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 basis...at 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 maybe...so 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.