Articles from around the Web
NOW DISCOUNTED 40%
Discounted for midseason; buy the PDF version here for just $7.50.Buy print version here for $22.95.
Click here to buy PDF version
Official Account: @fboutsiders
Scott Kacsmar: @FO_ScottKacsmar
Rivers McCown: @FO_RiversMcCown
Ben Muth: @FO_WordofMuth
Aaron Schatz: @FO_ASchatz
Danny Tuccitto: @FO_DTuccitto
Vince Verhei: @FO_VVerhei
-- plus --
Andy Benoit: @Andy_Benoit
Bill Connelly: @SBN_BillC
J.J. Cooper: @jjcoop36
Cian Fahey: @Cianaf
Brian Fremeau: @bcfremeau
Tom Gower: @ThomasGower
Matt Hinton: @MattRHinton
Mike Ridley: @TheMikeRidley
Mike Tanier: @MikeTanier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
02 Apr 2012
This week, Mr. King talks Saints bounty fallout and the race for Ryan Tannehill.
Posted by: Rivers McCown on 02 Apr 2012
88 comments, Last at
07 Apr 2012, 7:29am by
"New Orleans is getting really ticked off about the bounty sanctions on the Saints, and fans are responding with their wallets."
It's good to see that the fine people of New Orleans continue to exhibit the sound and long-term financial planning they are renowned for.
If anything King makes Goodell come off as some kind of marketing genius.
I don't understand what the NFL has to worry about in New Orleans. Are the fans going to stop watching the team? Will sponsors drop the NFL or the Saints because the fans are unhappy? Will nobody attend the games (apparently that isn't in danger, as the Saints have had their quickest sell out of season tickets ever)?
Seriously, if all he has to worry about is being booed, I think Goodell and the NFL will be fine.
Goodell has more to worry about eating in New Orleans restaurants than being booed at the game during this year's SB.
That whole section was pointless on so many levels. Saints fans are pissed...wow, big news there. And they'll boo Goodell during the Super Bowl? What percentage of Super Bowl attendees are locals? And, if he wanted to talk about fan backlash, how could he fail to mention the fact that it's just getting started in terms of sanctions--the coming player sanctions have the potential to be far harder on the Saints on-field prospects. You can live without a GM for a few games and even replace a head coach for a while, but if players are forced to sit out that's going to really hurt.
"What percentage of Super Bowl attendees are locals?"
May be a high percentage this year. :)
Every year, the home team thinks that for whatever reason. This year will be no different. Locals will be there, but not for the reasons you believe.
"Beernerdness: As long as we've talked about Jimmy Buffett in this column, I raised a couple of cups of LandShark Lager while in Florida. It could have a little more taste, but it's better than Bud."
But it's still owned by Anheuser-Bush...
And it's been available nationwide for years. He's such a beer nerd he had no idea the stuff was available where he lived and thinks you need to go to Florida to get it? Probably thinks Jimmy is making it in his garage with the help of a few Parrotheads.
I've failed to enjoy Landshark in the UK.
Trust me, this is not an experience unique to the UK. I have failed to enjoy Landshark anywhere and everywhere it is available.
Why do you keep ordering it anywhere you go then?
Do you turn down free beer?!
Plus, I have had bad experiences with a beer in one place and then had it in another and it was different/better. Some beers are better with nitro, or different foods, etc.
Yes to that question.
And ok, I believe you. You've failed to enjoy it in many situations where you got it. For free.
Look out guys, this guy is too cool!
If that = "I haven't had the chance to have it" then don't worry, it's not great. And if it = "I've had it but didn't enjoy it" then, well, yeah.
But the post above is right. Land Shark (not, I think, LandShark, as King has it) has been around nationally for awhile. It's why they bought naming rights to the Dolphin's stadium for a year or two not long ago-- you don't do that if you're a Microbrew local to South Florida. You DO do that if you're a faux microbrew made by a huge international brewer that's trying to market their faux microbrew nation-wide.
All in all, King's "Beernerdness" is always cringe-worthy. If you're a real beer nerd, then you know something about the beer you're trying and its history. He should call it "Beerdilettanteness" and go from there. Then he can call about stuff like this new Belgian-style microbrew called "Blue Moon" that we should all try.
If you're looking forward to your next 120 Minute, or on your way to Yak and Yeti for a Chai Stout, King's Beernerdness isn't very helpful. OTOH, people who think Bud Light Lime is adventurous might just stumble across something that will broaden their horizons.
Fair enough. And if it does, good for them-- one day, they might adventure beyond that and find something interesting.
Didn't he mention Shock Top a while back? I seem to remember him trying it on tap at some stadium. That's also an Anheuser-Busch product. What's next? "Came across this dandy little beer called "Bud Light."
I just stumbled across Keystone Light, for all you beer haters out there who wished it tasted just like water, this is for you.
We used to joke it was the result of them rinsing out the Coors Light vats. Still not sure that isn't how it is produced!
It's like sex in a canoe...
Not as much of a problem as you might imagine. And lots of fun.
Like many things, it depends on the company.
I hear the service run by Wet and Wild White Water Rides Inc. of Climax, WA on the West Fork Humptulips River is particularly fine.
At least it's an import.
I'm no qb prospect expert, and for all I know the guy will be great, but if somebody uses a top 10 pick on a guy with 19 college starts, about 5500 yards, 42 tds, and 21 picks, that's a real risk. I know Sanchez had fewer starts, and his td/int ratio was only slightly better, and his yardage worse, and I suppose Sherman knows him better than anyone. The problem is that Sherman's track record in coaching Favre was pretty mediocre, although, to be fair, coaching Stubbleface had its unique challenges.
I actually thought Sherman was an underrated coach for a while because those Packers teams just kept slowing bleeding talent and he kept getting them into the playoffs.
I couldn't stand his habit of throwing his coaches under the bus (figuratively, otherwise that would be a string of horrible crimes).
I don't think it was coincidental that Favre declined after Holmgren left, under Rhodes and Sherman, and then rebounded under McCarthy. Hell, even a guy with pretty obvious shortcomings , like Childress, was able to get the most out of The Zombie King, by just being hard on him. I think the way NFL qbs are often viewed as delicate flowers that need pampering is faintly ridiculous. These guys usually need hard, hard, coaching to get the most out of them, and the way the Sherman deferred to Stubbleface's worst tendencies was a real mistake, in my view.
Favre's playoff record also looks a lot different when you break it down by Head Coach. Under Sherman, he was 2-4 and never led his team past the second round. Under Holmgren, McCarthy, and Childress; he was 11-7 and went to 5 NFC Championship games.
I realize that this is a simplistic way to look at things, but I can't shake the feeling that a better coach could have done more with those Packer teams. I also don't think that Sherman's short-comings were limited to a simple failure to keep Favre in check.
My understanding, based on numerous comments from Packer fans, is that Sherman was a decent coach but an abysmal GM who was awful at drafting talent.
Favre was definitely a tough character to deal with and needed a strong coach to restrain his worst traits, but by the time Sherman came along Favre was probably too big a personality to yield much to a new head coach.
McCarthy seemed to do a much better job of reining him in. Childress too, of all people. Favre was just the kind of guy who needed to be confronted, and Sherman always struck me as being unwilling to do it.
It's even more odd, since Sherman had no problem confronting Warren Sapp.
(somehow, that clip isn't on Youtube. Either I've missed it, or there is a large hole in NFL comedy related videos).
I thought Sherman did the weakest job of any of the four Kubiak-era offensive co-ordinators in Houston (the others being Troy Calhoun, Shanahan the Younger and Rick Dennison), but that may just be because his offensive principles meshed less well with Kubiak's.
I agree, but that's pretty much what I thought about Newton as well, so what do I know?
Tannehill undoubtedly has a lot of upside, but he seems like an awfully risky pick at #4 overall, even with slotted salaries.
It's a little strange that Peter King criticises the NFL for showing Hardy Brown. The guy played in the 50s, back then black people had to sit at the back of the bus in several US states, doctors used to pimp for cigarette brands, computers were the size of warehouses and people used to take trips into the Nevada desert from Vegas to see nuclear weapons tests. Since then Man has travelled to the moon enough times to get bored of it. Things change.
The game has changed, many of the Browns' hits in the video that PK linked to would be penalised today, that doesn't make Goodell a hypocrite for attempting to remove such brutality from the modern game (there are many other ways he manages that). I always enjoy watching highlights of Dick Butkus or the 85 Bears but in both cases every third hit would be a 15 yard penalty under the current rules. Also: Jack Tatum.
King does take a rather Orwellian stance on history.
Football is safe, football has never caused concussions, ignorance is strength.
I think his point was not that we once celebrated that aspect of football, but that the NFL still does.
Not many people know that only 6 missions went to the moon and landed 12 people in total. (7 missions, but one failed)
But yes, we've grown bored of it because it was just a boring rock with nothing to do on after all.
What's this "we"? I'm 44 and don't remember any of the lunar landings.
At some point, Richard Branson will open the place up for tourism. Think of the possibilities! A driving range! Moon buggy races! Survivor: Luna!
There was plenty to do on the Moon from a acience and technology standpoint. But there wasn't so much drama (other than Apollo 13) so it wasn't *entertaining* enough for the science-ignorant American public and Congress anymore. Look at us now -- we don't even launch ambitious solar system exploration projects anymore, like the Pioneer and Voyager programs, we have no heavy launch capacity, and we have essentially no manned orbital capability, outside of what we can manage with the help of the Russians, and we're handing off the future of launch vehicle development to a few private companies who haven't even managed to put a man into orbit as we did 60 years ago, and whose bigger vision is silly stuff like space tourism. All because the American people have lost any vision of the future, and would rather devote their energies to winning the lottery.
End of rant.
It has been argued that the main reason to develop the technology to get to the moon is because that technology is pretty similar to the technology needed for developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. That's why states like India and China are looking to build space programs. There are three states with ICBMs, the Russians (first into orbit), the Americans (got to the moon) and Britain (courtesy of the USA, cheers).
Once you have the missiles, and especially after you have the necessary satellites, the military stops supporting space exploration in favour of building more earth bound methods of blowing things up.
For all America's science-ignorance, those supposedly science-loving nations of Europe and Asia have never landed a man on the moon (and only the Russians even as far as a lander), nor sent a probe out of the solar system, nor had much success getting to Mars in one piece. In 2006, NASA put a lander on Titan and dropped an impactor onto a comet. And after 45 years, no one has caught up to the booster capacity of the Saturn V. Even the Ariadne booster is matched by the capacity of the 'lesser' Atlas V. So for all America's ignorance and unwillingness, NASA sure continues to hold a lot of really old space-faring capability records, and no one looks to be catching up to them anytime soon.
Britain dropped an impactor onto Mars called Beagle II. Sure it hitched a lift on a NASA mission and it was supposed to be a lander not an impactor but most people are fairly certain that it hit Mars and with quite an impact.
Hey! The Beagle II first strike kinetic bombardment device neutralized all known Martian interplanetary weapons systems with complete success. Colin Pillinger is a latter-day Barnes Wallis.
Buck Turgidson approves.
"...we don't even launch ambitious solar system exploration projects anymore..."
I'm going to have to disagree with that. Maybe it depends on your definition of "ambitious" but there are lots of cool programs going on. (Although it is getting harder for NASA, budget-wise.)
Check out all the current and future programs here :
Nobody goes to the moon, because somebody is still there, and will come back soon.
Check Iron Sky, starting 04.04.
...but listening to coach Rex Ryan in Florida, he sounds like he's open to more -- up to 20 -- with the field spread, near the goal line, on two-point conversions, and maybe even using Tebow as the personal protector on the punt team.
You might as well add holder for field goals and quick-kicker on fourth and medium just outside field goal range. Holder makes fakes a real threat, since he's likely to be better at converting these than many. That should blunt block attempts a bit, even if the Jets never fake a kick. Punting from a non-punt formation makes sense if the situation is right - that is, if the fourth down attempt looks real. Could Tebow learn to pooch punt? Who knows?
The real question is whether Tebow is willing to take all these weird roles, and able to learn them.
He should be fine a personal protector. Tebow is a real jock.
I don't get the comments about the Saints' fans. Maybe it's not as strong, but aren't fans in WAS & DAL upset about losing cap space? Or is it because Saints' fans in general think the penalties are too much, and (esp. after individual player sanctions are handed out) are going to handicap the product on the field?
[Not to bring up Spygate, but the Pats lost 1 1st round pick. The Saints have lost 2 2nd rounders, which is more or less equivalent--PLUS the suspension of their coach, GM, and asst. HC/LB coach. I would argue that Payton's suspension BY ITSELF will affect the on-field product. Adding in other player suspensions will drastically affect games, esp. if they aren't staggered, as has been suggested as a possibility by some memebers of the press.]
Note: I am not saying that the penalties aren't deserved--just that they will probably affect games in a way that NE's penalties never did. WAS's cap penalties may affect games by handicapping their ability to sign more "expensive" players, but certain teams (JAX, TB, CLE, BUF, & MIA come to mind) sometimes have problems signing marquee FAs like that as well--but not because of lack of cap room. DAL will be slightly handicapped in that regard, but not so much.
So why is PK making a big deal out of this?
I'm not sure that losing Payton will hurt them as much as is commonly thought. Losing a terrific coach, which Payton is, sometimes takes more than a year to really have an impact, even if the successor has obvious drawbacks as a head coach. Look at Phillips taking over from Parcells, and Caldwell from Dungy, for instance. On the other hand, Payton's role as a playcaller is pretty unusual among top tier head coaches.
You forgot the best example: Barry Switzer taking over for Jimmy Johnson.
Oh my goodness, yes.
I don't know. As an Oklahoma State fan AND a Cowboys fan, I hated the Switzer hire. But the reality is that Dallas went to the NFC Championship his first year, and while they blew it in the first quarter and a half of that game (what was Aikman thinking?!?), they outplayed the 49ers the rest of the game and were one Deion Sanders non-PI call away from making it back to the Super Bowl for a third year in a row and almost certainly winning against a hapless Chargers team.
How does this hurt the point that it takes years for a bad coach to screw up enough to be noticed?
That's our point; that a decline in coaching acumen, even a steep decline, can take a couple of years to manifest itself in on-field performance. For the Cowboys, it took until 1997.
Ah. Totally missed the point. Sorry!
That's interesting, as a 49ers fan that isn't how I remember that game going. I could be wrong, I haven't seen that game in a long time, but it could also be different perspectives on the game due to being from different fan bases. I would point out that the 49ers won by ten, and forced five turnovers.
Well, I haven't seen it in a long time, either, but I recall Dallas really blowing (Aikman not recognizing the 49ers' disguised zone coverage and throwing a pick or two) and being down by a lot more than 10, only to claw back to the point where they really were within striking distance. But then on a long pass play to Irvin, Sanders PIed but there was no call (my bias, of course) and that took the wind out of the sails of Dallas. I could be wrong, too-- I was in college and was certainly having a few adult beverages. But that's how I thought about it.
The 9ers were up by 21 in the first quarter, and the Cowboys never got closer than 10 points, so they were never that close to the Superbowl.
The tough game against the Cowboys was earlier in that season, tied at 7 until Rice bust it open in the 3rd quarter by outrunning the Cowboys secondary on a slant.
the non-called interference was coupled with a 15-yard unsportsman like penalty against Switzer for going onto the field of play to argue the non-call (a terrible, drive-killing call). The Cowboys were driving towards cutting it to three with plenty of time left, and it really would have put a ton of pressure on the 49ers and Young (Peyton before Peyton in the 'can't win the big one' public perception). As a Cowboy fan, I was sure they'd win until that call.
As a 49ers fan I was sure that they'd win after they went up by 21 points after about ten minutes.
"[Not to bring up Spygate...]"
I dare say people don't know what "not" means anymore.
I live in the DC area and haven't heard any locals complain about the cap space penalty. I think that, even with the penalty, the Redskins have a lot of cap space. But more importantly, everybody is fully on the RGIII bandwagon, and nothing else matters.
Personally, I think any constraint put on Snyder's spending is a favor to the fan base. What are they going to do, complain that he cannot bring in another Albert Haynesworth?
I also live in the DC area, and what little reaction I've heard to the cap space reduction has placed the blame (unsurprisingly) 100% on Snyder. Also agree that it's completely taken a back seat to RGIII.
No, what I meant by "not" bringing up Spygate was that I didn't want to threadjack and compare spying to bounties. I just wanted to compare how the actual penalties might affect the games, and ONLY that.
To those who think that a coach doesn't affect the team for a while:
My counterpoint would be that Coach Payton tends to be HEAVILY involved in the offense, and only relinquished play-calling duties after his leg/knee injury last year. And that his Madden-point-of-view toward offense (screw it, we're going for it on 4th-and-15 from our own 25 yd line & we only run once every 5 or 6 plays so the D-linemen don't tee off on Drew Brees) is what makes him a good coach--he is almost too aggressive. (IMO, that got him in this mess, too.) Now, while almost all of us who are FO fans would agree that HC's are normally not aggressive enough, Sean Payton is one of the few who pushes the envelope on aggression. I don't believe that there is ANY replacement HC who will do that for the Saints, and esp. for their offense. IMO, that will be to the detriment of the team in general, as Spags is not going to be able to make this defense remind anybody of the Dome Patrol--or at least this year. So, Drew Brees and co. need to score 30 ppg--Sean Payton's aggressiveness makes that happen.
My reaction is that while WAS and DAL fans might be upset, they also realize that the owners of their teams are jackasses who are capable of stretching or breaking the rules (although Cowboy fans would probably boast about that).
You don't really sound like a fan of either team. If you followed the threads when these penalties were announced, most actual Dallas and Washington fans were actually not pleased and felt like it was difficult to see how the teams had broken any rules (uncapped year, etc.).
What I'm really finding difficult to understand, is why are people thinking that these punishments are just crippling the Saints, too much, and they couldn't possibly get worse? I'm sorry, but it's not like Goodell can look at the Saints as a whole, and just dole out punishment that hurts everybody and go on. Each person that has been punished, and the player punishment that will come later, is deserved for their role in the bounty system. Loomis, Payton, and Vitt all had their roles, and are being punished for it. The Saints as a whole has been fined $500,000 and stripped of 2 draft picks (I honestly think if the Saints had a first rounder this year, it would have just been that). It's not like Goodell was thinking, "how do I screw them the most?" He was doling out punishment to those who deserve it, and was giving them the amounts that was called for.
As for the players, I'm starting to think their punishment won't be too harsh. Except for Vilma. He's screwed. But from what I'm understanding, the biggest problem Goodell is having is the actual continual lying on the behalf of the Saints that there was no bounty system, or that it had been shut down. The people who are responsible for that were Payton, Williams, Vitt, and Loomis. The players weren't lying, they were just doing it, and it seems to me that Goodell isn't so mad about that, just the lying part. So I think it won't be too bad.
I haven't been paying attention: Why is Vilma particularly screwed?
If the NFL can prove he was the center piece of it all, the NFL will suspend him.
From all that I've gathered, he's the one player that the report names that offered money in the bounty system. Reportedly, before the Saints-Vikings NFC Championship game, he came into a defensive meeting, put $10,000 on the table, and told everybody that was for the guy who knocked out Brett Favre from the game.
It explains the 7 men blitzes.
Nah. Gregg Williams was notorious for big blitzing long before he joined the Saints.
He was also notorious for bounty systems before he joined the Saints.
Hmmm... this sounds like a philosophy question: Which came first, the bounty or the blitz?
Why all this whining about Peter King's comments about beer? He's an honest and good reporter about football who throws in, for lagniappe, his preferences in drinks. He used to do the same about his daughter's high school soccer games. In other words, he's a person with his own tastes outside the sport who doesn't hesitate to recommend books for Father's Day, to pay tribute to colleagues and who doesn't mind wearing his heart on his sleeve. Good for him, I say, in this age of sportswriter drones.
This sarcasm could be delivered better.
This cynicism is delivered quite right.
Peter King is a peasant. He is clueless about food/wine/culture/football. He is good about getting access to the players and exec's who matter in the nfl. That is his only redeeming feature.
"She's a dental hygenist from Carbondale and she makes love like one. Pass." - D. Schrute
It's not sarcasm, Philly Cheesesteak, but an honest appraisal. Dingdongs like you just don't get it, because of your hilariously slanted reporting in the Philly so-called newspapers, that Peter King is really writing what he sees and reports -- he's not a booster and not one of your Philadelphia Cream Cheeses (minimal garlic and chives added) who boo Santa Claus, he's honest.
And did you just pretend to be someone else in the comment below?
It just means we're in full offseason mode.
You heard it here first, folks. Peter King: Not a booster.
I apologize for my dingdong comment, and for everyone that lives in Philly, as per requested by you.
Just once I want to hear Peter King give me his take on Scotch, a splif, and chasing the dragon.
Want to see what good middle linebacker play looks like? Watch this Alabama prospect work.
See All XP | NFL XP | College XP
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties