MMQB Mail (cont.)

Romeo Crennel and the Browns are off to a disappointing 0-2 start to the season. Gregory Shamus/Getty Images Peter King's Mailbag Peter King will answer your questions each week in Monday Morning Quarterback: Tuesday Edition. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND Follow Peter King on Twitter

• ED HOCHULI DID BLOW THE GAME. From Ray, of Piscataway, N.J.: "Peter, I don't understand how everyone can say that Ed Hochuli blew the game for the Chargers. He didn't give up the TD pass that made it 38-37 and he didn't give up the two-point conversion that made it 39-38. He also didn't give up the other 31 points the Broncos scored. Where's the Chargers' accountability to say, 'We lost it, we couldn't stop them all day, we gave up 30-plus points and didn't deserve to win.' I am also curious if you have a comment to the Chargers' decision to throw a Hail Mary at the end of the game from their own 45 and not throw a 15-yard sideline pass to attempt a long field goal instead, especially when the Denver defense was 15-20 yards off the ball in prevent mode.''

True, Denver still had to throw the touchdown pass and had to execute the two-point conversion. But if Hochuli doesn't blow the whistle, San Diego takes over on its 10 with 70 seconds to play, with Denver having two timeouts left. My guess is San Diego would have run three straight plays, with Denver using its timeouts after the first two runs, and punted with about 18 seconds left, and Denver would have gotten two plays off from about midfield. You can make the point that Denver still had to execute two winning pass plays to get the victory. But those wouldn't have been possible without Hochuli's call.

As for the second point, yes, I totally agree. With nine seconds to go and the ball on the San Diego 43, Philip Rivers should have thrown a 20-yard out -- or attempted one -- to try to give Nate Kaeding a shot at a 55-yard-ish field goal.

• AND SPEAKING OF BAD COACHING CALLS ... From Keith Hartz, of San Diego: "What's with the Browns going for a field goal when they're down seven with three-plus minutes remaining? Making the field goal (as they did) still is going to leave them needing a TD to win. Seems to me they should have gone for the first down there. Even if they failed, Pittsburgh would have the ball about the same place as if they returned a kickoff.''

Couldn't agree more. I should have addressed this in Monday's column. A brainlock call by the Browns, in my opinion. The situation, exactly: Cleveland ball on the Steelers 20, fourth-and-7, 3:24 to play, Pittsburgh up 10-3. A field goal still leaves Cleveland needing a touchdown to win. Let's look at the odds here.

The Browns need a touchdown to tie. If they choose to kick a field goal, they still need a touchdown to win. If they choose to go for the first down and make it, they've got a fresh set of downs to score a touchdown. If they choose to go for the first down and fail, they've got the Steelers backed up in their own territory, they've still got three timeouts left, and they still need a touchdown to tie. To me, this was an absolute no-brainer. You've got to try to score the touchdown then. Your odds are better to make seven yards and score a touchdown here than they are to kick a field goal, make the Steelers go three-and-out, and go the length of the field to score a touchdown. I mean, that's hardly a question at all.

The only difference in the debate is this: Romeo Crennel can say if they kick the field goal and stop Pittsburgh, they win the game if they score a touchdown. I get that. But the flaw is the odds of scoring a touchdown from deep in Pittsburgh territory, even having to convert a fourth-and-seven, are far greater than the odds of rushing to go downfield against a good defense with some crazy wind affecting the balls your quarterback throws.

• REMEMBERING DUNGY AND REPLAY. From John W., of Red Bank, N.J.: " I think Tony Dungy's concern about instant replay is coming true. Remember he was one of the few voices who was hesitant about implementing instant replay because he felt that it would lead to poor officiating because of a over-reliance on the instant replay and coaches challenges? There was evidence of it in the Denver game and in the Rams game, where Tom Coughlin had to challenge what should have been an easy call on the field.''

I disagree, but I see your point. Replay's done much more good than harm since its institution, and I don't see the evidence that replay makes the officials gun-shy. In the San Diego-Denver case, it did the opposite. Hochuli would have more likely swallowed his whistle and not blown it had he thought to himself: "Well, I'll make no call and then we'll let replay fix it if I'm wrong.'' He was actually pro-active.

• THE BRADY LEGACY. From Brian Maxwell, of Minneapolis: "I know it's early but if the Pats win the Super Bowl this year with Matt Cassel, does it reflect negatively on Tom Brady's legacy? I think if that happens, we can stop the "greatest of all-time" talk.''

Not sure I've heard anyone call Brady the greatest of all-time. But you're right. Cassel has made one start. Brady has made 128, has won 79 percent of them, is 14-3 in the postseason, is 3-1 in Super Bowls. I understand your point -- that if the Patriots go far into January, then it takes some of the shine off Brady's star. But we're not even far into September.

• THE ALLIANZ QUESTION. From Joe Umhoefer, of Minneapolis: "I don't understand all the ado about Allianz and the New York stadium. Certainly, their actions in the 1930's and 1940's are despicable, but they have spent hundreds of millions attempting to make amends. Nearly every German company old enough to have existed during that era has Nazi ties. Volkswagen was even created at the behest of Adolf Hitler, yet they are currently the third largest automobile maker in the world. Why should Allianz not be allowed to re-brand itself, attaching its name to the biggest draw in the United States?''

A couple of things, Joe. The Giants and Jets are getting battered for their institution of personal-seat licenses on the seats at their new New Jersey stadium, so any negative publicity is going to get extra attention from them. Also, the number of Jewish fans in greater New York cannot be underestimated; for many of them to go to a stadium named after a company that insured concentration camps that jailed and murdered their forefathers would have been too much to bear, regardless of how Allianz has tried to make amends in the last 60 years. Finally, there's the matter of the hundreds of insurance policies Jewish people held with Allianz at the time of World War II, and the fact that Allianz paid out a reported $12 million to make restitution for all these claims. Many Jews today feels the company has not come close to making things right with families of Holocaust survivors.

• YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. From Sam, of Fisher, Ind.: "In your article this week, you suggested that "perhaps someone in the Titans' college scouting department needs to work a little harder in the background-check area," citing Vince Young, Albert Haynesworth and Adam Jones as examples. While it is true all three have had personal conduct issues, it should also be noted that Albert Haynesworth is (arguably) the best defensive tackle in the NFL right now, and Jones was well on his way to becoming a top corner prior to his legal troubles. Is it entirely possible, in the days prior to the NFL's more aggressive personal conduct policy, that such concerns were just brushed aside by a staff that has otherwise been very good at recognizing and developing NFL quality players?''

I need to say no more. You said it all.

• CONSIDER REGGIE CALLED OUT. From John Jakubowski, of San Diego: "Peter I love your column, and I read it weekly. Do me one favor, though: Please call out Reggie Bush on his immature antics. Why is it every time he is about to enter the end zone on a punt return touchdown, he has to taunt his pursuers? We definitely don't see him doing that taunting on offense. This is the second time I have seen him do this, who knows if he did it other times. Personally I think he is overrated.''

Bush will get policed by Sean Payton. I am sure of that. I agree -- he hasn't done nearly enough to be taunting.

• A GOOD DAY FOR CAMPBELL. From Ted, of Leesburg, Va.: "You've been an unabashed supporter of Jason Campbell. I hope you're right. Maybe that throw against the Saints starts him on the right path.''

Remember this about Campbell -- he's had eight offensive coordinators designing plays for him in his past nine years of football. The play to which you refer -- the long touchdown bomb to Santana Moss, with traffic in his face, knowing he was going to get hit hard, was the kind of throw good quarterbacks have to make once or twice a Sunday if they're going to be consistent performers in the NFL.

"Santana was the second option on the play,'' Campbell told me Sunday night. "[Antwaan] Randle El was the first. But at the beginning of the play, I saw they had no middle safety over the top, so I knew Santana would probably be open deep if he could get a step on his guy. I knew I was running out of time and I was going to get hit, but I also knew Santana was going to get it if I laid it out for him.'' Perfect throw.

"The main thing is getting comfortable in the offense," he added. "It's not an easy offense to learn, but I like it. I hear what people are saying, and I know some people have been down on me here. But going from one offense to another every season makes it pretty hard. This is the most pressurized position in the game. I feel like I'm getting there."