I used to complain that Bill Simmons did too many mailbags that were lazy excuses for not writing a column. It's gotten to the point now that Bill's mailbags ARE his columns. Bill's Friday NFL picks column is pretty just a mailbag with some YouTube clips thrown in there. Take a look at Bill's column archives. The number of mailbags in there is endless. That's the current state of Bill's writing. Maybe when he goes to work for another company then he will be more inspired to write. Probably not. Not when he has readers voracious to appear in his mailbag and crave his acceptance. Why go out of his comfort zone when coasting gets the job done and ensures the happiness of Bill's readers? As usual, I will be making fun of some of Bill's readers too because I'm just mean like that, and most likely, they don't exist anyway. Not that Bill would make up questions of course.
We split Friday’s column into two parts. If you missed my piece about Chainsaw Dan Snyder and the Deadskins, click here. Here are the Week 15 picks.
And yes, after complaining that Bill didn't write columns, I will acknowledge he did write a column on Daniel Snyder. He included five comments from readers that he basically bounced the entire column off of, so I'm not quite giving him credit for that yet. He still can't seem to put out a column where his readers don't contribute in some way.
RAMS (-5.5) over Cards
I stand by this now-ridiculous pick.
The Cards scored 12 points and played Ryan Lindley for 30 percent of
the game — what more could you want? Way to kick a field goal down nine
on fourth-and-goal from the 2 with six minutes left, Jeff Fisher. No
wonder you haven’t won a playoff game in 11 years.
Well, he is Jeff "8-8" Fisher. I'm glad others are noticing that Fisher might be a little bit overrated as a coach, though it does not make me happy that person noticing is Bill Simmons. I'm sure Simmons will write an entire column about Fisher and claim to be the first person who noticed just how average to mediocre Fisher has been for the last decade or so. At that point, my blood will boil and I will die.
Anyway, the Cards have scored 64 points total in their last five games,
so Vegas is currently insulting them with 20-to-1 Super Bowl odds.
Repeat: An 11-3 team has 20-1 Super Bowl odds. That’s the best “Nobody
Believes In Us” factoid in a couple of years. Remember, the Cardinals
ARE undefeated at home. And they ARE a Week 16 home victory over Seattle
and a Week 17 road victory over the floundering 49ers away from NEVER
LEAVING ARIZONA FOR THE ENTIRE PLAYOFFS. So why wouldn’t you throw down
$100 on the Cards at 20-to-1?
Bill Simmons, gambling savant who isn't a gambling savant, yet pretends like he knows something about gambling few else know.
Q: WE WANT FAVRE! WE WANT FAVRE! WE WANT FAVRE! WE WANT
FAVRE! Why not go for it if your Arizona GM Steve Keim? You know you
aren’t getting anywhere in the playoffs with a hobbled Drew Stanton or
Ryan Lindley. Hopeful President Elect Bruce Arians needs to show his
power if he wants the Democratic nomination come 2016. Bring back Favre.
Call up Ed Werder right now.
—Jackson, Glendale, AZ
BS: Oh wait, THAT is why the Cards are 20-1. Because I read that email and thought, He’s right, they should totally sign Brett Favre.
Nope, that's a sign you are being an idiot.
Q: The final act of your “4th & God” movie is ready to be
written! (And you know Roger Goodell would LOVE for ESPN to focus on the
wholesome Tim Tebow and not anything else from the past 12 months). Tim
Tebow, out of football and humbled by taking a TV job gets the call
from Kurt Warner (the original inspiration for the don’t bet against God
& Puppies theory) to tell him to do the job he couldn’t finish.
That’s right, take the playoff bound Arizona Cardinals to a Super Bowl
Victory. This is the chills moment of the movie!
—Ron Wade, Plymouth Township
I really feel bad for people who write into Bill and want to interact with him or share their super-original thoughts with him. It makes me feel bad for them craving his acceptance and idolizing him so much.
Q: Do you think JJ Watt ever does that cat interview? Yeah, better bring that Thunderdome line up against Gronk. Watt -5000.
—Justin, Houston
BS: (Belichick voice.) We’re on to Miami.
Bill has five questions where he answers them "We're on to Miami." Five questions and they aren't short either. The man is just killing space in this column.
Q: What’s the over/under for number of kittens Gronk
accidentally murdered Lenny-style during that espnmag photohoot? My
friends and I guessed anywhere from 7 to “so many that they ran out and
had to photoshop some in,” but we’d love your input, too.
—Cara, Weymouth, MA
BS: (Belichick voice.) We’re on to Miami.
See, it gets funnier every time!
Q: Have you noticed that Ryan Tannehill and Alex Smith are
essentially the same player? If you watched the Dolphins-Ravens game,
you saw one of the worst secondaries in the NFL completely unafraid that
Ryan Tannehill could beat them downfield and jumping every short and
intermediate passing route. Remind you of anyone? I can’t wait for the
Dolphins to lock Tannehill up for the next 10 years so we can waste away
in mediocrity. 19th pick in the draft, here we come!
—Justin, Miami
Have you noticed this isn't a very good comparison? Alex Smith's career record for passing yards in a season is 3,313 yards, while Tannehill has more than that in two of his first three seasons, only missing by 19 yards during his rookie season from tying Smith's career high. Tannehill has 22 TD passes this year (24 last year) and Smith has passed 20 TD's just once in his career. But in truth, yards per completion and yards per pass attempt show that Tannehill dinks and dunks the ball around the field. I don't know though, I don't see the Alex Smith comparison. It seems like Tannehill is much better at dinking and dunking, maybe it's because he throws the ball more so his numbers are better than Smith's. Of course, Smith has Jamaal Charles and a decent offensive line, while Ryan Tannehill does not have Jamaal Charles and hasn't had very good offensive lines. It's hard to throw the ball downfield when you don't have time to throw the ball downfield.
So I reject Tannehill as Alex Smith, due to Tannehill not having the same offensive line and running game that Smith has.
Steelers (-2) over FALCONS
Everything you need to know about the pass-friendly rules in 2014: This
is Ben Roethlisberger’s 11th NFL season. He’s 32 years old. He has
thrown for 4,000 yards only four times, and he has topped 30 touchdown
passes only once. He’s never come within 670 yards of a 5,000-yard
season, and he’s never thrown 33 TD passes. This season, he’s on pace to
come within a hair of 5,000 yards and throw 36 TDs … and that’s without
including this Sunday’s “I’m playing Atlanta’s atrocious defense!!!”
bump.
While Bill has a point here about pass-friendly rules, it also helps that Roethlisberger has his best pass-catching running back and maybe his best receiver on the same team at the same time. Antonio Brown and Le'Veon Bell are on pace to put up about 2,600 yards between them. Throw in the reliable Heath Miller and the investment in Wheaton and Bryant, then you can see why Roethlisberger has become more successful throwing the football this year. Bill has a point, but Roethlisberger's yardage isn't chalked up entirely to the pass-friendly rules.
Q: Aren’t you intrigued by the potential of a Mike Smith-Jim Caldwell rematch in Round One?
BS: If Smith-Caldwell happens, Jalen and I might have to do a special Grantland Live postgame studio show on the Grantland Network just to rehash what happened.
That's just a brief, ever-not-subtle plug for Grantland Network and "Grantland Live" from Bill Simmons. He has to pimp Grantland's other material in his column in some fashion. Synergy is important, especially when given the chance to use his readers as a way to spin off other Grantland products.
Jalen, were you surprised when you kicked a field goal down four with three seconds left?
Sadly, many sad and lonely people would listen to this "Grantland Live" to hear Jalen Rose and Bill Simmons discuss this topic.
Deadskins (+7) over GIANTS
Raiders (+10) over CHIEFS
Bucs (+3.5) over PANTHERS
Not even Cam Newton’s Ewing Theory potential can get me excited about any of these three games.
Well, then definitely ignore them. I know these games don't have the drama that a Patriots-Dolphins matchup has. That's some super-intriguing football right there.
Q: You called this year’s Chiefs the worst WR crew of this
century. Don’t the 2009 Browns hold that title? Leading WR: Mohamed
Massaquoi: 34 rec, 624 yards, 3 TDs. Second WR: Chansi Stuckey: 19 rec,
198 yards, 1 TD. It only gets worse. Check it out.
—Matt G., Cleveland
BS: And they had Brady Quinn and Derek Anderson throwing it to them!
Hey, watch the Derek Anderson comments. He's 2-0 this year. The best part is Brady Quinn called the Bucs-Panthers game on Sunday and I couldn't help but think of that 2009 Browns team. I would bet that Brady Quinn was sitting in the broadcast booth just thinking about how if Derek Anderson can be a backup quarterback that maybe he himself should give a comeback a try.
Yet another reason I am rooting for Johnny Football to work out. Come
on, Johnny! The world is more fun when you‘re playing football well.
It’s just a fact. My Not-Quite-An-Upset Special: Browns 30, Bengals 10.
Or not.
Texans (+7) over COLTS
And here’s your legitimate Upset Special: Texans 30, Colts 24, J.J. Watt MVP Campaign +1.
This is the legitimate Upset Special, not to be confused with the Not-Quite-An-Upset Special of course. Either way, neither one worked out. By the way, Bill was 75-75-1 going into this week. So he basically would have been better off simply not making picks or throwing darts at a dartboard, yet he constantly pushes his "gambling theories" on readers based on rules he made up that only pertain to this specific NFL season.
Q: You missed the mark in your Week 15 column. An action flick
starring JJ Watt has to be called Mega Watt. Seriously, ESPN pays you
for this?
—RK, Washington DC
BS: I didn’t miss the mark! Hollywood never comes up with the right
title for an action movie; it’s always 30 percent off and it never
totally achieves its potential. Mega Watt was the obvious pick. But Hollywood would have screwed it up and gone with Power Wattage. Here, I’ll let Scott Rudin and Amy Pascal explain in this recently hacked email exchange.
After reading this fake exchange between Rudin and Pascal, I can't imagine why Bill Simmons didn't stick around on Jimmy Kimmel's show as one of his writers. I mean, this is just some hilarious shit.
RUDIN: Did you read the Simmons column? I liked his idea for the J.J. Watt action movie.
PASCAL: I don’t know who Simmons is. Gene Simmons?
RUDIN: Bill Simmons? You’re seriously a studio executive and you don’t read Grantland?
The "seriously" should be behind the word "you" not "You're" me thinks.
Yes, the guy whose grammar and sentence structure is a partial birth abortion of the English language just corrected someone's grammar and sentence structure. Let's not focus on my issues, but instead on Bill's mistakes.
PASCAL: Don’t talk to me that way!
RUDIN: Next time you send me an email with an exclamation point, I will ram it down your throat.
PASCAL: Don’t you fucking threaten me!
RUDIN: You are the dumbest person in Hollywood! YOU COULDN’T MAKE A CUP OF COFFEE!!!
PASCAL: Why r u punishing me?
Are you entertained by this? Great. That's the sum total of Bill's little skit. I'm still waiting for the punchline. Of course, knowing Bill this whole skit is probably just some inside Hollywood talk that is intended for him and about 10 other people who read his columns. Bill would swing his dick around like that and make an inside joke in his column read by thousands, when only 10 people would get the joke. I can't imagine why he's still not writing punchlines for Kimmel.
Q: A useful tiebreaker for an MVP vote with no runaway candidate: who would we want to get the inevitable invitation to host SNL after the season?
Two things:
1. This is a dumb idea. Or as Bill would write it, this is "legitimately" a dumb idea. Which of course means that Bill is going to love this idea.
2. The "inevitable" invitation to host "SNL"? Here is a list of NFL MVP's. How many have hosted "SNL" again? There is Eli and Peyton and then...ummm...there is Tom Brady. So yeah, "it's an inevitable invitation" that only a few MVP's have received.
Is there anyone you’d rather see than J.J. Watt or Aaron Rodgers?
Steve Smith. I think he would be fun. Rob Gronkowski.
BS: I love this wrinkle.
Of course you do. It's an idea where a sports award will be chosen based on that player's ability to be a part of pop culture. It's a mix of everything ridiculous and inane about Bill's ideas.
Every year, the NFL MVP has to be a REALISTIC choice to host SNL right after the Super Bowl. (That means we’re down to a three-team race: Watt, Rodgers and Gronk.)
I guess Tom Brady isn't in the MVP race then. After all, he has already hosted "SNL" so he wouldn't be a logical choice.
BILLS (+6) over Packers
It’s too much of an Aaron Rodgers love-fest right now. Even Grantland’s
Robert Mays, a die-hard Bears fan, did everything short of reenacting
Scotty J.’s “Can I kiss you on the mouth?” scene from Boogie Nights when he discussed Rodgers in the office yesterday.
Oh, a "Boogie Nights" reference...
Isn’t he due to get banged around by an excellent defense in cold
weather for four quarters, get sacked a few times, throw a tipped pick
or two, maybe even fumble a shotgun snap?
Bill nailed this pick. While remembering he nailed this one, keep in mind that both of his upset specials didn't end up working out and he was .500 for the year when writing this column.
RAVENS (-14) over Jaguars
Q: Based on your criteria for LVU (“Least Valuable Unit”),
shouldn’t 2014’s winner be the Ravens secondary? Keep in mind they’re
solid front 7 — how good would this team be with an average secondary,
especially at the end of games? If not for their secondary, they’d be
sitting at 9-3, leading the division and fighting for a bye. Instead
they’re fighting to make the playoffs.
—Sam, Boulder
You mean the Ravens secondary that just put it's 5th DB on Injured Reserve this season? That LVU? How would the Broncos do if they had lost five DB's this season? How would any NFL team do if they had lost so many members of the secondary? So let's worry more about getting informed and worry less about writing "if not for their secondary..." in an effort to get in Bill's mailbag and justify your existence by writing about LVU's.
BS: I’m still backing Kansas City’s receivers. When you’re running
four-yard outs in a one-minute drill situation down by three in a
must-win game, you know your receivers are an out-and-out travesty.
Besides, Baltimore’s secondary might not come back to haunt the Ravens
until Round 2! They finish the season with Blake Bortles, Ryan
Fitzpatrick and Johnny Manziel — none of those guys is torching them. If
they win the AFC North, they’re hosting a no. 5 seed or a no. 6 seed in
Round 1 — that’s either Phil Rivers (trouble),
Really? No mention of the injuries to the Ravens' secondary? I think this merits a huge mention, but whatever. It's not like Bill should write a weekly NFL picks column and actually be informed about the games he is picking. Also, it's not "Phil Rivers." That's just dumb sounding.
Q: Jim Nantz just previewed next week’s Thursday night game
between the Jags and Titans and Phil Simms responded with “I’m really
looking forward to it.” No laughter, he seemed dead serious.
—Mike, Santa Monica
BS: That’s reason no. 547 why CBS needs to demote Simms next spring and
replace him with Rex Ryan. Sports fans should be allowed to vote every
year on secretly important things like “Who’s our no. 1 NFL color
analyst for the three major networks?” If that CBS vote were “Rex or
Simms,” I think Rex carries 96.7 percent of the vote. But major networks
and local cable networks are abjectly terrified of ever demoting a lead
play-by-play or color announcer.
Part of the reason networks don't do this is because of silly little things like contracts and the fact the public is fickle and would just vote out whatever announcer they just voted for the previous year. Phil Simms gets paid like the #1 color analyst for CBS. If Rex Ryan is promoted to that spot then he is going to want to be paid like the #1 color analyst for CBS. These guys don't work on year-to-year contracts, so at some point CBS would be paying 2-3 guys to be the #1 color analyst for them. That's one reason they don't do this. I would think that someone who has worked in television could understand this.
CHARGERS (+4.5) over Broncos
According to Mike Sando,
only Brian Hoyer (nine) and Andy Dalton (nine) have thrown more picks
than Peyton Manning (eight) since Week 9. Also, this feels like a cross
between a Kitchen Sink Game and a Phil Rivers Doing Phil Rivers Stuff
Game for the Chargers
What's with the "Phil Rivers" thing?
… and if you’re the Broncos, do you REALLY need
this game? Aren’t they locked into a no. 2 seed?
Yes, because if there is anything that the public knows about Peyton Manning it's that he will intentionally not try hard to win a football game because he already has the no. 2 seed locked up in the AFC. Besides the fact that Bill's prediction ended up being wrong, does Bill really think the Broncos would just not try to win this game?
Q: You made a “Worst coach to appear in the Superbowl” list
without Jim Caldwell? I am giving you the Jim Caldwell/Art Shell look
right now.
—Ryan Jacobs, Nashville
BS: I had to cross him off because he’s nine games over .500 for his career (35-26). Believe me … it hurt.
You can still put him on the list if you would like. Don't let his career record stop you from doing this.
Q: I can’t believe you ran a mailbag answer looking at the worst
coaches to make a Super Bowl and didn’t mention Jim Caldwell. People
legitimately wondered if the Colts had installed a mannequin on the
sidelines.
One of the annoying trends that I blame Bill Simmons for is the use of "legitimate" in situations where it is not at all required. Of course, Bill's lemming readers start doing this as well. People didn't just "wonder" if the Colts installed a mannequin on the sidelines (how do you install a mannequin? Can't you just place a mannequin on the sidelines with no installation necessary?), they "legitimately wondered" if the Colts installed a mannequin. If you know the difference, then you are a much smarter person than me.
BS: Looks like the perfect time to break out Week 15’s Shakey’s Pizza Watch:...RG3 unexpectedly turning into the MGMT of football (great debut album, and then the wheels came off);
This is a forced reference, and much like a joke that needs to be explained, if Bill has to explain the reference then it's not a good reference. The point of saying RG3 is "the MGMT of football" is to avoid saying "RG3 had a great debut but then the wheels came off." Naturally, Bill uses the reference and then explains it. It's legitimately counterproductive to use the reference and then explain it, as well as legitimately ruins the purpose of using the reference in the first place.
Goodell’s now-documented performance during the Rice appeal hearing; the
fact that we have to carefully write headlines like “Transcript shows
inconsistencies in Goodell’s testimony on Rice matter.”
When Bill leaves ESPN, the first thing he publishes is his column about Roger Goodell. I know it's written already, he just has to publish it.
SEAHAWKS (-10) over 49ers
They can’t make that Seahawks line high enough. Kaepernick is a broken man — even Mischa Barton didn’t flame out this fast.
See? While this is a Mischa Barton reference, it's a reference that doesn't require an explanation. This is legitimately how it is supposed to work when making a reference.
Q: What would be more fun: Harbaugh going to Oakland, making a
beast out of Carr (who’s been really promising) and taking the Raiders
to the playoffs? Or him going to the Jets, drafting Mariota and laying
waste to the AFC East?
—Ibrahim, João Pessoa, Brazil
Harbaugh isn't laying waste to the AFC East with Brady and Belichick still alive and working for the Patriots.
BS: What about Harbaugh going to Michigan just a few weeks after there
was so much action on a “Harbaugh goes to Michigan bet” that a gambling
site actually had to PULL THAT BET?
They pulled the bet not just because there was so much action on Harbaugh going to Michigan, but because they were afraid someone had insider information and was making that bet. So it was as much about insider information as it was about Harbaugh going to Michigan being a real thing that could happen.
Saints (-3) over BEARS
Q: You mentioned Bill Simmons Road in your last column, which
made me giggle uncontrollably in the middle of class, leading my
professor to stare awkwardly as I played it off.
You are a very sad person if this is true. How did you play giggling uncontrollably in the middle of the class off?
"Oh no professor, I wasn't laughing at you, but I have daddy issues and I need a 40+ year old man to be my role model in life so I read Bill Simmons' column every week in the hopes that one day he will answer one of my emails and justify my existence. I was just laughing at something he wrote because he's the cool dad that I have always wanted to have in my life."
As a longtime resident of Colleyville, TX I can honestly say
that Bill Simmons Road gets little traffic. It’s one of the few roads in
town where there are no streetlights and houses are spread far apart,
which made it an incredibly convenient place to get down with girls in
the backseat of my car when I was in high school.
If you laugh uncontrollably in the middle of the class at something Bill Simmons has written then the odds of you getting down in the backseat of a car in any form other than dancing with a girl who has you in the friend zone in the back of a pickup truck are not high. Not trying to be rude, just a little realistic. Plus, given that I'm not sure Bill's reader questions come from real people, I'm guessing Timothy from Colleyville isn't a real person. I've just been mean to a figment of Bill's imagination.
In fact, many a sexscapade was had on Bill Simmons road by my
friends, classmates, and other town residents. Congratulations on
sharing that legacy. Come visit Bill Simmons Road sometime, although I
suggest seeing it during the daytime in order to avoid seeing more than
you bargained for.
–Timmy J., Colleyville
I shouldn't be mean to someone I don't know. I just feel pity. It's odd to hear a grown person idolize a middle-aged sportswriter as much as some of Bill's lemmings idolize him. Why write in to Bill and talk about this? Other than to be in his mailbag of course.
BS: Good Lord, we’re in range.
Bill has been using the same joke at the end of every mailbag (which means lately it's been at the end of everything Bill writes) for the last 15 years now and in no way is that pathetic.
Q: Just wanted to let you know that every Tuesday and Thursday
evening of my junior year in high school I would drive my car to the top
of the hill on Bill Simmons Road and get some action from my
girlfriend.
Okay, slugger. It sounds great to brag about it in an email to a middle-aged man.
(Again, I doubt this guy exists, so I'm being snarky to a figment of Bill's imagination)
I hope for her sake her Dad doesn’t read this column, not like I give a damn though.
—Tanner, Colleyville
Right, because you are a rebel like that. You don't care if her dad reads this column because what's he going to you? You'd be all like, "'Sup bro? You got something you wanna say to me? I 'got action' from your daughter and won't apologize for it. Come get some of me old man who is probably the same age as the guy I just wrote to bragging about getting some action from your daughter."
BS: Yup, these are my readers.
Yes. They are your readers. You make each other look bad sometimes...if they even exist.
Showing posts with label being lazy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label being lazy. Show all posts
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Monday, December 16, 2013
5 comments Bill Simmons Does a Thanksgiving Mailbag So Everyone Knows How Thankful His Readers Are That He Exists
Bill Simmons has finally provided his readers with a new mailbag and he did it just in time for Thanksgiving. Perhaps the holidays have Bill down and he needs a mailbag full of his readers telling him just how damn smart and creative he is to make him feel better. Mailbags are a writing crutch of sorts for Bill. He knows he gets plenty of email from his lemming readers and he can use mailbags to as his column for the week, as a source of stealing new ideas from his readers and a way to pretend EVERYONE wants a mailbag from him. I feel like most of Bill's mailbags start off with him running an email from a reader who really, really, really wants Bill to do a mailbag and then Bill relents in giving the readers a mailbag while being all like "If that's what the readers want so badly because I am so popular, then I can provide it." Of course now that I have said that, Bill doesn't start this mailbag out this way, but it's still chock full of his readers trying to write like they are him and worshiping him as much as possible. Mailbags do Bill's ego good.
Oh, and not that Bill is out of ideas for columns, but put up a mailbag two weeks prior to posting this one. I wish Bill would just stop writing if he's going to half-ass what little he does write.
Can I interest you in a Thanksgiving trip to Dr. Simbeau's Island?
Bill has given himself a nickname for the bad picks he makes. If you don't know why Bill calls himself Dr. Simbeau, then trust me, you are better off not knowing.
Before we feast on a 25-pound turkey that was bred with a deer, let's bang out Week 13 picks and some of your emails.
Always with the "us" and "we" stuff. Bill seems to use the plural form more and more of late.
For a holiday special, we're answering a whopping 49 emails this week, so we're going to be moving quickly.
EVERYONE LOOK AT HOW MANY EMAILS I GET AND HOW MANY I ANSWER IN A WEEK! BOY AM I TIRED FROM ANSWERING ALL THESE EMAILS!
And "we're" going to be answering a whopping 49 emails? Who is "we"? Is there someone guest-writing this mailbag for Bill or is he just now using the plural form to write about himself? Does he have a squirrel in his pocket that helps him answer the emails?
As always, these are actual emails from actual readers.
Which, as always, is a little sad upon reading the hero worship these actual readers have for Bill.
Packers (+6.5) over LIONS
Q: If the Giants are the All-Time "Nobody believes in us" team, then are the Lions the All-Time "everyone believes in us" team? The moment people think or say their good, they lose.
—Crocker J., Fort Collins
Dear Crocker,
No. Just no.
That is all,
Bengoodfella
SG: Very true.
Extraordinarily true. Everyone believes this is true.
I can't lay a TD against a Packers team playing for its whole season, even with the words "Mike McCarthy," "Matt Flynn" and "super-short rest" involved. How 'bout the Packers? They just lost their best player for a solid month, they didn't win a single game, their coach made history with the first-ever OT screw-up under the new rules that confounded/angered/antagonized the advanced-metrics guys, and they're somehow hanging around in the NFC North.
What an amazing feat this is. It's almost like another NFC North team lost their starting quarterback for a good portion of the season and the other two teams in the division are the Lions and the Vikings.
Couldn't you see them eking this one out, followed by Packers fans hopping online on Black Friday looking for deals on "FLYNN LIVES" and "FLYNN KNOWS" T-shirts?
No, I can't see this. I can see Bill shoehorning a pop culture reference into every answer from his mailbag though.
Q: Liked your Megatron article. As a Cowboys fan, I did not even hate him while putting up record yardage on Dallas.
See? Bill was right about Calvin Johnson being universally loved and not hated. This one dude who is a Cowboys fan proves it as true. That's all the proof Bill needs that he is 100% correct no one hates Calvin Johnson.
So who was the last universally beloved NFL player? They seem super rare. I had to go back to Walter Payton. Am I missing anyone else?
—MC Wright, Fort Worth
If MC Wright had read Bill's column on Calvin Johnson then he would know it is Barry Sanders.
SG: By my calculations, only five NFL players achieved a 100 Percent Approval Rating: Megatron, Sweetness, Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers and someone who was eventually banned from the list … that's right, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson.
By Bill's "calculations" he came up with these five players. By "calculations" Bill means "some bullshit I made up just now after five minutes of thinking about it and there isn't really a way to calculate the answer to this question anyway, but I'm going to pretend there is an actual calculation that goes into this in order to make it seem more factual as opposed to this simply being my opinion...which I think my opinion is fact anyway so it doesn't matter I guess."
As for coaches — you'd think John Madden had a 100 percent approval rating as a coach, but people held the Raiders thing against him.
Yes, "PEOPLE" do this. "They" hold this against Madden. If you can't see how Bill's writing has gotten progressively more and more lazy than you either don't want to see or are illiterate. He consistently falls back on a writing style that uses words like "we" and "people" to prove his points as being correct. It's remarkably lazy, yet he gets away with it. It's frustrating to read because Bill is making shit up as he writes and then hopes it all makes sense as he edits his columns. He's like the writers of "Lost" where he throws a bunch of shit together that doesn't make sense if you take the time to think about it. "You'd" think Madden had a 100% approval rating but "people" held the Raiders "thing" against him. A sentence like this written with such vagueness and lack of empirical evidence the sentence is true is purely the product of lazy writing.
You know which coach may have gotten there? Dick Vermeil. Who didn't enjoy Dick Vermeil breaking down like it was the last 10 minutes of Brian's Song in the locker room after every win? Poor Dick missed out on the YouTube era — he would have been the Justin Bieber of football coaches.
This is another lazy writing tool that Bill overuses. The YouTube clip. Bill's mailbags have a general format they follow when he answers a question.
1. Response to the question.
2. Elaboration from Bill on the topic.
3. Useless bullshit Bill makes up about the topic.
4. Pop culture reference.
5. YouTube video.
6. Bill checks to make sure the response is long enough to make it look like he's done a ton of work in answering the question and then moves on to the next question.
Q: In your Calvin Johnson piece you stated that only 5 non-QB players ever felt like their game had no ceiling, and yet you didn't mention Randy Moss. Seriously??? YOU (like me) WATCHED HIM FOR THREE YEARS WITH THE PATRIOTS AND SAW HOW EFFING GOOD HE COULD BE.
This SimmonsClone is attempting to write exactly like Bill does right down to the use of the word "Effing" in all caps. Get your own writing style.
I'd love to hear your defense for omitting the greatness that is Randy Moss from that list because as of right now, I'm 100% baffled. I thought I liked you Simmons, I really did.
—Charlotte, NC
SG: I blew it. Just forgot to throw him in there.
Bill didn't not include Moss intentionally, he just forgot to include him. So Bill is as smart as you Charlotte, NC (or is it Charlotte from NC?), but he just forgot to include Moss. He wasn't wrong, let's be clear about that. You don't believe Bill was wrong do you? He wasn't, he just forgot to include Moss.
(Bill inserts a YouTube clip of Randy Moss catching the greatest pass ever caught in an NFL game)
Without stopping. When this specific moment happened (in Week 1), I remember thinking, Oh my god, Randy Moss might catch 40 touchdowns this season.
And Bill was exactly almost right. Who would have thought Bill would relay a story about something he thought six years ago that ended up with him being right? What a shock.
(He ended up with 23. Still a record.) I remember calling my dad right after the catch — my dad answered the phone cackling like Vince McMahon. Afterward, I wrote that "the ceiling has been removed for the 2007 Patriots." So … yeah. I think that moment qualifies.
Wait, that moment qualifies? I thought the discussion was about five players who Bill felt like their game had no ceiling? Now Bill is talking about moments that made Bill think these players' game had no ceiling. So is he talking about players who continuously make great plays that makes Bill think their game has no ceiling or is he talking about moments that made Bill think a player's game had no ceiling? There is a difference.
Q: A full column dedicated to the brilliance of Megatron … immediately followed by Calvin coughing up the football to lose the Tampa game. You not only sprayed Calvin with your stink, you wiped with his jersey afterward. Feel free to walk into oncoming traffic, Simmons. You have no idea what it's like to be a Lions fan. Imagine being stuck with the '90 Pats for your entire adult life … that's what it's like being a Lions fan. Every time you bitch about how your poor Patriots got screwed, or how bad your receivers are, I want you to know the Lions have made it to the NFC championship game ONCE and NEVER played in a Super Bowl. God may hate Cleveland, but he flat out ignores the Lions.
—Tad Dixon, Portage, MI
I'm torn between telling Tad to stop whining and laughing because Tad has pointed out Bill's incessant whining about the Patriots team that has been incredibly successful over the last 13 seasons.
By the way, Bill ignores the second part of his semi-question and focuses on whether he is a jinx or not. This is how Bill thinks. It all comes back to him and whether he is a jinx or not. The correct answer to nearly every question is to make the answer about Bill.
Q: If Derrick Rose turns out to be the second coming of Penny Hardaway after this injury, then I'm completely devastated already. By the way you picked the Bulls to win the title — YOU F--KING JINXED US SIMMONS!!!!!!!!
—Taylor, St. Louis
SG: Dammit. Forgot about that one.
It's all about Bill. Bill claims to not have powers that can jinx, but the proof shows otherwise.
SG: Why do I have a feeling that, three years from now, I'll be suing someone who made a smash-hit horror film about a sports columnist loosely based on me (Will Bimmons? Simon Williams?) who begrudgingly realizes that he's a cross between the SI Curse and the Madden Jinx, then starts using his powers for evil?
Why do I have a feeling Bill is trying to be passive-aggressive in getting one of his devoted SimmonsClones to write this film and present it to Bill in the next mailbag in order to soothe and massage Bill's ego? Bill has to be the most egotistical writer I've ever read and that means a lot considering I have read quite a few Jason Whitlock columns. Bill is great, and don't you forget it or try to forget it, because he will remind you of how well-regarded he is. Just ask Jimmy Kimmel or Mike Lombardi, they will tell you.
I feel like the increase in Bill's ego has coincided with his transition from him starting out as "Guy who writes about sports like he is a voice of the fan while mixing in pop culture references" to "Sports personality who writes about sports tangentially to pop culture topics while believing he is the sole voice of the fan." At some point, Bill has become a voice of the fan to believing he is the voice of the fan.
Q: So what's the over/under on Prince Fielder–Texas BBQ jokes that we can expect from you in the next four months? My guess would be somewhere over the number of Khloe Kardashian BBQ jokes but under the Andy Reid Kansas City/rib jokes that you have used.
—Bryce, Atlanta
SG: I can't make fun of Prince after what he did for my beloved Red Sox in the 2013 ALCS.
I get the feeling Bill didn't watch the Red Sox until August of this year. I don't know this for a fact, but Bill tends to write about sports he watches (see: his few columns on hockey once he---I mean Grantland---got season tickets to LA Kings games) and he didn't post anything about the Red Sox until August. So I'm not sure they are as "beloved" to him as they used to be.
Then Bill answers two more questions while posting YouTube videos of hard hits that took place on the football field. Bill really does have a formula when answering his mailbag questions and lately he has incorporated a lot of YouTube videos into this formula.
Q: From ESPN: "Flacco didn't hide his dislike of the Wildcat when he lined up at wide receiver. He was so disinterested that he kept his hands in his front pouch and barely moved off the line after the ball was snapped." Now. Substitute "Dez Bryant" for "Joe Flacco." Watch the sportswriters salivate.
—Scraps, Seattle
SG: I've always said this about Scraps — he speaks the truth. My newest B.S. Report character, Talking Head Guy, would have been fired up about this email:
I don't listen to the B.S. Report, but it doesn't shock me at all that Bill has a "character" and that character is called "Talking Head Guy." It sounds like the comedy found in this character is on-par with Rob Riggle's comedy on FOX's pregame show. Riggle's comedy act takes place during a brief respite from the talking heads on the pregame show, which means Bill is essentially becoming part of what he mocks when creating this character.
Q: I'm watching Broncos-Chiefs — they just showed Brad Childress in the Kansas City box wearing his K.C. pullover and bad white turtleneck (bar none the worst look in the National Football League).
Oh, I didn't know this was an episode of "Fashion Police." I wonder what the best look in the National Football League (or NFL as it is commonly called) would be?
Then Bill answers another questions and links two more YouTube videos. These YouTube videos take up time and space in Bill's column, both of which are necessary for Bill's readers to be tricked into believing Bill is still producing as much original content as he did prior to the time he became disinterested in writing columns anymore.
Q: Are we all just missing the fact that Peyton's number is 18, or in other words, 6 + 6 + 6? Clearly this is the final piece of proof that is needed to conclusively identify Evil Manning.
—Zoe, Tampa, FL
Weak. Very weak.
SG: We're getting closer and closer to Evil Manning getting his own website. Here's the picture for the masthead.
Will a SimmonsClone just make a website about Evil Manning so it will appease Bill? If Bill wants it done, then the SimmonsClones will get it done. What Bill requests will be done...eventually.
Q: PRINT SOME EMAILS FROM WOMEN!!!!!!!! I mean that without the intention of sounding like a crazed feminist.
—Rachel, New York
SG: Come on, what about the one from Zoe in Tampa? In all seriousness — I'd love more mailbag fodder from female readers. Just know that I never look at the names until after I pick the emails. It's a meritocracy.
And because Bill is a raging sexist he knows that men are just inherently more funny than women, so that's why women don't get their emails printed in Bill's mailbag. Women aren't funny and are only good for references to them dragging men down in films and for pornstar references. It's science. Don't blame Bill.
Still, I'd love to get enough emails to pull off another Fe-mail Bag. We're nearing the 10-year anniversary of the last one (a two-parter!).
10 years ago Bill had enough emails from female readers to do a mailbag and he doesn't seem to have gotten enough emails from women over the last decade to make an all-female mailbag. Not that the most popular writer on Grantland has a target market of college aged white males or anything like that of course.
SG: Here's our Shakey's Pizza Watch for Week 13:...any expectations my wife has for me tomorrow that go beyond "Sure, I'll leave the TV for two and a half minutes to carve the turkey."
Women. Always ruining the fun that men are trying to have. Just go make babies and cook dinner ladies, but then read Bill's column so he can get together 10 years of emails from women into a two-part mailbag in an effort to pretend his work appeals to women in any way.
Q: Two people in our fantasy league made a bet and the loser had to start Aaron Hernandez when they played each other. The loser of the bet paid up and then lost by 0.1 points in Week 12 which knocked him out of our playoffs! Aaron Hernandez — killing fantasy seasons from behind bars!!!
—Sean, Astoria
Hey bro, that was a great bet. You wouldn't think wasting a roster spot on Aaron Hernandez could in any way negatively affects someone fantasy team. Great job, bro.
Oh, and I'm calling complete bullshit on the loser losing by 0.1. It makes a great story, but I also tend to not believe in coincidences and for the loser to lose by 0.1 sounds like a lie.
Q: If the playoffs started today, Bernard Karmell Pollard's Titans would play the Patriots in the first round! He's coming for you. Hide your kids, hide your wives …
—Eric Bigness, Nashville
SG: Now I'm depressed. Let's just move on.
This Bernard Karmell Pollard joke got old a few years ago. But hey, the SimmonsClones still seem to enjoy it and I guess any group of people that don't mind reading the same joke over and over again will think the "Bernard Karmell Pollard" joke is still really creative. It's just a recycled joke, which shouldn't shock me since a lot of what Bill writes feels recycled to me.
Q: Where does the Browns first round of 2012 rank in the all-time worst drafts in NFL History?
—Sean M, Columbus OH
SG: I can't imagine anyone beating it.
You don't have to imagine it because I think it happened. The Colts had the #1 and #2 overall picks in 1992 and came away with Steve Emtman and Quentin Coryatt. That has to be worse than drafting Brandon Weedon and Trent Richardson. I know Emtman had injury issues and Coryatt never lived up to expectations but was solid overall, but having the #1 and #2 picks in the draft and coming up with these two players? Come on, that's worse than the Browns drafting Weedon and Richardson.
Right now, third overall pick Trent Richardson is averaging 2.9 yards per carry (44th out of 47 RBs) and inspiring jokes like, "Should we stop calling him Trent 3.0 if he can't get to 3.0?" and "If this were Pop Warner, the coach would have moved Trent to left guard by now." And 22nd pick Brandon Weeden is 33rd out of 34 QBs in QB rating (66.0), 36th out of 38 in QBR (23.9) and 40th of 41 in DVOA (-40.7)
This certainly isn't a great draft, but I think any team that has the #1 and #2 picks (even in a fairly weak draft) has to come away with at least one Pro Bowler from those picks.
Q: So yesterday, my two-week old son is getting circumcised and I'm in the room trying to remain calm. The doctor is giving us a non-requested play-by-play of what's happening, and as the clamp goes on, I'm still hanging in there. Then, I start imagining things the doctor say that would freak me out. It starts with a soft "Oh no …", then I imagine a loud shriek from my son. Then, for some reason, I imagine the doctor saying "And here comes Brandon Weeden …"
—Joe, Cleveland
It appears that Joe from Cleveland is desperately trying to be a sitcom character. He wants the role of the football-obsessed husband who thinks of inappropriate things at inappropriate times in voiceover. What kind of person would imagine the doctor saying things that would freak you out? Don't be a tool and pretend you think these things so you can email Bill in a desperate attempt for his attention.
(Fine, you caught me — I made this pick with my heart and not my head. I want no part of Pollard in Round 1. None. It's too realistic right now. COME ON, ANDREW THE GIANT! TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS THIS SUNDAY!)
So why are we calling him "Andrew the Giant" again? That's the best that can be done?
Bears (-1) over VIKINGS
Q: I think people are forgetting that Josh McCown is 34 YEARS OLD!!! He was actually the starter for the Cardinals in 2004(!) for 13 games. Here are a few other things that happened on the Cardinals in 2004: Larry Fitzgerald was a rookie, Emmitt Smith ran for almost 1000 yards, and Dennis Green was still the coach. THATS how old Josh McCown is. Even the Vikings wouldn't sign him to a long term deal right now … (thinking) … okay maybe the Vikings would. But nobody else.
—Danny Pelisek, Pasadena
SG: I gotta say, I did a quadruple-take when I read this email.
A quadruple-take nonetheless. Not entirely sure how one does a quadruple-take while reading something, but I'm sure Bill isn't exaggerating.
Josh McCown has been around for so long that I never realized he was THAT Josh McCown.
Which other Josh McCown would he have been? 34 years old isn't really that old and 2004 wasn't that long ago really. I think it is odd that Bill didn't know he was THAT Josh McCown since I'm not sure what other Josh McCown he would be.
Q: I have a new idea to make the NFL 8% more interesting.
I can already tell you are an insufferable person.
I really enjoyed the weather-delayed Chicago-Baltimore game (in Week 11). It's kind of fun to have a game still in the 1st half at 1:40pm MST. Why couldn't we stagger the start times of the games all day long? I want to add this to the already wildly popular idea of having a 6:30pm MST (NBC game), and having a west coast game starting at 8pm MST (like the Raiders game from a few weeks back). Football all day!!!
—Dean Dominguez, Albuquerque, NM
Games can't be staggered because the networks wouldn't like this. FOX doesn't want to run a pregame show until 11:00am MST and then waste 40 minutes of programming in a certain market (potentially losing the football audience) to show a game at 11:40pm MST. Not every market gets every football game so the Denver market would get two AFC games (the Broncos game and another game) and the NFC game on a certain Sunday. Well, if the two AFC games start at 1:40 MST and 4:00 MST then there would be an overlap in what AFC games are being shown. Throw in the NFC game on FOX that could start at 2:00 MST and now the Denver market is looking at three football games all starting within two hours of each other. FOX and CBS would not like this. Plus, the Sunday Night Football game on NBC starts at 6:25 MST which means NBC won't have a captive football-loving audience to view the game since there are likely games that would still be ongoing when the Sunday Night Football game on NBC begins. Staggering the games sounds like a good idea but probably wouldn't work as it pertains to the schedule and contracts set up with NBC, CBS and FOX. Potentially the games could be staggered through the day to avoid overlapping with Sunday Night Football, but the networks still run the risk of losing their audience from the pregame show. It's just not a feasible idea since not every market can get every NFL game. Of course, Bill loves this idea and decides to improve on the idea since no reader can ever come up with an original idea that Bill doesn't try to top.
SG: Or at the very least, just have the random 2 p.m. ET start time for one of them (just to keep that 5-5:30 stretch lively before the Sunday-night game),
I'm confused. Why is there is a dead period from 5-5:30 when using Eastern Standard Time? Usually there is a football game that goes until 7:20pm EST and then a dead period for an hour. Is Bill talking about halftime from 5-5:30? Again, Bill doesn't seem to realize not every market gets every NFL game so the odds the 2pm EST would be shown in every market in the United States is incredibly low.
followed by the late-night straggler in Oakland, San Diego or San Francisco that starts at 8 p.m. PT. There's no reason we can't watch 13 straight hours of football on Sunday without any break whatsoever.
So any time the Raiders, Chargers and 49ers play the game will be at 8pm PT or any time these teams play at HOME the game will be at 8pm PT? Because I can guarantee you most people don't want to attend a game on the East Coast that starts at 11pm ET simply because the game involves Oakland, San Diego or San Francisco. I don't see the problem with the current schedule and many markets may not even get the 8pm PT game anyway if that's not the game being shown in their area. And I'm pretty sure the networks wouldn't want to make every Raiders, Chargers or 49ers game a nationally televised game. I just think this is a bad idea.
Q: Here's the solution for Minnesota's QB problem: Sign Tim Tebow, then keep all four quarterbacks on the active roster (Tebow, Ponder, Freeman and Cassel). Each week, have Vikings fans vote to determine who starts, who plays the second quarter, who leads the charge after half time, and who finishes up the game in the all important fourth quarter.
It's "Bad Idea Day" in Bill's mailbag. I can't imagine what could go wrong with making a mockery of choosing a starting quarterback and taking the ability to choose the quarterback out of the hands of the head coach. Also, I would imagine Vikings players wouldn't be too keen on possibly changing quarterbacks in the middle of the game four times. But yeah, if life was a video game then this is a great idea. Actually, I take that back. Even on a video game this is a stupid idea.
Imagine the fantastic entertainment! When are they going to name me Commissioner of the NFL? Or at least General Manager of the Vikings?
—John Farrell, St. Paul
Yes, you are very impressed with your ability to turn the Vikings quarterback issues into a cheap game where the idiot fans get to choose who will quarterback the team.
SG: What a year for John Farrells! First a Red Sox World Series, now this life-altering email. TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-BOWWWWWWWWWWWWW! My votes: Cassel, Freeman, Ponder, then Tebow closing out the fourth. There's still time to pull off this plan! It's only Week 13!!!! Don't the Vikings need to distract their fans from another depressing December?
And of course the best way to distract Vikings fans from another depressing December (the Vikings made the playoffs last year by the way, which is a little fact Bill has apparently forgotten..."The Sports Guy" everyone!...in fact, the Vikings have made the playoffs three out of the last six seasons. So I guess "another" depressing December is a relative term) is to remind Vikings fans the quarterback situation is very depressing as well. I'm not sure it will be a big pick-me-up for the Vikings to make a shit show out of the quarterbacking situation.
Tampa will definitely finish with more than three wins. Same for Washington, a team that doesn't have its first-round pick and has the Shanahans trying to save their jobs (so they might keep playing hard).
Or as it turned out, they might not keep playing hard.
My advice to the Vikings: Make sure you blow Sunday's Bears game by having Christian Ponder throw 50-plus times in lieu of Peterson carving up Chicago's putrid run defense, and then it's smooth sailing (at Baltimore, home for Philly, at Cincy and home for Detroit). A 2-13-1 record awaits. That's enough for the no. 1 or no. 2 pick. You can do this.
(And remember … you still have one of the best tanking assets in football right now: the one, the only, Mr. Leslie Frazier! Here, look.)
One of Bill's readers also thinks Leslie Frazier is terrible so this absolutely means it is true. Bill doesn't need the reality of Frazier's record when he has his opinion and the opinion of others that agree with him to serve as empirical evidence that Frazier is a terrible head coach.
Q: While watching a Minnesota Vikings game with my friend, he said "Who is that 'walker' coaching the Vikings?" He was of course referring to the lifeless demeanor of Leslie Frazier. You've had some great Walking Dead cameo ideas, and here is another one for you: CELEBRITIES CAMEO AS WALKERS.
Hines Ward has already appeared on the show. But great idea that is emphasized as a great idea by using all-caps. Putting something in all-caps immediately makes it a better idea.
Imagine this: Rick decides he needs some time alone to clear his thoughts. He takes one of the cars and goes for a little drive. He ends up on a bridge over a river. While sitting on the hood of his car, a walker comes stumbling across the bridge. He's still wearing the remains of khakis and a purple jacket. Oh, and he still has on his headset!
—Spencer Kraker, Seattle
A joke that only 25% of the "Walking Dead" audience would get? Why not do that? A television show about the zombie apocalypse is the perfect forum to make jokes about the ineptitude of an NFL head coach. I always wonder who still finds Bill to be funny and creative, then I read his mailbags and I realize these are the people who worship Bill and it all starts to make more sense.
Q: Cardinals fans are taking to calling Andre Ellington "Juke" Ellington due to his elusive running style. We need a figurehead to really get his nickname up and running.
—Rob L, Whitehall, PA
SG: I'm right here! Done! Juke Ellington it is!
See? These mailbags are more about Bill massaging his own ego with how much his readers worship him than they are about anything else. If you want your email published, kiss Bill's ass a little bit by telling him how great he is. He will definitely publish your email at that point. This guy wants a figurehead to get the Juke Ellington name going and Bill likes to be known as a figurehead so he proudly does this. This ego he has...
Q: Relegating your NFL picks to a sidebar (like you did in Week 12) as self punishment misses the whole point. We don't read your picks every week because they're so good. We read them because they SUCK! Now get back in there, and go to it.
—Dan Salvaterra, Roseland, NJ
I don't know how Bill's picks could suck since he introduces so many airtight gambling theories. How could his theories on gambling be so wrong when they are based on facts like Bill's opinion?
I wish the NFL and NBA did a Coach Swap during the first weekend of December. Imagine Casey blowing challenges and timeouts, J-Kidd flatlining on the sidelines, Mike D'Antoni sticking with the run-and-shoot no matter what personnel he had, Mike Brown trying to play 53 guys in one half …
There are eight guys who are inactive, so 53 guys can't play in one game. Maybe Mike Brown doesn't know this. Either way, this is a brilliant idea and it doesn't sound at all like Bill is throwing as many clever ideas at the wall in the hopes one sticks.
Now Bill answers the email of a guy who is complaining about his fantasy team.
SG: I enjoyed that email even if we had to edit 33 percent of it for some line-crossing.
Who the hell is "we" in this situation? Does Bill of a sudden have an editor? Is Bill's use of "we" now extending to what he writes in his columns?
But that trade saved my West Coast season. Now it's do-or-die for me in my West Coast league — me against the random guy who runs Jon Hamm's team because Jon Hamm is too famous and busy to run his own fantasy team. If I win, I'm in the playoffs. If I lose, I'm probably out. According to the CBS Sports fantasy guru, I'm a 2-point underdog right now.
This is Bill's way of saying that he is in a CBS Sports fantasy league where Jon Hamm has a team. More than hearing compliments about himself, Bill loves to name-drop the people he knows that are famous. Jon Hamm is famous and now Bill has found a way to mention it in a mailbag. Big win for Bill.
Hamm's Team (-2) over Simmons's Team
Billy Zima needed to get involved. Take us home, Billy Z.
Has Bill mentioned yet he plays Jon Hamm's team in fantasy football?
SG: If I had my own talk show called SIMMONS that erratically appeared in 19 different time slots on ESPN2 and ESPN News every night, "Penalty and/or Fine?" would definitely be one of my running segments.
Two things:
1. If you think this isn't Bill's way of trying to passive-aggressively get himself a television show on ESPN at some point or plant the idea in the head of an ESPN executive then I would submit you are wrong. If Bill got his own television show then this means he could stop writing columns permanently and would finally become fully entrenched as a sports personality at ESPN who doesn't have to write columns every week.
2. I doubt the NFL would allow ESPN to have a show where the host of the show would call attention to the inconsistency of the officiating in the NFL. ESPN would probably give Bill a kindly worded but firm memo asking him to drop this segment.
That's also one of the biggest reasons I like the Saints in Seattle on Monday night — they're gonna be able to throw the ball, their defense is just good enough to avoid getting blown out, and if that's not enough, you're not allowed to hit Brees unless it's somewhere between his nipples and his hips. (And even that might not be legal.) You shouldn't take an underdog in a big game if it's getting more than four points unless you think it can win … and I think the Saints can win or come damned close.
Sad face for Bill being wrong.
Q: It's not quite on the Jailblazers level of specific sport team nicknames, but is there a better current insult/joke than the Seadderall Seahawks?
Now this is a clever joke. I like this.
This team has been caught breaking the substance abuse policy more times than Lamar Odom.
—Marty Ward, Australia
And now the joke has gotten ruined because the writer wanted to be just like Bill Simmons and drop a pop culture reference into his question.
Q: First there was TAINT (Touchdown After INT). Then there was FART (Fumble And Return Touchdown). And now, I present to you, PUBES: PUnt Blocked, Eventually Scored (or Punt Undertaking Blocked, Eventually Scored, but I'm partial to the first one) .
—Grant, Columbus
SG: Wait, we're already in range?
This whole column has been that range, but some of the Simmonsites are more covert about it in how they phrase their questions than others.
Q: So a friend of mine and I are getting ready to go over to our buddy's house to watch a game and we hear that his wife just got a boob job. What do you do when you get to buddys house?
Watch the game and don't email Bill Simmons to ask for answers to questions like this as if you need some sort of validation from him that you can't get by having this question answered by anyone else. That's what you do.
A — Congratulate buddy on wife's new boobs
B — Congratulate wife on her new boobs
C — Play dumb and ask buddy if his wife changed her haircut or something
D — Ignore the boobs completely
E — Other
—Jason, San Antonio, TX
SG: Yup, these are my readers.
Yes, there are Bill's readers. They require his validation to confirm they are as clever as they believe themselves to be.
Look for another mailbag in the next couple of weeks from Bill. He's fresh out of column ideas and I didn't see any ideas in this mailbag he could stretch into an entire column.
Oh, and not that Bill is out of ideas for columns, but put up a mailbag two weeks prior to posting this one. I wish Bill would just stop writing if he's going to half-ass what little he does write.
Can I interest you in a Thanksgiving trip to Dr. Simbeau's Island?
Bill has given himself a nickname for the bad picks he makes. If you don't know why Bill calls himself Dr. Simbeau, then trust me, you are better off not knowing.
Before we feast on a 25-pound turkey that was bred with a deer, let's bang out Week 13 picks and some of your emails.
Always with the "us" and "we" stuff. Bill seems to use the plural form more and more of late.
For a holiday special, we're answering a whopping 49 emails this week, so we're going to be moving quickly.
EVERYONE LOOK AT HOW MANY EMAILS I GET AND HOW MANY I ANSWER IN A WEEK! BOY AM I TIRED FROM ANSWERING ALL THESE EMAILS!
And "we're" going to be answering a whopping 49 emails? Who is "we"? Is there someone guest-writing this mailbag for Bill or is he just now using the plural form to write about himself? Does he have a squirrel in his pocket that helps him answer the emails?
As always, these are actual emails from actual readers.
Which, as always, is a little sad upon reading the hero worship these actual readers have for Bill.
Packers (+6.5) over LIONS
Q: If the Giants are the All-Time "Nobody believes in us" team, then are the Lions the All-Time "everyone believes in us" team? The moment people think or say their good, they lose.
—Crocker J., Fort Collins
Dear Crocker,
No. Just no.
That is all,
Bengoodfella
SG: Very true.
Extraordinarily true. Everyone believes this is true.
I can't lay a TD against a Packers team playing for its whole season, even with the words "Mike McCarthy," "Matt Flynn" and "super-short rest" involved. How 'bout the Packers? They just lost their best player for a solid month, they didn't win a single game, their coach made history with the first-ever OT screw-up under the new rules that confounded/angered/antagonized the advanced-metrics guys, and they're somehow hanging around in the NFC North.
What an amazing feat this is. It's almost like another NFC North team lost their starting quarterback for a good portion of the season and the other two teams in the division are the Lions and the Vikings.
Couldn't you see them eking this one out, followed by Packers fans hopping online on Black Friday looking for deals on "FLYNN LIVES" and "FLYNN KNOWS" T-shirts?
No, I can't see this. I can see Bill shoehorning a pop culture reference into every answer from his mailbag though.
Q: Liked your Megatron article. As a Cowboys fan, I did not even hate him while putting up record yardage on Dallas.
See? Bill was right about Calvin Johnson being universally loved and not hated. This one dude who is a Cowboys fan proves it as true. That's all the proof Bill needs that he is 100% correct no one hates Calvin Johnson.
So who was the last universally beloved NFL player? They seem super rare. I had to go back to Walter Payton. Am I missing anyone else?
—MC Wright, Fort Worth
If MC Wright had read Bill's column on Calvin Johnson then he would know it is Barry Sanders.
SG: By my calculations, only five NFL players achieved a 100 Percent Approval Rating: Megatron, Sweetness, Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers and someone who was eventually banned from the list … that's right, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson.
By Bill's "calculations" he came up with these five players. By "calculations" Bill means "some bullshit I made up just now after five minutes of thinking about it and there isn't really a way to calculate the answer to this question anyway, but I'm going to pretend there is an actual calculation that goes into this in order to make it seem more factual as opposed to this simply being my opinion...which I think my opinion is fact anyway so it doesn't matter I guess."
As for coaches — you'd think John Madden had a 100 percent approval rating as a coach, but people held the Raiders thing against him.
Yes, "PEOPLE" do this. "They" hold this against Madden. If you can't see how Bill's writing has gotten progressively more and more lazy than you either don't want to see or are illiterate. He consistently falls back on a writing style that uses words like "we" and "people" to prove his points as being correct. It's remarkably lazy, yet he gets away with it. It's frustrating to read because Bill is making shit up as he writes and then hopes it all makes sense as he edits his columns. He's like the writers of "Lost" where he throws a bunch of shit together that doesn't make sense if you take the time to think about it. "You'd" think Madden had a 100% approval rating but "people" held the Raiders "thing" against him. A sentence like this written with such vagueness and lack of empirical evidence the sentence is true is purely the product of lazy writing.
You know which coach may have gotten there? Dick Vermeil. Who didn't enjoy Dick Vermeil breaking down like it was the last 10 minutes of Brian's Song in the locker room after every win? Poor Dick missed out on the YouTube era — he would have been the Justin Bieber of football coaches.
This is another lazy writing tool that Bill overuses. The YouTube clip. Bill's mailbags have a general format they follow when he answers a question.
1. Response to the question.
2. Elaboration from Bill on the topic.
3. Useless bullshit Bill makes up about the topic.
4. Pop culture reference.
5. YouTube video.
6. Bill checks to make sure the response is long enough to make it look like he's done a ton of work in answering the question and then moves on to the next question.
Q: In your Calvin Johnson piece you stated that only 5 non-QB players ever felt like their game had no ceiling, and yet you didn't mention Randy Moss. Seriously??? YOU (like me) WATCHED HIM FOR THREE YEARS WITH THE PATRIOTS AND SAW HOW EFFING GOOD HE COULD BE.
This SimmonsClone is attempting to write exactly like Bill does right down to the use of the word "Effing" in all caps. Get your own writing style.
I'd love to hear your defense for omitting the greatness that is Randy Moss from that list because as of right now, I'm 100% baffled. I thought I liked you Simmons, I really did.
—Charlotte, NC
SG: I blew it. Just forgot to throw him in there.
Bill didn't not include Moss intentionally, he just forgot to include him. So Bill is as smart as you Charlotte, NC (or is it Charlotte from NC?), but he just forgot to include Moss. He wasn't wrong, let's be clear about that. You don't believe Bill was wrong do you? He wasn't, he just forgot to include Moss.
(Bill inserts a YouTube clip of Randy Moss catching the greatest pass ever caught in an NFL game)
Without stopping. When this specific moment happened (in Week 1), I remember thinking, Oh my god, Randy Moss might catch 40 touchdowns this season.
And Bill was exactly almost right. Who would have thought Bill would relay a story about something he thought six years ago that ended up with him being right? What a shock.
(He ended up with 23. Still a record.) I remember calling my dad right after the catch — my dad answered the phone cackling like Vince McMahon. Afterward, I wrote that "the ceiling has been removed for the 2007 Patriots." So … yeah. I think that moment qualifies.
Wait, that moment qualifies? I thought the discussion was about five players who Bill felt like their game had no ceiling? Now Bill is talking about moments that made Bill think these players' game had no ceiling. So is he talking about players who continuously make great plays that makes Bill think their game has no ceiling or is he talking about moments that made Bill think a player's game had no ceiling? There is a difference.
Q: A full column dedicated to the brilliance of Megatron … immediately followed by Calvin coughing up the football to lose the Tampa game. You not only sprayed Calvin with your stink, you wiped with his jersey afterward. Feel free to walk into oncoming traffic, Simmons. You have no idea what it's like to be a Lions fan. Imagine being stuck with the '90 Pats for your entire adult life … that's what it's like being a Lions fan. Every time you bitch about how your poor Patriots got screwed, or how bad your receivers are, I want you to know the Lions have made it to the NFC championship game ONCE and NEVER played in a Super Bowl. God may hate Cleveland, but he flat out ignores the Lions.
—Tad Dixon, Portage, MI
I'm torn between telling Tad to stop whining and laughing because Tad has pointed out Bill's incessant whining about the Patriots team that has been incredibly successful over the last 13 seasons.
By the way, Bill ignores the second part of his semi-question and focuses on whether he is a jinx or not. This is how Bill thinks. It all comes back to him and whether he is a jinx or not. The correct answer to nearly every question is to make the answer about Bill.
Q: If Derrick Rose turns out to be the second coming of Penny Hardaway after this injury, then I'm completely devastated already. By the way you picked the Bulls to win the title — YOU F--KING JINXED US SIMMONS!!!!!!!!
—Taylor, St. Louis
SG: Dammit. Forgot about that one.
It's all about Bill. Bill claims to not have powers that can jinx, but the proof shows otherwise.
SG: Why do I have a feeling that, three years from now, I'll be suing someone who made a smash-hit horror film about a sports columnist loosely based on me (Will Bimmons? Simon Williams?) who begrudgingly realizes that he's a cross between the SI Curse and the Madden Jinx, then starts using his powers for evil?
Why do I have a feeling Bill is trying to be passive-aggressive in getting one of his devoted SimmonsClones to write this film and present it to Bill in the next mailbag in order to soothe and massage Bill's ego? Bill has to be the most egotistical writer I've ever read and that means a lot considering I have read quite a few Jason Whitlock columns. Bill is great, and don't you forget it or try to forget it, because he will remind you of how well-regarded he is. Just ask Jimmy Kimmel or Mike Lombardi, they will tell you.
I feel like the increase in Bill's ego has coincided with his transition from him starting out as "Guy who writes about sports like he is a voice of the fan while mixing in pop culture references" to "Sports personality who writes about sports tangentially to pop culture topics while believing he is the sole voice of the fan." At some point, Bill has become a voice of the fan to believing he is the voice of the fan.
Q: So what's the over/under on Prince Fielder–Texas BBQ jokes that we can expect from you in the next four months? My guess would be somewhere over the number of Khloe Kardashian BBQ jokes but under the Andy Reid Kansas City/rib jokes that you have used.
—Bryce, Atlanta
SG: I can't make fun of Prince after what he did for my beloved Red Sox in the 2013 ALCS.
I get the feeling Bill didn't watch the Red Sox until August of this year. I don't know this for a fact, but Bill tends to write about sports he watches (see: his few columns on hockey once he---I mean Grantland---got season tickets to LA Kings games) and he didn't post anything about the Red Sox until August. So I'm not sure they are as "beloved" to him as they used to be.
Then Bill answers two more questions while posting YouTube videos of hard hits that took place on the football field. Bill really does have a formula when answering his mailbag questions and lately he has incorporated a lot of YouTube videos into this formula.
Q: From ESPN: "Flacco didn't hide his dislike of the Wildcat when he lined up at wide receiver. He was so disinterested that he kept his hands in his front pouch and barely moved off the line after the ball was snapped." Now. Substitute "Dez Bryant" for "Joe Flacco." Watch the sportswriters salivate.
—Scraps, Seattle
SG: I've always said this about Scraps — he speaks the truth. My newest B.S. Report character, Talking Head Guy, would have been fired up about this email:
I don't listen to the B.S. Report, but it doesn't shock me at all that Bill has a "character" and that character is called "Talking Head Guy." It sounds like the comedy found in this character is on-par with Rob Riggle's comedy on FOX's pregame show. Riggle's comedy act takes place during a brief respite from the talking heads on the pregame show, which means Bill is essentially becoming part of what he mocks when creating this character.
Q: I'm watching Broncos-Chiefs — they just showed Brad Childress in the Kansas City box wearing his K.C. pullover and bad white turtleneck (bar none the worst look in the National Football League).
Oh, I didn't know this was an episode of "Fashion Police." I wonder what the best look in the National Football League (or NFL as it is commonly called) would be?
Then Bill answers another questions and links two more YouTube videos. These YouTube videos take up time and space in Bill's column, both of which are necessary for Bill's readers to be tricked into believing Bill is still producing as much original content as he did prior to the time he became disinterested in writing columns anymore.
Q: Are we all just missing the fact that Peyton's number is 18, or in other words, 6 + 6 + 6? Clearly this is the final piece of proof that is needed to conclusively identify Evil Manning.
—Zoe, Tampa, FL
Weak. Very weak.
SG: We're getting closer and closer to Evil Manning getting his own website. Here's the picture for the masthead.
Will a SimmonsClone just make a website about Evil Manning so it will appease Bill? If Bill wants it done, then the SimmonsClones will get it done. What Bill requests will be done...eventually.
Q: PRINT SOME EMAILS FROM WOMEN!!!!!!!! I mean that without the intention of sounding like a crazed feminist.
—Rachel, New York
SG: Come on, what about the one from Zoe in Tampa? In all seriousness — I'd love more mailbag fodder from female readers. Just know that I never look at the names until after I pick the emails. It's a meritocracy.
And because Bill is a raging sexist he knows that men are just inherently more funny than women, so that's why women don't get their emails printed in Bill's mailbag. Women aren't funny and are only good for references to them dragging men down in films and for pornstar references. It's science. Don't blame Bill.
Still, I'd love to get enough emails to pull off another Fe-mail Bag. We're nearing the 10-year anniversary of the last one (a two-parter!).
10 years ago Bill had enough emails from female readers to do a mailbag and he doesn't seem to have gotten enough emails from women over the last decade to make an all-female mailbag. Not that the most popular writer on Grantland has a target market of college aged white males or anything like that of course.
SG: Here's our Shakey's Pizza Watch for Week 13:...any expectations my wife has for me tomorrow that go beyond "Sure, I'll leave the TV for two and a half minutes to carve the turkey."
Women. Always ruining the fun that men are trying to have. Just go make babies and cook dinner ladies, but then read Bill's column so he can get together 10 years of emails from women into a two-part mailbag in an effort to pretend his work appeals to women in any way.
Q: Two people in our fantasy league made a bet and the loser had to start Aaron Hernandez when they played each other. The loser of the bet paid up and then lost by 0.1 points in Week 12 which knocked him out of our playoffs! Aaron Hernandez — killing fantasy seasons from behind bars!!!
—Sean, Astoria
Hey bro, that was a great bet. You wouldn't think wasting a roster spot on Aaron Hernandez could in any way negatively affects someone fantasy team. Great job, bro.
Oh, and I'm calling complete bullshit on the loser losing by 0.1. It makes a great story, but I also tend to not believe in coincidences and for the loser to lose by 0.1 sounds like a lie.
Q: If the playoffs started today, Bernard Karmell Pollard's Titans would play the Patriots in the first round! He's coming for you. Hide your kids, hide your wives …
—Eric Bigness, Nashville
SG: Now I'm depressed. Let's just move on.
This Bernard Karmell Pollard joke got old a few years ago. But hey, the SimmonsClones still seem to enjoy it and I guess any group of people that don't mind reading the same joke over and over again will think the "Bernard Karmell Pollard" joke is still really creative. It's just a recycled joke, which shouldn't shock me since a lot of what Bill writes feels recycled to me.
Q: Where does the Browns first round of 2012 rank in the all-time worst drafts in NFL History?
—Sean M, Columbus OH
SG: I can't imagine anyone beating it.
You don't have to imagine it because I think it happened. The Colts had the #1 and #2 overall picks in 1992 and came away with Steve Emtman and Quentin Coryatt. That has to be worse than drafting Brandon Weedon and Trent Richardson. I know Emtman had injury issues and Coryatt never lived up to expectations but was solid overall, but having the #1 and #2 picks in the draft and coming up with these two players? Come on, that's worse than the Browns drafting Weedon and Richardson.
Right now, third overall pick Trent Richardson is averaging 2.9 yards per carry (44th out of 47 RBs) and inspiring jokes like, "Should we stop calling him Trent 3.0 if he can't get to 3.0?" and "If this were Pop Warner, the coach would have moved Trent to left guard by now." And 22nd pick Brandon Weeden is 33rd out of 34 QBs in QB rating (66.0), 36th out of 38 in QBR (23.9) and 40th of 41 in DVOA (-40.7)
This certainly isn't a great draft, but I think any team that has the #1 and #2 picks (even in a fairly weak draft) has to come away with at least one Pro Bowler from those picks.
Q: So yesterday, my two-week old son is getting circumcised and I'm in the room trying to remain calm. The doctor is giving us a non-requested play-by-play of what's happening, and as the clamp goes on, I'm still hanging in there. Then, I start imagining things the doctor say that would freak me out. It starts with a soft "Oh no …", then I imagine a loud shriek from my son. Then, for some reason, I imagine the doctor saying "And here comes Brandon Weeden …"
—Joe, Cleveland
It appears that Joe from Cleveland is desperately trying to be a sitcom character. He wants the role of the football-obsessed husband who thinks of inappropriate things at inappropriate times in voiceover. What kind of person would imagine the doctor saying things that would freak you out? Don't be a tool and pretend you think these things so you can email Bill in a desperate attempt for his attention.
(Fine, you caught me — I made this pick with my heart and not my head. I want no part of Pollard in Round 1. None. It's too realistic right now. COME ON, ANDREW THE GIANT! TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS THIS SUNDAY!)
So why are we calling him "Andrew the Giant" again? That's the best that can be done?
Bears (-1) over VIKINGS
Q: I think people are forgetting that Josh McCown is 34 YEARS OLD!!! He was actually the starter for the Cardinals in 2004(!) for 13 games. Here are a few other things that happened on the Cardinals in 2004: Larry Fitzgerald was a rookie, Emmitt Smith ran for almost 1000 yards, and Dennis Green was still the coach. THATS how old Josh McCown is. Even the Vikings wouldn't sign him to a long term deal right now … (thinking) … okay maybe the Vikings would. But nobody else.
—Danny Pelisek, Pasadena
SG: I gotta say, I did a quadruple-take when I read this email.
A quadruple-take nonetheless. Not entirely sure how one does a quadruple-take while reading something, but I'm sure Bill isn't exaggerating.
Josh McCown has been around for so long that I never realized he was THAT Josh McCown.
Which other Josh McCown would he have been? 34 years old isn't really that old and 2004 wasn't that long ago really. I think it is odd that Bill didn't know he was THAT Josh McCown since I'm not sure what other Josh McCown he would be.
Q: I have a new idea to make the NFL 8% more interesting.
I can already tell you are an insufferable person.
I really enjoyed the weather-delayed Chicago-Baltimore game (in Week 11). It's kind of fun to have a game still in the 1st half at 1:40pm MST. Why couldn't we stagger the start times of the games all day long? I want to add this to the already wildly popular idea of having a 6:30pm MST (NBC game), and having a west coast game starting at 8pm MST (like the Raiders game from a few weeks back). Football all day!!!
—Dean Dominguez, Albuquerque, NM
Games can't be staggered because the networks wouldn't like this. FOX doesn't want to run a pregame show until 11:00am MST and then waste 40 minutes of programming in a certain market (potentially losing the football audience) to show a game at 11:40pm MST. Not every market gets every football game so the Denver market would get two AFC games (the Broncos game and another game) and the NFC game on a certain Sunday. Well, if the two AFC games start at 1:40 MST and 4:00 MST then there would be an overlap in what AFC games are being shown. Throw in the NFC game on FOX that could start at 2:00 MST and now the Denver market is looking at three football games all starting within two hours of each other. FOX and CBS would not like this. Plus, the Sunday Night Football game on NBC starts at 6:25 MST which means NBC won't have a captive football-loving audience to view the game since there are likely games that would still be ongoing when the Sunday Night Football game on NBC begins. Staggering the games sounds like a good idea but probably wouldn't work as it pertains to the schedule and contracts set up with NBC, CBS and FOX. Potentially the games could be staggered through the day to avoid overlapping with Sunday Night Football, but the networks still run the risk of losing their audience from the pregame show. It's just not a feasible idea since not every market can get every NFL game. Of course, Bill loves this idea and decides to improve on the idea since no reader can ever come up with an original idea that Bill doesn't try to top.
SG: Or at the very least, just have the random 2 p.m. ET start time for one of them (just to keep that 5-5:30 stretch lively before the Sunday-night game),
I'm confused. Why is there is a dead period from 5-5:30 when using Eastern Standard Time? Usually there is a football game that goes until 7:20pm EST and then a dead period for an hour. Is Bill talking about halftime from 5-5:30? Again, Bill doesn't seem to realize not every market gets every NFL game so the odds the 2pm EST would be shown in every market in the United States is incredibly low.
followed by the late-night straggler in Oakland, San Diego or San Francisco that starts at 8 p.m. PT. There's no reason we can't watch 13 straight hours of football on Sunday without any break whatsoever.
So any time the Raiders, Chargers and 49ers play the game will be at 8pm PT or any time these teams play at HOME the game will be at 8pm PT? Because I can guarantee you most people don't want to attend a game on the East Coast that starts at 11pm ET simply because the game involves Oakland, San Diego or San Francisco. I don't see the problem with the current schedule and many markets may not even get the 8pm PT game anyway if that's not the game being shown in their area. And I'm pretty sure the networks wouldn't want to make every Raiders, Chargers or 49ers game a nationally televised game. I just think this is a bad idea.
Q: Here's the solution for Minnesota's QB problem: Sign Tim Tebow, then keep all four quarterbacks on the active roster (Tebow, Ponder, Freeman and Cassel). Each week, have Vikings fans vote to determine who starts, who plays the second quarter, who leads the charge after half time, and who finishes up the game in the all important fourth quarter.
It's "Bad Idea Day" in Bill's mailbag. I can't imagine what could go wrong with making a mockery of choosing a starting quarterback and taking the ability to choose the quarterback out of the hands of the head coach. Also, I would imagine Vikings players wouldn't be too keen on possibly changing quarterbacks in the middle of the game four times. But yeah, if life was a video game then this is a great idea. Actually, I take that back. Even on a video game this is a stupid idea.
Imagine the fantastic entertainment! When are they going to name me Commissioner of the NFL? Or at least General Manager of the Vikings?
—John Farrell, St. Paul
Yes, you are very impressed with your ability to turn the Vikings quarterback issues into a cheap game where the idiot fans get to choose who will quarterback the team.
SG: What a year for John Farrells! First a Red Sox World Series, now this life-altering email. TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-BOWWWWWWWWWWWWW! My votes: Cassel, Freeman, Ponder, then Tebow closing out the fourth. There's still time to pull off this plan! It's only Week 13!!!! Don't the Vikings need to distract their fans from another depressing December?
And of course the best way to distract Vikings fans from another depressing December (the Vikings made the playoffs last year by the way, which is a little fact Bill has apparently forgotten..."The Sports Guy" everyone!...in fact, the Vikings have made the playoffs three out of the last six seasons. So I guess "another" depressing December is a relative term) is to remind Vikings fans the quarterback situation is very depressing as well. I'm not sure it will be a big pick-me-up for the Vikings to make a shit show out of the quarterbacking situation.
Tampa will definitely finish with more than three wins. Same for Washington, a team that doesn't have its first-round pick and has the Shanahans trying to save their jobs (so they might keep playing hard).
Or as it turned out, they might not keep playing hard.
My advice to the Vikings: Make sure you blow Sunday's Bears game by having Christian Ponder throw 50-plus times in lieu of Peterson carving up Chicago's putrid run defense, and then it's smooth sailing (at Baltimore, home for Philly, at Cincy and home for Detroit). A 2-13-1 record awaits. That's enough for the no. 1 or no. 2 pick. You can do this.
(And remember … you still have one of the best tanking assets in football right now: the one, the only, Mr. Leslie Frazier! Here, look.)
One of Bill's readers also thinks Leslie Frazier is terrible so this absolutely means it is true. Bill doesn't need the reality of Frazier's record when he has his opinion and the opinion of others that agree with him to serve as empirical evidence that Frazier is a terrible head coach.
Q: While watching a Minnesota Vikings game with my friend, he said "Who is that 'walker' coaching the Vikings?" He was of course referring to the lifeless demeanor of Leslie Frazier. You've had some great Walking Dead cameo ideas, and here is another one for you: CELEBRITIES CAMEO AS WALKERS.
Hines Ward has already appeared on the show. But great idea that is emphasized as a great idea by using all-caps. Putting something in all-caps immediately makes it a better idea.
Imagine this: Rick decides he needs some time alone to clear his thoughts. He takes one of the cars and goes for a little drive. He ends up on a bridge over a river. While sitting on the hood of his car, a walker comes stumbling across the bridge. He's still wearing the remains of khakis and a purple jacket. Oh, and he still has on his headset!
—Spencer Kraker, Seattle
A joke that only 25% of the "Walking Dead" audience would get? Why not do that? A television show about the zombie apocalypse is the perfect forum to make jokes about the ineptitude of an NFL head coach. I always wonder who still finds Bill to be funny and creative, then I read his mailbags and I realize these are the people who worship Bill and it all starts to make more sense.
Q: Cardinals fans are taking to calling Andre Ellington "Juke" Ellington due to his elusive running style. We need a figurehead to really get his nickname up and running.
—Rob L, Whitehall, PA
SG: I'm right here! Done! Juke Ellington it is!
See? These mailbags are more about Bill massaging his own ego with how much his readers worship him than they are about anything else. If you want your email published, kiss Bill's ass a little bit by telling him how great he is. He will definitely publish your email at that point. This guy wants a figurehead to get the Juke Ellington name going and Bill likes to be known as a figurehead so he proudly does this. This ego he has...
Q: Relegating your NFL picks to a sidebar (like you did in Week 12) as self punishment misses the whole point. We don't read your picks every week because they're so good. We read them because they SUCK! Now get back in there, and go to it.
—Dan Salvaterra, Roseland, NJ
I don't know how Bill's picks could suck since he introduces so many airtight gambling theories. How could his theories on gambling be so wrong when they are based on facts like Bill's opinion?
I wish the NFL and NBA did a Coach Swap during the first weekend of December. Imagine Casey blowing challenges and timeouts, J-Kidd flatlining on the sidelines, Mike D'Antoni sticking with the run-and-shoot no matter what personnel he had, Mike Brown trying to play 53 guys in one half …
There are eight guys who are inactive, so 53 guys can't play in one game. Maybe Mike Brown doesn't know this. Either way, this is a brilliant idea and it doesn't sound at all like Bill is throwing as many clever ideas at the wall in the hopes one sticks.
Now Bill answers the email of a guy who is complaining about his fantasy team.
SG: I enjoyed that email even if we had to edit 33 percent of it for some line-crossing.
Who the hell is "we" in this situation? Does Bill of a sudden have an editor? Is Bill's use of "we" now extending to what he writes in his columns?
But that trade saved my West Coast season. Now it's do-or-die for me in my West Coast league — me against the random guy who runs Jon Hamm's team because Jon Hamm is too famous and busy to run his own fantasy team. If I win, I'm in the playoffs. If I lose, I'm probably out. According to the CBS Sports fantasy guru, I'm a 2-point underdog right now.
This is Bill's way of saying that he is in a CBS Sports fantasy league where Jon Hamm has a team. More than hearing compliments about himself, Bill loves to name-drop the people he knows that are famous. Jon Hamm is famous and now Bill has found a way to mention it in a mailbag. Big win for Bill.
Hamm's Team (-2) over Simmons's Team
Billy Zima needed to get involved. Take us home, Billy Z.
Has Bill mentioned yet he plays Jon Hamm's team in fantasy football?
SG: If I had my own talk show called SIMMONS that erratically appeared in 19 different time slots on ESPN2 and ESPN News every night, "Penalty and/or Fine?" would definitely be one of my running segments.
Two things:
1. If you think this isn't Bill's way of trying to passive-aggressively get himself a television show on ESPN at some point or plant the idea in the head of an ESPN executive then I would submit you are wrong. If Bill got his own television show then this means he could stop writing columns permanently and would finally become fully entrenched as a sports personality at ESPN who doesn't have to write columns every week.
2. I doubt the NFL would allow ESPN to have a show where the host of the show would call attention to the inconsistency of the officiating in the NFL. ESPN would probably give Bill a kindly worded but firm memo asking him to drop this segment.
That's also one of the biggest reasons I like the Saints in Seattle on Monday night — they're gonna be able to throw the ball, their defense is just good enough to avoid getting blown out, and if that's not enough, you're not allowed to hit Brees unless it's somewhere between his nipples and his hips. (And even that might not be legal.) You shouldn't take an underdog in a big game if it's getting more than four points unless you think it can win … and I think the Saints can win or come damned close.
Sad face for Bill being wrong.
Q: It's not quite on the Jailblazers level of specific sport team nicknames, but is there a better current insult/joke than the Seadderall Seahawks?
Now this is a clever joke. I like this.
This team has been caught breaking the substance abuse policy more times than Lamar Odom.
—Marty Ward, Australia
And now the joke has gotten ruined because the writer wanted to be just like Bill Simmons and drop a pop culture reference into his question.
Q: First there was TAINT (Touchdown After INT). Then there was FART (Fumble And Return Touchdown). And now, I present to you, PUBES: PUnt Blocked, Eventually Scored (or Punt Undertaking Blocked, Eventually Scored, but I'm partial to the first one) .
—Grant, Columbus
SG: Wait, we're already in range?
This whole column has been that range, but some of the Simmonsites are more covert about it in how they phrase their questions than others.
Q: So a friend of mine and I are getting ready to go over to our buddy's house to watch a game and we hear that his wife just got a boob job. What do you do when you get to buddys house?
Watch the game and don't email Bill Simmons to ask for answers to questions like this as if you need some sort of validation from him that you can't get by having this question answered by anyone else. That's what you do.
A — Congratulate buddy on wife's new boobs
B — Congratulate wife on her new boobs
C — Play dumb and ask buddy if his wife changed her haircut or something
D — Ignore the boobs completely
E — Other
—Jason, San Antonio, TX
SG: Yup, these are my readers.
Yes, there are Bill's readers. They require his validation to confirm they are as clever as they believe themselves to be.
Look for another mailbag in the next couple of weeks from Bill. He's fresh out of column ideas and I didn't see any ideas in this mailbag he could stretch into an entire column.
Monday, November 18, 2013
4 comments David Steele Miraculously Matches Bleacher Report for "Laziest Execution of a Slideshow"
David Steele isn't exactly known for his slideshows, so I was a bit surprised when I saw he had written a slideshow entitled "How to fix the 10 worst QB situations in the NFL." I don't want to spoil anything, but David Steele's solutions essentially consist of "draft a better quarterback" and then he moves on to the next team. It's very lazy and makes me wonder why he even bothered writing this. Silly me that I thought the article would feature real ideas on how these 10 teams can solve their quarterback situation, as opposed to Steele basically just telling the ten teams to draft a better quarterback or providing no solution at all.
Watching the Minnesota Vikings bumble around on offense Monday night against the New York Giants, it seemed as if the Vikings' playoff trip last season happened in another era, maybe with Fran Tarkenton at quarterback.
At 73, Tarkenton might be a better option than what the Vikings have right now.
I'm sure Fran Tarkenton believes he is a better option than what the Vikings have now.
Josh Freeman is a project, one with a proven history,
I'm not sure this is a direct contradiction, but if Freeman has a proven history then I'm also not sure that makes him a project.
Yet he was on track to start for them again Sunday against Green Bay, until he was diagnosed with a concussion in midweek. If he can’t play, the Vikings will go back to Christian Ponder, who already had been injured and replaced by Matt Cassel, who was then replaced by Freeman.
All three have lost starts in just the team’s first six games – which is hard to do, and which makes the Vikings’ quarterback situation, for now and the foreseeable future, the worst of the NFL’s 32 teams.
But not by much. The competition is strong. These are the 10 worst, starting with the most troubled—and the reasonable solution for each.
What do you do when the solution isn't really a solution other than "wait and go find a better quarterback in the draft" which is easily the most obvious solution? I thought David Steele would provide ideas for solutions during the 2013 season, but I guess not. It seems my expectations were too high in thinking that a column about "fixing" the 10 worst quarterback situations would actually involve short-term fixes.
Let's start the slideshow!
Vikings (Christian Ponder, Josh Freeman, Matt Cassel)
How did it get this way: Reaching for Ponder at 12th overall in the 2011 draft, and then being deluded by last year’s Peterson-fueled playoff run.
How can it be fixed: Committing to Freeman to see if he was the solution almost made sense, but now that’s on hold until he’s healthy. Chances are that with this reprieve, Ponder will just keep on being Ponder.
So this is the worst quarterback situation in the NFL and so far David Steele's suggestion to fix the problem is...uh...eh...I'm not sure what it is at this point. Fortunately, there is one more sentence written that I am sure will clear the problem up.
And all bets are off if they change coaches next year and the newcomer has his own ideas.
So basically how the Vikings quarterback can be fixed (and they have the worst quarterback situation in the NFL according to David Steele) is going to remain a cliffhanger. Perhaps there will be a sequel slideshow that gets written. At least he could be lazy like he is on many of the other slideshows and say, "draft another quarterback," but David Steele doesn't even do that. He says a new coach might want a new quarterback or otherwise the Vikings should just stick with Freeman unless that doesn't work out, in which case they can go back to Ponder.
Jaguars (Chad Henne, Blaine Gabbert)
How did it get this way: Another draft reach, two years ago, for Gabbert. He’s outlasted two coaches but is barely hanging on with a third. Career record: 5-22.
I covered this issue a year or so ago. Fine, Gabbert was a reach and Ponder was a reach, but if the Jaguars and Vikings truly believed they needed a quarterback and other teams also liked Gabbert/Ponder then was it really a reach? Yes, the benefit of hindsight is especially useful to know which teams reached for a quarterback and which did not, but if other NFL teams are trying to get Gabbert in the first round are the Jaguars reaching by spending the #10 pick on him?
How can it be fixed: New brain trust of owner Shad Kahn, GM David Caldwell and coach Gus Bradley won’t put up with inherited problems like this at quarterback for much longer. Barring a dramatic turnaround, Caldwell and Bradley will be looking for “their” guy next year.
So the situation can't be fixed, it just has to change? Couldn't this slideshow be one page long with a list of teams who have a bad quarterback situation followed by "give them more time to fix it" as the solution? Yes, the Jaguars are going to look for their guy next year, but that probably goes without saying and may not count as a fix for the current situation.
Browns (Jason Campbell, Brandon Weeden, Brian Hoyer)
I think this slideshow could be called "Teams who picked bad quarterbacks in the 2011 and 2012 NFL Draft."
How bad is it: Jeff Garcia says he called them to offer his services, and why wouldn’t they listen?
Because he is old and even if the Browns were that desperate they would never admit they are that desperate. At some point, if they are only going to win 1-2 more games with Garcia it may pay to just not seem desperate and get the high draft pick that will result in continuing to lose, especially since the Colts first round pick the Browns own seems like it will be in the high-20's.
How did it get this way: They simply aren’t able to undo the Weeden debacle of the ’12 draft,
It's almost like drafting a quarterback in the first round who is closer to 30 years old than 25 years old is not a good idea.
and spent all year showing no faith in Campbell until Weeden had failed once too often.
Right, because if the Browns had just shown faith in Jason Campbell earlier then he would have immediately solved the Browns quarterback issues. All Jason Campbell needed was someone to believe in him and he's suddenly the Browns long-term solution at the quarterback position.
Their 3-0 mark with Hoyer starting is just a distant memory, and too small a sample size to trust.
Agreed. Now let's see how David Steele is going to fix the Browns quarterback situation.
How can it be fixed: They have two first-round picks next year thanks to the Richardson trade, and they have a shot at their next franchise quarterback with either pick.
Oh, draft another quarterback in this year's NFL Draft. I can't help but wonder if David Steele thinks the Browns should keep Hoyer as a backup or spend the entire offseason telling Jason Campbell how much they believe in him so he will play well. I think saying, "they will fix it by drafting better" is sort of a cop-out when writing a slideshow on how to fix a team's quarterback problem. That solution seems pretty obvious.
Buccaneers (Mike Glennon, Dan Orlovsky)
How did it get this way: Apparently, only Freeman and Schiano know the entire answer. Once it became toxic, though, the recovery was guaranteed to be slow and painful.
It's not like the Buccaneers were winning games with Josh Freeman as their quarterback anyway. So it got this way because Freeman seemingly regressed more and Greg Schiano then decided sabotaging his quarterback is "the Buccaneer Way" and eventually released Freeman.
How can it be fixed: Schiano not only is a longshot to be back next season, at 0-6 and sinking, he’s a longshot to finish this one. The quarterback merry-go-round then starts over again.
So....................draft a better quarterback then? Great, glad you have a plan.
Until then, Glennon has to ride it out.
Oh good, so what should be done is absolutely nothing until the Buccaneers get a new head coach. That sounds like a hell of a plan to fix the Buccaneers quarterback problems.
Texans (Matt Schaub, T.J. Yates, Case Keenum)
How did it get this way: The warning signs were overlooked when the Texans’ defense scrapped back to wins in the first two games, but Schaub stunk it up even while the other parts of the offense seemed fine.
What the hell? The Texans offense put up 901 yards of offense in the first two games of the season, including Matt Schaub going 60-93 for 644 yards passing 6 touchdown passes to 3 interceptions. Over a season that's 5,152 yards 48 touchdown passes and 24 interceptions. In no way did the Schaub stink it up. This is complete revisionist history. The Texans did run the ball very well in those two games, but Schaub didn't stink it up. This is a lie.
How can it be fixed: Schaub may be out of time. Coach Gary Kubiak may have no choice but to stay with Keenum to see what he can do. But unless Keenum becomes Kurt Warner, they’ll need to find the next Schaub— a veteran steal—to fulfill their promise.
A veteran steal, now there's a good idea. How about a veteran sportswriter named Steele tells us which "veteran steal" the Texans should target, you know, given this is a column describing how he would fix certain team's quarterback situation.
Andre Johnson, Arian Foster, J.J. Watt, Ed Reed and Co. won’t wait forever for the quarterback to catch up.
Since you are writing a column on how to fix the Texans quarterback situation, HOW ABOUT AN ACTUAL SUGGESTION FOR A VETERAN STEAL?! No deal? Great, thanks.
Rams (Kellen Clemens, Brady Quinn, Sam Bradford)
How bad is it: Bradford’s torn ACL ended a critical season for him, one the Rams really needed to see play out before deciding whether he’s the answer.
I realize Bradford has had some injuries, but Bradford has started 49 games so far in his NFL career. I have to think that's a large enough sample size for the Rams to get an idea if he is the long-term quarterback or not.
Clemens is a guy who can start, little more.
Clemens exists as a human being who is alive and has played the quarterback position before, so therefore he can start. Not a high threshold to meet.
How can it be fixed: Complicating matters are the Rams’ two first-round picks next year (more booty from the Robert Griffin III trade). Both are on pace to be very high. If a quarterback lands in their laps, good luck making that decision.
So David Steele's solution, yet again, is the Rams need to draft a better quarterback or they may not need to draft a quarterback. Rams fans, consider your quarterback situation now fixed.
Eagles (Michael Vick, Nick Foles, Matt Barkley)
But it’s the same concern they had when Chip Kelly took the job: Vick was a known quantity, but injury-prone; Foles had little experience and was an uncertain fit for the scheme, and Barkley was a rookie. All have come to pass already.
I can't believe it came to pass that Matt Barkley is a rookie. I would have thought he would have used a time machine to advance four years and become a fifth-year veteran this year. Alas, he did not.
How can it be fixed: If Barkley is the man, he won’t get much chance to prove it unless there’s an emergency like last week against Dallas. That will be painful for everybody.
As painful as not knowing if Barkley is the answer and continuing to lose games anyway with a different quarterback running the team? Let's get to the solution.
Kelly still needs a long-term solution at the position.
So the way the Eagles can fix the quarterback position is by finding a long-term solution at the quarterback position. Thanks David Steele! Now I know exactly how the Eagles are going to solve their quarterback issues.
Seriously, he writes a slideshow about how 10 teams can fix their quarterback position yet for most of the teams provided he doesn't even provide how they can fix the position other than "draft a better quarterback." For the Eagles, David Steele doesn't even say that. He just says the Eagles need to find a long-term solution at the quarterback position. Very useless.
Giants (Eli Manning, Curtis Painter, Ryan Nassib)
How can it be fixed: The Giants must decide whether it needs fixing. Manning has, of course, had his moments even in the Super Bowl years, but nothing like this. If they decide he’s hit the wall too late instead of too early, it’ll be devastating. There’s no Plan B at quarterback.
So I guess it can't be fixed. Great, glad this list has been made then.
Cardinals (Carson Palmer, Drew Stanton, Ryan Lindley)
As in Minnesota, an elite player’s prime is being wasted in the process, Larry Fitzgerald.
How about getting Palmer an offensive line to protect him? The Cardinals tried this, but injuries hit them.
How did it get this way: One faulty quarterback decision after another since trying to replace Kurt Warner three years ago. (Not to mention trying to hand the reins to Matt Leinart before that.)
Well, they did draft Leinart in the first round so it probably made some sense to try and hand him the reins to the team at some point.
How can it be fixed: Another team with lots of pieces but a big hole at the most important position, that can’t hand things to a rookie to groom, but can’t afford to blow it on another stopgap veteran.
Good thing this section isn't titled "How it can be fixed" or else this wouldn't seem like an idea on how to fix the situation at all.
So the Cardinals need to draft a rookie "to groom" (as if the rookie is a horse, or much like Jason Campbell needed someone to believe him, draft a quarterback and pump his confidence up which will obviously make him a great starter down the road), but don't need to spend money or draft picks on a veteran. So the Cardinals should draft a rookie, wait 2-3 years and then see what happens from there, while doing nothing in the interim?
Bills (Thad Lewis, E.J. Manuel, Jeff Tuel)
This is kind of an interesting team to put on this list. The Bills seem to think they have their franchise quarterback in E.J. Manuel. He's injured, that's all.
How did it get this way: Manuel has now had knee problems in the preseason and regular season of his rookie year. Yet the Bills ended up scrambling like crazy for a replacement each time. Rolling the dice with completely untested backups over the network of journeymen was risky, although it has paid off so far.
I think I could have more respect for this column if David Steele specified what "the network of journeymen" exactly was and exactly what quarterbacks this network consists of. Alas, I do not get that.
How can it be fixed: Manuel will return, but he needs to be kept out of harm’s way. The Bills, with a tough young defense and budding skill-position players, are in contention in the AFC East, and missing out because they can’t keep their franchise quarterback healthy would be a shame.
So it seems the Bills can fix their quarterback problem by not allowing their franchise quarterback get injured. Great idea.
I think there's something about slideshows that makes writers inherently lazy. Either way, this is a slideshow about how 10 NFL teams can fix their quarterback situation and the only solution provided is either no solution at all or "go draft a better quarterback." Not a good showing.
Watching the Minnesota Vikings bumble around on offense Monday night against the New York Giants, it seemed as if the Vikings' playoff trip last season happened in another era, maybe with Fran Tarkenton at quarterback.
At 73, Tarkenton might be a better option than what the Vikings have right now.
I'm sure Fran Tarkenton believes he is a better option than what the Vikings have now.
Josh Freeman is a project, one with a proven history,
I'm not sure this is a direct contradiction, but if Freeman has a proven history then I'm also not sure that makes him a project.
Yet he was on track to start for them again Sunday against Green Bay, until he was diagnosed with a concussion in midweek. If he can’t play, the Vikings will go back to Christian Ponder, who already had been injured and replaced by Matt Cassel, who was then replaced by Freeman.
All three have lost starts in just the team’s first six games – which is hard to do, and which makes the Vikings’ quarterback situation, for now and the foreseeable future, the worst of the NFL’s 32 teams.
But not by much. The competition is strong. These are the 10 worst, starting with the most troubled—and the reasonable solution for each.
What do you do when the solution isn't really a solution other than "wait and go find a better quarterback in the draft" which is easily the most obvious solution? I thought David Steele would provide ideas for solutions during the 2013 season, but I guess not. It seems my expectations were too high in thinking that a column about "fixing" the 10 worst quarterback situations would actually involve short-term fixes.
Let's start the slideshow!
Vikings (Christian Ponder, Josh Freeman, Matt Cassel)
How did it get this way: Reaching for Ponder at 12th overall in the 2011 draft, and then being deluded by last year’s Peterson-fueled playoff run.
How can it be fixed: Committing to Freeman to see if he was the solution almost made sense, but now that’s on hold until he’s healthy. Chances are that with this reprieve, Ponder will just keep on being Ponder.
So this is the worst quarterback situation in the NFL and so far David Steele's suggestion to fix the problem is...uh...eh...I'm not sure what it is at this point. Fortunately, there is one more sentence written that I am sure will clear the problem up.
And all bets are off if they change coaches next year and the newcomer has his own ideas.
So basically how the Vikings quarterback can be fixed (and they have the worst quarterback situation in the NFL according to David Steele) is going to remain a cliffhanger. Perhaps there will be a sequel slideshow that gets written. At least he could be lazy like he is on many of the other slideshows and say, "draft another quarterback," but David Steele doesn't even do that. He says a new coach might want a new quarterback or otherwise the Vikings should just stick with Freeman unless that doesn't work out, in which case they can go back to Ponder.
Jaguars (Chad Henne, Blaine Gabbert)
How did it get this way: Another draft reach, two years ago, for Gabbert. He’s outlasted two coaches but is barely hanging on with a third. Career record: 5-22.
I covered this issue a year or so ago. Fine, Gabbert was a reach and Ponder was a reach, but if the Jaguars and Vikings truly believed they needed a quarterback and other teams also liked Gabbert/Ponder then was it really a reach? Yes, the benefit of hindsight is especially useful to know which teams reached for a quarterback and which did not, but if other NFL teams are trying to get Gabbert in the first round are the Jaguars reaching by spending the #10 pick on him?
How can it be fixed: New brain trust of owner Shad Kahn, GM David Caldwell and coach Gus Bradley won’t put up with inherited problems like this at quarterback for much longer. Barring a dramatic turnaround, Caldwell and Bradley will be looking for “their” guy next year.
So the situation can't be fixed, it just has to change? Couldn't this slideshow be one page long with a list of teams who have a bad quarterback situation followed by "give them more time to fix it" as the solution? Yes, the Jaguars are going to look for their guy next year, but that probably goes without saying and may not count as a fix for the current situation.
Browns (Jason Campbell, Brandon Weeden, Brian Hoyer)
I think this slideshow could be called "Teams who picked bad quarterbacks in the 2011 and 2012 NFL Draft."
How bad is it: Jeff Garcia says he called them to offer his services, and why wouldn’t they listen?
Because he is old and even if the Browns were that desperate they would never admit they are that desperate. At some point, if they are only going to win 1-2 more games with Garcia it may pay to just not seem desperate and get the high draft pick that will result in continuing to lose, especially since the Colts first round pick the Browns own seems like it will be in the high-20's.
How did it get this way: They simply aren’t able to undo the Weeden debacle of the ’12 draft,
It's almost like drafting a quarterback in the first round who is closer to 30 years old than 25 years old is not a good idea.
and spent all year showing no faith in Campbell until Weeden had failed once too often.
Right, because if the Browns had just shown faith in Jason Campbell earlier then he would have immediately solved the Browns quarterback issues. All Jason Campbell needed was someone to believe in him and he's suddenly the Browns long-term solution at the quarterback position.
Their 3-0 mark with Hoyer starting is just a distant memory, and too small a sample size to trust.
Agreed. Now let's see how David Steele is going to fix the Browns quarterback situation.
How can it be fixed: They have two first-round picks next year thanks to the Richardson trade, and they have a shot at their next franchise quarterback with either pick.
Oh, draft another quarterback in this year's NFL Draft. I can't help but wonder if David Steele thinks the Browns should keep Hoyer as a backup or spend the entire offseason telling Jason Campbell how much they believe in him so he will play well. I think saying, "they will fix it by drafting better" is sort of a cop-out when writing a slideshow on how to fix a team's quarterback problem. That solution seems pretty obvious.
Buccaneers (Mike Glennon, Dan Orlovsky)
How did it get this way: Apparently, only Freeman and Schiano know the entire answer. Once it became toxic, though, the recovery was guaranteed to be slow and painful.
It's not like the Buccaneers were winning games with Josh Freeman as their quarterback anyway. So it got this way because Freeman seemingly regressed more and Greg Schiano then decided sabotaging his quarterback is "the Buccaneer Way" and eventually released Freeman.
How can it be fixed: Schiano not only is a longshot to be back next season, at 0-6 and sinking, he’s a longshot to finish this one. The quarterback merry-go-round then starts over again.
So....................draft a better quarterback then? Great, glad you have a plan.
Until then, Glennon has to ride it out.
Oh good, so what should be done is absolutely nothing until the Buccaneers get a new head coach. That sounds like a hell of a plan to fix the Buccaneers quarterback problems.
Texans (Matt Schaub, T.J. Yates, Case Keenum)
How did it get this way: The warning signs were overlooked when the Texans’ defense scrapped back to wins in the first two games, but Schaub stunk it up even while the other parts of the offense seemed fine.
What the hell? The Texans offense put up 901 yards of offense in the first two games of the season, including Matt Schaub going 60-93 for 644 yards passing 6 touchdown passes to 3 interceptions. Over a season that's 5,152 yards 48 touchdown passes and 24 interceptions. In no way did the Schaub stink it up. This is complete revisionist history. The Texans did run the ball very well in those two games, but Schaub didn't stink it up. This is a lie.
How can it be fixed: Schaub may be out of time. Coach Gary Kubiak may have no choice but to stay with Keenum to see what he can do. But unless Keenum becomes Kurt Warner, they’ll need to find the next Schaub— a veteran steal—to fulfill their promise.
A veteran steal, now there's a good idea. How about a veteran sportswriter named Steele tells us which "veteran steal" the Texans should target, you know, given this is a column describing how he would fix certain team's quarterback situation.
Andre Johnson, Arian Foster, J.J. Watt, Ed Reed and Co. won’t wait forever for the quarterback to catch up.
Since you are writing a column on how to fix the Texans quarterback situation, HOW ABOUT AN ACTUAL SUGGESTION FOR A VETERAN STEAL?! No deal? Great, thanks.
Rams (Kellen Clemens, Brady Quinn, Sam Bradford)
How bad is it: Bradford’s torn ACL ended a critical season for him, one the Rams really needed to see play out before deciding whether he’s the answer.
I realize Bradford has had some injuries, but Bradford has started 49 games so far in his NFL career. I have to think that's a large enough sample size for the Rams to get an idea if he is the long-term quarterback or not.
Clemens is a guy who can start, little more.
Clemens exists as a human being who is alive and has played the quarterback position before, so therefore he can start. Not a high threshold to meet.
How can it be fixed: Complicating matters are the Rams’ two first-round picks next year (more booty from the Robert Griffin III trade). Both are on pace to be very high. If a quarterback lands in their laps, good luck making that decision.
So David Steele's solution, yet again, is the Rams need to draft a better quarterback or they may not need to draft a quarterback. Rams fans, consider your quarterback situation now fixed.
Eagles (Michael Vick, Nick Foles, Matt Barkley)
But it’s the same concern they had when Chip Kelly took the job: Vick was a known quantity, but injury-prone; Foles had little experience and was an uncertain fit for the scheme, and Barkley was a rookie. All have come to pass already.
I can't believe it came to pass that Matt Barkley is a rookie. I would have thought he would have used a time machine to advance four years and become a fifth-year veteran this year. Alas, he did not.
How can it be fixed: If Barkley is the man, he won’t get much chance to prove it unless there’s an emergency like last week against Dallas. That will be painful for everybody.
As painful as not knowing if Barkley is the answer and continuing to lose games anyway with a different quarterback running the team? Let's get to the solution.
Kelly still needs a long-term solution at the position.
So the way the Eagles can fix the quarterback position is by finding a long-term solution at the quarterback position. Thanks David Steele! Now I know exactly how the Eagles are going to solve their quarterback issues.
Seriously, he writes a slideshow about how 10 teams can fix their quarterback position yet for most of the teams provided he doesn't even provide how they can fix the position other than "draft a better quarterback." For the Eagles, David Steele doesn't even say that. He just says the Eagles need to find a long-term solution at the quarterback position. Very useless.
Giants (Eli Manning, Curtis Painter, Ryan Nassib)
How can it be fixed: The Giants must decide whether it needs fixing. Manning has, of course, had his moments even in the Super Bowl years, but nothing like this. If they decide he’s hit the wall too late instead of too early, it’ll be devastating. There’s no Plan B at quarterback.
So I guess it can't be fixed. Great, glad this list has been made then.
Cardinals (Carson Palmer, Drew Stanton, Ryan Lindley)
As in Minnesota, an elite player’s prime is being wasted in the process, Larry Fitzgerald.
How about getting Palmer an offensive line to protect him? The Cardinals tried this, but injuries hit them.
How did it get this way: One faulty quarterback decision after another since trying to replace Kurt Warner three years ago. (Not to mention trying to hand the reins to Matt Leinart before that.)
Well, they did draft Leinart in the first round so it probably made some sense to try and hand him the reins to the team at some point.
How can it be fixed: Another team with lots of pieces but a big hole at the most important position, that can’t hand things to a rookie to groom, but can’t afford to blow it on another stopgap veteran.
Good thing this section isn't titled "How it can be fixed" or else this wouldn't seem like an idea on how to fix the situation at all.
So the Cardinals need to draft a rookie "to groom" (as if the rookie is a horse, or much like Jason Campbell needed someone to believe him, draft a quarterback and pump his confidence up which will obviously make him a great starter down the road), but don't need to spend money or draft picks on a veteran. So the Cardinals should draft a rookie, wait 2-3 years and then see what happens from there, while doing nothing in the interim?
Bills (Thad Lewis, E.J. Manuel, Jeff Tuel)
This is kind of an interesting team to put on this list. The Bills seem to think they have their franchise quarterback in E.J. Manuel. He's injured, that's all.
How did it get this way: Manuel has now had knee problems in the preseason and regular season of his rookie year. Yet the Bills ended up scrambling like crazy for a replacement each time. Rolling the dice with completely untested backups over the network of journeymen was risky, although it has paid off so far.
I think I could have more respect for this column if David Steele specified what "the network of journeymen" exactly was and exactly what quarterbacks this network consists of. Alas, I do not get that.
How can it be fixed: Manuel will return, but he needs to be kept out of harm’s way. The Bills, with a tough young defense and budding skill-position players, are in contention in the AFC East, and missing out because they can’t keep their franchise quarterback healthy would be a shame.
So it seems the Bills can fix their quarterback problem by not allowing their franchise quarterback get injured. Great idea.
I think there's something about slideshows that makes writers inherently lazy. Either way, this is a slideshow about how 10 NFL teams can fix their quarterback situation and the only solution provided is either no solution at all or "go draft a better quarterback." Not a good showing.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
4 comments The Dallas Cowboys Lost This Past Weekend So Gregg Easterbrook Decides There's Something Fatally Wrong with Them
This week in TMQ, Gregg Easterbrook wonders why the Cowboys are so terrible and if they could even beat the Baylor Bears this year (spoiler alert: yes, yes they could and quite easily in fact), "Christmas Creep" returns for one week against the want and need of the entire world for this to disappear forever, and then Gregg spends about 60% of TMQ talking about non-football related issues. Thankfully Gregg doesn't criticize any television shows in this week's TMQ. I guess the "Christmas Creep" section of TMQ serves as the annoying part of the column for this week's TMQ. If Gregg had his way, no retailers would advertise Christmas sales until the day before Christmas. Gregg has a fundamental misunderstanding of why retailers advertise their Christmas sales so far in advance of Christmas. For being an economist, it's kind of funny that Gregg can't understand the basic principle of a business maximizing revenue.
Let's not beat around the bush -- right now, if there were a championship of Texas, could the Dallas Cowboys defeat the Baylor Bears?
Yes they could and it wouldn't even be a close game. The Cowboys would beat Baylor by at least 40 points. Next stupid question please.
Rarely has an NFL division leader looked as awful as the Boys looked against New Orleans on Sunday night. One reason was the Saints played well, and another reason was Dallas has numerous injuries. But a lot of pro teams play well, and in the NFL everybody has injuries. The Boys looked uniquely bad.
It almost looked like a team that has struggled on defense played on the road against a team that has an excellent offense and has shown themselves to play even more excellent offense when at home.
Dallas allowed 625 offensive yards, 49 points and an NFL-record 40 first downs. Texas is the center of America's football culture, yet its highest-profile team plays like a group of high schoolers on defense.
Great point. Why don't the Cowboys just draft every good player that went to a Texas college or high school? Because that seems logical, smart and easy to do.
New Orleans leading 21-10, the Saints were on the Dallas 28 with 13 seconds remaining before intermission, holding one timeout. Since New Orleans is already in field goal range, the Saints are close to certain to try for the end zone.
In Gregg's mind I guess this makes sense. The Saints are already in field goal range, so why not force a pass to the end zone to see if they can commit a turnover or cause Brees to get sacked putting them out of field goal range?
Yet Dallas lined up with nine of its 11 defenders on or close to the line of scrimmage. Darren Sproles took a simple screen pass and, behind downfield blocks by Jahri Evans and Brian De La Puente, legged out a touchdown.
I hate to break it to Gregg, but a screen pass isn't "trying for the end zone." Though I admire his ability to try and criticize the Cowboys based on an offensive strategy the Saints are sure to attempt, but didn't actually attempt, because it's a novel approach to writing. Gregg's criticism of the Cowboys defense is based on them not properly defending an offensive strategy the Saints didn't even attempt. Very ballsy. He criticizes the Cowboys for not protecting the end zone, though the Saints didn't score by throwing to the end zone, but by throwing a screen pass.
Maybe it was running up the score for Drew Brees to throw deep at the start of the fourth quarter, his team already leading 35-17. But Jerry Jones and his players boast so much, then play so poorly, it's impossible to feel sympathy.
The Cowboys boast so much? What the hell is Gregg talking about? I think there is an NFL that happens only in Gregg's mind where facts are replaced by his generalizations and because the 1990's Cowboys team was brash then Gregg just assumes every Cowboys team over the past 20 years has been brash. Gregg Easterbrook is very adept at making lazy generalizations about teams and players. Just think about how he criticizes highly-drafted players for being lazy and too focused on themselves. His writing seems to be based entirely on generalizations and stereotypes at times. Need another example? Here you go.
Tony Romo, paid about as much as Super Bowl winners Tom Brady and Joe Flacco, does hit lots of passes but often vanishes in the clutch.
Other than having seen the data that shows Romo is more clutch than lazy sportswriters give him credit for, I think I could better accept this lazy generalization if Romo had not led the Cowboys to a comeback victory just the week before the Cowboys played the Saints.
Jason Garrett, the head coach, is a Princeton graduate, so why is the Cowboys' football IQ so low?
Probably due to the same reason you are an economist and you aren't capable of understanding why a retailer would try to maximize profit. Or probably due to the fact the entire Cowboys roster didn't go to Princeton, so they don't have the same educational background (and smarts) that Garrett does.
Owner Jerry Jones spends money lavishly, seemingly always in salary-cap trouble, so why don't the Boys have depth?
Because they haven't entirely drafted well. This was an easy answer and didn't require a rhetorical question at all. The Cowboys haven't drafted the best in recent seasons, they have had constant injuries to the receivers and the running backs, plus the fact the Cowboys are always in salary-cap trouble can explain why they may not have the money to spend on depth.
And then there was the sight of defensive coordinators Rob Ryan on the New Orleans sideline. He was sent packing by Jones after last season, scapegoated for another year of the Boys not making the playoffs.
Well, that and Ryan's defense was 14th in yards per game allowed during both of his seasons as the Cowboys defensive coordinator, as well as 16th and 23rd in points allowed. Sometimes that's not good enough to keep your job as the defensive coordinator.
Hey, remember last year when Gregg criticized Rob Ryan for being too blitz happy and often featured the Cowboys defense in the "Stop Me Before I Blitz Again" portion of TMQ? Well now Gregg thinks Rob Ryan was scapegoated. It's amazing how Ryan's success in New Orleans has changed Gregg's opinion of him.
Here's a disturbing thought: Since three of the Boys' remaining games are against NFC East foes who are themselves struggling, could the Cowboys of 2013 become the worst team ever to win its division?
The 2010 Seahawks that went 7-9 in their division, then beat the Saints in the playoffs, would like to argue this point.
In other football news, Cincinnati, visiting Baltimore, tried on fourth-and-1 during regulation, then again on fourth-and-2 in overtime at the Baltimore 33. Neither attempt succeeded. (See more on fourth-down stats below.) Yet the Bengals' Marvin Lewis did not try on the best fourth-down situation in football -- going for two to win with the clock expired.
How stupid of Marvin Lewis to see the Bengals had failed on two previous fourth-and-short plays during the game and then deciding to kick the extra point rather than go for the two-point conversion to win the game. It's almost like Lewis noticed his team couldn't pick up the first down and adjusted his decisions accordingly. How stupid of him.
Line up for a PAT kick, then fake it and go for two! Succeed, and the game ends with Cincinnati victorious.
Because I'm sure the Ravens wouldn't have defended against a fake extra point attempt rather than try to block the extra point attempt, which succeeds 99% of the time anyway. If the Bengals go for two and fail, then they lose the game. I'm all in favor of playing to win, but I'm also in favor of making the smart move as opposed to outsmarting yourself.
Are the odds of a deuce better than 50-50? Historically, half of NFL deuce tries succeed -- last season it was 47 percent. But that stat mainly reflects expected tries. Surprise deuce attempts from kicking formation almost always succeed.
Notice the use of statistics to show that half of NFL two-point conversions work, then notice a shocking lack of statistics to support his point that surprise two-point conversion attempts from kicking formation almost always succeed. The reason there are no statistics to accompany this claim is because Gregg doesn't have statistics. He's making a claim and then showing no evidence his claim is true. It's often called "lying" and then hoping he can get away with it.
The Bengals needed 2 yards to win and wouldn't go for it. Then in overtime, needing 2 yards merely to sustain a possession, they did.
Again, there can be no hard-and-fast rules when it comes to football strategy. All strategy is situation specific. Obviously Gregg is incapable of understanding this.
As for the NFC's defending champs, San Francisco has failed to score 10 points on three occasions. Nobody's falling for the zone-read play-fake anymore: Colin Kaepernick looks panicky in the pocket.
Oh no! The 49ers lost again, so the read-option is dead again. I am sure the read-option will be a useful football strategy the next time the 49ers win a game or Gregg will just choose not to mention the read-option worked and focus instead on it the next time the 49ers lose, at which point he will once again declare nobody is falling for the read-option anymore.
If the quarterback thing doesn't work out for him, he can always fall back on nude modeling.
This sounds more like a wish of Gregg's as opposed to a comment on career backup options for Colin Kaepernick.
When Carolina, leading 10-9 at San Francisco, punted on fourth-and-2 on the Niners 41 with five minutes remaining, it seemed the visitors were tempting fate. But the Panthers downed the ball at the 1. Soon the favorites were facing fourth-and-long, backs to their own end zone.
Using Easterbrookian logic, the Panthers should have lost the game because they weren't bold and Ron Rivera wasn't telling his team he was playing to win the game. He was also telling his defense that he trusted them to stop the 49ers, and verily, despite the fact Rivera punted on fourth-and-short the Panthers won the game because the Panthers defense stopped the 49ers offense. I bet Gregg wrote "game over" in a notebook after Carolina punted.
Denver leading 21-6, the Broncos lined up in the trendy pistol look, with a tailback and receiver Demaryius Thomas around Peyton Manning. Thomas went in motion left, forming a trips left. Manning faked a handoff right, then very quickly threw a bubble screen left to Thomas, who went 34 yards for an untouched touchdown with offensive linemen Chris Clark, Zane Beadles and Louis Vasquez all more than 10 yards downfield.
Hopefully they weren't downfield before Manning threw the football, because otherwise that would be considered a penalty.
Now it's Buffalo at Pittsburgh, Bills again facing third-and-goal on the 1. This time the quarterback is oft-injured E.J. Manuel, who hadn't played in a month. Rather than run and run again if unsuccessful, Bills coaches called a pass, incomplete, then sent in the field goal unit. The coaches' saying is: Sometimes it's OK to make a mistake; it's never OK to repeat a mistake.
And of course the Steelers know that the Bills threw the ball in this situation last week and if Doug Marrone had taken Gregg's advice the Steelers would be fully prepared for the Bills to run the ball twice, which would allow them to call run blitzes. Football is situational and a team can learn from its mistakes while also not becoming predictable.
Sweet 'N' Sour Play: Baltimore leading 17-10, Cincinnati lined up for a Hail Mary from midfield with two seconds showing. The clock expired as the ball was in flight. Fourth down, knock it down -- defenders should never try to catch a fourth-down pass, let alone a game-ending heave-ho. Baltimore's James Ihedigbo, in position to spike the ball to the ground and end the contest, inexplicably flipped it into the air, keeping the pass alive. A.J. Green caught it for the Bengals' touchdown. Sweet for the visitors, very sour for the defending Super Bowl champions.
Doesn't Gregg mean undrafted, unwanted, hard-working James Ihedigbo inexplicably flipped the ball into the air and highly-drafted, glory boy, me-first A.J. Green caught it for the touchdown? You know if a highly-drafted player had made a stupid play like hitting the ball into the air then Gregg would comment on that player's draft position.
TMQ in the News: Here I am as subject of an hour-long interview by Brian Lamb on CSPAN.
If you recall, last week I noted that Gregg Easterbrook claimed on Twitter that TMQ was his alter ego and he acted like the column isn't necessarily indicative of what he thinks or says at times. Yet here, he pushes one of his media appearances while referring to himself in the first person, which clearly shows it is Gregg Easterbrook writing TMQ and TMQ isn't an alter ego.
This column contends that corruption in government is a larger problem than commonly understood -- that a reason expenditures at the federal, state and local levels keep smashing records, yet schools and bridges don't get built, is that a significant fraction of what government spends is not just wasted, it is stolen.
BREAKING NEWS: The government is corrupt. More on this explosive story that Gregg Easterbrook has just noticed and everyone else knew at 11pm.
In state government, the Securities Exchange Commission has accused the state of Illinois of pension bond fraud. The S.E.C. has charged the former head of the California state pension fund with fraud. Members of the New York Senate have been arrested on bribery charges. The lieutenant governor of Florida resigned over involvement with a fake charity.
I'm glad Gregg is around to give us specific examples of corruption that was already assumed. Gregg seems to be good at providing examples when it comes to other topics he writes about in TMQ, so why can't he provide specific examples of the Cowboys boasting and the percentage on which surprise two-point conversions are successful? It could be because he tends to make things up when he is discussing football and prefers to just make lazy generalizations instead of actually providing real evidence his NFL-related contentions are true.
With offensive line problems before the controversy began, the Dolphins faced the added loss of starters Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito. On the safety that was among the most dramatic two-point plays in the sport's annals -- runner tackled 5 yards deep in the end zone, almost as he was receiving the handoff -- emergency guard Nate Garner did not block anyone. Garner simply stood up and looked bewildered as Tampa linebacker Lavonte David crashed untouched through the center of the Dolphins' offensive line.
Wow, is that what happened? Funny, because I got a Tweet with a picture attached that showed this safety. The Tweet stated I might want to keep the picture handy when reading TMQ.
What's interesting is the red arrow shows Nate Garner clearly blocking Gerald McCoy on the play and Pouncey making his way to the second level to block the linebacker. So yet again, Gregg Easterbrook is clearly lying to his readers when he says Nate Garner did not block anyone. Nate Garner, as seen by that screenshot, very clearly blocked someone. I don't know why I would expect Gregg to not lie, given the fact he tries to mislead his readers every single week.
The Bucs opened the scoring with one of the sweetest plays of the year, a third-and-goal touchdown pass to offensive tackle Donald Penn. Fielding six offensive linemen for a power-rush play is a football meme started three years ago at Stanford;
Putting six offensive linemen in the game for a power rush was started WAY before Stanford started doing it three years ago. In fact, the Jets had one of the best comebacks in NFL history on "Monday Night Football" where they used six offensive linemen on the goal line to fake a run and then set up a pass to an offensive lineman. This was the year 2000 when this occurred. So unless Gregg thinks it is 2002, he is making shit up again.
The Bucs lined up unbalanced right, with the extra lineman right of the center. That left Penn exactly where he would normally be, at the left tackle spot. Except he wasn't the left tackle, he was the left end! Tampa's seven on the line of scrimmage looked like this:
PENN-G-C-G-OT-OT-TE
To the defenders, it seemed Penn was what he always was, and they ignored the umpire's declaration that No. 70 reported eligible, since on goal-line plays the extra offensive lineman often reports eligible. Unbalancing the line distracted defenders from realizing Penn had become a tight end.
Penn had not actually become a tight end. He was still an offensive tackle and the defense didn't ignore the umpire's declaration he was eligible, they just assumed because Penn was an offensive lineman then he wouldn't be the primary receiver on the play. It was a well-designed play.
Penn faked a block for one second, stepped across the goal line and turned around, uncovered. Sweet! And he's TMQ's kinda guy, an undrafted free agent who has made the Pro Bowl.
There goes Gregg mentioning a player's draft position when he makes a good play and conveniently leaving it off when an undrafted player makes a bad play.
Reader Luis Murray of Mexico City reports that on Nov. 4, standing before a Christmas tree and nativity scene, Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro declared "early Christmas," announcing two-thirds of the country's traditional year-end bonus to workers would be paid in mid-November. In Venezuela, Christmas Creep is official government policy!
Either that or the bonuses were given prior to Christmas so that when families do Christmas shopping they can actually afford the gifts they are purchasing for their children. But for Gregg, logic takes a backseat to cutesy bullshit about "Christmas Creep." It makes sense to give Christmas bonuses so that money can be spent towards purchasing Christmas presents.
But in movies, the manly man brings down enemies without bullets. Check the ending of the 1955 flick "Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier." In the final scene at the Alamo, Fess Parker kills Mexican after Mexican by striking them with the butt of his rifle as the movie fades out.
I can't believe a movie made in 1955 would be unrealistic in this way. Unfathomable.
Sure seems as though there is a sudden outburst of fourth-down resolve! But stats show there is not.
So far this season, NFL teams have gone on fourth down 250 times. At the same juncture last season, there had been 240 fourth-down attempts. At the same juncture a decade ago, there had been 261 fourth-down tries.
Okay, but how many opportunities have there been for a team to go for it on fourth down? If NFL teams have gone for it on fourth down 250 times out of 1000 opportunities, while last season there were 240 fourth down attempts on 1050 opportunities then there is an increase in teams going for it on fourth down. So "the stats" are really inconclusive without more "stats" showing us the full picture of the number of opportunities teams have had to go for it on fourth down.
Fourth-down tries are down slightly in the pros, up slightly in big-college games -- but neither level of football shows a dramatic trend. If it seems fourth-down resolve is increasing, the likely explanation is high-profile tries in nationally televised games.
Now remember that Gregg thinks head coaches don't go for it on fourth down because they want to play conservative and not get blamed if his team loses, therefore the blames transfers to his players for not playing well. Yet Gregg thinks the assumption fourth down resolve is increasing is due to high-profile tries in nationally televised games. So if head coaches really didn't want to get blamed for their team losing and wanted to transfer blame, wouldn't the best time to do this be when the most people are watching? In other words, these high-profile tries in nationally televised games may be skewing the opinion of resolve on fourth down, but this doesn't match up with Gregg's assumption that coaches look to avoid blame by not being aggressive on fourth down. If coaches wanted to avoid blame, they would be more conservative when more people are watching, in order to be able to transfer blame to the players.
Then Gregg relays a story about how he tried to mail a package using USPS that wouldn't fit in the slot and his mail carrier wouldn't accept it either, so he chased his mail carrier down and forced him to take the package. While I would I would like to mock Gregg for doing this Peter King-ish sort of thing, I'm not a huge fan of the USPS either. My mail carrier just yesterday nearly ripped my mailbox off my door trying to get a magazine into the mailbox. My bias causes me to not mock Gregg for chasing down a mail carrier and berating him for not taking a package. I do apologize because normally the idea of Gregg Easterbrook berating a mail carrier in order to prove a point would amuse me.
Buck-Buck-Brawkkkkkk: As Florida boomed a punt in Vanderbilt territory, reader Laura Ammons of Jacksonville, Fla., tweeted, "Sounds like it'll be Florida's first lost to Vandy in 22 years." And yea, verily, this came to pass. Who cares if it was fourth-and-31 from the Vanderbilt 38?
I do. I care it was fourth-and-31 from the Vanderbilt 38. The odds of Vanderbilt fumbling, throwing an interception or Florida downing the ball inside the 10-yard line seem higher than the odds of Florida converting a fourth-and-31. So the fact Florida had to go 31 yards to get a first down is very, very relevant as to why they punted.
Florida was behind, be a man! Needless to say the football gods caused the punt to roll into the end zone for a touchback.
The outcome of the punt wasn't good, but the idea behind punting was solid I think.
Later on ESPN, the college football A-team of Rece Davis, Mark May and Lou Holtz was discussing Florida's 4-5 record as if it were some kind of national calamity. Can't we at least pretend Florida's players are students first? In every game, somebody has to lose. Part of the calamity claim was empty seats at Florida's stadium by the third quarter, though the house was packed at kickoff. The University of Miami entered its home game the same day in the top 10, and drew only 49,267 in a stadium that seats 75,000. Declining attendance at college football games has more to do with high-def flat screens and games shown on tablets than lack of enthusiasm for the sport.
It also has to do with the fact the Hurricanes haven't drawn fans very well over this past year too. So this isn't a problem that has occurred just this past weekend.
At any rate, can't we at least pretend that the players at Florida, and at other football factory schools, are there first to learn, only second to win games?
Considering Mark May, Rece Davis and Lou Holtz have been hired to talk about football, then no, their job is to discuss the game and not discuss the Florida players' grades in Chemistry class. I'm fine with a college athlete's grades being discussed or a discussion of academics in college athletes, but I'm not fine with Mark May and Lou Holtz leading that discussion when it isn't their job to do so and they don't seem capable of leading a discussion of this type.
Pro football ratings are fantastic but have been flat for several years, while college football ratings continue to climb, and may pass NFL numbers.
Or these ratings may not pass NFL ratings. I hate it when Gregg says something "might" happen. Yes, pretty much anything could happen.
With 125 universities playing at the big-deal FBS level, each week of the college season offers lots of pairings between winning teams. With 32 clubs in the NFL, winner-versus-winner pairings are much more rare. In Week 9, Chicago at Green Bay was the sole pairing of NFL teams with winning records. This week, three of the 14 contests were winner-versus-winner pairings. Three of 14 is pretty good by NFL standards, and might be about the same as the winner-versus-winner likelihood in college. But because of its size, the FBS generates more winner-versus-winner events, allowing CBS, Fox and ESPN to present full slates of important games, while many NFL pairings are woofers.
I wonder if Gregg will compare the ratings of bowl games to the ratings of NFL playoff games to see if college football ratings "might" pass NFL numbers? Gregg is right, college football has more options for the viewer that could feature teams with winning records. Of course, many of these teams in major conferences have winning records due to playing (what Gregg calls) "cupcake" teams at the beginning of the season, which skews their record as being better than what it will be after several weeks of conference play. So basically, these "cupcake" schools that Gregg complains major conference football teams schedule have something to do with two college football teams with winning records facing off against each other, which has something to do with good ratings for a game between two winning teams, which leads to Gregg's conclusion college football ratings "might" climb past NFL ratings. Now can Gregg see why teams schedule those "cupcake" teams?
Another NFL Coach Receives the Kiss of Death: Mike Smith is "not going anywhere," the Falcons general manager says. So Smith is finished. Though, the statement could prove literally true if Smith is fired and receives no other offer.
So Gregg Easterbrook is saying that Mike Smith will be fired because the Falcons general manager said Smith wouldn't be fired. Smith has never had a losing record as the Falcons coach and has made the playoffs four of the five years he has been the Falcons coach. Gregg leaves these little facts out when saying Smith will be fired (of course without actually saying Smith will be fired and risking the chance of being wrong). The Falcons have had a tough year with injuries to the offense and the defense not playing as well as hoped. Smith won't be fired. I'll believe it when I see it happen.
Next Week: Could there be four scoring plays in three seconds?
No, there won't be. Next week I want to see Gregg decide if the Chiefs or the Broncos are the best team in the AFC. If the Broncos beat the Chiefs then Peyton Manning will have won a big game and Gregg Easterbrook will completely forget just a few weeks ago he introduced the "Peyton Paradox" which said Manning can't win big games. As usual, when Gregg is wrong about something he says will/won't happen he just ignores how wrong he was and will not mention that topic until he is right again. The Broncos may beat the Chiefs, but if the Broncos lose the Super Bowl then Gregg will say the "Peyton Paradox" was in effect and Manning can't win big games.
Let's not beat around the bush -- right now, if there were a championship of Texas, could the Dallas Cowboys defeat the Baylor Bears?
Yes they could and it wouldn't even be a close game. The Cowboys would beat Baylor by at least 40 points. Next stupid question please.
Rarely has an NFL division leader looked as awful as the Boys looked against New Orleans on Sunday night. One reason was the Saints played well, and another reason was Dallas has numerous injuries. But a lot of pro teams play well, and in the NFL everybody has injuries. The Boys looked uniquely bad.
It almost looked like a team that has struggled on defense played on the road against a team that has an excellent offense and has shown themselves to play even more excellent offense when at home.
Dallas allowed 625 offensive yards, 49 points and an NFL-record 40 first downs. Texas is the center of America's football culture, yet its highest-profile team plays like a group of high schoolers on defense.
Great point. Why don't the Cowboys just draft every good player that went to a Texas college or high school? Because that seems logical, smart and easy to do.
New Orleans leading 21-10, the Saints were on the Dallas 28 with 13 seconds remaining before intermission, holding one timeout. Since New Orleans is already in field goal range, the Saints are close to certain to try for the end zone.
In Gregg's mind I guess this makes sense. The Saints are already in field goal range, so why not force a pass to the end zone to see if they can commit a turnover or cause Brees to get sacked putting them out of field goal range?
Yet Dallas lined up with nine of its 11 defenders on or close to the line of scrimmage. Darren Sproles took a simple screen pass and, behind downfield blocks by Jahri Evans and Brian De La Puente, legged out a touchdown.
I hate to break it to Gregg, but a screen pass isn't "trying for the end zone." Though I admire his ability to try and criticize the Cowboys based on an offensive strategy the Saints are sure to attempt, but didn't actually attempt, because it's a novel approach to writing. Gregg's criticism of the Cowboys defense is based on them not properly defending an offensive strategy the Saints didn't even attempt. Very ballsy. He criticizes the Cowboys for not protecting the end zone, though the Saints didn't score by throwing to the end zone, but by throwing a screen pass.
Maybe it was running up the score for Drew Brees to throw deep at the start of the fourth quarter, his team already leading 35-17. But Jerry Jones and his players boast so much, then play so poorly, it's impossible to feel sympathy.
The Cowboys boast so much? What the hell is Gregg talking about? I think there is an NFL that happens only in Gregg's mind where facts are replaced by his generalizations and because the 1990's Cowboys team was brash then Gregg just assumes every Cowboys team over the past 20 years has been brash. Gregg Easterbrook is very adept at making lazy generalizations about teams and players. Just think about how he criticizes highly-drafted players for being lazy and too focused on themselves. His writing seems to be based entirely on generalizations and stereotypes at times. Need another example? Here you go.
Tony Romo, paid about as much as Super Bowl winners Tom Brady and Joe Flacco, does hit lots of passes but often vanishes in the clutch.
Other than having seen the data that shows Romo is more clutch than lazy sportswriters give him credit for, I think I could better accept this lazy generalization if Romo had not led the Cowboys to a comeback victory just the week before the Cowboys played the Saints.
Jason Garrett, the head coach, is a Princeton graduate, so why is the Cowboys' football IQ so low?
Probably due to the same reason you are an economist and you aren't capable of understanding why a retailer would try to maximize profit. Or probably due to the fact the entire Cowboys roster didn't go to Princeton, so they don't have the same educational background (and smarts) that Garrett does.
Owner Jerry Jones spends money lavishly, seemingly always in salary-cap trouble, so why don't the Boys have depth?
Because they haven't entirely drafted well. This was an easy answer and didn't require a rhetorical question at all. The Cowboys haven't drafted the best in recent seasons, they have had constant injuries to the receivers and the running backs, plus the fact the Cowboys are always in salary-cap trouble can explain why they may not have the money to spend on depth.
And then there was the sight of defensive coordinators Rob Ryan on the New Orleans sideline. He was sent packing by Jones after last season, scapegoated for another year of the Boys not making the playoffs.
Well, that and Ryan's defense was 14th in yards per game allowed during both of his seasons as the Cowboys defensive coordinator, as well as 16th and 23rd in points allowed. Sometimes that's not good enough to keep your job as the defensive coordinator.
Hey, remember last year when Gregg criticized Rob Ryan for being too blitz happy and often featured the Cowboys defense in the "Stop Me Before I Blitz Again" portion of TMQ? Well now Gregg thinks Rob Ryan was scapegoated. It's amazing how Ryan's success in New Orleans has changed Gregg's opinion of him.
Here's a disturbing thought: Since three of the Boys' remaining games are against NFC East foes who are themselves struggling, could the Cowboys of 2013 become the worst team ever to win its division?
The 2010 Seahawks that went 7-9 in their division, then beat the Saints in the playoffs, would like to argue this point.
In other football news, Cincinnati, visiting Baltimore, tried on fourth-and-1 during regulation, then again on fourth-and-2 in overtime at the Baltimore 33. Neither attempt succeeded. (See more on fourth-down stats below.) Yet the Bengals' Marvin Lewis did not try on the best fourth-down situation in football -- going for two to win with the clock expired.
How stupid of Marvin Lewis to see the Bengals had failed on two previous fourth-and-short plays during the game and then deciding to kick the extra point rather than go for the two-point conversion to win the game. It's almost like Lewis noticed his team couldn't pick up the first down and adjusted his decisions accordingly. How stupid of him.
Line up for a PAT kick, then fake it and go for two! Succeed, and the game ends with Cincinnati victorious.
Because I'm sure the Ravens wouldn't have defended against a fake extra point attempt rather than try to block the extra point attempt, which succeeds 99% of the time anyway. If the Bengals go for two and fail, then they lose the game. I'm all in favor of playing to win, but I'm also in favor of making the smart move as opposed to outsmarting yourself.
Are the odds of a deuce better than 50-50? Historically, half of NFL deuce tries succeed -- last season it was 47 percent. But that stat mainly reflects expected tries. Surprise deuce attempts from kicking formation almost always succeed.
Notice the use of statistics to show that half of NFL two-point conversions work, then notice a shocking lack of statistics to support his point that surprise two-point conversion attempts from kicking formation almost always succeed. The reason there are no statistics to accompany this claim is because Gregg doesn't have statistics. He's making a claim and then showing no evidence his claim is true. It's often called "lying" and then hoping he can get away with it.
The Bengals needed 2 yards to win and wouldn't go for it. Then in overtime, needing 2 yards merely to sustain a possession, they did.
Again, there can be no hard-and-fast rules when it comes to football strategy. All strategy is situation specific. Obviously Gregg is incapable of understanding this.
As for the NFC's defending champs, San Francisco has failed to score 10 points on three occasions. Nobody's falling for the zone-read play-fake anymore: Colin Kaepernick looks panicky in the pocket.
Oh no! The 49ers lost again, so the read-option is dead again. I am sure the read-option will be a useful football strategy the next time the 49ers win a game or Gregg will just choose not to mention the read-option worked and focus instead on it the next time the 49ers lose, at which point he will once again declare nobody is falling for the read-option anymore.
If the quarterback thing doesn't work out for him, he can always fall back on nude modeling.
This sounds more like a wish of Gregg's as opposed to a comment on career backup options for Colin Kaepernick.
When Carolina, leading 10-9 at San Francisco, punted on fourth-and-2 on the Niners 41 with five minutes remaining, it seemed the visitors were tempting fate. But the Panthers downed the ball at the 1. Soon the favorites were facing fourth-and-long, backs to their own end zone.
Using Easterbrookian logic, the Panthers should have lost the game because they weren't bold and Ron Rivera wasn't telling his team he was playing to win the game. He was also telling his defense that he trusted them to stop the 49ers, and verily, despite the fact Rivera punted on fourth-and-short the Panthers won the game because the Panthers defense stopped the 49ers offense. I bet Gregg wrote "game over" in a notebook after Carolina punted.
Denver leading 21-6, the Broncos lined up in the trendy pistol look, with a tailback and receiver Demaryius Thomas around Peyton Manning. Thomas went in motion left, forming a trips left. Manning faked a handoff right, then very quickly threw a bubble screen left to Thomas, who went 34 yards for an untouched touchdown with offensive linemen Chris Clark, Zane Beadles and Louis Vasquez all more than 10 yards downfield.
Hopefully they weren't downfield before Manning threw the football, because otherwise that would be considered a penalty.
Now it's Buffalo at Pittsburgh, Bills again facing third-and-goal on the 1. This time the quarterback is oft-injured E.J. Manuel, who hadn't played in a month. Rather than run and run again if unsuccessful, Bills coaches called a pass, incomplete, then sent in the field goal unit. The coaches' saying is: Sometimes it's OK to make a mistake; it's never OK to repeat a mistake.
And of course the Steelers know that the Bills threw the ball in this situation last week and if Doug Marrone had taken Gregg's advice the Steelers would be fully prepared for the Bills to run the ball twice, which would allow them to call run blitzes. Football is situational and a team can learn from its mistakes while also not becoming predictable.
Sweet 'N' Sour Play: Baltimore leading 17-10, Cincinnati lined up for a Hail Mary from midfield with two seconds showing. The clock expired as the ball was in flight. Fourth down, knock it down -- defenders should never try to catch a fourth-down pass, let alone a game-ending heave-ho. Baltimore's James Ihedigbo, in position to spike the ball to the ground and end the contest, inexplicably flipped it into the air, keeping the pass alive. A.J. Green caught it for the Bengals' touchdown. Sweet for the visitors, very sour for the defending Super Bowl champions.
Doesn't Gregg mean undrafted, unwanted, hard-working James Ihedigbo inexplicably flipped the ball into the air and highly-drafted, glory boy, me-first A.J. Green caught it for the touchdown? You know if a highly-drafted player had made a stupid play like hitting the ball into the air then Gregg would comment on that player's draft position.
TMQ in the News: Here I am as subject of an hour-long interview by Brian Lamb on CSPAN.
If you recall, last week I noted that Gregg Easterbrook claimed on Twitter that TMQ was his alter ego and he acted like the column isn't necessarily indicative of what he thinks or says at times. Yet here, he pushes one of his media appearances while referring to himself in the first person, which clearly shows it is Gregg Easterbrook writing TMQ and TMQ isn't an alter ego.
This column contends that corruption in government is a larger problem than commonly understood -- that a reason expenditures at the federal, state and local levels keep smashing records, yet schools and bridges don't get built, is that a significant fraction of what government spends is not just wasted, it is stolen.
BREAKING NEWS: The government is corrupt. More on this explosive story that Gregg Easterbrook has just noticed and everyone else knew at 11pm.
In state government, the Securities Exchange Commission has accused the state of Illinois of pension bond fraud. The S.E.C. has charged the former head of the California state pension fund with fraud. Members of the New York Senate have been arrested on bribery charges. The lieutenant governor of Florida resigned over involvement with a fake charity.
I'm glad Gregg is around to give us specific examples of corruption that was already assumed. Gregg seems to be good at providing examples when it comes to other topics he writes about in TMQ, so why can't he provide specific examples of the Cowboys boasting and the percentage on which surprise two-point conversions are successful? It could be because he tends to make things up when he is discussing football and prefers to just make lazy generalizations instead of actually providing real evidence his NFL-related contentions are true.
With offensive line problems before the controversy began, the Dolphins faced the added loss of starters Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito. On the safety that was among the most dramatic two-point plays in the sport's annals -- runner tackled 5 yards deep in the end zone, almost as he was receiving the handoff -- emergency guard Nate Garner did not block anyone. Garner simply stood up and looked bewildered as Tampa linebacker Lavonte David crashed untouched through the center of the Dolphins' offensive line.
Wow, is that what happened? Funny, because I got a Tweet with a picture attached that showed this safety. The Tweet stated I might want to keep the picture handy when reading TMQ.
@bengoodfella Have this handy when you read TMQ today. pic.twitter.com/IjEblb9QZI
— Haris H. (@kingharis) November 12, 2013
What's interesting is the red arrow shows Nate Garner clearly blocking Gerald McCoy on the play and Pouncey making his way to the second level to block the linebacker. So yet again, Gregg Easterbrook is clearly lying to his readers when he says Nate Garner did not block anyone. Nate Garner, as seen by that screenshot, very clearly blocked someone. I don't know why I would expect Gregg to not lie, given the fact he tries to mislead his readers every single week.
The Bucs opened the scoring with one of the sweetest plays of the year, a third-and-goal touchdown pass to offensive tackle Donald Penn. Fielding six offensive linemen for a power-rush play is a football meme started three years ago at Stanford;
Putting six offensive linemen in the game for a power rush was started WAY before Stanford started doing it three years ago. In fact, the Jets had one of the best comebacks in NFL history on "Monday Night Football" where they used six offensive linemen on the goal line to fake a run and then set up a pass to an offensive lineman. This was the year 2000 when this occurred. So unless Gregg thinks it is 2002, he is making shit up again.
The Bucs lined up unbalanced right, with the extra lineman right of the center. That left Penn exactly where he would normally be, at the left tackle spot. Except he wasn't the left tackle, he was the left end! Tampa's seven on the line of scrimmage looked like this:
PENN-G-C-G-OT-OT-TE
To the defenders, it seemed Penn was what he always was, and they ignored the umpire's declaration that No. 70 reported eligible, since on goal-line plays the extra offensive lineman often reports eligible. Unbalancing the line distracted defenders from realizing Penn had become a tight end.
Penn had not actually become a tight end. He was still an offensive tackle and the defense didn't ignore the umpire's declaration he was eligible, they just assumed because Penn was an offensive lineman then he wouldn't be the primary receiver on the play. It was a well-designed play.
Penn faked a block for one second, stepped across the goal line and turned around, uncovered. Sweet! And he's TMQ's kinda guy, an undrafted free agent who has made the Pro Bowl.
There goes Gregg mentioning a player's draft position when he makes a good play and conveniently leaving it off when an undrafted player makes a bad play.
Reader Luis Murray of Mexico City reports that on Nov. 4, standing before a Christmas tree and nativity scene, Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro declared "early Christmas," announcing two-thirds of the country's traditional year-end bonus to workers would be paid in mid-November. In Venezuela, Christmas Creep is official government policy!
Either that or the bonuses were given prior to Christmas so that when families do Christmas shopping they can actually afford the gifts they are purchasing for their children. But for Gregg, logic takes a backseat to cutesy bullshit about "Christmas Creep." It makes sense to give Christmas bonuses so that money can be spent towards purchasing Christmas presents.
But in movies, the manly man brings down enemies without bullets. Check the ending of the 1955 flick "Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier." In the final scene at the Alamo, Fess Parker kills Mexican after Mexican by striking them with the butt of his rifle as the movie fades out.
I can't believe a movie made in 1955 would be unrealistic in this way. Unfathomable.
Sure seems as though there is a sudden outburst of fourth-down resolve! But stats show there is not.
So far this season, NFL teams have gone on fourth down 250 times. At the same juncture last season, there had been 240 fourth-down attempts. At the same juncture a decade ago, there had been 261 fourth-down tries.
Okay, but how many opportunities have there been for a team to go for it on fourth down? If NFL teams have gone for it on fourth down 250 times out of 1000 opportunities, while last season there were 240 fourth down attempts on 1050 opportunities then there is an increase in teams going for it on fourth down. So "the stats" are really inconclusive without more "stats" showing us the full picture of the number of opportunities teams have had to go for it on fourth down.
Fourth-down tries are down slightly in the pros, up slightly in big-college games -- but neither level of football shows a dramatic trend. If it seems fourth-down resolve is increasing, the likely explanation is high-profile tries in nationally televised games.
Now remember that Gregg thinks head coaches don't go for it on fourth down because they want to play conservative and not get blamed if his team loses, therefore the blames transfers to his players for not playing well. Yet Gregg thinks the assumption fourth down resolve is increasing is due to high-profile tries in nationally televised games. So if head coaches really didn't want to get blamed for their team losing and wanted to transfer blame, wouldn't the best time to do this be when the most people are watching? In other words, these high-profile tries in nationally televised games may be skewing the opinion of resolve on fourth down, but this doesn't match up with Gregg's assumption that coaches look to avoid blame by not being aggressive on fourth down. If coaches wanted to avoid blame, they would be more conservative when more people are watching, in order to be able to transfer blame to the players.
Then Gregg relays a story about how he tried to mail a package using USPS that wouldn't fit in the slot and his mail carrier wouldn't accept it either, so he chased his mail carrier down and forced him to take the package. While I would I would like to mock Gregg for doing this Peter King-ish sort of thing, I'm not a huge fan of the USPS either. My mail carrier just yesterday nearly ripped my mailbox off my door trying to get a magazine into the mailbox. My bias causes me to not mock Gregg for chasing down a mail carrier and berating him for not taking a package. I do apologize because normally the idea of Gregg Easterbrook berating a mail carrier in order to prove a point would amuse me.
Buck-Buck-Brawkkkkkk: As Florida boomed a punt in Vanderbilt territory, reader Laura Ammons of Jacksonville, Fla., tweeted, "Sounds like it'll be Florida's first lost to Vandy in 22 years." And yea, verily, this came to pass. Who cares if it was fourth-and-31 from the Vanderbilt 38?
I do. I care it was fourth-and-31 from the Vanderbilt 38. The odds of Vanderbilt fumbling, throwing an interception or Florida downing the ball inside the 10-yard line seem higher than the odds of Florida converting a fourth-and-31. So the fact Florida had to go 31 yards to get a first down is very, very relevant as to why they punted.
Florida was behind, be a man! Needless to say the football gods caused the punt to roll into the end zone for a touchback.
The outcome of the punt wasn't good, but the idea behind punting was solid I think.
Later on ESPN, the college football A-team of Rece Davis, Mark May and Lou Holtz was discussing Florida's 4-5 record as if it were some kind of national calamity. Can't we at least pretend Florida's players are students first? In every game, somebody has to lose. Part of the calamity claim was empty seats at Florida's stadium by the third quarter, though the house was packed at kickoff. The University of Miami entered its home game the same day in the top 10, and drew only 49,267 in a stadium that seats 75,000. Declining attendance at college football games has more to do with high-def flat screens and games shown on tablets than lack of enthusiasm for the sport.
It also has to do with the fact the Hurricanes haven't drawn fans very well over this past year too. So this isn't a problem that has occurred just this past weekend.
At any rate, can't we at least pretend that the players at Florida, and at other football factory schools, are there first to learn, only second to win games?
Considering Mark May, Rece Davis and Lou Holtz have been hired to talk about football, then no, their job is to discuss the game and not discuss the Florida players' grades in Chemistry class. I'm fine with a college athlete's grades being discussed or a discussion of academics in college athletes, but I'm not fine with Mark May and Lou Holtz leading that discussion when it isn't their job to do so and they don't seem capable of leading a discussion of this type.
Pro football ratings are fantastic but have been flat for several years, while college football ratings continue to climb, and may pass NFL numbers.
Or these ratings may not pass NFL ratings. I hate it when Gregg says something "might" happen. Yes, pretty much anything could happen.
With 125 universities playing at the big-deal FBS level, each week of the college season offers lots of pairings between winning teams. With 32 clubs in the NFL, winner-versus-winner pairings are much more rare. In Week 9, Chicago at Green Bay was the sole pairing of NFL teams with winning records. This week, three of the 14 contests were winner-versus-winner pairings. Three of 14 is pretty good by NFL standards, and might be about the same as the winner-versus-winner likelihood in college. But because of its size, the FBS generates more winner-versus-winner events, allowing CBS, Fox and ESPN to present full slates of important games, while many NFL pairings are woofers.
I wonder if Gregg will compare the ratings of bowl games to the ratings of NFL playoff games to see if college football ratings "might" pass NFL numbers? Gregg is right, college football has more options for the viewer that could feature teams with winning records. Of course, many of these teams in major conferences have winning records due to playing (what Gregg calls) "cupcake" teams at the beginning of the season, which skews their record as being better than what it will be after several weeks of conference play. So basically, these "cupcake" schools that Gregg complains major conference football teams schedule have something to do with two college football teams with winning records facing off against each other, which has something to do with good ratings for a game between two winning teams, which leads to Gregg's conclusion college football ratings "might" climb past NFL ratings. Now can Gregg see why teams schedule those "cupcake" teams?
Another NFL Coach Receives the Kiss of Death: Mike Smith is "not going anywhere," the Falcons general manager says. So Smith is finished. Though, the statement could prove literally true if Smith is fired and receives no other offer.
So Gregg Easterbrook is saying that Mike Smith will be fired because the Falcons general manager said Smith wouldn't be fired. Smith has never had a losing record as the Falcons coach and has made the playoffs four of the five years he has been the Falcons coach. Gregg leaves these little facts out when saying Smith will be fired (of course without actually saying Smith will be fired and risking the chance of being wrong). The Falcons have had a tough year with injuries to the offense and the defense not playing as well as hoped. Smith won't be fired. I'll believe it when I see it happen.
Next Week: Could there be four scoring plays in three seconds?
No, there won't be. Next week I want to see Gregg decide if the Chiefs or the Broncos are the best team in the AFC. If the Broncos beat the Chiefs then Peyton Manning will have won a big game and Gregg Easterbrook will completely forget just a few weeks ago he introduced the "Peyton Paradox" which said Manning can't win big games. As usual, when Gregg is wrong about something he says will/won't happen he just ignores how wrong he was and will not mention that topic until he is right again. The Broncos may beat the Chiefs, but if the Broncos lose the Super Bowl then Gregg will say the "Peyton Paradox" was in effect and Manning can't win big games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)