningham's shoulder to the sidelines was far enough over to where the safety wasn't going to get there in time and the ball wasn't going to be in the field of play if caught by the safety. Also, the corner covering Manningham wasn't in a position to react to the football and make the catch. It was an incredible throw, but the way Eli threw the ball only Manningham could catch it and if he didn't catch it there wasn't much of a chance of a turnover. So it was a great throw, but the way he made the throw it really wasn't a risky throw. It doesn't take anything away from Manning of course. He is the one who actually made the great throw, but I think what makes that pass and catch so great is there was little chance of the ball being intercepted and only Manningham could have made the catch.

The greatest anthem ever sung. Well, in my opinion it was Whitney Houston's before Super Bowl XXV -- and I say that even though what we heard was recorded a couple of weeks before the game in a Los Angeles sound studio.

It was a great national anthem. It was also not sung live, so it was the greatest recording of the national anthem ever played prior to a football game. I don't consider the national anthem to be "sung" if a recording is being played over the loudspeaker while Whitney Houston sings into a dead microphone. I am part of the 1% of Americans who care about this. It doesn't mean this wasn't the greatest national anthem ever. It just means it wasn't sung live on the field, which would have made it greater in my mind.

Jim Steeg was the NFL's senior vice president of special events and he organized all aspects of the Super Bowl for 26 years. He booked Houston for the Super Bowl, and he was still shaken up by her stunning Saturday death when we spoke Sunday.

"Last night, [wife] Jill and I sat here, totally devastated,'' Steeg said from his San Diego home. "I have Whitney's anthem on my iPod, and last night I just sat here and listened to it. I got chills. I always get chills when I hear it. That was such a special moment in my life.''

At the risk of sounding insensitive, really? "Totally devastated." That seems a bit dramatic upon hearing the death of someone Steeg spoke last with probably 20 years ago and did not have interaction with over nearly the last two decades. I'm not making Houston's death seem less tragic or sad, but it always shocks and even amuses me at how people take the death of a celebrity like they lost a family member. Yeah, it gives you pause and makes you a little sad at first. But if you didn't know Whitney Houston or had not talked to her in over a decade, isn't it a bit much to be "totally devastated" or really shaken up by her death? She used drugs, had enablers around her and lived the life of a celebrity with a shit ton of money. Premature death isn't exactly foreign in those situations.

I'm surprised Peter doesn't breathlessly draw a parallel between Whitney Houston dying with the Giants winning the Super Bowl this year and Houston singing the national anthem at the Super Bowl where the Giants ended up winning two decades ago. They are the same game!

The difference with this anthem was that Houston actually sang it on the field before the game -- in front of a dead mike. "I was on the Giants sidelines, standing right behind Lawrence Taylor and Carl Banks,'' said Steeg. "I heard her. It was fabulous.''

She was a great singer. I'm sure it was great. This is still lip-syncing if the words coming out of the speakers at the stadium aren't the words she is singing live.

Said Steeg: "Lip-syncing is the wrong phrase. She sang it. I heard it.

Nope, it is the right phrase. She wasn't singing into a live microphone live. That's lip-synching.

And the emotion on the field when she was finished was noticeable. I saw it on the faces of the Giants.

Steeg is referring to Whitney Houston actually singing into the dead microphone. The players were responding to the pre-recorded track. I really doubt they could hear Whitney Houston's live singing into a dead microphone over the loud track being played through the speakers. It was a great rendition of the national anthem, but it was pre-recorded and she was lip-synching. It doesn't take anything away from the performance, but it was not live. I will argue this until the end of days.

I'll never forget Taylor saying to Banks -- you think these guys are so intent on the game right then -- but he said, 'Oh my God! Is she good-looking!' ''

Unfortunately she was over the age of 18, so Lawrence Taylor wasn't that interested in Whitney Houston. Though later when she got into cocaine, she did look pretty attractive to Lawrence Taylor.

"If the committee switched up on the guys every five years or whatever ... I think some players would like to see some changes in who is doing the selection process every year because most of the time I think it's the same voters that come in and do all the voting. Outside looking in I would like to see a little more change up on who votes.''

-- New Pro Football Hall of Fame enshrinee Willie Roaf, on ESPN 101 in St. Louis, via sportsradiointerviews.com.

You guys (and girls?) know I am all about kicking backwards-thinking voters out of position to vote for the Hall of Fame, no matter what sport. The problem with changing it up every five years is there would be voters for the Hall of Fame who don't have the experience to vote for some of these older players, not to mention I would probably rather a fairly consistent group of voters are present so every five years the criteria for making the Hall of Fame won't change or be altered. It just seems to me like there should be voters added and the votes can be made public. Adding voters and making the votes public (or at least allowing the voters to make them public) could help change things up.

Then Peter's "Stat of the Week" is about Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. Because apparently he doesn't feel he's talked about it enough.

These two will always be compared to each other, because of the Draft Day 2004 circumstances. The one thing we can say about them: Neither the Giants nor Steelers were cheated with the man they picked.

Good point. Let's beat this idea in the ground some more.

a. I've seen 43 people try to spin the Wes Welker non-catch into some deep way of trying to understand why it was too difficult a catch to call a drop. An NFL coach told Greg Bedard of the Boston Globe his team would not have called that a drop. Whatever. The fact is, that ball contacted the palms of both of Welker's hands cleanly, and he was not touched by a Giant defender. Call it a drop. Don't call it a drop. I don't care. But Wes Welker has to make that catch. Has to.

I absolutely agree. A lot of people are knocking Brady for that throw, but it was in Welker's hands, so he has to catch that. Peter King and I agree. The world is ending.

This throw by Brady is being used as Example #1 that he is now overrated and rapidly on the decline. Welker had the ball on his hands and has to catch it. He wasn't in traffic and the ball was behind him, but not too far behind him. It was a poor throw and a poor catch.

b. Regarding Matt Light and Rob Gronkowski dancing the night away after the Super Bowl loss: I don't care. I don't know why anyone should care.

I don't care about Gronkowski dancing like he was, but when I saw the video I noticed he was moving very well for a guy who required surgery later in the week. I know there is a difference in playing football and dancing, but he was moving extraordinarily well. Obviously, he was alcohol-aided. Perhaps he should have gotten drunk and played in the Super Bowl.

The only reason the public found out about Light and Gronkowski is because everyone in America has a camera phone today, and nothing is truly private.

That's like saying the only reason a person was arrested for robbing a bank is because newspapers tend to report crimes. It really isn't an excuse any more than it is a reason not to rob a bank (or dance violently in this case). Camera phones are everywhere, so if Light or Gronkowski were worried about someone seeing them dance then they probably should have not entered the dance floor. Clearly, Gronkowski wasn't concerned at the time about who saw him dancing.

f. Are you telling me we have to wait until the fall of 2015 for another Giants-Patriots game, at least one that doesn't happen in the Super Bowl. Booooooo!

Does this mean we will have to pay attention to other NFL teams when they play each other? Say it isn't so!

g. Last four Giants-Pats games: New York 97, New England 89.

h. Last five Giants-Pats game: New England 106, New York 103.

According to these statistics the Patriots won the Super Bowl. 17-6. Actually, this whole statistic doesn't make sense to me at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think Peter has this statistics backwards or messed up in a way. The Giants went into the Super Bowl having outscored the Patriots over the last four games by 8 points, won the Super Bowl and have now gotten outscored by the Patriots by 3 points?

(Thanks to HH and J-dub for pointing out in the comments that Peter is working backwards to where the 5th game was a 17-6 game in 2003. I thought the last four games were all games prior to the Super Bowl and the Super Bowl this year was the fifth game. I didn't think we were working backwards, but working forwards where the Super Bowl this year was the 5th game. Hence my confusion.)

2. I think these are my Hall of Fame thoughts, as one of 44 voters who has been taking kill shots on various parts of my body in the last eight days:

This to be expected. When you have a secretive voting process combined with results that interest the general public it tends to create some criticism. Don't like it? Resign your position and don't vote for the football Hall of Fame next year.

b. Now, if you want term limits, you have to understand what you'll be getting. You'll be throwing out veteran NFL media folk and importing some less-experienced ones, in many cases. I understand the sentiment to throw the bums out, as in Congress. But I would ask this question: Do you want a new panel of bums if most of the replacements haven't covered the NFL long enough to have worked a game that Andre Reed played in?

Again, for fear of agreeing with Peter King...I agree with Peter King. Kicking the voters off the panel will get the bums out, but it will also cause voters with less experience to be voting. Maybe that's a good thing and a person wouldn't need to see Andre Reed play in order to vote "yes" or "no" to his induction. Though I am always critical of the "you had to be there to see him play" test, would rather a person who had seen Andre Reed play for most of his career vote for whether Reed should be in the Hall of Fame or not.

c. I work with and like Mike Florio. But as I told him the other day, it's personally insulting to read him say the 44 committee members are in this, in part, as some sort of power trip to hold some sway over the people we cover. I can speak for one person on the committee -- me. And I don't do this for the power.

Peter definitely does it for the ladies though.

e. Regarding players, coaches and club officials being on the committee instead of media people: Fine with me. If it happens, though, I believe it has to be 32 additional voters -- one former player, coach or club officials per team. I actually think this would be good. To have Bill Polian, Ron Wolf, Sonny Jurgensen, Dan Dierdorf, Bill Cowher, Nat Moore and Mike Haynes would be refreshing and smart. Now, the meeting would likely have to be two days long; the meeting this year was 7 hours and 34 minutes with 44 people.

Two days long? Well, nevermind then. We can't spend that much time deciding which NFL players/executives/coaches deserve the highest honor the sport has. These decisions need to be made in a day or less. No sense in wasting too much time on such trivial matters like which players deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

The only problem with having club officials on the board is if Bill Polian or Ron Wolf's name appears on the Hall of Fame ballot as a candidate. That's the only problem with having club officials vote and that's if an official is well-known enough to be voting for the Hall of Fame, there is a chance that official could also appear on the ballot.

h. When you tell me, "You're an idiot for leaving Parcells and Carter out of the Hall of Fame,'' tell me which two enshrinees you'd have left out.

Floyd Little. Last year. Yeah, he was great in his time, but he should not be in over Cris Carter. Little averaged less than 4 yards per carry during his career and had one 1000 yard season. So I would put Carter in over Little. Maybe I just hate old people. So Cris Carter can get in over Little last year and I have no issue with Parcells not getting in the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure I would vote for him myself.

6. I think all teams needing a wide receiver in free agency should line up for Mario Manningham. I don't see the Giants making anything but a cursory effort to sign Manningham, who likely will get at least $7 million a year somewhere. He believes he can play to a star level in the league and that he hasn't had the chance.

Every player believes he can be a star in the NFL if given the chance. Someone is really going to give Manningham $7 million per season? I'm not saying he isn't worth it, but if I am the Giants I am not giving him $7 million per season to be the third wide receiver. I disagree with Peter teams should line up to sign Manningham to a contract worth $7 million per year. Manningham had a good year (and an even better 2010), but I feel like $7 million per year for him would be a mistake.

8. I think the phrase "plays well with others,'' will be important for former Chiefs head coach Todd Haley to remember if he hopes to have success as the offensive coordinator in Pittsburgh. He left behind some poor relationships in Kansas City -- and not just with GM Scott Pioli. Haley has to bond with Roethlisberger and help the QB produce at a consistent playoff level, while keeping three talented receivers content. It'll be an interesting chemistry experiment.

I'm not a Todd Haley fan. He's burned bridges at nearly every single one of his stops. How can this be ignored? He pissed off people in Kansas City, argued with Kurt Warner and Anquan Boldin in Arizona, and argued with Terrell Owens in Dallas. I don't get why a team would hire Haley in any position. He just joined the Steelers and is already causing problems because he may not have been Mike Tomlin or Ben Roethlisberger's choice as offensive coordinator.

b. My gym in New York always has those Housewives of ... shows on. I have peeked. Is this what we have come to as a society?

c. That's how old I am.

The same people who watch these "Housewives of..." shows also read Peter's column. The same general public consumes both. That should be scary for him.
h. I haven't shaved since Super Bowl Sunday. How do I look?

With no picture along side this question, it's hard to tell. You do have a few cupcake crumbs in your beard I am guessing though.

i. Coffeenerdness: You're too inconsistent with the lattes, Manhattan Starbucks. I haven't owned an espresso machine for a few years, but I'll be getting one this week.

Fuck you Manhattan Starbucks! Now you've forced Peter King to get an espresso machine. That's right, instead of quarterly profits of $2.09 billion you will have quarterly profits of $2.09 billion. Hope you've learned your lesson.

l. Don't get used to 7,000-word columns in the offseason. Just got a little wordy over the weekend. Next week: Free-agent lists and opinions.

Next week's MMQB will be full of opinions? As long as they aren't about the Red Sox I think we can handle it. I'm kidding of course, every opinion will be about the Red Sox and how they don't spend enough money, but the money they do spend only goes to bums who can't hit or pitch a baseball.

Should We Get the Ombudsman an Ombudsman?

2012-02-13T14:31:00.000-05:00

I tend to be critical of ESPN. Yes, that makes me one of two billion people. It is a very select group I am a part of. I applaud ESPN for hiring an ombudsman, but I think the Poynter Institute is doing the audience of ESPN a disservice in their role as ombudsman. I am not one of those people who think the ombudsman needs to thrash ESPN for everything they do wrong and speak to people's frustrations about ESPN through excessive criticism of ESPN. I do expect the ombudsman to represent ESPN's audience and have an outsider point of view representing what ESPN does well and can improve upon.

Look at the Poynter Review archive for ESPN. They cover a 24 hour entertainment and sports network with a column about once or twice a month. They often cover topics a month after the topic was discussed in the media. July 29 they did wrote first column on ESPN's lockout coverage. The lockout was over at that point. I am all for having time to digest a topic so it can be sufficiently discussed, but ESPN had covered the lockout for nearly four to five months prior to that date. Why wait that long to write a column on ESPN's lockout coverage? What can ESPN learn tp improve upon at that point concerning their coverage of the lockout?

They covered Tebowmania and ESPN's effect on Tebowmania on January 26. The season was over at that point. That's crazy. The ombudsman for ESPN needs to write at least once a week and choose relevant topics so it doesn't feel like they are rushing to put out a fire after the building has burnt down. The column on Tebowmania was a great example of what I find ineffective about the Poynter Institute's reign as ombudsman. It is as if they are enablers of ESPN. I don't expect them to go off all half-cocked about what a shit organization ESPN is, but at least be honest with your audience so they don't feel like you are treating them like idiots.

With the Super Bowl upcoming and the NFL playoffs in the rearview mirror, we have the time and distance necessary to examine the phenomenon of Tebowmania and, specifically, to scrutinize ESPN's role in spreading the craze during the 2011 season.

ESPN's role in spreading the craze? ESPN created, facilitated, and propagated the craze. Nearly every single day the most successful troll in the history of television, Skip Bayless, discussed Tim Tebow on Cold Pizza/First Take/Whatever the hell it is called now. ESPN filled their airwaves with discussion of Tebow. When the Patriots mercifully eliminated the Broncos from the playoffs, ESPN did a retrospective on Tebow's season as if he had retired or deceased. It was saturated coverage. You couldn't watch a show on ESPN without hearing about Tebow.

Tebowmania was the national obsession with the Denver Broncos' quarterback. But it could also be described as an affliction besetting the media.

What is the largest media entity in terms of entertainment? ESPN. You can't just ignore ESPN's role in creating and continuing Tebowmania by acting as if they were just following the example of other media outlets.

Then the ombudsman points out the entire media was fascinated by Tim Tebow, which is very true, but it reeks of "well if another media outlet has to cover it then so do we" type reasoning that ESPN has avoided using when it is convenient for them. The ombudsman is making excuses for ESPN, as if ESPN doesn't have the power to set their own agenda for what stories they will cover and how much they will cover that story.

Tebow coverage took off for ESPN in 2011. Among the highlights:

Actually these are the lowlights.

Long before the NFL season opened, ESPN opened its Year of the Quarterback with an hourlong documentary on Tebow, which aired several times throughout the year.
Commentator Skip Bayless spent an inordinate amount of time on "First Take" offering up praise for Tebow.
Bayless' advocacy became the primary material for DJ Steve Porter's catchy Auto-Tune mashup, "All he does is win" used on "First Take."
Tebow was the cover of the Oct. 31 edition of ESPN The Magazine.
"SportsCenter" dedicated not one, but two special shows to Tebow.

It's hard to judge any of this as excessive.

What? Perhaps I misread this last sentence because I know no ombudsman in his/her right mind would call two special shows, a documentary, putting him on the cover of their magazine and spending an inordinate amount of time praising Tebow as non-excessive. If so, the Poynter Institute and ESPN are the only ones who feel this way. Let's try to read this sentence again.

It's hard to judge any of this as excessive.

Ridiculous. What I find most depressing is this supposed neutral entity, the Poynter Institute, is essentially excusing Skip Bayless' clown antics when discussing Tim Tebow. They call Bayless a "commentator" when he is a short skirt, a few lessons on how to be the top of the pyramid, and some dark eye makeup away from being a cheerleader for Tim Tebow. Not only do they not find Bayless' antics non-excessive, his antics don't even merit a comment about how a supposed neutral journalist became the number one advocate for an athlete he is supposed to cover. It is stupid to not call the ESPN coverage non-excessive, but to fail to comment on an ESPN analyst becoming the biggest advocate for an athlete is atrocious.

He holds the record for most tweets per second on Twitter. He is a genuine social phenomenon, even without ESPN.

No one is arguing this point. No one is arguing ESPN should not cover Tim Tebow. No one is arguing he wasn't a relevant and important story. What is being argued is HOW ESPN covered Tebow and the extent to which they made an interesting story into social phenomenon and managed to get employees paid by ESPN inserted into the narrative and national discussion.

Thus came the messiah metaphors. ESPN The Magazine writer Tim Keown wrote his October story as a loose retelling of Jesus among the crowds. He described Tebow as a vessel of hope. It fit in nicely with the Plan B theme of that issue. (It was supposed to be the NBA preview issue, changed by the lockout.)

And this isn't excessive. Using an athlete as a loose retelling of Jesus among the crowds, that's not excessive or inappropriate in any way?

And suddenly Tebow really was a god.

No, he was not really a god. He was still a football player who was very religious. What kind of ombudsman writes the sentence "And suddenly Player X really was a god?" Is this a report by an ombudsman or simply a way to excuse ESPN's coverage of Tebow coming from a well-respected journalistic entity?

ESPN's success comes not from its coverage of games but from its ability to extend those games into a story and tell that story from different angles.

It is the constant need to create a narrative rather than focus on the games. This is such an excuse-making column from Poynter Institute that completely confuses or ignores the issue. The issue wasn't the coverage of Tebow, it was the saturation of coverage of Tebow. THAT is the issue and it was excessive.

Everyone we talked to at the network was unapologetic about the coverage. Whenever Tebow plays, fans watch. When sports anchors and radio hosts are talking about Tebow, the ratings go up. Every time Tebow does something unexpected or new, there will be a story.

Of course they were unapologetic about the coverage. It made them money. Whether the network is apologetic or not is irrelevant. It isn't the job of Poynter Institute to determine if ESPN has high ratings and then use that as the basis to support whatever ESPN chooses to show on their network. I can start selling prescription drugs to school kids and be unapologetic about it because it makes me money. My income flow and lack of apology for my actions doesn't mean I wasn't in the wrong for my decision. Of course, I am treating ESPN like a company that cares about sports journalism. Not true. They care about entertainment over all else.

So who objects to all this? As far as we can tell, the resentment comes from two places. When ESPN binges on a single story, viewers who value variety are offended.

Again, Poynter frames this very incorrectly. It wasn't the lack of variety that irritated viewers, it was the singular focus and over-saturation of coverage. As viewers we don't necessarily need variety, but we don't want a story shoved down our throat to the point there is no escaping it. It creates resentment.

Some fans even accuse the network of fanning the flames of Tebowmania to ensure the story lives on. On that point, there is certainly a disconnect. Coverage of individual athletes is not a meritocracy at ESPN; it is based on what the crowd wants.

Bullshit. Very disappointing. This is complete bullshit Poynter Institute is trying to sell us. Are we really to believe Skip Bayless talked about Tim Tebow on a daily basis because we wanted to hear him discuss Tebow? What the Poynter Institute fails to address is how ESPN creates a story and essentially decides on their own what the crowd wants. It's a chicken or the egg idea. Did ESPN cover Tebow because he was popular or did he become popular because ESPN covered him constantly? This is pathetic on the part of Poynter to not even consider the idea an entity as large as ESPN is able to dictate to the audience what stories they are interested in hearing.

When being an independent voice about ESPN's coverage doesn't Poynter have an obligation to the audience to discuss the role of ESPN in deciding what the audience wants to hear. Even if I conceded the point that Tebowmania had to be covered, how was the coverage not excessive?

"If you think interest is going down, the ratings show you otherwise," Shiffman said.

So the coverage wasn't excessive because the ratings were up? I get it. Ratings means interest which means there isn't any problem with the coverage. So if I post a different Photoshopped picture everyday of Aaron Rodgers having sex with an animal and then begin to write a series of posts suggesting he is a closeted homosexual who was molested at a young age by his parents and this results in a pageviews increase, would that be fine? After all, if pageviews are increasing then interest is up, which can only mean people want to read and see more of what I am writing. People are interested after all, so I am only giving the audience what it wants. Right? Who cares if I am manipulating the audience? I am getting a reaction and that's all that matters.

That is the moment of disconnect. When a story gets bigger than the sport itself, and ESPN leans into that narrative rather than turning away, some fans throw up their hands and cry, "excess."

No. When the story is forced by ESPN to become bigger than the sport itself, that means the coverage has been excessive. A documentary, two specials and mentioning an athlete excessively on a television program is excessive coverage.

But an all-sports network is the very definition of excess. We're not inclined to fault folks for doing the very thing that's made them successful.

This type of coverage is not what I grew up watching on ESPN. I grew up on 30 minute SportsCenter and highlights of games. I didn't grow up with trolling, viewer-baiting "journalists" who have managed to confuse entertaining the audience with reporting and commenting on stories. ESPN was made successful because there hasn't been a competitor for the market they currently are the worldwide leader...sports. If Poynter isn't interested in actually examining ESPN's coverage and will simply chalk whether coverage was appropriate or not based on ratings then they are the perfect independent authority for ESPN to have hired and are doing ESPN's viewers a disservice.

Fresh off their excusing Tebowmania, Poynter decided it may be time to actually watch the programming that is on ESPN. They come to the conclusion ESPN has too much variety and needs to focus on single topics for longer periods of time. Given the Poynter's clear disconnect with what ESPN's audience wants these findings aren't shocking.

I suspect most ESPN viewers (or at least the gainfully employed ones) watch a show or two, rather than sit down for six hours at a stretch. But a weeklong immersion was a good way to gather impressions about what works, what doesn't, and how ESPN's choice of formats shapes the conversations that make these shows soar or struggle.

Why even take the time to watch the shows? Check the ratings and that should tell you whether a show is any good or not, shouldn't it? If there is viewer interest then there is no need for criticism or change.

ESPN has an enviable amount of talent at its disposal, from veteran interviewers to interesting guests.

I'm guessing this sentence wasn't supposed to be sarcastic. I personally read it in a sarcastic voice in my head.

Before the Super Bowl I was watching a show on ESPN and Hugh Douglas called Wayne Rooney "Wayne Brady" twice and repeatedly assured viewers he knew who Wayne Rooney was even though he admitted he didn't watch soccer. I think we are confusing "talent" and "interesting guests" with "people who can read cue cards on a good day" in regard to some ESPN analysts.

Nearly everyone on the air had an impressive knowledge of sports, good points to make, and proved entertaining company.

ESPN is perfect. Why do they even have an ombudsman?

But too often it felt like conversations were cut short or dumbed down.

The conversations weren't dumbed down. That's how ESPN discusses sports topics on many of their shows with a few exceptions. It's all pretty much dumbed down for the fewer who wants to react and not have to think.

Over and over, I saw interesting discussions abandoned because a show was charging hard to the next segment, or intriguing conversations that failed to develop because panelists and viewers alike were focused on countdown clocks or scorekeeping. Such devices discourage real conversation in favor of sports bromides and manufactured disagreements.

I'm pretty sure the thesaurus lists one of the synonyms for "manufactured disagreements" as "ESPN."

The week's best conversations came when the pace was less frantic. "Outside the Lines" was consistently smart and informative, whether the topic was Joe Paterno, how things go awry for place-kickers, or stem-cell therapy for athletes. It helps that host Bob Ley is a superb interviewer, with a sure-handed way of nudging conversations in the desired direction and a sense of when an apparent tangent is actually a more interesting topic. Take Tuesday's show, when Ley patiently steered former NFL quarterback Kordell Stewart away from clichés about taking it to the next level, then followed writer Stefan Fatsis's lead into a good conversation about kickers' preparations.

"OTL" is a pretty good show. Of course ESPN buries it on Sunday mornings and mid-afternoons because it moves slower. Also, please know Kordell Stewart is part of the enviable talent ESPN has on staff and he was speaking in cliches...like all good on-air talent should apparently do.

Part of the reason each afternoon show on ESPN talks about a variety of topics is because nearly every ESPN show mentions said topic. If each ESPN show talked about the Peyton Manning situation for 15 minutes it would quickly become tiresome, so that is why each show keeps the conversation on each topic short. I have no issue with shorter discussions of certain topics. I don't need a topic discussed into the ground on every ESPN show.

Wednesday's show was particularly aggravating: Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders used a relatively simple stat called "points prevented per drive" to demonstrate that the Patriots' defense bends but doesn't break. But fellow panelists Michael Smith and Hugh Douglas (another former pro) repeatedly cut him off with complaints such as "here we go with the decimals" and "you are making this game way too hard." It was pretend stupidity meant for comic effect, but by stifling any real conversation, it gave an uncomfortably convincing impression of the real thing.

I saw this show and Douglas and Smith were stifling the conversation because they didn't know what Schatz was talking about. It wasn't pretend stupidity. I really got the feeling Douglas and Smith were more comfortable talking in cliches, feelings and generalities rather than understanding what Schatz was attempting to show.

By boiling the talk down to scoring points, even in jest, "Around the Horn" encourages quick hits and contrived arguments, with nuance rare and insight hard to discover.

If the writer of this, Jason Fry, had time to read the writtenb articles Woody Paige, Bill Plaschke, and others on this show publish on a weekly basis he would find if you gave them 10-15 minutes each they possibly couldn't come up with a nuanced or insightful discussion on too many topics. If you give Woody Paige ten minutes to discuss a topic it will quickly delve into Dr. Seuss-like rhyming and bad puns.

panelist Woody Paige noted how former Ohio State coach Woody Hayes' secretary recalled the great coach's sadness after he was forced into retirement. It was a nice moment, but Reali cut him off because it was Tim Cowlishaw's turn. Later, Smith offered an evocative line about Paterno's legacy: "There's a 'but' with everybody. ... We're all going to leave with regrets." That could have been the start of a great conversation, but it was off to someone else.

That's the format of the show. There are four people talking about one topic. I, for one, don't want to hear 3-4 topics per show and would rather hear a variety of topics which forces these analysts to get to their point quickly.

Sometimes shows rise above these limitations. "Pardon the Interruption" is also thick with segments, but it has fewer moving parts, and co-hosts Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon are so well-matched that you feel like you've dropped in on a years-long conversation.

I don't always agree with these two people's opinion, but you get the feeling they are giving their opinion and not simply trying to reach for ratings. It is a discussion on sports topics that doesn't feel put-on or like a gimmick designed to illicit an audience reaction. That's why I like "PTI." They obviously care about ratings, but you get the feeling it is a discussion between two people who want to have an honest discussion about a sports topic.

Still, I found myself wishing I could watch them without timers and incessant reminders of upcoming topics.

This keeps them on-topic though. I often go away wanting to hear more, but the lack of time to make a point causes the argument to stay on point.

In too many other cases, I found myself wishing the panelists had more time to address fewer subjects.

It seems like the Poynter Institute is all about focusing on a small number of topics and saturating the network with coverage of that topic. I am guessing if they had their way then SportsCenter would show five minutes of highlights followed by 55 minutes of a discussion on three different topics.

That would let them make better use of the knowledge and passion that got them on ESPN in the first place.

I don't understand how these panelists can't use the knowledge and passion they have that got them on ESPN to talk about different topics in smaller increments of time. Of course, as long as these shows draw ratings I am guessing the Poynter Institute doesn't really care whether ESPN makes any changes or not.