tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post7075965906175033950..comments2023-10-31T06:31:41.395-04:00Comments on Bottom of the Barrel: TMQ: At Least It Isn't a Bunch of Haikus This WeekBengoodfellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-228272958464146952010-09-17T08:15:34.778-04:002010-09-17T08:15:34.778-04:00HH, so we are only talking about college football ...HH, so we are only talking about college football then. I don't really care about other college sports either, except for college basketball. If one sport has its participants get paid, all sports will want to get paid. This goes especially for women's sports. Some people wouldn't want to let the football players get money and then ignore women's sports. So I think if it happened to one sport, it happens to all or most of them. <br /><br />You are right there are budgets for schools and that may affect a college's ability to get a player they want. I can't help but wonder if a school doesn't have enough money if they would find a way to get Cassel, that 8th top DL and the 5th top LB. Schools are greedy that way and just like how if the Yankees want a player, they find a way to get him, I wonder if college football schools would do the same. <br /><br />Either way, I don't know if paying players makes the depth chart at certain schools any worse than it currently is. Look at Texas' depth chart for QB. It's ridiculous. If I am not wrong, they have three QB's that were are all very highly recruited. I don't know if paying players will create the parity we went, though it may not make it worse. <br /><br />I think schools may still get the players they want, because boosters may be willing to chip in even more money to get these guys. Boosters for college schools can be even more fanatical than fans of professional teams.Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-18720040626543492272010-09-17T03:52:58.530-04:002010-09-17T03:52:58.530-04:00Ben, thanks for the response. Let me try to clarif...Ben, thanks for the response. Let me try to clarify my point #2. <br /><br />I don't think that paying will necessarily help the imbalance, but it can't make it worse. Worst case scenario, we end up with something like baseball. Best case scenario...well, let's use the Matt Cassel example: if USC wants him to be the third-stringer, they have to pay him at least something. And that money then isn't available to sign a 5th four-star linebacker and an 8th top defensive lineman. Even in baseball, there are limits to budgets, which is why even the Yankees don't have Hanley Ramirez and Jimmy Rollins as utility infielders. I'd much rather have a major league baseball-type environment than having so many undefeated teams hosting all these winless ones. <br /><br />As for other sports, I just don't think it'd have as much of an impact because most people don't really care. I don't care today if college lacrosse is corrupted, and I won't care tomorrow.HHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-726914830393141502010-09-16T22:30:45.781-04:002010-09-16T22:30:45.781-04:00HH, in response point by point (and we are only ta...HH, in response point by point (and we are only talking about college football right, not other college sports?): <br /><br />1. It is already impure and I agree with that. It is almost like I would rather have the coaches and player sneaking around rather than outright paying the players. It's a form of denial, I know, but I prefer my college as closetedly dirty, not openly dirty. I want those who pay players to be under the table and out of the spotlight so I can look down on them when they get caught...even though everyone does it. It's ridiculous I know, but I don't want to open the floodgates. <br /><br />2. I don't know if paying players will help the imbalance. If Matt Cassel goes to USC for nothing and becomes the third stringer or backup, what will prevent him from going to USC because they are paying him more than another school? I don't know if paying players will take away the problem of big schools having the best players and may actually make it worse because the bigger schools have more money and can pay the players better plus offer them television exposure. <br /><br />3. I agree with this point. I don't want to ever pay college basketball players. I love that sport way too much to ever think Kyrie Irving chose Duke because they paid him more than another school, even though that may be true. I would prefer to know he played for Duke because he wanted to play at the school for a season or two and it wasn't a monetary reason. I know that sounds naive and I am turning a blind eye, but I like a little bit of the perceived innocence of college basketball. <br /><br />I know every school does special favors for its players, but I don't think I actually want to know for sure Duke got a kid because they offered his parent something or they offered the kid more money. I wouldn't hate paying college football players, but college basketball feels different to me for some reason. <br /><br />4. This is the strongest argument for paying them. If I had to argue in favor I would use this reasoning. They make the school a ton of money and hurt their bodies in the process.Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-41522578122727665832010-09-16T19:10:49.564-04:002010-09-16T19:10:49.564-04:00Ben,
I understand your reluctance. I felt the sam...Ben,<br /><br />I understand your reluctance. I felt the same way for the longest time: paying players makes the whole thing seem so...commercial and impure. But I've gotten over that. I hate to hijack the thread but I think we're mostly done hating on Gregg, so I'll elaborate a little. [If you won't read them all, read 4. it's key.]<br /><br />1. It's already commercial and impure. The bowl games, the conferences, the tv contracts, it's all set up to favor some teams at the expense of others. The automatic bowl bids etc are ridiculously unfair. There's very little in "players playing for fun and traditional rivalries" that still characterizes major college football. [I'll grant you the Ivy League. Go Tigers.] <br /><br />2. It's imbalanced. The point in #1 shifts the balance in the favor of top teams. You'll remember that Matt Cassel, a bona fide NFL starter, was at one point a third-stringer for USC. USC also once had 4 linebackers drafted in the first 40 picks, and they play a 4-3! Oklahoma had their top 4 receivers drafted not too long ago. I don't really care for this division into haves and have-nots. I feel like money can help balance this, if only by making some big schools pay for this massive recruiting advantage.<br /><br />3. We already sort of have a payment system, except it's under the table and non-transparent. This also means that those who get paid are simply the worst character players: if a good player has ethics or parents that don't wanna be involved in such things, he plays without getting paid, while some thug with similar ability takes the money and runs. And if any of this is discovered, a relatively promising career can be cut short.<br /><br />4. The worst part of the fact that players barely participate in the massive money pie that is major college football is this: the physical toll of football is terrible. They say that every year in the NFL shortens your life by approximately 3 years, and college 2. Even if a year isn't quite that bad, these guys are trading months of their lives for almost nothing [especially since few of them get an education, or benefit much from one]. All the work they put in, and the health consequences [how many of these guys need surgeries?] and the pain they endure at practices and games, I feel like telling them "we let you go to college" isn't nearly enough compensation. It's basically taking advantage of players who have no leverage and abusing them for the profit of schools, networks, coaches, and advertisers. That, more than anything tells me: forget it. Spin off teams into school-affiliated clubs. Maybe the smaller schools can keep the system as is, but major college football just can't go on this way.HHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-64234486626803300402010-09-16T18:09:27.312-04:002010-09-16T18:09:27.312-04:00HH, that is incredible. I still can't believe ...HH, that is incredible. I still can't believe I didn't know that about Princeton. <br /><br />You make a persuasive argument about college athletes becoming semi-pro, especially with the popularity that college athletics has gained, but I still don't know if I can support athletes getting a piece of the pie. I will say these athletes do bring in the money and aren't the only ones who get to benefit from it and that's not fair. <br /><br />I am afraid if college athletes start getting money to play then it will result in too much of a professional atmosphere rather than a semi-pro atmosphere. Players will go to college simply because of the best financial package that can be provided to them. I don't think that would be a sustainable model either. <br /><br />I hope I am making sense, but I am probably happier in denial that under the table stuff takes place rather than have a free-for-all on the college football marketplace.Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-16349423376574768232010-09-16T15:27:43.069-04:002010-09-16T15:27:43.069-04:00@everyone discussing Princeton tuition
Nominal Pr...@everyone discussing Princeton tuition<br /><br />Nominal Princeton tuition is upwards of $33K, and the whole package with housing et al runs closer to $50K. It's not free in that sense. However, it has very generous financial aid policies: anyone with a "demonstrated need" under the federal formula gets a grant for the part they can't afford. So if the formula says your family can only pay $5K a year, then Princeton will pay the remaining $45K. <br /><br /><br />As for the NCAA issue, obviously this kind of stuff should be against the rules as long as the NCAA hates players. Otherwise, boosters could pay off a parent's car loan as long as their son is playing outside linebacker, and so forth. I'm sure a lot of this takes place already, and as far as I'm concerned, it's better for everyone except coaches & administrators that payments to players become legal and transparent. I think the transformation of major college football into a semi-pro college-affiliated league would be a good thing, most so for the players. Think about it: most of them don't get a good education, and TMQ is right that they're held hostage by scholarships. They create tremendous value: think about the size of TV contract payments that schools get. That money is then used by administrators for their pet projects and salaries, and gives us $10 million coaches ["coaches" meaning "recruiters"] like Nick Saban. All this money is created by the sore muscles and torn ligaments of young men who are, by rule, not allowed to participate in this huge money pie. It's both unjust and unsustainable.HHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-48745482767601170532010-09-16T15:10:52.637-04:002010-09-16T15:10:52.637-04:00HH,
Thanks for the correction, I was going off my...HH,<br /><br />Thanks for the correction, I was going off my HS defenses, so I must have "misremembered."<br /><br />Martin and BGF, the "top" ivies started giving out full rides when the public caught wind of their endowments. If I remember, Princeton is free for all undergrads, so iono what the 33k was for.<br /><br />That said, the NCAA had to do something. If schools like USC could withdraw scholarships, give players "need" based aid and have boosters. Pay their expenses, college would become professional for some while remaining amateur for others.FormerPhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12837594679660975599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-61062672645913903102010-09-16T12:03:43.393-04:002010-09-16T12:03:43.393-04:00How many could diagram a Cover 4 or a Cover 1? TMQ...<strong> How many could diagram a Cover 4 or a Cover 1? TMQ bets that few who talk and write about football for a living actually know what these coverages are.</strong><br /><br />Rich: "Cover 4: 3 safeties, 4 CBs. The safeties play zone; 2 CBs play zone (usually the inside guys) the other 2 play man to man."<br /><br />Rich, I'm not sure what this coverage is, but most Cover 4's aren't run out of the quarters [7 DBs formation]. The most common one is simply that both safeties and both outside cornerbacks drop deep. [In fact, the basic rule is that Cover X means that X people cover the deep part of the field.]<br /><br />Rich: Cover 1: SS plays closer to the line; FS plays deep. <br /><br />Yup, the basic centerfield play. <br /><br />For good measure: A Tampa 2 spreads its safeties wider, and the middle linebacker drops back to cover the intermediate to deep middle. Most cover 2's have 5 short zones and two deep, whereas Tampa's is more a 4-1-2 or even 4-3.HHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-51698290487808137802010-09-16T10:13:50.938-04:002010-09-16T10:13:50.938-04:00Rich, I didn't know all of that either. Obviou...Rich, I didn't know all of that either. Obviously if it is a guy who has an interest in tennis then it is more similar to a Reggie Bush-type case, though involving a less popular sport. I can't believe Ivy League schools are so generous with their financial aid. That's interesting. <br /><br />I can see where the problem would come in because educational costs pretty much anything even remotely related to school. Whether it be a car needed to get to school, a computer, or even expenses that need to get paid so a student can afford to come to school. <br /><br />On the face of this issue, it does seem weird to not allow the student to get the 33K since there are no athletic scholarships, but I can see how it is a problem.Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-22373558883904617652010-09-16T03:03:24.100-04:002010-09-16T03:03:24.100-04:00Ah I hadn't known that it was a "tennis f...Ah I hadn't known that it was a "tennis family friend" which means that money could be seen as "agent money" by the NCAA, which makes perfect sense. Also I didn't know the Ivies were giving out the rides so generously now. I remember even a few years ago they were catching shit for multi-billion dollar endowments, and then charging students 30k.<br /><br />Also, while I can see why they would punish this at a regular school, as there have been cases where teams tried this, at a school with zero athletic scholarships and a real family friend, it jsut seemed weird. Thanks for the clarification Rich!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02929927900897638100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-87501347663846169892010-09-15T22:58:05.718-04:002010-09-15T22:58:05.718-04:00While Princeton (or any of the Ivy or Patriot leag...While Princeton (or any of the Ivy or Patriot league schools) don't give out athletic scholarships, the individual who was a "close family friend" also happens to be a booster for the school.<br /><br />According to the news reports I've seen, the entire relationship was based on tennis and the girl's abilities. So, it's kind of in the "illegal realm" in terms of NCAA rules. The lack of athletic scholarships doesn't preclude student-athletes from adhering to the NCAA rules: namely, you can't take huge sums of money from boosters.<br /><br />The thing is that despite my burning hatred for Princeton due to where I went to school, they give out very generous financial aid packages. Basically, if she "needed" 33,000 to pay for her education odds are her parents are loaded and the 33,000 he paid off put an extra 33,000 in her parents hands. Princeton actually covers all tuition costs if the family makes less than some amount (most ivies have this in place now; at Penn it was 60k a year and under you got full ride fin. aid). How is giving the girl's parents 33 grand any less punishable than Reggie Bush getting his parents stuff from boosters (other than the obvious difference in monetary value)?<br /><br />Basically, you can't have boosters giving people $33,000 whether it pays for "educational" things or not. First because it would create an entire business of boosters paying for "educational" expenses and second because "educational" covers a shitload of stuff; housing, food, computers, etc. that aren't necessarily for education.<br /><br />If it had been an actual family friend then maybe the NCAA lets it slide, but after AJ Green and Reggie Bush, letting an alumnus with an interest in tennis pay 33,000 on behalf of a tennis player wasn't going to happen.FormerPhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12837594679660975599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-83499485750432888672010-09-15T22:34:34.439-04:002010-09-15T22:34:34.439-04:00Rich, I am with you, I don't see how last year...Rich, I am with you, I don't see how last year's yardage total for Minnesota necessarily pertains to this year and why they should go for it on fourth down early in the first game of the season. <br /><br />No matter how James Madison came out, VT should have won the game. Seriously, there should have been nothing the Hokies saw that confused them. They should be the superior team. <br /><br />I can see Gregg bitching a/b the Bengals not covering the OL as well. Gregg would have brought up Vrabel and how Belichick likes to throw to "unexpected" receivers. Bottom line is that no matter what happened, Gregg would have hated it and criticized it. <br /><br />Gregg doesn't understand yardage at all, so I am not shocked he doesn't get that giving a team the ball on their own goal line and giving them the ball at midfield are totally different. <br /><br />Gregg thinks putting a man in motion fixes everything. I think the trend we are seeing in TMQ is that no matter what a team does, Gregg will criticize them if what they did fails, even if they do something he has insisted they do or Gregg is not consistent in his criticism. <br /><br />Martin, how did I not know that? Seriously, I should know this just from the college basketball I watch. Overall, I can see why the rule is in place because then I can only imagine the fun John Calipari would have if the rule was made weaker.Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-15301842292824148872010-09-15T22:08:57.439-04:002010-09-15T22:08:57.439-04:00Princeton doesn't give scholarships at all for...Princeton doesn't give scholarships at all for any student-athlete. This makes all of their athletes essentially walk ons, though they have often been recruited. In this situation, I'm not sure what NCAA rule was broken. There must be multiple students at Princeton who are receiving financial aide from family friends, and in theory, the NCAA wants the student-athletes to be just like regular students. I just find it puzzling.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02929927900897638100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-36834160781197200242010-09-15T21:11:53.508-04:002010-09-15T21:11:53.508-04:00Indianapolis clearly expected a pass-wacky Houston...<b>Indianapolis clearly expected a pass-wacky Houston offense and prepared for the same.</b><br /><br />The Colts were 24th in the league at stopping the run last year. One yard better than Detroit. Maybe they just really suck at stopping the run?<br /><br />Greggggg is really approaching Simmons status. He's trying to make up bullshit reasons for things happening when a much more logical reason exists.<br /><br /><b>Minnesota averaged a spectacular 6.3 yards per offensive snap in 2009 -- why was Brad Childress afraid to try for 3 yards?</b><br /><br />Because it wasn't 2009? Because at that time their offense wasn't playing very well? Hey, they averaged 6 yards a snap, what the hell were they doing having a fourth down? They should get a first every other play!<br /><br /><b>James Madison came out in a "pistol"</b><br /><br />I really don't understand how the pistol formation is a "sweet" thing. It's not like VT players were sitting there going "OMG OMG OMG he's not under center, but it's not shotgun!"<br /><br /><b>How many could diagram a Cover 4 or a Cover 1? TMQ bets that few who talk and write about football for a living actually know what these coverages are.</b><br /><br />Cover 4: 3 safeties, 4 CBs. The safeties play zone; 2 CBs play zone (usually the inside guys) the other 2 play man to man.<br /><br />Cover 1: SS plays closer to the line; FS plays deep. <br /><br />It's not rocket science.<br /><br /><b>Bengals linebacker Johnson could have covered a tight end or an extra offensive lineman, and chose to cover the lineman: That was sour.</b><br /><br />To add to HH, it was a great play call: if Johnson covers the TE, TD to the OL; covers the OL, TD for TE. There was no way Johnson could have stopped that touchdown. Absolutely none. Imagine if he did cover the TE though:<br /><br />"Sour play: Johnson, forgetting that BB likes to run plays to out of position players, decided to cover the TE, leaving the OL wide open for the score." <br /><br />The fact that I know TMQ would write that means that he's a prick. You can't blast a player when he has two options and both of them suck.<br /><br /><b>Since in the Princeton case the person who paid was a longtime friend of the student, the NCAA should simply have let this pass.</b><br /><br />You know what they could have done? Taken out a loan and had the friend pay it off after graduation.<br /><br /><b> He punted on fourth-and-2 from the Detroit 41, a mincing fraidy-cat call. Facing fourth-and-goal on the Lions' 1, Martz went for it, the manly-man call</b><br /><br />Gregg really doesn't understand the difference between the 41 and the 1? Are you fucking serious? What Martz did was logical: 99 yards to go if you miss, okay. 59 yards, prolly best to punt.<br /><br /><b>A shift or man-in-motion or both are required to distract the defense.</b><br /><br />Ya, I'm sure on 4th and goal from the 1 would've been much better if Hester had just gone in motion. Shit you could leave all the Bears WRs wide open in the endzone and Cutler would throw a pick. They were running and everyone knew it, putting a man in motion would have changed nothing.<br /><br /><b>rather than just get on the ground.</b><br /><br />Again, TMQ can bitch about this play no matter what Choice does. If he goes down, TMQ calls him out for not playing till the whistle.<br /><br /><b>Who won the game?</b><br /><br />This is very similar to baseball analysts saying a 10-9 win means the pitcher did better than had they lost 1-0.<br /><br /><b>kicked a field goal to prevent the hosts from boasting of a shutout.</b><br /><br />Gregg then wrote "game over" in his notebook. A real man would've gone for it!FormerPhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12837594679660975599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-84298985483192439902010-09-15T19:26:03.123-04:002010-09-15T19:26:03.123-04:00HH, no problem for the length of that. When you ha...HH, no problem for the length of that. When you have something to say, no point in holding back. <br /><br />That game between Minnesota and New Orleans is a great example of when it is not fine to go for it on fourth down. No need to give either team good field position that early in the game. There are times to go for it on fourth down, like the one you named, but this wasn't one of them. <br /><br />Gregg doesn't understand good play design at all. He just thinks players always do one thing on certain plays. What kills me about the play by Johnson is that it may have been his assignment to follow the lineman and it wasn't his fault. Gregg just assumes it was though. <br /><br />You are right that Choice was just trying to get as much yardage as he could, there wasn't time for thinking. I think that is a part of the NFL Gregg completely misses. He thinks players can think out there and reason through, when they are actually on the field and let coaching and instinct take over. <br /><br />I assumed since Gregg works for ESPN he would have known if that play was on SportsCenter. <br /><br />Arjun, that is a COMPLETE contradiction on the part of Gregg. He criticizes coaches for doing exactly what he praises Morgan State for doing. It's ridiculous. Gregg should be self-aware enough to know he is contradicting himself. <br /><br />Blitzing did cause a turnover in the Jets and Ravens game and I don't get why Gregg hates blitzing so much. He usually likes things that work and it worked in that game.Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-35660911517143522262010-09-15T18:07:25.542-04:002010-09-15T18:07:25.542-04:00i love that last one - it's bad enough that he...i love that last one - it's bad enough that he believes that NFL coaches actually think about keeping a shutout off the resume during games. But for him to praise morgan state for doing the same thing for which he always criticizes NFL coaches is just so beyond absurd...like how did he actually decide to print that? this seems like such an obvious contradiction and I can't believe that Gregg is the only one who doesn't understand how stupid he looks in this instance.<br /><br />also didn't the jets risky blitzing hold the ravens to just ten points? didn't their big blitz cause a fumble on the ravens first offensive play? but that doesn't match with gregg's foregone conclusions so don't include it in the column.<br /><br />by the way everyone make sure to check out www.arjun-allthingssports.blogspot.com when you're done here!Arjun Chandrasekharhttp://www.arjun-allthingssports.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-83070552527114965242010-09-15T18:06:14.489-04:002010-09-15T18:06:14.489-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.arjunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09328649567988062965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-38915812119955684762010-09-15T14:55:49.031-04:002010-09-15T14:55:49.031-04:00Apologies for the length of this comment, but I ha...Apologies for the length of this comment, but I have strong feelings.<br /><br /><strong>At 9:01 p.m. ET last Thursday -- a mere half-hour into the 2010 NFL season -- the first Preposterous Punt boomed. The Vikings punted on fourth-and-3 from midfield, against the highest-scoring team in the league. Needless to say, they went on to lose. Minnesota averaged a spectacular 6.3 yards per offensive snap in 2009 -- why was Brad Childress afraid to try for 3 yards?</strong><br /><br />The Saints managed virtually no offense except on two half-opening drives. There was no point in offering them a short field when your defense had already shown they could stop them. You can't be a half-hour into a game and have preposterous punts from midfield. There are silly punts, but they are in games when a team can't defend or trails big, and should go for short yardage downs because it needs every point. In fact, Gregg later correctly names one: Mike Singletary ordered a punt in Seattle territory while trailing 28-6 in the fourth quarter. <br /><br /><strong>Usually on a bootleg, the intended receiver is directly in front of the quarterback. Since Gage was running directly in front of Young, to the safeties, it looked as though the play was drawn up for a 10-yard gain to Gage. The safeties bit.</strong><br /><br />Nate Washington was ALSO directly in front of Young, just further downfield. In fact, the play is designed to make the defenders choose whether to defend short or long. Young then makes the read and throws to the more open receiver, or, if both are covered they run off the defenders and he run. This, Gregg, is what good play-designed is meant to do. <br /><br /><strong>Bengals linebacker Johnson could have covered a tight end or an extra offensive lineman, and chose to cover the lineman: That was sour.</strong><br /><br />Does anyone think that Brady, who threw like 10 TD passes to Mike Vrabel, would not have thrown to the uncovered man regardless of who it was? Maybe it was sour that Cinci had one guy guarding two receivers, but let's not blame him for probably doing his assignment right. <br /><br /><strong>Martz went for it, the manly-man call,but using a bland straight-ahead play that failed.</strong><br /><br />Some call that "HB Off Tackle" and actually lets your runner pick between two gaps while running behind your two best linemen, you ignorant twit.<br /><br /><strong>Choice was just as bad -- hemmed in by Skins, he was struggling to gain an extra yard to pad his stats rather than just get on the ground.</strong><br /><br />I hate you, Gregg. I will bet you a billion trillion dollars that Choice, at no point during the play, thought about his stats. In fact, I guarantee you he didn't think about the game situation, either. You know what he did think about? Nothing. At that speed, football is largely instict, or practice-acquired quasi-instinct. 99.9% of all carries, it benefits Tashard Choice to push hard to get the extra yard. At this point, that's as much his instinct as it is to swat at a fly that lands on you. He simply DOES NOT think about anything like that on these plays, he just plays like he's taught to, which is "finish your runs." If players stopped to think about game situations or stats mid-play, they'd get killed. TMQ is fond of telling coaches to remind defenses to bat potential INTs down on fourth down. This is necessary because if you don't remind them immediately ahead of time, the instinct to make a pick would dominate and you can get a defensive fumble situation. I've already gone on too long, but this is necessary.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Chiefs could run the ball and the Chargers could not. Who won the game?</strong><br /><br />Who won the game by scoring three unlikely TDs and barely holding off a visitor?<br /><br /><strong>This play will never be on anyone's highlight reel, but was essential to the Saints' win.</strong><br /><br />Ben, this play was actually the last play on sportscenter. Granted, it's because there was only one game that night, but fuck Gregg.HHnoreply@blogger.com