Monday, January 10, 2011

7 comments Gregg Easterbrook Won't Stop With This Playoff Re-Seeding Idea

So Gregg Easterbrook's choice for Non-Quarterback Non-Running Back NFL MVP is Dan Koppen. Of course he is Gregg's choice, I probably should have guessed a Patriots offensive lineman. I guessed Wes Welker so I was sort of the right track. Attempting to predict what Gregg Easterbrook will do is a fool's errand though. Even he doesn't know what he will say or do from week to week and in no way attempts to be consistent. Gregg doesn't give us a lecture on recycling this week but he does feel the need to go into a discussion about real lemons, which is clearly an important NFL-related matter.

Say what you will about the NFL, but the league has always been a meritocracy -- the best players get on the field regardless of draft status, and the best teams are rewarded. But not this season. The 7-9 Seahawks host a playoff game while the 12-4 Ravens open the postseason on the road and the 10-6 Giants and Bucs and 9-7 Chargers go home.

I don't necessarily like this, but this is how the NFL sets the playoffs up. It has worked for quite a while now. I would like for situations like this to not happen, but they do and we should all deal with it. Gregg wrote this last week, so at the time he didn't know the Seahawks would beat the Saints, so he looks pretty wrong in retrospect. The NFL playoffs are set up the way they are for a reason. The Seahawks won and even though this logically shouldn't shut anyone up who has ever been critical of the 7-9 Seahawks making the playoffs it should at least make people think twice before criticizing.

Now, two 10-6 teams are denied in the same season. Has there ever been a better argument for the NFL to switch to a seeded-tournament postseason?

Here is an argument against this seeded-tournament...the NFL playoff set up has worked for quite a while now, why stop now? Changing because one year there is a perceived "unfairness" doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.

For example, if we had the seeded-tournament like Gregg wants where each team was ranked 1-12 then the 2008 Arizona Cardinals would have possibly not made the playoffs (they had a 9-7 record and I didn't feel like going through the tie-breakers to see if they would make it. They would be the last 11th team in or out of the playoffs depending on the tie-breakers with the other teams four teams that had the same record). If Gregg recalls, which I am sure he doesn't, that Cardinals team made the Super Bowl and very nearly won it.

If the NFL employed a seeded-tournament format, the Seahawks would be out and the Giants in; the Ravens would have a bye; the Bears, Saints, Jets and Packers would be hosting wild-card games. There can't be many football enthusiasts who think the current situation is superior to that.

As commenter Rich pointed out last week (and I will quote his comment directly),

"This is a terrible idea for the reason that conferences do matter since 12 of the 16 (75%) games played are teams against your own conference.

If you play in a strong division within a strong conference, your record is not going to be as good as a team in a weaker division or a weaker conference."

I just think it is an idea that doesn't have much merit overall. The entire NFL season is based on the conferences and playing teams within your own division. Ranking the teams based on their overall record, regardless of conference seems to go against the divisional system.

The Associated Press is about to announce the formal MVP award, and there's just a tiny chance it will be won by a quarterback.

Which is just absolutely insane if you don't think about what most of the playoff teams have in common, which is strong, or at least above average, quarterback play. I'm not saying a quarterback or running back should always win the MVP, but the worst teams in the league are usually that way because they don't have a great quarterback or don't have great quarterback play. Just look at the teams picking in the Top 10 of the NFL Draft this year, Carolina, Denver, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Arizona, Cleveland, San Francisco, Tennessee, Dallas and Washington. All of these teams had quarterback injuries or problems at the position.

So the quarterback is a pretty important, and therefore valuable, position. Would the Patriots have made the playoffs without Dan Koppen? Probably. Would they have made the playoffs without Tom Brady? That's a bigger question.

Ninety percent of football action occurs away from the ball -- but most who comment on football for a living never look there. TMQ keeps his eyes off the ball. You should try it sometime.

Gregg looks away from the football and watches the action away from the ball, he just doesn't understand or misinterprets 90% of what happens away from the football. He sees a player in the secondary let a receiver goes by and just assumes this player was looking into the backfield and doesn't even think possibly a zone defense was called by the defensive coordinator.

Superior offensive line play is one reason, with the Flying Elvii third best in sacks allowed.

So naturally only one member of the offensive line is the most valuable...because we all know an quality offensive line is the result of one player on that line playing well all season.

And everything that happens on the offensive line starts with the center.

Perhaps because he is the one responsible for getting the ball to the quarterback and deals with line calls. This makes him the most responsible player on the offensive line, but not necessarily the most valuable player on the offensive line. Gregg just got done telling us we need to look away from the ball and the action more like he claims he does, then chooses the player who has the ball on EVERY SINGLE OFFENSIVE POSSESSION as his MVP. Pretty typical of him.

Tom Brady stands unruffled in the pocket, brushing his hair, in part because New England has fewer botched blocking assignments than any other NFL team.

You can find this statistic at the website,

I would think the teams that allowed the least and second-least sacks in the NFL this year may have fewer botched assignments than the Patriots, but what do I know? I don't have a weekly partially NFL-related column on

New England guard Logan Mankins made the Pro Bowl this season, despite appearing in only nine games. Mankins is good but was selected for the 2010 Pro Bowl mainly because most football followers have no idea who's good on the offensive line and vote for whomever they voted for last season.

Only Gregg knows which players in the NFL are good and which are not. Here's a hint, all the undrafted players are the best players in the league.

Whom does Mankins play next to? Koppen, who makes all his offensive line teammates look good.

Or does Koppen play next to Logan Mankins, who makes all of his offensive line teammates look good? See, it can go both ways. Like your mother, Trebek.

Stats of the Week No. 3 Oakland finished 6-0 in its division and 2-8 versus all other teams.

Usually owners like it when a coach can beat the teams in their division. Al Davis is not most owners. This is also a sign of how weak the AFC West may have been this year or this could be a sign how well the Raiders played this year or it could be a sign Tom Cable should not have gotten fired.

In a season-finale week in which a distressing number of teams -- Miami, Jacksonville, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo -- rolled over and played dead, the Bears went all-out to win despite having already locked their best playoff seed. Chicago kept its starters on the field for the entire contest at chilly Green Bay, a hard-fought, close game not decided until the closing seconds.

Going all-out in the last game of the season is a great idea, unless your team has a major injury it suffers because of this. The Patriots probably regret playing Wes Welker in the last game of the 2009 season since he blew his knee out in that game. So while I honestly have no real opinion one way or another on a team playing its starters through the entire last game, injuries do happen.

Trailing Houston by 10 points late in the third quarter, Jax threw super short on third-and-7 -- a play that would not have made the first down even if completed --

Unless the receiver who caught this pass had legs with which he could use to run with the football for the first down. I'm sure the receiver who caught the ball did not have the benefit of legs though. The Texans are renowed for their leg-less wide receivers who have to catch the ball past the first down marker because they can't run for a first down.

Trailing playoff-bound Pittsburgh 14-0, the goin'-nowhere Browns had second-and-goal on the Steelers' 2. The call was a play-fake to blocking tight end Robert Royal, who has notorious "skillet hands."

Notorious skillet hands, which is why he has 128 career receptions and 5 fumbles. I couldn't find the number of drops Royal has in his career, but I am sure it is somewhere near at least 50...because he has "skillet hands" and is notorious for this.

Pittsburgh didn't cover Royal, who always drops the ball;

Except for the 128 times he hasn't dropped the ball. "Always" means "all the time" or "on every occasion." I'm all about some hyperbole but Royal doesn't always drop the ball. I'm picking nits with Gregg this week.

The Browns entered the contest 5-10, with their sole hope of a positive note to end the season an upset of the Steelers. What does a point-blank field goal that makes the score 14-3 accomplish? What it accomplished was ensuring the Browns were not shut out. Mangini knew he might be fired Monday and knew a shutout at home likely would be the last straw. So he didn't even try to win; rather, he made sure he kept a home shutout off his résumé and was fired anyway.

I have a question for everyone? Have you EVER heard a coach referred to in any fashion when there is a discussion about him being a candidate for a job or whether he should be fired or not, by how many times he his team has been shut out? Previous NFL head coaches aren't usually judged this way. I have no idea how many times Bill Cowher, Jon Gruden or Eric Mangini's teams have been shut out because it doesn't matter. This idea head coaches think shut outs need to stay off their resume is becoming ridiculous. It's wins and losses coaches are judged by. Maybe Mangini was trying to not get shut out at home, but this constant talk from Gregg about Mangini keeping a shutout off his resume rings hollow because no one really cares about that on his resume. They care whether his team won or lost. His team lost and I like to think that's all anyone remembers.

In Week 16, the Saints lined up basketball-player-converted-to-tight-end Jimmy Graham wide at the goal line and threw him a bang slant for a touchdown. On Sunday, they lined up Graham wide right at the goal line and threw him a corner fade -- to a tight end!

OMFG! That couldn't be because he is tall could it?

Kierre Daniels of Schenectady, N.Y., writes, "On Dec. 23rd, my wife and I went to the Jo-Ann fabric store in Colonie, New York, to pick up supplies for gift-making. I saw two store employees setting up two aisles of Valentine's Day merchandise -- two days before Christmas."

Holy shit, you have to be kidding? Did you arrest them or at least taser them on the spot? I bought wine, beer and champagne at the grocery store for New Years Eve BEFORE Christmas! I can't believe they sold it to me.

Adam Rauscher of Plainfield, N.J., reports, "At 5 A.M. on Christmas morning, I received an email from The Children's Place clothing store saying its Christmas sale had just started. This was before the kids had even opened their presents."

The Children's Place doesn't even have the schedule for when your children open up their Christmas presents? What good are they as a company if they don't have this information? They should know EXACTLY when every family opens up presents or at least send this email late Christmas Day so that way anyone who has been up since 5:30am with their children will be asleep and can't be informed of the sale. That's the smart way to do publicize a sale after Christmas, make sure your target audience doesn't know about the sale in time to plan to shop at that store the very next day.

TMQ hates the celebration penalty. As long as there is no taunting, and there was none by Kansas State, why shouldn't players dance happily after a touchdown?

TMQ hates the celebration penalty THIS WEEK. Most other weeks Gregg and his alter ego, TMQ, are talking about how players shouldn't celebrate a touchdown unless it meets certain criteria...meaning only if the touchdown wins the game for said team. Otherwise, Gregg will gripe about any team that celebrates after a touchdown.

Along comes the next bowl, North Carolina at Tennessee. On one Volunteers touchdown, the receiver did a choreographed dance as a teammate leapfrogged him; on another, the receiver danced elaborately, then a teammate lifted him into the air. No flag in either case. Rules are supposed to be consistent. The NCAA celebration rule seems enforced entirely according to the whim of whoever is working the game.

Get rid of human officials! Let computers decide what is a penalty and what is not!

Did Colts players know Jacksonville was honking out versus Houston, handing Indianapolis a playoff slot regardless of whether the Colts won? Game tied at 20 with 2:28 remaining, Tennessee, at 5-10, punted on fourth-and-4 from its 35. Don't roll over; play to win! It was as if Jeff Fisher was saying: "Well, boys, we've gone through the motions. We all want to head home. So let's be sure this game does not end up in overtime."

Gregg conveniently overlooks the fact the Titans would have won this game had it not been for a fumble that gave the ball back to the Colts. So maybe Fisher should not have punted in this situation, but the Titans had chances to win the game after that.

Philip Torbett of Knoxville, Tenn., writes, "In the just-released trailer for the third Transformers movie, the premise is that the Apollo missions were a cover to explore a downed alien spacecraft. When the moon spins and the Apollo landing area is no longer facing Earth, the astronauts climb a ridge and explore the massive alien craft which is mere feet away from the Lunar Module. When the moon spins back, the astronauts quickly return to the lander and pretend to be collecting rocks. But the moon revolves such that we always see the same side. This makes the opening premise of the movie impossible, because any alien craft that landed in the Sea of Tranquility would have been continuously observable from Earth with a decent telescope."

Good point. That movie about robots that can turn into objects like a car and can speak to humans needs to be a little bit more realistic when it comes to specifics of the plot. Gregg can believe robots from another planet can speak English and transform themselves into objects, but when it comes to getting the moon's revolution incorrect, it just ruins the movie for him. Let's all remember Gregg went to see The Dark Knight and argued over the very specific points of the plot about how the Joker got where he did and how he knew exactly what would happen. It's not the billionaire dressed up as a superhero bat that bothers him or the guy dressed as a clown who no motive for his crimes, other than to "watch the world burn," but the fact the guy dressed as a clown had a plan that seems overly complicated to pull off in real life. Gregg jumps into the fantasy world of movies and television and comes back with the oddest complaints.

That the moon is tidally locked -- rotating on its axis, but the same side always facing Earth -- is the reason we see the same surface features whenever we look up at the moon but never see the dark side.

The entire time the Apollo landers were on the moon, they were visible from Earth. Hollywood assumes that with science literacy being what it is, most moviegoers won't know this. Did the scriptwriters know it?

The scriptwriters probably did know this, but they brazenly ignored it. I guess the scriptwriters just assumed viewers who go see a movie based on the premise of an intergalactic battle between robots wouldn't be focused on whether this movie got the moon's revolution correct. Maybe the alien spacecraft was invisible to the human eye or from far away just looked like the surface of the moon because that's what the spacecraft had "transformed" into?

Two weeks ago, TMQ noted that Pearland High used a Stonehenge trick play in its 5A state championship win over favored Euless Trinity. Reader Rick Moller of Houston provides video of the play. What makes this play work is the blase attitude of the Pearland players -- several are looking away from the quarterback, shrugging their shoulders and so on. Because this play is intended to fool the defense, it seems fair to TMQ. The middle school trick play making the rounds in which the quarterback loudly complains to officials about the ball, then pretends to be asking for the ball to show to the officials before taking off, seems unsportsmanlike conduct, since football players are taught to become passive whenever the officials are involved.

I like how Gregg's interpretation of sportsmanship is based completely on his own personal opinion of how players should treat officials. So how a player treats the official on the play is the key determinant whether a play is good or bad sportsmanship? Isn't the play where the quarterback shows the ball to the official and then runs off intended to fool the defense, just like the play Gregg liked where the players pretended like they didn't know what was going on was intended to fool the defense? These two plays aren't that different in regard to sportsmanship because they both deceive the other team.

Minute Maid lemonade proclaims itself "made with real lemons." And "real lemons" differ from "lemons" -- how, exactly?

Some drinks advertise themselves as made with lemons, but it is actually a lemon concentrate, and not made directly from real lemons. Gregg must be the most annoying person in the world to know and have a conversation with.

Only players from playoff teams are eligible; my reasoning is that he who would wear the mantle of "most valuable" had better have created some value.

This is just the shitty type of logic I have come to expect from Gregg Easterbrook. I will remember this the next time he lauds an undrafted player for playing well (Arian Foster, anyone?) that player hasn't created value if his team did not make the playoffs. Sorry Cameron Wake, you aren't a valuable player. All four or five players that were on Gregg's All-Unwanted Team last week...not valuable. Miles Austin...not valuable. I could go on, but these are just guys that weren't drafted and guys Gregg has lauded in the past who he apparently doesn't consider to be valuable. I could on with a list of highly drafted players who have played well but from Gregg's point of view haven't created value because they are not on playoff teams. My point is that this is a stupid way to determine a player's value.

Atlanta -- Brent Grimes. Last week named TMQ's Unwanted Player of the Year, undrafted out of Division II Shippensburg. K.C. Joyner, the Football Scientist -- what kind of experiments does he conduct in his laboratory? -- graded Grimes as one of the top NFL performers in 2010.

Baltimore -- Haloti Ngata. Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are top players; Ngata is the NFL's most disruptive defensive performer. Backed by Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders.

Outsiders? Does Schatz not have a house?

Ngata is a first round pick. Not that Gregg would mention this.

Green Bay -- Clay Matthews. Could have won the Non-QB Non-RB MVP; in TMQ terms, it worked against him that he's well-known.

Gregg is further clarifying his own stupid way of analyzing how he chooses the Non-QB Non-RB MVP. The more the clarifies, the more stupid it feels like it gets.

Matthews is a first round pick. Gregg fails to mention this.

Kansas City -- Branden Albert. The team that leads the league in rushing must have power blocking.

Another first round pick. Remember how much Gregg hates highly drafted players because they think everything should be handed to them? Somehow much of the most valuable players on playoff teams are highly drafted players...weird.

Philadelphia -- DeSean Jackson. See the notation for Clay Matthews.

2nd round pick.

Pittsburgh -- Lawrence Timmons. Led the Steelers, the league's top rushing defense, in tackles. Brian Burke, who writes Advanced NFL Stats, reports Timmons "leads all defenders in my Win Probability Added stat, which measures the game-changing impact of every play."

1st round pick.

Seattle -- Aaron Curry. Even losing teams can have top players.

I know this can be debated among those who have watched the Seahawks all year, but Gregg picks Curry and he is still a 1st round pick, which is a player Gregg normally believes is lazy and unmotivated.

So out of the 12 players Gregg could choose from, he chooses 6 of them who are 1st or 2nd round picks as the non-quarterback non-running back MVP's of their team. Yet, on a weekly basis he likes to point out how many 1st round picks don't work hard enough and are often surpassed by undrafted free agents or lowly drafted players. Another Easterbrookian contradiction.

Past winners:

Alan Faneca, Steelers, 2001
Lincoln Kennedy, Raiders, 2002
Damien Woody, Patriots, 2003
Troy Brown, Patriots, 2004
Walter Jones, Seahawks, 2005
Jeff Saturday, Colts, 2006
Matt Light, Patriots, 2007
James Harrison, Steelers, 2008
Dallas Clark, Colts, 2009

Out of these nine players, how many of them were 1st round picks? Six of them. 66% of the players Gregg has chosen as non-quarterback non-running back MVP's have been 1st round picks. Remember this next time he tells us how great undrafted or lowly drafted players are compared to highly drafted "glory boys." He rails against them, but seems fine in choosing them as the best player on their team that isn't a quarterback or a running back. The annoying part is that Gregg Easterbrook doesn't see his own contradiction on this.


your favourite sun said...

Game tied at 20 with 2:28 remaining, Tennessee, at 5-10, punted on fourth-and-4 from its 35. Don't roll over; play to win! It was as if Jeff Fisher was saying: "Well, boys, we've gone through the motions. We all want to head home. So let's be sure this game does not end up in overtime."

I'm confused...if the game was tied, then wouldn't going for it on fourth down in your own territory be the best way to make sure the game doesn't end up in overtime? I didn't see the game but the situation he describes here indicates that punting would mean you were trying to extend the game into overtime. Go for it on fourth down, make it and "play to win" in regulation, fail and you just gave Peyton Manning the ball in Vinatieri's range with the game tied.

Wasn't it just last year that Belichick caught tons of heat for going for it on fourth down in his own territory against Manning? Yeah, it was with a lead, but the principles are largely the same and the consensus is that the best play is to not risk giving up possession in your own territory to the best QB in the game.

HH said...

So Gregg Easterbrook's choice for Non-Quarterback Non-Running Back NFL MVP is Dan Koppen.
I had Dan Connolly. I thought he'd win on versatility.

The Associated Press is about to announce the formal MVP award, and there's just a tiny chance it will be won by a quarterback.
While I'm with Gregg that offensive skill players are overrepresented in the media & thus the fan world, this is the nature of the sport. The sport is basically designed to place the most responsibility in the hands of the quarterback, AND the quarterback position requires the most physical & mental traits for success. As a result, quarterbacks will usually be the most valuable players: someone who excels at a position that is both crucial and difficult to fill is simply scarcer, and thus more valuable, than someone who excels at a different position. The other important part is that there is no other quarterback on the field, ever. All responsibility falls on one guy. There are several potential receivers but only one passer on the play, so obviously his importance is higher than that of the individual receivers. [The same is mostly true for RBs which is why they often win awards as well]. This is not to take away from receivers, linemen, or defenders, but it's a basic fact that there are mutiple guards, tacklers, receivers, corners, linebackers on any given play. The importance of each is thus lessened. Quarterbacks also don't rotate or share time: even a mediocre defensive tackle can rotate in and contribute: for qbs, it's all or nothing. It's simply the nature of the game to run through that one person and position. To argue otherwise is to argue against the nature of modern football.

Re Transformers
I have to agree with Gregg here. Yes, robot monsters are of course a fantasy, but like him, I accept a movie's premise and internal logic. But it makes me incredibly angry when basic physical facts are changed simply to fit the story. It's a sign of terrible writing: it's not different in kind from a writer deciding there's no gravity because the story requires it. Any deviation from known physical laws requires an explanation in fiction: this goes for transforming robots and the rotation of the moon. Either way, explain it or just admit you're shitty writer who has to cheat to have a decent plot.

FormerPhD said...

Re Re Transformers

The problem is that if they put the robot on the side of the moon we can't see, then we'd have to have a scene where the Apollo astronauts travel from where they landed to the dark side... a long, tedious and implausible journey (the calculated temperature on the dark side is -382 degrees F).

Considering the only means of transportation the Apollo 11 crew had was their own bodies, the entire movie would be watching as they hobbled their way from the landing site to the "crash" site.

In other words, in order to get onto the explosion fest Michael Bay loves, they either had to land on the dark side of the moon (contradicting real facts) or just have the "crash" site be close to the landing zone (which is awful, but you can explain this.

I'd find it easier to believe there was a crash on the light side of the moon than the astronauts working entirely in -386 degree temperatures.

The rest of the Gregg's drivel

The all important question that Gregg fails to answer, probably because he can't, is how does one determine if team X is better than team Y? For example, if you go solely based on records, you penalize teams that play strong schedules; if you incorporate SOS, then you basically have a BCS system in the NFL and I think we all know that the BCS is a steaming pile of crap.

In the end, it all works out. Up until a few years ago, the NFC West was a very strong division, while the NFC North usually had one really good team. In 2007, the TB Bucs made the playoffs at 9-7 as a division winner. There wasn't a team that missed the playoffs with a better record, but Philadelphia finished 8-8 playing in a division where everyone finished above .500 and had three playoff teams. Who is to say that the 2007 Eagles weren't better than the 2007 Bucs?

It all comes down to how do you enforce Gregg's plan. It's easier to sit here and say that the Giants and Bucs were robbed because they finished 10-6 and Seattle finished 7-9, but how do you make an objective decision on the matter?

In 2009, 10-6 Arizona made it, 9-7 Atlanta missed. Should Atlanta have gotten in? In 2008, 11-5 NE and 9-7 NYJ missed the playoffs, while an 8-8 SD team made it. In 2005, 10-6 NE made it, 10-6 KC missed. In 2003, 10-6 Baltimore makes it; 10-6 Miami doesn't.

The Giants had two games where they were win and in (the Eagles game technically wasn't, but had the Giants won, they would have needed Philly to lose once or they had to beat GB or Washington). They blew a huge lead in one and got blown out the second. They had their chances, they didn't convert them.

Seattle may have finished with a worse record, but hey, they won the games they needed to win.

ivn said...

Kansas City -- Branden Albert. The team that leads the league in rushing must have power blocking.

love this logic. "well, Kansas City led the league in rushing, so their blocking is good, so I'll say that...oh, Branden Albert is the most valuable player on the team." so lazy, like when he said that Stanford's offense was really good because it was a good blend of speed and power. i mean yeah it's true, but it's one of those things that you don't necessarily have to really pay attention to the team to say such a thing.

Seattle -- Aaron Curry. Even losing teams can have top players.

doesn't rush the passer. disqualified.

and I'm still stunned that Gregg never took any shots at "Inception." stunned. granted, it does what HH brings up--it creates its own universe and largely sticks to the rules--but he couldn't find anything to nitpick about it? not even the fact that Christopher Nolan, for all his great qualities as a filmmaker, has a very shaky grasp on how firearms work? I guess that's not his fault. he is British, after all.

Bengoodfella said...

Sun, yeah I agree with your logic on that. Punting would mean the Titans were trying to extend the game in some fashion. Either they don't convert and the Colts take over in great field position or they convert and continue their drive. In fact, Belichick got tons of heat playing a game in Indy as well for doing that.

HH, Gregg doesn't get versatile.

I don't like those players get the accolades either, but that's just the nature of football. An effective quarterback is so incredibly important and we all saw how a competent QB helped the Seahawks beat the Saints a few days ago. It's just an important position and though I hate it, that is a position on the field, probably the only one outside of the kicker or punter where there is only one player and he plays the entire game barring injury.

Perhaps I shouldn't comment on Transformers since I never intend to see the movies. The trailer looks so interesting until you realize it is Transformers.

Rich, I am just disappointed Michael Bay didn't find a way to make an explosion that would explain how the astronauts could get on the other side of the moon. He should have just created an explosion that would fix the scientific problem and still be interesting. Explosions fix everything.

I think your logic makes sense on Gregg's idea for the seeding. It becomes less a system designed to reward teams who do well in their division and more of a system that is designed to create arguments about which team had a harder schedule and had more impressive victories. I don't love a 7-9 team being in, but I can't say after the Seahawks victory they didn't deserve it. Of course I wish it had been a road game, because I think that would have been fair.

Ivn, sadly I didn't notice the shitty logic. It's clear he didn't look too hard into the Chiefs MVP that wasn't a QB or RB. He just picked the biggest "name" lineman and went with it. I am surprised he didn't pick Ryan Lilja since he mentions him at every opportunity. I am just glad he mentioned a highly drafted player. It's like vindication for me that he is full of shit.

Aaron Curry can't rush the passer, that's why he's a bum. Somewhere Peter King is still holding onto this logic.

I saw "Inception" this weekend. Didn't understand the first 15 minutes until the last part of the movie and I am still not sure I understood the 1 hour long climax of the movie. It wasn't bad, but that's a movie I think Gregg could poke holes in if he tried. Of course I am not sure he understood it enough to do this. I don't mind thinking when I go to a movie, but "Inception" went overboard on the thinking for me.

Honestly, at a certain point I quit paying attention the guns and just watched the movie. I just knew there were guns firing and none of the good guys had gotten hit.

Unknown said...

The only thing I would do to change the playoffs is to seed the home teams. I wouldn't do that either, but that would be the only change I'd think was acceptable. When the NFC East, to make a completely made up example, plays the AFC West, and the AFC East plays the NFC West, in a year like this year, it penalizes the AFC South and NFC Central, who had to play stronger inter-conference teams.

The Chiefs got to play the AFC West AND the NFC West this year. Let's say they had gone 13-3, so actually had a 1 game better record then the Ravens and thus "deserved" to host the playoff game. Would anybody think that they were truly a better team then the Ravens? Even with a better record? The knife cus both ways, so in the end, just leave the system alone, because for every "solution" Gregg, or Simmons, or whoever comes up with, we could punch a half dozen "what ifs" and loopholes into.

Bengoodfella said...

Martin, I think everything in the playoffs seems to be fine like it currently is. I just don't see a huge reason to change it around dramatically. I agree with you they are perfectly fine like they are now. It's the most popular sport in the United States, with the lockout coming up I don't think this is the best chance to make dramatic changes to the product.