12 comments Mocking TMQ's Mocking of NFL Mock Drafts

Have you missed writers referring to themselves in the third person as a group or organization when there is really only one person, have you not had enough "g"s in your Greg lately, and do you miss the football knowledge that only a person who understands nothing about football can convey? Sounds to me like you need a little TMQ mocking the draft, except it not actually TMQ, but Gregg Easterbrook writing as the fictional TMQ, and really every column he writes is a mockery of good football journalism as a whole.

With the NFL draft approaching -- oh, you hadn't heard? -- it's trendy for sports pundits to say the teams at the top wish they had lower selections, owing to the outrageous bonus demands of top choices and the media pressure that comes with choosing high. This isn't a new problem! Eight years ago, TMQ made this very point.

Yes, you did seem to point out this problem 8 years ago when it was a problem then as well. Only TMQ can try to take credit today for pointing out the obvious 8 years ago.

"As I made a point of saying back in 2001, this Peyton Manning is a great quarterback."

Including this year, it's usually not even clear whom the team holding the first selection should choose -- the last consensus No. 1 choice was Carson Palmer in 2003.

Except in 2006 and 2008 when Mario Williams and Jake Long already had deals signed before they were actually drafted at #1. Also, this year the Lions are nearing a deal with the #1 before the draft. It all seems like a pretty good consensus at that point, let's just ignore that though so Gregg can desperately try to make a point, factual or not.

This year the buzz question has been whether the Lions, holding the first choice, should simply refuse to pick -- putting the Rams on the clock and allowing the Lions to go second, thus saving maybe $5 million in bonus money.

The buzz question having been given a buzz answer by me that no matter where a team picks, skill position players and quarterbacks generally want more money. It took me a minute and a half to look that up and that was because I changed my ITunes song twice. Again, a team not picking at their allotted slot does not equal savings all the time.

Perhaps if the Lions refused to pick, then the Rams would refuse to pick and the Chiefs would refuse to pick and the Seahawks would refuse to pick.

Then everyone will go out for ice cream and ride a magical unicorn into the sun.

In an everyone-passes scenario, how far down would you have to drop to find a team willing to choose first?

I am going to say Pick #2 with St. Louis.

But no team holding a top choice will ever pass or trade down straight-up, for a reason college professors and sports pundits overlook: public relations.

Actually, that is an incredibly important reason a team would not trade a second round pick straight up for a first round pick. Publicly the owner and fans would relate they want the General Manager fired. Public relations is probably one of the most important reasons not to do this. Nobody overlooks this. The team that did this would be conceding a chance to choose any player they want just to save money. There would be hell fire and brimstone from the local media even though money wise it makes sense...maybe.

Suppose last year, when the Dolphins held the first selection and there was no consensus No. 1 choice, Miami had deliberately passed in order to drop to the second or third position. Suppose the Dolphins had then ended up with Jake Long, the player they chose first in 2008, anyway, and saved millions on his bonus.
Suppose five other teams had jumped in quickly to pick and the Dolphins ended up with Vernon Gholston or another player they did not want. They would save millions but get a potentially crappy player. Doesn't seem so worth it then, does it?

It is equally ridiculous, but less commented on, that first-round choices receive so much more than midround choices, when football is a team sport, and midround players often outperform first choices.

What is really ridiculous is that you just made a statement that has absolutely no factual evidence backing it up, or if there is any type of factual evidence backing it up you certainly don't provide any. I am glad I can't just type anything that came to mind to try and prove a point I have and not get called out on it.

Mid-round players really outperform mid-round choices? Pro Bowl selections mean very little overall but it can give a general idea of how good a player is as compared another player when concerned with draft status. The players highlighted in yellow when you click on the links below are Pro Bowl players and look where most where drafted.

2008, 2006, 2005.

That is just data over the last three years, and there is a definite trend, so it certainly seems like Gregg is full of shit...or lazy. Yet again, another example of ESPN allowing a columnist to write whatever he/she wants without any factual merit. You would think they would not encourage non-factual data on their web site but I guess not. Opinions are great but when professional writers start writing incorrect facts, the line should be drawn.

I will agree midround players are generally better bargains than first round players who are drafted in the top 10, but first year players tend to outperform mid-round players.

What do these five collegians have in common? They're all from schools with good football graduation rates. Wake Forrest (Curry) is at 83 percent; Texas Tech (Crabtree) at 79 percent; Boston College (Raji) at 92 percent; Virginia (Monroe) at 66 percent; and Baylor (Smith) at 78 percent. So you can have a monster-good football program and still graduate most players -- please tell that to Texas (50 percent) and Alabama (44 percent).

I would just like to point out I am all for high graduation rates...(How ironic he talks about graduation rates and then misspells Wake Forest.) but I would also like to point out both Texas and Alabama made BCS bowls last year while none of the five teams with high graduation rates did. So based on Gregg's data, you CAN'T have a monster-good (?) program and graduate players.

As for the Flying Elvii, last year on draft day, needing front-seven help, they traded down, passing on the chance to draft touted front-seven players Sedrick Ellis, Derrick Harvey and Keith Rivers, in order to select Jerod Mayo and gain an extra choice, which they exercised on linebacker Shawn Crable. Rivers had a sound rookie season, but Ellis was invisible with 30 tackles,

Why is it that a person who doesn't understand pro football is able to write a weekly pro football column? I am not sure judging a defensive tackle on tackles made is the best way to measure his success. 30 tackles isn't exactly bad for a defensive tackle anyway, but Ellis also had 4 sacks and 5 passes defensed. Not exactly invisible for a rookie. Gregg Easterbrook doesn't even understand how to judge players, how can he write an entire column about the NFL?

New England can accomplish more with three second-round choices than most teams can accomplish with two first-round selections.

I would hope that almost any team in the NFL could do more with 3 selections than 2 selections, especially if the comparison between the two rounds is between the 1st and 2nd round.

9. Green Bay Packers: James L. Kraft, door-to-door cheese merchant

It's time for Packers fans to forget the Brett Favre era and get back to their roots -- wearing cheese on their heads. Kraft, who began selling cheese from a horse-drawn wagon in 1903, went down in history as the developer of pasteurized processed cheese, while Kraft employee Edwin Traisman invented Cheez Whiz. Recently, Cheez Whiz was repackaged in a wide-mouth jar that allows direct dipping, sparing indolent consumers the bother of picking up a knife.

They wore cheese on their head all of last year. He gets paid a lot of money to write about cheese.

Series Finale of "Battlestar Galactica" Complaints:

This is really, really loooooooooooooong. (Cue irony) He has some good points though. Even a person like me who has never watched this show thinks it is stupid there is not more realism in a Science Fiction show. Come on, we need more reality in our Science Fiction shows!

I can't believe how Gregg accepts certain aspects of the show, like how the entire show takes place using technology not currently available, yet takes place in the past, but can't accept some of the more minor discrepancies in the show's storylines. It would be absolute torture to ever watch a television program with this man. I would stab him in the chest with a Jalapeno Popper Dorito before the opening credits of "Lost."

They vow to stop building factories and cities, and live as simple farmers: One character declares that science always leads to war, and they must not infect Earth with that dark impulse.

There's never any convincing reason why people arriving at a verdant planet aboard faster-than-light starships would decide to give up all technology and learning. Would you vote to surrender the ability to make power generators, steel plows and antibiotics?

So Gregg needs a convincing reason this completely fictional show had its characters give up on technology? How about where that one character declares that science always leads to war, and they must not infect Earth with that dark impulse? You...just...typed...that.

It's as if the scriptwriters just could not function without a stereotypical good-versus-evil combat plotline to hang the action on.

Scriptwriters are so stupid sometimes. Can't they write one Sci-Fi/Action movie or television show without a conflict? Who needs a conflict to further the action of the plot? It would be so much more interesting to just show the characters roaming around the world with zero conflict...which would lead to no action. I think TMQ should write a movie with the Boston Sports Guy.

• Early in the series the 10-foot-tall Cylon battle bots were depicted as having such strong armor it was impossible to kill one without explosives. In the final battle, small-arms fire not only kills them easily, they go flying backward when hit.

Everyone knows in real life 10 foot tall Cylon battle bots would never fly backward!

• The recurring visions characters experienced -- such as a foretelling of five glowing people on a balcony, realized at the culmination of the last battle -- could have occurred only if some higher being already knew Galactica's future. If some higher being already knew the future, why did they have to go through all that?

Gregg still hasn't come to terms with the potential existence of an all-knowing God.

TMQ has long contended that because many Hollywood scripts are written by guys who always flunk out with girls, cinema often depicts a reality in which good-looking young women crave sex with geeky, overweight or aging men.

This man:

would be a stud.

• Setting foot on Earth, Adama marvels it is "1 million light-years" from home. The Milky Way is 100,000 light-years across, while the next closest galaxy, Andromeda, is 1.5 million light-years distant. If you traveled 1 million light-years in any direction from Earth, you'd end up in the intergalactic void: the worlds of Kobol either were much closer to Earth than a million light-years, or much farther away. Considering dozens of people worked on the Battlestar series for six years, couldn't someone have fact-checked basic astronomy references?

Just like how you would think someone could fact check Gregg's weekly TMQ...but that doesn't happen either.

Please Click "I Accept" to the Unwritten Rules: Everybody's talking about Mark Sanchez -- but is he a one-year wonder, like Akili Smith?

We are just going to pretend Gregg and I don't have a similar position on Mark Sanchez. Onward we march...

Though Sanchez will get a big paycheck soon, where he would have received none in 2009 had he stayed in school, there's a good possibility his early departure will cause his lifetime earnings to decline.

Well gosh, this sounds like a pretty fucking non sensical statement since Sanchez is going to be drafted (according to experts) pretty high this year and will get paid a shitload of money. Let's see some logic:

If he cashes a big bonus check this year, then becomes a bust owing to inexperience, he will earn far less over the course of his sports career than if he'd played out the string at USC.

I love how Gregg Easterbrook is assuming that one more year of college is going to make the difference in Sanchez being a bust or not being a bust. That is completely untrue. If Sanchez is not going to succeed in the pros this year, he will probably not succeed next year either because he is an older player and has been at USC for four years already. I don't think "inexperience" is the reason a 22 year old 4th year junior would not do well in the NFL (of course Gregg does not know Sanchez is a year older than most juniors because he absolutely refuses to look anything up).

I doubt there is so much he can learn at USC in one more year that would make the difference in the wide gap between him being an absolute bust and him not being an absolute bust. If anything, if he performs poorly next year his draft stock might slip with Bradford, Tebow, and McCoy coming out next year and not get drafted in the first round, which would mean he should have gone to the draft this year.

I am giving myself a headache but I am basically saying one more year of college is not going to help a fifth year senior who is going to turn 23 in November. His "inexperience" will also be helped actually playing NFL games...but I personally think he will suck, but not because of inexperience, but because he sucks.

And TMQ will remain suspicious of the grunted gentleman. Cutler has a fine arm, but what exactly has he accomplished in the NFL to justify all his whining? Cutler is 17-20 as an NFL starter. Kyle Orton is 21-12 -- I'll take the guy who wins the game, please.

My headache is not getting any better right now. How the hell does this guy get to write columns about the NFL? He is making me question the existence of an all-knowing God. Just because Kyle Orton has a better record as a starter compared to Jay Cutler does not mean Kyle Orton is a better quarterback. You would think at some point these sportswriters would get their head from up their ass and realize they are spouting absolute nonsense.

I am going to go ahead and chisel this in stone: Two quarterbacks should never completely be compared by their win-loss record because there are many, many other elements that go into a quarterback's win-loss record like special teams play and defensive play.

Orton did play with a better defense in Chicago, but Cutler played with better offensive personnel

I will let his own words prove his point as incorrect. Gregg Easterbrook earlier in this column:

Here's some draft advice. The top three offensive teams last season -- New Orleans, Denver and Houston -- did not make the playoffs. The top three defensive teams last season -- Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Philadelphia -- all made the playoffs. Now, what should your draft strategy be?

It is funny how he forgets how important defense is when it is convenient for him in trying to make a point.

plus the Denver home-field advantage.

Being what? The high altitude? This makes no sense, how this is a bigger advantage than the Bears have in Chicago? If any team has a homefield advantage it is the Bears in November and December because they have a team built for cold weather and the players are used to playing in the cold. I think this is a draw overall but this statement still makes little sense.

Though Cutler made the Pro Bowl, he finished 16th in quarterback rating, behind Seneca Wallace and Shaun Hill, while throwing 18 interceptions, second-worst in the league.

But is his rating is ahead of Kyle Orton's? I am not going to look this up, I know Cutler has a higher rating than Orton. This has been over-covered on this site. Quit cherry picking stats and start to look at any other statistics. Cutler is superior to Orton in nearly every single one of them.

Like Cutler, Campbell is 17-20 as a starter -- yet Cutler is constantly praised and Campbell constantly criticized. Yet Campbell was the one who played behind a terrible offensive line last season, while Cutler was protected by one of football's best pair of tackles.

True, but there is this thing called "defense" that also plays a role in deciding football games.

Gregg talks at length about AIG after this and he is actually pretty correct about all of that...maybe he should stick to that type stuff and not talk football ever again.

More Proof of the Decline of Western Civilization: "SportsCenter" went live at 12:30 a.m. on Feb. 27, moments after the midnight onset of NFL free agency, to report middle-of-the-night player movements.

I can be hard on ESPN but SportsCenter is a sports news show. Players signing with different teams at the free agent deadline is news, so they report it. That's pretty much their job and I don't get how this is supposed to be proof of the decline of Western Civilization. If they did not report the free agent signings, then I would see a problem.

TMQ's Seventh-Round Forecast:

Prepare for unfunny.

213. Seattle. Vince Anderson, cornerback, Webber International. Has eaten a tuna salad sub in under 58.24.

Just space filler.

222. New Orleans. George Hypolite, defensive tackle, Colorado. Plans to auction his draft position on eBay.

You know, every column doesn't have to be an epic length.

238. New York Giants. Courtney Greene, safety, Rutgers. If fails in NFL bid, may go pro in Double Dutch.

Oh so tedious...

255. Detroit (comp selection). Stanley Bryant, tackle, East Carolina. Confused during recruiting visit because East Carolina is located in North Carolina.

The Eastern part of North Carolina, hence the name.

Next Week: TMQ's plan to grade the draft interrupted when honor-code violations are discovered in fifth round.

We get another week of TMQ! I will be sure to pop 4 Advil in before reading it and get ready for some really, really bad observations and criticisms about football that actually make sense if you know anything about the sport. I am pumped...