Wednesday, September 2, 2009

14 comments TMQ: A Re-Introduction to Football Ignorance: NFC Edition

Last week Gregg Easterbrook used his own unique brand of lack of football knowledge to "preview" the AFC by not making any predictions or actually previewing anything, but merely just talking about what happened last year and playing loosely with facts and annoying me with his musings on football. This week he attacks the NFC with his unique brand of "previewing," which seems an awful lot like reviewing what happened last year.

The bubble to worry about is the cupcake bubble: all those fancy cupcake bakeries suddenly in New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco and Seattle, offering $5 cupcakes hard to distinguish from supermarket cupcakes. It's a bubble: Capital is flowing into the opening of cupcake boutiques because, right now, consumers are willing to pay a premium for a sweet that is inexpensive to bake. As with other bubbles, this one is based on exaggerated claims and assumptions that can't last. In 2009, for whatever reason, people will stand in line to fork over $5 for a cupcake that masquerades as "red velvet" or "pink lemonade." Odds people will continue to do this long-term? 0.0 percent. Anyone opening a fancy cupcake bakery is jumping into the downside of a bubble. Don't say you weren't warned.

Sorry to make you read all of that, but this is how the column starts off. It really does.

Because college football is commencing, it's time for TMQ's annual check of cupcake schedules.

Easterbrook does a miserable job of staying on topic. This is an NFC Preview for the NFL, yet he starts off the column talking about college football naturally.

Auburn has eight games at home and four away, and plays its first four at home. Auburn fearlessly faces, at home, Division I-AA Furman, which last year lost to Elon. Forget conferences; do you even know what state Elon is in?

Yes, it is in North Carolina and is located approximately 22 miles away from where I live. I hope Gregg does realize it is not a requirement for everyone to know where a school is located for that school to be good at sports. Granted, Elon's football team stinks but I really doubt half of the college basketball world still knows where Gonzaga or George Mason are located, but that doesn't prevent the teams from being good every once in a while. As I say in reference to Bill Simmons on occasion here, just because you don't know something or just found out about a player/team doesn't mean the rest of the world has the same amount of ignorance as you.

Tennessee has eight games at home and four away, and the home dates include meetings against Western Kentucky (2-10 last season, and the sole team beaten by 1-11 North Texas) and the Ohio Bobcats.

Michigan has four road games and eight at home, including three cupcake dates against Western Michigan, Eastern Michigan and Delaware State.

Now he is pissing me off by talking without complete information about college football. Here is the deal, it is a lengthy and difficult negotiation process for a college football team to schedule dates to play really good teams every week. Generally it requires home-and-away games, meaning if they play at home this year, they play at the other school's home the next year. That's generally not a problem, but when a school like Michigan relies on playing 6-8 games every year at home for athletic revenue, it's a problem if they have three home-and-away games against good teams on the schedule because combined with the conference schedule, the team may have more road games scheduled than home games. It's partially a revenue thing, not completely "we are afraid of competition thing."

Easterbrook also completely chooses to ignore the benefits of playing a "cupcake" schedule for a cupcake team...they get exposure. Delaware State gets the chance to play Michigan and that is a big deal for their program...but really why would you try and fit all of the Michigan fans into Delaware's home stadium? It makes sense for both teams to have the game at the better team's home field.

Part of the reasoning behind the cupcake schedule IS because the school doesn't want to lose, but can you blame them? Why schedule a game against LSU if you are Texas when that one loss could put you out of the National Championship picture in Week 1? Ask USC how this happened last year after their loss to Oregon State (yes, I know that was a conference game, but my point still stands). Basically the games against cupcakes serve as a preseason of sorts for some teams and it benefits both schools. To me, a cupcake schedule is a much bigger deal in college basketball because some teams (Clemson) have a tendency not to play a good team until after Christmas and it can skew their rankings for nearly half the season.

And scrappy Fresno State is honoring coach Pat Hill's vow to "play anyone, anywhere." Despite sometimes being a top 20 team, Fresno State has five games at home, seven away.

This is a completely different situation. Fresno State schedules this way, scheduling games against Wisconsin, Illinois, and Cincinnati, because they want to play good competition to give them a chance to make a BCS bowl game. Not to mention their conference schedule is pretty much a cupcake in itself, unless you think Idaho, San Jose State, Utah State or New Mexico State are powerhouse teams.

Fresno State has to play road games so they can help their resume and possibly make a BCS bowl game. Unlike all the other teams Gregg mentioned, who have very difficult conference schedules, the Fresno State Bulldogs have a pretty easy in-conference schedule, outside of playing Boise State. Easterbrook neglects to mention the fact Fresno State's situation is actually the reverse of teams who play "cupcakes" in the SEC, Big 12 and other "power" conferences. There are few great teams in Fresno's division so they have to schedule "cupcakes" out of conference.

I see what Easterbrook is saying here, I really do, but he never actually attempts to understand the reasoning why some of these teams actually have an easy schedule. It lets the better team get the kinks out early in the year and lets the worse team play a great team and maybe get a big win on their resume. I know what he is saying but he can't just take this at face value and never actually looks to understand why this all occurs.

All Arizona needed to hoist the Lombardi Trophy was two minutes of average pass defense. But the Cards' secondary could not prevent Pittsburgh from flying down the field for the winning touchdown with 35 seconds showing. Dan Bickley of the Arizona Republic reports Ken Whisenhunt thinks up plays in church. Maybe he should be praying for a cornerback!

Yes, because poor cornerbacks are the only reason a team would give up passing touchdowns. It has nothing to do with a pass rush or whether the scheme the (since fired) defensive coordinator has come up with. It's just all the cornerbacks' fault. Gregg is trying to be cute here, I get that, but he needs to realize more goes into giving up touchdowns through the air than just cornerbacks not playing well.

Indianapolis gave up 4 passing touchdowns last year I believe. Did they have great cornerbacks or did this have something to do with the fact Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis are on either side of the offensive line?

It's a bad sign that the club fired defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast because his defense couldn't hold the lead in the final two minutes of the Super Bowl. OK, that was bad, but didn't the Cards' defense get Arizona into the Super Bowl with tremendous playoff performances against Carolina and Philadelphia?

The Cardinals defense gave up 24 points to the Falcons at home in the first playoff game, I will give him the Panthers game, 25 points to the Eagles at home, and 27 points to the Steelers in the Super Bowl. It's not exactly dominating defensive performances and certainly not tremendous.

Arizona's chance to repeat as division winner seems good, since last year the weak NFC West was outscored by a combined 372 points; the Cardinals were the sole team in the division that outscored opponents, by just one point.

The Cardinals had that prolific offense and they still only scored one more point than their opponents? I don't see how changing offensive coordinators, as long as it is an upgrade, is a bad thing.

TMQ is especially tired of hearing about Julius Peppers, who has an extremely high opinion of himself -- in the offseason he theatrically demanded a trade or a new contract -- but seems mainly hype.

I don't know if he is all hype, but he is certainly not as good as he seems to believe he is.

Peppers may have had 14.5 sacks in 2008, but only because he played for sacks on every down; he wasn't impressive versus the run.

What the fuck does this even mean? Show us some statistics concerning this, rather than just typing words and hoping they are true. This reads like a shitty ass NFL preview someone who hasn't actually watched the games would say to acknowledge Peppers' sack numbers but try to create a reason why he is not good. What proof does he have that Peppers was weak against the run and always went for sacks? Peppers had 40 tackles and forced 5 fumbles. Jared Allen had 41 tackles and Dwight Freeney had 24 tackles. I guess they were just going for sacks also.

I am not defending my hometown boy here, this is just sloppy writing that has no factual least based on the "no facts guarantee" Gregg has provided.

Overall, Carolina recorded a measly 20 sacks last season --

Just absolutely incorrect. Carolina GAVE UP 20 sacks last year. The Panthers actually had 37 sacks last year. Somebody somewhere has to catch mistakes like this. Whether it be the editor, or God forbid, Gregg Easterbrook the guy who actually wrote the incorrect number and tried to pass it off as fact. Either way, I don't see how any columnist this day in age can be allowed to throw misleading and incorrect information out to the public. It took me 30 seconds to find the real number.

Chicago had excellent special teams in 2008, and all but one special teamer returns for 2009.

Really? How come I don't believe this? How does Gregg know all but one special team player returns this year? Does he already know who is going to be the gunners on punts and who will be in kick and punt coverage? Usually special teams consists of several bench players, which are often guys who barely made the roster. If Gregg does know who makes the special teams squad, then this man is amazing because he has pretty much just accurately predicted what the 53 man roster for the Bears is going to look like when rosters are currently set at 75.

Of course, since Easterbrook is not knowledgeable about football, he may not realize special teams consists of the long snapper, gunners, and everyone on the field during a punt, kickoff, or field goal/extra point attempt. He probably just thinks special teams is the punt returner, punter, and kicker.

Unified Field Theory of Creep: Peter Wunsch of East Northport, N.Y., writes, "In my local paper on August 27th, King Kullen, a Long Island grocery chain, ran ads proclaiming a Rosh Hashanah sale. This year, Rosh Hashanah begins on September 18th."

I usually don't get into Easterbrook's bizarre fascination with Christmas creeping into other seasons but in this case Rosh Hashanah is happening in three weeks, so it's really not that weird or unusual for a business to run a sell that far before the actual holiday. At least I don't think this is that odd.

One reason may be that the Cowboys' drafting has quietly fallen apart. Dallas had no first- or second-round choices in 2009. Their top three choices from 2008 (Felix Jones, Mike Jenkins and Martellus Bennett) have combined for 10 starts.

Easterbrook picks the most random ways to measure how good a player or team is sometimes. I think the fact the Cowboys picks did not play much last year could also show how much depth they had at those positions. Felix Jones and Bennett are stuck behind two Pro Bowl players in Jason Witten and Marion Barber, so it's not like they stink, they just aren't Pro Bowl players in their first year in the league nor have they had the chance to be. Jenkins will be getting more playing time this year but last year he was stuck behind Terence Newman and Pacman Jones.

He needs to just stop making assumptions and actually take 1 minute to investigate whether what he is saying is a load of crap or not. The Cowboys have depth, it doesn't mean the draft picks stink necessarily.

Now he talks about the Cowboys' latest drafts:

Nobody from 2006.

Wrong. Anthony Fasano is a good tight end, the Cowboys just made a mistake and traded him to Miami.

The Cowboys' 2005 draft was good.

"Good?" Easterbrook describes a draft that involved the team picking DeMarcus Ware, Marion Barber, Jay Ratliff, and Chris Canty as "good?" How in the hell does he get off saying that. There are THREE Pro Bowl players drafted that year! THREE LEGITIMATE PRO BOWL PLAYERS CAME FROM A DRAFT! That is an absolutely great draft.

This man is an idiot. How does he get to write a column for ESPN? How does no one edit this poor excuse for cat litter lining and correct his misguided opinions?

He literally just makes things up and writes them down.

Losing teams usually have good pass-defense stats, because opponents don't pass in the second half.

Any facts supporting this? No? Ok, then.

I wonder how the team who is playing the losing team got such a high score so that they don't have to pass in the second half? Maybe by passing in the first half and scoring touchdowns? Maybe??????????

So I would say it makes no sense to me how losing teams usually have good pass-defense stats. It's not like the winning team is running the entire first and second half. Guess what teams were last in the NFL in pass defense last year? Seattle, San Diego, Chicago, New York Jets, Kansas City, and Detroit. Gosh, that certainly looks like some of the worst teams in the league.

The Top 3 in pass defense? Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Baltimore...who all made their conference championship game last year. It's like there is almost a correlation.

The Packers have spent five of their last seven first-round draft choices on two positions: linebacker and defensive tackle. Seven of their last 12 first-round choices were invested in linebackers and defensive linemen. That means other positions on the team are starved for talent --

Or it could mean the other positions on the team have good depth and there are good players playing at those positions so they don't need to draft at those positions. This Green Bay offense is pretty damn powerful so there is really no need to draft at too many positions, outside of the offensive line defense would be a good place to focus and since they are switching over to a 3-4 defense, I think it made sense to focus on the defense this year especially.

I can't get how an intelligent man, like Easterbrook seems to generally be, can be so stupid. You can't just assume because a team doesn't draft players at a position, that position will be starved.
Vikings players know Favre single-handedly dynamited the Jets' organization last season -- the starting quarterback was waived, the coaches fired -- then walked out the instant it suited him. He demanded special favor after special favor from the Jets, then gave nothing back. Management and other players couldn't wait for him to get out of Green Bay, so weary were both of Favre's self-centeredness. Now he brings his "I love me" show to Minnesota. If the Vikings win, Favre will grab the credit; if they lose, Favre will once again say he was mistreated. No Vikings player other than Favre will get any media attention in 2008; if Adrian Peterson runs for 3,000 yards, Favre will claim the credit. Plus Childress waffled so much in his pursuit of Favre that now he seems weak, as if he were a factotum awaiting Favre's instructions. Late in July, Childress told the Vikings' locker room there was "not a chance" Favre would join the team, and that he expected them to rally around quarterbacks Jackson and Rosenfels. Now it turns out Childress was continuing to talk to Favre the entire time he was telling his team otherwise. What credibility can Childress have when it appears that he looked his players in the eye and lied to them?

Sorry for the long paragraph, Easterbrook is like the anti-Bill Plaschke, but I couldn't agree more with what he is saying here.

Vick has never been proficient as a passer -- not only does he have trouble with accuracy when throwing long, defenses have learned that he looks exclusively at one side of the field. When Vick the quarterback looks right, every defender on the left can release his man, because Vick will never check that way again.

Easterbrook should write a book which would involve him just making shit up every week...wait, he already does that in column form.

I am critical of Mike Vick but I have never heard that he stares down his receivers. Easterbrook has this brilliant plan to stop Mike Vick, which involves leaving your man when you see Vick look at one side of the field, but he doesn't say exactly what the team should do if Vick takes off running to the other side of the field.

the Eagles in effect gave up their 2008 first-round choice, which Carolina used on offensive tackle Jeff Otah, and a 2009 fourth-round choice, which Buffalo used on tight end Shawn Nelson, for Peters, a 2008 second-round choice used on defensive tackle Trevor Laws, and a 2008 fourth-round choice used on safety Quintin Demps. In a year, Philadelphia may wish it had simply stayed put and chosen Otah and Nelson.

Ignoring the fact Easterbrook sort of knocked the Panthers earlier in this column for trading first round picks and now he thinks taking Otah (who the Panthers traded their 2009 pick for) would have been a good player to draft...ignoring that semi-contradiction, the Eagles got two starters in Peters and Demps for a starting OT in Otah and a TE that is currently 3rd on the Bills depth chart, I say they did fine for themselves and would not want to take either of those trades back at this point.

Alabama, Arkansas and Michigan employ the Weasel Three -- Bobby Petrino, Rich Rodriguez and Nicky Saban, each of whom walked out on existing commitments to grab more cash elsewhere. TMQ has been predicting woe for these colleges, in keeping with my immutable Law of Weasel Coaches, noted in the Bucs' item below. Last season, Alabama, Arkansas and Michigan were a combined 20-18 with no bowl wins:

Alabama played in a BCS bowl game and only lost two games all year and that was in the SEC Championship game and in a BCS bowl game. The Law of Weasel Coaches didn't really work here. They lost to the eventual National Champion and their bowl game to an undefeated team, so it's not like they played one of Gregg's "cupcake" teams and lost.

all the money these three schools invested in weasel coaches, and all the hits taken by the schools' prestige, resulted in blah performance.

I can't speak for Arkansas and Michigan who have had some off the field problems with transfers but I think Alabama's prestige has not taken a hit since they were in the hunt for the National Championship last year AND made a BCS bowl game. No one really cares about textbook violations. Easterbrook is crazy.

A psychiatrist to interview a possible draft choice? This only proves you'd be crazy to want to play for a team that thinks a psychiatrist can tell who will be good at throwing a football. On display here is the hubris of recruiting and draft-choice testing -- the belief that hyper-analyzing some 21-year-old (or 18-year-old in the case of college recruits) can predict athletic performance.

If a team is going to spend $40 million guaranteed on a player and basically put the future of the franchise for the next 4 years on his shoulders, they sure as hell better get every bit of information about this person they can. Sure it sounds crazy, but ask the Vikings if they wanted a psychiatrist to interview Demetrius Underwood or ask the Chargers if a psychiatrist could have helped them decide whether to take Ryan Leaf or not. I am not saying this is a good way to scout but it can tell you some information about a person...and really if you are going to spend a ton of money on a 1st round draft pick, you may as well do all your homework.

The evolving consensus is that Texas Tech runs up the score in gimmick games against lower-echelon teams (last year, the Red Raiders bravely faced two Football Championship Subdivision schools, Eastern Washington and Massachusetts, at home);

Is this the evolving consensus in Gregg Easterbrook's mind or are there actually people out there in the world who believe this as well? Shockingly, I am still amazed at how much Easterbrook can just write in his TMQ and get away with having no factual basis for it. It's not like he tries to pass it off as opinion, he says it is the "evolving consensus" but doesn't say from whom or where.

New defensive coordinator Gus Bradley says Seattle will use a base 4-3, Cover 2 -- the NFL's most common defense -- but play some 3-3-5. That's "the stack," a defense that's a fad in high school...In a stack, three linebackers stand directly behind three defensive linemen, trying to create uncertainty in the quarterback's mind about which of the slant lanes they will drop into. Since the spread is based on slants, curls and digs, the stack emphasizes taking away those routes, while daring an offense to rush.

Hmmm...I wonder what could be wrong with a defense that is designed to take away the spread offense? How about the fact nearly zero teams in the NFL actually run a real version of the spread offense? So this defense would have to match up with the times an NFL team runs a semi-spread offense and otherwise it could end up being a liability in some cases. I guess that could be some sort of a problem, that and the fact if you dare most NFL teams to run the ball on you...they are going to run the ball all over you.

The NFL is not high school and it is not college either, if you dare most teams to run and show you can't stop the run, "the stack" won't last long. I am not saying this defense won't work, I am saying if it is expressly designed to stop the spread offense, I don't know how well it is designed to work in the NFL even on a part time basis.

In the offseason, the Bucs showed the door to Derrick Brooks, their best all-time player, for cap reasons; then gave $20 million in guarantees to Kellen Winslow, who has missed some or all of his five pro seasons with injuries.

Here we go again. First, they play different positions so there is really no comparison between signing one of these players and cutting the other one. Derrick Brooks has not been signed yet by an NFL team, which either shows he wants too much money or the Bucs aren't the only team that thinks he has lost a step...but hey, feel free to just assume he was playing at a high level because he is the Bucs best all-time player.

TMQ has long contended there is more coaching talent at small colleges, below the testosterone-pumped level of the football-factory schools, than the NFL recognizes.

He said this not 3 paragraphs above where he made this following statement. (Let's ignore the fact Easterbrook was bitching last week that coaches with no NFL head coaching experience get all the jobs over experienced head coaches and now he is pretty much saying they should be hired more often.)

New head coach Raheem Morris has more experience in the Ivy League coaching at Cornell than as an NFL head coach.

He says this somewhat derisively. I didn't know that Cornell counted as a football-factory school. I would think Gregg Easterbrook would applaud the signing of a guy who was at a less football oriented school based on what he said above.

Next Week: America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions.

I am sure there was some "previewing" in here somewhere but I really had a hard time finding it. Next week is haiku's! Excuse me if I don't get too excited about it.

For those interested, don't forget to sign up for the College Football Pick 'Em. Information is in the MMQB post.


Martin said...

Quick hit...The Packers have found a certain logic that has seemed evident to me for awhile. Good running backs and wide receivers can be found throughout the 3-5th rounds. Why bother taking them in the first and second? That's where a team should get it's linemen (o and d) linebackers and cover guys. Those positions do seem to have a fall off that can't be regained, unlike RB, where it seems any good college back given a chance can be decent, or WR, where these guys are such headcases, who knows what they are bringing to the table anymore.

AJ said...

I'm not sure why he just picks on a few colleges, every single big name school has a game against a "cupcake". It's how it works nowadays with the BCS.

And having 8 home games at Michigan is a bad thing how? Where are they suppose to go play? Are they suppose to travel to Eastern or Western Michigan to play? Does he know how big Westerns stadium is? 30,000!!! Does he know how big Michigans is? 112,000! Seriously, can he not tell why they play these games at Michigan? This is beyond stupidity at this point.

Why didn't he look at Florida's tough schedule, where they play 8 home games.

And I'm willing to bet that 80% of people don't know what state Auburn is even in. There is a list of teams like this that are big colleges that people have no idea what state they are in. Not every single school can have the states name. Would a team called North Northeastern Western Iowa, be better for Gregg?

Bengoodfella said...

That's a very true statement I think Martin. If you have a good offensive line a decent running back can succeed. Wide receivers are so tricky, I can't even pretend to know how to scout or where to take them. In the NFL today, you don't necessarily need a stud running back but a good running back with a good offensive line and I think a team can succeed. Obviously if you a great O Line and a great RB then you are in better shape.

I like the Packers this year. I am afraid the defense may struggle a bit but I really like the offense and think it is loaded. They have Driver, Jones, Nelson, Jennings, Grant, Jackson, Finley, and Lee as weapons on offense. Throw in the fact they have a great young QB and they are smart to spend picks on defense.

AJ, that's my point also. I know it seems like a cupcake schedule but why would Michigan go to a team's stadium and play when they can make more money for themselves AND the opponent by playing at Michigan's home field. It's economics in that aspect that causes this to make sense.

Why would a team like Michigan or Florida schedule difficult teams when the conference schedule is hard enough? They don't get to play some of the easy teams that a team like Fresno State, Boise State and even to a lesser degree, USC play. There is a reason USC has a hard schedule and that is because they know people frown on the talent level in the PAC-10.

Great point about Auburn. I had to think about it for a minute too. Elon is right down the road from me and I know a lot of people who went there. It has poor athletics but just because it isn't called the state's name doesn't mean it is a crappy school necessarily.

I don't think even Easterbrook knows what he wants.

KentAllard said...

If you throw Michigan's historically worse season out of his weasel three, the record would be a solid 17-9, and if you substituted Urban Meyer, at least as big a weasel as Rodriguez, it would be a more than respectable 30-10. I don't like Saban, Petrino or Rodriguez, but the only one I see as a possible failure is Rodriguez, and that's not anywhere near certain. What a crazy theory.

If the "stack" Seattle is contemplating runs anything like the ones used in college,it will be used partly to disguise how many pass rushers you are sending. (A couple of years ago, BYU's 3-3-5 brought six or more rushers on every play) Some of them line up as a 3-3-5 but play more like a conventional 4-3-4, with one "linebacker" moving at the snap to a DE position, and a "defensive back" moving into the departed linebackers slot. It's not always as exotic as it looks.

RuleBook said...

Thank you for attacking his Cowboys idiocy so I didn't have to. However, you forgot that Jenkins had Anthony Henry in front of him as well. Frankly, I was surprised that the three of them had 10 starts among them.

When looking at the earlier drafts, consider the fact that there was a coaching change after 2006. Thus, many players that fit into the Parcells scheme didn't fit into the Phillips/Garrett scheme (see Anthony Fasano). I will, however, say that the reason most drafts don't look good is because the Cowboys cannot draft O-Linemen worth anything. They haven't drafted a single good O-Lineman since Gurode (2002 aka the Dave Campo Era).

Does anyone else notice his blatant contradictions with draft picks? On one hand, he argues about the greatness of the undrafted or low round drafted player. Then, he goes on to say how the Packers defensive problems are because they keep using 1st rounders on LBs and DTs, thus leaving the other areas empty of talent.

Yeah, Easterbrook, I'm sure teams are going to change the way they draft Texas Tech players because of Crabtree. After all, it's not like there has been any other successful Tech receivers in the NFL in recent memory...

Tech is a smaller school. They don't get 1st round caliber players playing for them often. Those players go to Texas or Oklahoma. It's not like playing for Tech automatically lowers your draft value.

I also thought it was funny how he needed to lump Petrino, Rodriguez, and Saban together in order to support his point, since Saban was freaking 12-2 last season. Clearly, Belichick, Linehan/Haslett, and Marinelli are horrible coaches, because they went a combined 13-35 last season.

This article made my head want to explode.

Bengoodfella said...

Kent, that's the thing about Easterbrook using those numbers is that he chose two programs that were pretty much in distress last year as it is due to losing players to the NFL or transferring. If you take a deeper look at the numbers it doesn't seem so bad. Of course he doesn't care to take a deeper look.

I am not against the "stack" defense in any manner and I think if used judiciously and correctly it could be great, but Easterbrook talks about it like it is the end-all be-all of defenses, which it isn't. Then to say it helps to stop the spread just ruined his point for me completely.

Rulebook, I may not be a big fan of the local Cowboys fans here but I can't ignore his idiocy. I went easy on him as well and didn't include some marginal players he just completely discounted. To call the 2005 draft "good" is just crazy. If I did that everyone would rightfully be all over me for being a Cowboys hater or an idiot.

I knew I had forgotten about a corner but I felt my point was proven that there wasn't any room for Jenkins to make a big difference. He doesn't even consider coaching changes when saying things. He didn't do it with Green Bay either. He always just tries to make a point and ignoring the outside circumstances that cause what he is saying to be wrong. He wants to take everything that happens and put it in a vacuum, which you can't do.

I didn't even notice how he loves undrafted players but bemoaned the fact the Packers lacked depth at certain positions because they hadn't spent high draft choices on that position. I couldn't get everything he says incorrectly if given three days to review it.

Wes Welker went to Tech if I am not wrong, so I don't think the Crabtree hold out will affect the school's stock too much.

Great stat about the NFL coaches who "stink." He lumped those three coaches in for last year because he wanted to prove the theory he had. If you take their records this year or the year after that I predict he will be wrong. RichRod is in some shit right now but I still thinks he turns that program around...either that or he doesn't and Les Miles finally takes the Michigan job, which I feel like will happen at some point anyway.

RuleBook said...

Yes, you are correct, Welker went to Texas Tech.

That was who I was referencing when I sarcastically said, "After all, it's not like there has been any other successful Tech receivers in the NFL in recent memory...".

Bengoodfella said...

I thought that's who you were referring to, but I just came out and said it.

I just don't think Crabtree will ruin the Texas Tech name in the NFL nor do I think Crabtree will fall to the second round if he comes out next year. Comparing him to Mike Williams and saying NFL teams learned their lesson is untrue...if you have first round talent, which Crabtree seems to, you will be drafted in the 1st round as long as he doesn't end up with a litany of problems and the only strike against him is this holdout.

Martin said...

The other thing that bothered me, is that Gregg not only contradicts himself, but seems to forget what he has just typed 5 minutes earlier.

He bitched about Peppers being only a sack guy...and then says Carolina only had 20 sacks. Well fuck, if Carolina only had 20 sacks, Peppers had 14.5 of them! Praise the Lord and rush the passer Julius, because apparently nobody else on the team could! Carolinas problem wouldn't be Julius not playing the run game, but that apparently the other 10 guys on defense were ONLY playing against the run.

Yes it's a mistake, and Carolina got 37 sacks, but it's not like it was a typo. Gregg wrote and worked on the assumption that Carolina only had 20 sacks. How could Peppers EVER be at fault for trying to get every sack he could if he was responsible for over 70% of the Panther pass rush, according to Gregg? It's like bitching about home runs killing a rally.

Or free coffee.

AJ said...

Les will never come to Michigan. He had his perfect chance, and decided he would rather stay at LSU for really no good reason. Now he has a huge payback in his contract about leaving for Michigan.

I'm not exactly sure why Rich is a weasel. I mean I'm not the biggest supporter of him, thats for sure, but I'm not sure he didn't do what any other coach has done.

Rich appears like he is in some sort of hot water right now, but thats the media blowing this all out of control. This whole practice thing was put in the news up here because the writer is basically out to get him. It will come out that he did nothing wrong, and it was just a bunch of whinny little babies complaining they had to work to hard. There is a reason they are no longer at this school.

Should be a good game this Saturday. Time to get the tailgate stuff ready!! If they win this whole thing blows over, if the lose its back to all this garbage talk.

Now if only I would have got those hot dogs in the mail, I'd have something to eat before the game...

Bengoodfella said...

Martin, that's what stinks about TMQ. He has this wrong assumptions that I could even go off on a tangent on, but I don't want to do that because the facts and assumptions are wrong. If Carolina only had 20 sacks last year and he had 14.5 of them then I would have to say that was the worst defensive line in the history of football. Also, like you said, Peppers was a badass last year for getting that many sacks while the rest of his teammates didn't do anything.

I think it is funny that number is still not corrected. He has maybe a couple numerical facts in his TMQ, shouldn't somebody be checking those facts? Peppers may suck at defending the run but you can't just say a football player stinks at something and hope everyone thinks its true.

What annoys me is that somebody is going to read his column, assume he knows what he is talking about and then repeat it. It's like an ignorant game of telephone. If that 20 sack number was true then Peppers would not be at fault at all for just trying to get sacks.

AJ, I don't think RichRod will get fired either but if he ever did, I can see Miles getting the job. I guess the reason he didn't take it is because he think he has a good thing at LSU. I think that is a tough decision because I like both programs, though if Michigan was my school, I would have a hard time passing them up.

I guess I can see the Michigan people are behind RichRod, because it certainly looks like the media is not. I don't know how many teams do what he did with practice but I am going to assume he is not the only one. I'll be interested to see how this blows over or if it does at all.

I sent you the hot never got them? Win either Fantasy league and I will re-send them.

AJ said...

He didn't do anything with practice, in fact, don't listen to ESPN either. I guess people don't understand what voluntary means. Its a shame Mich is getting a bad rep for this when no one has any facts, yet are reporting. Kinda like that ARod book.

Ya, no hot dogs yet. Maybe they are being shipped by boat and are taking awhile.

Bengoodfella said...

Don't worry, I am not listening to ESPN. I haven't followed this story too closely so far because college scandals like this neither interest nor surprise me.

After having said I haven't followed the situation too closely, the alumni are going to have to give RichRod a chance to do things his way so they can have a good football team. I don't know if he did anything wrong or not but they have to give him a chance. If the time the players spend practicing is not the issue then I am not sure what the issue is, because I heard it was that. If it is like the ARod book then RichRod needs to make sure Selena Roberts is not going through his trash.

Hmmm...I did put them on a freighter to get there. I will re-send them if you win either Fantasy league though. That's my vow...and I will send them by carrier pigeon this time.

Martin said...

I think RichRod is getting grief over how he left his "job of a lifetime, my alma mater, everything I could want...and hey I just renegotiated a huge raise" coaching position at West Virginia. I totally agree with coaches leave for better jobs all the time, but they don't always leave their alma mater where they have constantly stated how it was their dream job, and got tons of cashey money. He isn't a weasel for going to Michigan, he's a weasel for going anywhere.