Determining The Greatest QB Is Not That Simple

Peyton Manning has the career record for touchdown passes. So where does he fit in among the best quarterbacks of all time?

And thus the debate begins -- and it usually starts by talking about playoff records and Super Bowl rings.

Let's first start with a collection of articles that Douglas Lee at It's All Over Fat Man gathered, in which some writers talked from the perspective of how great Peyton is as a player, to those who talk about how his career won't really be complete without another championship.

Of course, the debate generally starts with Tom Brady, who has three rings to Peyton's one. Even brother Eli has more rings than Peyton -- and, hey, Eli is 2-0 against Brady in Super Bowls, so clearly Eli is better than Brady, right?

But wait, there's more! Brady is 3-2 overall in the Super Bowl, so we should be able to put him safely behind Joe Montana, who is 4-0 -- the same record as Terry Bradshaw. And then there's Troy Aikman, who won three Super Bowls and never lost any. Therefore, if Super Bowl rings are all that matter, Bradshaw is far superior not only to Brady, but to any other QB who has followed in their footsteps, with the exception of Montana. And Aikman must be better than Brady because Aikman never choked in a Super Bowl!

Of course, then we get into the arguments about the teams that were built around Aikman and Bradshaw -- but then we forget that Montana had the same, and ditto for Brady. Whereas when you look at the teams built around Peyton Manning, they are a mixed bag.

With that said, one can make the argument that having good skill players on offense helps a quarterback. Peyton Manning always seems to have those players, such as Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Edgerrin James, Demaryius Thomas and Wes Welker. Brady had Welker, Randy Moss and Rob Gronkowski, but a lot of the running backs and receivers who played with Brady are seldom mentioned among the greats at those positions.

But we also forget that the Super Bowl didn't exist since the NFL's inception, and that the rules weren't always so favorable to the passing game. So what happens when we roll out Johnny Unitas, who may have been a QB ahead of his time and won a pair of championships in the pre-Super Bowl era, and Otto Graham, who not only won multiple championships in the pre-Super Bowl era, but played both offense and defense, something no quarterback today does.

Regardless of who you think is the best QB of all time, there are a few factors to keep in mind that may help you sort it out:

1. Win-loss records are not as meaningful as breaking down individual games: Every time the Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady debate comes up, we always talk about what the win-loss record is between the two, without bothering to dig further into the details about their performances.

Let's consider one example: In 2009, the Patriots led the Colts 34-21 with 4:17 left in the game, only for the Colts to score 14 points to win the game. One might say Peyton Manning won the game for the Colts, but does this mean Tom Brady lost the game for the Patriots? Or did we forget that was the game in which Bill Belichick chose to go for it on fourth-and-one at the Pats' 28-yard line, and failed, thus setting up that final drive for the Colts?

Then there was the 2004 outing, in which the Colts cut the Patriots lead to 27-24 with 11:09 left, then Brady threw an interception on the Pats' next drive. However, on first-and-goal at the 1, Edgerrin James fumbled and the Pats recovered. The Colts got another possession, but Mike Vanderjagt missed a 48-yard field goal that would have sent the game into overtime. Do we honestly believe that Brady won that game and Peyton lost it?

The focus on win-loss records for QBs always goes back to the silly argument of "the quarterback always wins the game and the quarterback always loses the game." Yet few people would argue that every single team that, for example, won the Super Bowl, won it because of whoever was quarterback.

2. Great quarterbacks regularly get their teams to the playoffs, while great teams win multiple Super Bowls in a short time span: Let's consider the time frames in which Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman got their Super Bowl rings. Bradshaw played for Steelers teams that won four in a six-year span (1975-1980). Montana played for 49ers teams that won four in a nine-year span (1982-1990). Aikman played for Cowboys teams that won three Super Bowls in four years (1993, 1994, 1996).The Steelers and Cowboys qualify as great teams, given that they won their multiple Super Bowls so close together. The Niners might be considered the team of the 1980s, although their Super Bowls were spread out over a longer period.

How do the Patriots compare with Brady as QB? They are similar to the Cowboys with Aikman, as they won three in four years (2002, 2004, 2005). A Super Bowl win in 2008 would not only have made the Pats similar to the Steelers, but would have generated talk about the greatest team of all time. Of course, we all know the Giants ended that dream. Still, it is fair to categorize that Patriots bunch as a great team.

So what does this mean for Brady? Well, there is this to consider: Every season in which Brady has started at least 14 games, the Patriots have made the playoffs in all but one season: 2002. (Remember: Brady didn't start as a rookie.) Then consider Peyton Manning: Every season in which he has started at least 14 games, his teams have made the playoffs in all but two seasons: 1998 (his rookie season) and 2001 (the year of Jim Mora's infamous remark).

Because Brady played in just one game as a rookie and took a whopping three pass attempts, it may be fair to set Peyton's rookie season aside. Thus each QB has one season in which he missed the playoffs, when he started most games and should have settled into his role.

But then this brings us to another point.

3. When the best quarterbacks are lost for a season, their absence is truly felt: Let us consider the seasons that Brady and Peyton missed because of injuries. In 2008, the Patriots went 11-5 with Matt Cassel, despite missing the playoffs on tiebreakers, but still finished better than any team in the mediocre AFC West (San Diego and Denver were both 8-8). In 2011, the Colts went 1-15.

Those seasons make it clear that, while Brady may have been an important part of the Patriots, he wasn't doing near as much to keep getting the Patriots into the playoffs, as Peyton had been doing with the Colts.

It is certainly worth arguing that Brady's absence on the current Patriots team might keep the Patriots from reaching the playoffs. But it's just as easy to make that argument with Peyton's absence for the current Broncos team.

None of these points are meant to declare that one quarterback is automatically better than the other. They are to remind you that measuring how great a QB is, is a complex issue that can't just simply be considered by looking at wins, stats or rings.

The Jets and Other Candidates for Regime Changes

It's easy for NFL fans to declare that a regime change needs to be made based on how poorly a team is faring.

Case in point is the New York Jets, who are 1-4 to start the season and don't appear to have any chance of turning things around to become a playoff contender this season.

Criticism, though, is not limited to Rex Ryan, who is likely to lose his job after this season. Much of the finger pointing gets directed at general manager John Izdik, based on facts such as that Geno Smith hasn't lived up to expectations, that 2014 fourth-round pick Jalen Saunders was released and that 2013 first-round pick Dee Millner has failed to impress.

As Bill Barnwell explains, though, the picture regarding Izdik is not that simple. Izdik is still trying to sort out the mess that former GM Mike Tannenbaum left behind. Tannenbaum mismanaged the salary cap, made bold draft moves too often at the expense of the team's depth, and made questionable free agent signings and trades.

Expectations were no doubt placed too high for the Jets based on their 8-8 finish last season and that Rex Ryan has been able to take past Jets teams that weren't really built that well, into the playoffs and even make a deep run. That's no doubt why Izdik chose to keep Ryan around last season. After the 8-8 finish, it would be hard to justify firing Ryan, but now, signs are pointing to that happening by season's end, given that Izdik is clearly in a rebuilding mindset, while Ryan continues to believe the Jets are a playoff contender.

You can read Barnwell's article for more details, but to sum up: Izdik has overseen just two drafts and didn't make bold moves up the draft board, he's tried to be smart with free agent signings and he's not spending his time trying to make a splash. The signing of Michael Vick hardly counts as that, as he signed a one-year deal for $4 million, which is the type of deal you give to a veteran who is supposed to be the backup and a mentor to the younger QB you want to develop.

Izdik has made strides in getting the salary cap situation resolved, but not all of the bad contracts will come off the books until 2016. Nick Mangold could be released this coming offseason to free up $17.6 million in cap space over the next two seasons, but the Jets will have to stick it out with D'Brickshaw Ferguson for at least another year, before they can gain more cap space than dead money through his release.

It might be fair to criticize Izdik for not doing more to improve the team's depth, but engaging in a rash spending spree when your team is in rebuilding mode doesn't make sense.

The Jets aren't the only team who will get talked up about making changes in the front office and/or coaching. Let's look at some others (aside from Oakland, who already fired Dennis Allen).

Buffalo: The main reason you might hear about changes coming is the fact that the Bills have been sold to Terrence Pegula. Buddy Nix had been general manager until May of last year, when he moved to a special assistant position and Doug Whaley, who oversaw the team's pro personnel department, took over as GM. Doug Marrone now enters in his second year as head coach.

It would be unfair to blame Whaley for the contract the Bills gave to Mario Williams, who has been a good player, but was overpaid, and the Bills are likely stuck with him through 2015. One can debate how much input Whaley had into the drafts that happened while Nix was general manager, in which there have been some good picks (Marcel Dareus, Cordy Glenn) and some that haven't worked out (EJ Manuel, Terrell Troup).

What is clearly Whaley's responsibility is the decision to trade up for Sammy Watkins, giving up a 2015 first rounder in the process. Watkins shows a lot of promise, but it remains to be seen if he'll be the impact player the Bills believe he will be. Most of all, Whaley needs to figure out what is next with his quarterback situation, should Kyle Orton not pan out, given that Orton would count for $7 million against the cap in 2015.

I believe Pegula should, and will, give Whaley a chance to prove himself next season. If the Bills don't make the playoffs, I don't believe firing Marrone is the answer, either, unless the Bills lose all their remaining games. Firing Marrone at season's end under most scenarios would strike me as a panic move on Whaley's part and could put Whaley into a "win or else" situation next season.

Jacksonville: There is one parallel between the Bills and the Jaguars that can be drawn, as in 2011, Shahid Khan purchased the team and questions arose as to the future of those in the front office. General manager Gene Smith fired coach Jack Del Rio at the end of the 2011 season, and then was fired himself after the 2012 season. The difference from the Bills is that Smith and Del Rio had been around far longer (Del Rio since 2003, Smith since 2009).

Smith did a poor job of drafting. Although 2009 first-round pick Eugene Monroe and third-round pick Terrance Knighton have been good players, Knighton didn't blossom until joining the Denver Broncos (where Del Rio is the defensive coordinator) and Monroe was traded to the Baltimore Ravens. Draft picks such as Tyson Alualu, D'Anthony Smith, Blaine Gabbert and Will Rackley have failed to make an impact and Justin Blackmon is serving a season-long suspension for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy.

The Jaguars are also digging out of some bad contracts, notably that of tight end Marcedes Lewis, who Smith overpaid. Current general manager David Caldwell will be able to release Lewis after this season and free up $6.8 million in cap space. The good news for Caldwell is that his more recent signings were given cap friendly deals that the Jaguars can get out of easily. Toby Gerhart hasn't proven to be the featured back the Jags need, but they could release him after the season with no cap hit, so long as they do it before his roster bonus kicks in.

It's true the Jaguars have underachieved with Gus Bradley at the helm, but firing him after two seasons really isn't the answer. Caldwell needs time to fully implement his plan and Bradley needs at least another season to show he can get the team can improve.

Carolina: Marty Hurney had been with the Panthers since 1998, but it was apparent by the 2012 season that it was time for him to go. His mismanagement of the salary cap and some poor personnel decisions caught up with him, and while it may have been time for John Fox to go when he was fired in 2011, Hurney shared a larger responsibility for the team's situation.

The biggest problem with Hurney was his handling of the salary cap, in which the Panthers are stuck with DeAngelo Williams through 2016, when he will be 34 years old. A quick glance at how Williams' contract was structured will tell you all you need to know. Hurney also didn't structure well the deals for Jonathan Stewart and Charles Johnson.

Between the cap space tied up in those players, and the franchise tag being applied to Greg Hardy, new Panthers general manager David Gettleman had no choice but to release Steve Smith to get cap space freed up. That means Gettleman has to draft wisely to make up for the other cap issues. It also forces Ron Rivera (a Hurney hire) to work with the hand he is dealt.

Although Rivera was hired by Hurney, I believe firing him would be the wrong move, unless the Panthers finish with a losing record. Right now, the Panthers look like an 8-8 or 9-7 team, which might be enough to win the NFC South, given that no other team really stands out. As for Gettleman, the smart thing for the Panthers to do is to be patient until their cap situation is finally resolved

St. Louis: I've already read elsewhere about how it might be time for Jeff Fisher to go, with the claim that the Rams have shown no improvement under him. What these people forget, though, is not just that the Rams play in a tough division, but that they have had hard luck at the quarterback position. Sam Bradford's contract came before the rookie pay scale came into play and this past offseason was the first one in which the Rams could have released him without taking a large cap penalty.

Given that Bradford was respectable in 2012 (Fisher's first season) and was off to a solid start in 2013 before injuries ended his season, it is reasonable to assume that Fisher and general manager Les Snead wanted to give Bradford another chance to show he could be the franchise QB. His preseason injury, though, likely means they will part ways with Bradford this coming offseason.

I don't think Fisher is going with Austin Davis simply to see if he can save his job. Given that Bradford is not likely to be with the Rams next year, it makes sense for Fisher (and Snead) to find out if Davis is a quarterback they can build around, or if they need to address the position through the draft and/or free agency next season. That, along with the fact that Fisher is getting a lot out of a squad that doesn't have that much talent on offense, leads me to believe that Fisher will be back next season. As for Davis, thus far his drafts have been pretty solid, so there's no reason to make a change in the front office.

Miami: The Dolphins did the right thing by parting ways with Jeff Ireland after last season, and new general manger Dennis Hickey did the right thing by retaining head coach Joe Philbin. The Dolphins had plenty of problems, but most of them do not appear to be at the hands of Philbin. I don't imagine Hickey is going to fire Philbin after this season, unless the Dolphins fail to make the playoffs and Hickey is convinced he needs to find his own coach.

Of course, nobody is going to insist that Hickey be fired after just one season, and he'll need to wait one more season before he can get out of the deal Ireland gave to Mike Wallace. Ireland overpaid not only for Wallace, but several other players as well, which means Hickey will have to make some decisions to address the Dolphins' cap situation, as the team will be either be close to the cap or over it in 2015.

New York Giants: Some may wonder if this is the final season for Tom Coughlin, especially if the Giants fail to make the playoffs. He did get a contract extension through the 2015 season, though, so it's not a guarantee that he will be gone after this season. I suspect if he does depart, though, that it will be by his own choice. Of course, if the Giants do make the playoffs, I don't think anyone is going to expect Coughlin to depart.

Jerry Reese has done a fine job as general manager, so I would expect no changes there, regardless of what happens to the Giants this season. He's drafted pretty well and has been wise with most free agent signings, and the Giants' cap situation is in good shape.

Pittsburgh: There's likely to be somebody out there wondering if Mike Tomlin will be gone simply because the Steelers haven't made the playoffs in recent years. Anyone who does this, though, needs to remember that the Steelers are still sorting out their cap situation, in which they have to ride it out with a few veterans while drafting and developing their eventual replacements.

The Steelers have generally been a patient organization and understand that there may transitional periods in which the team doesn't always make the playoffs, but are then ready to reap the rewards of deep playoff runs once those transitional periods are completed. 

So I don't expect the Steelers to fire Tomlin any time soon. What they will need to do this offseason is draft wisely, as they are nearing the point in which certain veterans will have to be released to free up cap space, particularly with Ben Roethlisberger nearing the end of his current deal and becoming a likely candidate for an extension.

Debate About Chop Block Misses A Larger Point

A block by Denver Broncos tight end Julius Thomas against Arizona Cardinals defensive end Calais Campbell has brought up a "dirty play or not" debate, but may be missing a larger point.

On the play in question, the referees threw a flag for a chop block, and the number of the player the penalty was called on belonged to Ryan Clady. The replay showed Thomas actually blocked Campbell, which many people probably thought was a case of the referee misidentifying the player in question.

What actually happened is the referees correctly calling what is defined as a "chop block" under NFL rules, when the average fan might be thinking the penalty was for Thomas blocking Campbell low, particularly when there has been past criticism about such blocks made on defensive players.

Let's first explain what a chop block is: The NFL defines it, in most cases, as two offensive players simultaneously blocking a defender, with one offensive player going high on the other player going low.

There is one exception, which is called the "lure block." It's a type of chop block in which one offensive player acts like he is engaging the defender for a typical pass block (up high with the hands or arms pushing against the defender), only for another offensive player to come in low to block the defender. It matters not if the first offensive player touches the defender -- under NFL rules, it's illegal. This is what happened with Clady and Thomas against Campbell.

So not only were the referees correct to penalize the Broncos on that play, they weren't wrong to name Clady, because he was the player who went to engage Campbell when Thomas came in low.

But that brings up a bigger issue: Let's say Clady does not move toward Campbell, indicating a block attempt, and Campbell decides to go around Clady. Thomas then comes in low on Campbell low, where Campbell sees him coming, and Thomas hits Campbell below the knee.

In that case, Thomas is engaging in a cut block. However, it's a version that is not illegal under NFL rules. One needs to keep in mind that cut blocking is simply the tactic of blocking a defender at or below the knee, without having another player engage the defender up high. (In other words, cut blocking does not equal chop blocking under NFL rules.)

Cut blocking is a tactic that former Denver Broncos coach Mike Shanahan was often criticized for utilizing because some coaches, players and fans considered it dirty. However, because the NFL has never made cut blocking in general illegal, players and coaches on many teams have utilized the tactic. And that raises a larger issue worth considering: Ensuring the safety of defenders trying to make plays.

A few years ago, the NFL modified its rule regarding defenders hitting quarterbacks in the knee or below, prohibiting a defender on the ground who isn't bocked or fouled directly into the quarterback from lunging or diving at the quarterback's lower legs. The change came about after the 2008 season, in which Tom Brady tore his ACL and MCL after Kansas City Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard dove into Brady's knee, after Pollard had been blocked to the ground by Patriots running back Sammy Morris.

The question we should ask, though, is if we believe quarterbacks should be protected from such shots to the knee or below, should we not do the same for defensive players who are attempting to rush the passer or track down a running back?

It may be time for the NFL to implement a rule that makes it illegal for offensive players to block defenders at or below the knees within five yards of the line of scrimmage. That would force offensive players to block by more "traditional" means and do a lot to protect defensive players from injuries.

What The NFL Needs Is A Real Overtime Rule

A few years ago, several pundits started complaining about the overtime rules in the NFL. They argued how ridiculous it was for one team to win the toss, then watch as that team does nothing but play for the right to kick a field goal to win it.

So Roger Goodell decides we'll test out a modified overtime rule for the playoffs. Simply put, the team that wins the toss cannot win the game by kicking a field goal on its opening drive, but it can win the game if it scores a touchdown.

I remember telling somebody that the rule should have been changed so that each team was guaranteed at least one possession on offense and then you get rid of most complaints.

Next thing you know, Tim Tebow passes to Demaryius Thomas on the first play of overtime, Thomas takes it to the house, and I'm celebrating that my Denver Broncos just beat the Pittsburgh Steelers in the playoffs.

Of course, now we have the modified overtime rule applied to all games, and now what? We have Peyton Manning rallying the Denver Broncos to force overtime against the Seattle Seahawks, only for the Seahawks to win the overtime coin toss, followed by Russell Wilson rallying his team down the field for the touchdown.

Sure enough, here come the pundits who complain about how unfair that is to Peyton Manning... but before Seahawks fans get tuned up, you can bet those same pundits would have complained if the Broncos had won the toss and scored the touchdown, because Super Bowl-winning quarterback Russell Wilson didn't get his turn.

Then again, those same pundits were likely saying nothing when Tebow to Thomas happened, because they were too busy talking about Tebow Time.

Anyway, I still am of the opinion that the modified overtime rule is a bad idea... which means, yes, I believe the Steelers should have had a possession on offense in the Tebow Time playoff matchup.

More to the point, I want an overtime rule that doesn't lead to the predictable outcome of "if we win the toss, we will receive."

So here's my proposal on how the NFL overtime rule should really be:

* There is no time limit. In other words, don't bother running the game clock. The play clock will run, but that's the only clock the offense has to manage.

* Coin flip happens the same way as the one to start regulation. Visiting team calls the toss. Whoever wins the toss gets to decide whether to receive the ball or defer.

* The game ends after both teams have an equal amount of offensive possessions and one team has the lead, with the exception of a team's defense or special teams unit scoring for the lead.

To explain the third point, let's go over some scenarios. I'll stick with the Broncos and Seahawks.

How it works for the offenses: Seattle wins the toss, elects to receive, then scores a touchdown. Seahawks kick the extra point. Broncos will receive a kickoff and must score a touchdown with extra point to tie and keep the game going, or get a two-point conversion to win. However, if each team fails to score on its first possession, then Seattle scores on its second possession, the Broncos get another possession for a chance to score.

How a defense can win the game: Denver wins the toss, elects to receive, but has an interception, which the Seahawks return for a touchdown. Game ends there. If each team has an offensive series and Seattle gets the pick six on Denver's second series, game still ends.

How a special teams unit can win the game: Broncos win the toss, elect to receive, but are forced to punt. Seahawks return the punt for a touchdown. Game ends there. Same thing if each team has one offensive series and Broncos second series ends in a punt, with Seattle getting the TD return.

Another special teams possibility: Broncos win the toss, elect to receive and score a touchdown with the extra point. Seahawks return the ensuing kickoff for a touchdown. They can now kick the extra point to tie or go for two to win.

Yet another special teams possibility: Broncos win the toss, elect to receive, but are forced to punt. Seattle drives and is forced to settle for a field goal. But the field goal is blocked by the Broncos and they return the ball for a touchdown. Game over. Again... if Seattle's field goal try came at the end of its second possession and the Broncos get a block returned for a TD, game ends.

By doing it this way, nobody can complain that one team or the other didn't have an opportunity to score. Yeah, in certain cases, the quarterback didn't get to be the one to win the game, but so what? Each team got its turn with the ball for a chance to score, and that's what matters.

This rule takes away the mindset about always electing to receive if you win the overtime coin toss. It might still happen more often, but some teams might take a chance on deferring. Let's say the Broncos win and defer to the Seahawks. If the Seahawks score a touchdown with an extra-point kick, the Broncos know they can win with a touchdown and two-point conversion. In other words, teams might defer to get the last possession, so they know what to do should the opposing offense put points on the board first.

The rule change might also convince more teams to go for it on fourth down. Why risk giving the ball up to the other team, when you can either score the touchdown to take away the opponent's options for winning, or ensure you get the game-winning drive?

There might even be more teams that will go for two. Go back to the Broncos-Seahawks example. If the Seahawks score the touchdown and extra-point kick on the opening drive of overtime, how much more likely will the Broncos be willing to go for two should they score a touchdown? Wouldn't they rather want to win at that point instead of letting the game continue?

And since "playing for overtime and hoping we win the toss" is not as attractive of an option, teams might not want to risk overtime as much. So some teams might go for two more often in regulation, rather than just kicking an extra point to tie. Or they might even want to go for the touchdown to win instead of the field goal to tie.

Changing the overtime rule in this way would make overtime games more exciting and less predictable in terms of what teams will do. It would also mean no games would end in ties, because overtime would last until somebody wins. 

If Roger Goodell really wants to be innovative, then give this overtime rule proposal a try. No more complaining about how a team can win in overtime just by winning the coin toss.

Rice, Peterson, And What Really Needs Honest Discussion

Recent weeks in the NFL have seen several players have serious run-ins with the laws, run-ins which have exposed some unpleasant truths about what it takes American society in general to face certain issues.

The case of Ray Rice exposed people to some unpleasant truths about domestic violence. The case of Adrian Peterson exposed people to some unpleasant truths about child abuse and how we should really engage in discipline of children.

There have been those who have wondered why the NFL has to be the organization to take the stand, those who have gotten defensive about how they discipline their children or how they were disciplined themselves, those who want to spend more time analyzing which NFL teams do or don't house troublemakers, and those who would just prefer everything go away so they can go back to enjoying football.

The truth is, the discussions we need to be having are about taking domestic violence more seriously than we do, and whether or not it's time we seriously question if certain means of disciplining a child are really that effective.

Let us start with domestic violence and face an unpleasant truth: The real reason why so many people got up in arms about Ray Rice's treatment of his now-wife Janay Palmer is that he was caught on tape. First came the tape of him dragging an unconscious Palmer from an elevator, which caused some people to put two and two together, while others said it didn't tell the whole story. Then came the second tape, and far more people were up in arms... and even then, some people just said "Ray Rice just made a mistake, that's all."

So let's go back in time to somebody else who "made a mistake" by getting involved in a domestic violence situation. Will Leitch will fill you on some of the details about a certain former NFL running back who was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

On September 8, 1989, "Late Night With David Letterman" hosted actress Shelley Winters -- promoting her PG-rated weeper "An Unremarkable Life" with Patricia Neal -- and NBC sportscaster O.J. Simpson. 

...

Eight months earlier, after a New Year's Eve party, Simpson and his wife Nicole Brown Simpson had an argument at their estate in Brentwood, and Nicole called the police. When they arrived, Brown emerged from the bushes screaming, "He's going to kill me! He's going to kill me!" You can get a full account of the incident, including an animation showing the police arrival and where Nicole was hiding from O.J., on one of the many Simpson-case-obsessed sites still floating around the Internet.

A major difference between O.J. Simpson and Ray Rice is that Simpson was never caught on video. One has to wonder how different things may have turned out if he had been caught in the act.

But he wasn't, and so, four months later, Simpson pleaded no contest to spousal abuse and got probation and community service.

We all know what eventually happened to Nicole Brown Simpson.

Now the reality check: This is what happens when we just brush off a domestic violence incident as "he just made a mistake." And, no, this does not mean we need to lock up these people and throw away the key.

What it means is we need to treat domestic violence cases as more than just something that gets just a brief line in the police blotter, unless it involves a public official or celebrity, or if it gets caught on video (or both). We can argue whether or not the NFL needs to be taking a leadership role, but we can't simply dismiss domestic violence as an argument that got out of control.

An open, honest discussion about what is available for victims, and what punishment and rehabilitation can best be utilized for perpetrators, and what counseling services should be available to those who worry they are about to become perpetrators, makes far more sense than simply chalking it up to just an honest mistake and getting over it.

+ + +

Like Rice's situation, the case of Adrian Peterson really hits home because photos of his four-year-old son's injuries were released, thus putting a child abuse case into a visual context. Combine that with Peterson being arguably the highest profile running back in the NFL and you had a story many paid attention to.

Along the way, the discussion has been raised about how our grandparents disciplined our parents, taking objects such as yardsticks and paddles and smacking them on the behinds... and how those grandparents surely would have ended up in jail. Which then leads to the worries that we're going to start shaming people into no longer spanking kids, painting the parents who did it as bad people, and continue to lead to the wussification of America.

For those of you up on the ledge, allow me to tell you a story.

My parents have kept dogs as pets long before I was born, but the first one they got as a puppy was before I was born. When they got another puppy, I was 13 years old. At the time, I was taught how the puppy was to be trained in, among other things, knowing what was and wasn't permissible. If the puppy did something wrong, swat it on the nose.

Many years later, long after I had moved on, my parents welcomed more dogs into the household. These dogs were not swatted on the nose every time, though. My parents had learned about different ways to teach the dogs right from wrong that didn't involving swatting the animal.

So this begs the question: If somebody can determine that there are better ways to discipline a dog than just swatting it, why can't the same be said for disciplining children?

That's not to say parents who employ spanking do nothing but that. There are multiple ways parents may discipline children. But Mike Tanier's thoughtful piece about the science of spanking illustrates the problems that can arise from parents who resort to spanking too often... and perhaps make one reconsider whether or not it's a wise idea to spank a child in the first place.

That doesn't mean we need to round up all the parents who spanked their children and put them on public trial. Rather, it means we need to seriously revisit how we discipline children and how they actually turned out when they became adults.

The best argument might be this: Spanking is something that doesn't require much thought to be put into the action. It's a no-muss, no-fuss solution to disciplinary problems. Get the child to associate in his mind that certain actions will result in something that hurts, and they'll get the message.

But the truth is this: Raising a child is not supposed to be an easy task. I don't have children, but I was one myself, and I know very well that raising me was a tough task for my mother and father. And given that it's not an easy task, it's something that should require a lot of thought into how the child is raised... not just in terms of discipline and teaching right from wrong, but issues ranging from understanding how to handle the child at each stage of development, to understanding how you really show a child that you care.

Telling the kids they need to get out of bed in the morning, reminding them to be careful when they go some place, inquiring as to what they are doing if something appears suspicious, asking them if they are all right if they come home looking upset, and praising them for getting so many A's on a report card are all ways the parents show how they care for kids. It's a major part of parenting.

And the kids that go around acting defiant, or get spoiled rotten, or are constantly in trouble with the law... well, those kids aren't going to turn into good little soldiers just by spanking them. And the parents in question likely have bigger problems than whether they do or don't spank their kids.

We don't need to climb up to one ledge or the other and worry about what's going to happen next. We simply need to ask ourselves if there are better ways to teach our kids right from wrong than just using a swat on the butt.

No More Applause For Roger Goodell

I can remember when Roger Goodell announced his decision to suspend Adam "Pacman" Jones for 16 games for violating the player conduct policy. I can remember applauding that decision.

Looking back, that was a mistake on my part.

No, it's not simply becase of the two-game suspension Ray Rice originally got. It is because, since that time, I can't figure out what the heck Goodell is doing to determine punishment under that policy, or player safety rules, or how to handle anything in the NFL in general, except with the idea that it must be about "damage control."

The lawsuit and research pertaining to concussions that NFL players have received, and how much the NFL knew about the long-term effects, has led Goodell to do one good thing, and that is to require that players who show symptoms of a concussion to be pulled from a game, and to get appropriate medical clearance before they may play again.

But it has also led to Goodell wanting to crack down on unsafe hits, leading to rules that no fan can really understand, as they scratch their heads as to why the referee would throw a flag in one instance and the player would get no additional punishment, but not throw a flag in another instant and Goodell to slap the player with a fine.

Furthermore, we still don't really know all the details regarding what the NFL did or didn't know about concussions.

And then there's that player conduct policy. Nobody seems to know what Goodell is really looking at when he decides punishment. One only need view the list of players implicated in domestic violence cases or crimes against women since Goodell's tenure began, to wonder exactly what Goodell is or isn't considering when he disciplines a player.

And do we need to revisit Bountygate? A Super Bowl championship team just might have been putting prices on the heads of other NFL players, so Goodell hands out punishment left and right, only for the players who were punished to appeal. Former commissioner Paul Tagliabue is called upon to hear the appeals, and proceeds to pretty much tell Goodell to get off his power trip.

Then there's Spygate, in which the evidence got destroyed and nobody can be certain about what Goodell really saw behind closed doors. There's also the recent lawsuit pertaining to painkillers and, in part, what the NFL knew about the dangers of trainers handing them out -- and in this case, we are likely only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

That brings us to Goodell's handling of the Ray Rice case. True, there are others who deserve some blame in how they handled it, but the problem Goodell has is that his handling of the Ray Rice case is just one of many in which he had his "damage control" mindset and didn't really grasp everything he was faced with... most of all, what really was going on with regards to whether or not he ever viewed the infamous elevator footage.

The 32 NFL owners are, indeed, Goodell's real bosses, and only they can ultimately decide his fate. But with at least a few people on Twitter declaring boycotts of NFL corporate sponsors -- and at least one of those sponsors acknowledging they are monitoring the situation -- you have to wonder how soon it will be before the owners start asking Goodell some serious questions.

Regardless of what Goodell really did or didn't know about Ray Rice's situation, his "damage control" mindset is not helping him. And it's making it less likely that I will ever applaud anything he does from this point forward.