9 comments Gregg Easterbrook Brings Back His Authentic Games Metric; Can't Stay Consistent On Which Teams He Considers To Be "Authentic Teams"

Gregg Easterbrook outright lied in TMQ last week regarding a quote spoken by Rex Ryan. That's not too far off from what Gregg usually does in TMQ, though outright lying is a slight change from Gregg leaving out information that would disprove an assertion he wants to prove. Gregg also got into a discussion about language and whether in the future humanity would use the same slang that is used in present day. This week Gregg talks about teams who have won "authentic games," updates his readers on ESPN Grade, and takes great pride in Richard Branson's space plane crashing. Sure, people died, but the important takeaway is that it proved Gregg was right about the uselessness of space flight.

Over the years, TMQ has lauded Authentic Games: quality wins versus a formidable opponent.

Over the years, I have pointed out what is a "formidable" opponent can change from week-to-week. Teams can win or lose a few games in a row, so a metric that changes on a weekly basis and provides different predictions every week is not a very good predictive metric. Taking five or six shots at who will be in the Super Bowl based on Authentic Games just goes to show the metric is a slave to the last week's results and therefore really can't predict anything with a great amount of accuracy.

Last year, with a month remaining in the regular season, I used my proprietary Authentic Games metric to forecast a Super Bowl of Denver versus Seattle.

Yes, but as usual Gregg leaves out information. His forecast predicted different teams to be in the Super Bowl prior to this prediction.

This year, Tuesday Morning Quarterback is diving into the deep end by posting the Authentic Games standings, beginning this week and continuing until the playoffs.

And every week Gregg does this, I will introduce my Non-Authentic Games standings where I spit out the name of two teams that had the highest margin of victory the previous week and that will be the metric to determine who will be in the Super Bowl. I can make things up too.

Actually, I don't even have a definition of an authentic opponent. An Authentic Game is like pornography -- impossible to define, but you know it when you see it.

Meaning, this definition changes based on what Gregg wants to prove. If anyone is impressed by a weekly predictive metric that has no clear definition for the terms that the metric is based upon then I feel sad for you. It's one step away from using numbers to make shit up.

Authentic Games are those versus a playoff-caliber opponent, but what precisely does that mean? A team might be an authentic opponent early in the season, then drop out of that classification if its performance fades. Or it might start weak and end up authentic. Right now I'm counting New Orleans as an authentic opponent because TMQ takes the Saints seriously, but this may not last.

As I said, an authentic opponent changes based on what Gregg wants to prove that week. So Gregg's metric, which is designed to predict the Super Bowl participants, has no clear definition of what an authentic team is, the metric is only predictive in that it can't actually predict future events since it is based entirely on what happened that previous week and only that previous week during the NFL games, and teams that might once be authentic may suddenly not be based entirely on how Gregg feels about that team during the given week. It's all so subjective, it means jackshit.

I don't consider Buffalo authentic, though the Bills have a better record than the Saints.

Again, there is very little rhyme or reason behind what an authentic team might be. My favorite moment will be when Gregg doesn't consider a team to be authentic and then that team goes on to win the Super Bowl. Let it happen.

I view San Diego as authentic owing to its December potency, even though division rival Kansas City has a better record. The Chiefs aren't authentic so far but could become so soon, with upcoming consecutive games versus winning teams.

There's nothing about this metric that isn't complete horseshit. Basically, Gregg will state a team is authentic if that's how he wants to view the team. There's sometimes no reasoning behind his statement of authenticity for a team.

My "metric" sees Baltimore at 5-4 as authentic, if shaky; Cleveland at 5-3 as not. Miami is on the cusp of authenticity, while Green Bay could soon lose this status. Right now I consider Seattle and Santa Clara authentic, though the defending champions could lose this label and the Niners are receiving the benefit of the doubt based on previous seasons, not this season.

So a 5-4 Baltimore Ravens team, a team that won the Super Bowl two years ago, is considered shaky with zero losses to teams with a losing record, but the 4-4 San Francisco 49ers are receiving the benefit of the doubt despite the fact they have two losses to teams with a losing record. You know what, I probably should stop dissecting Gregg's reasoning because it will only drive me mad.

Like the companies in the Dow Jones index, the teams in my authentic club are whichever ones I say they are and are weighted based largely on hocus-pocus. All I know for sure is that last year, the Authentic Games index predicted the Super Bowl pairing.

Gregg can do whatever the fuck he wants. It's his column. He basically admits his metric is bullshit and based on very little fact, but then he feels like he can brag about the metric working. It shouldn't, but it does infuriate me. There are people who read TMQ and think Gregg is just the most brilliant guy when he lies to his readers and misleads them. When Gregg isn't misleading his readers, then he is busy making up metrics that he admits are based on bullshit reasoning, yet wants his readers to pretend they are not.

Note I consider total victories more important than won-loss percentage -- for instance Denver's 4-2 is better than New England's 2-0, though the latter is superior if one thinks in percentage terms. Again there's no super-sophisticated reasoning underlying this assumption, just a feeling that winning lots of big games while also losing a few is better than playing a soft schedule and not being tested often.

(Deep sigh) And he ignores that a team hasn't lost to an authentic team as of yet by completely ignoring that team's winning percentage in favor of which team has played the most authentic games.

At the halfway point of the season, my Authentic Games metric predicts a Super Bowl of Denver versus Arizona.

My Non-Authentic Games metric says the Super Bowl participants will be the Miami Dolphins and the New Orleans Saints. But don't worry, I have eight more weeks to nail a prediction and then brag about it while covering TMQ.

Note the Broncos and Cardinals not only have the most authentic wins but also they've participated in the most big games, which is almost as important.

It's almost as important because a team has no control if they play a game against a playoff-caliber team. It's totally out out of a team's hands, so Gregg thinks Detroit and New England having not lost a game to a playoff-caliber team, or Pittsburgh being 2-1 against playoff-caliber teams is not impressive. These teams should have scheduled more quality opponents rather than just play a cupcake schedule.

By that logic keep your eye on Indianapolis, which has also been in many big games already. I called the Super Bowl early last year -- the pressure's on!

But then you changed your selection based on the super-awesome Authentic Games formula and therefore don't get credit for taking 10 guesses and one of them being correct.

(Warning: Gregg goes political for a bit and I follow him a little bit down that rabbit hole)

Today is Election Day. Not voting is your prerogative. But if you don't vote, promise not to complain about government for the next two years.

I disagree with this to an extent. Sometimes the act of not voting is making a statement in itself. If I don't like my two options for state Senator then why should I have to make the choice of voting for one of them who doesn't share my beliefs system, as opposed to abstaining and choosing not to vote for someone who wouldn't represent me? I don't believe it is better to compromise your beliefs if there are two candidates you don't believe in, and you vote for one just so no one will say you can't complain about the government until the next election cycle. Voting by abstaining is a vote. Why is it better to compromise one's own values and help elect someone that you don't personally believe in so you can claim to be a part of the political process? There are obviously those who won't vote because they are too lazy to do so and will hide behind a claim they don't like either candidate. I throw them in with those people who do vote, but don't really know the candidate they are voting for. I consider uninformed voting to be as bad as not voting. I vote and I think everyone should vote for the candidate they want to vote for. In an election with limited options, sometimes I think it's best to simply not vote for a candidate you don't believe in.

That's a formula for gridlock: With the parties exchanging the upper hand every two years, neither can really govern. Each has incentive to stall, stall, stall until its next expected victory comes around -- the way Republicans stalled, stalled, stalled in the House in the past two years, and Democrats, if retaining the Senate, may stall, stall, stall until 2016.

It also doesn't help that neither party really cares to govern by working with each other. Any attempt to work with someone from the other party will be seen as a betrayal and used against that person during the next election. The American people claim they want progress and want Congress to get things done, yet consistently vote for candidates who only care to fuck up the process. Then the candidate can blame the other party for nothing being done and voters will re-elect that candidate as long as he/she didn't work with the opposing party to try and get something done. Many times the only thing of value an incumbent Senator can brag about is sticking to the party line and not letting the opposing side's agenda go unopposed.

The point is that everyone complains about partisan gridlock, yet one cause is voting patterns that produce Democratic margins in presidential years and Republican margins in midterms.

I hate it when Gregg has a point. The moron candidates vying for the North Carolina Senate seat basically spent millions of dollars saying one thing about each other. Thom Tillis said, "Kay Hagan votes with Obama" and Kay Hagan says, "Thom Tillis hates women and children." At no point in many of the commercials did Hagan say what she has accomplished in the Senate nor did Thom Tillis lay out any agenda for what he would try to accomplish if elected. In fact, while Tillis was running commercials saying Hagan was an Obama lackey, Hagan was running commercials saying she opposed Obama on issues. This from someone who voted with the President 95% of the time. She can't even stand by how she votes and Tillis' only claim to why he should be elected is that he would ensure he would not work with the President.

The larger question is: Why vote? "I don't like any of the candidates" is not a reason not to vote.

No Gregg, it is. If given the choice between marrying Guy #1 and Guy #2, choosing neither is still a viable option. I absolutely think everyone should vote, but I don't believe a person should choose to vote for a candidate they don't believe in simply to brag that they did indeed vote.

If the choice for dinner is steak or veggie, saying "I don't like either ddish" doesn't help.

Ignoring the "ddish" editing error, making a choice that doesn't reflect your value system also doesn't help. It helps to elect candidates who you don't personally want in office? Even under the guise that's the best you can do and you voted? What's the point of voting if you don't want to elect the person you are voting for?

In life, we must choose among available options.

Voting is a right. A person doesn't have to choose to exercise that right. I personally do vote, but know those who don't vote because they don't care to vote for either party and are disenchanted. If these people really believe they will compromise their value system by voting in a specific election, let them not vote. I won't stand on my pedestal and point out how they HAVE to choose among the available options, but only if they didn't like their options and that's why they didn't vote. I don't believe compromising one's values to be a part of the process is something to brag about.

I'll tell you why I vote, including in every primary, because I like to. I like walking to the local elementary school, passing a forest of cheesy political banners, greeting my neighbors waiting in line, reporting my name to a poll judge, getting a card and entering a booth where no one but me will ever know who I favored or disfavored.

I like to vote too. It doesn't make me sad that people will mock my vote or point out how the person I voted for will not be elected. I didn't choose between a steak or veggie. I chose the meal I wanted, even if no one else at the table wanted it. I compromised as little of what I believe to vote, but if I felt like I would compromise too much of what I believed then I wouldn't have voted for any candidate in a specific election.

I like buying something from the girls' soccer club bake sale table as I depart.

You can tell Gregg lives in an upper crust neighborhood from the description of his journey to vote.

The bigger reason to vote is that what makes sense for an individual may not make sense for a community. Why should a parent have a child inoculated when so long as everyone else gets the shot, any one child is protected by herd immunity?

This doesn't make sense in the context of voting or not voting. If I don't inoculate my child other people are affected. If I don't vote, no other people are affected. My voice is simply not heard. That's my decision.

Because if everyone thought this way, individual choice would backfire. Why stop at a stop sign if there's no other car around? Why report a crime when, even if the crook is caught, there will be more crimes anyway? Why refrain from littering even if there's no one around to notice?

Why? Because to not take action on any of these three items another person could potentially be harmed. I could run over a child by not stopping at a stop sign, I could make sure the crook pays for his crime, and I would cause the environment around me to not look as pretty if I littered. If I don't vote, no one is hurt and my opinion is simply not counted. It's better than voting for a candidate I really don't want in office, but is seen as the lesser of two evils...at least in my opinion.

People engage in positive actions of their own free will because they know the community will be better off as a result. Voting is such an act.

But society WON'T be better off if I vote for a candidate I truly don't want to get elected. This isn't hard to see or understand. I wouldn't be running a stop sign, I would just simply be choosing not to drive my car.

POLITICAL DISCUSSION OVER!!!!!!!

See below for the playoff top four based on the upgraded graduation data, and for the midseason refresh of the ESPN Grade Top 25.

It's still useless because it still only uses information gleaned from a small subset of teams and doesn't factor in teams who aren't in the Top 25.

Stats Of The Week No. 2: St. Louis had six sacks in its first seven games, then eight versus the Niners at Santa Clara.

It's all a part of the Crabtree Curse!

Stats Of The Week No. 4: The Bengals are on a 13-0-1 regular-season home streak and a 0-3 postseason home streak.

The Bengals STILL haven't won a playoff game. One would think that Gregg would stop regurgitating this same statistic since the Bengals haven't had a home playoff game in 9 months, but one would be wrong. It's not like the postseason part of this statistic is going to change until 2015, yet Gregg keeps using it.

Stats of the Week No. 8: Last season, Nick Foles played 13 games and threw two interceptions; this season, he's thrown 10 interceptions in eight games. Foles is now out with a broken collarbone.

And of course Foles is out with a broken collarbone because he's thrown so many interceptions. I know that's not Gregg's point, but putting these two sentences together gives some sense of cause and effect.

Sweet Play Of The Week: New England leading 20-7 on a day with gusting wind, Denver goes for it on fourth-and-6 from the Flying Elvii's 34, a classic Maroon Zone decision. The Patriots rush just three, the Broncos have six to block them.

And obviously this play will succeed because John Fox is showing the Broncos players that he is very serious about winning the game and is being aggressive in order to achieve this goal? Even if this play doesn't succeed then it sets a tone that eventually led to the Broncos winning the game, right? Because that's how it goes, coaches go for it on fourth down, and even if the play fails, it sets a tone that helps the team win the game. This is one of Gregg's rules. Yet here, this rule fails.

Peyton Manning hesitates because New England shows an odd front with linebacker Jamie Collins lined up as if he is a cornerback.

I'm not sure what this means other than Gregg is saying Collins was in man coverage. I don't know how a linebacker can be lined up as a cornerback. Perhaps with his vast knowledge of football Gregg means that Collins was in man coverage on a receiver.

New England frustrated Manning by jamming his receivers to disrupt their timing -- why all teams don't do this against the Broncos is a minor mystery -- while often showing mega-blitz, then backing out.

Because every NFL team can't replicate the Patriots' strategy because every NFL team doesn't have a tall corner like Brandon Browner, a shutdown corner like Darrelle Revis, Jamie Collins, a quality corner like Logan Ryan, or a safety who can cover like a corner in Devin McCourty. The idea Gregg has that any NFL team can easily replicate another team's offensive/defensive strategy is an idiotic assumption on his part.

Later in the game, the Flying Elvii were leading 27-14 and facing fourth-and-5 in the Denver Maroon Zone (37-yard line). Tailback Shane Vereen flanks out, runs a quick pivot and makes the catch to convert the first down;...Extra sweet for New England was that a pivot route was Wes Welker's favorite when he played for the Patriots. Belichick must have chortled over using it against Welker's Broncos.

Yes, I am sure Belichick was excited about using a play against the Broncos that Wes Welker liked to run when he was with the Patriots. Belichick has nothing better to do than to have his receivers run routes a certain ex-Patriot used to run in an effort to show up the ex-Patriot.

I don't wish to alarm the rest of the league, but Tom Brady has 22 touchdown passes versus three interceptions, 

This from the guy who asked if the Golden Era of Belichick and Brady was drawing to a close.

Is The Sun Setting On Tom Brady? A week ago before their home crowd, the Patriots barely outlasted the woeful Raiders. Monday night they were ground up into burger meat -- "Of course we're speaking in the figurative sense," as Weird Al would say -- by the Chiefs. Is New England's Brady-Belichick Golden Age drawing to a close?

Brady was openly frustrated throughout the contest. Every star athlete must deal with nationally televised defeat -- just ask LeBron James -- but rarely has Brady lost badly. His life with the Flying Elvii has been all news conferences, endorsements, championship rings and supermodels, 'til last night, when the Patriots looked like the Raiders East.

But of course Gregg won't mention that he was one of those people who thought Brady was declining. Why would he? Gregg can't allow his readers to know he makes mistakes because TMQ only exists to massage Gregg's ego and give him a forum to pretend he's smarter than anyone else who covers the NFL. Any evidence to the contrary is ignored.

throwing to a motley crew that includes undrafted Danny Amendola, low-drafted Julian Edelman and Brandon LaFell, who was let go by the receiver-needy Panthers.

LaFell wasn't "let go." He wasn't re-signed. They chose not to sign him to a contract and the Panthers are much more offensive line-needy than wide receiver-needy at this point.

The pregame situation: The Boys were fielding a bumbling backup quarterback but boasted the league's leading rushing attack; running works best at home, where it feeds off crowd energy. 

Gregg is such an idiot when he writes crap like this that it's almost unfathomable to me. Running works best at home because it feeds off crowd energy. Wouldn't that be applicable to anything a team does at home and not just running the football?

So will Dallas pass or rush? You've already guessed: Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, Dallas coaches called 36 passing plays and 23 rushes.

I would never advocate having Brandon Weeden throw the football more than he has to. Still, if Gregg watched this game then he would see how the Cardinals loaded the box up to stop the run.

What do they teach coaches at Princeton, anyway?

No one at Princeton taught Jason Garrett to be a coach. He was the quarterback at Princeton and wasn't taught to be a coach while attending college there. But great question otherwise, even though it's not really applicable at all to where Garrett learned to be an NFL head coach. Also, Scott Linehan calls the plays for the Cowboys, so he is probably as much responsible for the play calls as Jason Garrett is. But still, great observation and question.

Philadelphia at Houston, Texans star cornerback Johnathan Joseph left the game shaken up. Rookie Andre Hal took his position. Immediately, Philadelphia faked a toss sweep toward Hal, drawing him up to the line, then threw a deep post to his man. Sweet 59-yard touchdown reception that set in motion the Eagles' win.

I think Gregg means when highly-drafted glory boy Johnathan Joseph left the game shaken up, lowly-drafted 7th round pick Andre Hal came in the game and gave up a long touchdown reception. I'm sure that's what Gregg meant, he just forgot to mention both players' draft positions.

That teams go straight at the pass defender who just came in is not some carefully guarded secret. Yet there was no safety in sight to help Hal and apparently no one warned him about what was sure to be coming.

Yes, no one warned Andre Hal that the Texans might throw the football. Since Hall plays cornerback, I'm sure he needed to be reminded of this.

TMQ's Law of Short Yardage holds: Do a little dance if you want to gain that yard. San Diego at Miami scoreless, the Bolts went for it on fourth-and-1 on the Genetically Engineered Surimi's 22. No shifts, no man in motion, no misdirection -- straight-ahead run stuffed.

Rams leading 13-10, Santa Clara had third-and-goal on Les Mouflons' 1 with nine seconds remaining. No shift, no man in motion, no misdirection -- simply a quarterback sneak, fumble, St. Louis recovers and wins. Plus fullback Bruce Miller should have been flagged for helping the runner -- he wrapped his arms around Colin Kaepernick and pushed him forward.

In the New Orleans-Carolina game the Saints had fourth down on the 1-yard line and they didn't employ any shifts or men in motion, but just had Drew Brees sneak it by jumping and holding the ball over the goal line for a touchdown. Of course, Gregg won't mention this instance of a team scoring a touchdown without "doing a little dance" because it ruins his theory and he needs to mislead his readers above all else.

Trailing Arizona 14-10 at home in the fourth quarter, the Cowboys went for it on fourth-and-inches from the Cardinals' 34. Power set, no shifts, no misdirection -- the play was Load Left, which Dallas has been running, and getting stuffed on, for a quarter century. What do they teach coaches at Princeton, anyway?

They didn't teach Jason Garrett how to coach at Princeton. He learned to play quarterback there and learned to coach in the NFL.

Is it reasonable to require a photo ID to vote? This election cycle, NPR has run several pieces quoting people suggesting that photo ID rules are a repressive concept. Last month your columnist spoke at an event at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C. I had to show a photo ID to get in.

Yep, these two instances are directly comparable.

On the flip side of the coin, if evil Republican rules are suppressing minority voters, wouldn't minority turnout be declining? But African-American turnout among registered voters has risen for four consecutive presidential election cycles -- black turnout rose under George W. Bush -- while Hispanic registered voter turnout was about the same in 2012 as it was when Bill Clinton ran for the White House. In 2012, African-American turnout reached 66 percent, compared to 55 percent in 1996.

Typically, this is very simplistic thinking on Gregg's part. There are two solid reasons that evil Republican rules could be suppressing minority voters but turnout isn't declining.

1. Minority voters are still be suppressed, but more minority voters are turning out to vote in a given election. So while voter turnout is rising, it could (hypothetically) be rising more if the evil Republicans weren't suppressing the minority vote.

2. Comparing African-American turnout in 1996 and 2012 is a misleading comparison and Gregg knows this. 2012 involved an African-American man looking to be re-elected for President and logic would dictate that having an African-American man running for re-election would cause a spike in African-American turnout, just like would happen if any other minority group had a candidate running for President. So a turnout of 66% is still good, but it doesn't mean it couldn't have been better had the evil Republicans not (hypothetically) suppressed the minority vote.

ESPN Grade Update: This summer was kickoff for ESPN Grade, a new way of thinking about college football rankings. The big universities and the NCAA claim college football players are students first: ESPN Grade takes them at their word, and factors academics into the polls.

But only for 25 Division-I schools. There is no factoring academics into the polls for any other Division-I schools that aren't ranked in the Top 25.

The ESPN Grade formula is one-third The Associated Press (media) poll, one-third the USA Today (coaches) poll, and one-third the team's position in a sort-of top 25 ranking by graduation rates. In the ESPN Grade rankings, the lower the number, the better.

And ESPN Grade gives double the weight to a college's athletics as it gives to a college's academics. But sure Gregg, keep telling your readers how great ESPN Grade is and how it shows which Division-I football schools are good at combining athletics and academics.

Applying the ESPN Grade formula to the top four, the academics-adjusted schools in the inaugural College Football Playoff would be: Alabama, first seed; TCU and Notre Dame, tied; Mississippi State, fourth seed.

Mississippi State is 18th in graduation rate. Other schools in the Top 10 of ESPN Grade have graduation rates ranked 17th, 13th, 21st, and 14th. That's out of 25 teams. But sure, ESPN Grade really holds these schools' feet to the fire when it comes to mixing in graduation rate with AP and Coaches Poll ranking.

I still think it is hilarious that Gregg continues to push ESPN Grade when it's obviously not the metric he would normally look for to judge a school's ability to combine athletics and academics.

SpaceShipTwo, Richard Branson's attempt to build a private space plane that would carry wealthy tourists to the boundary of the atmosphere, crashed last week, killing the co-pilot.

I imagine Gregg was giddy upon hearing about this because it went to prove that he was right. Space travel is too expensive and dangerous. Big win for Gregg!

But the Branson project has always been a pipe dream, and a dangerous one at that; a 2007 SpaceShipTwo engine test explosion killed two workers instantly, while a third died later and three others were critically injured. The years of credulous praise Branson's project has received from the mainstream media both show lack of sophistication regarding technology, and it may have become a self-fulfilling prophecy -- convincing Branson he could do something he could not.

But don't worry, Gregg will gloat a little bit about citing all the times he knew this project was dangerous. Sure, people died, but look at how right Gregg was!

In 2008, this column spelled out the development costs and test regimes of space-bound projects that worked and concluded, "Branson has talked vaguely about how SpaceShipTwo can be developed and built on the cheap. In rocketry, cost-cutting leads to explosions ... I don't know about you, but I ain't getting on no space-bound machine that did not cost billions of dollars to develop and test."

In 2012, this column warned, "The notion that a space plane can be thrown together quickly and on the cheap has always strained credulity, yet is swallowed whole by many journalists."

Well Gregg, you were right. Good for you!

"Privately built space plane" is the kind of story that journalists call "too good to check." Lester Holt acknowledged on "NBC Nightly News" that NBC had a contract with Virgin Galactic for exclusive footage of the first commercial flight, giving at least one major network an incentive to hype without skepticism. If any major news organization expressed doubts regarding SpaceShipTwo, I missed it.

Or you will just ignore that any major news organization expressed doubts much in the same way you ignore any evidence contrary to one of your football-related opinions in TMQ.

Then Gregg spends some time railing against the space station because TMQ is a column about football. I'll skip this part.

The Bolts must be wondering if anybody got the number of the truck that hit them. Miami won 37-0, holding San Diego to 178 yards of offense. Should the Dolphins rise to the status of authentic or should San Diego fall from that status?

I don't know, Gregg. You are the genius with the Authentic Games metric that is based entirely on your opinion. So give your opinion. Are the Dolphins authentic? Gregg gave the Chargers a 1-3 record against "authentic" teams earlier in this TMQ, so the Dolphins either are or are not a part of those authentic teams, right? Looking at the Chargers' schedule, they have played Arizona, Seattle, Denver, and either Kansas City or Miami are considered "authentic" by Gregg. Let me do some research to find out if Gregg thinks the Chiefs are authentic...oh yes, here it is in this very TMQ,

The Chiefs aren't authentic so far but could become so soon, with upcoming consecutive games versus winning teams.

So yes Gregg, you do consider the Dolphins to be authentic based on your record of the Chargers being 1-3 against "authentic" teams. I'm glad I could do the research into Gregg's own thoughts that he was too lazy to do. Forget being too lazy to even read the links he provides in TMQ, Gregg is now too lazy to even remember what his opinion was within this very TMQ. In Gregg's defense, his opinion changes so often depending on what point he wants to prove, he may have just not remembered what point he wanted to prove earlier when he had the Chargers as 1-3 on the season against authentic teams.

We'll know soon enough. Miami's next three opponents are Detroit, Buffalo and Denver, which hold a combined record of 17-7.

Actually, you appear to know right now Gregg. You already counted Miami as authentic in this TMQ. Perhaps Gregg is trying to set a new record for speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to use data showing the Chargers are 1-3 against authentic teams, but then act like there are four teams in that metric that don't include already include the Dolphins. This isn't the case of course. That is unless Gregg considers the Jaguars, Bills (he's said they aren't authentic), Jets, or Raiders authentic. That puts the fourth team that is authentic down to the Chiefs or Dolphins and Gregg says the Chiefs aren't authentic. It's sad that Gregg can't even stick to the opinion he gives even within this very TMQ.

For the fourth consecutive season, the Persons are 3-6; post the Griffin megatrade, Washington is 16-26 including the postseason. Netting several transactions, in the past five seasons Washington has invested three first-round draft choices, two second rounds and a fourth round in signal-callers -- and in the offseason, may be looking for a quarterback.

No. This is misleading. The Redskins haven't invested all of these picks in quarterbacks. The Redskins have invested a first round pick, second round pick and a fourth round pick in the quarterback position. The Redskins traded three first round picks and a second round pick for the right to the #2 draft pick in the 2012 NFL Draft. They traded a second round pick for Donovan McNabb. They did not invest all of these draft choices into selecting quarterbacks. They traded these draft picks for the right to invest a first round pick on Griffin, then selected Kirk Cousins in the fourth round, and previously traded a second round pick for Donovan McNabb. They did not spend all of these draft picks looking for a quarterback. Maybe it's semantics, but I disagree with how Gregg has phrased these group of sentences.

Last week, Ben Roethlisberger became the only NFL quarterback with two games of 500-plus yards passing. This week, he became the only NFL quarterback to throw 12 touchdown passes in a two-game span. The question begins to linger: Roethlisberger is known as a leader, not a passer, but is he actually a sophisticated passer?

I don't know Gregg, is he a sophisticated passer? What does your Authentic Passer metric say about Roethlisberger being a sophisticated passer? In asking about this metric, I'm essentially just asking for your opinion, but disguise it behind some illusion of there being a scientific way of reaching your conclusion.

Hidden Play Of The Week: Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels but sustain or stop drives.

As always, I will state that highlight reels don't show every important play in a game, hence the name "highlight" given to these reels. So to indicate a play is "hidden" because it's not on the highlight reel isn't true. It just means a short reel of highlights happens to not include this play, which doesn't mean the play wasn't important.

"Safe" tactics backfire: reader Luis Valdovinos of Mexico City notes that trailing 21-7 early in the fourth quarter-- -- that's down by two scores -- the Panthers kicked a field goal and were still down by two scores. Then Ron Rivera didn't order an onside kick, rather had his charges kick away. The next time the home team touched the ball, New Orleans led 28-10 and fans were streaming to the exits.

I don't think this "safe" tactic backfired. The point was to put points on the board, which Carolina managed to do. If this tactic backfired then Graham Gano would have missed the field goal. The point was to get points on the board, which was achieved. So the "safe" tactic didn't help the Panthers win the game, but it certainly didn't backfire either because Gano made the field goal.

Last week, the Knicks traded Travis Outlaw to Philadelphia for Arnett Moultrie. Both players were immediately waived by their new employers. Neither team actually wanted either guy -- the essence of being an NBA general manager is getting rid of players!

That's so true! Gregg admits he doesn't watch the NBA and doesn't know much about it, but he certainly wants his readers to think his observations about the NBA are very, very well-informed observations!

Belongs In Some Kind Of Club: The Murray State Racers are averaging 38 points per game and are 3-6.

It's almost like there are three phases of a football team that must play well in order to win a game. Gregg just assumes because a team has a great offense that team should win a game regardless of what the defense or special teams looks like. It's obviously a dumb assumption.

Buck-Buck-Brawkkkkkk (College Edition): Maryland leading 20-19, Penn State faced fourth-and-1 on its 28 with 26 seconds remaining, holding two timeouts. The Nittany Lions tried to run a quarterback sneak; a botched C-Q exchange ended the contest. But why were they trying to run a quarterback sneak? Penn State needed to gain at least 45 yards and had just 26 seconds in which to do so.

Because the clock stops in college football when one team gets a first down, so Penn State could have gotten a first down and then they could have spiked the ball to stop the clock. It wasn't a play that gained a lot of yardage, but it was a high-percentage first down call on fourth down. Of course, it didn't work.

Nittany Lions coach James Franklin may have been nervous facing his former employer, who many touts think erred by not offering him the head coach's whistle four years ago.

Yes, I'm sure that was it. I'm sure James Franklin was nervous because he was facing his former team. That's gotta be it. You just nailed the reason Penn State lost.

Buck-Buck-Brawkkkkkk (Pro Edition): When City of Tampa, trailing 22-17 at Cleveland, faced third-and-1 on its 37 with two minutes remaining and holding a timeout, that situation provided ample clock for a rush to pick up the first down. Instead the Bucs went incompletion, incompletion, penalty, game over.

While they could have rushed for a first down, they also had to get a touchdown with one timeout. Penn State only had to get a field goal. But yes, Tampa Bay could have rushed the ball, but it's just interesting to me that Gregg criticizes Penn State for running the ball in a late fourth-and-1 situation, while criticizing Tampa Bay for not running the football in a late third (and fourth)-and-1 situation. Maybe Tampa Bay threw the football because they were doing as Gregg suggests occasionally, which is to call a play the opposing team wouldn't expect to be called.

Wasn't it just last week that Gregg complimented the Cardinals for going deep on third-and-short? Maybe Tampa Bay wanted to get a big play in a situation one wouldn't be expected. Maybe Gregg just criticizes teams based entirely on the outcome rather than the reasoning behind the decision.

Obscure College Scandal: California of Pennsylvania, among TMQ's favorite obscure colleges, canceled Saturday's game after five football players were arrested and accused of assaulting a man and leaving him with severe brain trauma. A couple of days later, a sixth player was arrested and suspended. Arrests are only accusations, which may or may not prove true. But the situation can't be good.

Beating people until they suffer brain trauma is not good. Thank God I read TMQ to learn facts such as this.

When reading TMQ I also learn that I need to investigate an author's claims, because sometimes the author of a column will mislead the audience or leave out important information. I also learn that Gregg can't remember what his own opinion on authentic NFL teams might be.

1 comments Derek Jeter Has Feelings Too You Know

The Derek Jeter Farewell Tour has begun and is in full swing, which means the "Constant Updates about Derek Jeter on his Farewell Tour" has begun as well. This means never-ending updates on what Derek Jeter is doing, how he feels and whether his last meal in Houston as a member of the Yankees was memorable or just super-memorable. Today, Johnette Howard informs her readers that Derek Jeter has feelings and he isn't a superman, but just a typical man. I think maybe she and her media brethren who fawn over athletes such as Jeter for any little thing they do might be better served to heed this reminder as opposed to being the ones handing out this reminder. Jeter is just a master of hiding his feelings, no matter how many times these brainless sportswriters ask him about his feelings. These sportswriters like Johnette Howard want Derek Jeter to open up to them so badly, it's borderline pathetic. Just give us a tear Derek, just one tear!

Derek Jeter knows full well a great swath of his legend is built upon the idea that he's superhuman when it comes to shrugging off the feelings or pressure that rock other players.

This legend was created and furthered by the national media, who feel the need to subscribe professional athletes the personal characteristics they feel these athletes should have, regardless of whether these personal characteristics are true or not. It's all about making sure the attributes the media wants that athlete to have are reflected in how the public sees that athlete. That's why the downfall of an athlete like Tiger Woods or Lance Armstrong is met with such vitriol and shock, because the attributes the media has subscribed to them are not seen as being true anymore. Armstrong is a cheat who dragged other people down in his efforts to continue cheating, while Tiger Woods isn't a family man who is dedicated to his lovely model wife. Woods' competitive nature apparently extended to off the golf course where he tried to have as many mistresses as possible, while Armstrong's competitive nature led him to using PED's. Those aren't the attributes the media had subscribed to these two athletes though.

So it was interesting that Jeter took great pains to make something clear before he took the field Monday for his last Opening Day at Yankee Stadium.

Derek Jeter stated something of substance! Quick, let's report on it and over analyze what he said!

He was asked twice about the assumption that the fanfare around his season-long goodbye tour would be a pain, not a joy, for him. And it seemed uncharacteristically important for Jeter to correct public opinion.

He's probably tired of being asked about it. I'm annoyed with all the stupid questions about whether he enjoys the fanfare so I can only imagine how he feels.

"The perception is wrong -- I will enjoy it," Jeter said. "Every city I go to, every game I play, I will enjoy it. So what they think, how they 'think' I feel, they're wrong on that one. But at the same time, I get the fact that I have to play a game,

Now Johnette Howard must immediately parse out what Jeter REALLY means in making this statement. Much like how Bob Klapisch took comments Jeter made about PED's in the way he wanted to perceive these comments in order to make Jeter an anti-PED's poster boy, Johnette Howard tells us what Jeter really means in order to inform us that Jeter has feelings and describe what Jeter is really meaning to say. Because, his comments can't just stand alone, they have to have a deeper meaning other than "I enjoy the farewell tour and will miss baseball."

It was Jeter's roundabout way of telling people not to underestimate how much he loves baseball or how badly he's going to actually miss playing, even if he hasn't yet wiped away a tear.

Oh, is that what he was saying? Because it sort of sounded like Jeter was saying, "People think they know how I feel but they are wrong. I try to focus on playing the game." The irony that Jeter's statement was basically saying other people think they know how he feels and Johnette Howard is currently stating that she knows how he feels is too much for me. Howard is parsing what Jeter was really saying by ignoring what Jeter was really saying and doing exactly what Jeter states "people" are doing. I might pass out from this irony. 

He's smart enough to know that every day marks more steps in his long goodbye.

But Johnette Howard isn't smart enough to know that she's doing exactly what Derek Jeter has stated sportswriters tend to do by assuming they know how he feels.

It was the last first day of hearing the Bleacher Creatures call out his name -- just a little louder than usual -- during roll call.

"The last first day." Not that this year is going to be interminable with the countdown to Jeter's final game or anything.

It was seeing Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera walk out in street clothes for the ceremonial first pitch to honor him, struck by the sight of him being the last of them still in uniform -- another reminder of the passage of time.

These are all things that Derek Jeter feels because this is how Johnette Howard would like to believe this is how Derek Jeter feels.

And it was the sight of Jeter at the pregame news conference microphone, patiently listening to someone remind him how Joe Torre, his longest big league manager, told him not to let success go to his head after he had a terrific season and won his first World Series in their first season together.

And Jeter did not let success go to his head. He upgraded the quality of the attractive brunette he dated and that's the only big change Jeter made after winning his first World Series. Well, there was also that whole situation where George Steinbrenner thought Jeter was staying out too late at the clubs and not focused enough on the Yankees, but that's to be forgotten during the farewell tour. Only good memories allowed.

Smirking a little now, Jeter cracked, "Well, the part of the story you're missing is that I told him the same thing: 'We won a championship, you had a great year managing. Don't screw it up after this.'"

Please Johnette Howard, translate what Jeter actually meant when he said this. We must know.

But Orioles manager Buck Showalter, the Yanks' manager the first year Jeter arrived in the big leagues, put a lot into perspective before Jeter went 1-for-4 in the Yankees' 4-2 win over Baltimore. Like current Yankees manager Joe Girardi (who said, no, he didn't look at Jeter the rookie way back when and just know he'd get 3,000 hits), Showalter scoffed prior to Monday's game about "these scouts who say, 'I knew exactly what he [Jeter] was going to be.'"

Buck Showalter looks like he scoffs at least 30 times per day, so I'm not sure this really means something.

But as for how Jeter did turn out, Showalter deadpanned, "We're excited to see him retire. Same as Mo." Was he happy to be here for such a memorable occasion?

No, he's not happy at all. "Fuck Derek Jeter," says Buck Showalter. Showalter has no interest in being there for this occasion. Great question. This reader feels more informed.

Another Showalter wisecrack: "I'd rather him not be playing today. I mean, seriously. It's like your grandmother making you go out and get switches to whip your own butt with."

Great point. My grandmother always shops for her own switches and would never trust me to go get a switch at Target that would be used to whip my own butt. I would just choose the Switch-o-matic 3001 which has the rubber grip but a soft coating around the actual part of the switch used to beat my ass. That switch is useless when it comes to teaching me a lesson.

And everyone laughed.

Heartily? Did everyone laugh heartily?

But Showalter's overarching point was an important one: To take for granted that Jeter was always destined to become great ignores the rest.

So basically this entire column about Jeter having feelings is really about Johnette Howard wanting to do the typical cookie-cutter fluff piece on Jeter. Great.

It wasn't dumb luck that made Jeter great. Nor was it some total absence of what Jeter called "nerves" or "butterflies" in the "wow moments" of his career. Rather, Jeter emphasized Monday, it was that he felt all of that, but "I hide it well."

WHAT DOES JETER REALLY MEAN BY THIS? TELL US JOHNETTE HOWARD!

"You know, I came up in a culture where you were never promised a job," Jeter reminded everybody. "We had to perform in order to keep our job.

Which differs from today's environment how again? I didn't realize baseball players, especially rookie prospects, were promised jobs without earning those jobs. I must have missed this happening.

That's the mindset that we had going into every season. ... If you didn't do your job, The Boss would get rid of you. So every spring training, every offseason, we trained and prepared.

Again, how is this different from today's game again? I must be missing something. Perhaps this is why Derek Jeter doesn't say much all the time, because if he did then what he did say would sound like the typical cliches coming from an athlete. 

There are folks who wonder if a star as big as Jeter can really be as grounded as all that sounds. Him, have to win a job?

Jeter is talking about when he was a rookie, not talking about right now, you dipshit. Jeter wasn't a big star prior to his first season when he had to fight to win a job. It's like Johnette Howard isn't even listening to what Jeter is saying, probably because she KNOWS what Jeter really means.

Not invoking his superstar privilege Monday when confronted with repeated questions about initially not running hard out of the box in the fifth inning when a ball he hammered down the left-field line turned out to be a double off the wall, not the home run he thought it was?

That's probably because the media didn't batter him into the ground for not hustling because they are too busy deciphering what he really means whenever he speaks and asking the same questions about how it feels to be retiring after this season.

Rather than preen like a sacred cow, Jeter instead acknowledged he screwed up with a series of droll jokes -- each of them funnier than the last.

It seems Robinson Cano's downfall was that he didn't know any jokes. If he knew jokes, the New York media would have totally laid off him for not hustling every time ran to first base. Tell jokes, make the people happy so they lay off you. That's apparently the rule.

The best one? Responding to an unrelated question about whether it's going to be awkward to see fans applaud him just for grounding into a double play. Jeter circled back to the ribbing for having to leg out the double and dryly cracked, "Maybe they were cheering for me hustling."

Oh Jetes, you kidder! Let's all have a good laugh, go get a drink and hope the 40,000th question about his retirement will get Derek Jeter to cry a little. THE SEASON DOESN'T END UNTIL THE JETER IS CRYING LIKE A BABY!

But Jeter has said self-deprecating things like that forever. And it's hard to fake being something you're not for 20 years.

Which is why Jeter is clearly a robot without feelings, despite Howard's protestations to the contrary. For 20 years Jeter has been an unemotional robot. It can't be an act. He must really be a robot who has no emotions. I'm just glad Johnette Howard has gotten to the bottom of this issue and this article wasn't just an excuse to write a fluff piece about Jeter.

Jeter has feelings, all right. And high personal standards.

Especially in women. If he wakes up one day looks at Minka Kelly, sees the beginning of fat around a thigh, then it's onto the next attractive brunette. The Jeter doesn't play around with bitches wearing cellulite. Cellulite is never in fashion.

Like those other Yankees icons, he has loved this ride. He will dearly miss this. He gets how special it's been.

Jeter doesn't even have to say this, Johnette Howard knows it's true because that's what she wants Jeter to say. Now cry, Jeter, cry and make Johnette Howard happy. It's all that's left to give the people, just one tear.

"Everybody's human," he said. "It's just ..."

Yeah, we know.

"I've got a job to do," he repeated.

I think what Jeter is really wanting to say is, "Stop asking me the same dumbass questions about whether I will miss baseball."

So even if this is his long goodbye, the takeaway Monday was this: Jeter is just determined not to let it become maudlin.

But even so, the media will be damned if they don't write the same "Jeter is going to miss baseball even though he won't say he will baseball" column that is just a cheap excuse to write a boring, by-the-numbers Jeter fluff piece. 

12 comments Gregg Easterbrook (Not Really) Previews the NFC

Gregg Easterbrook didn't really preview the AFC last week in TMQ, as well as did his 100th column about concussions. Gregg believes that high schools and youth leagues follow the lead of the NFL, unless the NFL needs to follow the lead of high schools and youth leagues of course. It really works whichever way Gregg needs it to work at that very moment to prove a point. This week Gregg asks if the zone-read is a fad, discusses the plot issues with "Star Trek" and continues to not really each NFL conference by not really previewing the NFC.

Is the zone-read option the flavor of the month, or is it the new vanilla? The first few weeks of the NFL season might tell.

Or the first few weeks of the season might not tell. Either way, stay tuned to TMQ where Gregg will tell us the Packers lost the first game of the season because their cornerbacks got caught looking in the backfield while playing zone coverage and the receiver ran right past one of these Packer corners. This would never have happened if the Packers cornerbacks would ignore the defense called and play man coverage all the time like Gregg seems to believe an defensive player has the option to do.

Last season, the Forty Niners, Seahawks and Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons (see below)

A. Nobody cares.

B. Everyone knows you are referring to the Redskins. You aren't as clever as you think yourself to be.

There are likely to be numerous all-zone confrontations. San Francisco and Seattle play each other twice, plus each line up against Carolina. Washington faces the Eagles twice and also the Niners.

The question is whether the zone-read is a fad or a fixture...or will the zone-read be a part of some teams' playbook and they will continue to use it as long as they have a quarterback who can execute the zone-read well, but possibly not use it to the extent it is currently being used? I vote C.

Considering the zone-read was a surprise tactic last season, who will surprise with it this season?

Oh Gregg, always misunderstanding offensive and defensive strategies. The zone-read doesn't serve solely as a surprise tactic, but relies on the quarterback's ability to run with the football and make a great decision as to when to pitch the football to the running back. What makes it work isn't necessarily the surprise, but the skill at which the play is blocked and the decision-making ability of the quarterback. It's like any other running play, where it is generally successful if blocked correctly and executed well.

Green Bay didn't sign Vince Young, or the New England Patriots sign Tim Tebow, because they need someone to fill the Gatorade bucket. 

No, really, the Patriots did sign Tebow because they needed someone to fill the Gatorade bucket and also for the purpose of seeing if there were ways to use Tebow successfully outside of the quarterback position. At this point, Tebow seems to be better at refilling the Gatorade bucket.

Imagine having to prepare for the disciplined traditional passing of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady and also for zone-read chaos when a guy who can run or throw takes a few snaps.

Or imagine having to play against Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin, or Colin Kaepernick. Not that preparing for Rodgers or Brady is easy, but the defense generally knows if either Brady or Rodgers are in the game then the Packers/Patriots aren't going run the read-option. So the real confusion comes in when a quarterback can run the read-option and also pass the football successfully. It's kind of a tip-off about the play the offense is running when Tebow is back in the shotgun, but the defense has to respect Kaepernick's legs and arm when he is back in the shotgun.

In college, the quarterback is assumed to be a rushing threat, if only because his economic value is so low: He works for free, and an injury does not cost the school anything.

Well, plus college defenses don't have the caliber of athlete that an NFL defense has, which generally makes defending the quarterback when he runs more difficult at the college level.

An NFL team might have $20-$50 million invested in its starting quarterback and thus wants to protect him from harm.

I can't make a blanket, generalized statement, but I'm guessing an NFL team would decide to use the read-option with their quarterback if they thought it could help them win games and the quarterback would be smart in trying to be smart while carrying the ball. Obviously an NFL team doesn't want their starting quarterback injured, but I don't know if a team would go away from the read-option (or zone read) if they think this could help them win games. Will teams run the read-option with Tom Brady? No, but the new type of quarterback that is athletic and can throw the football well makes the read-option a more viable strategy.

A zone-read rushing play is 11-on-11, and, as the Niners showed the Packers, you'd better be ready to account for that extra man.

Gregg specializes in summarizing information that the reader probably already knows.

TMQ noted in January that having the edge rusher force the action back inside is "the adjustment the whole league will make next season".

As usual, Gregg makes something black and white when it isn't really that simple. That's great if the whole league will have the edge rusher force the action back inside, but what will happen if the edge rusher gets blocked or the opposing team is running up the middle instead of the quarterback keeping the football and running outside? Things aren't always just as simple as Gregg wants to make them.

Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, only three NFL teams -- San Francisco, Seattle and Washington -- ran more often than they passed in 2012. All three made the playoffs; two won a playoff game, and the only reason it wasn't three was that Washington and Seattle faced each other.

What Gregg neglects to mention is that he has been telling us for the past couple of years that the NFL is a pass-wacky league and it will continue to trend that way. This is all forgotten of course when he finds data that comes close to contradicting this point of view.

In 2012, the top four rushing teams -- Washington, the Minnesota Vikings, Seattle and San Francisco -- reached the playoffs. The top three passing teams -- the New Orleans Saints, Detroit Lions and Dallas -- did not. Last season's stats show that, just like in college, a team can win by featuring the rush. For 2013 at least, expect an uptick in rushing plays.

Remember these statistics in mid-November when Gregg starts talking about pass-wacky offenses around the league and how the NFL is now a passing league where good defensive teams don't matter and the team that outscores the other team makes the playoffs. In fact, Gregg sort of talks about this very subject in this TMQ. 

Now, Tuesday Morning Quarterback's NFC preview.

Again, Gregg is using the term "preview" very lightly since he only seems to talk about what happened last year as it pertains to each team.

The Oakland Raiders gave the sun, moon and stars for Carson Palmer, kept him just two seasons, then shipped him to the Arizona Cardinals for a late draft pick. Arizona gave the sun and moon, though not the stars, for Kevin Kolb, kept him just two seasons, then waived him. Now, Arizona has Palmer, while Oakland is left holding a pair of late-round draft picks. Had Arizona simply acquired Palmer two years ago for what it spent on Kolb, this would have been praised as a brilliant move.

So it would have been smart for the Cardinals to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Carson Palmer two years ago, but it wasn't smart for the Raiders to do the same thing? The going price for Palmer at the time was a 1st and 2nd round pick, so the Cardinals would have had to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Palmer and there's no guarantee that he would have been successful in Arizona. So I'm not sure I am able to see why it wasn't smart for the Raiders to trade for Palmer, but the Cardinals should have traded for Palmer. They got him for a late-round pick this past offseason. That seems like a better deal, even in retrospect, then giving up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Palmer (which would have resulted in them giving up the chance to draft Michael Floyd and Kevin Minter---or Jonathan Cooper instead of Minter if the Cardinals made the playoffs with Palmer starting for them). The Cardinals have been terrible at quarterback, but a 1st and 2nd round pick for Carson Palmer is a steep price to pay. Of course the Cardinals did give up a 2nd round pick for Kolb, plus gave him a extension. So maybe Gregg has a point, but I'm always inclined just to think he doesn't have a point.

Arizona had an above-average defense in 2012 but the league's worst offense. Considering the offense could not stay on the field, the stout performance by the defense was impressive. The Cardinals' big problem on offense was an abysmal average of 5.6 yards per pass attempt. Palmer can only improve that number.

Right, which is why it was such a good deal to get him for a late-round draft pick. I'm not sure it was worth trading for Palmer if the Cardinals had to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick. Palmer just isn't worth that to me and I'm guessing he isn't worth it to the Cardinals either if they could go back in time and make this deal.

Arizona held a 10-point lead over the Atlanta Falcons, who would go on to host the NFC title game. Whisenhunt pulled starter John Skelton and sent in the never-used Ryan Lindley, who immediately lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown.

This is a fantastic example of how Gregg lies and misleads his readers. The Cardinals held a 10-point lead and were even in this game because the Falcons turned the ball over seven times. Ken Whisenhunt pulled John Skelton because Skelton was 2-7 for six passing yards at that point in the game. He had six passing yards, so you can see why Whisenhunt chose a different quarterback at this point in the game. Gregg of course doesn't tell us this, but just tells us that Ryan Lindley was never-used and the immediately lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown.

Whisenhunt replaced Skelton when there was 9:39 left in the second quarter of the game. Lindley was an improvement over Skelton and he only committed one turnover, that is one turnover, during the game. The Cardinals did not lose this game because Whisenhunt pulled Skelton for Ryan Lindley. They lost the game because both quarterbacks were bad.

Arizona was not only defeated in that game but was 1-6 for the remainder of the season.

ALL BECAUSE THE CARDINALS REPLACED A SHITTY QUARTERBACK WITH ANOTHER SHITTY QUARTERBACK! IT RUINED THE CARDINALS ENTIRE SEASON!

Atlanta: The easiest thing to forget about the 2012 NFL season was that the Falcons went 14-4 and came without a couple snaps of the Super Bowl.

This is one of easiest things to forget about the 2012 NFL season? The NFC Championship Game is probably of one of the three most high-profile games of the NFL season and the Falcons blew a lead at home. This is quite easy to remember.

It was as if in last season's playoffs the Falcons suddenly forgot how to play football.

They made the NFC Championship Game. How is making it to the NFC Championship Game and coming close to making the Super Bowl "forgetting how to play football"?

The Atlanta defense finished 24th statistically, and often -- at inopportune moments -- forgot how to play football.

My God, somebody please tell Gregg that the other team practices too. It's not like the Falcons just magically forget to play football, they get beaten by a team that showed themselves to be the better team. The 49ers came close to winning the Super Bowl two weeks after beating the Falcons. In fact there's a trend here:

The season before, the Falcons went to Jersey/A in the postseason and seemed to forget how to play football, losing 24-2.

The Giants went on to win the Super Bowl. 

The season before that, the Falcons had the table set, opening at home after a bye, then seemed to forget how to play football, losing 48-21 to the Packers.

Green Bay went on to win the Super Bowl.

In 2008 the Falcons lost to the Arizona Cardinals, who went on to make it to the Super Bowl. So it isn't like the Falcons are losing to shitty teams in the playoffs.

When Newton arrived in the league, defensive coordinators assumed he'd be mainly a running quarterback and kept their safeties near the line of scrimmage. Newton responded by throwing for a record-smashing average of 427 yards in his first two contests. Defensive coordinators then told their secondaries to drop into a regular shell; since then, Newton has averaged 248 yards passing per game.

Which is about average for an NFL quarterback. Newton also led the Panthers in rushing last year, which apparently Gregg doesn't count as deserving to be a part of this discussion.

Now there are 24 seconds in regulation, Buccaneers ball on the Cats' 24. Vincent Jackson, the opponent's best receiver, was able to run into the end zone covered only by a linebacker -- touchdown.

To be really fair to Ron Rivera, which I am not inclined to be, Jackson was covered by the defensive rookie of the year on this play (Luke Kuechly) and Josh Freeman made an absolutely perfect throw to get the ball into Jackson. It was a gorgeous throw and Kuechly had pretty good coverage on the play.

Otherwise, Gregg has a point when discussing Ron Rivera.

During the offseason, the Bears used first- and fifth-round draft choices on offensive linemen, then traded offensive tackle Gabe Carimi, their first-round choice just two years ago, to the Buccaneers at the fire-sale price of a sixth-round draft choice.

Gregg wants to know why the Buccaneers didn't just draft Carimi when they had the chance two years ago rather than give up a sixth round choice for him in 2013.

Why discard Carimi, a great college player and a major investment for the Bears, even if his NFL career started slowly?

Because he wasn't playing well in comparison to the salary that he was getting paid?

Front-office politics are the likely answer. New general manager Phil Emery needs to shift blame, so he gave the heave-ho to Smith, a hire of former general manager Jerry Angelo. Now he tells the world that Angelo's final first-round draft choice was a blown pick. Emery also waived Chris Williams, an offensive lineman chosen in the first round in 2008 by Angelo. This allows Emery to enter the 2013 season with excuses lined up.

It also allows the Bears to rid themselves of underachieving offensive linemen on the roster, regardless of where these offensive linemen were chosen. A General Manager's job is to make a team better and getting rid of two underachieving picks isn't front office politics, but an attempt to make the Bears better. I would think if anyone could understand getting rid of an underachieving player it would be Gregg Easterbrook. He is the one who constantly harps on first round picks being overpaid glory boys. Yet, the Bears get rid of a couple of these underachieving guys and Gregg doesn't like it.

If the Bears win, fine; if they lose, Emery can blame Angelo's bad draft picks.

Which is valid to do as it pertains to Chris Williams and Gabe Carimi. Neither player produced what was expected of them for the Bears. They weren't very good picks.

In the Dallas-San Francisco draft trade, the Boys gained only a third-round choice to allow the Niners to swap up 13 spots to the middle of the first round. In other trades involving the first round, to swap up eight spots, the St. Louis Rams gave the Bills a second-round choice. To swap up from the second round to the late first,

Perhaps Jones paid so much to Romo that he needed to move down in the first round to lower his rookie bonus costs and was so focused on moving down he allowed himself to be fleeced.

Actually if Gregg took the time to do any type of research he could see that the contract extension to Tony Romo actually opened up cap room so the Cowboys could sign free agents and their draft picks. It's irritating how Gregg makes these types of comments without doing any research. Maybe the 3rd round pick wasn't enough compensation for moving up 13 spots and maybe the Romo extension wasn't a great idea, but signing Romo to the contract extension freed up cap space rather than cost the Cowboys cap space.

In my draft column, yours truly observed that Mel Kiper and his kith get a hard time because their predictions are public, while we never know what mistakes NFL scouts make in private. 

Sort of like when Gregg states he wrote "Game over" in his Selena Gomez Trapper Keeper notebook and Gregg's readers have no way of verifying whether this is true or Gregg is just stating this using hindsight to make himself look smarter? Gregg's readers also have no idea of when Gregg has written "Game over" in his notebook and this hasn't been true.

Reader John Martin in Washington, D.C., reports that because Jones allowed himself to be filmed -- looking manly, of course -- in the Boys draft room, it was possible to freeze-frame and zoom in on the Dallas board. The Boys slotted DJ Hayden, taken by Oakland with the 12th selection, as a second-round choice. The Boys' board reflects guesses about value specifically to the Cowboys, not necessarily a Kiper-style overall ranking.

Yeah Gregg, pretty much every team's NFL draft board consists of that team's guesses about a player's value. That's what a draft board is.

Ben Cohen of the Wall Street Journal calls the new palace at the University of Oregon "the physical embodiment of this gilded age of college football." In the most recent academic year, Oregon cleared a $31 million profit on football, according to Department of Education data, while graduating just 49 percent of its African-American players.

How many of these players would have gone to college, much less graduated, without having played football or received a football scholarship? Not excusing the profit Oregon cleared, but I think looking at whether these African-American players would have been able to attend college without football is important.

Exploiting young black males without conferring education ought to shame Chip Kelly, the University of Oregon alumni and trustees and the NCAA.

Again, we have to also focus on two other factors:

1. How many of the 49% who graduated would have gotten a college degree without a sports scholarship? This is a difficult question to answer for sure, but I think it is an important question.

2. It takes two to tango. Chip Kelly has a responsibility to make sure his players go to class and graduate, but you can't make a person graduate college and attend class during college if that person doesn't want to. I guess Kelly could kick players off the team who don't go to class and aren't on-track to graduate.

Assuming Knight is in the top bracket, donating $68 million to the University of Oregon football program would cost him about $43 million. Taxpayers would be hit for the other $25 million. To cover Knight's deduction, average people must be taxed more or the national debt must increase.

The theory of tax deductibility for donations to colleges and universities is sound: Higher education benefits society as a whole. But when the tax expenditures go to football programs, society does not benefit.

Tell that to the Oregon football players and boosters who can proudly show off the new facility.

And if the money given to football might have instead been donated to the university's endowment or core academic mission, society is actively harmed.

Society is harmed under the assumption that Phil Knight would have donated this money to the university's endowment or core academic mission. I'm not sure Phil Knight would have donated $68 million to the university's endowment or not, so the only way to conclude society is harmed is if assumptions are made. And we all know what happens when you assume? That's right, Gregg makes shit up in order to better prove a point he wants to make.

That athletics diverts money from college education, and does so at taxpayer expense, is a broad problem. 

Again, we are working under the assumption that the money given to athletics would otherwise be given to an education fund. This isn't an assumption I am willing to make, mostly because I don't want to make an assumption to try and prove my point correct like Gregg does.

The University of Maryland just reported a $21 million athletic department deficit despite all UMD undergrads being charged $398 annually to subsidize athletics. That's about $11 million taken annually from regular students who are struggling to pay tuition and diverted to sports.

That's not what I'm seeing. I'm actually seeing $406.38 to pay for athletics. Of course students are also being charged the following fees annually as well:

Stamp Union Fee: $308.24
Recreation Building: $362
Technology Fee: $264

In fact, out of the $1,771.82 in fees charged to a full-time student during the 13/14 year, athletics is responsible for 22.9% of the cost of these fees. I'm betting in terms of students getting use out of these fees, that athletics is a much better deal than paying $362 for a recreation building. Maybe not, but in terms of the fees it costs a student to attend the University of Maryland athletic fees don't make up the majority of the cost.

Detroit: Stacked with high first-round draft picks and mega-contract players, no NFL team underperforms like the Lions. The talent-stacked defense, which allowed 49 touchdowns in 2012, has given up more total points than any other NFL team over the past four seasons.

I'm not sure you can call the Lions defense "talent-stacked" if the defense doesn't play well. Maybe the defense should have talent, but they clearly lack some sort of talent somewhere.

In a pass-wacky league, the Lions are wackiest. Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, Detroit coaches radioed in 378 more passes than rushes last season -- 24 more called passes than rushes per contest. While Seattle rushed 57 percent of the time (see below), the Lions threw just shy of twice as much as they ran. Because the NFL has become a passing league, even Bill Belichick is now pass-wacky. But Detroit takes pass-wacky too far.

It also doesn't help the Lions offensive line and running backs haven't helped the run game flourish even when a running play is called. You may ask in Gregg's opinion how we know when a team takes pass-wacky too far. That's an easy answer. A team has taken pass-wacky too far if they don't win games. If that team is pass-wacky and wins games then that is the right amount of pass-wacky. It all depends on the result, because otherwise Gregg has no suitable advice on what a team should do (or should have done) without knowing the result.

This column is a longtime fan of Vince Young. It might be chaotic when he's on the field, but at the double whistle, his team has more points than the other team. So it's nice to see Young get another chance with the Packers.

Vince Young just wins games. Lazy analysis will always survive no matter what.

Considering Green Bay's passing system relies on precise execution -- the Packers throw deep sideline routes, a favorite pattern of the Manning brothers -- it's hard to see Young running the same offense Rodgers runs.

So the Packers will just completely change their offense if Vince Young ends up having to start for the Packers. I can't see how anything could go wrong in this situation.

Mike McCarthy's charges were eaten alive by the zone-read in the playoffs and now open against the Niners. Young can impersonate Kaepernick when the Packers run the scout team. And if Young comes in a few times a game for zone-read plays, this will force Green Bay opponents to prepare on defense for two entirely different philosophies of offense.

The initial problem I see with the Packers running the read-option successfully is that at this point they don't have a running back that really scares NFL defenses. It's much different to run the read-option with Robert Griffin and Alfred Morris or Colin Kaepernick and Frank Gore than it is to run the read-option with Vince Young and (the unproven) Eddie Lacy. Before Gregg starts getting excited about the Packers running two entirely different offensive philosophies he needs to think whether the offensive line that can't block for Aaron Rodgers can block for Young when running the read-option.

Then Gregg publicizes a book he wrote about youth football that goes on sale in September. I'm not linking it right now and no one can make me.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback has long felt the Giants are a better reflection of the New York City milieu than the Jets, setting aside that both neither practice nor performs in the Empire State. The Giants bicker openly about money and ego, seem constantly on the verge of collapse, then rally and do something special. That's New York!

What? The Giants do not openly bicker about money and ego and seem on the verge of collapse. If anything, the Jets are the team that openly bicker about money and ego. Of course the Jets don't always follow it up with something special, but like always, we can't have reality infringe on Gregg's comparison. Gregg prefers to create his own reality that fits the point he wants to prove. He wants the Giants and Jets to reflect their respect states and so that's how he will frame his comparison, reality be damned.

The Jets seem constantly depressed and fouled up. That s New Jersey.

Okay...this is a really bad analogy. It seems there is more bickering about money and ego in the Jets part as compared to the Giants.

There's no sane reason to expect the Giants to be good this season -- but touts felt that way going into 2011, which ended with Eli Manning hoisting the Lombardi.

Why is there no reason to expect the Giants to be good this season? Gregg constantly makes statements like this with little to no factual backing. Why couldn't we expect the Giants to be good? They still have a really defensive line, great receivers, and Eli Manning as their quarterback with David Wilson just waiting to breakout. I hate it when Gregg makes a statement without explaining what the hell he is talking about. This is an opinion being framed as a statement of fact.

The Vikings' last season came down to this: In the playoffs, trailing Green Bay 24-3 with 11 minutes remaining, facing fourth-and-2, Leslie Frazier sent in the punting unit.

Since he did the "safe" thing and punted, he wasn't criticized. But down by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a playoff contest, punting on fourth-and-2 is like running up the white flag. Needless to say, the day ended with Minnesota decisively defeated.

I am willing to bet the Vikings still would have been decisively defeated even if the Vikings had converted this fourth down instead of punting the football. Gregg's point stands that the Vikings probably should have gone for it, but he is trying to tie the result of the game to this decision by Leslie Frazier when there seems to be a very tenuous connection.

And, as usual, led by Jared Allen, the Vikes did well for sacks. But the team finished just 20th overall on defense -- Allen and other Vikings defenders gambled for sacks at the expense of gap discipline.

On every play the Vikings defenders gambled for sacks at the expense of gap control. Gregg has no specific play that shows this to be true, mostly because he really, really enjoys just making shit up that he believes makes sense in his head.

In a third scene, New Improved Kirk and New Improved Scotty dangle together from a great height. New Improved Chekov comes along and hauls the pair up, using one arm to raise the weight of two men -- something not even an Olympic power lifter could accomplish. Perhaps by 2255, fitness DVDs are more effective at building muscle mass.

Or maybe, just maybe, this is a movie and the fact it involves time travel and aliens from other planets that happen to also speak English means Chekov lifting more than an Olympic power lifter could lift is not the most unrealistic part of the film. It's science-FICTION. The key word being "FICTION" which means "not real." So the movie is not intended to be realistic and I don't get why Gregg wants a science-fiction movie to be realistic.

In the flick, Starfleet is run by a neo-Nazi megalomaniac intent on galactic domination. He is able to build a secret starbase, there to manufacture the ultra-gigantic space dreadnaught, without anyone noticing. Wouldn't building a starbase in orbit around Jupiter require a fantastic investment of material and labor? Wouldn't an auditor have spotted trillions of quatloos missing from the Starfleet budget?

1. It is a movie and Gregg is stupid for asking this question. I can't comprehend why he takes movies seriously enough to ask these types of questions.

2. Gregg has described quite a few times how the United States government and other entities have lost millions of dollars they can't find. So let's pretend that happened here. Starfleet misplaced $500 million and can't find what happened to it.

said to be impossible in all previous "Trek" iterations, including the movies and TV shows set a century after 2255. Attacking a ship in a warp field was previously said impossible, even for Species 8472, the most advanced civilization the Federation has ever encountered. Suddenly, doing this is a snap.

I can't imagine how irritating it would be to watch a movie with Gregg Easterbrook. I would probably get so irritated by his comments about a movie that I would try to force feed him popcorn in the hopes he chokes to death or at least loses enough oxygen to forget what he was commenting about.

Everyone's waiting to see if Kelly implements his Blur Offense with the Eagles. Michael Vick, named the starter, would seem the perfect quarterback for the Blur; Nick Foles and Matt Barkley are pocket passers.

Never underestimate how uneducated Gregg Easterbrook can be. A pocket passer can thrive in Chip Kelly's offense as well and Nick Foles seemed to run the Eagles offense pretty well in the preseason. It's not like Kelly's offense always requires the quarterback to scramble and run option plays.

Regardless, TMQ is putting his chips on this wager -- not only will Barkley win the Eagles' starting job sooner rather than later, he will be the top quarterback of the 2013 draft class.

I am more than willing to wager on this. Also, Gregg doesn't count as being correct if Vick and Foles get injured this year because Gregg said Barkley will "win" the starting job. That's not winning the job he gets it because the other two quarterbacks were injured. Also, I don't know what the hell "sooner rather than later" really means so it's obvious TMQ is putting his chips on the wager, but not feeling confident enough to set out a timeline for when "sooner rather than later" might be.

But it's hard to see Barkley operating a zone-read action. The compromise might be Barkley running a quick-snap spread. 

It's not really a compromise since elements of this are currently present in Chip Kelly's offense.

What was this year's Song of the Summer? "See You in September", by the Tempos, was the No. 1 single of Summer 1959, then the top summer hit again in 1966 when rebooted by the Happenings. Summer of 2008, Coldplay's "Viva la Vida" was pounding out of every beach boom box and the speaker towers of every lakeside watering hole.

I don't know if "Viva la Vida" is the Song of the Summer for 2008. I can't really imagine that song pounding out of a beach boom box or at a watering hole. Maybe it's just me since it is an opinion. I would say "I Kissed a Girl" by Katy Perry was the 2008 Song of the Summer. You couldn't avoid it.

Perhaps the Song of the Summer 2013 is "Get Lucky" by Daft Punk. It's nice to see an act that has been around for a long time reach No. 1 in middle age -- 

The two members of Daft Punk are 39 and 38 years old. They have put four albums out and the first album came out in 1997. I don't know, again, it is a matter of opinion, but I'm not sure Daft Punk is in middle age for a band. They made their first album only 16 years ago.

The 2012 Niners were both impressive statistically and fun to watch, owing to the midseason switch from conventional passing to Kaepernick. Lots of things went very well. San Francisco finished second in total defense; the offensive line was stable for the entire season; 14 players scored touchdowns (lots of guys handling the ball is usually a positive sign);

Or a really bad sign because it means the team has suffered a lot of injuries during the season. I know, I hate to ruin Gregg's assumptions like I tend to do.

A mild question is why San Francisco used its three seventh-round choices rather than banking some of them, too. Considering the Niners have the league's strongest roster, can three late picks make this team?

Well of course they can Gregg. Aren't you the one who constantly tells us how great late-round and undrafted players are? I always love to notice how Gregg backs away from his insistence that late-round and undrafted players are often better than first or second round draft picks when it fits the point he wants to prove. When an undrafted player does well in the NFL, all of a sudden Gregg is back talking about highly-paid glory boys and how these first and second round players are lazy unlike those hard-working undrafted free agents.

In this TMQ, Gregg also suggests that undrafted players should make more money in bonuses, which could have the side effect of fewer undrafted players being signed by teams in order to save money. Obviously Gregg didn't think about this when making the suggestion to up the bonus of undrafted free agents. He's hurting the players he claims to want to help.

The Bluish Men Group attempted 405 forward passes and 536 rushes, the kind of ratio that was common half a century ago. With most NFL defenses geared to stop the pass, Seattle's run-first offense seemed to baffle opponents, allowing the Seahawks to average 4.8 yards per rush and 8 yards per pass attempt, both healthy numbers.

Yes, I'm sure every NFL team that played the Seahawks last year were baffled on how to stop the run. They had completely forgotten how to stop the run. Because NFL teams are only able to stop an opposing team from passing the football or running the football and can't simply do both. It always has to be one or the other. God, I hate Gregg's type of reasoning.

Carroll's defense played a power style, holding opponents to 6.2 yards per pass and 4.5 yards per rush -- both nice margins compared to Seattle's own numbers. The Hawks defense finished fourth against yards and first against points.

This really good defense was led by Defensive Coordinator Gus Bradley, who Gregg called "a weak, insecure coach" last week in TMQ.

Since the arrival of Jeff Fisher as Rams coach, the team has been active in draft-choice trades. Notably, the Rams dealt away the chance to select RG III;

Yep. I'm not big on what-if situations, but without using a "what-if" scenario one has to wonder how choosing to keep Sam Bradford around rather than draft Robert Griffin will look for the Rams in the coming years. Was three picks and keeping Bradford worth passing up the chance to draft Griffin? As Joe Morgan says, it's too early to tell. Granted, the Rams did get some draft picks out of the deal, which is always helpful to build a good team around Bradford.

Summing Fisher's trades, St. Louis swapped Griffin and two first-round picks, plus second-, sixth- and seventh-round selections for Tavon Austin, Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins, Alec Ogletree, Isaiah Pead, Stedman Bailey, Rokevious Watkins, Zac Stacy and Washington's 2014 first-round pick.

I realize I harp on this, and for fear of agreeing with Gregg, but when Peter King is praising the Rams organization's genius during the 2013 draft I wonder if he imagines Tavon Austin playing with Robert Griffin instead of Sam Bradford?

First in run defense, last in pass defense -- sounds like Buccaneers coaches were not employing balanced tactics. 

This could be why the Buccaneers signed Dashon Goldson, drafted Johnthan Banks, and traded for Darrelle Revis. It's hard to be a balanced defense when Eric Wright is one of your starting corners and a converted corner (Ronde Barber) is playing safety alongside a rookie (Mark Barron).

In March, the American Astronomical Society "expressed deep concern about the U.S. government's new restrictions on travel and conference attendance for federally funded scientists." Attending conferences is useful for many professions, but why should average people be taxed to fund science junkets? I write novels and benefit from attending literary conferences. If I demanded that scientists be taxed to fund my travel, scientists would be outraged.

The difference that Gregg is too blind to see is the term "federally funded scientists." Regardless of which side of this matter I agree with, these scientists are federally funded and believe their knowledge base can be improved and expanded by attending conferences which would help society as a whole. Gregg Easterbrook is not a federally funded author so an increase in his knowledge base theoretically would only help him sell books and the idea is this wouldn't help society as a whole. 

TMQ banged the drum for years about eliminating the Redskins name. Then, when the world seemed to lose interest, I returned to using the name in the column. Now that interest is rising anew -- two lawsuits are in progress -- this column will go back to calling the franchise in question the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons.

What a sellout. Always following what's popular to do.

Next Week: Still America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions!

I most likely say this every week when reading the one sentence preview of next week's TMQ, but this is my least favorite TMQ of the year.