3 comments 2015 Super Bowl Prediction

I probably should title this post with the actual Super Bowl number, I honestly can't remember it and am too lazy to look it up. I think it's Super Bowl 49. I usually refer to Super Bowls in a different manner since I couldn't tell you who was in Super Bowl XIV, but if someone refers to the Super Bowl in the 90's when the Steelers and Cowboys played each other then I know what's being referred to. So it's time for the Super Bowl now. No more discussion of deflated footballs (who I am kidding? That talk won't go away) and it's time for the game. In the BotB Pick 'Em Challenge, Steve is the clear winner by having gone 9-1, while I'm in a dogfight not to end up tied with Bill Simmons. I just hope whether my pick is correct or not that that is a more exciting Super Bowl than last year's blowout. I'm guessing that it will be.

This is the line I will be using for the Super Bowl:

Seattle Seahawks at New England Patriots (-1.0)

Here is Peter's pick. (If you don't want to click on the link, he chooses New England 31-28)

Here is Bill's pick. (If you don't want to click on it, he chooses New England 27-19)

Seattle Seahawks at New England Patriots

Finally the game is here and I am ready to try to think through who is actually going to win this game. I think this is the Super Bowl game that "we" deserve. The Patriots offense and improved defense against the Seattle's ultra-efficient and super-clutchy offense and suffocating defense. Sherman versus Revis (not really). Belichick versus Carroll. Brady versus Wilson (not really). A team with players that talk a lot versus a team that seems to internalize everything. I'm bored doing this already. Neither team really has a wide receiver considered to be great, while the Seahawks have seemingly built their offense around their running back, the Patriots treat their running backs like used cars whose sole purpose is to make it a few weeks and then get traded in. So it should be a good game and it should be fun. Of course I thought that about last year's Super Bowl too.

I was dreadfully wrong two weeks ago when I stated the Colts would get killed by Rob Gronkowski because they had been killed by tight ends over the last six weeks. Gronkowski had 3 catches for 28 yards and a touchdown. That's not exactly him killing the Colts. Offensively, I still have no idea what the Patriots game plan will end up being. It sounds counter intuitive with the Seahawks being 3rd in the NFL in rushing yards allowed, but I believe the way the Patriots are running that they can run the ball on the Seahawks. The Packers ran for 135 yards in the NFC Championship Game and the Panthers ran for 132 yards in the NFC Divisional Round, with both teams averaging over 4.4 yards per carry against the Seahawks. The Patriots were only 18th in the NFL in rushing yards on the season, but they have been great at running the football when they choose that they want to do that. I have no idea which running back the Patriots would choose to run with, though given the bigger running back the Panthers and Packers had success with it would point to Blount. If the Patriots can run the ball then it's going to slow down the Seahawks pass rush and force them to call more run blitzes than they would normally want to call.

The Seahawks aren't a vanilla defense, but they prefer to rush four and are able to get pressure that way. So I fully expect the Patriots to avoid the Seahawks opportunistic secondary (seriously, they get the chance at a turnover and seem to never miss that opportunity...it's remarkable) as much as possible and run for 300 yards. This means the Patriots won't have but 5 rushing attempts in the game of course. My point is the Patriots' offensive line has done a great  job run blocking and I think they can run the ball on the Seahawks. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't talk a little bit about Tom Brady. I'm not sure the Patriots are going to want to build a game plan around quick screens and shorter passes, because that is where the Seahawks excel in coverage. I'm not saying the Patriots shouldn't throw the ball short, but the Seahawks are excellent at covering short crossing routes and using their speed to get to the ball on quick screens. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Patriots target Tharold Simon for much of the game and try to use the speed of the Seahawks defense against them with a lot of motion and misdirection in the passing game.

Defensively, it's going to be interesting what kind of scheme the Patriots use to stop Marshawn Lynch and prevent the Seahawks from owning the trenches. Having Vince Wilfork exist on the Patriots' defensive line helps out, but the Patriots have to ensure they aren't forced to bring a safety up to help out with the run or else the Seahawks are going to get one of those long passes into single coverage they seem to magically get. See, I told you about that crap two weeks ago and that's how the Seahawks won the game against the Packers. The Seahawks don't have great receivers, but Kearse/Baldwin/Willson seem to get those one-on-one matchups in the secondary and convert them into long gains and touchdowns. The second a team brings more help to the line in order to stop Marshawn Lynch, Russell Wilson is throwing a high-arching pass over the head of the opposing team's defender. Belichick seems to have had success in the distant past at shutting the opposing running back by allowing that running back to rush for as much as yardage as he wants, but Belichick tries to prevent the opposing team from having success in the passing game. There may be a sort of reverse game plan from that in this game. I'm not sure how that works, but maybe Belichick will be happy to have his corners matched up against the Seahawks receivers and dare the Seahawks to run the football into an 8 man box. In my experience from watching the Seahawks, that seems like a really bad strategy.

Russell Wilson has a lot of strengths and lofting the ball into single-coverage downfield seems to be a strength of his. The goal should be to get the Seahawks off-schedule. Make Wilson throw the ball on third-and-long where he has to throw into traffic and there is less of a threat for Seattle to run. Sure, every defense wants to get the opposing offense in third-and-long, but I really do believe the Packers had the right defensive game plan until they fucked the game all up at the end. One of Wilson's strengths isn't that he is a pure passer. He's a very good passer, but he's not the type of quarterback who feels 100% comfortable sitting in the pocket and throwing the ball from behind. Of course, as I say that, Wilson has had success at the end of the Packers game just two weeks ago throwing the football. What he lacks in pure pocket passing ability, he makes up for in flawless execution when he has to execute flawlessly. The Patriots need to stop the Seahawks from running the football and stop Seattle from hitting those high-arching downfield passes. It sounds easy to do, but the Panthers and Packers have failed to stop them so far.

Offensively, the Seahawks are going to (surprise!) want to run the football well. That's where the strength of the team lies and controlling the football through the run game also keeps Tom Brady off the field. The Patriots' linebackers are pretty good in coverage and so the matchup between the Seahawks receivers underneath and the Patriots linebackers is going to be important. The Seahawks are going to want to give themselves options on third down, so they have the option of running or throwing the football. Gains on first down in the passing game will be very helpful to ensuring the Patriots can't key on Lynch in the running game. Look for the Seahawks to roll Russell Wilson out as well, which plays to his strengths as a decision-maker outside the pocket and will force the Patriots secondary to account for Wilson as a runner as well as a passer.

In the end, I don't see how the Seahawks can win this game if they don't run the ball well. I don't think the Patriots are going to make the same mistakes that the Broncos made in last year's Super Bowl that put them in such a hole early. The play of the Seahawks defense in that game allowed Seattle to be slightly more aggressive on offense and not have to worry as much about controlling the game on the ground. The Ravens had success running against the Patriots' defense and I can see the Seahawks having the same type of success. That's where it starts. If Seattle can run the football then they will be able to force the Patriots to pay more attention to supporting the run, which opens up the high-arching passes and roll out passes off play-action that makes the Seahawks offense so good. The Seahawks are still going to want to stay out of third-and-long situations and I don't think the Patriots will collapse with a lead like the Packers did. The Patriots' linebackers aren't going to let Marshawn Lynch beat them in the passing game with the game on the line like the Packers did. If the Patriots are able to replicate the game plan that forced Wilson into committing four turnovers then it will be a long day for Seattle.

Defensively, it is very basic for the Seahawks on how they are going to get pressure on Tom Brady and shut down the Patriots' offense. It's all about getting pressure on Brady up the middle and forcing him away from the spot he wants to throw. This goes for nearly every quarterback, but with a quarterback as talented as Brady it is crucial to prevent him from being comfortable in the pocket. The Seahawks did a great job against Peyton Manning in the Super Bowl last year of getting pressure on him and making him uncomfortable. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Patriots come out with a lot of two-TE sets (yes, I said this two weeks ago) in an effort to mask whether they are running or throwing the football, while utilizing Tim Wright in the passing game. Seattle has a great, fast defense and controlling the middle of the field with Gronkowski and Wright is one way to open up passes outside the hashmarks and try to reduce some of the speed of the Seahawks defense to the outside. Seattle has the linebacking talent to handle Rob Gronkowski and it wouldn't surprise me to see them put Byron Maxwell or Tharold Simon on Gronkowski when the opportunity arises. Pressure up the middle is where it starts and as good as the Patriots offensive line has been at run blocking, the Seahawks' defense can get pressure on Brady.

The Patriots have an improved receiving group with the emergence of Brandon LaFell. He's a bigger receiver who is very good at being physical, so he matches up well with the Seahawks' corners. There's still not a ton of speed in the Patriots' receiving group and they aren't terribly explosive as it pertains to long gains in the passing game. Ensuring that Brady has tight windows to throw into, being physical with the New England receivers at the line of scrimmage and taking some chances with one-on-one coverage in order to bring additional pressure on Brady or take Gronkowski away in the passing game is a strategy the Seahawks may employ. They run a lot of Cover-3 and are good at pursuing the football while also keeping the football in front of them. I don't expect the Seahawks to come out of this necessarily, but interrupting the Patriots' shorter passing routes and being very physical to not allow the Patriots' receivers a free release off the line will give the pass rush more time to get to Brady, who will want to make quick, decisive throws. The Seahawks are pretty confident they can match up well with any team's receivers, but the Patriots have been very creative offensively over the last few weeks. I fully expect the Patriots to use play-action in an effort to get the Seahawks out of position in the passing game, using their speed against them.

Time to stop rambling and to make a pick. Let me take a trip down memory lane first.

I picked the Colts to beat the Saints.
I picked the Steelers to beat the Packers.
I picked the Patriots to beat the Giants.
I picked the Ravens to beat the 49ers.
I picked Denver to beat the Seahawks.

So basically, my pick for the Super Bowl (not including the spread, but just my outright pick) has been wrong four of the last five seasons. You don't have to say, I know my pick this year inspires zero confidence. I really don't want either team to win the Super Bowl if I'm being honest. I don't really like the Seahawks and I don't think I can handle another Patriots Super Bowl victory from the perspective of their famous fan base (looks at Bill Simmons). So this is an unemotional pick with my brain not instinctively wanting the team I'm cheering for to win and thereby picking that team to win. I'll probably pick a team to cheer for on Sunday, but I'm not there yet. I think the Patriots are improved in the secondary and can stop the Seahawks from completing long passes and turn them into a one-dimensional offense. That may be Belichick's strategy, to shut down the Seahawks passing game entirely and force them to be dependent on the run game. That sort of feels like it plays into the Seahawks' hands though. I think the Seahawks will find a way to dial up pressure on Brady and the speed of the defense is going to prevent the Patriots from moving the ball and scoring points in the first half. I think this will be a low-scoring game and the Patriots are going to find a way to get Russell Wilson to commit a couple of turnovers. It won't be enough though. The Seahawks are motivated to repeat, and much like the Ravens a few years ago, they seem destined to repeat. Things constantly seem to break the Seahawks' way and they take advantage of these opportunities when they present themselves. I can't pick against a team that basically seems to shit gold. I think we have the first back-to-back Super Bowl champions since the Broncos did it in the late 90's.

Seattle Seahawks (+1.0) over the New England Patriots 17-14

By the way, if the Patriots win this game then I would like to move my narrative from the Seahawks being destined to win the Super Bowl, to the Patriots spending the past two weeks hearing about how they are cheaters and being motivated to prove they can beat the best defense in the NFL without the help of deflated footballs. The Seahawks think no one believes they can repeat, while the Patriots think no one believes they can win without deflated footballs. So both teams are underdogs in their own mind...as always.

2 comments 2015 NFL Playoffs Conference Championship Picks

The past two weeks of NFL playoff games had officiating controversies that caused the outcome of two games to be called into question or at least had NFL rules questioned. Hopefully that won't happen this week. I'm not good enough at gambling to know if this is normal or not, but I think every home team has been favored in these playoffs. Steve managed to actually miss a pick last week, which puts him at 7-1 for the playoffs. Bill Simmons and Peter King are still holding down the last two spots with professional .500 gambler Simmons being 4-4 so far. I expect at least one game to be exciting this week, though I am nervous about Luck and Rodgers going on the road to play in two tough environments. At the bottom of this post is a review of my predictions for the 2014 NFL season. I figure I may as well show how stupid and misguided I can be when mocking others (at times) for their preseason picks. Leave your picks in the comments if you take part in the pick 'em challenge against Peter King and Bill Simmons.

These are the lines I will be using for these divisional round games:

Green Bay Packers at Seattle Seahawks (-7.5)

Indianapolis Colts at New England Patriots (-6.5)

Here are Peter's picks. (If you don't want to click on the link, he chooses Seattle by 7 and New England by 3)

Here are Bill's picks. (If you don't want to click on it, he chooses both the Packers and Colts to cover)

Green Bay Packers at Seattle Seahawks 

If I were Gregg Easterbrook, then would start off by picking the Seahawks to win, followed by saying "don't be surprised if the Packers end up winning this game." My preseason pick of Denver and New Orleans isn't happening, so my wrongness has allowed me to be free to pick whoever I want. Before I get to my super-technical analysis of this game, let me say why I'm torn. I think the Seahawks are the better team and I really thought they could repeat this season. No, I did not predict they would repeat, but I had them in the NFC Championship Game. I thought the Seahawks wouldn't be one of those Super Bowl teams who couldn't repeat. On the other hand, I love Aaron Rodgers. He's a troll, he's good at his job, he finally put an end to Brett Favre in Green Bay (though this did result in three summers of "Will he or won't Favre retire?" questions), and I just like him. The Seahawks handily beat the Packers once this year in Seattle, so that could entirely happen again. The Seahawks defense made Rodgers look pretty bad, as they are want to do to many a quarterback in Seattle.

Defensively, Dom Capers is going to have to come up with a game plan to stop Russell Wilson. It's not just the threat of the Seahawks running game that makes them tough, but how they play off the running game in the passing game. The Packers are 23rd in the NFL in rush defense, which is a little odd coming from a team that has such a high-scoring offense. I would expect teams to have to throw the ball more on the Packers, but they are 10th in passing yard defense. I would expect these numbers to be flipped around. The Packers have to mainly stop Russell Wilson. It's what he can do off play action and with the mere threat of the running game that makes him so dangerous. The Seahawks beat Carolina handily last week and they only ran for 100 yards on 28 carries. It was the play of the passing game that was the difference. Wilson made two good touchdown throws into single coverage caused by the threat of the running game. The Seahawks ran for over 200 yards in the first meeting of these two teams, which can not happen again. I have no idea how to stop Wilson, but my best guess is the Packers are going to have to be sure to keep the Seahawks from getting single coverage without safety help while also ensuring the Seahawks' running game is stifled. If Julius Peppers shows up on Sunday then he could be the difference maker for Green Bay.

Offensively, the Packers have got to not allow the Seahawks defense to be opportunistic. The Seahawks have a great defense, which we all know, but mostly their defense is opportunistic. If they see a chance to get a turnover or take advantage of the opposing team's mistake, they do it. They don't seem to miss opportunities to cause turnovers. The Seahawks defense is very good, but they aren't unstoppable and an offense like the Packers have with talent and speed at the wide receiver spot could put some pressure on Seattle in the secondary. Aaron Rodgers may or may not be injured, but the Packers offensive line that gave up only 30 sacks on the season has to give Rodgers time to throw. Rodgers was sacked three times in the first game. When he's given time to sit in the pocket and find a receiver, that's when the defense starts breaking down and a Packers receiver can get open. I do wonder if the Packers will give James Starks some more carries because he did have success against the Seahawks in the first game that Eddie Lacy didn't have. Still, I would expect Lacy to get more carries than Starks overall. The Seahawks secondary is great. There's no getting around that, but Tharold Simon was picked on last week by the Panthers receiving group, so I can only imagine what a good group of receivers could do.

I can't even explain the Seahawks success on offense really. They are very good at running the ball, but the way they design plays it surprises me. It really does. I don't get how they find receivers open down the field with only one guy covering him. There's no logical explanation other than good game planning and good play design. The Seahawks ran all over the Packers in the first game and I envision them trying something similar in this game. I know I keep saying this as the weeks go by, but the Seahawks are not going to be able to score to keep up with teams. They don't have to, which is a good thing, but their offense is built to succeed in close games and it's very good at succeeding in those close games. The Packers gave up 145 yards rushing to the Cowboys last week and I can't imagine the Packers giving up fewer than that to the Seahawks. Seattle has to (and will) continue to pound the ball at Green Bay, control the clock (they had the ball for 33 minutes in the first meeting) and keep Rodgers off the field. The strength of the Seahawks in turning their running game into long gains in the passing game and the Packers weakness in the running game sets it up perfectly for Seattle to get a few big gains in the passing game.

Aaron Rodgers is very hard to stop. That's obvious, but the Seahawks managed to stifle him in the first game of the year with a tough pass rush and the fact he stayed away from Richard Sherman. Staying away from Sherman is a big mistake. Rather than stay away from him, teams should just be careful how they throw the ball in his direction. I don't think the Packers will concede one side of the field to the Seahawks in the passing game, but I do see them continuing to pick on Simon more than Sherman. Rodgers isn't as mobile now that he is hurt (I think he's hurt) and this plays into the Seahawks hands, because they have a pass rush that didn't accumulate a ton of sacks this season (20th in the NFL with 37), but they are able to get constant pressure on the opposing quarterback which helps out their opportunistic secondary. I think Seattle should play the Packers like teams play the Broncos. They have to be physical with the Packers receivers, even Jordy Nelson, and close those windows for Rodgers to throw the ball into. The Packers don't have the same type of rhythmic passing game the Broncos do, but the longer Rodgers holds the ball the better chance the Seahawks have of getting to the less mobile Rodgers. As always, I don't trust the Packers' offensive line against the Seahawks because I don't trust any offensive line against the Seahawks.

The Seahawks are going to try and use their superior safeties to keep the ball in front of the defense. Don't allow any big plays to the Packers, force them to chew up yardage, and on offense they need to give Russell Wilson more freedom to run. The Packers haven't always been good against running quarterbacks, so I can see Seattle turning Russell Wilson loose more than usual. I think the Packers are going to try and throw the ball more on first down than they did in the previous game to set up more second and third downs that can be a pass or a run, as opposed to running early on early downs. Seattle is a great defense, but I think the Packers secondary is going to prevent any big plays from the Seattle wide receivers while also managing to keep the Seattle running game more in check than they did in the first game. The Packers are not good against the run, but I think they will improve in this game from the first game. I see the Packers beating the Seahawks in their second try on the season. It will be a close game, but Rodgers will get good protection and not allow the Seahawks secondary to make any opportunistic interceptions. The Packers consistently putting points on the board (they basically stopped scoring from the middle of the 2nd quarter to the beginning of the 4th in the first meeting) and not allowing the Seahawks' defense chances to put up points is the difference.

Green Bay Packers (+7.5) over the Seattle Seahawks 31-27

Indianapolis Colts at New England Patriots 

These two teams played each other earlier this year and it also wasn't a very close game. Jonas Gray ran for four touchdowns on the game and then has gotten 20 carries for the rest of the season. I don't know either. The Patriots just dominated the Colts' defense, while accumulating 503 total yards of offense and 33 first downs. On the bright side for the Colts, they did get two interceptions off Tom Brady and it feels like the defense has played much better of late. So perhaps this game can be different, even if it is in New England and not Indianapolis. I'm getting a "destiny sends Andrew Luck to the Super Bowl" feel about this season for some reason. I feel like the Colts are on such a good roll that they can go into New England and knock off the Patriots. Who knows what the Patriots' game plan will be? I doubt they run it 37 times with Jonas Gray or choose not to run the ball in the 2nd half of the game. For the Colts, they didn't even have success running the ball in the first game with Trent Richardson or Ahmad Bradshaw. Now they have Daniel Herron running the ball well for them though. Any sort of running game could be the difference for the Colts.

Like I said last week, I have no idea what the Patriots are going to do on offense. What I do know is Tom Brady wasn't touched in the first game by the Colts' pass rush and the Patriots' offensive line held up well against a pretty good Ravens pass rush last week when throwing the ball all over the field. I can see Rob Gronkowski having 150 yards receiving in this game. One of the few things that worked for the Broncos last week was Julius Thomas had 6 receptions for 53 yards. In the Colts' last six games the opposing team's tight end has been the leading receiver four times and was the 2nd leading receiver once. I wouldn't be surprised if Tim Wright had 150 yards receiving too and the Patriots may come out with constant four tight end sets (I'm kidding, maybe). Can a team have a five tight end set? We may find out. I see the Patriots trying to get it to their tight ends as much as possible since it seems to be an area of weakness for the Colts' defense. The secondary for the Colts hasn't played poorly and I think Vontae Davis will end up on Edelman, though that may be something the Patriots would want the Colts to do so LaFell can have 200 yards receiving or something.

The Patriots know the Colts like to throw the ball and the Colts know the Patriots know the Colts like to throw the ball. I can't blame the Colts for enjoying throwing the football when they have as many quality receivers as they do have. The Colt's offensive line did a pretty good job of protecting Luck in the first matchup of these two teams with Luck only being sacked once and the Patriots didn't sack Flacco once last week. So the Patriots are going to want to get pressure on Luck and turn the Colts into a one-dimensional offense again. It worked well the first time. Luck is a great quarterback, but it's going to be hard for him to come back on the road when down double digits. I see the Patriots matching up Darrelle Revis on T.Y. Hilton, though the Colts are going to move Hilton around to try and give the Patriots defense different looks. It's a tough receiving group because if the Patriots pay too much attention to Hilton or Wayne then Moncrief or Fleener could burn them. If I'm the Patriots then I understand the Colts running backs probably aren't going to bust big gains on them (seven total runs of 20 yards or more all year with two of them by Luck) and I lay back trying to prevent the big play from Hilton or another Colts receiver. Maybe the Patriots will play some Cover-3 with Revis shadowing Hilton. I wish the Patriots were more predictable.

This goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. The Colts have to cover Gronkowski. I'm not sure they will do that or not. Either the Colts corners have done a good job of shutting down opposing team's wide receivers or other teams have seen how the Colts can't cover the tight end over the last six games. Gronkowski had 71 yards and a touchdown in the first game on only 5 targets. The Colts need to make sure they limit Gronkowski to that many targets again. The best thing the Colts could possibly do is try to hit Brady early and blitz him from all angles. Brady is like most quarterbacks in that he doesn't like pressure up the middle that gets him off the spot he wants to throw from, but of course he is also good at diagnosing a blitz and getting the ball out quickly or checking down to a different play. If I were the Colts I would try to be physical with the Patriots receivers (especially Gronkowski, who I'm not even sure this would work with) and blitz Brady to where they can knock him off his spot and make him uncomfortable. As always, it's easier said than done. It doesn't help the Patriots ran the ball down the Colts' throat in the last game, which could cause them to be more hesitant to blitz since they could be afraid it would open them up to giving up big gains on the ground.

Offensively, the Colts need to understand the Patriots' secondary will be physical with them up front like they tended to be in the first game. The Patriots' secondary is really good and Jamie Collins is also good in coverage from the linebacking spot, but it's not like they are invincible. The Colts need to run the football first off. They can't have less than 20 yards rushing on the day and expect to win the game. Belichick has had a lot of success playing against Andrew Luck in the past and part of that has been because he is able to force Luck into making mistakes. I think the Patriots are going to blitz Luck, so the Colts offensive line that seems to have held up pretty well this year will have to continue to do so. This is another instance where it's important for the Colts to run the ball, as it will slow down the Patriots pass rush and not allow them to simply play coverage or blitz as they see fit without concern for the running game of the Patriots. With the weapons the Colts have at the tight end and receiver position I think they can have an advantage in the passing game, but they have to find a way to give Luck time to make the right read.

It sounds weird to say, but feel like the Colts are destined to make the Super Bowl this year. It feels like they have momentum and are peaking right now. They shut down the Bengals and the Broncos in the postseason already. Of course Peyton Manning wasn't throwing the ball like he usually does and Andy Dalton is Andy Dalton, while also playing without his two best receivers. Then I also think that Belichick seems to have Luck's number for whatever reason. Screw destiny though. I think this will be a closer game than the first game between these two teams, but I still think the outcome is the same. I don't know if the Colts have the pass rush that will be needed to win this game on the road. The Patriots are not going to run the ball 37 times with Jonas Gray again, but I do see them running the football with success against the Colts and trying to get single coverage on Grokowski. I don't have confidence the Colts offense is going to be able to not commit turnovers and think that will be the difference in the game. I think Luck is a year away from beating the Patriots. To beat them this year he would have to play turnover free and the defense would have to find a way to corral the Patriots receiving group. I don't think it will happen this year.

New England Patriots over the Indianapolis Colts (+6.5) 30-24

Now I will look at my 2014 NFL season predictions. I will include my predicted record in parenthesis and that team's actual record along with something dumb/smart I said if I think it is smart/dumb enough.

AFC East

New England Patriots (13-3) Actual 12-4

New York Jets (9-7) Actual 4-12

There still aren't great offensive weapons, but out of Chris Johnson, Chris Ivory, and Bilal Powell they can run the ball enough to win some games. Right?

3rd in the NFL in rushing yards. Maybe next time I will remember there is a thing called a "quarterback" and he has to throw the ball in order for the team to win games.

Miami Dolphins (5-11) Actual 8-8

Buffalo Bills (4-12) Actual 9-7

A lot of how I feel about a team is based on that team's quarterback and Doug Marrone is publicly talking about what E.J. Manuel has to fix and is accusing him of trying to throw the ball to a point. Marrone is also arguing with a defensive player and that defensive player isn't backing down,

See! Nobody liked Doug Marrone even back then.

AFC North

Pittsburgh Steelers (11-5) Actual 11-5 (fist pump!)

Baltimore Ravens (10-6) Actual 10-6 (another fist pump!)

The Ravens have done a really good job of rebuilding the safety position and I think Ray Rice will have a bounceback season. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That should be all I have to say about my thinking Ray Rice will have a bounceback season. Or he won't play a game all season, causing the integrity of Roger Goodell to be questioned even after an independent investigator hired by the NFL comes in and says the NFL has never done anything wrong ever.

Cleveland Browns (6-10) Actual 7-9

Call me crazy, but I really like their defense.

23rd in the NFL in yards per game. I was crazy.

Offense is obviously the issue since the Browns have very few quality receivers, but I'm buying a Miles Austin comeback season 

I was drunk obviously. Though Austin did theoretically have a better season, thereby "coming back," he only had 500+ yards receiving. Sadly, as dumb as I sounded with my predictions by the Browns I was only off by one game.

Cincinnati Bengals (6-10) Actual 10-5-1 (hangs self)

I don't believe the pass rush will be as strong this year and if the new defensive coordinator is planning on attacking a little more I think it's going to put more pressure on what I view as just a couple of decent guys at safety.

Last in the NFL in sacks! Man I'm cherry-picking all my good predictions this year.

I think teams are going to find more success this year blanketing A.J. Green and forcing Andy Dalton to find other receivers. It's an improved division and the Bengals are nearly the worst team in it.

Except Dalton did find other receivers like Mohamed Sanu. Big fail on my part. 

AFC South

Indianapolis Colts (10-6) Actual 11-5

Jacksonville Jaguars (8-8) Actual 3-13

I believe for some reason.

Because you are an idiot. That's why you believe.

We'll see, but a lot of what I read prior to writing these sentences marvel at how Bradley is dedicated to turning this team into a winner. 

It seems I was under the impression that "dedication to turning a team into a winner" would turn into "actually winning fucking games."

Houston Texans (6-10) Actual 9-7

The reality of this situation is the Texans don't need a great quarterback. They have Arian Foster, DeAndre Hopkins, and Andre Johnson, as well as a really stout defense.

So naturally I knock them down to 6-10 because they don't have a great quarterback. Sure, makes sense.

Giving this defense Jadeveon Clowney is almost unfair.

Unfair to the Texans, maybe.

Tennessee Titans (6-10) Actual 2-14

AFC West

Denver Broncos (14-2) Actual 12-4

San Diego Chargers (11-5) Actual 9-7

Philip Rivers had a rejuvenating year because he actually had receivers to throw to and I think Ladarius Green starts to become a lesser version of Antonio Gates.

Like the poor man's version poor man's version of Gates.

Kansas City Chiefs (6-10) Actual 9-7

I don't think the combination of Alex Smith with poor receivers is going to lead to success.

It did not. A wide receiver didn't catch a touchdown pass all season and the Chiefs were 29th in the NFL in passing yards.

Oakland Raiders (2-14) Actual 3-13

AFC Playoffs

Bye: Denver, New England (Actual Denver and New England...not hard to pick)

Wild Card: Pittsburgh over Baltimore, San Diego over Indianapolis (Actual Baltimore over Pittsburgh, Indianapolis over Cincinnati)
 
Divisional: Denver over San Diego, Pittsburgh over New England (Actual Indianapolis over Denver, New England over Baltimore)
 
Championship: Denver over Pittsburgh (Actually not possible)

NFC East

Philadelphia Eagles (12-4) Actual 10-6

New York Giants (9-7) Actual 6-10

I'm not buying the panic in New York about the Giants. I'm concerned, like most people, about Eli Manning's interceptions last year and the lack of protection he received from his offensive line, but he should have healthier receivers this year

Victor Cruz was out for the year but the Giants did draft Beckham. Still, I should have been concerned about the panic about the Giants. Manning only had 14 interceptions on the season.

and I'm not really as concerned about the tight end position.

If you remember, there was a huge concern about the tight end position from some sportswriters. Larry Donnell had 63 catches for 623 yards. Not bad.

Dallas Cowboys (6-10) Actual 12-4

The front seven is pretty uninspiring due to injuries and if the onus is on Tony Romo to outscore other teams than he will be in the situation where he has to score 30 points just to keep the Cowboys in games. I may have said this last year, but this feels like the last year of the Jason Garrett era. The offensive line looks improved, but man, I don't believe this defense can help them get to .500. 

I'll just leave this here, because I'm still not completely sold on Jason Garrett. I missed this one pretty bad though.

Washington Redskins (5-11) Actual 4-12

I think it will be a tough year in Washington and any type of quarterback controversy won't help. 

Predicting a tough year in Washington is low hanging fruit at this point, so I probably get very little credit for this prediction. 

NFC North

Green Bay Packers (10-6) Actual 12-4

Chicago Bears (8-8) Actual 5-11

Minnesota Vikings (6-10) Actual 7-9

I think they should be starting Teddy Bridgewater. I'm still convinced he is going to be the best QB in the 2014 draft.

I mean, he is going to be the best QB in the 2014 draft, right? I don't know what the teams that passed on him and took other quarterbacks were thinking.

Detroit Lions (5-11) Actual 11-5 (If I said I accidentally got the record reversed, would you believe me?)

The Lions are the perfect team for Caldwell, because his teams can always score and the Lions will score. On paper, the Lions should have a great defensive line that takes pressure off their mediocre secondary, but it didn't work quite that way last year. Detroit was sixth in run defense, so they can stop the run, but it's the pass I'm worried about. This will be a Jim Caldwell team and I feel like I know what that means.

It means they will make the playoffs and simply because a team isn't the best against the pass doesn't mean that team is going to go 5-11 when you have already acknowledged the team has a good run defense and can score points. 

NFC South

New Orleans Saints (11-5) Actual 7-9

They definitely have two great safeties, but the corners in Rob Ryan's blitz-heavy defense need to hold up. I question if they can in Year 2 of Ryan's defensive regime.

They did not. The Saints were 25th in pass defense and 29th in rush defense.

Atlanta Falcons (10-6) Actual 6-10

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (8-8) Actual 2-14 (They got the first pick in the draft and I predicted they would go 8-8...not good)

Carolina Panthers (5-11) Actual 7-8-1

They are shaping up to be a disaster.

They still were at times, playoffs or no playoffs.

I feel like Riverboat Ron will go back to being conservative once he isn't coaching for his job

He did for a period of time.

and the offensive line is a disaster.

And it really was until the end of the season. 

NFC West

Seattle Seahawks (12-4) Actual 12-4

Arizona Cardinals (10-6) Actual 11-5

I think the Cardinals are going to make the playoffs this season with a very good defense (1st against the rush, 14th against the pass last year) and Carson Palmer having some really good receivers to work with in Arians' offensive system.

As ashamed as I am of most of these predictions, I feel good about my prediction for the NFC West. Blind squirrel and the nut, you know the story. Of course, if I had predicted Carson Palmer's injury then that would have been even better.

San Francisco 49ers (7-9) Actual 8-8

It's a team built around running the football and playing good defense. Neither unit has looked great in the preseason (I know, I know...don't put much stock in the preseason)

Don't put stock in the preseason, except I sort of did.

and at some point Frank Gore is going to run down, right?

He did not run down at all.

I think it results in a step-back season. 

Yeah, but where was the "Jim Harbaugh and Trent Baalke will start feuding, resulting in there being animosity for most of the season until the Michigan Wolverines fire Brady Hoke, followed by the 49ers firing Jim Harbaugh, followed by Jim Harbaugh taking the Michigan head coaching job and then the 49ers hire a guy who may be qualified but is just very, very happy to do as the 49ers say" prediction?

St. Louis Rams (5-11) Actual 6-10

NFC Playoffs

Bye: Seattle, Philadelphia (Seattle and Green Bay)

Wild Card: New Orleans over Arizona, Atlanta over Green Bay (Actual Carolina over Arizona, Dallas over Detroit)

Divisional: Seattle over Atlanta, New Orleans over Philadelphia (Actual Seattle over Carolina, Green Bay over Dallas)
 
Championship: New Orleans over Seattle (Actually not happening this way)

So I feel okay about my predictions. I sounded no less stupid than I usually sound, which is always nice.

12 comments Gregg Easterbrook Discovers NFL Teams with Great Head Coaches and Great Quarterbacks Often Win More Games; Obviousness Ensues

Gregg was correct last week when he chose the Colts or the Broncos to win the Colts-Broncos AFC Divisional game. So kudos to him for having the foresight to pick both teams. He also brought up his Baptist upbringing in last week's TMQ and continued to use the Authentic Games metric that he himself claims is bullshit. This week Gregg reveals to his readers that teams with better coaches and quarterbacks tend to be more successful teams with stability. Stability with a great coach and a great quarterback is the key to success. Apparently this is something that Gregg feels some people may not know. So NFL teams should hire a good coach and find a great quarterback. THAT is the key to playoff success. Why haven't teams looked to do this in the past?

Not only will Sunday be the fourth straight AFC title appearance for New England but it also will be the 12th consecutive AFC championship featuring the Patriots, Steelers, Colts or Broncos. Of the 24 entrants to the AFC title game in those dozen years, 18 were the Patriots, Steelers, Colts or Broncos. Only three other AFC teams have made a title appearance during the period, while nine of the AFC's clubs, the bulk of the conference, have not reached the title game at all. 

LO-fucking-L! Gregg is about to use the Colts as an example of a team who have used stability in their coaching staff and quarterback to win games and make the playoffs. Two weeks ago here is what he wrote about the Colts:

Since 1978 the Browns, Colts and Raiders have combined for 33 instances of head-coach turnover, and also mainly struggled in that period. The team with the least coaching turnover since 1978 is the Steelers, two new head coaches. And hey, look, three Super Bowl rings during the period.

I pointed out at the time that the Colts had more winning seasons than losing seasons in that time. It turns out Gregg agrees and this week uses the Colts as an example of a team who has had coaching stability. In a span of two weeks, the Colts have gone from a team with a lot of head coaching turnover to a team with stability in Gregg's mind. As I always say, he is completely willing to mislead and lie to his readers in order to prove a point he wants to prove. Facts are malleable and reality can be distorted to make Gregg seem smarter. So which is it? Are the Colts a team with a lot of head coaching turnover since 1978 or are they a team with a lot of stability which has resulted in many playoff appearances? It can't be both, Gregg. He has such little respect for his audience that he thinks they will forget how he contradicts himself and misleads them. Sadly, some of his readers still think Gregg preaches the truth.

Of course sports franchises go through up and down cycles. But the domination of recent AFC Championship Games by four teams shows that stability matters more in football than may be appreciated.

Except the Colts aren't a stable team when that point of view better fits Gregg's agenda. What a farce. I can't figure out why ESPN allows Gregg to mislead his readers on a weekly basis in TMQ. Gregg has no beliefs, simply information he will distort to prove the point he wants to prove at that very moment.

Title games sprinkled throughout that period have included Colts-Jets, Patriots-Ravens (twice), Steelers-Ravens, Steelers-Jets, Steelers-Broncos and Patriots-Chargers. That's four clubs dominating, three making token appearances and nine (Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, Oakland and Tennessee) absent. There is more diversity in NFC title contests of late, but also the same tendency of a few clubs seizing many spots while others are absent. During the period the Eagles, 49ers, Packers and Seahawks have made the championship tilt three times each while the Buccaneers, Cowboys, Lions, Rams and R*dsk*ns have been unaccounted for.

The lesson Gregg thinks he's teaching his readers, a lesson that is blindingly obvious, is that teams with a great quarterback and head coach are going to win more games. No shit. Stability is caused by teams choosing great quarterbacks and head coaches? You don't say.

In the past dozen years New England has had the same coach (Bill Belichick) and same starting quarterback (Tom Brady) the entire time. Pittsburgh has had two head coaches (Bill Cowher and Mike Tomlin) and the same starting quarterback since 2004 (Ben Roethlisberger). Indianapolis has had three head coaches (Tony Dungy, Jim Caldwell, Chuck Pagano) and two quarterbacks (Peyton Manning, Andrew Luck). Denver has had three head coaches (Mike Shanahan, Josh McDaniels and John Fox, plus a one-month fill-in), and five quarterbacks (Jake Plummer, Jay Cutler, Kyle Orton, Tim Tebow and Peyton Manning). Stability at head coach and quarterback -- it's the NFL gold standard.

The NFL gold standard, but in the case of the Colts they are the gold standard that has also had a lot of coaching turnover. I know Gregg is desperately trying to prove a point, but stability goes with winning games. Coaches and quarterbacks that win games provide stability, so most teams aren't going to change that which is working. I hope Gregg isn't trying to prove that if teams would simply not fire their head coach or replace their quarterback then that would lead to success. Because that's a faulty assumption. The stability is partially caused by winning and the winning is partially caused by stability with a great quarterback and great head coach. A team that doesn't win games isn't going to have stability and no amount of wishing and hoping without firing the head coach or replacing the quarterback will make that team win games. Stability is great. Hoping for stability and getting the same negative results is not great.

This year 10 of the 12 teams to reach the postseason fielded secure-starter quarterbacks who have been with the club their entire careers. The only exceptions were Ryan Lindley, an emergency fill-in at Arizona, and Peyton Manning at Denver, where after arriving as a free agent he became a secure starter.

Gregg Easterbrook says NFL teams should try to draft a franchise quarterback. Why haven't NFL teams thought of doing this before?

Of the 20 NFL teams that missed this year's playoffs, only six fielded secure starters who had been with the club their entire careers: Atlanta, Jacksonville, Jersey/A, Miami, Santa Clara and San Diego. The other 14 that missed the playoffs fielded gents not obtained in the draft or changed starters midstream or both

As I always ask when some idiot tries to bring a similar point up, so if these teams didn't change starters midstream or drafted a quarterback does that mean that team would have success and make the playoffs? Not necessarily? Right, which means the key to success has nothing to do with changing starters midstream, but choosing the right starter in the first place. Stability has to do with choosing the correct quarterback and coach. It doesn't have anything to do with choosing a coach or quarterback and not firing or replacing that person if the quarterback or head coach has proven to not be good at his job.

Some teams change quarterbacks because of injury or paucity of talent, but head coach indecision and mood swings can be as much a factor. Some teams change head coaches because of retirement or poor performance, but ownership indecision or mood swings can be as much a factor.

They want to win, so they choose a quarterback they think can win games as opposed to sticking with the quarterback they have who won't win them games. It's like saying the best way to have stability in a marriage is to choose a girlfriend and then don't dump her.

The lesson on head coaches is clear -- stand by your man.

Says the writer who criticizes the head coach of losing teams every week for being bad at their job. Standing by the head coach isn't going to lead success if the head coach isn't the right guy for the job.

The lesson on quarterbacks is clear -- make someone Da Man, then don't waffle.

Gregg is seriously suggesting an NFL team keep their starter no matter how bad that quarterback performs or how many games he loses? Gregg really thinks eventually this dedication to the quarterback will pay off? Like all of a sudden Jake Locker is going to become a great NFL quarterback. Just give Christian Ponder two or three years worth of starts, then the playoffs will be the next stop for the Vikings (okay, the Vikings did make the playoffs during Ponder's rookie season). Gregg is completely ignorant of locker room dynamics obviously. A coach can't trot the same losing quarterback out on the field every week without losing some guys in the locker room.

Season in, season out a small number of NFL franchises understand these principles, and dominate the postseason invitations. Season in, season out, at other franchises head coaches and quarterbacks ride the carousel. Enjoy the Colts-Patriots championship pairing. You'll see it again.

It wasn't about standing by their head coach for the Patriots or Colts, it was about choosing the right quarterback and head coach in the first place. This is a shockingly basic concept. Stability comes with choosing the right quarterback and/or head coach. It doesn't always come with sticking by the head coach and quarterback a team currently has. Why is this hard for Gregg to understand?

Of course if Oregon and Ohio State players graduate, they receive a college diploma in exchange for their athletic efforts, and a bachelor's degree adds about $1 million to lifetime earnings. So college football players who graduate are rewarded when they wear a funny robe and walk to "Pomp and Circumstance." How many actually take this walk? See the final 2014 ESPN Grade below.

I'd rather consult a chart covered in feces for my information about which college football teams are the best on the field and in the classroom. A feces covered chart would have as much meaning to me as ESPN Grade does.

Stats Of The Week No. 4: The Broncos opened their season by defeating the Colts at home and closed their season by losing to the Colts at home.

You know next week Gregg is going to have a stat that says:

"The Seahawks opened their season by defeating the Packers at home and closed their season by losing to/winning against the Packers."

Gregg is very predictable in this way.

Sweet Play Of The Week: Underdog Colts leading the Broncos 14-10 in Denver in the third quarter, the visitors faced third-and-16 on the Broncs' 40. Home teams always surge late -- 

Always. There are no exceptions.

The Colts sent out five receivers, as they did for much of the game since the Indy offensive line was performing so well. "Tight end" Coby Fleener -- really a tall wide receiver, like Jimmy Graham -- was flexed in a trips right. He ran a short stop-and-go; the defense bit. The stop fake "sold" because a few yards would have put the visitors into high-altitude field goal range.

Obviously this wasn't a third down-and-short play because teams only go long or go short on third down according to Gregg. At least he claims that is what defenses should expect.

Now it's Green Bay leading 26-21 with 4:42 remaining, Dallas facing fourth-and-2 on the Packers' 32. The scoreboard margin, down-and-distance and cold weather make going for it a better call than a long field goal attempt. Dallas goes for it -- after taking Murray off the field! Not only is he not present to run, the Packers know his absence means they don't have to defend a run.

But Gregg, the Cowboys were averaging 7.4 yards per pass on the day and Romo only had three incompletions up to that point. Because the Cowboys threw the ball in this situation they surely would have gotten the first down and won the game.

Whoever is right about this call -- Dallas would have been better off to rush, convert and continue to milk the clock, aiming for a touchdown that would leave Green Bay no time to reply. Doubly sour.

And obviously Dallas would have converted if they ran the ball. I'm sure Gregg would argue the Cowboys had over 5 yards per carry on the day, but when pointing this out and not understanding the situation is different in fourth-and-short, Gregg would fail to mention the Cowboys were averaging over 7 yards per pass play with only three incompletions up to that point in the game.

There's no rule there must be five offensive linemen on the field, only that there must be five ineligible players on the line of scrimmage, known as ineligible to the defense. New England complied. Offensive linemen could place themselves all along the line of scrimmage -- they do sometimes at Oregon, and in this standard Emory & Henry alignment. There's no rule saying the ball must be snapped by a guy at the center; it can be snapped by anyone on the line of scrimmage. Five huge guys bunched in the middle is a custom, not a rule. Sour that Baltimore didn't know this -- and especially sour that, confronted with a very unusual formation, the Ravens didn't simply call time.

Gregg is all about calling timeout once a team sees a formation they don't understand. If I faced a Gregg Easterbrook-coached team then I would simply start every drive off with a formation his defense hasn't seen and then watch his team blow all three timeouts early in the first and second half. Or I may just do three weird formations in a row and watch Gregg's team blow all timeouts on one drive.

After the touchdown that followed the trick formation, Baltimore went three-and-out. New England called a wide receiver pass with Julian Edelman, a quarterback in college, lobbing a 51-strike to an uncovered man. In the past three seasons, New England has been running an ungodly number of hitch screens: the play began by looking like a hitch screen, drawing up the secondary. Sweet.

I'm sure Gregg thinks New England had been calling those hitch screens for three years simply so they could use this one play in a playoff game.

Do zebras reduce enforcement of defensive pass interference during the postseason? That's long been a conspiracy theory about the NFL. Certainly, there have been games in which too much defensive holding, illegal contact and pass interference by the home team were allowed. One was the 2003 AFC Championship Game, Indianapolis at New England.

I don't really know if that was defensive holding, illegal contact and pass interference in this game because the NFL changed the rules after the game in order to tighten up what defenses could do to receivers. My understanding was that the Patriots were playing within the rules and that's why the NFL decided to tighten up the rules about pass interference, illegal contact and defensive holding in the secondary. So I'm not sure I would call what the Patriots did as illegal any more than they took those rules to the very edge of what was allowable.

During the run-up to this season's Indianapolis at New England title contest, you're sure to hear about the uncalled pass interference instances in that game.

You mean we are sure to hear about it because you just brought it up?

Football is a team sport. The Denver front office performed poorly in spending on big names whose careers were headed downward, rather than fresh legs. Did DeMarcus Ware play in this game?

Yes, he had four tackles in the game, while Aqib Talib had four tackles and one pass defensed and T.J. Ward had two tackles and two passes defensed.

John Fox performed poorly, hyper-conservative as always -- more on that in a minute.

8-7 in the playoffs for his career with two Super Bowl appearances and three Conference Championship appearances. Yeah, he's terrible.

Skilled quarterbacks want to be big-blitzed; Manning for years has wanted to be big-blitzed. On Sunday, he threw poorly on third-and-long. On one third down, Manning could have jogged for a first down and instead threw the ball out of bounds.

Well, if the reports are to be believed, it's hard to jog for a first down with a torn quad. Who cares if that was true or not? Manning should still jog for the first down, no matter whether he isn't mobile in the first place, 38 years old or has a torn quad.

Any team can have an off-game, but for all the hype, Denver has looked awful in its past two postseason outings. One can't help thinking the constant emphasis on shining the spotlight on Peyton is a cause.

That HAS to be the cause. Denver looking awful in their last two postseason outings couldn't be easily explained by them having to play very good teams in the playoffs or having faced one of the best defenses over the past two decades in last year's Super Bowl. To attribute the Broncos' performance to the quality of their competition would be ridiculous and misguided.

In mid-October at Denver, Broncos management stopped the game so everyone could dance about a Manning record. From that juncture on, the Broncos failed to defeat a team that made the playoffs. Don't trifle with the football gods!

The Broncos only played two more teams in the regular season (after this mid-October game against the 49ers) that ended up making the playoffs  and both games were on the road. It's not an excuse of course, but it bears mentioning.

As for Fox, with the Broncs down 21-10 in the fourth quarter, he sent in the field goal unit on fourth-and-4 from the Indianapolis 23. That was the do-or-die moment. Denver would not cross midfield again until seconds remained.

There is no point in criticizing John Fox with being conservative. The word "conservative" and "John Fox" are synonymous. This is a guy who had Manning sit on the football at the end of a playoff game and play for overtime rather than try to have Manning get in field goal range with a timeout remaining to win the game. One of Fox's favorite sayings is, "A punt is not a bad play." There's no point in criticizing Fox for being conservative, that's all he knows.

Waiver-wire acquisition Daniel Herron had a fine game, including a touchdown run on a classic one-back counter, while Trent Richardson was a healthy scratch and at this point officially is a bust. But if Indianapolis had traded a No. 1 draft choice for Herron and gotten Richardson on waivers, touts would say that was canny management.

I am still not 100% sure who "touts" are, but Daniel Herron comes from a football factory. Gregg fails to mention this of course.

About all that Indianapolis big blitzing on third-and-long -- it worked against the aging Manning. It will not work against Tom Brady.

STOP ME BEFORE I BLITZ AGAIN!

Sure, blitzing worked well against Peyton Manning, but Gregg is going to be eager to point out if blitzing doesn't work against Tom Brady. Then Gregg will point out how playing a straight four man rush like the Seahawks do certainly would have won the game for the Colts, but they instead relied on big blitzing, which doesn't work against good quarterbacks unless you want to consider how it worked the week before against Peyton Manning.

Language Watch: When did "may I have" become "can I get"? When did "tornados" become "tornadic activity"? Isn't a "true freshman" the same thing as a "freshman"?

No, because a college athlete can be a "redshirt freshman" and therefore still considered a freshman, yet have already been in college for one season.

The final ESPN Grade for this college football season found Ohio State No. 1 and TCU No. 2 -- the Buckeyes ahead on the field, the Horned Frogs ahead in the classroom. UCLA and Boise State took major leaps in ESPN Grade, Florida State fell slightly and Mississippi State fell significantly.

Why on Earth would TCU, UCLA, Boise State and Ohio State jump ahead so much when all they did was win a football game? Probably for the same reason Florida State and Mississippi State fell as far as they did. There was no new grade information available, but these teams won or lost their bowl game and ESPN Grade is heavily weighted towards on the field performance. This is true no matter how much Gregg wants to pretend that ESPN Grade is a good measure of on and off the field performance. If a team's AP and Coaches Poll ranking after one loss causes a team's ranking in ESPN Grade to go up or down significantly when there is no new grade information available, then maybe the metric isn't as balanced as Gregg claims it is.

TCU finished 12-1 with an 83 percent football graduation rate. Boise State finished 12-2 with an 85 percent football grad rate. Alabama finished 12-2 with an 80 percent football graduation rate. Duke finished 9-4 with a 92 percent football grad rate. Notre Dame finished 8-5 with a 94 percent football grad rate. Don't tell me academics and big-time football success can't go hand-in-hand because that statement simply is not true.

They can go hand-in-hand, but ESPN Grade isn't the metric to be used to show how they go hand-in-hand. If ESPN Grade is so great then I would like to have Gregg explain to me how Duke with a 92% graduation rate isn't in the Top 25 of ESPN Grade. Notre Dame isn't present either with a 94% graduation rate. Why is that? Because these teams are good football teams, but not in the Top 25 so they don't even get to be a part of ESPN Grade.

Last week at a conference in Texas, academics asserted the GSR,

Gun shot residue?

a number ginned up by NCAA headquarters, is misinformation. Any scholarship player who departs from a college in good standing -- which can mean as little as carrying the credit loan of a part-time student while not being expelled -- is counted by the GSR as having received a diploma. Obviously, that's phony. Next year, ESPN Grade will switch to the more rigorous Federal Graduation Rate. A note to the Power Five: Starting next season, it's on.

But it's only "on" for teams who are in the Top 25. If Duke graduates 100% of their players and go 8-4, but don't end up in the Top 25, then they don't get to be a part of ESPN Grade.

Last week, yours truly predicted a divisional round home team sweep. As Elon Musk said after his rocket crashed into the Atlantic: Close, but no cigar. I did add last week, "If there's to be a visitor victory in the divisional round, the Broncos seem most vulnerable."

Gregg predicted that both of the outcomes could occur and I wrote:  

The funny part is I just know Gregg is going to take credit for whatever happens in the Colts-Broncos game. He'll be sure to crow about how right he was either way, notwithstanding the fact he essentially predicted that both possible outcomes could occur, so he really predicted nothing.

Verily, I am not in fact correct, it's just that Gregg is that predictable.

Indianapolis arrived at Denver with a better Authentic Games number than the Broncos, so my nonscientific metric seemed to know what others did not. The nonscientific metric continues to forecast a Seattle-New England Super Bowl, which has been the TMQ gut feeling since early December.

This was the gut feeling since December, not including the two other Super Bowl predictions that Gregg had made before and after that time. If he guesses enough time, he's certain to get a prediction correct. My Non-Authentic Games metric predicted a Packers and Patriots Super Bowl, so I'll be sure to take credit for that if/when it happens.

Phase Two of the annual NFL coach-firing festival is the scapegoating of assistant coaches, who are fired to shift blame from the head coach. Jacksonville and Jersey/A are among clubs that fired coordinators; the head coach had no idea -- just none at all -- that the coordinators weren't performing!

That's not what it means at all. The head coach did have an idea the coordinator wasn't performing and that's why the coordinator got fired. I don't even understand this criticism. Why would Gregg say sarcastically the head coach didn't know the coordinator wasn't performing? I don't think either Tom Coughlin or Gus Bradley are claiming they didn't know their assistant coach wasn't performing, they are in fact stating they DO KNOW that assistant coach wasn't performing by firing them. Gregg kills me.

Last week, Browns' offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan parted ways with Cleveland, scapegoated for the Brian Hoyer-Johnny Manziel mess. Coach Mike Pettine couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the quarterback situation!

I'm pretty sure it was reported that Shanahan resigned rather than was fired. Who cares about facts or any type of non-black or white issues when Gregg has a point to prove?

As TMQ noted at several junctures when the Broncos were spinning scoreboards last season, rhythm-based passing offenses tend to peter out in the postseason as defensive intensity cranks up -- a warning sign for the Patriots, should they face Seattle in the Super Bowl.

The Seahawks just shouldn't blitz because that's part of the short road to ruin.

Did the reversal prove a conspiracy against Jerry Jones? Jones would like to think so!

Jerry Jones actually took the call well.

Tactics note: With Green Bay facing third-and-3 with 2:36 remaining and Dallas holding two timeouts, the Cowboys lined up in a rush defense, as a clock-moving run made total sense. But third-and-3 is a passing down for the Packers' offense -- completion and first down.

I would simply like for Gregg to get his position on these third and fourth down plays straight. He thinks the Cowboys should have rushed on fourth-and-2 with the game on the line, but doesn't think the Cowboys should have expected the Packers to run the ball on third-and-3. This despite the fact the Packers ran the ball for 4 yards per carry on the day and had an even higher average if Aaron Rodgers' kneel-downs weren't included. so why should one team run the ball on fourth-and-2, but not expect an opposing team to rush on third-and-3?

The Packers had run on third-and-3 in the second quarter and gained 6 yards.

The Packers had run on third-and-1 in the third quarter and gained 1 yard.

But yeah, the Packers did throw a lot on third down. They had shown earlier in the game on a third-and-3 they would run the ball and running the football here would have run the clock to the two minute warning. I would think the Cowboys would have to be alert for a run in this situation.

In the Lord of the Rings movies and their endless spinoffs, everybody's fighting over a magical ring. In "Guardians of the Galaxy" -- No. 1 movie of 2014 by U.S. gross -- everybody's fighting over a magical stone. Finding and possessing a small mystical object is the MacGuffin of many box-office smash flicks. OK, they are movies. But how many times in the real world has a single small object controlled the fates of millions?

You mean other than in any situation where nuclear warfare is involved? Or do you mean any of the other doomsday scenarios where water being poisoned or a virus being unleashed could cause an epidemic that would affect millions of people?

New England Snaps Ravens Postseason Mini-Curse: It's not often an NFL team wins a playoff contest despite being outrushed by 122 yards at home. That's what happened at New England. Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, Flying Elvii coaches called 56 passes and 10 rushes. Knowing that in big games the Ravens sell out to stop the run -- they'd held Pittsburgh to 68 yards rushing on its own field the week before -- Bill Belichick eliminated the middleman and didn't even try to run.

I never knew in big games the Ravens sell out to stop the run. I would think they had different tactics depending on the opponent they were playing, but apparently the Ravens always sell out to stop the run in big games. I learn so many facts and bullshit designed as a fact in TMQ.

Disclaimer Of The Week: Reader Rachel Weinstein of Ann Arbor, Michigan, reported a Swiffer TV ad said at the bottom in fine print that it features "real" people

It's very obvious this disclaimer is meant to point out these people featured in the commercial are not actors. I don't even know why this merits a mention. It's so very, very obvious what "real" people means.

There's nothing wrong with high pay. What's wrong is when the high pay for college football coaches is combined with rising debt for college students (football income might be used to reduce tuition),

Not if boosters give money specifically to be used for athletics. I guess Gregg wants us to pretend we live in a world where boosters will hand over millions of dollars and not give a shit how the school uses it. So the money given to Harbaugh probably partly came from boosters, who want the money used for athletics, not used to cut tuition.

The Football Gods Promised an Investigation: A TMQ law holds: Cold Coach = Victory. On a cold day at New England, Bill Belichick was heavily bundled up, including ski beanie and hoodie; John Harbaugh wore a baseball cap. The Patriots won. On a cold day at Green Bay, Jason Garrett looked smart in a varsity jacket, hatless; Mike McCarthy was heavily bundled up. The Packers won. During the offseason, I will journey alone to a distant mountaintop -- OK, a distant parking lot -- and seek clarification from the football gods.

No need to seek clarification from anyone on this. You make shit up and that's why the half-ass rules you create don't always apply.

Carolina committed numerous gaffes, so Seattle should not feel good about how tight the game was until midway through the fourth quarter. Twice while the contest was close, Carolina receivers dropped well-thrown third-down passes; had those passes been held, the outcome might have been different.

Had the Panthers not allowed the Seahawks to gain a yard for the entire game the outcome could have been different too. Or the outcome may have been different if the Seahawks benched Russell Wilson and played without a quarterback for the entire game, instead choosing to just kneel the ball down. All three of these things didn't happen, so it doesn't matter how the outcome "might" have been different.

On the zone blitz that created the touchdown for Seattle's 24-10 lead, a bungled coverage left the entire offensive right, both short and deep, defended only by cornerback Melvin White and a backpedaling defensive linemen. And how did that work out? It would have been difficult not to score against such a badly blown coverage.

This might lead one to believe this is why it is called a "blown" coverage, no?

Except on two bad reads that led to interceptions, Cam Newton played like a franchise quarterback -- maybe he's finally showing his potential.

Newton played as well as, if not better, than most of the other quarterbacks who played in Seattle than this year, but let's hold our horses. He was responsible for three turnovers in the game. Even though two weren't necessarily directly his fault, one was a long pass that served as a punt. Here's what Gregg said earlier in this TMQ about Andrew Luck throwing a pass that served as a punt:

Tactics note: With the Colts ahead 14-7 and 1:37 remaining before intermission, Luck heave-hoed an ill-advised long pass that was picked off for a 37-yard change of field position. In this situation, it's common to hear "a long interception is as good as a punt," which is what the CBS announcers said. But nobody punts on third down!

So yeah, that wasn't just a bad read, but a bad pass. 

In Praise of Positive Coaching: TMQ's Law of Positive Coaching holds: The coach who screams is wasting everyone's time, including his own.

Quarterbacks should yell at their coach to show leadership, while coaches shouldn't yell at the players to show leadership. Got it.

The best case for football at the high school and college levels is it teaches boys to become men within a framework of self-discipline and teamwork, adding a little fun as well. Screamer-type coaches who are bullies at heart just teach boys to be bullies and don't confer any valuable life lessons.

But Gregg Easterbrook thinks Andy Dalton should show more leadership by yelling at Marvin Lewis when he doesn't like the choice to punt on fourth down. Is that showing self-discipline and teamwork?

NBA Race To The Bottom Heats Up: In recent days, the Celtics traded Jeff Green and Brandan Wright in separate deals for two first-round draft selections, salary cap space, a guy with an expiring contract who can be waived five seconds after the season ends and another guy who is expected to be traded again momentarily, if not stopped when arriving at Logan International Airport and told to go back to the gate and fly somewhere else. These deals not only ensure the Celtics won't accidentally win games but also mean it took Boston less than a month to get rid of one of the players (Wright) the Celtics had pretended to trade Rajon Rondo for.

Gregg so terribly fails to see how finances work in the NBA it's almost not even worth trying to explain them to him. The Celtics did not want Wright, they only traded for him because the salary cap numbers matched up for them to trade Rondo for draft picks. The same thing goes for Jameer Nelson. As Danny Ainge says, players can't always be traded, but draft picks are always a commodity. The point wasn't to acquire players, but to acquire picks which can be used to draft players or trade for other better players in the future.

The Celtics now hold at least 11 first-round picks in the next four drafts (possibly 12, depending on fine print) plus extra second-round selections. They will be horrible -- soon Boston fans might dream of the club's 12-22 record on the day Green trade was reported -- but can vaguely promise better days ahead, though in many years there is no clear relationship between high draft choices and basketball success. 

There is a pretty clear relationship between high draft choices who are chosen well by teams and success. Look at the Heat with Wade, the Cavs with LeBron, the Thunder with Westbrook and Durant, the Wizards with John Wall and Brad Beal, the Pelicans with Anthony Davis, and the Bulls with Noah and Rose. High draft picks can catapult a team into contention. It's just like an NFL team choosing a quarterback and a head coach. The team has to choose wisely if they want to achieve success.

(Anthony Bennett, the No. 1 overall choice of 2013, has two career starts with a 4.9 scoring average.)

Tim Duncan has multiple NBA titles, as do Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James. This doesn't include the No. 1 overall picks who won a single title or were very, very good players but never won a title.

As TMQ notes, getting rid of players is the essence of the NBA general manager's art. But because two-thirds of the NBA's teams know when the season begins that they have no chance whatsoever of winning the title, offloading players in order to tank is getting out of hand. Looks like the storied Celtics franchise has no intention of conceding the NBA's worst record to the Knicks, 76ers or Timberwolves. Philadelphia -- you gonna let this pass? Get rid of some more players!

It's not about tanking, it's about getting as many draft picks during the season as opposed to being good enough to have a Top 15 pick, but not good enough to make the playoffs. The Celtics and 76ers have decided to really suck in order to maximize their chances at Jahlil Okafor or whoever they want in the June NBA Draft.

Next Week: If Peyton Manning hangs up his cleats, who will Gatorade, Sony, Oreos, Sprint, Nationwide, DirecTV, Papa John's, MasterCard and Buick turn to for paid endorsements?

If I had to guess, probably not Andrew Luck. 

7 comments MMQB Review: Now the Cowboys Got Screwed by the Officials Edition

Peter King detailed his crimefighting abilities in last week's TMQ when he took on a pickpocket who tried to lift his wallet, as well as focused on the Lions feeling they were screwed by the officials in their playoff loss to the Cowboys. Peter also detailed how the Rams were making a move to leave St. Louis and pushed the narratives for the divisional round games. This week Peter details how the Cowboys now feel like THEY were screwed by the officials, reveals he didn't really watch the Carolina-Seattle game (a West Coast team versus a team from the South? Who cares?) but he definitely has thoughts on the game he didn't see, picks the worst possible Goat of the Week, and has other thoughts on the playoffs he could be bothered enough to actually watch.

Peter starts the column off with a quote from Sun Tzu because, umm...., apparently destroying haikus isn't doing enough damage to Japanese and Chinese culture.

In the spring of 2004, after the Patriots won their second Super Bowl, I was working on a Bill Belichick profile for Sports Illustrated. The New England coach agreed to show me his football library, which is believed to be the single biggest existing collection of books about the sport. I was surprised to see on one of the packed shelves The Art of War, old and tattered and thin.

“The Art of War,” I said. “Wow. You read that?”
 
“Yeah,” he said with a bit of a scowl. “I got something out of it. But, you know, ‘Don’t move your troops when the ground is muddy.’ I mean …”

Peter has probably told this story about Belichick's library five times in MMQB in the last decade. Why would Belichick not read "The Art of War"? Did Peter think Belichick would have Lee Child and Danielle Steel novels on his shelf?

And I imagine Belichick scowled because he disagreed with how giddy Peter sounded when asking this question. 

Belichick learned more than that. He and his top offensive lieutenant, coordinator Josh McDaniels, used one of the strangest formations in recent history three times Saturday night, and their usage was a key element (but certainly not the reason) why the Patriots will be hosting the AFC Championship Game on Sunday evening back at Gillette Stadium. It’s the stratagem of the weekend, the stratagem of the season.

The stratagem of the decade even. Perhaps the best stratagem in record history. INCLUDING THE TRIASSIC PERIOD.

This weekend was dominated by some heart-stopping football, by the first serious questions about whether Peyton Manning has played his last game … and by the rulings of referees Bill Vinovich in New England and Gene Steratore in Green Bay, and by the opinions and interpretations of Dean Blandino and Mike Pereira and Mike Carey. Decidedly not what the NFL wants on the best weekend of football all year, four elimination games in 31 hours with the NFL’s Final Eight.

Did a ton of people watch the games? They did? That's all the NFL really cares about. They can cover up or make the public forget about any other mistakes they make along the way.

Packers 26, Cowboys 21: “A bad rule, ruled correctly.”

That’s how one longtime NFL operative referred to the call that changed the course of the season for Green Bay and Dallas at Lambeau Field. And when the play was adjudicated by referee Gene Steratore under the hood in Green Bay, connected to NFL vice president for officiating Dean Blandino in the officiating command center in New York, they made the call by the exact interpretation of the rulebook. With just over four minutes left and Dallas trailing by five, the Cowboys made a strange call on fourth-and-two with the game on the line: a deep ball down the left sideline.

It's not strange, because Gregg Easterbrook says the best time to go deep is on fourth-and-short, unless the team wants to run the ball and "do a little dance," but only go deep if the defense isn't expecting your team to go deep, which the Packers should be expecting it because on a play like this the Cowboys are only going to run the ball or throw deep. So yes, this throw made complete sense.

Dez Bryant made a leaping catch over Packers cornerback Sam Shields. But as he landed the ball became momentarily dislodged. The initial ruling was a completed catch, gain of 31, ball down at the Packer one. Green Bay coach Mike McCarty challenged the ruling on the field. After a long review, Steratore emerged from the hood and said the call was reversed; Bryant hadn’t completed the act of the catch.

The ground can't cause a fumble, unless in this case where the ground can cause a fumble. It's complicated and it's not like the officiating made a difference in the game, and hey look, it's the Conference Championship games that should be exciting so let's talk about that.

America said the same thing. It looked like a catch. By my Twitter feed, a good 80 percent of the fans who opined said it was a catch.

Because few things are more accurate than what the majority of people on Twitter think. I like how Peter selectively uses opinions on Twitter as proof for something. When it comes to 80% of Twitter thinking he's a shill for the NFL or not liking something he wrote, well those 80% are just being Twitter bullies, but when 80% agree with Peter then this majority obviously is correct.

The vital and controversial part of this rule is that as a player falls to the ground in the continuation of the act of trying to make a catch, he has to maintain control of the ball when he hits the ground.

Bryant failed to maintain possession of the ball when he hit the ground while in the process of making the catch. The ball popped from Bryant’s grasp when his body hit the turf and momentarily left his grip. He caught it while on the ground without the ball hitting the ground, but by rule, that’s not important. Bryant would have had to possess the ball without it leaving his grasp when he hit the ground.

I get the rule. It's the rule. The ground can't cause a fumble. I understand that rule too. So if Bryant had the ball possessed until he hit the ground, then why can the ground cause an incomplete pass if the receiver possesses the football all the way to the ground after being touched with two feet in bounds? I understand if the receiver doesn't have possession or the football hits the ground, but Bryant appeared to possess it all the way to the ground.

Crucial point two: If Steratore and Blandino had ruled Bryant fumbled the ball while making a football act “common to the game,” they could have ruled the catch good and the ball down at the one. For instance, if they ruled he caught the ball and then extended both arms “while making a football act common to the game”—that is, while trying to extend the ball across the goal line, with the ball never being lost in his grasp—it would have been a catch.

You know what else is a common act to the game? Catching a football while jumping in the air and then landing on the ground. It just seems silly to me that an additional act other than catching the football is required to make this a good catch. If he caught the pass while trying to put the ball over the goal and fumbled it out, that's fine as a catch, but why does that mean Bryant had more possession of the football than simply landing on the ground with possession and two feet in bounds? Because he tried an additional football move? The assumption a receiver is making an additional football move, so he must have possession of the football is a bit shaky to me.

“That’s an incomplete pass by rule,” said FOX rules analyst Mike Pereira, who used to have Blandino’s job. “The rule is very specific. In the process of going to the ground, you must maintain possession. That’s what happened here. The ball hit the ground and popped out immediately.”

The rule was enforced correctly. What got me was that Bryant had the ball all the way to the ground and then it popped out a little bit. I think if the receiver has possession all the way to the ground and has been touched then he should be down. Maybe that's a bad idea.

Maybe there will be enough momentum for a revolutionary change—for a catch to be catch as soon as a receiver gets two feet down and possesses the ball clearly. The problem with that in the past, as another source said Sunday, is “the cheap fumble.” Think of what happens when a pass, a catch by a receiver, a thudding hit by a defender and a fumble all occur at lightning speed. Did the receiver actually have possession before getting whacked and losing control of the ball?

I don't know. That's what instant replay is for. I understand the idea of a "cheap fumble." In a situation where a receiver catches a pass and then gets hit, I think that's a different situation. That's a question of whether the pass was complete or not. If the receiver made a football move as defined by the NFL rules then this would be a fumble. If he didn't, it's an incomplete pass. In a situation where the receiver has possession of the football all the way to the ground, is touched and it's contact with the ground that causes the ball to come out of his possession then I don't see why it wouldn't be a complete pass.

With the anger over this call, expect debate to center on the either two feet down and possession constituting a catch (with the requisite likely rise in the “cheap fumble”), or a proposal that a receiver doesn’t have to maintain control when going to the ground after taking two steps.

Change the rule, don't change the rule, I don't care. I just think this was a situation where the catch was completed and the ball was jarred loose by the ground. Maybe it shouldn't be a catch, but I didn't think Bryant lost possession all that much. It's not like he lost possession prior to hitting the ground. I think if he maintained possession, had two feet down, and completed the catch until he hit the ground then it looks like a catch to me.

But understand one thing: These games are so close, and the calls made so agonizingly vivid and on a sword’s edge by replay technology, that you’re not putting the genie back in the bottle. There are going to be teams sent home by incredibly close calls now and into the future, because we can see these calls so well, and because replay is here to say.

Which is fine with me. It's better than not having the technology and the calls on the field being incorrect and deciding a game. I don't love the rule, but at least it was applied correctly. It beats the alternative.

It was not pretty watching Peyton Manning’s twilight. That certainly is what Sunday’s 24-13 loss to Indianapolis in the Broncos’ playoff opener looked like. And now, Manning, who turns 39 in 10 weeks, will have to decide whether he’ll return for a fourth season in Denver, and an 18th season in the NFL, in 2015. “I guess I can’t just give that simple answer right now,” Manning said after his 53rd game as a Bronco. “I’m processing it.”

It's not like this has been a mystery. Teams have pressed Manning's receivers and forced him to throw into tight windows before. It just looks really bad for Manning when a team does it well, which the Colts did. I personally thought that what we are seeing at the end of this year would happen two years ago. I really did. I thought the wear of the season would hurt Manning's arm in the playoffs and thought this right when he came back from his neck surgery with the Broncos. It took longer than I expected.

Manning threw a few balls late, or shy of their target. The crispness of a Manning march down the field wasn’t there. In his last 11 drives, two resulted in field goals; the rest, nothing. He had no zip on the ball. His downfield throws were consistently arced. He looked like, well, a 38-year-old quarterback.

Except for Brett Favre. He somehow managed to defy time and his arm velocity was still excellent. His decision-making wasn't affected as he got older either and that's not necessarily a compliment.

You couldn’t see this coming in the season’s first two months. In late October, we were talking about Manning playing two or three more years.

I literally had zero conversations with humans about Manning playing two or three more years. I don't know who "we" is. Maybe it's Peter King and his imaginary friend who he keeps in his front pocket with his wallet.

And maybe some of this is Thomas-related.

Because if Peyton Manning doesn't have his full complement of Pro Bowl receivers then how can he be expected to win games and play well?

This is what Manning told me about his future in August:

“I’ve always said that I’m only gonna do it A) if I can help—if I can truly help—and B) if I still enjoy, not the playing—anybody enjoys playing—but enjoy the preparation and the work part of it. Right now I’m still enjoying those things. I’ve heard Drew Brees and Tom Brady say that they have this target, like, ‘I’m gonna play until I’m 45.’ I’m not in that position, I think because of my neck injury. But I think the smart way to handle it is, every March, I do this physical and we take a look at it. It’s the perfect time, because it says, ‘Hey, everything looks good.’ And it also kind of allows me to go, Do I still wanna go through a lifting, offseason schedule again? I do my neck check, but I do my heart check as well, my desire check.

Peyton is like, "I'm going to sit down on March 10 and figure it all out from there on whether I want to retire or not. If I'm not retiring, I will immediately have to get in shape to shoot the 50 commercials that I do every year."

Then Greg Bedard detailed Manning's departure from the locker room and (apparently this is important) wrote:

“What struck me was how matter-of-fact everything was,” said Bedard. “It could have been a regular-season loss based on his reaction. There was no holding his head in his hands. No long stretches of staring off into space. No devastation. No sense of finality. It just seemed part of the process for him.”

Well it probably is a part of the process for Manning. He has lost a lot of playoff games and has been one-and-done 9 times in his career. He's used to this feeling by now.

Patriots 35, Ravens 31: Thank you, Nick Saban.

On Saturday night, in the third quarter against Baltimore, New England lined up four offensive linemen in their usual spots but with a running back, Shane Vereen, split out wide right, having declared himself an ineligible receiver before the snap, with a wide receiver to the right of him. A backup tight end, Michael Hoomanawanui, was in the left tackle slot, but he was actually an eligible receiver because Vereen, wide right, was not. At the snap of the ball, Vereen stepped back from the line and held his hands out for the ball, continuing the ruse. Hoomanawanui lumbered up the left seam, and quarterback Tom Brady hit him with a pass. Gain of 14, to the Baltimore 10-yard line.

The New England play could not have been more of a carbon copy if Alabama coach Nick Saban or his offensive coordinator, Lane Kiffin, had flown to New England last week to help offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels install it.

I feel like Lane Kiffin and Josh McDaniels would hang out though. Not sure why I feel this way.

There is no doubt in my mind, based on the duplication of the play, that the Patriots got this play from Alabama. And good for them. It’s perfectly legal, despite Baltimore’s protestations to the contrary, and though officiating czar Dean Blandino told me Sunday the league is going to examine the play (actually, the Patriots completed three passes, for 11, 14 and 16 yards on the three plays they ran), what rule can the NFL change?

It's not fair to come up with creative plays that confuse the defense. Of course Mike Shula has been calling plays for years now under the assumption that it's not legal to confuse the defense with creative play-calling, so I'm sure this rule change won't affect the Panthers at all.

Baltimore coach John Harbaugh protested the play because he thought the Ravens weren’t given time to “match up” after the Patriots made their switch. Here’s how the rule reads: “If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions.

I timed the three plays in question to see if Baltimore had been unfairly disadvantaged by the Patriot ploy, using NFL Game Rewind as my resource. Playing the NBC telecast back, I clocked the amount of time between referee Bill Vinovich’s in-stadium announcement of the “non-eligible player” (it sounded like that was what Vinovich called the spread-wide faux fifth lineman). By my count, seven, 10 and seven seconds elapsed between the announcements and the snap of the ball.

Seven seconds isn't that much. I have to admit that, but by the third time the Patriots used this tactic I would hope the Ravens would have caught on a little bit better.

“The whole issue with Baltimore,’’ Blandino said, “is they felt they weren’t given enough time [to match up]. We will review the three plays, but it appears from a mechanical standpoint that the announcement was made properly, the defense was notified, and the proper mechanics were executed.’’

Then Dean Blandino waved his hand and said there was nothing to see here and immediately exited the Packers' party bus.

My feeling is Baltimore should have had a coach upstairs identify the New England weirdness as the announcement was made, and note that a tight end was playing left tackle. A coach upstairs should have the power to say in the headset to Harbaugh, “Call a timeout! New England’s doing something we can’t identify!” Or something like that.

If I remember correctly, these plays were all used on the same drive. So I don't have an issue with the strategy, but do have an issue with Peter suggesting the Ravens have a coach to identify the Patriots' weirdness. After the first time this formation was used, the Ravens didn't know the Patriots would use it again and there wasn't time to start handing out responsibilities for identifying when New England did something weird. Plus, burning timeouts every time the Patriots used a weird formation doesn't seem like the best use of timeouts. The Ravens could have handled it better, but I don't know if Peter's suggestion is realistic.

Five minutes later, McDaniels pulled out a call that—for the first time in my visits to the 13-year-old New England stadium—made the stadium shake noticeably. From the Patriots’ 49, Edelman, an option quarterback in college at Kent State, went in motion from right to left, and at the snap, Brady threw a backward pass across the formation to him. Edelman took a running step forward, baiting cornerback Rashaan Melvin on that side.

Edelman reached back and threw a good spiral (not great; a slight wobbler) 37 yards through the air. “I thought I overthrew Danny, but he saved me,’’ Edelman said. Not true. The throw was perfect, right on target. Touchdown. Tie game. Stadium gone mad.

It's nice to hear that Peter King attended one playoff game and has all of the details during that game, but couldn't be bothered to watch much of another playoff game. After all, it's only the defending Super Bowl champs playing.

But think about life without the imaginative calls Saturday night. Think of losing to the Ravens for the third time in six years in the playoffs. Think of the 10th straight year without a championship for the team of the generation. Think of the aging giants of the game: Belichick will be 63 next season, Brady 38. Would they ever have a better—or even another—chance to win a fourth Super Bowl?

Which is pretty much what Peter and other sportswriters have asked for 2-3 years now. While it may be true that Brady and Belichick don't have much time left, it seems like every playoff appearance for the last few years the question of "Will this be the last time for them?" gets asked.

Seattle 31, Carolina 17: The Enforcer shall lead them.

I didn’t see a lot of the Seattle-Carolina game,

And really, why would Peter watch it? There's no Brady/Manning/Rodgers playing, it's a West Coast team versus a .500 team, and it's not supposed to be a good game. There are three other games that had Peter's attention.

but what seemed to be the most impressive thing about it was the play of strong safety Kam Chancellor. The breadth of his talent was on display throughout, and it’s easy to see why the Seahawks feel they have the best pair of safeties in football and no other team is close for second place.

"I didn't see much of this game, but let me now comment on what little bit I saw and draw some conclusions on this small amount of information I gathered."

Klemko made a great point to me: “That Chancellor is the third-biggest name in the Seattle secondary behind Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas says more about Seattle’s roster than it does about the fourth-year safety, who turned in perhaps the game of his career here. Eleven tackles and an interception returned 90 yards for a touchdown were enough to fill a stat sheet, but he also did things that don’t show up in the boxscore that make you go wow. Chancellor hurdled the Carolina line twice on field goal block attempts, and he somehow made Mike Tolbert go backwards.’’

Making Tolbert go backwards is impressive. What's more impressive is Chancellor hurdled the line of scrimmage twice and on the second attempt the Panthers inept special teams coordinator didn't bother adjusting for the fact Chancellor was doing this.

Chancellor is a mild-mannered guy who is good buddies with Sherman but will never be confused with him in the press conference standings. In his postgame interview, he calmly assigned “all glory to God” …  and to his defensive line. He’ll be a tough assignment, along with his defensive mates, for Aaron Rodgers Sunday at noon Pacific Time in Seattle.

Thanks for your insights on this game, Peter. I know it's hard to watch four NFL games in one weekend, especially when they all take place at different times with no overlap, but I'm sure there were more important things you had to do.

In the wake of the Mueller report …

The 96-page report has been well-dissected in the four days since its release. But four points I think must be made:

2. There was one lie the league got called on. After the vivid TMZ footage of Ray Rice striking his then-fiancée surfaced, Goodell said the league had requested “from law enforcement any and all information about the incident.” Mueller found that this was just not true. As he wrote: “League investigators did not contact any of the police officers who investigated the incident, the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office, or the Revel [the casino where the attack took place] to attempt to obtain or view the in-elevator video or to obtain other information. No one from the League asked Rice or his lawyer whether they would make available for viewing the in-elevator video they received as part of criminal discovery in early April.’’

So Roger Goodell IS a liar then? I ask because this is a very basic part of Goodell's initial reasoning for why he suspended Ray Rice only two games. Goodell said he viewed the tape of the incident and talked to all parties. Then Goodell was like, "Well they wouldn't give us the tape." Now it's found out that the NFL didn't even ask for the tape. It's a simple lie that goes to the heart of why Rice was suspended for the amount of games he was.

4. It’s clear the league trusted Rice too much as a good guy when the discipline was handed out. I wish Goodell would admit why he was soft on Rice in the first place.

Yes, if only there were someone who could take the time to investigate this and ask questions. Maybe someone who doesn't get the story wrong initially and then completely back away from trying to report on the story can do some investigative reporting.

Not that it would make that much difference now, but it would shed light on how the league could go from a two-game ban to an indefinite one (which ended up being 10 games when Rice was reinstated in late November), just because a video surfaced that simply put an exclamation point on what was a scurrilous attack in the first place.

You answered your own question, Peter. A video surfaced and it looked bad. To protect the NFL's brand they decided that once the public saw Rice hit his fiance then they better suspend Rice for more games.

The Fine Fifteen

1. Seattle (13-4). Seattle safeties Earl Thomas and Kam Chancellor had 22 tackles, a pick, a forced fumbled and three passes defensed Saturday night. They dominated, particularly Chancellor.

From what Peter hears from other people who watched the entire game, they dominated. Sources say this is true.

4. Dallas (13-5). Just a guess, but I’m thinking Dean Blandino won’t be getting any more rides on the Dallas party bus.

For correctly enforcing the rules as set forth by the NFL?

7. Denver (12-5). One month ago today, who would have thought we’d be talking about a total reconstruction job of the team that John Elway so masterfully built?

Probably some people thought this. John Elway built the Broncos team to win now and the health of Peyton Manning was always the reason the Broncos were trying to win now. So if Manning gets hurt or retires, the team would probably start rebuilding in some small or big way.

Peter has a lot of difficulty getting out of his little NFL Insider bubble. Everyone doesn't think like he thinks or what he thinks. Denver's window was dependent on Peyton Manning being the Broncos' quarterback. When Manning retires or gets hurt, the strategy for the Broncos changes.

9. Carolina (8-9-1). Nothing to be ashamed of. The Panthers put up a good fight, and they should be well-prepared, with a rebuilt line and receiver corps, to make a run in the NFC South next year. 2015 will be a big year for Ron Rivera, who is 33-33-1 after four seasons as Jerry Richardson’s coach.

Shitty team or no shitty team, he made back-to-back playoff appearances. That's something the franchise had not done before. Every year is a big year for 50% of NFL head coaches. Job security comes and goes on a yearly basis. I would be interested to see Peter King write that 2015 is a big year for Jeff Fisher, who is 20-27-1 after three seasons as the Rams' coach. He won't write that though, because no Marvin Demoff client is going to put another Marvin Demoff client on the spot like that.

11. Cincinnati (10-6-1). Most important question the Bengals will answer this offseason for the future of the franchise: Who will be brought in to challenge Andy Dalton for the quarterback job? I’ll be clear here. Dalton shouldn’t lose his job because of the four straight wild-card losses. He has done a tremendous amount to help this team be a consistent contender. But it’s irresponsible for the team to not set up some competition at the quarterback position.

Yet again, I would be interested to see Peter write this about the Rams. They have had three seasons of no quarterback competition for a quarterback who hasn't made the playoffs once and has been injury-prone. But again, no Marvin Demoff client will second-guess another Marvin Demoff client. Peter King is a good boy and will stand down.

Maybe it makes Dalton better. Maybe it results in him losing his job. But it’s a slap to the fans to do business as usual this offseason.

I just want to read these words written by Peter King about the Rams. They would apply in that situation as well. I know, I know...Peter can't rock the boat too much with his agent's clients, but Rams fans have been slapped in the face by Jeff Fisher and the Rams organization for a few years now. Fisher is paid to do better than that.

12. Houston (9-7). I’d be doing a ton of homework on Jameis Winston if I were the Texans.

Sounds like they would have to trade up for him.

13. Arizona (11-6). I’d buttress the quarterback position by overpaying a third playable one if I were the Cardinals.

Maybe Shaun Hill will be available.

15. Buffalo (9-7). So … I just wonder about the fate of Jim Schwartz, who, by the end of this season, had built a top-three defense in Buffalo. What of Schwartz? What of his effective scheme? Why a defensive guy as head coach instead of the best available quarterback-whisperer? And who is the quarterback, while we’re on the subject?

It's January. Calm the hell down about who the quarterback is come September.

Defensive Players of the Week

Vontae Davis, cornerback, Indianapolis. With five passes defensed (the last of which should have been an easy interception against the declining Peyton Manning), Davis continued to solidify his position as a top-10 cornerback in the league. And I continue to ask: What was Miami thinking, trading him to Indianapolis in 2012?

They were thinking they wanted a second round pick for a player who had difficulty grasping the Dolphins' defensive system. The best part about this award Peter gives is that a picture of Davis accompanies the award in a sidebar.

Notice how Davis has his arm around Emmanuel Sanders before the ball has gotten there. So that's pass interference potentially, right? The officials didn't call this type of pass interference much in the Colts-Broncos games. Perhaps Sanders didn't flop enough to get the call.

Goat of the Week
 
Rashaan Melvin, cornerback, Baltimore. This feels almost cruel.

It sort of is cruel, Peter. Rashaan Melvin is an undrafted free agent who was basically starting for the Ravens because they didn't have too many other quality options. It's unfair to call him a "goat" because he wouldn't be starting at this point in his career if injuries had not decimated the rest of the Ravens secondary.

Melvin is a limited cornerback, picked up out of desperation by Baltimore with a month left in the season because the Ravens’ secondary was being wiped out by injury. He played credibly in several games, making some big plays last week to help Baltimore win the wild-card game at Pittsburgh. But on Saturday night in Foxboro he got lit up by Tom Brady as few corners have been lit up in recent times. The very ugly numbers, per Pro Football Focus:

Targeted: 19 times. Receptions surrendered: 15.
Receiving yards allowed: 224.
Touchdowns allowed: 2.
Quarterback rating allowed: 150.9.

Yikes. That is one burned evening.

Yeah, he got killed by Tom Brady. It seems cruel to call him the "goat" because it is cruel to call him the goat. Say that more was expected of him, but I don't know what else was expected from Melvin when going against Tom Brady in the AFC Divisional Round. There were no other goats on the weekend? None?

“If Christie is still a serious presidential candidate, it was a very peculiar performance. In fact, it made sense career-wise only if he was campaigning for a future job as a team mascot. Look at the picture, and it’s hard to imagine him giving a State of the Union address, but you can really see him dressed up like a bumblebee or a duck, bouncing around the sidelines and firing a T-shirt cannon into the stands.”

—Columnist Gail Collins of The New York Times, on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s awkward three-way embrace, caught by FOX cameras, with Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and son Steven in the waning moments of the 24-20 wild-card win over Detroit.

Christie might be the only presidential candidate who may be able to look back on his career and say, “Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys cost me the White House.”

Whaaaaaaaaaaat? "The New York Times" is ripping a conservative who may run for President? No way, I don't believe it. Cheering for the Cowboys will cost Christie the White House, but Hillary Clinton setting up residency in New York, even though she had few other ties in the city, specifically to further her political career was just fine by them. I can't believe the "Times" would rip a conservative politician.

I know, it's a strawman argument. I just can't read anything the "Times" writes without sensing a bias. 

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Stayed at the Renaissance Hotel in the parking lot at Gillette Stadium over the weekend, in the growing Patriots Place complex.
There are Belichickian reminders around the place. Understated sign on one of the entry doors to the hotel, complete with a Patriots logo, and on one of the shops in the mini-mall here:

DO YOUR JOB.

He figures if everyone on the team worries about doing his job to the best of his ability, and all those efforts are combined, the Patriots have the best chance to win—rather than one unit wondering why another unit isn’t playing well, and maybe making suggestions, etc. It’s a mantra around the team,

It's a great mantra. It also helps to convince the players on the active roster to stick to doing their job when the other units on the roster do their job well. Success makes every mantra sound brilliant. Try to tell the Cleveland Browns defense to "do their job" while the offense has injuries and continues to lack direction. It's harder to stick to doing your job on a team when there are units on that team very clearly not doing their job well. As always, success makes everything so much more perfect.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think this is what I liked about the playoff weekend:

a. The death of the Dallas-bought-off-the-officials storyline.

How about the Dallas-was-screwed-by-the-officials storyline? 

b. Andrew Luck, on the read-option, beating DeMarcus Ware around the corner for a would-be touchdown. Though it was called back, that was a heck of an athletic move by Luck.

It's a "sneaky athletic for a white boy" mention.

i. Amazing back-shoulder throw by Joe Flacco to Owen Daniels for his third touchdown. Perfectly executed. “Flacco doesn’t know the difference between playoff football and playing in the backyard,” Cris Collinsworth said on NBC.

That's great insight from Cris Collinsworth. Such brilliant words.

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about the playoff weekend:

a. Watching Peyton Manning struggle like a great pitcher who’s lost his fastball.

He's 38 years old. It had to happen at some point.

c. Carolina’s pursuit on the 90-yard Kam Chancellor interception return.

Apparently Peter King only watched Kam Chancellor for the little bit he watched Carolina-Seattle because he knows almost nothing else about the game that doesn't involve Kam Chancellor.

They did pursue him. They simply weren't catching him, but there were Panthers players who chased after Chancellor. But observations from a guy who says he didn't watch much of the game is always appreciated. The replay shows no one would have caught him, but a couple Panthers did chase Chancellor.

i. Denver in the postseason. 2012 divisional loss as a one seed, 2013 Super Bowl loss as a one seed, 2014 divisional loss as a two seed. In my opinion, the Broncos were too good to be 2-3 in the last three postseasons.

The Broncos did make the Super Bowl last year, so it's not like they are complete failures. Still, Peyton Manning is too good of a quarterback to have the career record in the playoffs that he does.

3. I think the earth shifts so fast these days in the coaching search business, but here are a few things I hear about the status of certain jobs:

I wonder if the same source that gave him the information on what happened in Roger Goodell's office between Ray and Janay Rice is Peter's source of this information?

a. Atlanta, after Rex Ryan went to the Bills (too much uncertainty in the Falcons organization to hire him, from what I hear), likes two NFC West defensive coordinators—Seattle’s Dan Quinn and Arizona’s Todd Bowles. I bet they’d hire Quinn if he were available right now, but knowing he might not be on the street for three more weeks might play into it.

I don't understand why the Falcons wouldn't wait three weeks to interview the guy they would hire right now if they could. They would really not hire the guy they want because they can't wait three weeks to interview him?

c. Denver, I believe, is not going to replace John Fox. I hear there haven’t been any talks internally to replace him. But when Jay Glazer, who is close to Fox, says Fox may not be around if the Broncos lose, and then they lose, my antennae goes up. 

He's gone. 

d. New England, I believe, will not lose offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels. You never know if he’ll be the heir to Bill Belichick, but he interviewed in Atlanta and San Francisco. Not that either place would offer him the job—I hear nothing of the sort—but my guess is he would not leave New England for a place that didn’t have stability and a quarterback.

So McDaniels would go to Atlanta or San Francisco? The way that Peter words this confuses me. McDaniels wouldn't leave for a place that didn't have stability and a quarterback, but Peter isn't referring to San Francisco and Atlanta as not having stability and a quarterback I hope.

8. I think “Divisional Playoffs’’ is the worst name for any round of any postseason in any sport. What, “Interesting Playoff Weekend” was already taken? Should be “Conference semifinals,” at least.

I don't see how it matters at all. There are much bigger concerns in the NFL than the name of the second round of the playoffs.

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

c. Congrats to Boston on being the 2024 Summer Olympics nominee by the U.S. Olympic Committee. I can’t see the Olympics in Boston—just seems too small—but people would have a great time in the summer in that area, I can promise that.

If Boston ended up winning the bid for the 2024 Olympics then Bill Simmons and Peter King would state these Boston Olympics were the greatest Olympics ever.

d. Ohio State 37, Oregon 30. But my knowledge of those two teams would fit on the head of a pin. I watched their two bowl games, and Ohio State has that won’t-be-denied air.

Having very little knowledge of what he is talking about has never stopped Peter from opining before.

e. The NBA season is three months old and the New York Knicks have won five games. That Phil Jackson can sure build a basketball team.

The Knicks are terrible but was Phil Jackson supposed to turn it around in three months? I wish Peter King could answer that question. It would have been an incredible turnaround for Phil Jackson to have turned the Knicks around in three months.

g. First Joe Maddon. Now Ben Zobrist? Who are you, Rays?

Have you ever paid attention to the Rays? Ever? What about trading Ben Zobrist and not giving Joe Maddon the money he wants surprises you?

i. Beernerdness: Tried the Smoke and Dagger black lager Friday night—I’d never heard of such a beer, a black lager—

(Shakes head sadly)

The Adieu Haiku
So: Whither Peyton?
Over-under for his call:
I’ll guess March 7

You mean two days before his bonus that the Broncos have to pay him comes due? That's the day by which Manning will make a decision regarding his future? Don't go too far out on that limb, Peter.