4 comments Gregg Easterbrook Declares the Zone Read Dead Again

I figured TMQ for this week would be about the demise of the zone read or a reprisal of the "Peyton Paradox." It is about the decline of the read option. Gregg is great at overreacting to what happened during the past week in the NFL, so because the Redskins continue to struggle and Colin Kaepernick didn't run for 300 yards Gregg has decided teams are moving back towards wanting a more traditional quarterback. What Gregg doesn't realize is teams never went away from wanting a traditional quarterback. Teams just used the zone read as a part of the offense to throw the defense off-balance. A quarterback will always have to throw the ball well and I can't see this changing anytime soon. Gregg declared the zone read dead earlier this year and then shut up about it once the 49ers reeled off a string of victories. Now that the Redskins are struggling, and because he lacks NFL-related material for TMQ, he decides the zone read is dead again. Nevermind that Carolina runs portions of the zone read and Seattle does at times too. Ignore that and focus on Gregg stating that an NFL team will want a quarterback who can throw the ball...which seems pretty obvious.

Once upon a time, NFL scouts wanted college quarterbacks who played in a pro-style offense. The theory was no one could learn to read pass coverages after arriving in the NFL: a player needed years of practice using NFL-style tactics.

It's the first sentence of the column and Gregg is already spewing lies and insanity. We are to really believe NFL teams didn't think a college quarterback could learn to read pass coverages better after arriving in the NFL? Of course NFL quarterbacks learn to read pass coverages upon entering the NFL. They see much more diverse and difficulty coverages in the NFL than they do in college. Plus, the NFL is now using college spread tactics in the passing game, so these quarterbacks who ran the read option or spread offense in college shouldn't be at a great disadvantage upon entering the NFL.

Then about a decade ago, the spread offense arrived in Texas prep football. NFL teams of the Lone Star State may be struggling, but Texas high school football remains the sport's leading indicator.

Apparently Gregg will continue to ignore that earlier this year he stated the Pacific Northwest is the newest hotbed of football activity.

San Francisco at Washington on "Monday Night Football," the traditionalist scouts had their revenge. There's a reason they liked pro-style quarterbacks, who now may make a draft comeback.

Or they may not. Or NFL teams will draft quarterbacks who can run an NFL offense while also having the mobility to run some zone read plays. Regardless, by stating "may make a draft comeback" Gregg has himself covered either way. His ego won't have to take the blow of being wrong no matter how this plays out and that's the most important thing.

In the game, Niners zone-read quarterback Colin Kaepernick struggled against one of the league's worst pass defenses, often sailing the ball where no receiver awaited.

Kaepernick was 15-24 for 235 yards, 9.79 average yards per attempt, three touchdowns, zero interceptions, a 134.6 rating, and a 90.6 QBR. Gregg Easterbrook is simply outright lying to his readers. Kaepernick may have thrown one or two passes over a receiver's head but he didn't struggle against the Redskins for most of the game. He was efficient and had one of his best games of the season.

I wonder if Gregg simply ignores what he saw during the game and the box score when writing things like this or he knows he is lying and wants to see if anyone will call him on it, because he truly doesn't care if his readers think he's a liar or not.

Mostly, Griffin and Kaepernick looked like quarterbacks who can only run a college-style offense. When the zone-read was a fresh idea last season, that was fine.

No, they look like second year quarterbacks who are having to adjust to the NFL adjusting to them. NFL defenses aren't stupid and they have adjusted to what Griffin and Kaepernick want to do on offense, so now these two quarterbacks will have to adjust to what the NFL defenses are doing. It's not like Kaepernick had even started a full season at quarterback in the NFL prior to this year. He's adjusting to NFL defenses adjusting to him.

On Sunday night, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady did vanilla, chocolate and strawberry to spectacular effect: Monday night, the flavor of the month was a bust for both teams.

Manning had a 52.8% completion percentage and 150 yards passing. Granted, he was playing in a stiff wind, but he wasn't spectacular on Sunday night. Stop making things up. Are there people who read TMQ and didn't watch a single NFL game over the past week? There must be because that's the only way I can explain why ESPN trots out TMQ every week when Gregg Easterbrook constantly misleads and lies to ESPN's readers.

The pendulum had swung toward college-style quarterbacks on draft day -- expect it to swing back the other way.

The first two quarterbacks drafted in the last two NFL drafts have both been traditional drop-back quarterbacks.

As for Washington, the club under Griffin has seen streaks of 3-6, then 7-0, now 3-9. That's not encouraging. Football is a team game. Not only did the RG III trade denude Washington of draft selections for talent and depth, the 21 coaches aren't performing well either. Shanahan is highly hyped and very highly paid. During the years Shanahan had John Elway in his prime, Shanahan was 54-18. In all other years, Shanahan is 124-121.

This is just further proof a coach's perceived talent and who he knows in the NFL can cover up for a lot of his deficiencies. Mike Shanahan has lived off his reputation as a two-time Super Bowl winning coach for a while now. My issue with Shanahan and coaches like Jeff Fisher isn't whether they are good coaches or not, but whether they are worth the amount of money they are being paid. Is paying $4 million more per year for Mike Shanahan as compared to another head coach really worth it to the organization and will it provide the organization with a better return on their investment than choosing a lesser known candidate as the head coach. I guess it depends on the other candidate.

With each successive season, there seems more evidence Shanahan was just the guy who was standing there when Elway realized his potential, and otherwise is a mediocre coach.

I don't think Shanahan is a mediocre coach necessarily, but he hasn't done a bang-up job with the Redskins quite yet. Robert Griffin doesn't seem to have the offensive talent around him that he needs to be successful in the NFL. That is partially on Shanahan and also a reflection on the salary cap penalties suffered by the Redskins organization combined with the loss of draft picks to move up and get Griffin.

Sunday, Denver faced New England in cold, strong wind, and Belichick completely outsmarted Denver Broncos' backup coach Jack del Rio in wind management. Winning the coin flip in overtime, Belichick took the wind.

How did Belichick outsmart Jack Del Rio? The Patriots won the coin toss. They had the choice of choosing their side of the field or taking the ball and Belichick took the ball. Del Rio didn't have a choice in the matter so I think it's inaccurate to say he was outsmarted by Belichick in this situation.

In another overtime game, with one second remaining in the fifth quarter, the Minnesota Vikings fair-caught a Green Bay Packers punt. The ball was on the Vikings' 34 -- try a fair-catch kick! Sure it's a 76-yard field goal, which would be the longest ever. But Blair Walsh has a strong leg, and there's no rush on a fair-catch kick. Many placekickers launch kicks that would be good from around 70 in warmups, with no rush.

Oh, many kickers do make 70 yard kicks in warmups? Do they do this outside and with a groups of rushers trying to block the kick? Don't forget the Packers could have had a man back to return this field goal attempt, which would have resulted in the Packers essentially have a free kickoff return. I would imagine if the Vikings attempted a field goal here and the Packers ran it back for a touchdown then Gregg would criticize the Vikings for trying a long field goal and allowing the Packers a chance to win the game.

Fans were deprived the pleasure of beholding a very long fair-catch kick on the final play of an overtime. It might be decades until an NFL team is in this position again.

Oh the tragedy of this situation. Whatever shall we do?

Yet trailing by only three despite the turnovers, Detroit reached third-and-12 on the City of Tampa 28 with a minute remaining. The Buccaneers blitzed. Stafford sprinted backward 10 yards, then launched a perfect lob to Calvin Johnson, who had beaten his man at the Tampa 3. Megatron, holder of receiving records uncountable, let the ball carom out of his hands for an interception. Game over.

Calvin Johnson has saved Matthew Stafford's ass so many times I think he is entitled to a drop or two. Of course Gregg focuses on the one time Calvin Johnson lets the ball carom out of his hands as opposed to mentioning all the times when Johnson goes up and grabs the football with defenders hanging all over him.

Sweet 'N' Sour Play: Kansas City leading 38-34, the San Diego Chargers, out of timeouts, faced second-and-long on the Chiefs' 26 with 31 seconds remaining. TMQ loves the tactic of, in a high-pressure situation, giving the ball to a guy who never gets the ball. Bolts receiver Seyi Ajirotutu, with two catches on the season, lined up wide left. He ran a go, and caught the touchdown pass that proved the winning points. Sweet.

TMQ is a fan of this tactic until this tactic doesn't work, at which point Gregg Easterbrook writes that the Chargers should have thrown the ball to Keenan Allen in this situation and not a rarely-used player like Ajirotutu. Gregg's criticism is always outcome-dependent. Always. His criticism is based entirely on the outcome of a play and he openly contradicts himself, such as in this situation. Over the past couple of weeks we have read where Gregg has stated a team made a mistake by getting the ball to a rarely-used player, but in this case he lauds the Chargers for throwing the ball to a rarely used player in a key situation.

Probably gamma bursts have a natural origin, but we shouldn't assume this. As TMQ has noted, what if they are the muzzle flashes of doomsday weapons?...Gamma bursts appear far more violent than nuclear explosion. If this burst happened in our Milky Way, the radiation would have killed everything on Earth, and any life similar to ours throughout this galaxy. When astronomers look into the heavens, they observe fantastically powerful explosions. We should not blithely assume all are natural in origin.

These aliens are probably shooting doomsday weapons at Earth in order to destroy the planet because humans insist on watching unrealistic television shows and brewing Winter beers when it is still Fall. 

The tactics for coaching in cold, strong wind are three: First, scheme to get the wind in the first quarter, to jump to a lead. Next, scheme to get the wind in the fourth quarter, when it's money time. 

This scheme would involve the opposing team making the mistake of taking the wind in the third quarter. Basically, this scheme requires the other team's help in making it work, so this scheme would only work if the opposing coach screwed up...which Jack Del Rio (in retrospect of course) did. 

The Patriots won the opening coin toss, so Belichick deferred.

The Patriots always defer. This is a tactic that Bill Belichick always uses, not only in this game due to the wind.

That left Denver to decide whether to start with the ball or start with the wind. Denver chose the ball, which meant New England could then take the wind. Remember, on the opening coin flip the victor has three options: If "defer" is the choice, then the flip loser takes the ball, then the flip victor can choose which goal to defend. So the game began with Belichick getting the best-case wind outcome for the first half.

Having the wind in the first quarter didn't help the Flying Elvii, who lost three fumbles, spotting the visitors a 17-0 lead. 

Gregg's tactics for coaching in a cold, strong wind is off to a rousing start.
 
When the referee turned to the Denver captain, inexplicably the visitors elected to take the wind in the third quarter, giving New England the wind in the fourth quarter, exactly what Belichick wanted.

Belichick is so evil. I'm not sure if this was inexplicable or not. The Broncos wanted to keep the pressure on the Patriots and wanted to make sure their Hall of Fame quarterback got the football again to put more points up on the board. It wasn't a great long-term strategy, but it had short-term tactics behind it.

Jack of the River compounded his goal-to-defend mistake by keeping his offense on the ground in the third quarter, which would turn out to be the final time Denver had the wind. As New England was outscoring Denver 21-0 in the third quarter, the Broncos ran eight rushing plays and four passing plays, never attempting a deep throw. True, rushing was attractive -- New England was playing a funky 2-4-5 alignment intended to frustrate Manning, offering Denver the run.

So basically Gregg thinks the Broncos should have tried to pass the ball, despite the fact the Patriots had set up their defense to stop the pass and allow the Broncos to run the ball. I'm not sure how forcing a throw into coverage (simply because they have the wind) is the best strategy when the Broncos could eat clock by running the football (thereby keeping Tom Brady off the field), but I'm not a tactical genius like Gregg Easterbrook either.

In the NFL format, flip-winning coaches almost always take the ball. Belichick understood that wind was more important than the ball at that juncture. Would Del Rio have taken the wind if he'd won the flip? We'll never know. We do know that in a game where the visitors seemed to have better players, the home team had better coaching.

I'm shocked that Jack Del Rio wasn't able to match wits with Bill Belichick.

Now Gregg kills space and time by referencing "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and talking about dams. Yep, this is still supposed to be a football column.

Reader Jim Clair of Louisville, Ky., reports that last week, "ABC Family had a chyron touting the beginning of the 'countdown to 25 days of Christmas.' What was in the crawl was a countdown to a countdown to a countdown."

Yes, it does sound funny, but ABC Family wants to publicize their 25 Days of Christmas Programming and do so by counting down until it begins. I'm not sure how humanity will survive such egregious "creep."

TMQ contends that coaches don't go for it on fourth down, or in other pressure situations, because they want the players to take blame for a loss. Never was this better on display than in the Navy at San Jose State pairing. During the second overtime, Navy scored and kicked a PAT, then San Jose State scored a touchdown. That meant Spartans coach Ron Caragher faced this choice: kick a PAT for a third overtime, or go for two to win. That's two yards to win a game, on a day when San Jose State averaged 6.3 yards per offense snap.

But did San Jose State average 6.3 yards per offensive snap on down-and-short situations? Gregg is incapable of understanding that the call to go for the two-point conversion here is situation specific. San Jose State may have averaged 6.3 yards per offensive snap, but this doesn't mean they would gain 6.3 yards in this situation. On fourth-and-two (which is what a two-point conversion essentially is) near the goal line the field is more compacted and the running back has smaller lanes to run through. So while Gregg's conclusion San Jose State should have gone for it may be correct, the way he comes to this conclusion is not very good at all.

Afterward he said, "I felt more comfortable kicking and letting the players play to win the game and not making a coaching decision that could've backfired." Blame the players, don't blame me!

Or it could be seen as the coach saying, "I have faith in my players to win the game. My going for the extra point was showing my faith in the defense being able to prevent Navy from scoring."

Baylor and Oregon have offenses built to jump to a quick lead and cause opponents to give up; when forced to play from behind, both looked befuddled. Even excellent football teams need to play from behind. It's part of the skill set a champion must possess.

Or both teams looked befuddled by playing teams that had a good defensive game plan, which may not have anything to do with the skill set of a champion, heart of a champion or anything intangible like that.

As TMQ has noted before, of high-scoring teams such as the 1991 Buffalo Bills, 1998 Minnesota Vikings, 2010 Oregon Ducks and 2007 and 2012 New England Patriots, they tend to peter out late, as defensive intensity cranks up and tendencies become clear. This is a restive point for the high-scoring Denver Broncos.

So it seems Gregg has gone from stating earlier in this NFL season that high-octane NFL offenses are here to say, to now falling back on what he had previously said about defenses catching up eventually with these offenses. So why didn't Gregg mention the defenses would catch up with the offenses back when he was writing glowingly about the Oregon Ducks' offense and how many points the Broncos were putting up earlier in this year? It's funny how Gregg sometimes conveniently forgets principles and ideas that he himself furthers once he sees evidence contrary to what he believes.

Receivers Are Supposed to Receive: Carolina leading 20-16 with 10 seconds remaining, Miami's Mike Wallace dropped a pass at the Panthers' goal line. It would not have been an easy catch, but Wallace's job is to catch the ball.

It wasn't that easy of a catch and Wallace had to dive to get to the ball. I guess Gregg is going to skip over how highly-paid glory boy Mike Wallace abused hard-working, seventh-round pick Captain Munnerlyn the entire game because that doesn't fit his narrative that highly-paid players underachieve by being lazy and lowly-drafted players have no ego and work hard.

Last Week's Jacksonville Item: My item on the city of Jacksonville giving a $43 million gift to the Jaguars for stadium upgrades, while billionaire Jags owner Shad Khan ponies up only $20 million, originally contained a link to school funding cuts in Jacksonville, Ill. This error made me look like a complete idiot. The link rapidly was replaced with the correct one, to school funding cuts in Jacksonville, Fla. The item also said the source of the $43 million was a "new" hotel tax. The hotel tax is not new, so I took out the word "new," leaving the rest as is because none of the underlying points changed.

So Gregg didn't read the article he linked, unless he can't read English or doesn't know "Ill." means Illinois and not Florida, but the good news is he corrected this egregious error very quickly which completely makes up for the fact he was very lazy when linking an article he didn't read. Oh, and he didn't read the article (Have I mentioned that?) so he claimed the hotel tax was new and it wasn't. Other than that, no problems to see here.

More Proof of the Decline of Western Civilization: This year the Christmas classic "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" airs on CBS on Nov. 26. A Christmas special airs before Thanksgiving!

But I'm sure if CBS corrected the date the special aired rapidly then all would be forgiven. Right, Gregg?

Reader Brad Prescott of San Francisco notes this Ohio State announcement about Buckeye athletes with good grades: "There are athletes taking challenging majors, such as biology, economics and electrical engineering. But 21 of the 74 athletes lauded are in some form of sports, exercise or recreation majors, including 'exercise science' and 'sport industry,' a college department that lacks a grammatically correct name. In my view, such majors should not even be offered at a four-year institution. 

Two of my best friends from college took part in a "exercise science" or "sports science" major and they are now gainfully employed with an organization where they oversee facilities, deal with personnel issues and budgets. My point is that this major should be offered because students who chose to take this major can do something with the degree. I can't speak to whether this major is more challenging than another major, but these majors do serve a purpose.

People aspiring to work in sports should major in law, medicine or statistics; subjects like exercise and 'leisure studies' should be minors, at best. The athletic factory schools know it's easier to keep players eligible if they are pushed away from challenging majors [and] toward course loads that free up more time for practice."

While the latter part may be true, Brad Prescott from San Francisco has a fundamental misunderstanding of what an exercise science major does. They don't necessarily deal with law, medicine or statistics, so those majors wouldn't get them to the point they want to be at in their life. Exercise science is part statistics and part medicine, but it's not the same thing as majoring in medicine. I think Brad should probably know more about what the major entails at four-year institutions before suggesting the major is eliminated.

Years ago when Page 2 still existed and still had a background of yellow kryptonite, your columnist claimed to have drawn up a play that was "100 percent unstoppable." The play was called Blast Gold.

Sunday, the St. Louis Rams ran Blast Gold. Tavon Austin lined up wide; came in motion left, back toward the formation; took a toss left; took one hard step left and then executed a planned reversal of field, sprinting right behind a pulling blocker for a 65-yard touchdown. Reversal-of-field runs are high-risk, high-reward. Usually they occur spontaneously on broken plays. They should be planned more often.

While plays like this should possibly be run more often, this play isn't 100% unstoppable. If the defense is blitzing from the right side of the offensive line, then Austin may not have had time to reverse field or if the defensive end and cornerback on the left side of the defense stayed at home, while the safety stayed in a Cover 1 and moved left upon seeing Austin reverse field then this play would be stoppable. It's a well-done play though. It's just not unstoppable.

The R*dsk*ns went for it on fourth-and-2 at the San Francisco 41 early in the third quarter. The formation was a jumbo set -- except the extra blocker in the backfield was 180-pound speed receiver Aldrick Robinson. What the hey? Needless to say, run stuffed.

The run was stuffed not because Aldrick Robinson was the extra blocker, but because the play call, a run up the middle with Roy Helu was uninspired. Maybe the Redskins thought the 49ers would think with Robinson in the backfield that it would be a trick play. Either way, the issue was the uninspired and ineffective play call, not the personnel on the field.

The 600 Club: Hosting Navy, San Jose State gained 600 yards, scored seven touchdowns, yet lost.

And of course San Jose State lost not because their defense wasn't very good, but because their head coach wasn't bold enough to try a two-point conversion in overtime. After all, San Jose State was averaging 6.3 yards per play on the day which is completely relevant in a situation-specific play like a two-point conversion.

After the flag for pass interference was picked up on the final down of the Carolina-New England game, football insiders were all over the map trying to figure out what happened. Your columnist thought the call should have been defensive holding, which would have given the Patriots five yards and one more try.

It seemed clear it was defensive holding.

Close reading of the rulebook caused many to realize that once the quarterback releases a pass, defensive holding is no longer called. (Gronkowski was held before the pass.) That made me wonder -- how come once the ball is away, defenders don't start grabbing anyone not in the path of the pass? Consider the hitch screen that's a football fad. Once the ball is released by the quarterback, defenders could grab offensive linemen and wide receivers blocking for the hitch, and throw them to the ground.

Because it would take an amazing amount of reflexes and strength for a defender to see a hitch being called and then react so quickly and be so strong as to pick up another the offensive player and throw him to the ground. NFL players are strong, but it doesn't seem very likely a defensive player could react so quickly on a hitch to grab an offensive player and throw him to the ground, get up and make the tackle. After all, if the defender takes the offensive player to the ground then that offensive player has done his job by taking the defender out of the play. So it doesn't make sense for the defensive player to voluntarily take himself out of the play, which is what the offensive player is trying to do anyway in blocking the defender.

Patriots trailing 24-14, third-and-goal on the Denver 6, Gronkowski ran into the end zone, slammed into his defender, then turned around to catch a touchdown pass. Offensive pass interference should have been called. This was a four-point swing in a game New England won by three points. Guess that makes Gronkowski, and the Patriots, even for the Carolina ending. Given the similar game situation, one wonders: Is this what Gronkowski was trying to do on the final snap at Carolina? Maybe he planned to slam into Kuechly, but Kuechly grabbed him first.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what Gronkowski was going to do, but he just didn't take the time to reach out and didn't appear to make any move at all to slam into Kuechly. But yes, Kuechly cheated before Gronkowski could cheat.

Obscure College Score: Tabor 14, Benedictine of Kansas 13 (NAIA playoffs). Located in Hillsboro, Kan., Tabor College offers a FAQs page on which the third question is, "What does liberal arts mean?" If you don't know what liberal arts means, maybe you're not ready for college.

The answer given on that page is fairly long, so I would like to see Gregg recite what liberal arts means according to Tabor College. I'm not sure he could do it, especially since there is "Kingdom of God" wording in there.

Next Week: Peyton Manning vows to spend offseason training at South Pole.

I'm surprised Gregg didn't mention the "Peyton Paradox" this week. I thought for sure that he would. I'm sure we will get a dose of the "Peyton Paradox" after/if the Broncos lose a playoff game. Even if it is the Super Bowl that the Broncos lose, Gregg will point out Peyton Manning has difficulty winning big games. 

11 comments Gregg Easterbrook, Yet Again, Writes about Fast-Paced Offenses

Gregg Easterbrook is talking about the offensive explosion in the NFL and college football again this week. It continues the pattern of Gregg talking about the same issues week-in and week-out in TMQ. His topics don't ever seem to change. He has written nine TMQ's since August and has repeated the main topic of discussion in TMQ often. So far since August we have gotten the following TMQ's:

A discussion on whether college football players should be paid (1 TMQ's)
A discussion of concussions and safety in football (2 TMQ's)
A discussion of fast-paced offenses (3 TMQ's)
A discussion of the zone-read offense (2 TMQ's)
A discussion of the unbeaten NFL teams (1 TMQ)

This week, for the third time since September 10, Gregg discusses fast-paced and high-scoring offenses in the NFL and college football. Needless to say, he will probably continue repeating these same topics as the NFL year goes on. In reality, his weekly TMQ rarely contains new material or unoriginal material that he hasn't covered in the weeks prior. Gregg repeats criticisms of television shows, repeats a discussion of the main topics he discusses in TMQ, and like he does this week, says the same thing just in a different manner on a weekly basis.

Is there any end in sight for the upswing in football offense?

Says Gregg Easterbrook for the ninth straight week.

Denver and Dallas played a contest with 99 points, 1,039 yards of offense and one punt. At 46 points per game, the Broncos are on a pace to score 736 points, which would pulverize the NFL season record of 589 points. At 490 offensive yards per game, they're on pace to gain 7,840 yards, which would best the league record of 7,474.

The Broncos are also on pace over the next six games to play Indianapolis, Kansas City, New England, and San Diego. So I'm guessing they are on pace to not be on pace for 736 points after these games are over.

And the Broncos are staring at the taillights of the Oregon Ducks and Baylor Bears!

That's crazy! Because Oregon and Baylor also play in the NFL, so this is a great comparison between football teams that all play the same level of talent on a week-to-week basis.

The offense surge is remarkable across football. A decade ago, the hot quarterback was the same -- Peyton Manning -- but no NFL team averaged more than 400 yards on offense. Today, Philadelphia's 453-yard average is practically ho-hum.

Every. Single. Week. That's how often Gregg talks about the offensive surge in football. New games are played during the weekend, and that gives Gregg more evidence of the offensive surge, but it doesn't mean he needs to keep beating this dead horse on a weekly basis...yet he does.

Also, the Eagles 453-yard average is not ho-hum, it is the second-most offense per game in the NFL this year. In fact, if the Eagles averaged that amount of offense for the rest of the season then it would be the third-most offense per game since 2002, and since I couldn't find a metric that went back further than that, I am guessing it probably would be the third-most offense per game in NFL history as well. But yeah, it's ho-hum.

Oh, and the Eagles are averaging 454.8 yards per game of offense, not 453 yards. I am aware of how much Gregg hates hyper-specificity so maybe he just rounded up in an incredibly sloppy fashion.

And the NFL is staring at the taillights of the NCAA! FBS scoring has risen from 20.6 points per game per team in 1972 to 28.3 points in 2012 to 30.4 points so far this season. The 122 schools of the FBS are averaging -- averaging -- 420 offensive yards gained.

Gregg subscribes to the "Throw a bunch of statistics that all essentially say the same thing to kill space and constantly reinforce the same point over and over" theory of writing it seems.

So far 19 big-time colleges average at least 500 yards per game. Roll in the FCS, Division II and Division III: All told, 69 colleges and universities are gaining more yards than the Denver Broncos. Even the small schools are making the scoreboard spin. Johns Hopkins, an elite academic college, is averaging 544 yards gained.

Yep, offense is skyrocketing in college football and in the NFL. Gregg writes about this topic every week. Every week there are new NFL and college football games, so it's not like this trend is going to stop in the next couple of days. I don't understand who reads TMQ on a weekly basis and enjoys these statistics from Gregg on a weekly basis. Is there someone who reads Gregg's weekly update of offensive statistics and says, "Man, offense is still up at a staggering rate in football. I thought for sure this would be the week where the defense suddenly catches up and offensive numbers go back to the levels they were in the mid-1990's, but I guess not"?

Also, if you will remember Gregg has stated prior to this season that there is no need to panic because runaway offenses always come back to Earth once defenses "solidify." I guess that football truth is no longer a truth? So Gregg doesn't think football defenses are eventually going to catch up to football offenses anymore, despite the fact he previously refuted his current "offense is out of control" argument by saying the defenses always catch up. It's always a sad state of affairs when Gregg is forced to contradict something he said just two years because reality doesn't match his beliefs.

Gregg Easterbrook in November 2011: "Everyone calm down about these runaway offenses. Stop acting stupid and assuming the offenses will always put up these large numbers. The numbers aren't permanent. The defense always ends up catching up around November. It's a football law."

Gregg Easterbrook in October 2013: "Look at all these runaway offenses. This must be a permanent change in football and the defenses aren't catching up EVER."

Broadly across football, rule changes that favor offense -- tighter pass-interference regulations especially -- are having the intended impact of increasing scoring. Coaches are putting their best athletes on offense, further shifting the balance.

I'm still not 100% sure this is a correct statement. It's hard to disprove it though, since disproving this statement would require me to be able to determine which team's athletes on offense or defense are better as compared to each other. I'm not sure there is a measurement for athleticism that I could use to determine if a team puts more athletic players on offense or defense, so Gregg wins, even though I feel like this is an untrue statement.

As the postseason approaches, defensive backs may start jamming Denver receivers, reducing the Broncs' gaudy numbers.

Ah yes, here is the hedge that we always knew we would get from Gregg. He's has to hedge just a little bit in order to prevent being wrong. Given Gregg's Tecmo Bowl-like knowledge of football, I wonder if he has thought that perhaps when teams start jamming Denver's receivers that Peyton Manning will just throw the ball over the defensive backs' head?

Ultimately, more snaps may account for the big offensive differentials in the NCAA versus the NFL. Dallas and Denver combined to average 8.2 yards per snap; Baylor and West Virginia, 7.4 yards per snap. But Baylor snapped 95 times versus 73 times for Denver.

This is just so obvious, it almost doesn't deserve to be mentioned. If two teams average a similar amount of yards per snap, but one team has 22 more snaps then that one team is going to gain more yardage. This is like saying "DeAngelo Williams rushes for 4 yards per carry and Adrian Peterson rushes for 4.3 yards per carry, but the fact Peterson has 350 rushes to Williams' 150 rushes MAY be the reason Peterson has almost a thousand more yards than Williams."

It's basic math.

It's hard to explain unless you've been on the field, but playing defense is more tiring than playing offense.

You don't have to have been on the field to know playing defense is more tiring than playing offense. Reacting to what the other team is doing on defense requires more energy than it requires for an offense to execute the plays that are called.

Can offensive numbers keep skyrocketing? Pendulums tend to swing: A swing back toward defense would not be a shock. For now at least, football has become a stat-addict's paradise.

Another hedge by Gregg. So if the staggering offensive numbers continue then he is correct and if the pendulum swings towards defenses slowing down offenses then Gregg can point to this sentence to say he knew it would happen.

In broadcasting news, Tuesday Morning Quarterback long has wondered why television announcers say a team "has to" punt on fourth down. It's not just that announcers call any fourth-down try a "huge gamble," when the odds favor conversion on fourth-and-short.

The odds don't always favor a conversion on fourth-and-short. Whether a team can convert a fourth-and-short is entirely dependent on that team's ability to gain yardage on fourth-and-short plays. If a team has only converted 18% of it's first downs on fourth-and-short, then the odds don't favor going for it on fourth down.

Philadelphia was called for offensive holding. Jersey/A coach Tom Coughlin's choice was to give Philadelphia fourth-and-4 on the Jersey/A 47 or let the visitors repeat the down as third-and-20 on their 37. When Coughlin chose the latter, Fox announcers Thom Brennaman and Brian Billick practically passed out...After commercial, the camera did a close-up on the announcers, who at this point had enjoyed five minutes to think about what occurred. "Philadelphia had to punt, why did the Giants not force them to punt?" Brennaman asked his partner. "The only explanation I can offer is that Tom Coughlin was confused about the situation and did not realize the Eagles would have to punt," Billick declared.

Coughlin took the penalty because he knew Chip Kelly would go for it on fourth-and-4 from the Giants' 47!...That it never occurred to professional football announcers, one a former NFL head coach, that a team might do anything other than punt on fourth down is an indicator of football orthodoxy.

I agree the announcers not even thinking that possibly the Eagles could go for it on fourth down is an example of football orthodoxy. Given the fact it was Chip Kelly coaching the Eagles it makes sense that the Eagles perhaps would have gone for it in this situation.

In football and society news -- tick ... tick ... tick. That's the sound of the clock ticking down on the R*dsk*ns name.

It's still very obvious you are typing "Redskins," Gr-gg.

Stats of the Week No. 1: Peyton Manning is on a pace to throw 64 touchdown passes. The NFL season record is 50, by Tom Brady in 2007.

That's incredible. Of course Gregg thinks NFL defenses may catch up with Manning...or they may not catch up...but they could. One thing Gregg knows for sure, NFL defenses will either catch up or not catch up with NFL offenses this year.

Sweet Play of the Week: Midway through the fourth quarter, Indianapolis scored to pull ahead of undefeated visitor Seattle 29-28. The Colts prepared for a deuce attempt. Reggie Wayne, who's almost always on the left, lined up right. Tight end Coby Fleener lined up in the backfield and did spin motion, first left and then back right. Andrew Luck rolled right. Wayne seemed to block for a Luck run; Luck slammed on the brakes and the safeties looked at Fleener on the flare; then Luck threw to Wayne, forgotten in the center of the end zone. Sweet. The play could have turned sour if Wayne had been called for offensive pass interference -- he blocked his defensive back at the point when the action looked, to officials, like a rush.

So the sweet play of the week is one in which Reggie Wayne committed pass interference. That's great to know.

Sour Play of the Week: New Orleans leading 23-10 with six minutes remaining, the Saints lined up to go for it on fourth-and-1 on their 47. Drew Brees practically held up a sign saying he would try to draw the defense offside, and if unsuccessful, call timeout. Don't fall for the guy who suddenly rocks back then goes in motion! Don't fall for the hard count! Bears veteran Lance Briggs fell for the hard count, jumping offside.

Only Gregg Easterbrook would criticize a defensive player who jumps offsides on fourth-and-short because there is a guy who rocks back and then goes in motion, while also stating teams need to "do a little dance" on fourth down to convert it into a first down. So defensive players shouldn't fall for the hard count when it's obvious (though I have no idea how it was obvious) the offense is just trying to get the defense to jump offsides, while he is also expecting the offense to run a play on fourth down? So the defensive player should not fail for the hard count, but also be fully prepared the Saints will snap the ball on fourth down, because NFL teams should usually go for it on fourth down.

Another sweet goal-line stand occurred when Dallas, jumping to a quick 14-7 lead over Denver, reached first-and-goal at the Broncos' 3. The Boys went penalty, incompletion, incompletion, sack, field goal. Holding Dallas to a field goal in this situation helped kick-start the Denver comeback.

The Broncos scored 44 more points in this game and the Cowboys scored 31 more points after this field goal attempt in a back-and-forth affair, but it was this goal line stand that started the Broncos comeback...even though there was 75 more points scored in the game after this goal line stand and the Broncos didn't actually lead for good until there was less than 10 seconds left in the game. Got it.

Then Gregg criticizes "World War Z," a movie about flesh-eating zombies, for not being realistic enough or something to that effect.

In "World War Z," "The Walking Dead" and other recent zombie hits, there's not even a hint of how the zombie transition could be possible.

I'm pretty sure that's a later reveal in "The Walking Dead" and I haven't seen "World War Z." I will say that I don't care how the zombies become zombies and if Gregg goes to a movie about zombies wanting to know exactly how they transitioned to that state then perhaps he shouldn't be viewing zombie movies.

"We tried to infect the zombies with diseases, but their circulatory systems have shut down," a World Health Organization researcher tells Pitt. No circulation -- no carbohydrates and oxygen to the cells? Muscles that evolved to receive water and oxygen by blood circulation should become useless without these substances. Instead, having no circulatory system makes the zombies superstrong and superfast.

It's almost like the undead humans roaming the Earth looking to eat flesh don't play by the normal rules that non-zombie humans play by. I mean really, Gregg is criticizing a movie about zombies because the zombies don't react the way they should biologically react to not having circulation. They are zombies! How the hell do we know how they would react to not having any circulation?

Of course no James Bond flick is anchored in reality either. To stick with Brad Pitt, the hit film "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" made no attempt to be possible. "The Artist" was not possible. Maybe "The Philadelphia Story" wasn't possible. If a zombie movie entertains you, then you get your money's worth.

And yes, dipshit, no one is going to see a movie about zombies expecting a realistic portrayal of how the dead who somehow manage to still walk around while being dead would behave. It's a fictional story where the audience wants to be entertained.

No matter what spectral biochemistry may be, if blood was running down a zombie's face all the time, the body quickly would deplete of fluids. Then how would the zombie move?

(Bangs head into wall repeatedly)

Cincinnati sacked Tom Brady on third-and-2, sacked him on third-and-8, sacked him on third-and-10 late. The Patriots' no-name receivers were not open on critical downs.

It's almost like these undrafted and lowly drafted receivers couldn't get open with the highly-paid glory boy first round picks of the Bengals covering them, isn't it? Any thoughts on undrafted and lowly drafted players struggling to get open against highly-drafted players, Gregg?

Note No. 2: As chilly fall weather arrives, cheer-babe professionalism becomes a factor. Professionalism in this context means skin or at least skintight; scantily attired cheerleaders propitiate the football gods. As torrential sideways rain began around the two minute warning, the Bengals' cheerleaders did not don slickers. Outstanding professionalism, and the home team went on to win.

It wouldn't be TMQ if Gregg didn't throw a few "creepy old man" comments into it, now would it? I wonder if Gregg has any new thoughts on Colin Kaepernick being naked for ESPN the Magazine?

By the way, I was watching "American Pie" ever-so-briefly this weekend and decided that I bet Gregg Easterbrook is like Jim's dad in those films when it comes to discussing sex with his son. The biggest difference may be that if Gregg were Jim's dad then he would be the one trying to get the foreign exchange student naked in his room, but otherwise I feel like in real life Gregg probably has a lot in common with Jim's dad in "American Pie."

In fact, Eugene Levy and Gregg Easterbrook look a little bit alike.

Home-crowd boos rained down as the Falcons failed at the Jersey/B 1 on the final play of the first half on "Monday Night Football." Boos as the Jets moved ahead 27-14 in the fourth quarter. Briefly the crowd remembered what it felt like to back a favorite as the Falcons rallied for a 28-27 lead just inside the two-minute warning. Then a stunned hush as erratic rookie quarterback Geno Smith completed a series of rinky-dink passes to position the visitors for the winning field goal on the last snap.

I received an email from Spencer about the Falcons failing on the Jets one yard line at the very end of the first half with him wondering how Gregg was going to wiggle his way out of acknowledging the Falcons chose to go for a touchdown in this situation rather than kick the field goal (the Falcons lost by 2 points, so a field goal attempt instead of going for the touchdown would have won the game for the Falcons...so much for fortune favoring the bold). It turns out Gregg is going to completely ignore his "Fortune favors the bold" mantra as well as his insistence that a coach who goes for the touchdown on fourth-and-1 is being aggressive and playing to win, which will make that coach's team win the game. I say this because Gregg didn't mention the Falcons went for the touchdown instead of the field goal at the end of the first half. Most likely he didn't bring it up because it didn't fit the narrative he wanted to write about how a head coach inspires confidence in his team to win the game by going for it on fourth down.

So yes, the Falcons did fail on the one yard line on the final play of the first half. The Falcons went for a touchdown instead of a field goal, and verily, this decision to be aggressive and be bold ended up being the difference in the game. No word from Gregg of course on why fortune didn't favor the bold or why Mike Smith being aggressive didn't pay off for the Falcons.

The king's ransom in draft choices paid two years ago for Julio Jones led to talent depletion of the Atlanta roster.

Of course, the Falcons acquiring one of the best receivers in the NFL was a bad thing. Of course it was. Hey, remember that time Gregg Easterbrook called Julio Jones "a diva" October 13th TMQ: 

The Falcons might right themselves, but for now, there seems a concern that the Julio Jones trade will explode in their faces. Atlanta gave a king's ransom for Jones, not only depleting its ability to restock other positions but inserting a diva character into a locker room that previously was cohesive.

Go ahead and do a search for Julio Jones "diva" and all you will find are articles talking about how he isn't a diva. This is a real positive that Gregg Easterbrook receives from working at ESPN. He can lie and mislead his readers and nobody cares. In this case, Gregg literally just made something up that wasn't factually true nor a shared opinion and for no other reason than to make a first round draft pick sound like the type of person he isn't.

The king's ransom in money paid this offseason to Matt Ryan led to free-agency dilution. (It was unrealistic for Atlanta to put so many chips on discount free agent Osi Umenyiora -- in 2012, Osi's Giants were 31st in defense.)

Yes, Osi's entire Giants defense was 31st in defense. This doesn't mean he isn't a good individual defensive player. Also, the Falcons would have been fucking morons of the umpteenth degree if they didn't give Matt Ryan a lot of money to continue being their quarterback.

The Jones trade was a gamble on a win-now stance for the Super Bowl. It didn't happen, and sure won't this season.

Gregg had the Falcons as being 12-4 this season. So all of this great knowledge about the team's inability to run the ball and gambling to win now is hindsight.

Buck-Buck-Brawkkkkkk: Oregon leading 15-10 in the first quarter at Boulder, Colo., the Buffaloes punted in Ducks territory. TMQ tweeted "game over." The football gods agreed -- 75-yard Oregon touchdown on the next snap. Oregon was the favorite and likely to prevail no matter what tactics Colorado employed.

Exactly. This is why criticizing Colorado for punting instead of going for it on fourth down in a game they lost by 41 points is just so incredibly misguided and stupid.

Hosting Georgia, underdog Tennessee kept the offense on the field on fourth down three times in the fourth quarter, resulting in two touchdowns and a late 31-24 lead. The rest of the contest went the favorite's way. But near victory over a top-10 team surely is good for the Volunteers' karma.

Fortune favors the bold!...you know, unless it doesn't, in which case "good karma" has been built up. Because that doesn't sound like a load of horseshit or anything.

Delving into a complex topic, not believing the official pronouncements of either side, then following the evidence wherever it leads, is the best service journalism can offer readers.

Or you could do what Gregg does in TMQ oftentimes, which is when the evidence leads him to a place he doesn't like, he just ignores this evidence or tries to frame it in a way as to mislead his audience. A great example of this is when he calls Julio Jones "a diva" because he wants to prove that many high first round draft choices are lazy and only out for themselves.

Hosting Morehead State, Campbell gained 553 yards, and lost. Campbell's athletic symbol is an angry camel.

The camel isn't supposed to be angry, so either Gregg is making a joke or he doesn't know the camel isn't supposed to be angry. Most likely if the camel looks angry it is because Campbell is a dry campus and the camel wants a fucking drink of alcohol and has to drive six miles up to Lillington, North Carolina to get beer at the Food Lion.

Visiting UNC/Charlotte, Gardner-Webb gained 577 yards, built a three-touchdown fourth-quarter cushion, and lost. Leading 45-24 early in the fourth quarter, Gardner-Webb needed to keep the clock moving. Instead: interception, quick touchdown for the hosts. Had Gardner-Webb simply run up the middle for no gain on this down, victory was likely.

Why is victory likely in this situation? What evidence does Gregg have this is a true statement, other than his want for this statement to be true of course? When Gregg writes "victory was likely" in reference to a strategy a football team should have used, but didn't, that he believes lost that team the game it never fails to not annoy me. How does he know "victory was likely?"

Ron Rivera, Pack Your Bags: Cam Newton was 25-1 as a starter in college, and is 14-22 as a starter in the NFL. But football is a team sport. Three-time Pro Bowler Ryan Kalil barely even slowed his man on the safety that put Arizona in command in the third quarter.

Actually, that was not completely Ryan Kalil's fault. He was expecting Travelle Wharton to pick up the man or at least help out blocking, but Wharton didn't do it. Not that I would expect Gregg to correctly assign blame of course. Gregg can't be expected to correctly assign blame when he is trying to call out players for failing to do their job correctly. It's Gregg's job to assign blame, not accurately assign blame.

Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: Dallas leading Denver 48-41 with about three minutes remaining, the Broncos were called for offensive holding. Choice offered to Jason Garrett, head coach of the "offended team" -- give Denver third-and-goal on the 5 or second-and-goal on the 17. Garrett took the penalty, but should have declined. To Peyton Manning, an extra snap means more than a few yards.

Giving Peyton Manning 12 extra yards also isn't a good decision. So while giving Manning second down over doesn't sound like a good move, it also means Manning has to go further to score the touchdown the Broncos needed to win the game. It only took Manning two more plays to score, (and this is an example of Gregg wanting to reach a certain conclusion rather than taking the evidence he is given to reach a conclusion) so it would not have mattered if Manning had the ball third-and-goal on the 5 or second-and-goal on the 17 since it only took him two more plays to score.

With the benefit of second down over, Manning worked the ball in for the touchdown that tied the contest.

It's a tough decision, but I don't see why Jason Garrett would choose to let Peyton Manning be closer to the end zone when the Broncos need a touchdown to tie the game. Common sense tells me that I would want to push Manning further back from the end zone if he needs a touchdown to tie the game.

Now it's 48-48, Denver has third-and-1 on the Boys' 2 with 1:40 remaining, Dallas holding two timeouts. Let Denver score! Let Denver score! Instead Dallas played straight-up defense, holding the runner to 1 yard, which made it first-and-goal on the 1. Dallas could do nothing but watch Denver milk the clock until the winning field goal as time expired. Princeton-educated Jason Garret, how could you not let Denver score?

Probably the same way you can't spell "Garrett" correctly. Also, Manning told Knowshon Moreno to not score a touchdown, so even if the Cowboys had let the Broncos score I'm not sure the Broncos would have chosen to score. I'm not sure why this was a bad play on Garrett's part if the Broncos refused to be allowed to score a touchdown.

Next Week: Will the NFC East be won by a team with a losing record?

This question will definitely not be answered in next week's TMQ. 

3 comments I Would Say TMQ Broke Bad But It's Never Really Been Any Good

Gregg Easterbrook quickly jumped off the 49ers bandwagon last week in TMQ. I'm assuming he has jumped right back on the bandwagon this week after the 49ers dismantled the Rams on Thursday Night Football. You may wonder how the 49ers saved their season in Gregg's opinion? They went for it on fourth down of course. Going for it on fourth down, and not playing the Rams, in Gregg's opinion gave the 49ers the confidence necessary to win the game. I was also reminded in the comments that Gregg wondered if the read option was a fad in last week's TMQ, but it was just back in late August when Gregg wondered if the Packers should pull Aaron Rodgers from the game so Vince Young could throw a different look at opposing defenses. I am guessing Gregg wants us to forget he wrote that. This week Gregg writes about the undefeated teams in the NFL, criticizes "Breaking Bad" (which seems to be a popular thing to do) for (what else?) not being realistic enough, and takes the time to prove writing "Game over" in a notebook indeed does not mean the game is over. Gregg telling us he writes "Game over," as if this is proof a team should have gone for it on fourth down and they lost the game due to not going for it on fourth down, is pointless because it proves nothing. Gregg realizes this, yet still won't stop writing "Game over" as if this comment isn't pointless.

It's down to the Final Five -- five undefeated NFL teams remaining: Denver, Kansas City, New England, Seattle and New Orleans.

I'm still very excited for the 9-0 Bowl between Denver and Kansas City, then again I'm also very, very excited for the 10-0 Bowl between Denver and New England. If I were Peter King I would include a sentence that says it is too early to say for sure this 9-0 Bowl will happen, but then continue to talk about this game like it is sure to occur.

Here is a rundown of the NFL's remaining undefeated clubs:

It's a rundown and you should expect no type of analysis during this rundown. Straight bullshit, no chaser.

Kansas City: Already twice as many victories as it posted in 2012. The Chiefs had a run of bad luck in 2012 games.

I'm very confused how the Chiefs had a run of bad luck in 2012 games. It seems like they lost quite a few games decisively and they didn't lead in regulation for the first eight games of the season without leading during regulation. If an NFL team doesn't have the lead in regulation for eight straight games that's not just bad luck holding them back from winning games. Other than the murder/suicide of Jovan Belcher (which had nothing to do with the games) I'm not sure how the Chiefs had a run of bad luck. Score one for Gregg making shit up.

The Alex Smith trade is looking like a masterstroke. A disciplined West Coast quarterback is what Andy Reid always wanted. Now he's got one.

I guess Andy Reid always wanted a disciplined West Coast quarterback and never has had one. Donovan McNabb is sad upon hearing this.

Seattle: TMQ's Law of Comebacks holds: Defense starts comebacks, offense stops them. 

This is a good example of Gregg stating something that is shockingly obvious, but he wants us to believe it isn't so obvious. Defense has to start a comeback since a team can't actually come back until they have stopped the other team from scoring. It's hard to start a comeback if the defense can't stop the opposing team from scoring.

As usual, the New England defense allowed a bucket of yards but stiffened when necessary. Score 30-23, the Falcons reached first down on the New England 13 in the final minute and went incompletion, incompletion, short pass, incompletion. Needless to say, it did not occur to Atlanta coaches to surprise the Patriots' dime defense with a rushing play. 

Maybe the Falcons should have tried a running play, but when they have Julio Jones, Roddy White, and Tony Gonzalez available in the passing game then it is pretty tempting to use these players rather than count on Jacquizz Rodgers to surprise the Patriots defense.

No NFL team can match New Orleans for fun-to-watch quotient. The Saints may be 6-2 or even 7-1 at the midway point, then face a killer three weeks of San Francisco, Atlanta and Seattle in succession.

The good news for the Saints is they can easily beat the Falcons because Atlanta doesn't run the ball enough and the 49ers can't score because the read-option is just a fad.

The Broncos' defense is pedestrian, though it might improve, assuming Von Miller returns. The main cautionary note for Denver faithful is that the formula the Broncs are using -- fantastic pass-wacky offense, middling defense -- is the formula the Patriots have used for the last five years, and the Patriots have petered out in the playoffs.

Yes, be warned Broncos fans! Your favorite team may only make two Super Bowls over the next five years. I hope you can handle this type of mediocrity that being like the New England Patriots represents.

In TMQ news, last week I did a live Twitter test of my "game over" notations, and came out smelling like a rose. I promised to repeat the test this week, and came out -- ahem, see below.

The test failed and the Bills came back to beat the Ravens. The problem with Gregg's sudden self-awareness about writing "Game over" in his notebook is that he still tries to pass writing "Game over" as something that has value when it really doesn't. It means nothing. Sometimes when Gregg writes "Game over" it's true, other times it is not.

Sour Play of the Week: Trailing 30-13 in the third quarter at Detroit, Chicago coach Marc Trestman sent in the kicking unit on fourth-and-5 from the Lions' 7. It was the kind of play that makes a guy want to write "game over."

I think it was safe to write "Game over" in this situation even if the Bears went for it on fourth down.

Facing fourth-and-1 on their own 29, the Raiders had their kicking unit trot in -- but it formed a Wildcat offense and ran for the first down as Rdskns coaches failed to signal timeout.

It's still obvious you are writing "Redskins" you dumb sht.

Later, Oakland, which entered with the league's fourth-ranked running offense, punted on fourth-and-2 in Washington territory.

I'm pretty sure the Raiders first and second string running backs had been injured at this point in the game, so I'm guessing that probably impacted the decision to go for it in this situation and not attempt to run the football with the third string running back...and rightfully so.

Who is the stupidest law enforcement officer in television crime? The detectives on "The Bridge" are candidates: see more below. Sheriff Esquivel in "Under the Dome" is a contender. She arrives just after two people are shot to death and finds two men standing at the scene, each with a gun. One committed the murders, the other tried to stop him. Sheriff Esquivel puts the good guy in jail while letting the evil guy walk, setting in motion the season-finale cliffhanger. It never occurs to her to examine the guns the men are holding (one would have a warm barrel) or check their hands (one would have powder residue).

Usually the police have to do a test for gunpowder residue and it isn't usually visible simply from looking at person's hands. So perhaps Sheriff Esquivel should have had both people stand there for a few hours (or more) until the residue test came back, but she certainly could not have looked at each person's hands at the scene of the crime and determined which person fired the gun.

It never occurs to her to take both men into custody, then do a ballistics investigation.

It never occurred to Gregg you can't hold a person for an indefinite length of time without formally accusing that person of a crime. Ballistics investigations can take more time than just 24 hours.

One of the guilty pleasures of "Breaking Bad" is that it depicted Walter White as an amoral but very intelligent man operating in a world of idiots. Hank is the worst idiot of all.

Oh, do tell how Hank is at fault for not thinking his brother-in-law was a meth kingpin.

Walt is directly under Hank's nose for the show's run, yet Hank takes till almost the end to notice. When Hank finally puts it together, he doesn't simply arrest Walt -- by that point he has probable cause --

The show very clearly spelled out why Hank did not arrest Walt. He had no probable cause. He saw the initials "W.W." inscribed in "Leaves of Grass" referring to Walt while using Walt's toilet and this reminded him of a prior conversation he had with Walt where Hank was wondering who another meth cook (who was working with Walt) could have been referring to when he wrote "W.W." in a notebook found at the scene of a crime. Probable cause isn't "This guy has a book where someone wrote the initials 'W.W.' in it and the initials 'W.W.' were in another book that was found at the scene of a crime." Even after the conversation where Walt threatens Hank, there is no probable cause because Walt could simply deny the conversation ever happened since it wasn't recorded. So Hank didn't have probable cause.

or go to a judge for a search warrant.

It's abundantly clear that Gregg Easterbrook did not watch "Breaking Bad." Where would Hank have searched with this warrant? Walt's house? There was no evidence of any type in Walt's house, and in fact, Walt had not been cooking meth for a few months and was completely out of the business. Hank would have to have known where to find Walt's money to get a search warrant for the storage garage where the money was kept and Hank didn't know where the storage garage was located. A search warrant would have done no good, because even if Walt's home was searched nothing would be found.

But even after Walt comes to Hank's garage, admits his "criminal enterprise" and threatens Hank -- threatening a federal agent is cause for arrest -- Hank does not act. 

Walt never came right out and threatened Hank in the garage (other than saying "tread lightly" and being vague about being a meth kingpin), and even if he did, it is one man's word against another. The fact Hank clearly had beaten Walt up a little bit in the garage probably wouldn't have looked so good for Hank either. Hank was trying to build a case against Walt, and as Steven Michael Quezada said on "Talking Bad," when researching his role as Gomez (Hank's partner) he found that it takes months for the DEA to build a case and then act on it. So Hank knew this and wanted to put Walt away for sure as opposed to building a half-assed case based on heresay evidence.

Though they are going after a stone killer involved in perhaps 20 murders, they don't bring along backup. They do bring along Jesse Pinkman, himself a suspect. That makes for two lawmen handling two very dangerous suspects,

Pinkman had just recorded a video for Hank and Gomez outlining his and Walt's crimes. It was fair to say that he wasn't a dangerous suspect at this point in the story, considering any type of immunity from his crimes was dependent on cooperating with the DEA. Besides, Jesse thought Walt was trying to kill him (which he was), so he would not switched to Walt's side. Before Gregg criticizes television shows he should try to watch these television shows so he knows what he is criticizing.

Arresting Walt in mid-desert, Hank observes pickup trucks full of men approaching their isolated off-road location. Seeing those trucks, Hank doesn't call for backup.

That area was an hour away from most of civilization so there was almost no chance of backup reaching them in time. Plus, once Hank called backup how was he going to direct them to the location? GPS coordinates would be the best way probably, but backup still would have struggled to get there in time.

Since Walt alone knew the desert location, the approaching vehicles must contain someone Walt contacted. Hank mumbles, "Maybe that's the tribal police." If that was the tribal police, they would have been in uniform.

Gregg second-guesses so much he actually doesn't even make sense at times. So how is Hank supposed to know the tribal police are not in uniform while the trucks are being driven? He's in the middle of a sunny desert and he is supposed to be able to see inside the truck and immediately know for sure the driver and occupants aren't wearing uniforms?

When thugs hired by Walt get out and show rifles, Hank and Gomez don't take cover; they stand in the clear, exposed.

Because at this point if they started running to take cover they would have been shot because they were showing the crazy Nazi guys they were a threat. Geez, use your head.

Even when the shooting starts, they never call for backup.

BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING SHOT AT BY NAZIS WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS! DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM BEING SHOT WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MAKING PHONE CALLS!

Besides, backup would NOT have gotten there in time at this point. The shootout wasn't going to last 30 minutes to an hour in time for backup to arrive.

Dexter McCluster of Kansas City was only lightly brushed on an 89-yard touchdown punt return. Adrian Peterson went 7 yards for an untouched touchdown in London. Because the play was on first-and-goal, Pittsburgh was in a run defense, yet laid no hand on Peterson.

Because NFL teams are always in a run defense on first-and-goal.

TMQ continues to think that neither pace nor skill-player speed but downfield blocking is the key to Oregon's offense. If you've been wondering how Oregon gets so many untouched long runs, downfield blocking is the explanation. In most of football, including at the NFL level, offensive linemen deliver one block and then stand watching the play, while the wide receivers casually bump their men.

Just read that last sentence again. So most football linemen deliver one block and then stand and watch the play while the receivers don't really block hard. I didn't know this was true. This happens in most of football apparently. We all know Gregg would not make something up in order to help prove a point he wants to make.

Of course Gregg's crackpot theory on why Oregon is so successful on long runs doesn't really make sense. Once the running back gets past the line of scrimmage it isn't very often that he has offensive linemen running ahead of him blocking defenders. Sure, offensive linemen will often pull or occasionally end up ahead of the running back, but it doesn't happen often enough to attribute the long, untouched runs of the Oregon offense purely to good downfield blocking by the offensive linemen.

There's an NFL gentlemen's agreement that corners don't pursue an opposite-side rush if wide receivers don't try to block them -- look away from the ball during an NFL run and you're likely to see a wide receiver and corner just watching.

I'm sure this happens, but I'm not sure about the gentlemen's agreement.

There are only two offensive linemen over 300 pounds on the Ducks' roster, with the heaviest a 305-pound guy who is 6-foot-7. Ole Miss looked sluggish against Alabama; one reason might be nine offensive linemen who weigh at least 25 pounds more than the heaviest player at Oregon. Why other football programs don't notice Oregon's success with downfield blocking and switch to lean, fit offensive linemen is a minor mystery.

Perhaps this is a minor mystery to Gregg, but not every football program runs the fast-paced offense that Oregon runs. Alabama runs a slower, more power-running oriented offense that requires the offensive line to be bigger and stronger in order to open up holes for the Alabama running backs. Not every football offense is run like the Oregon offense, so not every offensive line scheme would succeed with the type of offensive linemen the Oregon Ducks have.

Because Pac-12 night games start too late for East Coast viewers, the conference's impact on the evolution of football tactics is not widely appreciated by sports media.

Apparently Gregg still lives in a world without cable and Internet, so watching Pac-12 game is impossible.

TMQ's Law of Weasel Coaches holds: When you hire a coach who only cares about himself, you get a coach who only cares about himself. USC hired Kiffin away from Tennessee under weasel circumstances. What made USC think he would stop being a weasel?

So I would love to hear how this explains Nick Saban's success at Alabama and Brian Kelly's success at Notre Dame. Nick Saban has three national titles in the last four years. Saban left the Dolphins team after lying and saying he had no interest in the Alabama job, while I'm sure Gregg thinks Brian Kelly is a weasel for dumping Central Michigan and Cincinnati for better paying jobs. I guess the Law of Weasel Coaches doesn't always hold.

Mired in a losing streak and sputtering versus the lower-echelon Rams, San Francisco faced fourth-and-inches on Les Mouflons 34 with 44 seconds remaining before intermission, leading 7-3.

The losing streak was a streak of two games by the way. Two. Games. Also, when did winning a road game at halftime become "sputtering"?

This decision was not a "huge gamble," as announcers say of going for it on fourth-and-short. St. Louis has the league's worst run defense, while San Francisco held two timeouts, meaning if a first down was obtained, the 49ers could use anything in the playbook to try for a touchdown. Not only did the odds favor the play, but San Francisco needed to shake up its young season, and succeeded.

I'm sure Gregg believes the 49ers saved their season by going for it on fourth down. I knew Gregg would work hard to find a way to weasel out of jumping off the 49ers bandwagon and claiming (but not actually stating it in order to avoid being wrong) the read option is a fad. So the 49ers weren't 1-2 because they had played three teams who made the playoffs in 2012, they were 1-2 because they needed to shake up their season with a fourth down try.

The New England at Atlanta game was one the Falcons had to win. Entering 1-2, if they can't defeat a quality opponent on their home field, they are goin' nowhere this season. The Patriots did not have to win. Entering at 3-0, they could have absorbed a loss without much trouble. That New England dominated Atlanta might mean the Falcons are goin' nowhere.

In 2011 the New York Giants lost to the Green Bay Packers (who went 15-1 on the season) on their (the Giants) home field to go 6-6. The Giants then went on to win the Super Bowl.

The FX series "The Bridge" wraps its first season this week. Initially advertised as social commentary about Mexican poverty and American hypocrisy, the social commentary lasted about two episodes and was quickly replaced with a slasher-film-style splatter -- 

The show was never advertised about a social commentary on Mexican poverty and American hypocrisy. It was advertised as a show about a Mexican and American police officer joining forces to solve a murder that happened on the Mexican-American border. Sometimes I think Gregg outright lies and doesn't give a shit about whether his readers know he is lying.

Does this trailer look like a show about social commentary or a show about a killer who the police are trying to identify? Gregg is pretending to know how the show was marketed in order to help prove a point he wants to make. He lies and deceives his audience and I'm (not) surprised ESPN allows him to get away with it. It's just sad how many of his gullible readers believe the crap he writes is 100% the truth.

On "The Bridge," a serial killer murders two dozen people in the same area in just a few weeks, yet only a couple local cops are working the case.

Yet again, this is not completely true. The serial killer (may have...it was not definitively stated) killed a bunch of women in Juarez, but women goes missing all the time, the police are corrupt in Juarez and it's not that nobody cares any more than the Mexican police just don't have the time and manpower to search for all the missing women and police the murders. Plus, some of the murders have drug ties, which further pushes the police away from investigating. Also, it was indicated these women were murdered over a few years, not a couple of weeks.

The latter's character, viewers learn after a half-dozen episodes, has known all along that the serial killer has a strong reason to want revenge against him personally -- yet it never occurs to him mention this, or to protect his family.

I'm about to have a seizure here. The amount of lying and misstating by Gregg is astounding here. It's not that serial killer wants revenge and the police officer didn't know this, it's that the police officer thought the serial killer was dead. The conversation between the officers went like this:

(Woman cop) "I think it's this guy who is killing the women."

(Male cop) "It can't be that guy. I knew that guy. I went to his funeral. He's dead."

(Woman cop) "That must make it hard for him to commit a string of murders, but I think he's alive."

(Male cop) "I think he's dead. Again, I was at the funeral."

(Woman cop) "Here is a picture of him on a driver's license using a different name."

(Male cop) "Yep, that's him. He's still alive. That's the killer then."

The reason it never occurred to the Mexican police officer to mention this serial killer has a vendetta against him is (a) the policeman didn't know he had a vendetta against him and (2) he thought the guy was dead. There's no reason, other than to make "The Bridge" seem dumber than it is, for Gregg to mislead his readers like he does.

The serial killer has a small wireless device that allows him to shut down the electric power at the United States-Mexico border by pressing a button, then press another button to turn the power back on; this device is never explained. He possesses unlimited money and resources, unexplained and odd since viewers are told he was fired by the FBI years ago after flunking a psych evaluation. He's a skilled surgeon, which is never explained, and also has plumbing skills. He needs only minutes to rig cars so the doors can't be opened from the inside. He can overpower police officers without making a sound. He can sneak up on people in public in broad daylight without his targets noticing or calling "Help!" when grabbed.

It helps he tends to stab these people before they can call out "Help!" and it was established this guy was very, very good at his job when he worked for the FBI. Otherwise, some of what he did seemed impossible but made the show fun to watch. I'm one of those weird people who watches a television show to be entertained. Crazy to do that I guess.

When a witness the serial killer wants dead runs away from Kruger's character into the streets of El Paso, the serial killer knows in advance which direction she will run; he kills her and vanishes, though cops are converging from all directions.

There were three police officers chasing this girl and these three officers weren't aware the girl had run away until a few moments after she left. So yes, the killer knew which way the girl was going, but it's not like there was a team of cops hot on the girl's trail because she had a head start on them.

Most absurd, at a black-tie party, the serial killer follows a man into the washroom and murders him with a knife. Young and seemingly fit, the man does not resist and never cries for help.

The man who got killed was washing his hands and the killer came from behind him and slit his throat. My throat has never been slit, and I'm guessing Gregg's hasn't either, but I am merely suggesting that perhaps it is difficult to resist or cry for help once your throat has been slit. Again, I'm not sure Gregg actually watched this show.

FX's "The Bridge" is a remake of a Scandinavian television show about a crime at a bridge between Denmark and Sweden. Before centering the remake on a bridge between Texas and Mexico, producers first proposed using the bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario...If the Detroit-Windsor setting had been chosen, it would have been a tunnel into a Tim Horton's doughnut shop, used to smuggle government-financed Canadian prescription drugs.

Just hilarious. I'm guessing the police would spend a lot of time at Tim Horton's because we all know that police like donuts.

Seeking to prove that I really do write "game over" in my notebook, a week ago, yours truly tweeted of a contest still in the first quarter, "game over" -- and it came to pass that I was right. I promised to try this again. When the Bills kicked on fourth-and-2 from the Baltimore 9, I tweeted "game over." Verily, what I foresaw did not come to pass: the Bills prevailing over the defending champions.

This proves that Gregg writing "Game over" in a notebook does not mean a game is over. This also means that a team who punts on fourth-and-short isn't destined to lose the game just because they punted on fourth down. Also, Gregg has done two live Twitter tests to determine when his "Game over" has been accurate and he has gotten one right and one wrong. I imagine this is around the same percentage of times Gregg gets "Game over" correct prior to posting this prediction on Twitter. I also imagine Gregg will stop posting his live "Game over" comments on Twitter for fear his readers will start to see through his bullshit.

"Game over" doesn't go into my notebook any time a team kicks on fourth-and-short -- fourth-and-short kicks can be smart moves.

Yet, Gregg has consistently presented this to his readers as if anytime a team kicks instead of going for it on fourth-and-short it will doom that team to defeat.

Trailing 14-3 on the road versus high-scoring Denver, Chip Kelly took a field goal on fourth-and-4 from the Broncs' 7 -- I wrote "game over" in my notebook.

If he doesn't post it on Twitter, it doesn't happen, especially now that we know for sure Gregg is wrong about his "Game over" proclamations.

My feeling in the first quarter of Baltimore at Buffalo was that you can't dance with the champ, you've got to knock them down -- settling for a field goal on fourth-and-short from close range against the defending champs isn't enough. Obviously I will now reassess this feeling, and the live Twitter test concept.

Yeah, Gregg isn't going to reassess his feeling. He's simply going to stop posting his predictions of "Game over" on Twitter, then claim he wrote "Game over" in his notebook and make claims after the fact that a team punting on fourth-and-short doomed that team to defeat. 

Officiating was odd in both directions. Two weeks ago, Cleveland coaches complained the Baltimore offensive linemen were lining up off the line of scrimmage -- being set back a bit is helpful to pass-blocking. Sunday, Baltimore offensive linemen consistently were lined up illegally; zebras only flagged this once.

Apparently the Ravens offensive linemen weren't consistently lined up illegally if the officials only threw a flag for this once.

Indiana of Pennsylvania 20, California of Pennsylvania 7 in the annual Tuesday Morning Quarterback Obscure College Game of the Year. Located in Indiana, Pa., Indiana of Pennsylvania has an optional "Learning Management System that offers collaborative learning tools, activity-based learning and interaction with materials that encourage critical reflection." Isn't that what the entire college is supposed to do?

Yes, but this is appears to be a computer program that achieves these goals, not a class at the school.

Next Week Cameron Jordan wears Air Jordans to Cameron Indoor Stadium.

I'm just surprised Gregg didn't say that Cameron Jordan was with Jordan Cameron when he was wearing the Air Jordans in Cameron Indoor Stadium.

I look forward to next week's TMQ when after New Orleans and New England lose this weekend Gregg jumps off their bandwagon and then one week week later after these teams win their next game Gregg jumps right back on the bandwagon using a bullshit reason for why he did so. I'm sure it would have to do with undrafted players or going for it on fourth down. 

4 comments Gregg Easterbrook Is Just Repeating TMQ Topics on a Weekly Basis Now

Gregg tends to write about three basic topics in TMQ. Those three topics are:

1. Concussions and how the NFL isn't setting an example for youth league and college football teams.

2. NCAA and NFL teams that score a lot of points at a fast pace.

3. Gregg will discuss whichever team is currently playing the best in the NFL and then he attributes some new method that team is using to their success.

It's basically those three topics that Gregg tackles in TMQ, which only underscores how little Gregg actually has to say about the NFL. He doesn't really have that much to talk about in TMQ, which is probably why he pads it with so much political talk and criticism of television shows. This week's TMQ is a mix of topic #2 and topic #3. Gregg Easterbrook has decided to focus on how the Pacific Northwest rules the football world. Despite the fact he has written multiple TMQ's about Chip Kelly and the style of offense played by Oregon football, they must not have been ruling football until the Seahawks became a Super Bowl contender this season. Of course, zero teams in the Northwest have won a national championship in college football nor a Super Bowl, but I guess it is possible to rule the football landscape without actually winning a championship in the mind of Gregg Easterbrook. Not to take away anything from the Seahawks or Oregon Ducks of course, they are both good teams. So it's the same shit from Gregg (second-guessing coach's decisions and all the crap like that), but just a different week. In fact, I could probably sum this all up by simply writing,

"Gregg did the same shit this week that he did last week,"

but what would be the fun in that?

Forget the West Coast offense and the Steel Curtain defense -- Pacific Northwest football has arrived.

There's no such thing.

Oregon and Washington state, known for being laid-back, are titans astride the football landscape. The Seattle Seahawks have football's best defense, while the University of Oregon Ducks have football's best offense.

Seattle has a great defense, but it has been two weeks since they have had the best defense in the NFL. They didn't even have the most defense in their own division during the 2012 season. Perhaps we should give it a few more weeks before determining the Seahawks are like the Steel Curtain of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

One of the league's storylines since Colin Kaepernick became the Niners' quarterback is that no one can stop San Francisco, whose offense has rolled over power teams such as the Packers and Falcons, plus gained 468 yards in the Super Bowl. No one -- except the Seahawks, who stop them cold. In their last two meetings, Seattle bested San Francisco by a combined 71-16.

In the interest of full disclosure, and I realize Gregg isn't talking about Seattle's offense here, the 49ers held the Seahawks to 290 total yards on 70 plays for 4.1 yards per play. Seattle held the 49ers to 207 yards on 51 plays for (you guessed it) 4.1 yards per play. So it's not like the 49ers defense was much worse than the Seahawks defense and the 49ers had a better defense than Seattle last year as well. The 49ers were 3rd in the NFL in total yards to the Seahawks 4th in the NFL in total yards last season. So for the purposes of this column and a tidy Pacific Northwest football narrative we will say Gregg is correct, but Seattle hasn't been this dominant defensive force as compared to just the 49ers. The Seahawks defense didn't dominate on Sunday evening when it comes to yards per play as compared to the yards per play the 49ers defense allowed. In fact, both defenses allowed the exact same yards per play.

One of the league's storylines since Colin Kaepernick became the Niners' quarterback is that no one can stop San Francisco, whose offense has rolled over power teams such as the Packers and Falcons, plus gained 468 yards in the Super Bowl. No one -- except the Seahawks, who stop them cold. In their last two meetings, Seattle bested San Francisco by a combined 71-16.

Because if there is anyone who needs to be doing analysis on why a team's defense is playing well then that person is Gregg Easterbrook. Gregg's reasons for why the Seahawks defense is playing well probably will consist solely of "The cornerbacks aren't getting caught looking the backfield" and "They have unwanted and lowly drafted players on their defense."

(Spoiler alert: I'm right, that's close to his entire explanation for why the Seahawks defense is playing well)

Oregon hasn't faced a ranked team yet, so its production is likely to decline. 

Stand back people, so you don't get hurt while Gregg is tearing through some analysis.

Still, this is the fourth year of warp-speed yardage in Eugene. 

Which has resulted in a very successful program, but also resulted in exactly zero national titles so far, which is why I find it hard to proclaim the Pacific Northwest as ruling the football landscape.

Initially the Blur Offense came as a surprise. Now there's plenty of film to study, opponents know what the Ducks will do, and the Blur keeps flying down the field.

It's almost like the Blur Offense is a football strategy and not just a gimmick the Oregon Ducks use to confuse their opponent temporarily. 

The Blur Offense may or may not succeed in the NFL at Philadelphia, but is the most interesting offense around.

Gregg wrote just last week about Chip Kelly's Blur Offense in Philadelphia and this week he is writing about the Blur Offense in Oregon. Gregg really does repeat his topics from week-to-week and simply changes the team/coach names around to fit whichever team is talking about during that current week.

Perhaps all of football should study the Seahawks -- because broadly across the sport, the scoreboard continues to spin.

It's not about just studying the Seahawks. Teams have to have good defensive players like the Seahawks have and have those players succeed in the defensive scheme the team runs.

Alabama visited Texas A&M, the sort of pairing that traditionally would end 13-10. The result was 49-42.

The score in the Texas A&M-Alabama game from last year was 29-24, so I'm not sure how "traditionally" the score would be 13-10.

NFL average scoring per team per game has risen from 18.7 points two decades ago to 22.8 points in 2012. Football Bowl Subdivision scoring has risen from 20.6 points per game per team in 1972 to 28.3 points in 2012.

Gregg is comparing NFL scoring data from 40 years ago to scoring data from 2012. The game of football has changed so much in terms of becoming a more passing-oriented league that it is inevitable that scoring would also rise.

The uptick continues; last weekend, all of FBS averaged 30.7 points per school per game, and 427 yards of offense per team per game. The average big-college football team exceeded 400 yards.

So what's the conclusion that is being drawn by Gregg? What information is he trying to convey to us? That's my question. College football teams score a lot of points and run up a lot of yardage because the pace of the game has changed and the way an offense attacks a defense has changed. Gregg loves to list data and not really tell his readers anything they don't already feel like they know. Yep, scoring has increased. Listing the yardage in ten football games from the past weekend doesn't make you any smarter for noticing this.

Structural differences between the NCAA and NFL accentuate offense in college, where the football factories have a huge recruiting edge over many opponents, and clock rules are somewhat different. In 2012, only three pro teams -- the Patriots, Saints and Lions -- averaged 400 yards or more per game. That year, 10 FBS schools averaged at least 500 yards.

For God's sake, this isn't even close to be a comparison that can tell us anything. First off, Gregg is comparing NFL teams who averaged 400 yards or more per game versus FBS schools that averaged 500 yards per game. The yards per game being compared are different. Second, there are 32 NFL teams and there were 120 FBS schools during the 12-13 year. So using straight numbers to compare them is misleading since there are nearly quadruple the amount of FBS schools as there are NFL teams. A better number to use would be that 60 FBS schools averaged over 400 yards per game on offense during the 12-13 year, but only 3 NFL teams averaged 400 yards per game on offense during the 2012 season. Besides, given the talent disparity between FBS schools and NFL teams, there is no reason to even make a comparison. It's nearly impossible to compare college athletes to professional athletes and be able to come to a conclusion that means something.

And suppose your team was averaging 65 points a game yet its won-loss record was only 1-3, how would you feel?

I would feel like my team needs a much better defense and the head coach should be fired for not teaching his players how to play defense.

TMQ has been on the North Dakota State bandwagon for some time, noting in this space a year ago that the banner of the Bison, not of the Crimson Tide, hangs in NCAA headquarters as college football champions. This remains true today, since North Dakota repeated. Because the FCS has a playoff and FBS does not, the NCAA considers the Bison the college title-holder.

Of course Gregg considers the Bison to be the college title-holder. Of course he does.

In other football news, in the entire 2012 NFL season there were four safeties. Already in 2013, there have been six. The league told players it was concerned about safety -- so the players produced safeties.

(Gregg yanks on his collar) "I get no respect I tell ya'"

I thought only Rick Reilly would be the one to tell bad jokes at ESPN? Bill Simmons tells tired jokes and Rick Reilly gets the bad, corny jokes. The division of jokes is very clear in ESPN's policy and procedures manual. I'm not sure why Gregg insists on telling bad, corny jokes.

Sweet Play of the Week: Game scoreless, Kansas City had second-and-goal on the Dallas 2. Dexter McCluster, a running back who often lines up wide,

McCluster is really a running back/wide receiver hybrid and not just a running back who lines up wide, but I know Gregg has to see only black and white with no shades of gray, so this is what I get.

Why is a professional receiver pulling up short of the down marker? Hoover damn, the play was sour.

Fuck it in a bucket saying "Hoover damn" is pretty cheesy.

City of Tampa led New Orleans 14-13 with 24 seconds remaining, Saints ball on the Buccaneers' 40, New Orleans out of timeouts. Where oh where might the pass go? Maybe up the field! Yet Tampa had only one safety deep, as if expecting a power rush. Thirty-one yard completion to Marques Colston, game-winning field goal after a spike to stop the clock. Sour, sour defense.

TMQ noted in my NFC preview that weasel coach Greg Schiano plays his safeties too close to the line -- "Even after the Bucs were repeatedly burned deep in 2012, Schiano kept the safeties low, as if he were coaching an NCAA game."

This is part of the reason the Buccaneers were the best in the NFL at stopping the run last year. More importantly, I don't know what the hell "keeping the safeties low as if he is coaching an NCAA game" means. NCAA coaches keep their safeties close to the line of scrimmage and don't have their safeties play Cover-2 or Cover-3? I think this isn't true at all, but what do I know? 

Trailing Carolina 23-17 with 1:36 remaining, out of timeouts, the Bills took possession on their 20. Rookie quarterback E.J. Manuel drove the hosts to the Panthers' 2-yard line with 6 ticks showing. Touchdown to Stevie Johnson. Sweet.

Johnson lined up in the slot with Chris Hogan on his side. Johnson is a star; Hogan has never caught an NFL pass. At the snap, Carolina blitzed, meaning no safety near the Johnson-Hogan combo.

It would not have mattered if there was a safety near Johnson-Hogan, because the route Johnson ran would have been away from the safety even if Carolina had one safety back, which is as many safeties as they could have back with the Bills going three-wide and still pay some heed to the Bills possibly running the ball. My point after all that rambling, is the issue on this play was with Carolina's corners, not the play-call.

Two defensive backs doubled Hogan, leaving no one at all on Johnson. Sour.

Gregg takes special care to point out Hogan isn't a star and Johnson is, but doesn't Gregg talk about how smart it is for NFL teams to use rarely-used players and surprise the opposing team? So this is the flip-side of an NFL team guarding against an opposing team getting the ball to a rarely-used player on the goal line. Carolina didn't leave Hogan open and Johnson's defender didn't cover him due to gross incompetence.

Sweet bonus: as Buffalo kicked the PAT with 68,000 people roaring, flagship play-by-play announcer John Murphy cried in joyous excitement, "It's tied! The game is tied! The Bills have tied the game!" Actually they'd won the game.

The Bills' Twitter account also indicated Buffalo had tied the game. Of course, Gregg stays off Twitter during a game for fear he would Tweet an observation about the game that didn't involve him purely using hindsight to make himself look smart.

Sweet 'N' Sour Play of the Week No. 2 Vikings leading 30-24 with 16 ticks remaining, Chicago faced third-and-10 on the Minnesota 16. Touchdown pass to Martellus Bennett, and the Bears win despite allowing the Vikings two return touchdowns. Sweet.

On the play, Minnesota rushed four and Chicago kept an extra blocker back. That meant the Vikes had seven men to cover four receivers -- and Bennett got open. Plus, Minnesota knew the play had to reach the end zone -- 

Why did the play have to reach the end zone? Chicago could have thrown the ball and then the receiver could have gotten out of bounds (which Bennett failed to do two plays before his touchdown catch). So while I'm not excusing the Vikings giving up a touchdown in this situation, the Bears didn't have to go for the end zone if their receiver could get out of bounds to stop the clock.

In Philadelphia, the home crowd booed loudly as no one covered Eddie Royal of San Diego on his third-quarter touchdown reception -- made worse because the Nesharim rushed only three. Sure you just opened the season with a monster "Monday Night Football" victory, but what have you done for us lately? In Baltimore, the home crowd booed the defending champions as they jogged off the field for intermission trailing Cleveland 6-0. Sure you just won the Super Bowl. But what have you done for us lately?

Because it's fine for Gregg Easterbrook to criticize the Eagles in TMQ for giving up a touchdown when they only rush three, but it's completely unacceptable for Eagles fans to boo the Eagles for giving up a touchdown when they rush three. Also, the Ravens were losing to the Browns a week after losing big to the Broncos. Booing could be in order in this situation.

After your columnist said he liked the FX series "Justified" -- entertaining but unrealistic crime drama about a modern wild-west-style lawman -- many readers suggested the A&E series "Longmire," also about a modern wild-west-style lawman, but realistic. "Longmire," which just wrapped its second season, is thoroughly enjoyable.

And the purpose of television is to be entertaining to the viewers, so even though "Justified" is unrealistic but entertaining, being entertaining is sort of the point of a television show anyway. 

The show follows the sheriff and his deputies in fictional Absaroka County, Wyoming.

Oh, so it is a realistic show that takes place in a fictional town. It already sounds very realistic.

An awful lot of murders occur in the county on "Longmire" -- at least 25 in the episodes so far, which track a year of Walt Longmire's life. Twenty-five murders per year is the recent average for all of Wyoming, let alone a sparsely populated rural county.

But because Gregg Easterbrook wants to call this show realistic, it is realistic. Sure, it messes with actual murder figures and takes place in a fictional town with an unknown geography, both criticisms that Gregg levies against "Justified," but "Longmire" is realistic because that's what Gregg wants to call the show. See, there is very little gunplay and that's realistic, so Gregg ignores all the other parts of the show that he would normally criticize for being unrealistic.

Most actual law enforcement officers never fire their weapons in the line of duty; on TV, the cops are blazing away left and right. Not on "Longmire." The protagonist has pulled the trigger only a couple times.

Most law enforcement officers never fire their weapon, but on "Longmire" the protagonist has pulled the trigger a couple of times. Wouldn't this make the show unrealistic, since most law enforcement officers don't pull their weapon in the line of duty through their entire career and the protagonist has done so a couple of times in two seasons?

Though extolling the beauty of Wyoming, "Longmire" is filmed in New Mexico,

Very realistic film in New Mexico but the setting of the show is supposed to be in Wyoming.

Different angles of the same log-constructed modern house are used as different characters' residences, and the same river seems to flow past every location in the "Longmire" universe.

And we all know there is no river on Earth that flows through an entire city.

"Longmire's" fictional county has a huge gambling casino, an exotic-dance establishment staffed with women who appear to have flown in from a swimsuit modeling competition, and a championship-quality golf course.

Gregg is levying the exact same criticisms at "Longmire" that he levies at other shows like "Justified," "Star Trek," and "Under the Dome," except he insists "Longmire" is realistic because that's how he chooses to view the series. The only difference I am seeing is that Gregg wants to label "Longmire" realistic and wants to criticize other television shows for not being realistic enough.

In one episode, the sheriff is inexplicably driving a federal convict a long distance on remote rural roads to transfer him to some FBI agents who are inexplicably driving other federal convicts on a remote road. What is the purpose of this strange prisoner transfer?

Walt is a good detective but, like all investigators on crime shows, never takes notes. Few crimes would be solved if real-world law enforcement officers failed to take notes.

Longmire always gets the killer to confess, but never records the confession nor has a witness present, nor first gives the standard warning against self-incrimination.

It sounds to me like Gregg doesn't think this show is realistic at all.

Concussion Watch: The NFL has suspended Dashon Goldson of the Buccaneers for one game for a helmet-to-helmet hit against New Orleans. This is a progressive step. Players don't like fines, but being small compared to an NFL income, fines don't seem to change behavior. A suspension not only represents a big chunk of money -- every football player knows that if he can't play, he may lose his job.

Dashon Goldson isn't going to lose his job for a helmet-to-helmet hit and I very much doubt any NFL player is going to be released simply because he gets suspended for a game due to a helmet-to-helmet hit. An NFL player would have to repeatedly get suspended by the NFL for a team to consider releasing him.

TMQ gets credit for campaigning against R*dsk*ns on NFL.com itself...My first column on NFL.com, from Nov. 25, 2003, contained this explanation: "I think R*dsk*ns

Tick … tick ... tick. The clock is ticking down to the end of the R*dsk*ns name.

Everyone knows Gregg is writing "Redskins" and covering it up with asterisks isn't not writing "Redskins." If I wrote an email to a co-worker that said,

"You can go f*ck yourself. You are a useless s*n of a b*tch and I am going to sneak into your h**se and m*rd*r your entire family tonight. Burn in "H*ll" with your b*tch w*fe and k*ds."

I'm pretty sure I would be fired, if not charged with conveying a threat, despite my super-discreet use of asterisks at certain points in the conversation. My point is that if Gregg isn't writing the word "Redskins" then he shouldn't write it and using asterisks to take the vowels out of the word doesn't mean Gregg isn't writing the word.

Forget the Name Issue, Maybe Washington Team Should Wear Disguises: Ye gods, the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons look bad. Robert Griffin III has regressed from superstar to average player. Did his injury change him, is it rust from skipping the preseason, or did he try to come back too soon? Whatever the explanation, RG III is struggling.

Quick! Now that Robert Griffin has been elevated let's tear him down quicker than he was built up!

Philadelphia and then Green Bay have blitzed him with impunity, knowing he lacks the quickness to get outside and make a defense pay for blitzing. A rushing threat last year -- Griffin ran for 815 yards and a 6.8-yard average -- RG III has been no factor on the ground this season. That means no zone read and no Washington offense.

I guess Robert Griffin's senatorial campaign isn't getting off to a rousing start. Maybe he isn't like Bill Bradley after all.

The Persons lack talent on defense -- which is the price of Washington trading three first-rounders and a second-round draft choice for Griffin.

You can't win with idiot media members like Gregg Easterbrook. When things are going well, he writes about what a great choice it was for the Redskins to trade up and draft Robert Griffin. When things aren't going well, he writes that a lack of talent on defense is the price Washington has paid for trading up to get Griffin. It's not like it was unforeseen that the Redskins would miss three first round draft picks and a second round draft pick.

Washington has some promising defensive backs who are very green; cornerback David Amerson allowed a 57-yard catch when he made the high school mistake of looking into the backfield rather than guarding his man.

It's also possible Amerson, being a rookie, got confused about the defense the Redskins were running. In his own words:

Then CB David Amerson let Jones go right by him for a 57-yard bomb. "We started off in one defense and I didn't hear the check to another defense," said Amerson.

So a little research shows Amerson didn't "make the high school mistake of looking into the backfield rather than guarding his man" as Gregg constantly and annoyingly always states as the sole reason why a cornerback got beaten, but he didn't hear the check to a different defense (presumably the move from a zone to man or another defense where he would stay with Jones). But hey, what fun is research when Gregg can just make shit up as to why a cornerback got beaten?

In the front seven, Washington just lacks talent, with no defensive lineman drafted in two years.

Brian Orakpo and Ryan Kerrigan would like a word with you Gregg for stating the front seven lacks talent.

Sweet 'N' Sour Player of the Week: Tennessee leading 17-16 late at Houston, on third-and-21, Matt Schaub threw a back shoulder pass intended for first-round draft choice DeAndre Hopkins -- who casually ran a go, waving his arm to say, "I'm open!" He was open because he was supposed to cut the route short. The ball was at that instant being picked off and returned for a touchdown. Sour.

It's almost like rookie wide receivers playing their second game in the NFL might make a mistake. How dare this happen.

Book News: One week from today is publication day for "The King of Sports: Football's Impact on America," which can be purchased electronically on iTunes. Next week, I may be mentioning something about "The King of Sports" -- which just got a starred review from Library Journal. Yes, this is some chance that next week, I may be mentioning the book.

Gregg is telling us this week that he may mention something about a book next week in TMQ? That's "Book Creep!"

Pundits often pen tomes that boil down to, "I knew it all along, I just forgot to say so."

This should be the motto of TMQ. Gregg loves telling us why something happened after it happened, in a way that he makes it seem like he knew this event would happen.

How Does Seattle Do It? The short version of the success of the Seahawks' defense is good players who hustle, communicate with each other and wrap-up tackle. Contemporary NFL defenses are so plagued by players' desire for spectacular plays that make "SportsCenter" that blown coverages and missed assignments have become de rigueur. 

Oh, so the Seahawks have a good defense because they tackle well? I guess other defenses watch "SportsCenter" and try to make a fantastic, exceptional play and that's why they don't tackle well. I also guess talent and coaching has nothing to do with it.

The Seahawks play a conventional 4-3-4 with press corners -- none of the funky fronts or extreme blitzes that are popular. Thus the Seattle defense supports the maxim, "Classic never goes out of style."

And the part of this "analysis" (and I use that term ever-so-loosely) is that the Seahawks have the personnel to get a pass rush without blitzing a lot and they can play press corners because they have corners who have the talent, size, and skill level to play press coverage. Not every NFL team can get pressure without blitzing and not every NFL team has corners that play well in press coverage. A lot of good NFL teams use funky fronts, use extreme blitzes, and don't play press coverage, yet somehow manage to win games.

Seattle leading 12-0 late in the third, San Francisco reached third-and-goal on Seahawks' 3. No tricks, the Seahawks ran a four-man rush and tight coverage. Nobody was open. When the 49ers settled for a field goal, TMQ wrote the words "game over" in his notebook.

Again, the Seahawks have the corners who can play tight coverage on the goal line like this. Also, you know Gregg wrote "Game Over" in pencil in case he needed to erase it a little later should the 49ers start to comeback. 

Seattle has football's best defense -- and other than the gentlemen just mentioned, how many starters can you name without peeking?

Cliff Avril, Bruce Irvin, Brandon Mebane, Kam Chancellor, Chris Clemons, Earl Thomas, K.J. Wright. Just because Gregg can't name players on a team's defense doesn't mean other NFL fans can't name players on that defense. Gregg assumes everyone is as ignorant as he is when this isn't true.

The Seattle defenders are remarkable in being a collection of late draft picks and castoffs. Only safety Earl Thomas was a first-round choice by the team he now plays for.

See, Gregg is so ignorant about the Seahawks defense that he thinks so highly of suddenly that he doesn't know Bruce Irvin was a first round pick for the Seahawks last year. Gregg is so oblivious. He thinks he is educating his readers, but he really doesn't know enough about the topic he is discussing to understand how little he knows. Bruce Irvin is suspended at the beginning of the 2013 season and Gregg didn't pay attention to the Seahawks defense prior to this year, so he has no clue Irvin is a first round pick drafted by the Seahawks. Also, being a first round pick is being a first round pick, regardless of which team drafted that player. So it isn't like a player comes to play for Seattle and his status as a first round pick suddenly disappears.

Unlike teams with lots of high-drafted defenders who spend their time complaining, Seattle has lots of hand-me-downs who spend their time working. That is a classic approach to success, and classic never goes out of style.

This is such a crock of bullshit. The San Francisco 49ers (who had a better defense than the Seahawks during the 2012 season) have a great defense and they start seven first round draft picks, two third round draft picks, a fifth round draft pick, and a player taken in the third round of the supplemental draft. This doesn't include the first round pick that plays nickel corner for them. So the 49ers have 8 defenders that were drafted in the first round, so how did they succeed without taking the classic approach to success with defenders who spend their time working? Aren't these first round players supposed to be spending their time complaining? This doesn't explain the success of the 49ers defense. It's almost like Gregg's theories are bullshit.

Maybe Kelly needs to work with the Philadelphia defense, which allowed 539 yards at home with crowd energy on its side.

The downside to the Blur Offense is that if the Eagles are scoring a lot of points quickly it doesn't give their defense a lot of time to rest, which becomes a problem if the opposing team's defense can force the Eagles into three-and-outs while the opposing team's offense can possess the ball for long periods of time. The crowd doesn't really give the Eagles energy, so if the defense was gassed hearing their fans may yell loudly not help too much.

At Oregon, Kelly spent his time with the offense -- that was his trademark -- while assuming the Ducks' recruiting-power edge would lead to defensive success.

This is such an idiotic statement it doesn't even require a retort. Gregg perceives himself to be a master of explaining other people's intentions, even if these intentions are not explicitly stated.

But in the NFL, every team is loaded. Bolts leading 13-10 in the third quarter, San Diego faced third-and-7 on their 43. Straight defense here makes an incompletion likely. 

Why is an incompletion here likely? What sort of data does Gregg have which supports his contention on third-and-7 an incompletion is likely if the Eagles only rush four? He has none, but instead if just making assumptions that help to prove his point. People who read TMQ on a weekly basis have to be incredibly gullible just to believe whatever Gregg is writing is the truth.

Instead Eagles' coaches radio in an all-out blitz, hoping for a flashy play.

The Eagles weren't looking to stop the Chargers from getting a first down, they wanted to make a flashy play. Got it.

Untouched Touchdown Of The Week: Seattle leading San Francisco 5-0 in the third quarter, the Bluish Men Group faced second-and-goal on the 49ers 15. Marshawn Lynch took a simple delay draw and ran left behind James Carpenter and Paul McQuistan, never touched by San Francisco's vaunted linebackers. It's pretty fun to run 15 yards for a touchdown on prime-time television when everyone in front of you has been knocked out of the way.

Lynch probably wasn't touched because the first round pick, highly drafted glory boy who is lazy and only cares about himself James Carpenter did a good job of blocking. It's not like the 49ers linebackers will always make a great tackle on every single play, so calling them "vaunted" as if they supposed to be perfect when they messed up on one play seems entirely unfair and ridiculous.

Manning Bowl a Snoozer: Are the Broncos that good or the Giants that bad? Denver reaching the Jersey/A 2-yard line in the third quarter, Wes Welker -- the player most likely to get the ball -- did a simple down-and-in.

Why is Welker most likely to get the ball here? This is another example of an assumption that Gregg makes to help try to prove one of his points. Julius Thomas scored two touchdowns during Week 1 and the Broncos could easily have gotten the ball to Eric Decker and Demaryius Thomas on this play, so why is Welker most likely to get the ball? A defensive coordinator can't just think Welker is most likely to get the football and ignore the other offensive players on the field. If Welker is most likely to get the ball then should the Giants defense simply ignore Thomas/Thomas/Decker?

From the early third quarter on, the hosts began dogging it. Jersey/A's signature tactic under Tom Coughlin -- pressuring the passer with a conventional four-man rush -- was not on display. Peyton Manning had enough time in the pocket to film a television commercial.

It's almost like the Denver Broncos have an offensive line that is supposed to block the Giants defensive line. So let me ask this...if the Giants couldn't get pressure with a four-man rush, does Gregg think they should blitz to get to the passer or just accept they can't get to Peyton Manning? Gregg doesn't like it when teams try exotic blitzes, so I guess Gregg would think the Giants should just accept they were going to lose rather than start calling blitzes in an effort to confuse Peyton Manning. After all, blitzing leads to a team losing, unlike the classic approach to success like the Seahawks use of rushing four. That's why the Giants won, because they used the classic approach to defense and didn't blitz or use crazy defensive fronts. Wait, that's not right, the Giants lost.

Then, desperate for more material to pad TMQ with, Gregg starts listing all the college football teams that had 500 yards of offense and lost. It's actually more boring to read than how I just described it. There are only so many examples of a team losing while gaining 500 yards that can remain interesting, yet Gregg makes this a weekly feature because of course he does.

TMQ thinks the Falcons' allergy to rushing stands between this strong team and the Super Bowl. Hosting Les Mouflons, Atlanta jumped to a seemingly insurmountable 24-3 lead. But the stats showed a weakness -- at intermission, Atlanta had 237 yards passing and 1 yard rushing. Yes, Steven Jackson left the contest hurt,

The Rams have a very good defensive line by the way and their linebackers aren't too shabby either. I like how Gregg is like "Well sure, the Falcons starting running back was injured, but every running back on the Falcons roster should play as well as Steven Jackson does." Sure, that's logical to expect the backup running backs to play as well as the starting running back.

but he has understudies: it's not that Atlanta lacks running backs, it's that Atlanta lacks run-the-ball psychology.

Oh, it's not a talent problem with Jacquizz Rodgers and Jason Snelling, it's that the Falcons lack a run-the-ball mentality. I guess that's the sort of thing that happens when Roddy White, Julio Jones, Harry Douglas and Tony Gonzalez are Matt Ryan's receivers. So how bad did the Falcons lose to the Rams?

The hosts would hold on to win,

Oh.

while the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons defense was gasping for air at the Eagles' pace, Kedric Golston dropped with an "injury," necessitating a stop in play. On the next series he re-entered the game, miraculously cured. Perhaps Persons' trainers keep a bottle of the waters of Lourdes on their sideline. Reader Thon Morse of Austin, Texas, suggests a rule change -- instead of an injured player being required to sit out the next play, he should sit out till the end of the quarter.

I guess these are the types of idiotic suggestions you get from someone named "Thon."

After all, if a player is injured, time to rest and be examined should be required.

Unless the player isn't severely injured and only requires a quick visit to the team doctor in order to ensure he is physically capable of playing. Otherwise, a player who may have only had the wind knocked out of him or just twisted an ankle that needs to be taped up would have to sit out an entire quarter. This is a terrible suggested rule change.

Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! Seattle leading 12-3, the Seahawks faced third-and-4 on the San Francisco 7 early in the fourth quarter. The Niners, who usually play straight defense, blitzed seven; Marshawn Lynch took a short pass and walked into the end zone for his second untouched touchdown of the evening.

And of course it was the blitz that caused this touchdown to be scored, especially since the 49ers had given up a rushing touchdown previously in the game (which Gregg covered just a few paragraphs ago) where they didn't blitz. So the 49ers shouldn't blitz because it can cause them to give up a rushing touchdown, but they also can give up a rushing touchdown if they don't blitz. It's almost like creating hard-and-fast rules about blitzing is stupid.

Next Week What if the Harbaugh brothers coached the Manning brothers?

Jim Harbaugh did almost coach Peyton Manning just last year (which, of course, isn't something I would expect Gregg to know...he writes an NFL column where he second-guesses the decisions head coaches make and has no time to actually pay attention to the NFL otherwise), but Manning chose to to go Denver instead.