I can connect nothing with nothing. Too bad that T. S. Eliot isn't here to weigh in on this nonsense with the Pats because, well, because he spoke kind of funny. At this point in reading PK, I am become a humble man who expects nothing. O Lord Thou pluckest me out...
NEW YORK -- Here's the one thing I feel sure about in the wake of Spygate: If Roger Goodell thought Bill Belichick wasn't going to be around to clean up the mess he's made, there's a good chance the penalty would have been different -- and it almost certainly would have included a suspension.
Hunh? Belichick’s punishment would be different if he didn’t have the chance to quit cheating? Surely, that can’t be right. Oh, and of all the spy stuff that’s happened since Watergate, this one is Spygate?
In other words,
Okay, this makes me feel better.
if Goodell had any inkling Belichick was leaving the Pats after this year, I feel strongly the commissioner would have banned Belichick. For how long, I don't know. But I think the knowledge that Belichick will coach this team well into the future played into the commissioner's decision.
It is right, and stop calling me Shirley. One, is a ban different from a suspension? (Probably yes, but would Belichick really not be allowed to do anything with the Patriots?) Two, what could be the reasoning behind hypothetical Goodell’s hypothetical conclusion? (Or should I call him Think-I-Think Goodell?)
In my talks with Goodell before and after his appearance on NBC's Football Night in America on the eighth floor of 30 Rockefeller Center, the second-year commissioner was crystal-clear about the seriousness of his investigation.
Just not crystal clear about his thought processes in meting out punishments. And we already have our OGE>>pkMotW, complete with name-dropping an address. Maybe PK can do a guest spot on 30 Rock or have a run-in with Dwight Shrute while he’s in Scranton for some unlikely reason.
If he thinks the Patriots are pulling some sort of Rose Mary Woods and erasing video or withholding the video he's asked New England to provide, he could easily increase the penalty on the hooded one.
This sentence is pretty clumsy. One, if the reference to RMW is so apt, then the rest about “erasing video…” is redundant. Two, how about just saying “erasing or withholding video”? Three, “he’s asked New England to provide” is also needlessly wordy; how about “video that he’s requested”?
Goodell wants all coaching video made available to him, and if the Pats don't cooperate, he'll increase the penalty.
Whenever you can say one thing in twenty more words than you need, say it again for good measure.
"They'd better comply,'' Goodell said, just before walking into the studio for his interview with Bob Costas, "or there could be more penalties.''
Jesus. Pete and RePete were sitting in a boat. Pete fell out…
In other words, this story is not over.
Double Jesus!
This week, the Patriots will have to make available all the tape the NFL demands to see.
Triple Dipple Jesus smothered with messiah sauce and a side of savior fries! Is Peter (whatever his middle name is) King paid by each and every single word that he uses in his regular weekly column, released Monday morning on Sports Illustrated’s website, sportsillustrated.com, and entitled “Monday Morning Quarterback”?
Cris Collinsworth made the point on our show Sunday night that Goodell should have waited before issuing his ruling, because Goodell could find other teams cheating. Why the rush to judgment?
Three Ge>>pk moments, so far. and how many names is he going to drop in this one? I had not thought death had undone so many.
Also, why the rush to misuse a comma before because?
When I saw Goodell, I pressed the comparison to Wade Wilson's HGH-related suspension -- five games and a third of his salary, versus zero games for Belichick, 12.5 percent of his salary and a first-round draft choice.
I have omitted nothing from this paragraph, which means that Peter is somehow connecting the concept of a “rush to judgment” to comparing the respective penalties assessed to Wade Wilson and Bill Belichick (who should be taking HGH to make his heart grow three sizes).
Goodell's responses:
• Re the rush to judgment: He said he was finished with his deliberations and meetings early Thursday night, and he knows that nothing stays secret for very long in this business, so rather than wait until Friday, he got it out Thursday night.
Did Peter say “Rush to revealing judgment?” No? Nicely sidestepped, commish.
• Re waiting until every part of the league's investigation was complete: Goodell said on and off the air that he wanted all 32 teams to enter this weekend's games knowing exactly what the sanctions were, to deter teams from any video tomfoolery.
Yes, because nothing is an enticement to bad action like not knowing exactly what penalty will be meted out to someone already caught misbehaving.
• Re the perceived softness of the penalty: I said to him, assuming New England makes the playoffs, "The Patriots still have a first-round pick, and they still have four first-day picks in the draft.'' Said Goodell: "Right. But what about the pick they don't have? What if that pick turns into Dan Marino or Darrell Green?'' He said football people and those on the Competition Committee say the loss of that draft choice is as serious a sanction as you can hand a team.
Or it could be Ryan Leaf or Tim Couch. Also, ask SMU about the most serious sanction levied against a football team.
• Re the Wade Wilson comparison: "He was involved in criminal activity,'' Goodell said. Wilson bought HGH illegally and was caught in the sting run by the Albany (N.Y.) district attorney's office.
Sure, but come on, WW wasn’t committing any crime against the competition in the NFL. The Pats outright cheated in a game.
Goodell did not seem particularly embattled Sunday night. Feisty, yes. A little defensive, yes. But he wanted to come in and explain his sanctions, even to a group of studio types (the NBC crew was five for five in thinking Belichick should have gotten some sort of suspension) who disagreed with how he disciplined the Patriots.
Embattled isn't a personal emotional state like feisty; it requires someone else to do the battling. And what about the Jets, the aggrieved party in this whole mess? Do they receive any recompense?
I favor Goodell's method over Belichick's in dealing with Spygate….
Well, they do have slightly different motives.
Why hide? Disagreements are healthy, and the game is too important to too many people to sweep things under the rug and wait 'til they go away.
If you’re counting, that’s one platitude and one cliché.
That's what Belichick is doing. When he talked to his players a few days ago about this, he told them it takes two people to argue, and if he simply didn't engage the arguers, the problem would go away.
Is Belichick prepared to argue for the bizarre conclusion that this situation is an “argument”?
As Goodell knows, those kinds of problems don't go away. They bubble beneath the surface and fester, and they tick off 31 other teams (and, I presume, quite a lot of people in Belichick's organization who don't like living under a dark cloud). Belichick will discover this thing won't go away just because he wants it to as he winds his way through what has the potential to be a phenomenally successful season for the Patriots.
Is bubbling beneath the surface and festering the same metaphor or two spliced metaphors? And, because PK notes that “those kind of problems” also “tick of 31 others teams,” somehow the bubbling and festering are going on in some other way or with some other (unnamed) entity(ies).
New England has beaten two 2006 playoff teams, the Jets and Chargers, by identical 38-14 scores. Both games were routs by the middle of the third quarter, pretty impressive against teams with great expectations. The Patriots led the Jets 28-7 after 40 minutes, the Chargers by 24-0 after 30 minutes. All the moves the Pats made in the offseason have turned to gold -- Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Adalius Thomas.
Just to reiterate, this is what PK said about the Moss trade way back when:
To me, and to Bob Kraft, Bill Belichick and Scott Pioli, cheating the game is the worst crime a player can commit. Moss has done it regularly, going back to the infamous dogging it that Merril Hoge proved on ESPN years ago. People around the Raiders had a major beef with Moss -- he regularly dogged it. I'm not going to kill the Patriots for this, because Moss might well turn into Pete Rose, and if he does, good for him. But this is not the kind of player the Patriots stand for. He can prove all of us doubting this trade wrong. But I can't help but think that, regardless of the outcome, the Patriots should have let someone else deal with his potential flameout. In their quest for the greatest offseason in the Cap Era (which the Patriots might have won before the Moss trade), I think New England went one step too far.
It'd be a shame if this team, like New England's three previous Super Bowl winners, had its accomplishments tarnished by Spygate. I hope Belichick has either had a come-to-Jesus moment since Goodell's discipline came down (which I doubt), or at the very least he's going to eliminate the unethical stuff out of respect to his team and the game.
Cheating casts a pall over success. Fuck cheaters who want adulation. And wasn’t I just talking about Jesus?
We're watching the games, Bill. You don't need the funny stuff. You're good enough without it.
How do we know? And that’s the point. And what a bad, kiss-ass cliche.
The Fine Fifteen
3. San Diego (1-1): This is the kind of night it was for the Chargers in Foxboro: Third-and-1, eight minutes left in the second quarter, Pats up 17-0. LaDainian Tomlinson, who owns third-and-1, runs behind the vaunted left side of his line. Swarmed by the Pats. Nothing. Chargers punt.
Why are they third, then?
4. Chicago (1-1): If Cedric Benson is as good and as tough as he was Sunday afternoon, that's a huge plus for a team that has to run well to win -- especially on a day when Rex Grossman played another C- game.
Against the Chiefs, which, when curved, will probably make Rex’s performance a solid D.
5. Pittsburgh (2-0): Steelers 60, Foes 10. Though Foes are Cleveland and Buffalo, don't concentrate on that. Concentrate on the fact the Steelers are playing terrific, bone-crunching, Bear-like football.
Cleveland just scored 51. Above, by the way, Peter notes that he swapped New England and Indy for what basically amounts to strength of schedule.
9. Green Bay (2-0): Play of the day: Brett Favre, 37, double-pumps under pressure to avoid a deflection, then lays a perfectly led three-yard out pattern into the hands of Donald Lee. Thing of beauty. That capped a 9-of-9 drive that made Favre look like he was 27, not 37.
If Peter King were a ventriloquist, his closing bit would be his dummy talking while PK sucks Brett Favre’s dick.
10. Houston (2-0): Last team to beat Indianapolis? Houston, 27-24, last December. Next team to play Indianapolis? Houston, next Sunday at Reliant Stadium.
So they’re ranked tenth because…? Oh, just say it, Peter: the Texans don’t have David Carr anymore.
11. Denver (2-0): Jason Elam for mayor. For governor.
For principate? For caliph? For prelate? For procurator? I don’t think that all of those are elected offices, but who cares?
14. Seattle (1-1): Anyone have any idea whether Matt Hasselbeck was trying to hand off to Shaun Alexander when The Fumble happened or simply making a really stupid play
Besides Hasslebeck, I presume?
15. Philadelphia (0-1): Tough game for the Iggles tonight. The Redskins are in Joe Gibbs' likely swan-song season, and this is a game they'll need to have a good shot at winning the division.
Correction: The Gibbs-coached ‘Skins are an opponent they’ll need to have a good shot at winning the division.
Q’sotW
I
"A division win! How about that? Yaaaay.''
Cleveland coach Romeo Crennel, after the 51-45 victory over Cincinnati. The Browns are 2-12 under Crennel in AFC North games.
Uttered right before Romeo plunged the straw into his Capri Sun.
II
"We need to quit getting hurt. It's ridiculous. We get too many guys hurt, and that's something that's got to stop. That's one thing we've got to improve upon.''
-- Tampa Bay coach Jon Gruden.
Huh?
I think that Gruden is mocking coach-speak. Let me rephrase that: I hope that Gruden is mocking coach-speak.
III
"Really sad day for the NFL.''
Colts coach Tony Dungy, on Friday, commenting on Spygate.
Does PK have “Spygate” in the office pool for what this shit with the Patriots is going to be called?
IV
"The biography of the Patriots' owner, Robert K. Kraft, in the team's 2006 media guide, brags that the three-time Super Bowl champions 'are often referred to as a model franchise.' But no longer. It now appears to be a model fraud, a model cheat.''
-- Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Dave Anderson of the New York Times.
If you ask me what hurts Kraft more -- the fact that his team cheated by illegally videotaping coaching signals or the fact that the most important newspaper in his world said his franchise is a fraud -- I'd say it'd be more of a contest than you think.
Aren't these almost the same things? That is, doesn't the act of cheating make one a fraud?
V
"We have spent the last 14 years developing and building a franchise that people could embrace and support ... I am deeply disappointed that the embarrassing events of this past week may cause some people to see our team in a different light.''
-- Kraft, in a statement Friday night.
I'm embarrassed for anyone who doesn't see the Patriots in a different light.
VI
"It's disgraceful. I'm embarrassed. It's shameful. If I told you guys some of the players from past eras, their retirement package is below the poverty level. Gentlemen, that is absolutely unacceptable and in my opinion shameful and all of us should be ashamed of that, and it's a disgrace. Why we simply can't match baseball's is beyond me ... I'm surprised and disappointed that some time ago the National Football League Players Association didn't step up ... When you have someone [NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw] making the kind of money, $6 or $7 million a year, to me that's just despicable ... They need to step up and change this.''
-- Hall of Fame quarterback Bart Starr, ripping the pension plan for retired pro football players, and criticizing the reported salary of Upshaw, in an appearance on the Heller and Murphy show on ESPN 1070 in Madison, Wis., last week.
Zeke Bratkowkski is waiting to pick up this rant if necessary.
Offensive Player of the Week
PK is discussing the absurd explosion of offense in Cleveland this week:
But this well? In the long NFL history of the Browns, which dates to 1950, they'd never had a game in which a back ran for 100 yards, a quarterback threw for more than 300, and two receivers exceeded 100 yards.
Don't people find the NFL's rewriting of history plain stupid when people say stuff like this?
Coach of the Week
Houston's Gary Kubiak. Before Sunday afternoon, the Texans had never been 2-0 and had never scored 34 points (their total at Carolina) in a game. Credit Matt Schaub for the life-preserver he's thrown this franchise, and credit Kubiak for having the gumption to trade two second-round picks for a mostly unproven quarterback and then jamming his offense down Schaub's throat in one short offseason. All Schaub's done is complete 72 percent of his throws and become the leader David Carr never was in Houston.
He can't stop. As if I haven't said so enough, Carr completed a league-leading 68.3% of his passes last year. Is Schaub better? Probably, but Ahman Greene might have something to do with what's going on in Texas. Also, the Panthers suck, and one Texans' TD was on a recovered fumble in the end zone.
FotWTMIOPK
Of the many twists to Spygate, here are my two favorites:
On Friday, with the mayhem of the commissioner's charges swirling around the league, and in particular New England, the New York Jets added one nice little postscript. They worked out punter Josh Miller, cut by the Patriots exactly four weeks earlier. Did they grill him for information on how soft the Patriots like their K balls to be worked in? Who knows? Just another little needle to contribute to the rivalry.
Yes, a very little needle. And “K balls” sounds funny.
Ever hear of Steve Scarnecchia?
Who, and how the fuck could I possibly--
He's the New York Jets director of video operations.
Oh, that Steve Scarnecchia.
Two interesting points on his resume: He's a former video man for the Patriots. He is also the son of New England assistant head coach Dante Scarnecchia, Belichick's right-hand man. And you wonder why we think the Jets might have some blood on their hands.
Because Mangini shook hands with Belichick? Does Peter know what having blood on one's hands means? Is he insinuating that this is all a frame up orchestrated by the Jets or something? Is there already a Jetgate?
E/ATNotW
Okay, this one gets weird (Not hotel soap disquisition weird, but close).
Last Wednesday, 7:41 a.m., New Jersey Transit train, Upper Montclair to Penn Station in Manhattan, seated in a two-seat bench seat, on the way into the city for our first HBO Inside the NFL taping of the year. Three stops down the line, at Bay Street in Montclair, a 35-ish woman sat next to me, a bit out of breath and with wet hair, and I tried to ignore her as I typed away on my laptop. The trip normally takes about 40 minutes. On this day, there was a delay just past Newark, and the trip took 65 minutes.
Okay, so we're certainly getting the “traveling” portion down, and the delay gives us the “aggravating” part. Speaking of, and I know that I'm creeping on real asshole-dom by mentioning this, but aggravating doesn't really mean what Peter uses it mean. He really means exasperating or irritating. Oh, and I'll go ahead and reveal that the length of this segment strains the definition of the “note” part.
The woman took out a rectangular makeup kit and set it on her lap. When she opened it, I saw it had two ledges that folded out, and she had maybe an 18-inch square mass of makeup on her lap. Tight space. Our shoulders were in contact; the makeup case is touching my left leg. Eye sticks, creams, mascara things, nail polish, emory boards, and a bunch of things I know nothing about.
Sounds like he knows more than he wants to admit, though he did misspell emery. Or maybe “emory boards” are used in the treatment of plantar fasciatis. Maybe she's going to completely invade PK's PS (that's personal space), and that's why this is “aggravating.”
First she rubbed cream into her hands and up her arms to the elbows. Then she moisturized her face. Then she did all the coloring around her eyes, whatever that is. Then she did her eye lashes. Then, with the train packed and in standing room mode, she opened the nail polish vial and did her nails. Bright red. With a wicked smell, of course.
Quite the routine. Note, however, that she is apparently preparing for work while Peter is, presumably, also preparing for work. Also, I read “wicked smell” as “wicked smile” at first, which had me excited for something really “aggravating.” And, if Peter writes that “of course” the nail polish smelled bad, he must know a little more than nothing about this stuff.
Then she blew on her nails so they'd dry. She had some time because the train was just leaving Secaucus for the city, so then she took some gel out of the case and massaged it into her hair.
Total makeup time: about 50 minutes.
Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous, even bemusing, which one might even call “enjoyable,” but I get the sense that this A/ETNotW was meant to be filed under A.
All I could think of was, if there were a shower on board, she'd take one.
After putting on all that make-up? I guess that Peter really doesn't know anything about these “things.”
Maybe, maybe not, but we're about to find out what Peter thinks he thinks!
1. I think these are my quick-hit thoughts of Spygate:
a. I really object to Belichick blowing off any definitive explanation of why he did what he did, in any other way than the dismissive statement (with a three-sentence apology) he issued Thursday night. He owes the public an explanation for why he did what he did. As one head coach told me Saturday, "because now we're all guilty by association. It's like what the public feels about steroids or HGH -- everybody's doing it in sports."
Really? I think that the universal taint of steroids comes from the realization that we were duped by nice guys like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. Belichick is universally known as a colossal asshole. In addition to his general dickishness, the guy broke up a marriage, but he wouldn't cheat at football, the thing he cares about most in the world (well, that after fueling his car with orphan hearts turned to coal in a process that involves clear-cutting rain forests and forcible sodomy)?
Well, of course everybody's not doing it. But when he doesn't stand up and explain himself, and lets a nine-sentence explanation serve as his entire, everlasting record of explaining the biggest coaching scandal this sport has seen in our lifetimes? It's just wrong. "I'm moving on,'' said scores of times, is a poor, poor option.
If Belichick felt such an obligation to the league and its employees, he wouldn't have cheated in the first place.
c. How many teams do this? Great question. My guess is somewhere between three and 10 use some form of video espionage.
How in the hell does he come up with those numbers? And why does he spell out three but not ten?
f. It's absurd, by the way, that Belichick used the excuse with Goodell that he wasn't going to use the illicit tape "while the game was in progress,'' and that "my interpretation'' of the rule was incorrect. The rule is not the least bit foggy -- no videotaping of the other team's sidelines is allowed. You know what Belichick's explanation is? It's getting caught by your father for being drunk and saying, "I know you didn't want me to drink beer, Dad. I didn't drink beer -- it was vodka.''
Depends on what your old man said, I guess. Mine said, “Don't drink my beer.”
g. Howie, Howie, Howie. Howie Long said on the FOX pregame show he actually thinks this is "people laying in the tall grass'' to get Belichick. First thing you've ever said that makes me want to vomit.
I know. I can't overcome my own gag reflex when people confuse lie and lay.
h. The other day at HBO, Cris Collinsworth and Dan Marino looked at me like I had two heads when I said this will affect Bill Belichick's election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame some day. It will. I'm not saying it will keep him out, because I don't believe it will. But I do think getting the stiffest penalty in NFL history for cheating will be brought up in the Hall of Fame meeting in, say, 2018, and there will be some who will not vote for him because of it. Remember this: When Lawrence Taylor was a slam dunk in 1999, there was more than a little on-the-record opposition because he'd been suspended for violating the league's substance-abuse program.
Is an election really affected if the outcome is the same? Oh dear, we've come full circle on the Moss trade's futility regardless of Randy's play. And how pedestrian is the expression “looked at me like I had two heads”? Pretty pedestrian or very pedestrian? Remember that it's an expression used to describe someone's encounter with something bizarre, kind of like my response to reading this: f. Next time you see me, ask me about my extraordinarily fun time in a 10-and-under girls softball game in Saddle Brook, N.J., on Friday night. Space limitations, and legal reasons, prevent me from spilling here. But human beings under pressure can sure react in some strange ways.
i.Radio information of the week: Chris Mortensen's analysis and information on his Friday night ESPN Radio show with Bill Parcells and Keyshawn Johnson on the possible Haldeman-esque involvement of CIA-like Belichick aide Ernie Adams in matching signals to defensive playcalls.
That sentence is just tough to read.
j. Reminds me of what Art Modell once said about the secretive Adams, who none of us in the media (and most in the league) ever see or meet. "The first guy in the building who can tell me what Ernie Adams does gets $10,000,'' Modell said during the Belichick era. Now, maybe we know.
Super-insidery. Also, “whom none of us in the media….”
2. I think the next thing on the commissioner's agenda should be an investigation into tampering with players by teams before free-agency begins. It's rampant. It's more than rampant.
Tampering? What are these guys, vacuum-sealed jars of peanut butter? Bottles of aspirin? This depiction of athletes as chattel is so insulting.
3. I think this is the reason a lot of people in my business and a lot of coaches and football people respect Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating. Last Monday night in the Cincinnati-Baltimore game, back judge Steve Freeman, on fourth-and-goal from the Bengals' 1-yard line with two minutes left in the fourth quarter, called Ravens tight end Todd Heap for offensive pass interference, negating a touchdown that would have tied the score at 27.
The call, obviously, was absurd. There was some very slight jostling, but maybe 20 percent of the jostling that takes place between receivers and defensive backs on plays when pass interference is not called. A terrible call. The nation saw it; Pereira saw it. And when he was asked about it on the league's in-house channel, the NFL Network, Pereira could have said, "Oh, it's a judgment call, and the official obviously saw interference, in his judgment'' and ended it right there. No. This is what he said: "The judgment made is his to make. When I run it, I don't like it.'' Perfect.
He didn't rip Freeman, though I'm sure privately he told Freeman it was a terrible call. (This, by the way, has nothing to do with swallowing a whistle in the final two minutes of the game, or ignoring ticky-tack calls in crunch time, which has always been urban legend in the NBA. This is all about whether a call was correct or not.) What Pereira said, in effect, was this: We all saw it was a bad call, and I'm sure even the back judge now knows it. There's no sense in any of us sticking our heads in the sand and pretending it didn't happen. I'm not going to rip the guy, but I am going to acknowledge that we have to do better.
If only every boss were so forthright about his employees’ mistakes.
4. I think this is what I liked about Week 2:
a. Want to see how to neutralize the blitzing of Troy Polamalu? Check out Buffalo tight end Michael Gaines' stoning of Polamalu midway through Bills-Steelers. One of the few bright spots for Buffalo all day.
Isn’t this pretty much like saying “Want to know how to stop Troy Polamalu? Block him really well”? Yes, it is.
c. Indy's run defense is so good right now. It's almost like the 2006 regular season never happened. Sanders playing the blitzing, submarining safety has been the biggest key to the run defense through two weeks.
Or like it happened a year ago and the team is different.
d. What a great touchdown catch by Braylon Edwards. You'll see it 10 times if you watch the highlights today. But that's what a high first-round draft pick does, make diving catches with the game on the line.
Some more than others, right, Matt Millen?
e. Favre looked like the old Favre against the Giants. Looks like this will be the last time he plays Broadway, seeing that the next Packer game at the Meadowlands won't be until 2010 against the Jets. "This very well could be my last one here,''' Favre said via the cell phone. "If it is, I went out pretty good.''
Very well could be? He’s talking about playing three more years? Also, when Favre just reverts to Old Favre, will PK have the stones to say it?
f. Anyone who watches football has to know Marion Barber is better than Julius Jones. Barber blocks too.
Get ready, Julius. If you keep getting Barber’s pt, PK is going to be on your ass all season.
5. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 2:
a. You'll need to be more accurate than that to beat Peyton Manning, Vince Young. Young badly overthrew an open Bo Scaife in the second quarter, causing the Titans to kick a field goal instead of being in position for seven.
Uh, okay. I guess that he is the only guy who overthrew someone this week.
c. In what defensive scheme would the Panthers hope to stop Houston wideout Andre Johnson with linebacker Dan Morgan in coverage? A bad scheme, I would say.
I know that I like to answer my own rhetorical questions sometimes, but this just didn’t work.
d. The Saints look as bad in 2007 as they looked good in 2006.
Since we’re talking about the Saints, couldn’t Peter have picked any one of all but three years in the franchise’s history for a comparison of how badly they’ve played?
f. Phantom coverage job by Johnathan Joseph, the Bengal corner, on Kellen Winslow, resulting in the easy Winslow TD.
He was the only guy on the Bengals doing that on Sunday?
g. Tomlinson, Reggie Bush and Maurice Jones-Drew are 38, 39 and 41 in the NFL in rushing after two weeks. Chris Brown has 13 more yards (209) than the three of them combined.
So this is what Peter thinks he thinks that he doesn’t like after two weeks?
h. Sebastian Janikowski will be remembered as much for days like this than anything else. The Broncos called a timeout in overtime just before the snap of the ball on a Raider 52-yard field-goal try; Janikowski booted it through, but the winner didn't count. When he kicked again after the timeout, the ball boinked off the left upright.
So what exactly does PK not like here, that a guy missed a 52-yarder?
9. I think Notre Dame is one of the most incredible stories in sports right now. How about a Charlie Weis team without an offensive touchdown after three weeks? They had minus-45 rushing yards in the first half of Saturday's 38-0 loss to Michigan. Startling.
Official Missed Zinger of the Week: this one belongs, of course, in his non-football T-I-T’s.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
a. How does James Spader beat Gadolinium for best actor at the Emmy's?
Good fucking question? An equally good question: Who cares about the fucking Emmys?
b. There is a Mike McGuire sighting! When we last left McGuire, he was set to get a new platoon ready to deploy to Iraq. As you'll read here, there's been a few changes.
"Good to hear from you," he writes. "I bet you are busy with the season starting. Must be a lot of fun watching all those games at NBC. An advantage is sitting in that room with so many football and sports guys. Must be a dream job. Man, the questions I would ask those guys in the room.
"I made a tough decision this week that has been on my mind heavily the past few weeks. I had the chance to leave Germany on Dec. 1 of this year to return home, but I declined because I just cannot leave these guys over here yet. They are family to me, even more than family because I depend on them to watch my back….”
I probably shouldn’t break this guy’s balls, but I assume that he has “real” family out there who might be reading this. Ouch.
c. Never a good idea to pitch to Derek Jeter if you could pitch to Bobby Abreu instead. I don't care what the stats say. Ask Curt Schilling if, with first base open, he'll ever want to pitch to the best player of my lifetime again.
Never? Whatever.
I defer to JLD on this one:
Sentence 1, clause 1: wrong
Sentence 1, clause 2: reinforces the wrongness of clause 1.
Sentence 2: technically correct (Peter may very well not care what the stats say); ideologically wrong.
Sentence 3: A suggestion, an imperative, not a statement, but I'm fairly certain he's wrong in his implication. Schilling, undoubtedly, would and probably will pitch to Jeter with first open again.
Sentence 3, subtext: Profoundly wrong. Perhaps if you have to point out that you "don't care" that "the stats" likely say that Bobby "Merely Good to Very Good" Abreu is better than a particular, it's going to be a bit of a stretch to identify said player as THE GREATEST BASEBALL PLAYER OF THE LAST HALF CENTURY. You can set the stats aside if you want, but if you're setting the stats aside with BOBBY ABREU, you going to need to push the stats aside with a snow plow to get around the 50 to 100 players—offensive players--who are better, statistically, than BOBBY ABREU.
d. Coffeenerdness: China Green Tips is saving me lately from the third latte of the day. Light, good taste, much better for me.
So close.
e. Thanks for everything, Rich Fitter. You took a fat guy and made him a little less fat. Good luck in your next life.
Peter King used to be fat?
f. Good morning, Brad Greenburg.
g. You too, Pugsley.
Who even gives a fuck anymore?
A little MMQBTE—Why do I bother?
So, PK is waxing laud-tastic about Bob Sanders, the “the most indispensable player” on the Colts not Peyton Manning. Fine, but this sounds a little silly:
Sanders, the fourth-year strong safety from Iowa, has played like the Tasmanian Devil....
What a coincidence! I just bought some Bob Sanders mud flaps at Wal-Mart.
PK's readers are often, well, something.
GOOD LESSON. From Paul Goodwin, of Seattle: "I just finished reading a book on Bobby Jones -- The Grand Slam by Mark Frost. In one tournament, Jones called a penalty on himself because his ball may have moved less than an inch after moving some loose debris. No one was watching, and even Walter Hagen, playing with him, told him not to take the penalty. He took the 1-stroke penalty and lost the tournament by one stroke. After the media heralded him for his honesty, Jones got upset, saying that congratulating a sportsman for following the rules was like cheering a garbage man for picking up the garbage. It was his job to play fair. I think a lot of professional coaches and players in all sports would benefit from reading about how Jones reached the highest level of success with complete humility and integrity.''
Your e-mail gives me chills. Thanks for writing, Paul.
I have chills, too. Paul had never heard this story before even though he's interested enough in Bobby Jones to read a book? Also, I think that the world would be a better place if garbage men were cheered for picking up the trash (and the same goes for other attendant analogies about doing what one is supposed to do. Plenty of people don't.)
EXPLAINING WHAT TAMPERING IS. From Nathan Marsh, of Sarasota: "You made a comment that the league ought to look into tampering with players before they enter free agency. Can you give a hypothetical example of the kind of thing you mean? Tampering with a player's health? Not treating an injury properly or aggravating it?''
Surely, Nathan is screwing around here, right? I mean, I was just joking about the safety seal thing above.
Simply this: In the days before free agency, I believe teams have conversations with players about to hit the market (and many more with agents of said players) laying out the boundaries they'd be willing to spend for the players.
Boy, that does sound awful, almost like a market or something.
You know how you hear of teams contacting players at 12:01 a.m. as free agency begins, and some players signing in the first hours of the market? I believe in many of those cases, illegal contact had been made in the days and weeks beforehand, with teams saying, for instance, "Our offer is going to be five years and $18 million, with a $5 million signing bonus, but the offer will be on the table for only X hours on the first day, because if you don't take it we have to move on.'' Or you hear of general managers going to the Pro Bowl and staying in the players' hotel and having not-so-chance meetings with future free agents by the pool. Those kind of things are what the league should police better.
Why? I guess that free agency isn't free.
DON'T LIKE IT. From Richard Jordan, of Providence: "What did you think of the Broncos' tactic of waiting until the Raiders were snapping the ball for the game-deciding field goal, then calling time out? I have no warm feeling for the Raiders or for Sebastian Janikowski, but that tactic bordered on the unfair. It's one thing for a team to use a timeout effectively, such as by waiting until the play clock gets almost to zero before calling a timeout. In such a case, the team calling the timeout is the team that can initiate play, so there's no impact on the other team. In this situation, though, while one team can initiate play, it's the other team that holds the attention of the officiating crew until the last possible moment before the kick. In this type of situation, baseball has it right. If a team wants to call time out, they ask, and if the timeout doesn't affect play, they get it. That rule would prevent this kind of cheap gamesmanship, which demeans the game and its participants.''
Totally agree, though I don't blame the Broncos. The rule should be rewritten to prevent teams from telling an official they're going to call a timeout and then wait and wait and wait until the last possible second before the snapper snaps the ball. My suggestion: Once the play clock gets down to 10 seconds on a field-goal try, the defensive team cannot call a timeout.
I haven't seen the play, but Shanahan's strategy does seem to be the analogue to stepping out of the batter's box. The problem is that it's not a very good analogue. Peter's solution seems unfair to the defense, which might want to call a timeout if it sniffs out a fake, for example, or if it doesn't have the right personnel on the field. Also, how can a timeout be given while a team is literally snapping the ball? Doesn't that start the play?
A TORN PATS FAN CHECKS IN. From Mike Shea, of Sandwich, Mass.: "As a Patriots fan, I have been all over the map regarding "spy-gate" (as my girlfriend can attest from the tossing and turning I've been doing at night). Let me start by saying that I find what Bill Belichick did deplorable. Sports are about proving your skill against an opponent with agreed upon arbitrary rules. If you're not going to abide by those rules, what do you really win by winning?
If Mike is really this naive, how is he actually having sex with someone? Maybe he really thinks that “sleeping together” is just that. I'll answer him though: what you win by winning, Mike, is the contest. In this case, the Pats were caught and still won.
Mike's not done (I can't believe that PK gave him so much space for this inanity).
"I think he and the Patriots should be punished to the fullest extent, even if they have no draft picks left for next year. But as a long-time fan, having this come out is like having a friend or family member do something you are ashamed of. You're pissed at them, but ultimately, you have to come around them, tell them to get their act together and support them in the future. That's what I want for my team now. And while I'd be perfectly fine if Roger Goodell issued Bill a suspension, I (unlike you and a number of other commentators) realize the point he's made by recognizing the incredibly big difference between breaking a law and breaking a rule.
Does Mike understand superlatives? The fullest punishment that I can imagine is disbanding the franchise and sending all its owners, employees, and advertising clients to a Siberian work camp at which they will labor for seven years and then be hanged by the neck until dead. Note, however, that Mike doesn't even mention forfeit as a possible penalty.
"Finally, after seeing a number of commentators, including Super Bowl coach Jimmy Johnson admit to trying the whole spying thing, and even you admit that you think between three and 10 other teams are doing the same thing, that if Goodell only investigates and punishes the Patriots, and doesn't do a league-wide investigation and impose punishment on those three to 10 other teams, then I am going to cry foul, because ultimately, all he will have done is the Jets dirty work for them. If his goal is fair play, then he has to take that task with the rest of the league, too -- just making the Patriots an example is not enough. Thanks for listening to me -- my girlfriend was getting sick of me getting this stuff off my chest at her.''
Personal Message to Mike's girlfriend: Send me a pic, and, if I like what I see, I'll fuck you while Mike's playing at his new hobby of insomniac ethics prof.
PK's response: That's an interesting thought.
No it isn't. Mike basically bullshat at length regarding his newfound cognitive dissonance about his team (which never occurred before because he didn't that Belichick was this much of an asshole) and then said that the league ought to enforce the rules on all teams equally. How novel.
Goodell is on record now as having warned every team about the video cheating, and there's no question NFL Security will be more vigilant in looking for violators at NFL games this year. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you want the league to do. If they have officials at every game looking for the offenders on sidelines, in coaches' booths and in press boxes, isn't that enough?
Remember that the league didn't catch anyone; the Pats' opponent did, an opponent that has received no recompense for being wronged.
SOMEONE WHO REALLY KNOWS THINGS CHECKS IN. From Marc Garber, of Margate, N.J.: "You wrote: 'I have no idea how Goodell can be sure he's getting it all, and I have no idea how he can figure out whether Belichick is hiding any illicit tape he's had his video guys shoot over the past seven years, if indeed there is some.' As a former federal prosecutor, the answer, Peter, is simple. Like any good investigator, Goodell would have to speak to former Patriots employees, show them what he has, ask if there should be more, and find out what exactly those missing items are. Maybe there's a code of silence among former Pats ... No one likes being misled or lied to. And if you have the means to punish people for lying, you do it -- because our system of justice, and the NFL's perceived competitive fairness, depends on the honesty of those asked about matters of importance.''
Oh yes, the fabled thin blue-red-silver line. I guess that the NFL will have a little more teeth than the NCAA in compelling testimony from people. I guess. I'd be scared to death to say anything, though, lest Belichick go all Marlo Stanfield on my ass.
And, apparently, no one likes a narc. I'd say more, but I'm tired of how stupid all the Spygate stuff has become. By the waters of Leman I sat down and wept.
Read More...
Summary only...
