Showing posts with label marshawn lynch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marshawn lynch. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

3 comments MMQB Review: The St. Louis Rams May Have a Stadium But No Team Edition

Peter King helped set the trade market for Sam Bradford in last week's MMQB. He also discussed Jameis Winston and his chances of being taken by the Buccaneers at #1 overall, while also not discussing how fantastic it is that Winston talks about himself in the third person. This week Peter takes a break from being mystified by how popular the combine is, while sending nearly his entire THE MMQB team to cover the combine, in order to talk about the new riverfront NFL stadium in St. Louis, has a beef with American Airlines, and continues to go to bat for Peyton Manning to not take a pay cut. If stadium renderings don't you get excited on a Monday morning then this MMQB probably isn't for you.

I’m like everybody else with this Los Angeles thing. I’m on page 24 of a 300-page book, and it’s not all that interesting so far. But I hear the end is compelling, so I’d rather speed past the next 230 pages and go straight to the climax. Tell me what the end game is.

Being on the same page as Peter King is a frightening experience. It makes me re-think my life choices. It's not that NFL teams relocating doesn't interest me, it's just that it would only interest me if it were MY team favorite team relocating. It's like seeing someone else's vacation photos. It's interesting in a way, but not terribly interesting since it didn't happen to you.

“What’s your gut feeling about the number of NFL teams playing football in Los Angeles in 2020—zero, one or two?” I asked Eric Grubman, an NFL senior vice president and the league’s point man on the L.A. market, on Friday.

“I don’t know the number,” he said near the end of a 35-minute interview.

It could be ten teams that move to Los Angeles or maybe the entire NFL will move every single team to the Los Angeles early. IT'S TOO EARLY TO TELL. Don't bother Eric Grubman with your speculative multiple choice questions.

“But the least probable of those numbers is zero. I would say we’ve gone above the 50 percent probability that we’ll have at least one team there.”

That team? The London Jaguars. The NFL will give London a team and then have them play their home games in Los Angeles. Everyone wins. London gets a team, the NFL gets a team in Los Angeles and players don't have to worry about a transcontinental flight to play a football game. Never doubt Roger Goodell's leadership and problem-solving abilities.

It’s been two decades and two months since the Los Angeles area had NFL football.

And Oakland hasn't had a professional football team in a decade! (looks for someone to high-five, but there is no one around)

The San Diego and Oakland franchises have announced their intention to bury the hatchet of a 54-year rivalry to initiate a joint $1.7-billion stadium project in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson. And last Tuesday the Inglewood, Calif., city council unanimously approved plans to build a football stadium that would be anchored by the move of the Rams from St. Louis. That doesn’t mean the Rams are signed and sealed for Inglewood, former home of the Lakers and Kings, just that the locals are promising to build a palace if they come.

(wakes up and can't remember what he just read)

So if it gets built, then they will come?

The Chargers are still trying to get a deal done to stay in San Diego. Ditto the Raiders in northern California. The Rams? No one quite knows what the Rams are doing.

This could go for their relocation efforts or their decisions about certain positions on the Rams depth chart. I read in "Sports Illustrated" this week the Rams consulted Sam Bradford on a coaching hire this offseason and all indications (which could be a smokescreen) are that they still count on him to be healthy this season. I hope it's not true.

For years the Rams tried to get a better stadium than the Edward Jones Dome, and the franchise was rebuffed because of the immense cost. But now, faced with losing the Rams, the state and city are working double-time to come up with a solution that—if nothing else—would make it difficult for 24 owners to vote in favor of the Rams returning to Los Angeles. (Franchise moves must be approved by a 75 percent majority of the 32 teams, though no one is sure if Kroenke will abide by that bylaw or just pull up stakes and force the league to stop him.)

Oh okay, so just moving and making the NFL stop him is an option? That seems rather hasty and not an intelligent move. Doesn't Kroenke know that Roger Goodell will suspend him for two games if he just up and moves his team across the country? I'm kidding of course, Roger Goodell works for Kroenke, so he would probably reward Kroenke's intestinal fortitude and the initiative he took by taking two draft picks away from the Patriots and giving them to the Rams.

This is the first time anyone outside the league or the committee charged with keeping the Rams in St. Louis has seen the renderings of the proposed $1 billion, 64,000-seat open-air riverfront football stadium on the banks of the Mississippi River. Grubman has been to St. Louis on several occasions to meet with the group working to keep the Rams in town and working to clear 90 acres on the riverfront and get funding for the stadium, and he’s bullish on their prospects. But prospects for what?

Prospects to have an NFL team play in that stadium. It seems pretty obvious, Peter. If the Rams aren't in the stadium then the Rams hope to draw another team to the St. Louis area.

Keeping the Rams—even though Kroenke has not been part of the discussions at all, instead choosing to have Rams COO Kevin Demoff head the team’s delegation in dealing with the transition? Preparing for a rainy day, and taking one of the teams (San Diego or Oakland) that doesn’t get a stadium built and sees the prospect of a shiny middle-American palace in a top-25 market? No one knows. But the venue is currency in these stadium-driven times.

(Peter King's phone rings) "Helloooooooooooooooooo...."

(Marvin Demoff's voice comes through with contempt) "Dammit, be a man. I saw your Tweet about having lost your child for three minutes one time as a way of empathizing with Ivan Maisel. I know what you were trying to do, but at least be a little bit less tone deaf. Is it that hard? Losing a child permanently, versus having three minutes of panic. Maybe just focus on Tweeting or writing what I tell you to write."

(Peter King) "The people on Twitter were so mean to me about that. I don't get---"

(Marvin Demoff) "Exactly, you don't get it. Anyway, my son has had to speak for Stan Kroenke for far too long. Do a story in this week's MMQB about the Rams moving to Los Angeles and I'll get you a copy of the stadium rendering to show in the column. When talking about the possible relocation, be sure to mention that Kroenke has left my son as the point man on this issue while saying nothing himself. If it goes sideways and bad feelings happen, I want those feelings directed at Kroenke, not my son. Can you do that?"

(Peter King) "When have I ever let you down my favorite employer?"

(Marvin Demoff) "I'm not answering that because I don't have time to hear you cry. Just write it and mention how Kevin Demoff is heading the team's delegation and Kroenke hasn't done his part. I'm hanging up now, so don't bother saying anything else."

(Peter King) "I will do it, I promise. Hello? Hello?"

“It’s definitely a legitimate option,” said Grubman. “I see no fatal defect to it.”

Other than the St. Louis taxpayers partially footing the bill for an NFL stadium that doesn't actually house one of the 32 NFL teams. Other than that, no fatal defect in this idea at all.

The NFL told any team investigating Los Angeles to be sure to include in the stadium design the ability to add a second team. The St. Louis plan in Inglewood does that—obviously, so does the Carson site. No one expects two stadiums to be built in Los Angeles. But, increasingly, there is an expectation that one stadium will be built in greater Los Angeles, and it will house one or two teams.

Or maybe 10 teams. GRUBMAN DOESN'T KNOW THE NUMBER YET!

Which leads us to this unfortunate part of the story: Kroenke seems (and I say “seems,” because of his actions, not because of his words—there have been none)

(Marvin Demoff smiles)

St. Louis is by far the most aggressive with the best plan to keep the Rams, right down to an agreement to clear a 90-acre blighted plot downtown to make way for the stadium. And get this: Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has an agreement with skilled construction workers in eastern Missouri to work round the clock (three eight-hour shifts a day, every day) so the stadium could be finished in 24 months … without workers taking overtime. That’s significant because if the first shovel goes in the ground by this August, the NFL could have a pristine new St. Louis stadium built in time for the 2017 season.

Meanwhile, a 10 mile stretch of I-85 that cuts through the middle of North Carolina took 3-4 years to be widened and the job still isn't completely done. If only it were a 10 mile stretch earmarked for an NFL stadium it would have been done in a year.

The preferred goal of San Diego and Oakland is to stay in San Diego and Oakland. Or, as Grubman said: “St. Louis is being aggressive and specific. San Diego recently has shown potential to be aggressive, but has not yet been specific. Oakland has been neither aggressive nor specific.”

It sounds like a multiple choice test that a 3rd grader would take.

"St. Louis has been aggressive and specific. San Diego is a little aggressive but not specific. Oakland isn't specific or aggressive. If Los Angeles wants a team that is aggressive but not specific, then what team would they not want to do a deal with?"

“We’re trying to move with speed and certainty, with no ambiguity,” Peacock said over the weekend. “This is the right moment in time for a new stadium in St. Louis. We have a lot of young people moving to our urban core, which you couldn’t have said a few years ago.

The urban core of St. Louis is perfectly built to become a dynasty, assuming the city can keep their core together for a 6-8 year stretch and provide enough high paying jobs.

“Stan has all kinds of options. We understand that. We can’t worry too much about that. I would be more concerned if we weren’t having regular dialogue with Kevin [Demoff] and Eric Grubman about all facets of the plan. We are relying on the integrity of the league’s bylaws. If you assemble all the important pieces—the control of the land, the stadium financing, the cost-certainty, the stadium plan—I don’t know … If we do everything we say we’re going to do, it’s hard to imagine 24 owners would vote against it. If we do our job, I can’t imagine 24 votes to approve the Rams moving.”

That's very optimistic considering Kroenke seems hell-bent on moving at this point. It also sounds like Peacock is lining up a potential lawsuit to point out the city of St. Louis did everything within the NFL bylaws to keep the Rams in St. Louis just in case this whole thing goes south (or west, as the case may be).

But is it enough? And if Kroenke leaves, will it be enough to attract another team? I’ve thought about this a lot, and several people connected to the story say I’m not the first one to suggest this is the end game: Rams move to Inglewood. Chargers can’t get a deal done in San Diego and join them in Inglewood. Raiders, left without a stadium option, take the St. Louis deal. And by 2019, Derek Carr will be the quarterback of your St. Louis Raiders.

I'm betting one of those people connected to the story is Kevin Demoff. He wants to at least float the idea that St. Louis is open to another NFL team playing in the yet-to-be-built stadium since he is currently working on the Rams' transition team. I'm not sure it's right that St. Louis would be given the Raiders after dealing with Jeff Fisher's lack of urgency over the past few seasons.

So we let the process play out, knowing that by the time the NFL turns 100 the second-largest city in the country should finally have a team (or two) back. Whichever teams they may be.

I don't really understand why it is so important that Los Angeles have a team or two. It seems the NFL is doing perfectly fine without the second-largest city in the United States having an NFL team, but I'm stupid, so perhaps I don't understand just how great it would be for Los Angeles to finally have another NFL team.

I screened NFL Films’ annual Super Bowl champion video the other day (“Super Bowl XLIX Champions: New England Patriots,” by Cinedigm, on sale Tuesday nationwide). Highlights from the hour-plus video that caught my eye:

Immediately after spending a page and a half on the Rams, Raiders and Chargers potentially relocating, Peter hands out notes from a video that he saw. Yes, it is the NFL offseason.

Tom Brady screams like a banshee a lot. He gets excited often, and when he does, he yells at the top of his lungs, like a high school kid who just won a big football game.

Tom Brady is just like a child! It's so precocious of him to yell like this. Who would have ever thought that Peter King would try to give child-like characteristics to a grown man? It's only one of his favorite things to do. The ultimate joy for Peter is to see a grown man act like a child, which is why he is so fond of Brett Favre. I imagine Peter's browser history is full of fetish videos involving grown men acting like children.

The clips from mic’ed up players are strong. Gronkowski, in disbelief, on the sideline in Indianapolis after a bumper-car/athletic long touchdown reception: “I don’t even know how I did that. I have no clue.”

I have a hard time figuring out how many of these NFL players do the things they do on the field. It's like their bodies and abilities defy logic and what the human body should be able to do in such a violent game. Sometimes I figure it out though and think there is a good explanation:

Haters
Gonna
Hate

Before the Patriots called the option pass from Edelman to Danny Amendola in the second half, offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels went to Edelman and said: “I don’t need any lead time with the double pass, do I?’’ Edelman said to him, “What do you mean?” McDaniels: “I don’t have to tell you it’s coming.” Edelman: “Nah.” And soon it came, and Edelman executed his first NFL pass perfectly

By saying, "I don't have to give you lead time, do I?" for a specific play McDaniels has essentially given Edelman lead time on the specific play. The fact McDaniels indicated he had thought about running the play told Edelman to prepare for it.

Before the last Seattle drive of the Super Bowl, with the Seahawks trailing, a mic’ed Brady says: “D’s gotta make a play. Gotta intercept one.”

Riveting. It's almost like Brady willed the interception to occur. Very precocious of him to cheer for his defense in this manner.

As anyone who has tried to find real-world sports books for young readers can tell you, the pool is not very deep. That’s why I was pleased to see veteran sports writer Sean Jensen and former Bears great Brian Urlacher collaborate on a rare Young Adult Sports Biography (that’s the Amazon term for it, I think) called “The Middle School Rules of Brian Urlacher.” It’s about Urlacher’s formative years in New Mexico.

Brian Urlacher wrote a children's book? You know what that means? That means he is being very precocious to write a book meant for younger readers. I'm sure Peter only reads young adult books because he finds it exhilarating for adult writers to pretend they are children.

Urlacher: I wanted to give young people a look at my real life. Growing up is hard for everybody at times, and it wasn’t easy for me. I wasn’t a good athlete. People are surprised about that, but in my eighth-grade year, the only time I got in basketball games is when we were up by 20 or down by 20.

Oh, Urlacher wasn't very good at basketball, but he was on the basketball team. I think his definition of "not being good" at a sport could be different from mine. In my world, when someone isn't a good at a sport then he/she doesn't make a sports team in high school or middle school. It's interesting to think how "not being good" at a sport could mean a person makes the team, but doesn't play much.

Me: Ever tempted by drugs around that age?
Urlacher: Nope. I never tried weed. Never wanted to. Later, people would say to me, “You ought to try weed.” And I’d say: “Why break my streak now?”

Plus, Urlacher can't just inject weed into his system, so there's no fun in using it.  

Me: I like that you bring up the fact that you were a normal kid in middle school, because kids need to know you’re not fully molded in any way by the time you’re in seventh or eighth grade. It’s pretty rare for a kid in middle school to know exactly what he or she is going to do in life.
 
Urlacher: Exactly. There were guys I knew in eighth grade who I thought might be NBA players, and then, in high school, they’re not that good at basketball anymore.

They aren't good at basketball anymore. These guys play basketball overseas or sit the bench in the D-league right now. They are terrible at basketball!

“Yes, I was expecting the ball. But in life, these things happen. I had no problem with the decision of the play calling. I mean … how do I say this? When you look at me, and you let me run that ball in, I am the face of the nation. You know, MVP of the Super Bowl … I don’t know what went into that call … I mean, you know, it cost us the Super Bowl. But would I love to have had that ball there? Yeah, I would have. I would have. But the game is over, and I’m in Turkey.”
—Marshawn Lynch, to Turkish sports network NTV Spor while on a trip to Turkey. He was referring to the Seahawks passing on their last offensive play of the Super Bowl from the Patriots’ 1-yard line, rather than handing it to Lynch for a run.

This is probably part of the reason that Lynch doesn't talk to the media. He says something and then it is dissected five different ways to determine it's "real" meaning. Lynch wanted the football with the Super Bowl on the line and thinks there may have been other reasons to not give him the football in that situation. Every player would want the football and some players may wonder why they didn't get the football. That's pretty much the end of the story.

“You can’t have a Hall of Fame without me being in it. It’s just not legitimate.”
—Simeon Rice, to SB Nation. Nice career: 122 sacks in 174 career games. Not a career crying out for induction, in my opinion.

Oh, so we are basing the comment by Simeon Rice that he should be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame based solely on sacks? Simeon Rice averaged a sack every 0.70 game during his career. Michael Strahan had 141.5 sacks in 216 career games. That's an average of a sack every 0.66 game during his career. I guess Strahan's career wasn't crying out for induction? Oh yeah, that's right. Strahan played for the Giants, smiled a lot and was friendly with the media before he became a part of the media. I guess that makes his career sack total look a little better using the "Theory of Jerome Bettis." 

What's really concerning for me here is that Peter King has a Hall of Fame vote. He bases his opinion that Rice shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame on only career sacks, but Rice actually had more sacks per game during his career than Strahan did. Basically, by using only sacks as the criteria then Peter King is saying Strahan doesn't deserve induction either. Peter has a Hall of Fame vote. I'm scared of how he evaluates players now. 

Factoids of the Week That May Interest Only Me

I present this pronunciation guide as a public service, because I’ve heard the Oregon quarterback prospect’s name pronounced three different ways. If a guy’s going to be a very high draft choice, we should know how to say his name.


Correct: “Marcus Mar-ee-OH-da.”


Incorrect: “Mair-ee-OH-da’’ and “Mair-ee-adda.”

Never stop being a haughty dipshit, Peter. It fits you too well to stop doing dipshit things like handing out pronunciation lessons to your readers.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Why would American Airlines, making the gate announcement for the JFK-to-Boston flight at 7:30 a.m. Saturday, announce, “This flight is completely full,” in an attempt to get excess bags checked?

They just want to appear in MMQB this week. Much like every other company, American Airlines craves attention, positive or negative, from Peter King.

I chose my seat online Friday night—29D, in an otherwise open row—and there were plenty of seats all over the plane. So we boarded, and it was barren, maybe one-third full. The last six rows contained 36 seats (six rows, six seats per row, three on either side of the aisle) and had a total of five people in them. I mean, why lie?

Just to annoy you, Peter. That's the only reason they do this. 





The Fox Sports writer is absolutely right: McCown had to be much more than a quarterback last year in Tampa Bay because of the season-long illness to former Bucs coordinator Jeff Tedford.

At least McCown did something last year in Tampa Bay. He certainly didn't do a great job of playing quarterback.

That’s just the way McCown is wired anyway—he’s a helper.

Josh Freeman was paid $2 million by the Vikings two seasons ago to be inactive during most of the games that he was a member of their organization and Peter King ripped on Freeman nearly every week in MMQB. Josh McCown earned $4.75 million to have a 56.3% completion rate, throw 11 TD's, 14 interceptions, and post a rating of 70.5 over 11 games, yet he is credited by Peter for being a "helper" in Tampa Bay last season. Funny how Peter's criticism for quarterbacks is rarely consistent. Peter didn't say anything really in MMQB this past season regarding Matt Schaub stealing money from the Raiders, but he goes out of his way to praise McCown for making $4.75 million and playing poorly because he's a "helper." Yet, Josh Freeman is still the scum of the world for making $2 million and only starting one game for the Vikings during the 2013 season.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think these transactions caught my eye in the past week:

Peter isn't sure, but he thinks these transactions caught his eye. It's hard to say, because Peter's eye is always wandering around, trying to stare at someone while in public or looking for precociousness in everyday life.

a. Titans tackle Michael Roos retired. Some applause, please, for Roos, one of the underrated left tackles of his day.

(No one applauds because this is a sports column and it doesn't make sense to start applauding while reading MMQB)

c. Atlanta cut Steven Jackson and Harry Douglas. Jackson turns 32 in July; understood. I’d be interested in the 30-year-old Douglas (85 catches in 2013) if I were confident he’d stay healthy.

Douglas has only played in less than 15 games once in his career, which was last season. He's played in every game four of the six seasons he has been in the NFL.

d. Green Bay cut linebacker A.J. Hawk, who is a pro’s pro.

Translation through all of this hyperbole: Peter likes A.J. Hawk as a person so he calls him a "pro's pro." I think calling a player a "pro's pro" is just something sportswriters write when they want to write something positive about a person but can't think of anything specific.

2. I think there are some teams that have a load of cap room entering free agency, but the one that struck me is Tennessee, with $47 million. This is a vital off-season for the Titans, who have averaged five wins a season in the past three years. If I’m GM Ruston Webster, I’m starting by re-signing free-agent pass-rusher Derrick Morgan, an underrated presence in the front seven.

He was the #16 overall pick in the 2010 draft and has never had more than 6.5 sacks in a season. I don't know how he can be underrated. He's a decent pass-rusher, but he's never really been great. I'm confused as to why Peter thinks Morgan is underrated.

3. I think I’m glad there wasn’t the kind of overreaction I’d expected to Michael Sam signing to appear on “Dancing With The Stars.” I don’t think there should be any negative reaction, period. One: A man has to make some sort of living. If no team is going to sign Sam to play football, and he wants to continue to work out and chase his dream of being an NFL player, he’s got to find some way to support himself financially so the dream can continue to be chased.

And of course, like many 20-somethings who are out there chasing their dream of being an athlete or an actor/actress, he's forced to do some dancing in his spare time to help support himself. Sam is just doing it to make ends meet and being a dancer doesn't define who he is as a person.

4. I think Peyton Manning and the Broncos are likely to agree to a restructured contract soon—a redone deal that will make neither side happy.

If no one is happy then it's the perfect compromise, right? That's how a good negotiation followed by a compromise works. Both sides feel like they got fucked.

Why? If I were Manning, I’d hardly think I deserve a pay adjustment, after throwing more touchdown passes than anyone else in football over the past three years.

Peter has kept driving this point home that Manning shouldn't think he deserves a pay adjustment based on his performance, while missing the point that Manning may need to take a pay adjustment in order to keep the offensive weapons he loves having around him. If Manning doesn't like change and wants continuity then he may need to cough up a few dollars in order to help this continuity happen. It's life and the economics of it all.

And the Broncos would want it to be less than it’ll end up being, most likely. But there’s little doubt it’s going to get done.

Manning has no obligation to take less money, but he can't privately bitch about the lack of continuity around the team's offense and still make the amount of money that he is due to make for the 2015 season. The Broncos can't blow their salary situation out of the water over the next 3-5 years just to appease Manning for however many more seasons he wants to continue playing.

5. I think, as the competition committee convenes in Florida this week for its annual week of fact-finding and investigating rules adjustments, I forecast an uphill fight for the two issues of most public interest: defining what is a catch, and making every play replay-reviewable...As to making every play reviewable, remember Fisher’s words to me: “So if someone throws a touchdown pass against us to win the game, I’m going to throw the challenge flag. Somebody [committed a holding penalty] out there. Somebody did something. You start there and then go … I mean, I don’t know. Replay was designed to overturn obvious errors. It was never designed to include penalties.” Doesn’t sound like the committee is inclined to consider that very seriously.

This has to be among the stupidest reasoning that can be used to not make every play reviewable. Each coach only gets two challenges (or a third if they win the first two challenges), yet Fisher shows a complete lack of understanding by acting like 15 challenge flags will be thrown per game if all plays are reviewable. Peter should have called Fisher on the use of this reasoning. The fact the committee isn't taking the idea to make every play reviewable seriously can't have anything to do with the stupid reasoning that Fisher uses here. He's acting like there isn't a limit on how many calls can be challenged because he doesn't like the idea to make all plays reviewable.

8. I think Josh McCown is certainly not the long-term answer at quarterback in Cleveland, but I think he provides a bridge that’s different than what Brian Hoyer would provide.

McCown was a bridge that cost $4.75 million last year, but Peter won't criticize McCown in the same way he criticized Josh Freeman because of what a great little "helper" McCown is.

With McCown, he can fill almost any role. He can start for a while.

He can fill every role, but perhaps not fill every role successfully. There is a difference.

He can back up Johnny Manziel. He can start while tutoring Manziel. He can back up while tutoring Manziel. He can be a third quarterback if the Browns draft their quarterback of the future. Basically, McCown allows the Browns to keep their options open on draft day, and he buys them time if they don’t draft a quarterback to see if Manziel is a legitimate option to start this year.

Because teams usually spend $5.25 million on their third string quarterback. Again, I could be wrong in underestimating what a great little "helper" McCown is, but this is an awful lot of positivity coming from Peter for a 35 year old quarterback who failed miserably as the starter for the Buccaneers last year.

9. I think Brett Favre’s Packer Hall of Fame induction ceremony should be held in Lambeau Field, not jammed into the Lambeau atrium.

I think I never want to hear the name "Brett Favre" again or else I would want to jam something into my Lambeau atrium.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

c. Spring training is a week old, and I’m already A-Rodded out—for the season.

And it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

g. Maybe Rajon Rondo is more trouble than he’s worth.
h. Rajon Rondo is more trouble than he’s worth.

Peter doesn't watch a lot of NBA games, but he thinks that Rajon Rondo is a real problem child. Of course, Peter doesn't think that maybe Rondo has always been this way and been worth the trouble when he was in Boston, but that doesn't matter because he only pays attention to whatever current event just happened when drawing his conclusions.

i. Three questions.
j. Why is court-storming allowed?

One question: Why are there questions under "j," "k," and "l" instead of these questions being a part of "i"?

l. Why is this the first year since its inception that I cannot name one player in the Big East?

Because for one reason or another you don't watch a lot of college basketball. Simply because Peter doesn't pay much attention to a sport doesn't speak to the relevance of that sport (or conference, as the case may be here) as a whole.

p. Beernerdness: It’d been a while since I had a Flower Power IPA (Ithaca Brewing Company), but I will not be such a stranger anymore. Had one the other night, and it’s one of the best IPAs in the country.

It's the Meryl Streep of beers. Always good and you can never have too much of it.

r. Speaking of worker bees, Adnan Virk is ESPN’s Cesar Tovar. Virk is everywhere, and he’s good at everything.
s. You’ll have to look up Cesar Tovar, but let this be the start of your MMQB homework assignment.

Hey, how about not being a haughy dipshit and just provide the information rather than condescendingly request your readers go search out the information? You know, do the same thing you expect others to do for you when you aren't aware of something.

u. The hearts of so many in the journalism community (and in the feeling world at large) go out to the Ivan Maisel family, as a desperate search for college son Max, missing since last Sunday near Rochester, N.Y., continues. Certainly nothing anyone can say or do can be of much solace at this point. But Ivan (a former SI colleague who covers college football for ESPN), you should know how many people deeply feel for you and wish you and your family all the best in this awful time.

Below is the Tweet I referenced earlier. Peter did his best to empathize and came off as tone deaf as possible in doing so.

I do believe Peter's heart was in the right place, but pointing out he lost his child for three minutes in a grocery store as an example of how losing your child for over a week must feel and the child is presumed dead...that's just pretty typical of Peter. He seems to live in his own world at times and this Tweet was one of those times. 

The Adieu Haiku

Suh’s franchise-tag cost:

One year, $27 mill.

Don’t dare moan if tagged.
On the Haiku Pointlessness Scale of 1-10 this is probably only a 4. At least it provides information, but every week I wonder why the Adieu Haiku is still a part of MMQB.

Friday, February 6, 2015

9 comments Gregg Easterbrook Tells the Patriots' Defense That They are the Real MVP

Gregg Easterbrook told us last week that special teams aren't as important as offense or defense in the Super Bowl, unless it turns out that special teams are as important as offense or defense, in which case a special teams play can turn a game around. Gregg also said to be on the lookout for a pick six, because whichever team got a pick six would win the game. Neither team got a pick six in this year's Super Bowl. This week Gregg tells his readers how defense won the Super Bowl for the Patriots and announces the non-QB non-RB NFL MVP. This is the last TMQ until draft time. Try not to cry too much about missing Gregg until then.

For the second consecutive year, a dominant, smothering defense prevailed in the Super Bowl, proving that in this era of quick-snap scoreboard-spinning tactics, defense still trumps offense.

The Patriots' defense gave up 396 yards on 53 plays and the Seahawks' defense gave up 377 yards on 72 plays. New England averaged 365.5 yards of offense per game this year and Seattle averaged 375.8 yards of offense per game this year. So which team had the smothering defense again? It seems like neither team really had a smothering defense, but the Seahawks outgained the Patriots by 19 yards on 19 fewer plays. Anyway, who am I to get in the way of a narrative that Gregg Easterbrook cares to push? It doesn't matter to Gregg if what he is pushing is factual or not, it's his reality based on how he cares to see that reality. Fact or fiction doesn't apply. Only information that proves what Gregg wants to prove should apply.

Last year, it was the Seattle Seahawks' defense. This year, the New England Patriots' defense. Tom Brady's exploits and records inevitably draw the headlines. Defense is what brought the Patriots their latest Lombardi.

On the last play of the game, this was true. Otherwise, it was Tom Brady and the offense that came back from a 10 point deficit (with some help from the defense obviously) in the fourth quarter. Again, Gregg wants to paint this as a huge, stifling defense effort by the Patriots when it wasn't that at all.

TMQ's Law of Comebacks holds: Defense starts comebacks, offense stops them. This diktat was on display in the Patriots' Super Bowl comeback.

This isn't the Law of Comebacks, but the Law of Common Sense. A comeback can't start until the defense stops the opposing team from scoring points. It's hard to make up a deficit and come back if your team's defense can't stop the opposing team from scoring. This is common sense and nothing else.

Not only did New England's defense seal the deal by stopping Seattle at the goal line with 20 seconds remaining, but it also started the comeback. From the point at which Seattle took a two-score lead late in the third quarter, its possession results were: punt, punt, punt, interception.

Of course the defense started the comeback. The Patriots can't start to come back until the defense stops the Seahawks from scoring. Still, the Patriots' defense wasn't really smothering. They gave up 396 yards on the game.

Not only did New England's defense win the Super Bowl but it also got the Patriots to the Super Bowl. New England had to stage a divisional-round comeback versus Baltimore. Patriots down 28-14 early in the second half, the defense allowed just three points for the reminder of that contest.

I'm not sure anyone is claiming the Patriots' defense was terrible, but to call it "smothering" and "dominant" while comparing the Patriots' defensive performance to that of the Seahawks in the Super Bowl the previous year against the Broncos is simply incorrect. The Patriots defense played fairly well, but they weren't really dominant throughout the game. 

In fact the most important stat of the 2014 NFL season may be this one, regarding New England's defense: The Patriots did not allow a fourth-quarter touchdown in their final nine games. Teams that don't let opponents score in the fourth quarter are teams that win trophies.

Little known fact there. The best teams are the ones that don't let their opponent score points for 25% of the game for almost half the season.

Many aspects came together for the Patriots' defense to shine down the stretch -- great athletic performances from Jamie Collins, Rob Ninkovich and Devin McCourty; the arrivals of Darrelle Revis and Brandon Browner; players nobody else wanted, including Alan Branch

I think Gregg means "unwanted, but highly-drafted bust 2nd round pick" Alan Branch. Has Branch made the transition from a bust 2nd round pick simply because he was unwanted and played well for the Patriots? So Gregg won't refer to him as a bust, unless he needs to of course, because Branch is considered "unwanted," and rightfully so.

Officially, New England plays a 3-4 front, but Ninkovich can be anything from a 4-3 down defensive end to dropping deep into coverage. Sometimes a nickel back lines up as middle linebacker. (Brady may be so obsessed with shouting out the identity of the opposition middle linebacker presnap because, in practice, he never knows who the middle linebacker will be.)

Or it's because nearly every experienced quarterback will identify the Mike because that helps his offensive line set up their blocking assignments. But sure, Brady is obsessed with the identify of the Mike because he never knows in practice who that person will be, and not because experienced quarterbacks identify the Mike for blocking purposes.

Defense won the Super Bowl for the second consecutive season -- and this time it was a defense that wasn't on anyone's radar.

Yes, in a Super Bowl between the Seahawks and Patriots who would have guessed the Patriots' defense would have won the Super Bowl? Considering there were only two defenses playing in the Super Bowl, it is rather shocking to hear the Patriots' defense wasn't on ANYONE'S radar. I expected the Ravens' defense to win the Super Bowl for the Patriots, but it turned out the Patriots' defense that helped them win the game.

Now that the field lights are turned off, the film rooms are dark and the cheerleaders have put their miniskirts away in very small drawers,

It still sounds shady and slightly pervy when you talk about cheerleaders in their miniskirts.

Americans will turn their gaze to other sports. But what are "sports"? See below.

Yes, what are sports? Get excited for the discussion about whether ping-pong or gaming are sports. These are the tough questions that only Gregg Easterbrook dares to handle in TMQ.

In other sports news, who produces better NFL teams -- red states or blue states? See Tuesday Morning Quarterback's annual State Standings below.

The annual State Standings that are mostly just a list of each NFL team's record separated by what state that team is located in. I can't wait for Gregg to start annual the City Standings next year.

Stats Of The Super Bowl No. 5: Taking into account trades, in the 2014 draft, 10 first-round selections were invested in quarterbacks and receivers. No first-round drafted quarterback or receiver was on a Super Bowl roster.

Of the 12 teams that were in the NFL Playoffs, 8 of those teams' starting quarterback was drafted in the 1st round. 1 was drafted in the 2nd round, 1 drafted in the 3rd round, 1 drafted in the 6th round and 1 was undrafted.

Of the 12 teams that were in the NFL Playoffs, 6 of those teams drafted their best wide receiver in the first round, 1 drafted their best wide receiver in the 2nd round, 2 were drafted in the 3rd round, 1 drafted their best wide receiver in the 6th round, 1 drafted their best wide receiver in the 7th round and 1 had their best wide receiver as undrafted.

So basically, Gregg has a point in terms of the quarterbacks and receivers in the Super Bowl, but when taking a larger sample size it shows that the best quarterbacks and wide receivers in the playoffs were drafted in the 1st round. But why would Gregg use a larger sample size that may disprove the point he wants to make? It's not like he wants to be honest with his readers.

Sweet Play Of The Super Bowl: Reaching the Seattle 4-yard line in the fourth quarter, New England threw a "pivot" to Julian Edelman, who misplayed the ball, incompletion. 

It's hard to play the ball correctly when you are concussed and all.

Leading 24-14 near the end of the third quarter, Seattle reached third-and-2 on the New England 47. The Seahawks have the league's No. 1 rushing attack and best power back, Marshawn Lynch.

Lynch is a first round draft pick by the way.

There seems no chance the Patriots could have prevented Lynch from gaining two yards on consecutive rushes. Instead Seattle lines up empty backfield, taking a Lynch run out of the equation, and throws incomplete. The clock stops and the chains don't move. 

But why would the Seahawks go for it on fourth down in this situation? I like to be aggressive, but the Seahawks defense had shut the Patriots out from scoring in the third quarter and the Seahawks have one of the best punters in the NFL. Why not pin the Patriots deep rather than go for it on fourth down (if the third down try fails) and hope Lynch converts or otherwise give the Patriots good field position? So I don't think the Seahawks would have two tries to get these two yards with Lynch. They would have one try on third down and then punting would be their best move.

Leading 28-24, with a minute left in the 2014 season, New England had defending champion Seattle facing second-and-goal on the 1-yard line, holding a timeout, possessing the league's No. 1 running attack. Three was sufficient clock for Marshawn Lynch to stage three power rushes, and it's difficult to believe any defense could stuff three straight Lynch rushes when only a single yard was needed. New England's Super Bowl-clinching interception was sweet. It was doubly sweet that undrafted who-dat Malcolm Butler made the interception. It was triply sweet that during the Super Bowl, Butler also had three passes defensed -- the best such number in a contest that featured star defensive backs Darrelle Revis, Richard Sherman, Earl Thomas and Kam Chancellor.

Ah Gregg, it's entirely possible that Malcolm Butler had three passes defensed because the Seahawks weren't afraid to throw the football in his direction. Passes defensed can be a function of the offense throwing the ball in the cornerback's direction because they don't think he is very good. There is a reason that Richard Sherman, Darrelle Revis and other top corners don't always lead the league in passes defensed, and that's because teams will avoid them completely or be careful when throwing in their direction. So yes, Butler had an impressive game, but three passes defensed just means the Seahawks could have been targeting him.

Triply sour was the pass wasn't a play fake! Seattle made no attempt to draw the defense toward Lynch. Malcolm Butler, who intercepted, could jump the route because he knew from the snap the down was not a run.

Butler was in man coverage, so the second the ball was snapped he was responsible for one of the stacked receivers on the right side of the offensive line. Butler jumped the route because he saw it was a pass, but even if the Seahawks had used play-action then it only would have served to pull Butler closer to the line of scrimmage right into the path of where Lockette was running his route. If Butler fell for the play fake, he's running towards the line of scrimmage to stop Lynch from scoring and right in the path of the pass anyway.

Ricardo Lockette and Jermaine Kearse were in a "stack" on the right. On a quick combo move, the ball always goes to the second who cuts beneath the first man, who sets a pick. Between no play fake and Lockette being the second guy in a combo, Butler knew the call was a slant to Lockette -- so he jumped the route and won the Super Bowl.

Even if Butler knew the ball was going to Lockette, there was no promise that the pass would be going inside and not outside. It is a tribute to Butler that he knew the pass was going inside and a pick wasn't being set for Lockette to run a pattern to the right of the block. Besides, it was just a really good play by Butler even if he knew where Lockette was going to be running.

New York Times Corrections On Fast-Forward: In the past six months the Paper of Record has, according to its corrections page …

Ran an epic 192-word correction about exactly when Gary Hart said "follow me around."

Because, of course, if the New York Times makes a correction then they shouldn't fully explain what the correction is. I'm sure Gregg wouldn't mock the New York Times for making a correction that didn't fully explain what was being corrected. Not at all.

Incorrectly declared the economics minister of France married his elementary school teacher

The Times did make the mistake, but because:

An article on Tuesday about Emmanuel Macron, the new economy minister of France, referred incorrectly to the period during which his wife had been his teacher. It was in high school, not first grade. (In French, “Premiere,” or first grade, refers to high school.)

So that makes sense as to how the mistake could be made.

Became confused about who's on first

It would be nice if Gregg would read the correction that he is making fun of in TMQ. The correction didn't confuse who was on first, but instead stated:

Because of an editing error, an article in some copies on Sunday about the Giants’ 2-1 victory in 18 innings over the Washington Nationals in Game 2 of their National League division series misstated the base Asdrubal Cabrera was on when Anthony Rendon drove him in with a single in the third inning. As the article correctly noted elsewhere, Cabrera was on third, not on second. 

There was never anyone claimed to have been on first base. The mistake was that Cabrera was really on third base, not second base. Gregg should issue a correction for being confused about who isn't on first.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback Non-QB Non-RB NFL MVP: This year's winner is linebacker Bobby Wagner of the Seahawks, who took 47 percent of the reader vote, besting linebacker Rob Ninkovich of the Patriots at 33 percent.

Victory is mine! I did not vote, because I really don't care to vote, but I'm glad the second round pick and soon to be highly-paid glory boy won the Tuesday Morning Quarterback Non-QB Non-RB NFL MVP. Wagner can just be added to the list of first and second round picks who have won this award in the past.

Dan Connolly of the Patriots and Doug Baldwin of the Hawks were the also-rans at 10 percent each, and a good thing in the latter case considering the knuckleheaded penalty Baldwin drew in the Super Bowl.

Well, you know how those undrafted players are. They have talent but just aren't willing to work hard enough to make it like those highly-drafted players are.

Because the words "sports" and "athletics" have such high standing in contemporary society, the sense of what's considered a sport or viewed as an athletic challenge, continually inflates. Most people would call golf a "sport," though golfers rarely break a sweat and have caddies to shoulder the load of their clubs.

Not all golfers have caddies to shoulder the load of their clubs. Professional golfers and others who can afford to pay a caddie will have someone else shoulder the load of their clubs, but most golfers put their clubs on the back of a golf cart or just carry their clubs on the course. It is not correct to assume all golfers have a caddie.

ESPN places the mantle of "Worldwide Leader in Sports" on poker and on spelling bees, which are mentally taxing but entail no physical effort. Table tennis requires great reflexes -- does that make pingpong a sport?

Who cares and why does it matter what is considered a sport and what isn't?

NASCAR, Formula One and other types of car racing are viewed as sports. They are dangerous and physically taxing, but it's the motors, not the drivers, that provide the muscle.

Gregg is about to point out he has been in a race car before. He hasn't been in a race car for three hours in the hot sun. There is a motor on the car, but it is physically taxing to drive a race car at 200 mph for three hours. I don't know if driving a car is a sport, but I do know the drivers need muscle in order to drive a race car for three hours.

(As part of a Super Bowl event, last weekend I drove a McLaren at 120 mph on a racetrack: it was mildly stressful but sure didn't turn me into an athlete.)

Did you do it for three hours? Did you get in the car again the very next day? If not, then you have no clue what you are talking about.

ESPN The Magazine (Published on Earth the Planet) featured a nude pictorial of Funny Car driver Courtney Force, praising her for being able to handle "a 10,000-horsepower machine." That does sound difficult, but is handling a powerful machine a "sport"? If so, then pilots and excavator operators are athletes.

It's completely different and you know it. If you don't know it, then you should know it.

The New York Times covers the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in the sports section, perhaps because jumping over obstacles makes the dogs athletes? Competitive cheer tournaments have been viewed as a sport for a while; now the American Medical Association considers all cheerleading, including the traditional sideline variety, to be a sport.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback proposes this rule: a "sport" is an activity that produces a winning person or team and that leaves the participants exhausted. Everything else is either recreation or a test of skills.

Okay, then cheerleading is definitely a sport and even a dog show is a sporting event because there is a winner and the dogs definitely look a little tired after being run around the track in the front of the judges. Video gaming could be a sport because there is a winner and the participants can be mentally exhausted after competing. How about there is just no rule for what is a sport because exhaustion can also count for mental exhaustion?

TMQ's Voice Mail: Thank you for calling Tuesday Morning Quarterback Enterprises. Please listen carefully as our options change at random. Your call may be recorded for quantity assurance purposes. DaÅ­rigi en esperanto, premu 1. To be misquoted, press 2. To be quoted accurately but out of context, press 3. If you have a theory involving Bill Belichick, the run on the Swiss franc and the disappearance of Flight 19, press 4. To submit a proposal for a 9,000-word column that might have something to do with football, press 5. To be disconnected, press 6. At the conclusion of the call you may hang up. Though if you didn't know that, we don't want to talk to you.

??????????????????????????????

Is Gregg just obviously trying to waste space in TMQ now? I mean...what?

Batman, Iron Man, the X-Men, Captain America -- they've sold lots of movie tickets. How long till they have their own Broadway musicals? Spiderman got a musical that ran on Broadway for more than two years. "Flashdance," "Dirty Dancing," "The Bodyguard," "Elf" and other movie-based musicals have been to or hope to reach Broadway or the West End. Imagine the numbers list from a Batman musical:

"Gotham After Dark" -- overture
"Beneath My Cape" -- Bruce Wayne, Alfred
"When the Signal Shines" -- Batman (solo)
"In the Hideout Where I Lurk" -- Penguin, dancing henchmen
"Take Your Mask Off for Me" -- Rachel, Vicki, Selina and chorus girls
"First We Banter" -- Batman, Penguin
"Curses He Foiled Me Again" -- cast


Again, ???????????????????????????????????

Is this punishment for criticizing Gregg's criticism concerning the lack of realism in movies and television shows? Is Gregg trying to punish his readers in some way by coming up with original, not funny material so they come back to him begging for criticism concerning the lack of realism in movies and television shows? It's not working for me, but wow, Gregg is wasting space in TMQ with some really bizarre, non-funny material.

But, I have tricked you all. OF COURSE Gregg is going to criticize fictional television shows and movies in the last TMQ for the next few months.

Of course television shows have ridiculous plots. But shouldn't the physical aspects make sense? Such as, say, the distance between locations be realistic? Recently on "NCIS: Los Angeles," the heroes traveled from Los Angeles to Tunisia and back in about 15 minutes.

No, because nobody wants to watch them on a plane for several hours making small talk and sleeping.

On "The Flash," superhero love interest Iris West arrives with coffee cups in a cardboard shell that she holds sideways -- they don't fall out or, apparently, weigh anything. And Iris's job is running a coffee bar! On "Madam Secretary," the beleaguered assistant enters with the two tall Starbucks that the Secretary of State ordered -- they don't have sleeves yet don't hurt his hand, and he waves them around as he makes a point.

I don't think I understand why these things bother Gregg so much. When I'm watching a television show, I can clearly see when two characters are talking that several takes from several angles are being shown and sometimes the characters whose face the audience can't see isn't having his/her hand move in concert with what that character is supposed to be saying. It's a fictional show, I get over. If Gregg is so bored watching a show that empty coffee cups bore him, maybe he should find more interesting shows to watch.

Then there's television addiction to cell phones. Somehow directors have come to believe it's dramatic to talk on cell phones -- maybe because Hollywood deals are made by shouting into cell phones while stuck in traffic on the I-10. TV mobsters discuss their plans in detail via cell phone,

I'd love to know what generic "TV mobsters" Gregg is watching because on "The Sopranos" it was a very clear plot point that they did not talk on cell phones about plans in detail. I'm sure what this generic show with "TV mobsters" Gregg is talking about via cell phone, but given the fact he isn't being specific about the show when he's ALWAYS specific about shows, I'm sure this "TV mobsters" show exists. 

On NBC "State of Affairs," the imaginary CIA director uses his cell phone to discuss national security information, including operational code names. True, during the David Petraeus scandal, the nation learned that the actual CIA director did not know email accounts can be hacked. But your columnist is guessing not many people in the intelligence community talk about state secrets over cell phones.

Right, you are guessing. This means you could be wrong. I know, I shudder at the thought too.

With 11 minutes remaining, Seattle had a 24-14 lead and New England faced third-and-14 deep in its territory. The Patriots looked as beaten as a good team can look -- and Seattle looked seriously overconfident. New England converts on Brady's favorite pass of 2014, the short crosser to Julian Edelman. How could Seattle not have been expecting this?

It's possible they were expecting it, they just figured they could tackle Edelman before he got the first down.

Now New England faced second-and-11 and converts on a seam route to Rob Gronkowski. A moment later New England faces second-and-10 and again converts on a seam route to Gronkowski. Four times in the fourth quarter, Seattle's storied defense allowed the Patriots to convert long-yardage deficits.

It's almost like the Patriots had a game plan on offense or something. Allowing the opposing offense to score on four long-yardage attempts is how games are lost.

New England's second touchdown of the game came on a 22-yard go route to Gronkowski. He split far wide, covered by weakside linebacker K.J. Wright, no safety nearby. Presnap, your columnist pointed toward Gronkowski and shouted, "That matchup is a touchdown for New England!" (I have witnesses.)

You have witnesses that none of your readers know. How about you hand out some phone numbers and I'll verify that you aren't lying? I would have a few more questions when I talk to these witnesses though.

How did Earl Thomas, the safety on that side, fail to notice? Thomas cheated up as if expecting run.

Thomas may have noticed but the defensive play call may have been to where he wasn't supposed to double or have responsibility for the outside receiver. Defensive players can't just do whatever the hell they want to do and Thomas is famous for being able to seem like he's out of position only to actually be right in position to make a play.

Gronkowski was lined up along the Seattle sideline -- he could have reached out and shaken hands with Seahawks coaches. Why didn't they call timeout?

DON'T LIKE SOMETHING YOU SEE? JUST CALL A TIMEOUT!

How many timeouts does Gregg think NFL teams have? 15? That's his answer to everything. Just call a timeout! You noticed half a second ago that you don't like the defensive alignment? Call a timeout! Don't like the play call the coach sent in because pre-snap it seems like it won't work? Call a timeout!

For the rest of the game, Thomas covered Gronkowski when he split far wide, neutralizing him as a deep threat. So Josh McDaniels shifted Gronkowski inline, where he doesn't normally play much, and used him as a pass blocker for a while.

Gronkowski doesn't play much inline? I will have to ask Patriots fans to confirm this for me. I feel like I've seen him play inline quite a bit when I've watched Patriots games, but I also don't have the vast knowledge about football that Gregg has. It doesn't help that I find Gregg tends to just make things up, so it's hard to believe what he is saying is the truth sometimes.

As for what went wrong for Seattle -- where to start? Yes, the Bluish Men Group lost two defensive starters to injury, but every NFL team must deal with injuries. Neither Thomas nor Kam Chancellor made a big play all night. Richard Sherman did not play aggressively at the line, instead backpedaling or lining up "soft."

I'm sure that has nothing to do with him playing with a busted up elbow. It's hard to play physical and aggressive when you may need Tommy John surgery on your elbow. Also, it's hard to make big plays with a torn MCL.

From the point Seattle took 24-14 lead, Russell Wilson, the most effective running quarterback in professional football, did not carry the ball. During the regular season, Wilson ran for more yards than the leading rushers of 16 teams. To the point that Seattle led 24-14, Wilson was averaging 13 yards per carry. Three times from that juncture on, Wilson handed to Lynch on the zone read when he should have kept the ball and gone outside because the Patriots had no contain man opposite the playside. Had Wilson simply kept the ball and run for 20 yards on any of those three chances, the fourth-quarter dynamic would have been very different.

This is great. Yeah, if Russell Wilson had just kept the ball and run for 20 yards on any of those three chances, the fourth quarter dynamic would have been very different. If Marshawn Lynch had just found a way to avoid every tackler who tried to tackle him on every play during the game, surely the Seahawks would have won. Of course, if Tom Brady had the ability to fly then he could have negated the Seahawks' pass rush on most plays and the fourth-quarter dynamic would have been very different as well. And there were a few plays during the game where Seahawks receivers caught a pass and got tackled. Had the receiver simply avoided being tackled and run for a touchdown on any of these chances, the Seahawks would have won the game.

I can create fake scenarios on what should have happened and how this would have changed the outcome of the game too. It's a fun game.

TMQ's annual state standings judges teams based on where they perform -- the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons in Maryland, the Giants in New Jersey and so on. Note that of the traditional prep football hotbed states -- California, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas -- Florida finished second from last, and only one posted a playoff victory. The top two finishers hailed from Massachusetts and Washington, among the most liberal states in the union; professional football's top four finishers hailed from states that voted Democratic in the 2012 presidential election.

Massachusetts 15-4
Washington 14-5
Wisconsin: 13-5
Colorado: 12-5
Indiana: 13-6
Arizona, Michigan: 11-6
Pennsylvania, Texas: 21-12
New York: 9-7
Ohio: 17-15-1
North Carolina: 8-9-1
Missouri: 15-17
Maryland: 15-19
Louisiana, Minnesota: 7-9
California: 20-28
Georgia: 6-10
Illinois: 5-11, New Jersey 10-22
Florida: 13-35
Tennessee: 2-14


There is such a small correlation between states that vote Democratic and that state's football team playing well that I'm embarrassed for Gregg that he even brought this up. Also, the absolute pointlessness of these State Standings is reflected in the fact the two states at the top of his standings are..................the two teams that appeared in the Super Bowl. What? How could that be? So the state with the best record also had the team that appeared in the Super Bowl? That's just amazing. You won't believe this, but the two states with the third and fourth best record are the two states that have the #2 seeds in the AFC and NFC playing in that state. This has to be a coincidence.

The fact Gregg thinks he is actually giving relevant information with his State Standings amuses the shit out of me. It's mostly a restatement of which teams in the NFL had the best record. Get this, the two states with the worst record in the State Standings are also the two states that had the two worst teams in the NFL. It's fun how Gregg finds ways to restate information that is already known and then try to pass it off as new information.

In the run up to the Super Bowl, Marshawn Lynch received a huge amount of attention for insisting he just wanted to be left alone. If he'd actually just wanted to be left alone, he would have gone to the podium, offered a few sports platitudes -- "the Patriots are a fine, fine football team" -- and everyone would have left him alone

For a member of the media, Gregg sure doesn't understand how the media works does he? I very much don't doubt the media would have found fault with Marshawn Lynch no matter what he said at the podium on Media Day. If he had offered boring platitudes then the media would have attacked him for saying nothing of substance and wasting their time. Of course, they allowed their time to be wasted by showing up knowing he wouldn't saying anything, but that's beside the point. 

By making a great show of appearing in very dark glasses and ignoring questions, Lynch drew attention to himself. Which, one presumes, was what he wanted all along.

Yes, Lynch wanted attention all along. That's why he had to be forced by the NFL to even show up to talk to the media. That's definitely the sign of someone who wants attention.

In 2009, he was suspended by the league for three games. Lynch seemed to expect sports reporters would act like team publicists and change the subject; instead he got abrasive questions. Since then, including last week at Super Bowl media events, he has accused the sports media of printing lies about him: "You all can go make up whatever you're going to make up." I'd venture a guess Lynch actually does not know what the sports media is saying about him because he doesn't read the newspaper.

Again Gregg, that's just a guess you are making. But I'm sure Lynch doesn't read a newspaper because he's an athlete who doesn't look clean-cut, so he's obviously stupid and uneducated. 

The odd thing is that Lynch has a sense of humor, as he displayed in his Skittles parody. If he'd only show that humor at a media conference, the ice would melt. Instead he says things like this from last week, when he was supposed to take questions: "I come to you all's event, you shove cameras and microphones down my throat. I ain't got nothing for you all." Reporters and spectators don't get angry at Lynch when he expects them to attend games:

Gregg is so off-base here it's laughable. Marshawn Lynch doesn't expect reporters to attend games. The media outlet the reporter works for expects these reporters to attend games. Marshawn Lynch doesn't give a crap if reporters attend games or not. Gregg shouldn't act like it's a symbiotic relationship, because it's not. Lynch doesn't need the reporters as much as the reporters need to cover the most popular sport in the United States. Also, Lynch has no issue with spectators because they aren't part of the media and don't ask him dumb questions. Gregg shouldn't act like Lynch is turning against the very fans who support him, because that's not true. Of course, because Gregg is part of the sports media then I'm sure he views turning against reporters as being the same thing as turning against the fans.

When Thurman Thomas couldn't find his helmet at a Super Bowl, then the Bills lost, for a while he was angry at the media because reporters kept bringing this up. One day he walked into a media conference with a basket of miniature helmets that he handed out to reporters, and told a couple jokes about himself. For the rest of his career, Thomas had the sports media eating out of his hand: When it was time to cast Hall of Fame votes, Thomas got a landslide of votes. Somebody in the Seahawks' organization should tell this story to Lynch.

Lynch DOES NOT CARE. Has he not made that clear enough? Add Gregg Easterbrook to the list of self-involved media members who believe it's the privilege of an athlete to be covered by the media, so showering the media with kindness and gifts to tickle their taint and make them giggle is the only way to try and get the positive coverage these athletes so desperately covet. When facing an athlete who doesn't care to talk to the media, the sports media acts like there is something wrong with this athlete and then threaten to pull any neutral coverage until they are treated like the royalty they so obviously believe they deserve to be treated as.

Snowfall totals are notoriously difficult to predict. But last week's sky-is-falling treatment of the approaching northeast blizzard was revealing of political and media cultures.

Perhaps it's better that newscasters and politicians issue exaggerated warnings about weather than for the public to be complacent. But your columnist thinks the underlying dynamic is longing, on the part of the media and political establishments, for bad news. Bad news makes for ratings, and justifies increased government power plus more subsidies.

Or maybe politicians and the media would rather people prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Underplaying a storm's effect on an area can cause the citizens of that area to be in danger if the storm is worst than possible. It's fun to mock weather people for exaggerating a storm, but there is a legitimate public safety need to exaggerate so that citizens are prepared.

In the run up to the first college football national championship, the Washington Post reported Ohio State snaps the ball in "25.72 seconds" and averages "7.03 yards" per play. The difference between "7.03" yards and 7 yards is one inch. The difference between "25.72 seconds" and 26 seconds, multiplied by the Buckeyes' typical snaps per game, works out to 20 seconds over the course of the game.

20 seconds, or you know, the difference in the Seahawks having time to win the Super Bowl or not having time to win the Super Bowl. What's 20 seconds in a football game, other than the potential difference in getting an additional play or two off? How could that be important?

During last spring's NBA playoffs, Indiana had possession out-of-bounds under the Miami basket with 0.1 showing before halftime and scored on an alley-oop tip into the basket. That is, the scorekeeper thought the entire play took less than a tenth of a second.

That same month the Journal reported Stephen Curry "takes about 0.3 seconds to release the ball, which is at least 0.1 seconds faster" than other long-range shooters, while his 3-pointer attempts "average a maximum height of 16.23 feet" versus a league wide trey average of "15.77 feet."

When could 0.1 of a second be important, right Gregg? It's only the difference in an alley-oop or getting a shot blocked by a defender.

In 2012, I refinanced to take advantage of low mortgage rates. My lender's monthly statements says I am paying "3.00000 percent" interest. The same year I purchased an LG flatscreen TV that boasted a typical lifespan of 60,000 hours. That's 55 years at three hours per day. 

Actually, that's 54.79 years.

Recently I bought some chicken marsala at Giant Food, my local supermarket. The instructions said to microwave for "approximately 2 minutes and 22 seconds." Approximately!

From TMQ last week:

Postscript No. 4: Andrew Luck's hand size (pinkie to thumb with fingers spread) is 10 inches, Brady's is 9.4 inches. That's a bigger distinction than it may seem.

That seems like a bigger distinction!

Gregg's anti-hyper-specificity fetish is never not annoying. There are some numbers that are too specific, but Stephen Curry taking a shot 0.1 seconds faster than other long-range shooters is important when factoring in how quick NBA defenders are.

Last summer, your columnist pitched for Katy Perry as the Super Bowl halftime act. The humor value of her show was well worth it -- though, what's left in terms of staging for whomever performs next year? The acoustics at University of Phoenix Stadium were awful, however. From the stands the sound was so bad it was difficult to determine what number Perry was performing.

It's Katy Perry, does it really matter? It's not like she isn't just doing a duet with Auto-Tune anyway.

While TV ratings for the NFL and for NCAA football remain robust, NFL attendance is soft, while big-deal NCAA football attendance has been declining. For those of all age groups, one reason is that HD TVs show football so well, why brave the hassle and endure the expense to attend? But there's an added factor for millennials. Many don't associate attending a football game with dad as a rite of passage of youth.

So Gregg is now making blanket assumptions about how "many" millennials don't associate attending a football game with dad as important. I can't see how making blanket assumptions about a group of 70-80 million people could ever be wrong.

Dad may not be in the picture to begin with. Sure, at Thanksgiving they heard their uncles expounding on devotion to the Giants or Bears or Raiders as family traditions. But the sense of these and other teams as emblematic of the communities they represent is fading, replaced with a sense that the NFL is something the super-rich use to sustain their privileges.

And Gregg knows for a fact this is how many of these 70-80 million people feel. I've always been impressed with Bill Simmons' ability to read the mind of his readers, but Gregg can read the minds and feelings of 70-80 million people and then come to a conclusion about their relationship with their father from these feelings. That's impressive.

And then there's the movement of millennials from television to broadband. Cord-cutting as a fad is giving way to the no-cord generation that has never signed up for television service. They may watch fantasy football stats and highlights on the web. They're a lot less likely to watch the games.

Which explains why the ratings for NFL games are declining so precipitously. No millennials watch games anymore.  

Either Throw A Virgin Into The Volcano Or Fire An Assistant Coach: The latest example is the Packers' scapegoating last week of special teams coach Shawn Slocum, fired because his charges allowed a special teams touchdown then failed to recover an expected onside kick in the NFC championship game. Green Bay special teams indeed performed poorly.

Gregg wouldn't know this because he's too busy making shit up, but the Packers were ranked 32nd in the NFL in special teams this past season. That's out of 32 teams. So maybe, just maybe, the fact Slocum presided over the worst special teams unit in the NFL is the reason he got fired. Maybe Slocum was fired not because of the easy answer that Gregg wants to give based on watching the playoffs, but based on the season-long failure of the Packers to have good special teams play. The more you know, the less you assume, and it's fine to do research before just writing shit down and calling it a day. It's recommended.

It was head coach Mike McCarthy who sent the special teams out four times on four fourth-and-1 situations when Green Bay should have gone for it. The head coach isn't going to fire himself, though.

While those were bad decisions, Slocum wasn't fired because the Mason Crosby kicked field goals on fourth-and-1. Gregg is trying to confuse the issue to push one of his talking points. The special teams coach was fired for his unit's performance throughout the entire year, not because of fourth-and-1 decisions made by Mike McCarthy.

At the end of each season, TMQ recommends meritorious recent books that may not have received sufficient attention. Among them this year:

I wonder how many of these books Gregg has read? He lists 19 non-fiction books and four fiction books. If Gregg recommends books like he provides links to outside articles in TMQ, then I'll be surprised if he's read half of these books and his descriptions of what these books are about are really accurate. Gregg loves to provide links in TMQ that don't say what he believes they say (remember the Jacksonville schools link from earlier in the year?), so I can't help but think his book descriptions may not be accurate either.

Seahawks defensive coordinator Dan Quinn spent parts of the postseason negotiating for the Falcons head coaching job. His defense looked unfocused till the very end versus Green Bay, then looked unfocused for the entire Super Bowl. Was his head in the game or in his next contract?

Earlier in TMQ, Gregg blamed Earl Thomas and other Seattle defenders for allowing long gains to the Patriots. So is Dan Quinn to blame for his defense performing badly at times during the Super Bowl or is it the fault of the Seattle defenders? One minute Gregg is blaming the Seattle players for executing the play call poorly and now he's blaming Dan Quinn for the play call because he's "unfocused."

Exit Stage Left: Tuesday Morning Quarterback folds its tent and steals off into the desert. As usual, I recommend you employ the offseason to engage in spiritual growth. Take long walks. Attend worship services of any faith, even if solely to sharpen your doubt. Appreciate the beauty of nature. Exercise more, eat less. Perform volunteer work. Read, meditate, serve others: Do these things and you will feel justified in racing back to the remote, the swimsuit calendars and the microbrews when the football artificial universe resumes anew in the autumn.

And may Gregg decide that he will stop misleading his readers by providing only the information about players and plays that he finds to be important in order to prove his point. May he find that the points he wants to prove about his ridiculous "laws" and the narratives he wants to push aren't more important than admitting that he tends to just make these things up as he goes along. Also, may ESPN Grade and the Authentic Games Standings go away forever.

Friday, January 30, 2015

2 comments Marcus Hayes Is Not Happy Marshawn Lynch Isn't Helping Reporters Gather Quotes; Lectures Him on Responsibility

Marshawn Lynch caused a firestorm by showing up at Media Day (it's capitalized because it's super-important and should be treated that way, except when the media who shows up don't treat it that way) and repeating the same answer "I'm just here so I won't get fined" almost 30 times. I personally would just answer the questions that the media has for me if I were Lynch, but I'm not Marshawn Lynch and no one is asking me questions. Lynch is putting himself in the NFL's Draconian spotlight by not answering questions and playing along. It's not a big deal, so I think he should just answer the questions. But of course, it's not a big deal, so who really gives a shit if Marshawn Lynch doesn't have much to say or doesn't want to say anything? I think reporters care more than fans do about canned quotes that can take up space in a column. If reporters are still relying on these canned quotes and think the fans really care about them so much that it's worth getting worked up when a star player won't talk, then I'm guessing that reporter isn't serving the needs of his readership as he should. That doesn't stop Marcus Hayes from accusing Lynch of making a mockery of Media Day (capitalized!). See, he thinks Lynch is shirking his responsibility to provide reporters who show up to Media Day with quotes so they can write stories. Lynch should work harder and show some responsibility so reporters who show up to Media Day don't have to work as hard to write the articles they publish about the Super Bowl.

What irks me is that Marcus lectures Lynch on duty and responsibility, as if he's skipping out on practice or going AWOL when serving in the military. Lynch is ANSWERING QUESTIONS. THAT'S ALL HE'S FUCKING DOING! This isn't a life or death situation where Lynch is not showing duty or responsibility. Let's keep the perspective that Marcus Hayes doesn't have about the "duty" that Lynch is shirking. I would bet fans don't care if Lynch answers questions or not. Fans aren't best served by getting canned quotes from players and it's a fallacy that fans will be pissed Marshawn Lynch isn't serving up cliches on Media Day. The only ones who care are the ones who accuse Lynch of having a duty to talk to them. Yeah, talking on Media Day is part of the deal, but it's not that important.

This is the same Marcus Hayes with the man crush on Pat Burrell, who also does not enjoy chatting about Chase Utley.

Marshawn Lynch literally grabbed his crotch to express contempt for the assembled throng of 200 media members as he made his way to his podium at the start of Media Day.

Not figuratively, but literally. It was literally the worst thing that Marcus Hayes has ever seen. 

For the next 5 minutes or so, Lynch figuratively grabbed his crotch to express contempt for the NFL and its commissioner, Roger Goodell.

Lynch was required to be there in front of the media and he did his job. That was his duty and he did it. The NFL can't (and shouldn't) legislate what players say or don't say to the media on Media Day (capitalized!). NFL players are not children who need to be reminded to sit up straight and give a good answer. If a player isn't going to give interesting answers, most of the media will move on to other players. But not Marcus Hayes. He wants Marshawn Lynch to sit up straight, answer the questions, say "yes sir" and do his job of helping the media do their job. 

He was fined $100,000 in the past year for his lack of cooperation with the press, including a debacle at last year's Media Day. One report contended that the NFL threatened Lynch with a $500,000 fine if he acted similarly here.

Well, he acted similarly yesterday.

I disagree with Gregg Easterbrook on a lot of things, but the one area he makes sense when discussing (most of the time he makes sense in this area) is talking about how the NFL doesn't have to be popular. If the NFL wants to turn off fans quickly, start treating the players like they are children and becoming heavy-handed. Marcus Hayes is advocating this heavy-handed approach. Media Day is a joke. It's not to be taken seriously. It's a day where the players joke around and talk to the media before the Super Bowl. It's not 1975. If I want to read a quote from an athlete then there are plenty of places I can find a quote from that athlete. Players are communicating to fans directly through Twitter and fans are getting better coverage of their teams through independent web sites that cover these NFL teams. If Marshawn Lynch doesn't give a quote, who cares? There are 105 other players the media can talk to on Media Day. 

Lynch stayed on the podium for just under 5 minutes, the minimum required of him.
Or as someone who is less concerned with indicting Lynch for his every action might see, Lynch did exactly what was asked of him by the NFL. He showed up for five minutes. He did his duty and met his responsibility. 

He repeatedly droned, "I'm just here so I won't get fined," a phrase that trended on Twitter 1 minute after Lynch left the podium. He saluted himself on the big screen in the middle of the US Airways Center. Ever self-serving, Lynch was thrown a bag of Skittles candy, with whom he has an endorsement deal.

Marcus Hayes is bitching that Marshawn Lynch didn't make it easy for him to do his job and brings Lynch's lack of cooperation back to who he is as a person, but it's Lynch who is self-serving by publicizing a brand that pays him to publicize their name. For someone who Hayes will suggest lacks responsibility and a sense of duty, Lynch sure is meeting his responsibility and duty to Skittles.

With more than 57 minutes left in Media Day, Beast Mode entered Airplane Mode and ended all transmissions.

He was required to meet with the media for five minutes and he did that. So he didn't answer the media's questions like they wanted him to. He's a grown man. If the media doesn't find him interesting enough, move on, don't indicate that he lacks character or is a bad person. 

Media Day at the Super Bowl, an hourlong availability of essentially everyone of merit in both organizations held every Tuesday of Super Bowl week, seldom elicits any real information about players or their teams; but then, most interviews with NFL types elicit little information.

So what's the fucking problem? Marcus Hayes admits there is no real information elicited from the players or teams, then says most interviews don't elicit much information anyway. So what is Lynch doing that is so wrong? He's not withholding information, because Hayes doesn't expect much information. Lynch is doing what the NFL is telling him to do, so he's not violating their precious five minute rule on Media Day. What Lynch is doing wrong is not doing more than what the NFL wants him to do. He's at the podium answering questions, but not in the right way. Lynch is being insubordinate by not playing the game that the NFL wants him to play the game. Basically, Marcus Hayes is mad that Lynch isn't doing exactly what the NFL tells him to do outside of the obligation he has already met. Seems kind of Draconian to me.

The NFL has credentialed entertainment reporters and fostered a circus atmosphere, a circus the NFL now charges fans $28.50 to witness.

And of course within this circus atmosphere where the players are asked questions by people dressed up in costumes, these players must answer the questions in complete and compound sentences. Perhaps the players should talk at length when asked a question by a media member dressed up like a cartoon character. Because the event may be a circus, but the NFL wants Media Day treated like the holiest of football days and Marcus Hayes is toeing that NFL line for them. 

The availability has devolved to include guys who wear barrels over their bare torsos; Olympic skaters Johnny Weir and Tara Lipinski asking fashion questions for NBC; and beautiful women in short skirts who salsa dance with Kam Chancellor.

Media Day is not to be taken so seriously as it is being taken by Marcus Hayes. It's fine for Lynch to be asked fashion questions by Olympic skaters, because the media doesn't have to take their holy day seriously, but Marshawn Lynch can't give non-answers to questions because that makes a mockery of the day set aside for the media to finally ask the questions they can ask every other day of the year to Marshawn Lynch. Marshawn Lynch isn't allowed to make a mockery of Media Day. Only the media can mock their day. 

But, be it cramped and hot and inelegant, Media Day serves its purpose.
If you need to speak with the kicker or the punter or the special-teams ace, you get that done at Media Day.

If your paper or website or station cannot afford to send you to the Super Bowl site for the entire week, you get all of your interviews done on Media Day.

Did Marcus Hayes really expect or want a quote from Marshawn Lynch? Does he think reporters are going back to their hotel rooms or the bar violently angry that Marshawn Lynch gave non-answers to questions and they only had 105 other players to talk to? Marshawn Lynch isn't a punter, kicker or special teams ace. He's been in front of the camera a lot in his career. 

Every player is contractually obligated to participate at Media Day.

Every player also is contractually obligated to interact with the press after games and during weeks of game preparation.

Lynch did both. He didn't do both to the satisfaction of Marcus Hayes, but he met his contractual obligation to participate in Media Day and interact with the press. In fact, I think most people will remember Lynch's interactions more than they will remember canned quotes from the other players participating in the Super Bowl. 

Patriots coach Bill Belichick, a master at gamesmanship and himself a reticent and often demeaning interview, yesterday fired this shot across the bow of SS Beast Mode:

"That's our role - to be the conduit between our team and all the fans - all of you that cover the team and the fans that read or watch or listen. That's an important part of the process," said Belichick, who lived and died on football news as a kid. "Having been on the other side of this . . . that's what I wanted. I wanted information. I wanted to hear what's going on. We provide the fans who are so interested in our team with information that makes it interesting and exciting for them. That's why we're all here."

This is simply laughable. You know the media is reaching to indict Marshawn Lynch when they start using Bill Belichick as the example of someone who understands how coaches and players are the conduit to the fans. Belichick rarely gives any relevant information in his weekly press conferences and repeated "We're on to Cincinnati" many times in a press conference earlier this year, which apparently qualified as doing his duty to meet with the media and give out important information as a conduit to the fans. But yeah, a Belichick quote talking about how information from coaches and players is important for the fans. Sure. Pot meet kettle.

And Belichick is wrong, which means Marcus Hayes is wrong. Belichick as a kid wanted information on players and now information like that is readily available through multiple web sites, blogs and online newspapers. No one needs Media Day to hear about what Jon Ryan has to say. They can follow him on Twitter. DeAngelo Williams of the Panthers did not speak to the media this year really. I barely noticed because he's on Twitter and communicated with fans that way. It's 2015. I don't need the media to get quotes from players as much anymore because there is a ton of information out there. 

That's why Lynch should be fined again; fined, at least.

If he is allowed to act this way, nothing would prevent other players - all players - from acting this way.

This is hilarious. "If Lynch is allowed to not speak with the media then every other player who doesn't like dealing with the media will not speak with us! Where will our stories and quotes come from?" 

If Marcus Hayes is concerned other players wouldn't speak with the media if allowed to do so, then maybe the problem lies not with the players being asked the questions, but with those people asking the questions. If Hayes is really concerned other players don't want to talk to the media, the issue for WHY they don't want to talk the media could lie with the media. Of course that's silly talk. A player's reluctance to speak with the media says nothing about the media and speaks only to the character of that athlete. 

Teammate Richard Sherman's contention that Lynch should be interviewed by a handpicked pool reporter is a typically Shermanian, unsophisticated solution: The best interviews grow organically, in the moment. Sherman, perhaps the best interview in the NFL, should know that.

Yeah, but little information is learned at Media Day anyway, right? Marcus Hayes said that himself. Lynch had a good interview with Mike Silver recently. It was a handpicked reporter and it was a good interview. Media Day isn't the time for an "organic" interview with the circus surrounding the whole event. Marcus Hayes knows that, but he's just trying to be difficult and act like Marshawn Lynch blew a chance for a probing, deep interview when this isn't true at all. 

Every player in the league who believes Lynch should not be fined should contribute his own money to his next fine.

Or maybe every journalist who wants Marshawn Lynch to do an interview should contribute his own money for Lynch to do an interview with the handpicked reporter of his choice. 

Lynch is loyal in the locker room and ferocious on the field, fully worthy of his "Beast Mode" nickname.

Also, consider their general profile: These largely are very young men whose talent has afforded them shelter and structure most of their lives.

This is as opposed to the reporters asking the questions who have lived a hard knock life of press box food and sitting down and writing at a computer for a living. 

I would bet many of these football players didn't have shelter and structure for most of their lives until they got to college. You can read in this story about all the shelter and structure Lynch grew up with. A father he didn't really know AND he got to move around with his three siblings multiple times? What a spoiled brat!

They are people for whom "hard work" equates to lifting weights and running sprints; for whom "commitment" means adhering to a loose daily schedule that tells them when to wake, when to eat, when to think; for whom "adversity" means being .500 midway through a season and somehow making the playoffs.

And this is as opposed to sportswriters like Marcus Hayes for whom "hard work" equates to sitting at a computer and meeting a deadline; for whom "commitment" means leaving enough time to eat breakfast and play some golf before making it to the 12pm weekly briefing with Chip Kelly; for whom "adversity" means having writer's block. Marshawn Lynch is a world-class athlete, so yeah, I would imagine mocking him for hard work, commitment, and overcoming adversity seems a bit funny coming from a sportswriter like Marcus Hayes. Marcus may need to find a mirror to see what kind of hard work and commitment he has made compared to a professional athlete, because I'm betting Marshawn Lynch has achieved something through hard work and commitment that few other people can ever achieve simply by playing in the NFL.

They know little of the real world and its gravity.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Marcus Hayes is obviously coming from the rough streets, unlike these pampered football players. A sportswriter lecturing professional athletes on the real world and the gravity of the real world requires no punchline. The lecture in itself is the punchline. 

Despite their existence in a universe parallel to most people's, they at least should understand the weight of obligation.

Lynch met his obligation. He met with the media for the required amount of time. It's still funny to read Marcus Hayes talk about the weight of obligations as if Lynch and other NFL players just always do whatever the hell they want. Meanwhile, as Marcus Hayes takes a paid vacation in Arizona, Lynch and his teammates are preparing night and day for one of the biggest games of their lives. Hayes' obligation is to not eat too much food off the hotel buffet in an effort to not feel bloated prior to his round of golf, which he must get finished before writing a daily column. Marcus Hayes KNOWS the weight of obligation. That golf swing isn't going to fix itself. 

Lynch's boycott of the press is no different from boycotting a meeting, a practice or a game.

It's entirely different. A meeting, practice or game is directly part of Lynch's job, which affects his teammates and their chances of winning a football game. Lynch not speaking at Media Day is part of his ancillary responsibilities which has ZERO effect on the Seahawks' ability to win the Super Bowl. This is how self-involved and little knowledge of the real world Marcus Hayes has. He's not doing brain surgery. He's taking words someone else says, writing them down and then telling everyone else what that person said. If an athlete doesn't want to speak meaningful words, few people care. 

What if he mailed it in at the Super Bowl the way he mailed it in on Media Day?

But he won't because he never has before. This is a ridiculous hypothetical because there's no comparison between a player boycotting the media and that player's performance in the Super Bowl, no matter how hard Marcus Hayes wants to try and tie them together in an effort to give himself and his job more importance. The way he's written this column shows Hayes has no understanding of the real world and its gravity. If he did, he wouldn't act like Marshawn Lynch committed a heinous crime.

He is contractually obligated to be present at both, to perform professionally at each.

It is part of his job, part of his duty.

And he did his duty on both. Maybe he didn't do his duty as Marcus Hayes saw fit, but that doesn't matter. Lynch was there and stayed in front of the media for five minutes. Instead of asking him questions you know he won't answer, maybe find another player to spend time with? Or is that too easy and wouldn't involve a sufficient amount of grandstanding? 

Duty should not be served. It is part of being a professional. It's part of being an adult.

Marshawn Lynch is neither.

Whatever. It's also not professional or adult to expect another adult to bow to your every whim simply because you want a juicy quote. 

As expected, his antics stole the spotlight from other, less distasteful distractions.

Why is Marcus Hayes acting like the media HAS to talk to Marshawn Lynch? If you don't like his answers, go interview someone else. Maybe the punter, kicker or a special teams player. Speaking of duty and obligations, doesn't Marcus Hayes have a duty and obligation to find interesting stories to write about? He's shirking that responsibility by insisting on spending five minutes with a player who will provide him with neither. So yeah, duty and responsibility...how about showing some duty and responsibility and finding another more interesting player to talk to, rather than antagonize a player who has nothing to say? 

Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski created a stir by reading aloud from an erotic novel that starred a fictional version of himself. The erotica was poorly done and, really, coincidental.

The news was that Gronk can read.

Gosh, I can't figure out why Marshawn Lynch doesn't want to talk to the media. Why would that be when they are so kind as to call one of the athletes they are interviewing an illiterate? 

Spritely divas Lipinski and Weir, former Olympic skaters working the fashion angle for NBC, showed up in fabulous outfits. He had on a scarlet jacket over a silk shirt with a gemstone necklace, crammed his feet into 4-inch wedge booties and wore more makeup than she did.

The biggest diva in Phoenix was Marshawn Lynch, and the worst sort of diva:

I see what you did there Marcus. Though I would argue the real diva behavior is to expect a professional athlete to bow to your every whim and answer every question you have in the very manner that you expect it to be answered, and even though there are multiple other athletes you could choose to speak to, you throw a hissy-fit questioning the character of the athlete for not doing exactly as you say or want. That's real diva behavior.

He contends he wants no attention beyond the game-day adulation of his fans . . . then arrives for Media Day in sunglasses, a special (and possibly unsanctioned) Beast Mode hat.
 
So Marcus Hayes criticizes Marshawn Lynch for even doing his contractual duty of showing up for Media Day and answering questions for five minutes, immediately after claiming Lynch should have stayed longer and answered the questions while putting on a bigger show for the media. So if Lynch doesn't show up because he doesn't want attention, he's going to get fined. If he does show up then he's grabbing for attention by arriving in sunglasses and a hat. So either way he goes, he's going to be criticized. So why should I blame him for not speaking to the media again? 

Within an hour, the hat was available online for $33, touted as the one Lynch wore during Media Day.

It was the height of hypocrisy. Lynch was afforded a priceless, 5-minute ad for Skittles and New Era caps.

The height of hypocrisy is criticizing an athlete for not upholding his duty and responsibility when that athlete is getting publicity for a product he is paid to endorse, as well as wearing and getting publicity for the official hat of the NFL. How dare Marshawn Lynch use his five minutes at the podium to sell his sponsors' products when Marcus Hayes wants to use those five minutes to help his company sell his products! Such hypocrisy!

Both are corporate partners with the NFL.

Maybe the league should just call it even.

So Marcus Hayes is going to criticize Marshawn Lynch for meeting the NFL-mandated obligation to meet with the media, while claiming Lynch isn't meeting his duty and obligations. Then Hayes is going to criticize Lynch for meeting his duty and obligations as the employee of an NFL team by advertising for NFL corporate partners. I think I can see why Lynch hates the media. 

But no, really, it's hilarious to hear a sportswriter lecture a professional athlete about commitment, hard work and dealing with adversity. I can't seem to figure out why newspapers are dying...