Gregg Easterbrook Lies and Deceives His Readers Into Believing He Hasn't Criticized John Harbaugh

Last week's TMQ resulted in a debate in the comments about which sportswriter would be the worst to sit beside on a plane. Really, there is no wrong answer and all of the suggestions sounded horrifying to me. This week the Tuesday Morning Quarterback Challenge returns and I honestly haven't ever heard of this challenge. It turns out it is boring and sucks. Gregg wants his readers to create a visual on any running TMQ theme. As great as this sounds, I think I'll pass. This week Gregg imagines the Harbaugh brother's childhood (because God knows we aren't going to be reading enough about the Harbaughs over the next two weeks), criticizes Chip Kelly, the television show "Fringe" and criticizes about everything or everyone that isn't himself.

One brother was a star quarterback at the University of Michigan, then went on to start at quarterback in the NFL and make the Pro Bowl. The other brother quietly toiled as a defensive back at a mid-major, Miami University, then never taped his ankles for the NFL.

You forgot about the part where this was a great moment for America! You can't forget how great America should feel about the Harbaugh brother's accomplishments.

One entered coaching and had a golden touch, producing quick Orange Bowl and NFL playoff victories. The other toiled with midlevel assistant jobs before finally getting a head-coaching post in 2008, and though doing well, immediately was hammered by the sports press about ending every season with a loss.

What Gregg means is that John Harbaugh was hammered by writers like Gregg Easterbrook for ending every season with a loss. Gregg naturally ignores his part in hammering John Harbaugh for his choices during the NFL season. Gregg is such a dipshit. He is trying to make it sound like "others" were hammering Harbaugh when he is as responsible for hammering Harbaugh as anyone else. From Gregg's December 18th TMQ,

And it wasn't just players who quit. Many coaching staffs quit on Sunday's games, too. Norv Turner, job in jeopardy, nevertheless looked bored on the sideline as his charges were embarrassed at home. Chan Gailey has acted all season as though he was fired last season. John Harbaugh was more concerned with shifting blame than fixing his team.

By firing Cameron now -- rather than this past offseason, when the offensive coordinator position could have turned over in an orderly manner -- Ravens coach John Harbaugh sent the signal that he expects yet another playoff collapse and wants an excuse lined up. At the postgame media event following the playoff collapse Harbaugh/East appears to expect, he can blame Cameron for the team's troubled offense. Firing an assistant coach just before the playoffs isn't a bold move to invigorate the team. It's a desperate move about blame shifting. 

From Gregg Easterbrook's January 1 TMQ, 

John Harbaugh fired offensive coordinator Cam Cameron midseason, trying to make the Ravens' plodding offense his fault: though Baltimore averaged 25 points under Cameron, and has averaged 23 points since. 

Not to mention Gregg says John Harbaugh "toiled with midlevel assistant jobs before finally getting a head-coaching post in 2008," which is odd since Harbaugh was the special teams coordinator for the Philadelphia Eagles from 1998-2007 and had been the special teams coordinator for various colleges since 1988. I'm not sure I would consider that to be a mid-level job, but whatever works out the narrative I guess.

So Gregg Easterbrook didn't even need a Ravens loss to t he Patriots in order to hammer John Harbaugh. He hammered Harbaugh even before the Ravens played a playoff game in anticipation of what he believed was going to be another playoff loss. If Gregg wasn't such a dipshit he could look in the mirror and see that this "sports press" he is talking about consists of himself as well. Of course, Gregg believes he himself can do no wrong and he certainly isn't going to fess up to his criticism of Harbaugh. That would involve being truthful and honest with his TMQ readers and Gregg does everything in his power to lie and deceive those who read TMQ. Gregg changes facts, only includes certain parts of facts and will leave out an important point all in the name of making himself seem right.

Forget players, tactics and strategy. What the world really wants to know is -- did they argue in their PJs over games of electric vibrating football? Blame each other for windows broken with baseballs? Was one grounded more than the other? Did one ever try to steal the other's girl?

Yeah, fuck football, I just want to know how good of friends they were as children. Because I deeply care about the Harbaugh brothers' childhood.

The Harbaugh brothers were born only 15 months apart. Kids close in birth order may be either best of friends or at each other's throats. Which was it with the Harbaugh boys?

Yes, these are the answers we really want to know. Since brothers only have one type of relationship with each other that never fluctuates on a short or long-term basis, were Jim and John best friends or at each other's throats? There is only one answer that is correct.

Get out the old photo albums, Harbaugh clan. It's XII days 'til kickoff of Super Bowl XLVII, scheduled for XI:XIII Eastern on February III. America needs to fill that time with discussion of something other than the debt ceiling.

How about discussing the Super Bowl that has yet to be played? I guess that's no fun to discuss when there are so many other interesting topics like "How does it feel for Ray Lewis to play one last game with the Ravens" or "Did the Harbaugh brothers feud as children?"

In other football news, right about now wouldn't you like to be the person who handles Joe Flacco's endorsement deals?

No, but I would like to be the person who gets to write a weekly column about the NFL and doesn't have to worry about whether what I write is accurate or deceptive in nature. Oh, to be able to write that Julio Jones is a "diva" without any proof, or to accuse other writers of criticizing John Harbaugh and ignoring the fact I myself criticized him as well. If there were absolutely no ramifications for what I wrote or said ESPN.com that would be great, thanks.

Here's an early Super Bowl indicator. The Packers and Giants, the past two Super Bowl champions, were a combined 19-13 during the regular season, followed by a combined 8-0 in the postseason. The Packers had two 1-3 losing streaks leading up to their Super Bowl; the Giants had a four-game losing streak late in the season leading up to their Super Bowl victory. Maybe that makes the Ravens, who had a 1-4 losing streak late this season, the favorite.

So just look for a playoff team that has gone 1-3 or 1-4 during the season and then predict they will go to the Super Bowl. It's that easy! I hope Gregg knows the Texans went 1-3 to end this season and they didn't make the Super Bowl. The Vikings went 1-3 at one point this past season and they didn't make the Super Bowl. So his little statistic probably means very little and isn't the sign a team will make the Super Bowl. Again, this is the type of thing I am talking about when I say Gregg throws out statistics and comments that are misleading. A 1-3 record isn't an early Super Bowl indicator because many teams, including playoff teams can have a 1-3 streak during the year.

In other news, annually at Super Bowl time, TMQ offers a "Challenge." This year's is the first visual "Challenge." Create a visual -- pictures, animation, video -- on any Tuesday Morning Quarterback running theme.

I'm going to create a visual representation of all TMQ's running themes. It will be a picture with all of TMQ's running themes represented in the form of shit coming out of Gregg's mouth. It's a disgusting visual, but also accurately represents my feelings toward Gregg's running themes.

Humor and creativity should be your goal.

So basically the goal is to be like the opposite of Gregg Easterbrook's writing.

Here's the fine print. No profanity.

No fucking way, really? Gregg discourages the use of profanity but encourages the use of beefcake men in any of the visuals presented to him. The hunkier the man, the better.

Also do not use copyrighted music, which YouTube often takes down. Make your own music!

Well there goes using "I Hate Everything about You" as the song behind my visual of TMQ's running themes represented in the form of shit coming out of Gregg's mouth.

Stats of the Title Round No. 5: The first-, second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-, sixth- and seventh-highest-scoring teams in NFL history did not win the Super Bowl.

Remember this next year when Gregg is writing about hyper-offenses that score a ton of points, put up a ton of yardage and are changing the way the NFL is played. Gregg is wrong quite frequently and he seems to block it out. For example, last week he wrote his TMQ about Colin Kaepernick and the 49ers' use of the zone-read option. Gregg described how Jim Harbaugh realized this is an offensive strategy that can be used to win football games. As it turns out, Kaepernick only read one designed-run against the Falcons, nor did the 49ers use too much zone-read option, and the 49ers still won the game.

Stats of the Title Round No. 10: Baltimore and San Francisco, which meet in the season's final contest, are a combined 6-0 in the Super Bowl.

Well, San Francisco is 5-0 and the Ravens have been to one playoff game. So this statistic, while true, is a bit misleading towards Baltimore's record in the Super Bowl.

Atlanta coaches, who all but abandoned the run this season, radioed in 45 passing plays and 21 rushes, though the Falcons led most of the contest. On the fourth-and-4 climactic down, San Francisco was so sure of pass it fielded a nickel with only two linebackers in a short-yardage situation. As Ryan scanned the field pre-snap, he saw only five in the "box," with the closest linebacker well off the ball. Had he simply audibled to a draw, success was likely.

I would love to know how success was "likely" if the Falcons had run the ball here? Gregg has absolutely no proof this statement is true, but he simply says it in the hopes he doesn't have readers with a discerning eye for bullshit. The Falcons had run for 3.5 yards per carry on the day and Michael Turner was injured. I would love for Gregg to explain how success is "likely" when Atlanta had not run the ball well all day. Of course he can't explain this. He just writes things and smugly assumes he is correct.

Instead of rushing against a pass defense, Ryan passed against a pass defense, and the Falcons will watch the Super Bowl on television. Sour.

Running an offense in the NFL isn't this simple. A quarterback can't simply see a "rush defense" and switch to a passing play. Defenses try to disguise their coverage so the quarterback doesn't know exactly what the defense is planning on doing. Gregg thinks the NFL is so simple. If Team A does play X, then Team B runs play Y, but it doesn't work that way.

Only in America! Actually, only in America could the well-off live in hotels and still complain indignantly about having to pay taxes.

Gee, this sounds like something Peter King would do.

Baltimore wanted this game more than New England did -- it was on the Ravens' faces early, and it was really on the Ravens' faces after Tom Brady kicked toward Ed Reed with his spikes.

Great analysis, Gregg! Tell me more! So it was on the face of Tom Brady that he didn't want this game as bad as the Ravens did? What did the body language say? Was Bill Belichick dressed too warmly for the game? Because that definitely affects the outcome of a game too.

Before the Brady kick, New England had 10 points and was in position for a field goal. The Patriots did not score again after the Brady kick. The Baltimore defense was fighting mad from that moment on.

So because Tom Brady, who didn't want this game enough to win the game because if he wanted the game more the Patriots definitely would have won the game, kicked his leg in the air the Ravens won the game and the Patriots lost the game? If it took this kick to get the Ravens fighting mad then doesn't that potentially mean they didn't want the game more than New England when the game began? There I go again, trying to make sense of Gregg's nonsense claims.

When it was fourth-and-1 on the Baltimore 34, Belichick did go for it with a sweet play. Brady turned to the sideline and pounded on his helmet as if to say, "my radio isn't working." As the defense looked at Brady, there was a silent-snap direct snap to Danny Woodhead, who ran for the first down. It was an NFL variant of the "I have the wrong ball" play seen in youth leagues. But when your big play of the night was a youth-league move to gain a couple yards, you didn't want it as much as the other team did.

Someone please make this man stop writing forever. So because the Patriots used a fourth-and-1 play THAT WORKED this showed the Patriots didn't want the game badly enough? Again, the Patriots went for it on fourth down, drew up a specific play to be used in this situation, and because the play succeeded, it is proof the Patriots mailed this game in according to Gregg. So the Patriots lost because they didn't use the correct successful fourth down play during the game. Gregg's bullshit excuses for why teams who go for it on fourth down don't immediately start winning the game are getting weaker and weaker as the years go by.

This game's hidden play came when a Brady completion for a first down was nullified by holding on Nate Solder.

This play was hidden because only Gregg Easterbrook noticed that the holding call which negated a first down made a difference in this game. Jim Nantz and Phil Simms commented on how important this holding call was, but I guess Gregg had his television on mute so he could talk to everyone in the room about how unrealistic "Fringe" is. I wish I were as smart as Gregg believes himself to be. Actually, everyone (Stephen Hawking included) should wish they were as smart as Gregg believes himself to be.

And don't throw baked beans at me for saying this, Boston faithful -- but Belichick won three Super Bowls when he was cheating, and has not won since being caught.

Well, clearly the football gods are punishing them by allowing the Patriots to have great success in the regular season, but not allowing them to win the Super Bowl. What a stiff punishment the football gods are imposing. Rather than the Patriots being a dynasty that has won 5-6 Super Bowls, they are a dynasty that has won 3 Super Bowls and make the playoff every season. If only other NFL teams could be punished in the same way.

Then Notre Dame administrators learned the dead girl was a hoax that might cause bad publicity for the football program, so "the university reacted within hours, hiring an investigative company to look into the matter." Yet when an actual young woman died shortly after saying a Notre Dame football player did something dishonorable, the university dragged its feet. See Henneberger's detailed 2012 account in the National Catholic Reporter.

Henneberger's choice of words last week may not have been fair. She said tears were shed for the fake victim but "none" for the real one. Numerous Chicago Tribune stories (Chicago is the closest big city to South Bend, Ind.) concerned Seeberg's fate, as have stories on ESPN Chicago and in Sports Illustrated.

Fair or not, Gregg has the context of these words all wrong. Henneberger wasn't saying the media at-large didn't shed tears for Seeberg. She was saying Notre Dame as a university did more to cover up and sweep aside the accusations that a Notre Dame player sexually assaulted Seeberg than they did to help her out and treat her as a victim. I don't know whether this point of view is correct or not.   Henneberger wasn't saying the media didn't care about Seeberg, but that Notre Dame was quick to take the side and defend Manti Te'o as a victim, while they didn't have much to say in regard to the victim in a case where a Notre Dame football player was accused of sexual assault. Gregg has the context of this "tears shed" statement all wrong.

The question is not whether a Notre Dame football player should be held accountable for a suicide. Causes of suicide are complex, and often the reasons die with the person. Law generally does not attach blame to those who interact with someone just before a suicide, 

It is not usual for those who have had a harrowing experience to hesitate to make a criminal accusation. But because Seeberg never made one, the answer may never be known.

Now back to accused parties. Notre Dame has been hiding behind FERPA, to say nothing about the man Seeberg accused, though he is an adult, not a minor in need of protection. Regardless of whether Notre Dame is right or wrong to invoke FERPA, the accused man knows who he is. He should speak.

Gregg confuses me. He says the Notre Dame player who allegedly sexually assaulted Seeberg was not responsible for her suicide and there is no way to know if what was alleged to happen did occur or not. So Gregg's solution is this football player who isn't guilty of absolutely anything at this point should come out and talk about the incident? I have no idea what happened in this situation and nobody ever really will know, but why should this football player come out and give his side of the story? Notre Dame isn't hiding behind FERPA. FERPA is there to provide protection to students and allow them privacy. Regardless of whether this Notre Dame football player is an adult now or not, he is protected by FERPA and his identity should not be revealed unless he chooses for it to be.

The Notre Dame football player should identify himself and explain his side. This would be excruciatingly difficult, even if he is blameless. Some will never believe anything he says, and rush to condemn him. But announcing his name and saying what he sees as the truth would be the courageous course.

No, it would be the dumb route. There is a difference in courageous and stupid. It is courageous to report a sexual assault, but it is stupid to give your side of the story regarding a sexual assault crime that was never proven to actually have occurred in some bizarre effort to clear your name when nobody knows your name anyway. If this Notre Dame football player came out and gave his side of the story, he would be asking to make his life significantly more difficult and just by speaking on the topic would give some people the impression he is guilty of the crime alleged. We don't even know this football player's name, so it isn't like his reputation has been smeared.

The late Elizabeth Seeberg said a Notre Dame football player sexually assaulted her. That player should stand tall and answer the departed.

Why? Why should he do this? He very well may be guilty of a crime, but the implication if he came out and defended himself would be that he is guilty of the crime and is simply trying to talk his way out of it. If I accuse Gregg of a crime that is never proven, would he believe he has an obligation to come out and defend himself? I really doubt it. If I accuse him of plagiarism I doubt he would feel the need to defend himself from this charge when my accusation never ends up being proven true. The simple fact is Gregg has different rules for everyone that isn't himself. I doubt Gregg would live up to the standard he is setting for a person to defend himself from a crime that is no longer being alleged, especially when the general public would have no idea Gregg is the one accused of the crime.

Two weeks ago, TMQ noted the succession of quasi-retired time-server types at the helm of the Buffalo Bills and opined, "The Bills need a young, ambitious head coach who wants to make his mark in the sport." Doug Marrone may fit that description.

Mike Mularkey and Gregg Williams also fit this description as the head coach for the Bills, but Gregg ignores the fact his "young, ambitious coach" hypothesis for the Bills has been proven incorrect. Rest assured though, if Marrone succeeds in Buffalo then Gregg will say it is because they finally hired a young, ambitious coach who wants to make his mark on the sport...even though they have chosen this route twice before in the past decade.

Surely Kelly will bring a very fast-paced Blur Offense to the NFL, but bear in mind that the Patriots have already perfected the very-fast-snap.

Except as Gregg already pointed out, teams who have gained scored a lot of points in an NFL season haven't won the Super Bowl. Though Chip Kelly doesn't have to worry about being cursed like Belichick and the Patriots are supposedly cursed. It's the Spygate curse of making the playoffs every year which haunts the Patriots.

Scoring to take a 13-0 lead against Seattle early in its wild-card game, Washington, benefitting from a Seahawks penalty, could have gone for two from the Seattle 1: increasing the lead to 15-0 might have made a difference.

Considering this one point didn't make a difference in this game at all, then increasing the lead to 15-0 could have made no difference at all too. Gregg loves to believe his assumptions are correct when this correct assumption not coincidentally supports the point he is trying to prove.

Last week, Fox's "Fringe" took its final bow. "Fringe" was a fun show that overstayed its welcome, veering from spooky, to inventive and clever, to absurd. Its finale leaves television painfully short on sci-fi.

Television is now painfully short on sci-fi, but Gregg loves to spend column space in TMQ criticizing the lack of realism in science-fiction shows, so perhaps we should all be happy there are fewer science-fiction shows. Gregg spends a lot of time criticizing science-fiction shows, but he never failed to watch every episode of "Fringe" and he is now stating there aren't enough science-fiction shows. Since he seems to hate science-fiction shows so much I don't know why he wants there to be more on television.

Future humans were described as incapable of emotion ("This thing you call love, what is it?" one asked in a line that has appeared in about 10,000 sci-fi movies and shows) but super-intelligent. Yet they made comments like, "The chances of success are 99.994562," which only an idiot would say.

Why would only an idiot say this? First off, this is a science-fiction television show so any character can pretty much say whatever they want and it works because the show isn't supposed to be realistic. Second, I know Gregg hates hyper-specificity, but future humans may be incapable of emotion but be very specific about numbers. Only an idiot would claim to know what a future human would say.

In the finale, the cranky old scientist travels into the future to stop the event that caused emotions to be outlawed and the evil society to form. He succeeds, and the last reel is a happy ending. But if Walter Bishop stopped the development of the future dictatorship, there never would have been any bad guys sent back to attack the present, and thus never any reason for Bishop to travel into the future to stop them.

I've never understood why Gregg insists on elaborating about the plot of television shows he claims aren't realistic. This is an NFL column. Those who don't watch "Fringe" don't give a shit about the show and if Gregg's readers haven't seen the show then he is spoiling it for them, but if they have seen the show he is recapping what they already know. Gregg's terrible NFL second-guessing is only matched by his terrible television show second-guessing. Gregg goes on and on about "Fringe" and really no one cares.

This year's Falcons threw the ball well but were only 29th on the ground. San Francisco opened in a nickel to stop the pass. Early, Atlanta passing was effective. But the Atlanta sideline never seemed to say, "Hey, let's run against that skinny nickel defense."

Great idea! The Falcons should say, "You know all that passing the ball which has been effective and helped us get a 21-0 lead in the game? Let's stop doing that and run the ball for 3.5 yards per carry. They will never expect us to run the ball. Let's do the opposite of what has brought us success so far in this game."

Michael Turner was injured during the game, but the Falcons have gone pass-wacky earlier in this season, including when they were ahead and needed to grind clock the week before against Seattle.

So maybe the reason the Falcons didn't run the ball is their starting running back was injured and they have three Pro Bowl-type players at tight end and wide receiver? Nah, that probably wasn't a factor. 

It's been as if the Falcons' brain trust traded a king's ransom for Julio Jones, and felt the need to prove that putting all its eggs into the aerial game was the right move.

Douglas had beaten Carlos Rogers on a stutter-go, and Rogers was trying to deliberately hold him -- attempting to give up a holding penalty rather than six points. No flag, and Douglas stumbled. Of course had he stayed on his feet and Atlanta won, this column would say what geniuses the Atlanta brain trust was for putting all its eggs in the passing basket.

The fact Gregg recognizes he is inconsistent with his criticism and bases his criticism on the outcome of a play and not whether the idea behind the play was smart infuriates me. Gregg admits his criticism wouldn't stand if the Falcons had been successful and won the game, yet he continues with the criticism even though he knows it lacks merit. 

TMQ tracks Hidden Plays, which are plays that never make highlight reels, but impact game outcomes. Leading 24-21 midway through the third quarter, the Falcons had second-and-8 on their 29. The play call was messed up -- 

Seeing the play clock approach zero, Ryan called timeout. At the endgame, the Niners would reach fourth-and-5 on their own 15 with 54 seconds remaining, Atlanta having just spent its third timeout. San Francisco let the clock go down to 13 seconds before punting, and all Atlanta had left was an attempt to run the hook-and-lateral. Had Ryan not used a timeout in the third quarter, Atlanta could have stopped the clock once more and gotten possession near midfield with about 45 seconds, and Atlanta has staged several less-than-a-minute game-winning drives this season.

Another running theme of TMQ is that Gregg always believes himself to be smarter than he really is. This wasn't a hidden play at all. Joe Buck and Troy Aikman twice referred to this timeout as hurting the Falcons once the game got close in the fourth quarter and I believe Aikman even mentioned the Falcons only having two timeouts as the 49ers started to run the clock down to punt it with 13 seconds left. It wasn't a hidden play, but this timeout called in the third quarter to get the play right really hurt the Falcons at the end of the game. I don't see how Gregg believes this was a hidden play.

San Francisco seemed like it hoped to surprise the hosts with a traditional pro-style pocket-passer offense. This did not work; early in the second quarter Atlanta led 17-0 and had 182 yards of offense compared to minus-2 for San Francisco.

At that point the Squared Sevens switched back to the zone read,

Except for the fact the 49ers didn't really go back to the zone-read since Kaepernick had two rushes on the day. The 49ers called running plays, but they weren't exactly the zone-read running plays that had worked the week before. The 49ers really just started running the ball with Gore and LaMichael James and I don't recall them using much of the zone-read at all. I guess to Gregg any running play with Colin Kaepernick is a zone-read play.

Next Week: The coveted "longest award in sports" -- the Tuesday Morning Quarterback 
Non-Quarterback Non-Running Back NFL MVP.

This is easily my least favorite TMQ of the year, at least if this is the column that will also include the "unwanted" players who played well this year. Gregg will take first round busts on one NFL team that eventually landed on another NFL and then say they were "unwanted" as if he wasn't a person who criticized this player for being a highly-drafted glory boy. Gregg is the worst.