4 comments Gregg Participates in Using the Same Hyper Specificity of Numbers He Criticizes Others for Using

In the comments of the TMQ post for last week some of us were trying to guess what the topic would be for this week's TMQ. It's not hard to guess, since he essentially just rotates a few topics on a weekly basis. Yet, I was still wrong. I thought TMQ would be about concussions, since another high school football player died over the past week. I was wrong. Gregg has repeated a different topic in this TMQ. It's the annual, "Look at how many points are being scored" TMQ, followed by the later season "I can't believe the defenses caught up with the offense" TMQ. So Gregg (again) talks about how many points are being scored in college and NFL football these days. He talks about it on a smaller level every week, much like he talks about the same topics every week in TMQ, but this week he is writing more than a paragraph about how pass-wacky and points-crazy football has become.

The football scoreboard won’t stop spinning.

Says Gregg Easterbrook every single year in TMQ.

So far this season, N.F.L. games are averaging 46.6 total points. That’s up from 45.2 points per game in 2014 and 41.2 points per game a decade ago.

Gregg used to write an entire TMQ dedicated to hyper specificity and how numbers shouldn't be rounded out to too many decimal points. For example, he likes to mock the time difference in an athlete who runs a 4.39 and 4.32 40-yard dash. He'll often write things like, "How do they know the difference in 0.07 seconds?" or write something sarcastic about how the 40-yard dash should be 4.39614 seconds. Gregg also likes to make fun of statistics that might say an NBA team hits a three-point shot every possession, with him saying, "How do you go down the floor 0.6 times?" and believing himself to be the smartest and most clever human on the planet for being snarky about this.

Well, knowing that...I have to ask how the fuck an NFL game scan feature 46.6 points? Is there a 0.6 field goal or an extra 0.6 point that I'm not aware of? Are certain touchdowns only worth a percentage of 6 points?

This is typical Gregg Easterbrook. He goes to great lengths to criticize hyper specificity in the use of statistics, yet has no issue with using hyper specificity himself when using statistics. The "unsophisticated" will laugh at his jokes about an athlete running a 4.562874 second 40-yard dash, but he hopes they won't notice that Gregg uses the same types of statistics he likes to criticize in TMQ. Gregg is special, so he can talk about an NFL game featuring 46.6 total points, while mocking another writer for claiming an NBA team hits a three-point shot every 3.6 possession. The rules, as written by Gregg Easterbrook, do not apply to Gregg Easterbrook.

Big-time college football, where Baylor and West Virginia just combined for 100 points, spins the scoreboard faster: 27 Division I programs are averaging more points per game than the highest-scoring N.F.L. club, the Patriots at 36.6.

HOW CAN AN NFL TEAM SCORE 36.6 POINTS IN A GAME? I'M GREGG EASTERBROOK AND I LIKE TO CRITICIZE OTHERS FOR THE THINGS THAT I MYSELF DO. 

One-hundred twenty-four Division I programs — that’s 97 percent — are averaging more points per game than the lowest-scoring N.F.L. team, the 49ers. North Texas, Old Dominion, Vanderbilt, Army, the Roadrunners of the University of Texas at San Antonio: All score more than the Niners.

What a coincidence! 96.8%, make that 97%, of NFL teams are also scoring more points per game than the lowest scoring NFL team. That's so weird isn't it? It's almost like college teams score more points, but the percentage of teams that score more than the 49ers doesn't change regardless of whether that team is in the NFL or Division I NCAA.

You know Gregg didn't look up the percentage of NFL teams that score more than the 49ers and was very proud of himself when he saw the 97% number that showed how many Division I teams score more points than the lowest scoring NFL team. It means SO MUCH and proves how high-scoring college football is. He just forgot to look at the percentage of NFL teams who are also outscoring the 49ers. Whoops!

The fad for hurry-up tactics and rules changes designed to encourage pass completions are some of the reasons. But there’s an often overlooked factor: New safety rules favor offense.

This is literally one of the most cited reasons for why NFL offensive scoring is at an all-time high. Defensive players and other NFL analysts have stated over and over and over and over again that the NFL has taken steps to protect offensive players and it makes it more difficult for defensive players to do their job. Yes, the new rule changes to encourage completions are a reason for increased offense as well, but the fact the safety rules favor the offense is also often cited as a reason also. Perhaps Gregg believes if he just says this is an overlooked factor then it will suddenly become true and he won't be wrong. 

The most common deliberate helmet-to-helmet hit was by a safety against a receiver on a crossing pattern; a linebacker using his helmet as a weapon against a ball carrier was second-most common.

Now this form of contact is illegal, which benefits offense; especially, assisting the short-passing tactics that have proliferated.

Right. The short-passing tactics have proliferated because of the new rules. Hence, the new safety rules that favor the offense is not an overlooked factor in the increased offense. 

Sunday night at Indianapolis, the Patriots’ Julian Edelman repeatedly ran “low crossers,” short patterns directly in front of Tom Brady, who targeted 10 throws Edelman’s way.

One of the overlooked reasons why the Patriots are so good on offense is that Julian Edelman finds a way to get open on these short crossing patterns. No one ever thought of this before I broached this subject right now. 

Only once on these 10 targets was Edelman hit in the helmet. A decade ago, he would have absorbed several deliberate helmet-to-helmet impacts when prancing over the middle in this fashion; a generation ago, he would have been drilled in the head or the back even after an incompletion sailed past.

Right. NFL receivers aren't as afraid to run a route over the middle of the field, which means the middle of the field becomes more open in the passing game, which means there will be more scoring, which means offense will increase, and because this is the widely known result then the new safety rules that favor the offense is not overlooked. 

The rules need to become stricter still, especially at the high school level, where the most football is played.

But football’s safety initiatives are in almost every case a boon to the offense. Let the scoreboard spin!

But who knew the new safety rules were having such an effect on scoring? It's such an overlooked factor!

Sweet Play of the Week. Denver’s Aqib Talib sprinted 63 yards for an interception return touchdown at Cleveland, the Broncos’ third pick-six of the young season. Not only was the play sweet — the Broncos’ defense has allowed nine touchdowns while scoring four, a net of just five touchdowns for the opposition in six games. Denver’s No. 2 overall defensive ranking is the key to the Broncos’ 6-0 start.

Is this the highly-drafted, highly-paid glory boy Aqib Talib that returned this interception for a touchdown? Interesting how Gregg leaves off the draft position of Talib. We know Gregg wouldn't leave off the draft position of Talib or any of the other members of the Broncos defense if they were lowly-drafted or undrafted players. The Broncos defense starts four 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick, while having two 1st round picks as backups. Naturally, Gregg leaves out that the No. 2 overall defense in the NFL has six 1st round picks making a contribution to the team. 

Later in this TMQ, Gregg will mention the draft position of the Patriots offensive players, but when he doesn't have a point to prove about how great undrafted players are, then Gregg feels it isn't necessary to note the draft position of a team's offensive/defensive unit.

But Peyton Manning’s fade is accelerating. He has seven touchdown passes versus 10 interceptions, a ratio that is not sustainable.

No, this ratio is absolutely sustainable. The ratio isn't sustainable if the Broncos want to keep winning football games, but overall, this ratio of throwing more interceptions than touchdown is sustainable. Manning could keep doing this. 

He’s been “throwing with his body,” a bad sign.

Gregg must have read this somewhere and then repeated it here in order to make it seem like he knew what he was talking about. This is too much like analysis for me to believe Gregg thought of this himself. 

In overtime at Cleveland, Manning tossed the ball directly to the wonderfully named Browns linebacker Barkevious Mingo, as if Mingo were running the pattern.

And what round was Barkevious Mingo drafted in? The first round. This would be relevant if Mingo was undrafted or was considered "unwanted" by Gregg, but because he was drafted in the 1st round, Gregg fails to mention this little fact. Only undrafted players get their draft position noted, because Gregg wants his readers to believe undrafted players produce more than highly-drafted players produce.

Sour Recurring Play of the Week. A week ago versus Cincinnati, Seattle’s vaunted Legion of Boom secondary twice simply ignored a tight end running straight up the field, leaving him uncovered for a touchdown. Now it’s Seahawks 23, Panthers 20 with 36 seconds remaining, Carolina ball on the Seattle 26, Panthers out of timeouts. Carolina tight end Greg Olsen runs straight up the field, the “seam” route on which a good tight end is most dangerous.

This is the route in which a good tight end is most dangerous. Don't be confused when Gregg claims a good tight end is most dangerous when lined up to the far side of the field with single coverage on him. In that situation, a good tight end is most dangerous regardless of the route he runs. So whatever route that a good tight end runs from whatever position on/off the line of scrimmage that results in a touchdown is the route in which a good tight end is most dangerous. It changes based on what point Gregg is trying to prove at that very moment. 

No Seattle defender so much as attempted to cover Olsen, who caught the winning pass. The highly hyped Seattle secondary stars Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas were yelling and gesturing at each other about who was to blame before the play was even over.

I laugh a little bit at the Seahawks blaming coaching (and anyone but themselves) for the loss, but it seems there were two play calls given to the Seahawks defenders, so that's probably why Thomas and Sherman were gesturing to each other. The crowd noise prevented the Seahawks from getting the correct play call, so that's the reason for the confusion. One could ask how the Panthers got a play call in (late as it may be) and the Seahawks couldn't manage to do the same at home, but the truth is Thomas and Sherman were blaming each other because they didn't know at that point there had been two defensive plays called. So they really both believed the other screwed up.

This is a good example of what I've said on repeat, which is that defensive players can't just freelance like Gregg thinks they can. A defensive player can't just run back into zone coverage when the defensive called for is man coverage, despite what Gregg will claim when he criticizes a defender for not "covering" the offensive player. Gregg doesn't seem to understand defensive players have to all work in concert with each other based on the play call or else the defense will be extra shitty.

Stretching back to the Super Bowl, the Seahawks, whose trademark is monster defense, have been unable to hold fourth-quarter leads in five of their last seven outings. Since kickoff of the Super Bowl, Seattle is minus-48 points in the fourth quarter and overtime.

The Seahawks have been traditionally very good at holding leads late in the game, so sometimes the balance shifts back the other way. Perhaps that is what is being seen now. 

As for the Colts play — ye gods. Indianapolis lined up to punt, then nine guys shifted far wide in a variation of the swinging-gate PAT look. In the center of the field were the snapper and safety Colt Anderson.

Doesn't Gregg mean "undrafted, unwanted safety Colt Anderson"? I guess not. 

The whole point of a swinging gate is if the defense doesn’t put enough guys in front of the snapper, then run straight ahead; if the defense puts enough guys in front of the snapper, then pitch sideways where blockers exceed defenders. New England positioned four guys in front of the snapper, meaning one to block four. Yet the Colts chose the up-the-middle move: instant loss of yardage.

You just can't trust undrafted players to make smart decisions in important situations like this. Doesn't Gregg know this?

Not clear what, if anything, the Colts were thinking. Sour.

Griff Whalen went to Stanford and Colt Anderson went to Montana, so these players from non-football factories just don't know how to act in tough situations. It's not their fault, but if they were from football factory schools then they may have a better idea of how to think better in tight games against elite competition. 

Stats of the Week. The Panthers are on a 9-0 streak in the regular season.

I'm glad he clarified "regular season" or else everyone would have thought the Panthers won the Super Bowl last year. 

BOLO of the Week. All units, all units, be on the lookout for defensive lineman Marcell Dareus, accused of football grand larceny. Just before the season, he signed a contract with $60 million guaranteed; so far he has one sack.

A couple of things: 

1. Dareus does get sacks, but it's not his entire job as a DT or DE in a 3-4 defense. He does other things to earn his contract. 

2. Dareus states that he has been dropped back into coverage a lot and hasn't had the chances to get sacks. Whether it is true or not, I'm not sure, but it's hard to get sacks as a DT/DE if you are being dropped back into coverage rather than consistently rushing the quarterback.

What Makes Samuel L. Jackson and Cobie Smulders Hill Fly? The tiny drones that are driving everyone crazy can float on four downward-facing fans because their payloads, typically a camera and transmitter, weigh so little. In Marvel’s Avengers movies, S.H.I.E.L.D. has a flying aircraft carrier that uses four downward-facing fans. How big would the fans need to be to lift an actual aircraft carrier?

TMQ is shorter this year and Gregg still has to kill space. Unbelievably believable. 

Assume S.H.I.E.L.D. engineers used minimum-weight criteria to trim the helicarrier weight to 50,000 tons. Assume that the fans themselves have no mass, generate no drag, and that their power source is weightless — maybe they run on arc reactors. How big would four downward-facing fans need to be to lift 50,000 tons? Tweet your calculation to @EasterbrookG.

They would need to be as big as Gregg's ego multiplied by how many times Gregg has misled or lied to his readers. That's some big fans. 

Hire an Orangutan. Steve Spurrier just resigned as South Carolina coach: The boosters were in an uproar because the Gamecocks were 2-4. 

This is what I talk about when I say Gregg misleads his readers. The way Gregg writes this sentence indicates that Spurrier resigned because the boosters were in an uproar, when this isn't entirely the truth. Spurrier was 70 years old, so he wasn't going to be coaching for much longer anyway. I don't know, and Gregg doesn't know, if the boosters being in an uproar caused his resignation. Everything I've read says this isn't true, especially since Spurrier is one of the most successful coaches in South Carolina history. Gregg tries to tie the boosters in with Spurrier's resignation when I don't think this is the truth.

Steve Sarkisian just got the heave-ho at U.S.C.: He’d appeared in public seeming to be drunk, but the real issue may be that boosters were in an uproar over the Trojans merely being 12-6 with the whistle around his neck.

No Gregg, the real issue is that Steve Sarkisian has a really bad drinking problem and became an embarrassment to the university. So he got fired for bringing embarrassment to the school and now he is allowed time to face the severe drinking problem he seems to have. I really doubt USC fired Sarkisian because of his 12-6 more than they fired him because he seems to be an alcoholic. Also, "the real issue may be...," is some mealy-mouth language that Gregg would normally criticize when seen in the writing of others. 

These three coaching changes share in common what T.M.Q. calls the Orangutan Theory of Division 1: that football-factory programs have such incredible built-in advantages in recruiting power and gimmick schedules that an orangutan should be able to lead one to bowl eligibility.

Except it doesn't work that way at all. Before hiring Steve Spurrier, South Carolina had a problem keeping elite talent in state, had 10 winning seasons since 1980 and had won 10 games or more once in the history of the program. These so-called football factory teams have an advantage in money, but that doesn't always translate to success on the field without the right players and coach. 

Not only do the top recruits flock to prestige programs like South Carolina and U.S.C., but they also play under gimmick conditions...Such schedules are as if the Denver Broncos played twice as many games at home as away, and one of the home games was against an Arena League team.

Right, but if every NFL team played an Arena League team? Then the playing field would be somewhat leveled. I'm not defending how college teams schedule, but it's important to know that recruits don't just flock to a school. Elite recruits didn't flock to South Carolina before Steve Spurrier was there. Gregg remembers it that way now, because he's used to how things are with Steve Spurrier as the head coach, but it's not always been that way. 

In the wake of the Spurrier and Sarkisian departures, the sports world — “SportsCenter,” Sports Illustrated, ESPN’s “College GameDay” — wondered when glory would return to these programs. Unless I missed it, not a word was said about the educational goals that are the ostensible purpose of the universities in question.

That's because it is a show called "SportsCenter" and "College GameDay" and a magazine called "Sports Illustrated." If these shows were called "AcademicCenter" or "College Educational GoalsDay" or "Academics Illustrated" then Gregg would have a point. They aren't called that, so Gregg has no point. These shows and this magazine are about sports. For better or worse, discussing the academic goals of the university is not a part of the discussion. Sports are what the discussion on these shows and in this magazine revolves around. 

Spurrier’s team had a 51 percent graduation rate, including a 46 percent rate for African-Americans. He should have been given the boot for exploiting players without ensuring their educations: Instead all the boosters and the networks seemed to care about was his won-loss ratio. South Carolina is an SEC school. CBS has the contract for that conference, and benefits when the Gamecocks win. Where is the “60 Minutes” segment on SEC football graduation rates?

This 51% graduation rate and 46% graduation rate for African-Americans are irrelevant without knowing the five year graduation rate of the South Carolina student body and for African-Americans at the university. What if the five year graduation rate at South Carolina is 47% or the five year graduation rate of African-Americans is 37%? All of a sudden, 51% and 46% look pretty good for a graduation rate. Naturally, Gregg doesn't provide the five year graduation rate for South Carolina because either (a) he's not smart enough to realize it gives context to the point he wants to prove or (b) it would make his point about the graduation rate of football players under Steve Spurrier seem weak. Gregg is not above misleading his readers when faced with information he doesn't think proves what he wants to have proven.

Sarkisian’s team was graduating 47 percent of players, including 38 percent of African-Americans; Kiffin’s team had a 48 percent graduation rate, including 39 percent for African-American players. ESPN and Fox, which broadcast Pac-12 football, devoted lots of air time to the recruiting and ranking ramifications of the Kiffin and Sarkisian dismissals. Did either so much as mention graduation rates?

Again, without the context of the graduation rate for the student body as a whole, these numbers don't mean a hell of a lot. Also, ESPN and FOX broadcast Pac-12 football. They broadcast sports, so that's why they don't mention academics. Is this really such a difficult point to understand? 

And yet many big football programs exploit African-American football players for profit without giving them the level of support to get the bachelor’s degree that is most people’s ticket into the middle class, or even distract them from education by demanding all their time and effort go into football. In many cases the boosters and boards of trustees don’t care, and the sports broadcasting world, which takes a cut of the exploitation, stays silent.

Yes, that's how it works. Much like I criticize what Gregg writes in TMQ, while the company that takes a cut of the revenue TMQ brings in (haha...I can't imagine it does bring too much revenue in), stays silent on how Gregg will mislead his readers.

Throw to the Dancing Tree! This week’s favorite YouTube play is the Francis Owusu catch against U.C.L.A. The Bruins gained 505 yards on offense and lost by 21 points. Over in the Big Ten, Rutgers defeated Indiana, 55-52; the Hoosiers gained 627 yards and lost. Such stats are contemporary college football in a nutshell.

In the highlight video, check the dancing tree in the background. How come N.F.L. teams don’t have dancing trees?

Because no NFL team has a dancing tree as their mascot. That seems like the simplest and most correct answer. 

As part of the general conservatism of N.F.L. coaches, most rarely send an all-out rush against a punter. Often, only a few rushers make a halfhearted gesture. During the contested portion of the same game, New Orleans punted twice: Atlanta sent seven against one punt and five against the other. Viewers and spectators tend to yawn during N.F.L. punts. But watch the rush — it’s usually a token effort, and rarely an all-out attempt to block the kick.

NFL teams want to set up a return. That's what they want to do. When a team rushes at the punter in an attempt to block the punt then they run the risk of roughing the punter or running into the punter. Also, they can't set up a punt return if they try to block the punt, which is something a team likes to do in order to get better field position. 

On the final down of the Michigan State-Michigan game, the Spartans rushed 10. This might have made the punter, who dropped the snap, nervous. He might never have seen a 10-man rush. In standard-punt fashion, Michigan players brushed the defender in front of them, then headed downfield to cover the punt. As the kicker dropped the snap, there were three Wolverines trying to protect him from 10 Spartans.

This was a completely different situation because there was only 10 seconds left in the game and Michigan State had to block the punt in order to have a chance at winning the game. Setting up a return did not matter, because they were going to lose if they didn't block the punt. So comparing this situation to any other situation where there ISN'T 10 seconds left is to misunderstand situational strategy and why Michigan State sent 10 players to block the punt. Gregg consistently misunderstands situational strategy and how a strategy may be effective in one situation, but not in another situation. 

4th Down Bot Jumps Out of His Treads to Cheer for Michigan State. T.M.Q. feels the Spartans’ improbable last-play victory was the football gods rewarding Michigan State for going for it four times on fourth down. Though none of the tries succeeded, this was bold — and fortune favors the bold. 

Gregg is very tenuously trying to tie the Spartans going for it on fourth down four times with them winning the game. Of course, if the Spartans didn't block this punt (or cause the punter to fumble), then Gregg would have not mentioned at all how many times Michigan State went for it on fourth down because it would not have gone to prove his point. In a world where Michigan State doesn't win this game, but they went for it on fourth down four times, Gregg would simply leave out how many times they went for it on fourth down. Fortune didn't favor the bold and Gregg is full of shit by insisting this is always true. Instead, Gregg is full of shit because he insists that going for it on fourth down helped the Spartans win this football game. It was a fumbled punt that helped the Spartans win this football game.

Leading, 23-21, Michigan faced fourth-and-2 on the Michigan State 47 with 10 seconds remaining. Michigan Coach Jim Harbaugh called a timeout to weigh his options. The worst was the one Harbaugh chose, a standard punt with the blockers abandoning the punter to sprint downfield. Other options:

Michigan could have kept in 10 men to defend the punter, 

And then punted the football. Maybe Harbaugh was afraid Michigan State would get a good return and have a field goal opportunity. This was the best choice though. 

and instructed him to punt out of bounds. The Wolverines could have gone for it, and if failing to convert, defend a passing heave from midfield.

Okay, no. But even if Michigan had kept 50 guys back to defend the punter then there is a chance he still would have dropped the ball. Also, I'm not trusting a college punter to kick the ball out of bounds, nor am I going for it on fourth down and letting Michigan State have a chance for a heave from midfield. 

Michigan could have put 10 blockers around the quarterback and instructed him to hold the ball as long as possible, then hurl it high toward the Spartans’ end zone. The clock probably would have expired with the ball in the air.

Yes, but if the clock doesn't expire with the ball in the air then Michigan State is in perfect field goal range. There are so many things that could go wrong here. I'm not even sure how Michigan could have put 10 blockers around the quarterback and still snap the football. Wouldn't they need to have guys lined up on the line of scrimmage prior to the snap? So if a receiver or offensive lineman starts running back to defend the quarterback from pass rushers, there is a good chance a blitzing Michigan State linebacker or a corner could beat the Michigan player back before he got a chance to set up and defend the quarterback. 

And throwing the ball in the air with the hopes time expires while it's in the air and a Michigan State player doesn't catch it? What kind of bullshit is that? 

But the primary factor surely is that big-money coaches are conditioned to do the “safe” thing and send in the kicker. That way the players are blamed — today everyone blames the Michigan punter — rather than Harbaugh, who botched the call.

It sort of is the Michigan punter's fault. He had to catch the ball and then punt it. Somehow Gregg doesn't trust the Michigan punter to catch the ball and punt it, but he trusts the Michigan punter to kick the ball out of bounds and trusts the Michigan quarterback to run around and heave the ball up in the air as time expires. These are less "safe" things to do, so they are obviously better decisions. 

New England’s continuing offensive success — the Patriots are No. 1 in scoring, No. 2 in yards — comes despite the fact that the Patriots have no receiver drafted in the first round and, with tackle Nate Solder injured, no one on offense who was a first-round selection. If the M.V.P. vote were held today, T.M.Q.’s ballot would be cast for the Flying Elvii undrafted rookie free-agent center David Andrews.

And this would be ridiculous because David Andrews is the member of an offensive line that has five members who all work best in concert with each other, thereby making it difficult to know which of these offensive lineman is the best individually. There are ways to tell which offensive lineman is performing well, but we all know Gregg pays zero attention to these metrics. He sees Andrews is on a good offensive line and that he is undrafted, so thereby awards him the MVP. 

Manly Man Play of the Week. New Orleans leading Atlanta 17-7 in the third quarter, facing fourth-and-goal on the Falcons’ 2, the hosts go for it, touchdown, and never look back...To avoid criticism, N.F.L. coaches usually do the “safe” thing in this situation. Engaging a risk — a mild risk, considering — may have helped Sean Payton revive the Saints’ season.

Or it may not have helped Sean Payton revive the Saints' season. One thing is for sure, if the Saints season is revived then it has nothing to do with how the Saints are playing out on the football field, but has everything to do with the Saints going for it on fourth down here. Because fortune favors the bold, unless the Michigan punter doesn't drop the football against Michigan State, in which case fortune does not favor the bold. Naturally. 

Manly Man Postscript. The Colts tried everything they could to snap their losing streak versus New England — onside kick, fake punt, three fourth-down attempts. That this game was close, while other recent Indianapolis-Patriots contests have been blowouts, shows the value of aggressive tactics. New England is clearly the better team, but playing aggressive kept the Colts close.

This is how full of shit Gregg is. He claims fortune favors the bold. Fine, I like teams that take risks too, but Gregg wants his readers to believe if a team is bold then that team will win the game. This is how Gregg's mind works. BUT, because the Colts were bold and still didn't win the game and everybody who follows the NFL knows this, he makes up some bullshit about how the Colts ALMOST won the game because they were bold. So apparently this isn't really a loss for the Colts because they were bold. Fortune favored the bold and playing aggressive kept the Colts close, so it was almost like a win, thereby proving Gregg's point correct. Gregg is now so desperate he's trying to claim fortune favors the bold in simply keeping a football game close. Keep lowering that bar in order to prove your ridiculous black and white theories correct, Gregg.

By the way, a very reasonable argument can be made if the Colts had not been so bold in trying a fake punt then they could have come away having won this game.

In all N.F.L. annals, there have been 11 contests with at least 90 points scored, most recently Broncos 51, Cowboys 48 in 2013. Contrast that to Baylor, which since 2011 alone has appeared in 14 games in which at least 90 points were scored. The N.F.L.’s highest-scoring contest ever was Washington 72, Giants 41 in 1966. In the last five seasons, Baylor has played five games generating more points than that N.F.L. contest: West Virginia 70, Baylor 63 in 2012; Baylor 67, University of Washington 56 in 2011; Baylor 61, T.C.U. 58 in 2013; and Baylor 73, West Virginia 42 in 2013.

There are only so many ways of saying, "College football games have a lot of points scored in them," and I think Gregg has written some variation of them all at this point. 

Chip Kelly Skedaddle Watch. In September, T.M.Q. asked, “How long till Kelly skedaddles back to college?” With Kelly’s name raised in connection with the U.S.C. job — surely, not planted by his agent! — Kelly Skedaddle Watch becomes a running item.

Can it not become a running item? If Chip Kelly does fail in the NFL, the odds of him going back to college are very high. He has succeeded in college football before, so it's very natural he will end up back in college football at some point. Bill Walsh was very successful in the NFL before retiring and ending up back as the head coach of Stanford. So maybe Kelly fails in the NFL, or even succeeds, then he could still end up back coaching college football. Bill Walsh is a good example of this. Kelly going back to coaching college football after this time in Philadelphia is through means about as much as Gregg leaving an online sports site like ESPN.com for a newspaper like "The New York Times" would mean. I don't think Gregg considers himself to have skedaddled back to a newspaper gig. Of course, the rules Gregg has for others are not rules he has for himself.

7 comments Gregg Easterbrook Continues to Write Very Obvious Things And Tries To Pass It Off As Insight

Gregg Easterbrook warned of the dangers of gambling in last week's TMQ. But that's important right now. What is important is Gregg's picture is finally updated beside TMQ. In reaction to the furious response of zero readers besides me who complained, the "New York Times" has provided a picture of Gregg that isn't 20 years old. He looks...different than he did in his old picture. This week Gregg decides he is going to write something obvious and try to pass it off as an insightful comment. He writes TMQ this week based on the idea that defenses start comebacks and offenses stop comebacks. This is so shockingly obvious and is in no way insightful. Of course a team can't comeback until the other team stops scoring. It's like saying running faster wins a marathon while running slower loses a marathon. It blows my mind that Gregg really believes what he is writing is news of some sort. And yet, he does.

Cincinnati’s comeback against two-time Super Bowl entrant Seattle may prove the Bengals’ 2015 signature victory.

The Bengals probably really hope this isn't their signature victory of the season. It's Week 5 and they have a lot of important games to be played. And remember a couple of weeks ago when Gregg said this:

In a FanDuel television ad, a man — viewers have no idea whether he’s an actor — says to the camera, “Every single week I can win money on Fan Duel!” Can is quite a fudge word: Statements of this nature would not pass scrutiny in breakfast-cereal advertising.

Think about that when reading TMQ and reading all the declarative statements that Gregg tries to make using the word "may" or "could." This may or may not be the Bengals signature victory. Be sure to pay attention to TMQ until the end of the Bengals season when Gregg will either brag he was correct or ignore he said this entirely. 

The sports world praised the Cincinnati offense for scoring: “Dalton Leads Frenetic Comeback” read the Washington Post print edition headline. But the key to the comeback was the Cincinnati defense.

An iron law of the gridiron: Defense starts comebacks, offense stops them.

Everyone who reads this blog is smart. If you weren't smart, you wouldn't read what I write (ego alert). I don't have to explain the sheer stupidity of Gregg passing off this "iron law" to his readers as if it means something. It's impossible for a team to come back in a game if the other team continues scoring points. If not impossible, it's very, very hard. So yes, this is common sense and not a law. The fact Gregg constantly parrots this saying over and over shows how needy he is for fresh material in TMQ.

Of course the trailing team must post more points, but Step 1 of any comeback is to prevent the leading team from widening the margin.

No fucking shit? Are you sure about this? Are you sure if a team is down 34-10 then they need to stop the other team from scoring more points before they can make a comeback? Does this also mean before I can lose weight I have to stop eating 5000 calories a day? I need clarification. 

Seattle led, 24-7, at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Seahawks possession results from then on: punt, punt, punt, punt, punt. Strong defense by Cincinnati created the circumstance in which the offense could reassert itself.

Yes, they stopped the Seahawks from scoring. Defense will always start the comeback, because a comeback can't actually begin until the opposing team stops scoring points. Please stop and think about how obvious this is. 

Defense starts comebacks, offense stops them.

Continuing to write this over and over does not make it more insightful nor will it distract anyone from just how obvious this statement is. 

Consider January’s N.F.C. title game, Green Bay at Seattle. The Packers attained a 22-7 lead in the fourth quarter. Green Bay possession results from then on: punt, punt, field goal. From the juncture of the 22-7 lead, Green Bay gained just three first downs.

And if the Packers had three touchdowns on these three possessions then the Seahawks could not have come back and won the game. This isn't a law, it's common sense. 

Then two weeks later at the Super Bowl, Seattle led New England, 24-14, at the start of fourth quarter. Seahawks possession results from then till the double-whistle: three-and-out, three-and-out, interception. Defense sparked the New England rebound.

Because if the defense didn't spark the comeback and continued to give up points, it doesn't matter what the offense does. How many times have announcers said, "The defense has to make a stop here if Team X wants a chance to win this game"? Saying defense starts comebacks is not insightful. It's common sense. 

In the greatest comeback ever, the old Houston Oilers led the Buffalo Bills, 35-3, in the third quarter of a 1993 playoff game. The Bills put up a passel of touchdowns, but as important was that for the remainder of the contest, Houston scored just 3 points. Defense led the comeback.

It also helped that the offense put up 35 points in the second half. Without all those points, the defense could give up zero points in the second half and the Bills still would have lost. It's almost like a good offense and good defense go hand-in-hand or something. 

On the flip side, offense stops comebacks.

Oh my fucking goodness...yes, if one team scores 21 straight points and is down 3 points, but the other team scores a touchdown, then the comeback will be temporarily stopped. This is shockingly obvious and I'm not sure why Gregg's editor doesn't yell in his ear that his insight is actually just common sense. 

If way behind, focus on stopping the other side from advancing the ball. If way ahead, score again to ice the contest.

My head just exploded. Why does Gregg exist as a person writing TMQ? Why? So he is wasting his and our time telling us that if a team is losing, they want to stop the opposing team from scoring more points, while if a team is way ahead they should continue to try and score points. This is what he is doing. Apparently he thinks that TMQ readers need to be notified that NFL defenses should want to stop the other team from scoring and NFL offenses should want to try and score points. This is not news. It's not even close to news. It's obviousness wrapped up in the disguise of insight. 

The Patriots have won six straight versus Indianapolis. The last four meetings were blowouts, the Flying Elvii outscoring the Colts, 189-73. Andrew Luck is 0-4 versus New England, 37-16 versus all other teams. His shoulder hurting, Luck may or may not dress. Knowing who’s coming may tempt him to take an extra week off.

It may tempt him to take another week off or it may not tempt him to take another week off. Luck may or may not play. Speaking of comebacks, come back next week when Gregg criticizes other people for writing sentences that contain fudge words.

The primary reason the Patriots are dominating the Colts is that New England is the better team.

#analysis

"The primary reason the Yankees have won so many World Series is because they have better players and were better than the teams they were playing."

"The primary reason John Lennon hasn't put out any new material since 1980 is that he is dead."

This must be the "incredibly obvious statements" version of TMQ.

In two meetings with Indianapolis last season, discounting kneel-downs, New England rushed a total of 80 times, a high number for the New England offense, and threw short 53 times and long 12 times. Forty percent of Patriots’ passes were short to Tom Brady’s right. If in Sunday’s date at Indianapolis, New England rushes more than usual and throws short right repeatedly, expect the Colts to act surprised.

Or they can just act like it's not easy to just stop a team from running the ball out of sheer will. There is a difference in knowing a team is running the football and actually being able to stop that team from running the football.

Besides, what does Gregg want the Colts to do? If the Patriots split Gronkowski wide then he has to be double-covered, right? Gregg writes all the time how a team needs to cover a tight end split wide with two defenders, so it's not like the Colts can stack the box against the Patriots.

This is another great example of Gregg making rules and assertions that he eventually contradicts. Whatever ends up working for a team is the strategy that team should have used, while if a strategy didn't work then that team should not have used it. All of Gregg's criticisms are based entirely on outcomes. He wants the Colts to focus on stopping the run and throws to the right, all while double-covering Gronkowski if/when he is split out wide. He doesn't think about how these two positions can contradict each other, because all he cares about is seeing what didn't work for the Colts and independently suggesting a solution in a vacuum.

On “Monday Night Football,” an awful lot, in terms of action and of football logic, was packed into the final five seconds.

And if anyone knows anything about football logic, it's Gregg Easterbrook. 

The host Chargers leading by 3, Pittsburgh completed a pass to the San Diego 1, five seconds showing. First, San Diego safety Jahleel Addae delivered a vicious helmet-to-helmet hit on Steelers tight end Heath Miller, and officials flagged him for unnecessary roughness.

I think what Gregg means is that undrafted, hard-working free agent Jahleel Addae made a mental error when delivering a hit on highly-paid glory boy first round pick Heath Miller. Or is it that their draft positions aren't relevant because knowledge of the draft position of these two players doesn't go to prove a point that Gregg wants to prove? 

Second, rather than kick a field goal and proceed to overtime, the Steelers went for the win — and using a run. In the pass-wacky contemporary N.F.L., coaches throw too many passes from the 1-yard line — the Seahawks at the Super Bowl, for instance. In the last five seasons, N.F.L. teams scored touchdowns on 54 percent of rushes from the 1, versus on 50 percent of passes.

A 4% difference that is probably significant statistically, but isn't really significant in terms of whether a team will decide to throw or run the football into the end zone. An NFL team, and I know this is shocking because it goes against Gregg's rule of "always run the ball into the end zone," should play to their strengths when trying to score a touchdown from the 1-yard line.

A small difference to be sure — but at the 1, running the ball is playing the percentages.

It is playing the percentages, while ignoring the strengths/weaknesses of the team playing defense and ignoring the strengths/weaknesses of the team on offense. Decisions can't be made in a vacuum using easy to understand rules based on the percentages while ignoring the specific situation on the field. Percentages are great to run the ball until a team with a height advantage at receiver and a weak running game is going up against a team with a strong run defense on the 1-yard line. 

Third, Pittsburgh came out with Michael Vick in the huddle — then Vick flanked wide and Le’Veon Bell, a tailback, lined up behind center. Seeing this funky set, San Diego called a timeout. Surely, the Chargers thought, Pittsburgh will now change to a different look.

The Chargers called timeout, just like Gregg always wants a defense to do. This fixed everything, right? The defense called a timeout, as Gregg always suggests they should do in this situation, but that didn't work. What? How could this happen? 

After the timeout, the Steelers used reverse psychology and ran exactly the same play — “you must have suspected I would have known” — Bell rushing for the winning touchdown.

So the Chargers called a timeout in order to set up a defense against a different play than the one the Steelers would be running? This is what Gregg wants us to believe? The Chargers saw they didn't have the correct personnel on the field, called timeout, and then called a defensive play based on the Steelers changing their play to another play the Chargers didn't know if they would have the correct personnel to defend? This is Gregg's position. 

“Badger! Badger!” Trailing by 24-14, the Bengals reached the Seahawks’ 5 with 3 minutes 41 seconds remaining in regulation. Before starting the cadence, quarterback Andy Dalton shouted “badger!” ardently, while pointing to the far left of the Cincinnati formation, where the Bengals had a trips set of three receivers. In pass-wacky modern football, the defense was expecting a throw:

Another great example of how Gregg can read the minds of an entire defensive unit. It's a shame an NFL team hasn't scooped Gregg up yet to work in their front office, considering he is capable of knowing what an entire defensive unit is thinking on a given play. I would think Gregg's ability to come up with bullshit in order to prove his point would be beneficial to an NFL team. 

But Dalton didn’t want the visitors to realize what he was thinking. “Badger! Badger!” was a fake audible. Dalton appeared to be telling the three receivers on the left what he wanted them to do. Then Dalton went straight up the middle to score the touchdown that changed the complexion of the contest.

So let's follow this football logic. Dalton audibled using the word "Badger!" while pointing at his receivers. This made the defense think there was a pass coming. BUT, "Badger!" was a fake audible and Andy Dalton instead ran the original play call, which was a quarterback rush up the middle of the defense. This is what Gregg claims happened.

So we are to believe, because "Badger!" was a fake audible, the original play call from Hue Jackson was a quarterback sneak up the middle. This was the play being called and Dalton fake-audibled using "Badger!" to convince the defense that he was throwing the football. Again, Hue Jackson called a quarterback sneak up the middle. This is the play call Gregg wants us to believe and Dalton wasn't really calling an audible. Gregg doesn't think the original play call was a pass and Dalton saw the middle was open, then called an audible using the word "Badger!," a clever play on words for a quarterback run considering the Bengals were playing the Seahawks and Russell Wilson who played for the Wisconsin Badgers, thereby telling his receivers to run block. Gregg thinks the original play call was a run for Andy Dalton up the middle. That's what he is trying to bullshit his readers into believing.

Sour Play of the Week. Washington leading, 16-12, with 30 seconds remaining in regulation, Atlanta reached first-and-goal on the 6. Defensive ends want sacks — that’s the stat they are rewarded for at contract time. Offensive coordinators exploit defensive ends who gamble for sacks. At the snap, Washington defensive end Ryan Kerrigan sprinted straight up the field to try to sack Matt Ryan, totally giving up his contain.

Ryan Kerrigan is not a defensive end. He is a weakside linebacker. I know, these are just details that should in no way distract from the story. Ignore the facts that are incorrect and just assume the rest of the story is accurate.

Sweet ‘n’ Sour Matched Set of Plays. Game scoreless, Cincinnati had the ball on the Seattle 14. Seahawks strong safety Kam Chancellor lined up over Bengals tight end Tyler Eifert, who was in-line left. Usually the strong safety covers the tight end. When Eifert ran straight up the field to the end zone, Chancellor let him go by, neither jamming him nor attempting to cover him; Chancellor double-teamed a wide receiver going short. Uncovered touchdown for Eifert.

"Usually the strong safety covers the tight end." Sure, whatever works for Gregg to believe, regardless of whether this declarative statement is true or not.

Now it’s the fourth quarter, Seattle with a seemingly secure 24-7 lead. Cincinnati reached the Seattle 10. Same play call — Eifert in-line left, straight up the field — as when the Bengals were in this field position before. Same defense, Chancellor over Eifert. Same result as before: Chancellor ignored the Cincinnati tight end in order to double-team a wide receiver pulling up short. Same result, touchdown.

Check out the video at the 1:00 minute mark. Chancellor thought he had help from Cary Williams behind him and he did not double team the wide receiver going short. He was the only Seahawks player covering the Bengals player going short. If he had not covered the Bengals player running a route in front of the zone, and stayed on Eifert, then the Bengals player running short of the end zone could have walked into the end zone after catching a pass. 

While the attention goes to the schools that perform in prime time, it’s important to remember just how much college football is played. There are 128 Division I programs (the N.C.A.A. insists on calling Division I the Football Bowl Subdivision though this division now crowns a champion); Division I-AA has 125 member schools (the N.C.A.A. calls this the Football Championship Subdivision, though all subdivisions now have champions); there are 156 Division II football colleges (this is the level at which California of Pennsylvania and Indiana of Pennsylvania play); 241 colleges field Division III football teams; and 87 colleges participate in football through the N.A.I.A., an off-price generic version of the N.C.A.A.

It's always great when Gregg is around to help his readers understand things like this. Last week, Gregg watched out for the unsophisticated people who think FanDuel and DraftKings is an easy way to make fast money, and this week, Gregg is around to let his readers know that there are other football programs in the United States that aren't Division I programs. I know! Some of you may have gone to a college (like I did) that didn't have a Division I football program, but still had no idea that the football program at your school was not Division I. Gregg is here to enlighten you though, so worry no more.

That’s 737 college football teams: considering byes, around 350 college games per autumn weekend.

I think more than 37 teams have a bye during a given week during the season. If the football season is 14 weeks long, then this means only 518 of the 737 teams get a bye during the season. That seems a bit low. 

If you haven’t been to a small-college football game lately, try one. The level of play may surprise you, and unless it’s raining, the experience is likely to be pleasing.

Yes, I have tried it a few times before. It was okay, but it was nothing like a football game between two teams that are Division I football teams. 

Another reason the Colts appear doomed this coming Sunday: Under Bill Belichick, the Patriots are 46-16 in October.

I hope the Colts win just so Gregg has to talk his way out of essentially saying the Colts have no chance of winning this game. Yes, I'm sure that the Colts are doomed because traditionally Bill Belichick is strong in October. Tradition is what decides the outcome of a football game. Belichick has been with the Patriots for 16 years, so he loses one game every October. What if this is the game the Patriots lose in October? 

The Navy announced yet another delay in delivery of the Gerald R. Ford, lead ship in the next class of supercarriers. Once in service, the Ford will join these active supercarriers named for Republican presidents: the George H.W. Bush, the Eisenhower, the Lincoln, the Reagan and the Theodore Roosevelt, plus one supercarrier named for a Democratic president, the Truman. The second ship of the Ford class will be the John Kennedy. Still, that will be six Republican-named supercarriers, two named for Democrats.

There is a clear bias against Democrats when it comes to naming supercarriers after Presidents who were Democrats. Above all else, I think Congress should do an investigation into this. 

There’s a destroyer named jointly for Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. But there’s no supercarrier named for F.D.R. — longest-serving president, chief executive during World War II — and no ship named for that aspiring First Squire, William Jefferson Clinton. Gerald Ford was a fine man but never elected to national office; Clinton was twice chosen president by voters. Yet Ford’s name is on a supercarrier while Clinton’s name is nowhere to be found.

My God, the horror. To make matters worse, Bill Clinton left office 15 years ago and he doesn't have a supercarrier named after him, while Gerald Ford left office 41 years ago and is just now having a supercarrier named after him. I can't believe Clinton doesn't get a supercarrier named after him. WHY MUST THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE IGNORED?

BOLOs of the Week. All units, all units, be on the lookout for the Seattle Seahawks’ offensive line. Russell Wilson has been sacked 22 times, on a pace for 70 sacks. (Last season’s worst was 71 sacks allowed by Jacksonville.) Two weeks ago versus Detroit, offensive line malfunctions caused Seattle to face fourth-and-goal from the 33. Sunday, Wilson was sacked on third down before the punt that positioned Cincinnati to force overtime, then sacked again on third down before the punt that positioned Cincinnati to win.

As most people know, it's not just the offensive line that can be to blame for a quarterback getting sacked. Sometimes a quarterback holds the ball too long, lacks the pocket awareness to get rid of the football, or just moves in the wrong direction and takes a sack. Stafford and Wilson's offensive line may be terrible, but there is an occasion when the quarterback is at fault too. I wouldn't expect Gregg to understand any type of nuance or understand everything isn't black and white. 

Adventures in Officiating. Twice in the fourth quarter at Atlanta, the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons ran hitch screens to wide receiver Jamison Crowder, once for a long gainer, once for a loss. On both plays, Washington offensive linemen ran downfield before the pass, no flag. Hitch screens — called “bubble” or “smoke” screens depending on the offense — have become so frequent that zebras seem to have lost focus on watching for linemen downfield.

Or the NFL has directed officials to not call a penalty for linemen blocking downfield so strictly in an effort to help offenses score points and generate excitement. In certain situations, the linemen can be downfield, such as when he is blocking a defensive player. I didn't see these plays, but given Gregg's history of not understanding what he's watching, I wouldn't be surprised if these linemen were blocking their man and therefore not subject to a penalty. 

Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! Cleveland facing third-and-5 on the Baltimore 18, the Ravens ran a “house” blitz — seven men rushing the passer. Baltimore didn’t need a sack, since Cleveland would have been in field-goal position anyway; what Baltimore needed was an incompletion. Highlight reels are loving the touchdown pass that tight end Gary Barnidge caught with his legs against this ill-advised all-out blitz.

Yes, this "ill-advised blitz" that had McCown throwing a prayer into the air off his back leg to a receiver who had to catch the pass with his ass in order to catch the touchdown. The blitz didn't work because McCown through up a prayer and Barnidge made a miraculous catch. That doesn't seem ill-advised to me. It seems it was a good play call that didn't work due to two great plays by the Browns. But again, Gregg bases his criticism on the outcome, so because the outcome was bad for the Ravens then Gregg thinks it was obviously a wrong play call. This despite the fact the play call had the quarterback throwing up a prayer and the receiver having to make an ass-catch.

I love how Gregg constantly assumes that a team can just rush four players at the quarterback and incompletion will result. Gregg doesn't understand the concept that rushing four players doesn't guarantee an incompletion because the quarterback could have more time to find an open receiver. He writes "what Baltimore needed was an incompletion" while criticizing the blitz, which is an obvious attempt to claim by not blitzing the Ravens would have had a better chance of getting an incompletion. This is not necessarily true.

Tennessee leading Buffalo, 13-7, in the fourth quarter, the Titans had the Bills facing third-and-23. Tennessee didn’t need a sack, just an incompletion. It’s a blitz! Tyrod Taylor runs for the first down and the hosts are not looking too gorgeous.

Hey look! Gregg is lying again! Notice that the Bills rushed four at Taylor with a linebacker as a spy. They did not blitz and Taylor made a fantastic run to get the first down. I don't know why Gregg insists on lying or maybe he just wants the Bills to have blitzed in order to make his point become true. Either way, the Bills rushed four and had a linebacker as a spy. Clearly Gregg is not astute enough to see the difference in a blitzer and a spying linebacker. 

The Booth Gods Chortled. Two weeks ago, Tuesday Morning Quarterback noted that network announcers criticize players (labor) but validate coaches (management) even when coaches are plainly wrong. Broncos leading the Raiders, 16-7, with six minutes remaining, Oakland lined up to punt. Down by more than a touchdown with six minutes remaining, why are the Raiders punting? “You have to punt it here and hope your defense can get a couple stops,” the CBS color man Trent Green said.

That's not at all how the play-by-play says this happened. I'm seeing Derek Carr got intercepted for a pick-six with 6:53 left in the game, then on their next possession, the Raiders ended up going for it on a fourth-and-19 that fell short. I don't at all see where the Raiders punted in this situation like Gregg claims the Raiders did. I don't know if I'm wrong or Gregg is making things up. He does have a tendency to make things up.

The Football Gods Winced. Hosting Indianapolis on prime-time television, Houston trailed, 10-0. The Moo Cows always roll over and play dead for the Colts. Houston entered the contest having lost five straight to Indianapolis; all-time, 4-22 versus the Colts. Facing third-and-1, Houston went empty backfield, telling the defense the play was all but certain to be a quarterback sneak.

"All but certain" to be a quarterback sneak. Granted, this was an awful QB sneak, but isn't it entirely possible, especially considering Gregg loves talking about how "pass-wacky" the NFL is, that the Texans were going to throw the ball here instead of running a sneak? Gregg likes to mention how teams go empty backfield on the 1-yard line and throw the ball, so why would it be "certain" the Texans are sneaking the ball here on third-and-1? 

Watt was held by the bedraggled Indianapolis offensive line to one QH — quarterback hurry — and two assisted tackles. No full tackle, sack or TFL — tackle for a loss. If you’re going to call out your own teammates, as Watt did after the loss, maybe you should perform first.

Watt has performed at a very high level for some time now. He was getting blocked by multiple Colts players. I'm not a big fan of J.J. Watt's personality, but he can play football, and he would perform better if a couple other defensive players could step up and prevent him from being double-teamed on every down. Again, I don't like Watt's personality, but it's hard to do much when the offense is able to key on you so much and prevent you from getting to the quarterback. Hence, that's why Watt would like the other Texans players to step up.

Other underwhelming Texans include Jadeveon Clowney, first overall choice of the 2014 draft, 

J.J. Watt is not underwhelming because he is being double and tripled-team. Stop being stupid. 

who was held by the bedraggled Colts line to a QH and a TFL but no sack. When Clowney, who’s been an athletic celebrity since high school, was chosen first that year and Khalil Mack, who received no football-factory recruiting offers out of high school, went fifth, yours truly wrote, “Don’t be surprised if over the next five years,” Mack outperforms Clowney. Hmmm — did not take five years, it’s happened already.

Oh Gregg, you don't even understand that which you write. You didn't write, "Don't be surprised if within the next five years Mack outperforms Clowney." You wrote (all while not putting the quotations around your entire quote), "Don't be surprised if OVER the next five years Mack outperforms Clowney." There is still more than three years left OVER this five year time period for Clowney to outperform Mack. You can't even understand what you are writing and what you meant when you wrote it. How do you even write a weekly NFL column?

Gregg is now attempting to mislead his readers based on something he personally wrote. He's misquoting himself essentially. 

As the Lions went down in flames to the Cardinals, Detroit set an N.F.L. record with 70 pass attempts. In the pros, a huge number of pass attempts usually coincides with a blowout loss; 

Please write "NFL."

A huge number of pass attempts usually coincides with a loss in the NFL, unless it doesn't, and then Gregg will talk about how the team passed the ball so much and the defense HAD to know that team was going to be passing a lot. So here is a rule that is a rule unless it isn't. 

in the N.C.A.A., it may coincide with victory.

Or it may not. Not that Gregg will use fudge words all the time when writing TMQ so that he can eventually weasel out of whatever he wrote. 

Boosters in an Uproar Because Priorities Not Misplaced Enough. The University of Maryland fired Coach Randy Edsall for the sin of failing to win enough. Maryland has been attempting to join the ranks of those major universities — including Alabama, Florida State, Ohio State and Oregon — making so much money on sports they don’t even bother to pretend that what’s happening is education. But with meh on-field performance and lots of empty seats, Maryland cleared a mere $6 million profit on football last year, versus $53 million in profit at Alabama and a $38 million profit at Oregon...So out the door Edsall goes.

Gregg does realize some of the money the football program brings in goes to fund other sports at a school, right? Maybe not a ton of money goes towards other sports, but some does. So when Maryland "only" makes $6 million in profits then that is money that can't be used for other sports and is money the university can't use for whatever the hell they want to use it for. And yes, Edsall was hired to win football games, as college football coaches are hired. So when he doesn't win games, he gets fired. If Gregg would stop pretending Division I football schools hire head coaches to help players get good grades in class then he may stop being baffled when a head coach gets fired for not winning enough games. They get paid to win. Sad, but true. 

Today’s Promo Code. When commenting on T.M.Q., use promo code DON’T PUNT.

I don't even understand if this is supposed to be funny or what. When commenting on TMQ, go ahead and point out where Gregg intentionally misleads his readers so that he will ignore he does this and continue to write TMQ like his shit don't stink. 

0 comments Lowell Cohn Forces Derek Jeter Into the Role of the Anti-PED Icon We All Needed

The Derek Jeter Over-Appreciation Tour is still going on. Don't worry. The face of baseball and the face of a clean, anti-PED player is still present and making the world a safe place to love traditional, old-school baseball where the players took amphetamines that in no way enhanced their performance rather than take PED's that did enhance the players' performance. Derek Jeter has become so over-praised that it's almost hard read anything about him at this point. To merely point out what a great player he was isn't enough. There has to be more. The writer has to go over the top and make Jeter into more than he may have wanted to be. He's not a Hall of Fame shortstop, he's the antidote to PED use, despite the fact he played on Yankees teams chock full of PED users. Even if his teammates didn't, Jeter played the game the right way. He's the PED icon that will save "the kids" from using PED's even though he couldn't save a fairly large number of his teammates from using PED's. Lowell runs the typical gamut of Jeter praise and tries to overwhelm the reader with new, additional Jeter praise. After all, Jeter can't just be appreciated, he has to be a deity.

The A’s are presenting a Derek Jeter tribute today, as they should. This is the last time Jeter will play in Oakland unless the A’s and Yankees meet in the playoffs. He turns 40 in a few weeks and he is retiring after this season and he’s on a farewell tour — just like Mariano Rivera last season.

Except Rivera retired while still playing at a high level while Jeter is one of the worst performing regulars in the majors. Nevermind the idea Jeter may have stayed one year too long. No sportswriter has the balls to question The Jeter or indicate he stayed too long. It's blasphemy and would not be tolerated.

Why is he important?

If you have to ask, then you don't know. If you don't know, then you hate America, babies, drug-free school zones, children who try to make a better life for themselves by getting an education, puppies, kittens, warm spring days, cancer survivors, a cozy blanket on a cold night, old people holding hands while in wheelchairs, and more importantly than anything else, you hate The Jeter. Ask why he's important? No need. If you have to ask, then you aren't worthy of knowing the answer.

For starters, he’s the face of baseball. Whatever it means to be the face of a sport, he’s it for baseball. It’s how he carries himself. With dignity.

Actually, the face of baseball would be 40 years old since it seems the sport is skewing older and older. That's not a good thing. I would think baseball writers would be eager to make a guy like Mike Trout the face of baseball, but the sport clings to it's past so tightly sometimes I think it becomes more threatened by the future when the real threat is the desperate clinging to the past it so reveres.

With class, although “class” is an outmoded concept in our times.

Yeah, it's been that way since baseball let all those foreigners into the game. Fucking foreigners all being not classy and celebrating their outstanding plays on the field. Babe Ruth didn't celebrate his achievements. He just went out and performed well on the field, did his personal sexy business with the shady ladies in private, and then had a few beers. That's class.

And when a man is the Yankees’ leader, he figures big in the national pastime.

Next year the face of baseball will be Masahiro Tanaka, which will piss Lowell Cohn off in some way I am sure.

You know the deal. He labored quietly at his craft, honored baseball while the bloated phonies made the headlines. The bloated phonies include Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Jeter’s infield partner Alex Rodriguez.

Jeter quietly labored and wanted nothing to do with bloated phonies like Roger Clemens, Gary Sheffield, Alex Rodriguez, Andy Pettitte and Jason Giambi who helped shape and build Jeter's legacy as a winning winner who only won when he needed to win. While these bloated phonies were cheating to enhance their own personal achievements, Jeter was using these bloated phonies to win games and World Series as a team. It wasn't about Jeter, it was about how Jeter could use these bloated teammates to win World Series as a group. It wasn't about just one person, but it was winning World Series on the back of his bloated teammates, which in turn helped Jeter's legacy.

There are a ton more bloated phonies, but those are the notable ones. Jeter was not one of them — is not one of them. I have no idea if he illegally took performance-enhancing drugs. But I doubt it.

Jeter was above all of this PED use. He wanted nothing to do with it and the very idea he is the least little bit complicit in his teammates' use of PED's is ridiculous. Sure, the entire sport was probably complicit in some way or another, but Jeter didn't have time to rat on teammates while laboring quietly at his craft.

Bonds so bloated he barely could field his position. Bonds so bloated you wondered if there was a human being in there. 

Jeter hits singles. He hits doubles to the gaps.

And no player who used PED's would ever hit a double or a single. Home runs are the only natural result of a player using PED's. In no way could PED's take a player from a strictly singles hitter to a player who had doubles power in the gaps, specifically to the opposite field. Lowell Cohn being the scientist he is, knows this is true. PED's cause home runs and nothing else. So a guy with little power who used PED's wouldn't turn into a doubles hitter. Not at all. He would turn into a 50-home run machine.

He does the little things, although calling what he does “little” does a disservice to him and the game. He plays baseball the right way.

He wears his glove on the correct hand and uses a wooden bat to hit. The right way. No other way.

Watching him in the batter’s box or at shortstop brings you back to the beginnings of his sport, to what baseball was and should be.

You mean back to the beginnings of the sport when Jeter would not have been able to play in the majors because he is half-black, half-white? Yes, seeing Jeter in the batter's box does take me back to when Jeter would have possibly had to play in the Negro Leagues. What a great memory.

Jeter is the healthy antidote to the fictions and the cheating of the bloated phonies which degraded baseball.

Lowell Cohn wants Jeter to be the healthy antidote to the bloated phonies. There are other players who are the antidote to the cheating phonies, but when discussing Derek Jeter, hyperbole and exaggeration must be used in order to overstate the case. The hyperbolification (not a word, I know) of Jeter's career has done more to ruin Jeter's legacy than it has done to help his legacy, at least in my mind. The lengths writers will go to make Jeter seem like the anti-PED poster child, the guy who played the game the right way, and the very best example of perfection in all things baseball overshadows Jeter's accomplishments that made him great. He becomes more of a fairy tale than a talented baseball player. The same writers who are dousing Jeter in hyperbole are telling the reader to not ignore what a great player Jeter was, all while skipping over Jeter's statistics and accomplishments in favor of hyperbole.

Not particularly impressive. But he is — or was — a great athlete. And he’s a genius at his sport. Oh, “genius” has been overused around here, although Jeter is one. Maybe “winner” is a better word. The ultimate winner.

Actually, the ultimate winner would be a player like Yogi Berra. He won 10 World Series titles. I hate to belabor this point, but stating that Jeter is the antidote to bloated phonies and also claiming he is the ultimate winner is perfectly fine. But for the sake of honesty, it has to be mentioned that part of the reason Jeter is the ultimate winner is because he won a few World Series with the help of the same bloated phonies that Lowell Cohn rails so hard against. I realize it's sac-religious to point out Jeter is the ultimate winner partly because of PED users, but unfortunately it is the truth. Of course when Lowell Cohn is drawing a thick line between the face of baseball and the bloated phonies, he will make no mention these two parties overlap in some ways. Sure, it would be honest, but it doesn't fit the intentions of Lowell's narrative.

Like what happened in 2001. Online they call it The Iconic Oakland Flip Play. I was there for the iconic flip and I never saw anything like that before or since.

I always thought Jeter's catch into the crowd against the Red Sox in 2004 was the better defensive play. It was dangerous, a difficult catch, and also showed his ability to make an outstanding defensive play. The Flip Play was great and showed excellent instincts, but I really think Jeremy Giambi is safe if he slides. This is obviously arguable, but while the Flip Play showed Jeter's defensive instincts I thought his dive into the crowd better described him as a player and was actually the better defensive play. 

Spencer threw the ball to home plate. It was not an elegant throw. It missed not one cutoff men. It missed two cutoff men.

This is not playing the game the right way. If Jeter were throwing the ball in this situation he would have hit both cutoff men. He would have managed to throw the ball "the right way" to where the ball would go into the glove of both players.

Flew over their heads. We’re talking Tino Martinez and Alfonso Soriano. When Giambi crossed the plate the game would be tied.

Yes, we are talking about Alfonso Soriano, noted defensive specialist at second base. The same Alfonso Soriano who was moved from second base to the outfield as soon as possible by the Texas Rangers.

He caught the throw barehanded in his right hand. Now comes the iconic part. As he sped into foul territory sprinting away from the plate, he somehow flipped the ball backhanded to catcher Jorge Posada who caught that sucker and administered a swipe tag on Giambi who never slid. The Yankees won the game 1-0 and won the next two games and eliminated the A’s.

I'm really not trying to downplay the backhanded throw, but Jeter is a shortstop. Shortstops make backhanded throws to start double plays, it's part of the requirements at the position. I'm not saying Jeter's backhanded throw wasn't great, but he was practiced at it due to having played the shortstop position for his entire career. 

Jeter’s play was extraordinary because no one expects the shortstop to be at the first-base line in case the outfielder misses two cutoff men. Jeter was heads up in the extreme and the play was and is a monument to athletic poise.

One can not disagree with this. Still, if Giambi slides I don't think this play will be talked about for years (decades, inevitably) to come. Nothing can take away it was a great play of course. 

Jeter had mastered the basics, had gone beyond the basics with the iconic flip. Giambi failed at the very basics. He didn’t even slide. And that means Jeter deserved to succeed more than Giambi. It was a case of the impeccable defeating the slovenly.

This is the type of thing I am talking about. Derek Jeter can't just make a great play on the field, his play has to mean something more than just a great defensive maneuver. The Flip Play has to teach a great moral lesson to our nation as a whole. Rather than let the play stand as a great defensive play by a Hall of Fame shortstop, it has to be much more than that. This is an example of where a sportswriter feels the insatiable need to hyperbolize Jeter's career and why Jeter's accomplishments get lost in the need to one-up other sportswriters to glorify him.

That flip has become the landmark play of Jeter’s great career.

His great play was a fielding play — it rivals Willie Mays’ catch in center field off Vic Wertz in the 1954 World Series. Jeter’s play was all about smarts and desire and feel. He had a feel for the play, for the victory, for baseball.

Again, Jeter had a feel for victory partially because some of his teammates had a feel for using PED's. I'm sorry, it's difficult to hear Jeter described as the anti-PED poster boy and as a winner. He didn't use PED's, but some of his success is tied to the PED use of his teammates. This goes for other MLB players as well, but no other MLB players have sportswriters drawing such a thick, dark line between themselves and other PED users, while being referred to as "the ultimate winner." For any player who played during the Steroid Era, the line between the clean players and PED users isn't as thick and obvious as sportswriters want it to be.

Today, when the A’s present their video tribute to Jeter they will not show the iconic flip. Too many bad associations for A’s fans.

And you can feel sad, if you must. Sports memories linger.

Like a smelly farts, bad columns linger too. Hopefully these types of columns will go the way of Jeremy Giambi once Jeter is done with his Over-Appreciation Tour and is officially retired.

Whatever you do, remember Jeter as he deserves to be remembered. The common man who took the bloat out of baseball.

How did Derek Jeter take the bloat out of baseball if players used PED's the entire time Jeter was an active player? This is another good example of hyperbole used in reference to Jeter. He didn't take the bloat out of baseball, he was a baseball player who didn't take PED's. Jeter didn't take the bloat out of baseball because players continuously used PED's while he was an active player. Jeter didn't even manage to take the bloat out of his own Yankees team and part of his five World Series titles were contributed to by PED users. Stop making Jeter more than he truly is by using hyperbole and creating him into something he never has been.