Thursday, January 31, 2013

5 comments Gregg Names His TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP, I Name My BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP

Last week Gregg Easterbrook said that some people had criticized John Harbaugh this season for firing Cam Cameron, while forgetting that he himself had criticized John Harbaugh this season for firing Cameron and trying to shift the blame off himself. Gregg also criticized Notre Dame for the school's reaction to the Manti Te'o incident, while asking why they ignored an accused sexual assault on campus. This is ironic because in a November 2012 TMQ Gregg lauded Manti Te'o and Notre Dame, while ignoring the accused sexual assault on campus. As always, Gregg only brings up certain information when it goes to prove the point he wants to prove. This week Gregg talks (again) about the Harbaugh brothers, but mostly focuses on how they probably secretly hate each other, and responds to the pleas of zero people he names the TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP. 

In this column I will name my BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP. I will give out the criteria below and this award is supposed to honor a highly-drafted, highly paid and high-performing NFL player who plays either the running back or quarterback position. Obviously it is a counter to Gregg's bullshit, even though his TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP is usually a highly drafted player anyway.

Jim and John Harbaugh have only nice things to say about each other. And the first time they squared off was uneventful. 

But several schools of psychology teach that adults carry deep-seated traumas from childhood, which may manifest as subconscious motives even among the best-adjusted men and women.

And so naturally this must be true for Jim and John Harbaugh. Now that Gregg has proven his assumption is true, let him tell you exactly why these two brothers have deep-seated traumas from childhood. Psychology also teaches us that people who constantly ogle cheerleaders and make comments about their attractiveness have deep-seated sexual issues. So now that we know Gregg Easterbrook is at the very least a pedophile, let's talk a little bit about why this may be true too.

It's not uncommon for two siblings to each believe the other was favored by parents.

And because this has happened before, this is obviously the case with the Harbaugh brothers. Gregg Easterbrook is not only shitty at football analysis, analysis of television shows, and writing in general, but now he is a shitty amateur psychologist. There are few things Gregg is actually good at, but boy he loves showing off what he is bad at.

Which raises the question: What deep-seated childhood resentments are harbored by John and Jim Harbaugh? Will they boil to the surface if, say, the Super Bowl comes down to a disputed call and the referee -- obviously a father figure! -- favors one Harbaugh over the other?

Well, obviously because these two brothers have deep-seated resentments (and this is a proven fact based on Gregg's assumption) if a disputed call goes against Jim Harbaugh he will attempt to violently murder the closest person standing next to him during the Super Bowl. In other news, Gregg Easterbrook has won the Bottom of the Barrel Award Super Bowl Award. This goes to the sportswriter who has written the worst over the past year and the prize is that Gregg gets to stay right next to Jim Harbaugh during the entire Super Bowl, never to leave his side and will stay next to him the entire game.

Or what if Jacqueline Harbaugh, their mother, is shown on national television wildly cheering for a touchdown by either San Francisco or Baltimore, then impassively observing a big play by the other side? That's a year in therapy right there. 

What if the Ravens win the Super Bowl and Jacqueline Harbaugh is interviewed after the game and she claims that John was her favorite son, but she had been sleeping with another man when John was born so she doesn't know if he is Jack Harbaugh's son? At that point, John and Jim are only half-brothers. How does that change the dynamic, and more importantly because psychologists believe in the Oedipal Complex, which half-brother wants to sleep with his mom and murder his father?

And even if Mom and Dad spend exactly the same amount of time in each team's locker room afterward, human nature dictates they will be giddy with the winning brother, glum and hand-patting ("there there, dear, you'll get the fire truck next Christmas") with the vanquished brother.

Whichever brother gets the hand-patting from his mother, THAT is the half-brother who was sleeping with his mother. Case closed.

Now, add that John is the big brother, expected by birth-order theory to be stoic, disciplined and respectful of authority. Jim and Joani, their sister, get a lot more latitude: Birth-order theory says they can be uninhibited and forgiven for outbursts, while John should hold everything inside. That's not a good formula for a very emotional event staged on live television before hundreds of millions of viewers.

Let's not forget that birth-order theory is infallible and never incorrect. I'm the first-born and I am prone to outbursts and am fairly uninhibited in what I say and do, while my younger sibling is the exact same way that I am. We all know birth-order theory can never be wrong, so I shouldn't even bother questioning it in any fashion.

It's fun to see the rabbit-hole Gregg has us going down.

-Psychologists say brothers can have deep-seated emotional issues with each other or their parents.

-The Harbaugh brothers probably have deep-seated emotional issues with each other or their parents based on the fact psychologists say this can happen. 

-During the Super Bowl this deep-seated issue could show up in the form of a violence or a temper tantrum because of a call that goes against one of the brothers.

-Due to the birth-order theory, it will most likely be John Harbaugh who will have an emotional event on national television.

So after all of this amateur psychology and these assumptions, Gregg has gotten to the point where he thinks John Harbaugh is going to throw a hissy-fit during the Super Bowl because his mommy didn't love him as much as he thought she should.

On paper there are strong reasons to favor the Forty Niners. Better stats -- San Francisco finished third on defense, 11th on offense, versus a mediocre 17th-ranked offense, 16th-ranked defense for the Ravens.

If the games were played on paper, then the Broncos would be the AFC representative in the Super Bowl because they had the most balanced offense and defense. The game isn't played on paper though, it is played on the field with gritty players who love dirt and hustling.

That Baltimore struggled in December and shined in January suggests the Ravens, like the Packers and Giants before them, have honored sports lore by saving the best for last. 

This must be as opposed to the 49ers who have been at their best for the entire year and "the best" for them would be to play their best in the biggest game of the season. I'm not entirely sure why saving the best for last is honoring sports lore, but I really need to stop asking questions about all the stupid shit Gregg says or writes.

Johnny Football, the Heisman winner -- of course, Texas A&M doesn't want him to get hurt running the ball. But Texas A&M has six quarterbacks on its roster, all obtained nearly free in economic terms, all former prep heroes. If Manziel goes down, the Aggies could turn to Matt Davis, a four-star recruit. The running quarterback is a strong offensive threat either in college or the pros. But in college, there's little economic reason not to let the quarterback run.

Naturally, Gregg is basing this reasoning on assumptions while leaving out any important information from entering the discussion that may disprove his theory. Gregg is assuming there is no difference in Johnny Manziel and Matt Davis when it comes to running the Texas A&M offense. It's entirely possible Matt Davis would be incapable of running the Texas A&M offense, just like it is possible an NFL quarterback's backup would be entirely capable of running the offense. I don't think the NFL uses fewer running quarterbacks because of economic reasons, but because the NFL has a better group of athletes on defense and it is more difficult for a running quarterback to have the athletic advantage over the defense he could have in college.

In the pros, a franchise typically has $20 million to $50 million invested in the starting quarterbacks and hopes a good quarterback will stay in town for a decade. Draft-choice investments, no factor in college, in the NFL may be extreme. Washington invested three first-round picks in RG III; if he sustains a serious injury rushing the ball, that's calamity.

Right, and notice this didn't stop the Redskins from running the ball with him at all. It didn't change very much of what Washington wanted to offensively because they have a capable backup in Kirk Cousins. Gregg is also talking about running quarterbacks in the context of discussing Colin Kaepernick and his use of the Pistol offense. Well the 49ers have a reason to let him run and that reason is because he is good at it and they have a capable backup in the form of Alex Smith. So I don't buy Gregg's "economic theory" when it comes to why NFL teams supposedly don't let their quarterbacks run with the football. I don't see how Gregg can believe his own theory considering quarterbacks who can run with the football are becoming more and more popular and Gregg has acknowledged this in TMQ. NFL teams want to win games and they will do what it takes to win these games. While they want to reduce hits on their quarterback, a team isn't going to shy away from using their quarterback as they see fit in order to win a game.

In the NFL, no team is five-deep at quarterback like in college. Backups tend to be players who haven't seen the field in years, unlike in college, where many backups were stars the season before.

What? In what world are many backups the stars of the season before? Every backup in college football hasn't come directly from high school nor started for that specific college the year before. Usually if a college quarterback is a star the season before then he gets to keep the starting quarterback job. I don't know what college football Gregg is watching, but usually if a quarterback plays well the season before he isn't relegated to backup duty the next season. The fact a high school quarterback was a star at his high school the year before is irrelevant when determining how fit this quarterback is to run the college offense because of the talent differential in high school and college football teams.

Backup quarterbacks in the NFL may not have seen the field in years, but they have proven at one point or another they can be a competent quarterback. After all, they are playing in the NFL. This is not something a backup college quarterback can claim as true. As bad as Jimmy Clausen has been in the NFL, he proved at Notre Dame that he can play quarterback on the college level at least. The backup for Texas A&M or another college hasn't necessarily proven this yet and the backup quarterback at the college level certainly usually wasn't the star of the team the season before. Maybe they were stars in high school, but more times than not if a quarterback is worth a shit he will be red-shirted for his freshman year. So if a backup is red-shirted and then becomes the backup in college, he will at least be 18 months removed from being the star of a team.

Also, being five-deep at quarterback doesn't mean jack-shit if the quality of the depth chart isn't very good. NFL teams could be three-deep at quarterback and have three better options than a college team that is five-deep at quarterback. I'm starting to forget what Gregg was even originally talking about.

Marx said everything is economics. He'd understand in an instant why so many colleges want their quarterbacks to run, and so few pro teams do.

For God's sake, it isn't that NFL teams don't want their quarterback to run the football, it is just NFL teams have more athletic defenders who make it more difficult for a quarterback to run the football.

As regards Canton, TMQ hopes this will be Andre Reed's year. He played on a run-oriented team in a bad-weather city, yet left Buffalo as the NFL's No. 2 all-time receiver.

Gregg Easterbrook from earlier in this very column:

One reason is that fad offenses have bubbled up into the pros before -- the Bills were no-huddle always-shotgun 20 years ago,

So the Bills must have been one of those run-oriented shotgun no-huddle teams which you never hear about in the NFL. I don't know what playing in a bad-weather city has to do with anything nor do I know if Andre Reed should be elected into the Hall of Fame, but I do know I wouldn't consider the Bills teams he played on to be run-oriented since they were famous for throwing the ball all over the field with Jim Kelly, Reed, Don Beebe, and James Lofton. They ran the ball with Thurman Thomas, but weren't run-oriented.

If on that draft day, Reed had gone to San Francisco and Rice to Buffalo, there is a strong chance Reed would have become professional football's consensus all-time best receiver, while in 2013, the Hall of Fame selectors would be debating whether this Jerry Rice guy belongs in Canton.

No, there is not. There is not a strong chance Andre Reed would have been the consensus all-time best receiver if he had been drafted by the 49ers. I don't understand how Gregg believes he can get away with saying bullshit like this, other than the fact he completely gets away with writing bullshit like this. Gregg says things like this nearly every single week. He makes just makes pronouncements that are pure speculation and have no factual or logical backing. How the fuck is there a strong chance Andre Reed would be considered the best receiver of all-time? Reed played with a Hall of Fame quarterback just like Jerry Rice did. What evidence does Gregg have this statement is true? None.

TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP: Only players whose teams reach the postseason are considered, on the reasoning that he who would wear the mantle of "most valuable" had better have created some value.

And of course it is impossible to create value if your team didn't go to the playoffs. I'm not going to argue this point because I only have so much room to write here and refuse to let him take me down that rabbit hole, but let's just say Gregg can shove a hockey stick up his ass for saying this and believing it to be true.

Here are the past winners:

2001: Alan Faneca, Steelers
2002: Lincoln Kennedy, Raiders
2003: Damien Woody, Patriots
2004: Troy Brown, Patriots
2005: Walter Jones, Seahawks
2006: Jeff Saturday, Colts
2007: Matt Light, Patriots
2008: James Harrison, Steelers
2009: Dallas Clark, Colts
2010: Dan Koppen, Patriots
2011: David Diehl, Giants  

Remember how Gregg hates highly-drafted glory boys? Of his TMQ Non-QB Non-RB award winners, by my count without looking it up five of them were drafted in the 1st round. 11 winners and 5 of them have been first round draft picks. Remember that next time Gregg starts talking about how great undrafted or unwanted players or indicates highly-drafted players are lazy and only want money.

Here are this year's finalists from the teams that made the playoffs but not the Super Bowl:

Atlanta -- Tony Gonzalez
Cincinnati -- Geno Atkins
Denver -- Von Miller
Green Bay -- Randall Cobb
Houston -- Johnathan Joseph
Indianapolis -- Anthony Castonzo
Minnesota -- Phil Loadholt
New England -- Wes Welker
Seattle -- Max Unger
Washington -- Tyler Polumbus

Of these 10 players, 5 of these players were first round draft picks. I feel like this is important since I am going to name my BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP in a few moments. Gregg hates highly drafted players until it comes time to name the best players for a team, in which case he forgets how much he hates them and lauds them for being great players at a non-RB or QB position.

This year's runner up is Marshal Yanda of the Baltimore Ravens, one of the three or four best offensive linemen in the NFL, and master of a lost art, the pull trap.

The pull trap is a lost art apparently. You learn so much reading the lies that Gregg writes on a weekly basis.

This year's winner is NaVorro Bowman of the San Francisco Forty Niners. Bowman led the Niners in tackling, stayed on the field on passing downs, and broke up the Falcons' last-minute fourth down pass -- while covering speed receiver Roddy White -- to secure the Niners' trip to New Orleans.

Bowman is the master of the lost art of covering the other team's receiver. NFL defenses just don't do this anymore. 

Sentimental factor: your columnist attended one of Bowman's games in high school. 

At least this award was based entirely on merit and not based on any other factors outside of merit.

Now it is time to name the answer to Gregg's TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP. It is the BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP. There are 32 nominees because I am a logical person who understands a player doesn't have to help his team make the playoffs to create value. These nominees were all drafted in the first or second round and created a large amount of value to their team this year, but more importantly they are also highly-paid players and players who get a lot of credit and attention. So they get a lot of money and were drafted highly in their respective draft. I will give most of the focus to players who play skill positions that get too much of the spotlight already. Please note, these aren't the best players on each team, because I am choosing my nominees through my own private criteria that makes no logical sense, much like how Gregg does with his TMQ Non-QB Non-RB MVP.

The nominees are:

San Francisco: Michael Crabtree, WR
Chicago: Jay Cutler, QB
Cincinnati: A.J. Green, WR
Buffalo: C.J. Spiller, RB
Denver: Peyton Manning, QB
Cleveland: Trent Richardson, RB
Tampa Bay: Josh Freeman, QB
Arizona: Darnell Dockett, DT
San Diego: Philip Rivers, QB
Kansas City: Dwayne Bowe, WR
Indianapolis: Dwight Freeney, DE
Dallas: Dez Bryant, WR
Miami: Karlos Dansby, LB
Philadelphia: Nnadmi Asomugha, CB
Atlanta: Roddy White, WR
New York Giants: Eli Manning, QB
Jacksonville: Marcedes Lewis, TC
New York Jets: Antonio Cromartie, CB
Detroit: Calvin Johnson, WR
Green Bay: Aaron Rodgers, QB
Carolina: DeAngelo Williams, RB
New England: Jerod Mayo, LB
Oakland: Darrius Heyward-Bey, WR
St. Louis: Sam Bradford, RB
Baltimore: Joe Flacco, QB
Washington: DeAngelo Hall, CB
New Orleans: Drew Brees, QB
Seattle: Sidney Rice, WR
Pittsburgh: Troy Polamalu, S
Houston: Jonathan Joseph, CB (A highly-paid, highly-drafted glory boy on both Gregg and my list!)
Tennessee Titans: Chris Johnson, RB
Minnesota Vikings: Adrian Peterson, RB

The runner-up for the BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP is Adrian Peterson. Not only was he drafted in the top 10 of the NFL Draft and plays a position that Gregg Easterbrook thinks is losing value due to the NFL becoming a passing game, but he gets a lot of attention. Peterson earned $11.150 million last year and helped lead the Vikings to the playoffs.

The winner of the BotB Highly-Drafted Glory Boy-Only MVP is Sam Bradford. While being the fifth highest paid player in the NFL in making $15.595 million, Bradford also managed to not help lead his team to the playoffs. He was the first overall pick in the draft and was 15th in the NFL in passing yards, 20th in completion percentage, 26th in yards per attempt, threw the 18th most touchdowns in the NFL, the 15th most interceptions in the NFL, and was 18th in QB rating. Bradford is a highly-drafted and very highly-paid quarterback who performed in a very average fashion. Congratulations Sam Bradford, you are my MVP and the kind of highly-paid, glory boy we just don't see coming out of college much anymore.

Misery loves company: all seven of the NFL's seven highest-scoring teams failed to win the Super Bowl that season. Here they are, from first to seventh in points scored:

2007 Patriots -- lost Super Bowl
2011 Packers -- lost divisional, at home.
2012 Patriots -- lost conference title game, at home.
1998 Vikings -- lost conference title game, at home.
2011 Saints -- lost divisional, on road.
1983 Redskins -- lost Super Bowl.
2000 Rams -- lost wildcard, on road. 

What Gregg fails to mention is that the seven highest-scoring teams in NFL history all made the playoffs and over half of them made it to the conference title game or the Super Bowl. So it isn't all bad.

Yet, teams that finish No. 1 in offense as measured by yards do well in the Super Bowl. Eight No. 1 offensive teams have won the ultimate contest, most recently the 2009 New Orleans Saints. Here are the eight first-overall offenses that won the Super Bowl:

Team sports is, ultimately, about scoring points. So why have all the best scoring NFL teams faltered, why many of the best yardage teams did well?

This sounds like an interesting question actually. My best guess would be that while games are won by teams who score a lot of points, teams that show they can run up a lot of yardage and move the football on offense have a better chance of running up a lot of yardage and moving the football against the good defenses that team will see in the playoffs and the Super Bowl. There may be another logical explanation as well, but of course Gregg goes for the bullshit explanation.

Your columnist is going to go all squishy and propose that the reason the record-scoring-total NFL teams failed to win the Super Bowl is psychological. They became spoiled, expecting to score quickly, expecting to see defeat in the eyes of opponents by the third quarter.

Yes Gregg, I am sure this is the exact reason record-setting teams fail to win the Super Bowl. They become spoiled psychologically and expect to score quickly. We all know the one attribute we think of when talking about Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees (quarterbacks on those record-setting offensive teams) I think of guys who are spoiled and expect to score quickly. These guys are always lacking the killer instinct and aren't used to winning close games.

But during the playoffs, intensity cranks to maximum, and the accustomed easy scoring stopped. Cornerbacks who backed off during the regular season were up on the line jamming receivers.
Defensive ends were going all-out trying to knock the quarterback on his keister and make him hear footsteps.

Gregg believes in the playoffs defenses change their entire defensive schemes around. Cornerbacks who the defensive coordinator didn't trust to jam receivers in the regular season are now suddenly more trust-worthy. Defensive ends that were easily blocked in the regular season now try hard in the playoffs. These are all real things that happen in Gregg's idea of the football universe.

The 2007 Patriots are hardly the only highest-scoring team whose offense, spoiled by quick-and-easy, seized up at the last. The no-huddle Bills of 1990 scored at least 40 points four times, then scored 19 points in losing the Super Bowl.

Yeah, but that Bills team was a mostly run-oriented team as Gregg told us when discussing Andre Reed's Hall of Fame chances.

Top-yardage teams, by contrast, may not expect effortless touchdowns. They're accustomed to fighting their way down the field and to controlling tempo rather than scoring quickly, then jogging back to the bench to relax. 

This is true except for the fact top-yardage teams are used to piling up large amounts of yardage against teams. So under Gregg's half-assed theory wouldn't these teams get frustrated and not know how to act when the opposing team doesn't allow them to pile up a lot of yardage?

I admit that's a psychobabble explanation for the otherwise-vexing reality that the NFL's seven top-scoring seasons ended in playoff defeat. But sometimes, all we've got to explain the human animal is psychobabble.

Yes, sometimes when there is no explanation that is available we should just make up something.

Is Not! Is Too! At the top of the column, TMQ wonders whether childhood feelings will manifest at the Super Bowl. Sound unlikely? Gary Myers reports that a year before the next Super Bowl, both the Jets and Giants have already thrown kindergarten-level hissy fits about not wanting other kids into their rooms. 

Because sibling rivalry caused by deep-seated hatred due to a parent's unequal treatment and the Jets/Giants not wanting other teams to use their facilities, they are the exact same thing.

Then, the standard was raised to 16 core credits, the number in effect today, with a minimum GPA of 2 in core courses. (The NCAA insists on saying minimum GPA of 2.000, which makes it sound like not many NCAA officials have themselves passed core courses in numerical literacy.)

In August 2016, the requirement changes again, to a minimum GPA of 2.3 in core courses (preposterously, the NCAA calls it a "2.300" minimum)

This is not preposterous. The reason the NCAA does this is because if a student-athlete has a 2.295 GPA, then they could argue they have met the requirement for a 2.3 if you round up. The NCAA wants to cover their ass and be more specific to say a student needs a GPA of 2.300, so a student who has a 2.295 can't claim it should be rounded up to 2.30.

The NCAA's whole sliding-scale concept is puzzling. The current minimum of 2 GPA/1010 SAT asks a high school student who is doing poorly in the classroom (the 2 part) to finish a strong 48th percentile on the SAT (the 1010 part). How likely is that? 

It could be very likely. A high school student could have a good GPA, but not score well on the SAT. I know people who had high SAT scores and low GPA's and I know people who had high GPA's and low SAT scores. I would guess it is quite common. What world does Gregg Easterbrook live in?

Then, the higher the GPA, the lower the SAT number the NCAA mandates. A high school student with a core GPA of 3 (excuse me, of 3.000 according to the NCAA) can receive an NCAA scholarship with an SAT of 620, which is third percentile. Third percentile is awful -- barely better than leaving every answer blank. Thus, the NCAA thinks a high school student can do well in school (the 3 part) will do terribly poorly on the SAT (the 620 part). 

Or they think a person who has worked hard enough to get a 3.0 in high school shouldn't have to score as high on the SAT portion. The NCAA is trying to give students credit for hard work it seems.

The practical effect of the new rule should be to force a lot of football and men's basketball candidates into the new academic redshirt year, in which they will know that if they don't start paying attention to schoolwork, there will be no second year of college. If that's the way the coming standards turn out to work, they will be a progressive reform. 

It's very important for these student-athletes, some of whom did not come to school for anything other than to play sports, to get kicked off out of school for not performing well in academics. I'm sure this won't result in any grade inflation or shady "tutoring" stories coming from these new rules.

Then Gregg details the last episode of "The Last Resort" and gives us all of the plot points and a plot summary of the show. It's incredibly unnecessary.

As brothers prepare to meet at the Super Bowl, don't overlook another coaching family milestone: Monte Kiffin, defensive coordinator of USC, was forced out by the head coach, his son, Lane.

Monte may have been hindered by the fad for Xbox Offense in the college ranks -- a recruiting focus on offensive players to win games 45-38. In the NFL, teams remain happy to win 17-13.

Sure Gregg, teams in the NFL are happy to win 17-13, but in college football the teams don't want to win 17-13. Hasn't Gregg talked all year about high-scoring teams with high-powered offenses in the NFL? I guess those don't type of offenses only exist in the NFL when Gregg needs them to exist.

The Baltimore Ravens have come out ahead by firing their offensive coordinator in December. Usually, head coaches fire coordinators or position coaches in order to shift blame.

As I detailed last week, Gregg twice criticized John Harbaugh for shifting the blame for the Ravens' offensive troubles by firing Cam Cameron. Nowhere in this TMQ does he mention that he was wrong about Harbaugh shifting blame or that he didn't think the Ravens came out ahead until it was shown they did come out ahead. In fact, Gregg lumped Harbaugh and the Ravens in with teams who fire coordinators in order to shift blame. Being honest with his readers is not a strength of Gregg Easterbrook. He's a master at deception.

In recent years, most football-factory colleges (the big exceptions are Alabama and LSU) have put most of their talent on offense, seeking to make the scoreboard spin.

Those two teams are the big exceptions in Gregg's mind, except there are other exceptions like Florida, South Carolina, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc, but Gregg naming a longer list would make his claim most football-factory colleges put most of their talent on offense seem false. Gregg can't allow the perception that his claims are false, so he deceives as best he can.

Next Week: That Super Bowl thing you might have heard about. 

Just as long as it isn't one of those God-forsaken "unwanted" player lists that Gregg annoys us with at the end of every NFL season. Actually, that list is probably going to be arriving in two weeks. That list is among the best examples of where Gregg tries to deceive and mislead his readers.


rich said...

Reed played with a Hall of Fame quarterback just like Jerry Rice did.

It wasn't playing in Buffalo that screwed him over, he played with three other HOFers (Smith, Thomas and Kelly).

It also wasn't his QB or the fact that teams could focus on him b/c the running game sucked. Maybe he just isn't as good as Greg thinks...

2011: David Diehl, Giants

As a Giants fan I still have to laugh at that selection. I love Diehl, he's been an exceptional player, but best non-skill position player last year? not so much.

The no-huddle Bills of 1990 scored at least 40 points four times, then scored 19 points in losing the Super Bowl.

Because they played the best fucking defense in the NFL?

You know how many TDs the Giants had given up all year (Rushing and Passing)? 21.

They forced 34 turnovers and allowed an incredible 211 points.

In fact, the 19 points scored by Buffalo eclipses the point totals of the Giants two other playoff games... combined.

It could be very likely.

Take out the could and you're right on the nose. The SAT is a test that you can study how to take it. In fact, the courses taught by Kaplan, Princeton Review, etc. don't really teach the material, they teach little tricks.

There are also a lot of different ways to not do well in class - you could just not care, you could do well on tests, but poorly on hw, you could just not go to class.

You're also not talking about doing "well" on the SAT, you're talking about getting a 1010, which sounds like a lot if you took the exam pre-2008ish, but it's out of 2400 points now.

The chances of a C student getting a 40% on the SAT? Pretty fucking good actually.

Thus, the NCAA thinks a high school student can do well in school (the 3 part) will do terribly poorly on the SAT (the 620 part).

What this douchecanoe doesn't realize is that there are a lot of kids who can do well in classes (shorter tests with less random shit on it) than they can on standardized tests.

You can also have a really bad day and do poorly on the SAT, so the rule makes perfect sense - if you can prove you can academically handle school and have a high GPA, then the SAT isn't as meaningful.

The other thing is that the SAT questions change. If you take the test in say November and then again in January, they're two completely different tests. Now while they test the same subjects, scores can vary by a huge amount. My first SAT came back in the 1300s, my second attempt 200 points lower.

Basically, the NCAA is just saying to colleges that they have to prove that their recruits have shown an ability to perform in the classroom - either in class or on the SAT.

they will be a progressive reform.

How is this fucking progressive? "Hey, you're struggling with school? Well fuck you, you're out of here."

Only an elitist asshole who hasn't put in an honest days work in his whole life would suggest something like that.

mr kenny said...

I am SICK of Gregggggg (and others) who keep calling the 2007 Patriots the highest scoring team in NFL history. As though the fact that they now play a 16 game schedule is trivial. The 1950 Rams scored 466 points in 12 games, the equivalent of 621 points now. Fuck you Patriots, Redskins and Vikings, try to match that some time.

Bengoodfella said...

Rich, isn't James Lofton in the HoF too? So that is four HoF players and the Bills had McKellers and Metazellars (spelling?) at tight end too. That was a very good team. It's not like he was on a crappy team.

I didn't even know the SAT went to 2400 now. That's rather embarrassing. I knew quite a few people who got good grades and didn't do well at the SAT. Some people locked up in taking the SAT, which I never had a problem with, but could understand. Gregg fails to get sometimes the shades of gray in a situation. Actually he always fails to see shades of gray.

I think hit the nail on the head. The NCAA is saying recruits have to perform in the classroom or on standardized tests. They understand a person may not take a standardized test well or may take the test in January instead of November, but the recruits should also then show they can do well in the classroom.

I'm going to have to think about this one, but I'm not sure it is a progressive reform in some fashions. The student-athlete is a bit of a misnomer. There are standards in place already to take care of students who are struggling. All schools have a Satisfactory Academic Progress rule. Students have to have a 2.0 or pass 66% of the classes they attempt. So there is already a standard to take care of students who are struggling.

Kenny, I did not know that. That's a ridiculous amount of points. Have you ever written in to Gregg to tell him about that number? If not, you should.

Anonymous said...

Yet, teams that finish No. 1 in offense as measured by yards do well in the Super Bowl. Eight No. 1 offensive teams have won the ultimate contest, most recently the 2009 New Orleans Saints. Here are the eight first-overall offenses that won the Super Bowl:

I could be misreading here, but I'm pretty sure he is comparing the top 7 offenses of all time to top offenses on a year by year basis. This is a totally dishonest spurious way to make an argument. Maybe his point would still hold if he also looked at the top 7 offenses (measured by yards) of all time, or maybe his point would fall apart if you looked at the top scoring teams year by year (I have done no research into this). It could be an interesting point, but he just butchers it in classic gregg style of pathetic attempts at compelling sports journalism meets lazy economic thinking.

I couldn't let this point slide. I just picture people reading that and thinking "wow gregg has a point here!" and cringe. Awful.

Anyway, I recently found the blog and I'm a fan. Keep up the good work.

Bengoodfella said...

Anon, I think you are right about that. He seems to be comparing top offenses of all-time to top offenses on a yearly basis. I worry (which is silly) that people do read TMQ sometimes and think Gregg has a point. Admittedly, sometimes he will confuse me into thinking he has a point at first too. He's very good at that.

Thanks for reading and glad you like it.