4 comments Elite Pass Rushers are Overrated Because They Aren't as Valuable as an Elite Quarterback

There are quite a few Bleacher Report copycat sites, or sites that appear to be Bleacher Report copycats, popping up on the Interwebs. I believe I have mentioned this before. They are mostly fan-driven sites with hot take commentary and headlines used for the sole purpose of pageviews. You know the articles are written for pageviews because the number of pageviews for the article is right there for you to look at. SEE HOW POPULAR THIS COLUMN IS? THAT MEANS IT CAN'T BE SHITTY WRITING! 2000 VIEWS CAN'T BE WRONG!

So the headline on this site, which is called "NFL SpinZone" (a wonderful title by the way since it indicates there will be "spin" accompanying the hot take), is "J.J. Watt and Other Elite Pass Rushers Overrated in the NFL? The Facts Say Yes." You can't argue with pageviews and facts. Thank you to the reader who found and emailed me this hot take. Apparently this NFL SpinZone is in some way attached to FanSided, which links articles from Bleacher Report. It's all very confusing. So here is why elite pass rushers are overrated. Spoiler alert: It's because quarterbacks are more valuable. Because that makes sense. This is why knives are overrated, because a gun is a much better weapon for combat while in a vicious cock-fight.

How could elite pass rushers be overrated? Here’s how.

Here's how! This is how the author pulls a JemeHill and makes a statement that most probably don't believe is necessarily is true and disproves it.

"How could chocolate not serve as the primary source of protein for adults? Here's how."

"Do vaccinations cause spontaneous combustion? The facts say "no" and here's why."

"Are ants really aliens gathering weaponry to take over Earth? Probably not. Here's what the facts say."

Most people belief that pass rushers, whether DE or OLB, are one of the most important positions on a football team.

I mean, it's the first sentence. Can we maybe not have a grammatical error in the first sentence? I just belief that if you are going to write for a web site then you should probably do your best to make sure your very first sentence doesn't have grammatical errors. And yes, I'm sure I have grammatical errors in my writing, but I try to avoid them in the first sentence. I belief that's the way to go.

Oh, and also..."most people" believe this to be true? Is that a factual statement or just a statement the author is making in an attempt to disprove something that most people don't believe anyway? I think I know the answer I belief is the correct one.

Some people believe that an elite pass rusher can have as big, or almost as big, of an impact on an NFL game as a great quarterback can. 

Yes, and some people are Scientologists. I would put both sets of people on the same craziness level. Okay, that's not true. Scientology is WAY crazier than believing an elite pass rusher can have as big of an impact on an NFL game as a great quarterback can. You get my point though.

So far the author has told us what "most" people believe and then stated what "some" people believe. He's well on his way to disproving a belief that he in his own mind thinks "most" and "some" people have. He's totally JemeHill'ing this article all up. He's creating all sorts of beliefs people have so he can prove just how overrated pass rushers are.

It’s often thought that the best teams in the NFL feature the best pass rushers. However, the facts starkly suggest otherwise as Justin Houston and J.J. Watt have both been on their couches for weeks.

(coughs) Based on a sample size of one year.

Both Houston and Watt impressively hit the 20-sack plateau in 2014, but the Kansas City Chiefs and Houston Texans didn’t make the playoffs. The NFL’s top-5 pass rushers in 2014, as far as sacks recorded, were Elivs Dumervil (17 sacks), Connor Barwin (14.5), and Mario Williams (14.5). Between those five players (including Houston and Watt) only Dumervil’s Ravens made the playoffs.

Although there is no correlation between their great play and their team’s ultimate success.

Right, because they are a member of a team and the entire team has to play well in order for that team to win. The quarterback position is the most important position in football and I don't take seriously those "some" people who think an elite pass rusher is on par with an elite quarterback. So the author is disproving something that informed people probably wouldn't believe. Also, who is "Elivs Dumervil?" Is he Elvis Dumervil's evil twin? I bet Elivs Dumervil has a goatee.

That begged the question, “How much of an impact do elite pass rushers really have on an NFL team’s success?”

Get ready for the author to prove elite pass rushers aren't as important as an elite quarterback. I know this may come as a shock, since this is probably something most people already knew. The bottom line is an elite pass rusher is great to have, but there has to be a great defense around that elite pass rusher. Football is a team sport.

Fact #1:

As stated above, only one of the NFL’s top five sack leaders led their teams to the playoffs.

Fact.

Fact #1 from me:

In 2013, three of the NFL's top five sack leaders led their teams to the playoffs.

In 2012, four of the NFL's top five sack leaders led their teams to the playoffs. 

In 2011, two of the NFL's top five sack leaders led their teams to the playoffs. Jason Pierre-Paul was one of these players and his team won the Super Bowl.

In 2010, three of the NFL's top five sack leaders led their teams to the playoffs. Clay Matthews was one of these players and his team won the Super Bowl.

In 2009, three of the NFL's top five sacks leaders led their teams to the playoffs. Will Smith was one of these players and his team won the Super Bowl.

So out of the last five seasons, 15 of the 25 players in the top 5 of the NFL in sacks led their teams to the playoffs. That's 60% of the players who appeared in the top five of the NFL in sacks over the last five years (prior to 2014) whose team made the playoffs. No correlation there I'm sure. 

So, how much of an impact do elite pass rushers have on their teams? Clearly not as much as some people like to think. 

Based on the 2014 season, these "some people" are wrong. Based on the five years prior to that, these "some people" have a better case.

Whereas nearly every NFL team with a quarterback that is widely referred to as ‘elite’ did make the playoffs.

The author is relying on a lot of opinions and definitions of "elite" here that I don't care to get into. The important thing to note is quarterbacks like Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, and Matt Ryan didn't make the playoffs. Teams made the playoffs with non-elite quarterbacks like Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, and Andy Dalton. You can have your own opinion about Joe Flacco and Matthew Stafford too. Not sure I would call them "elite."

Fact #2:

Five pass rushers have recorded at least two sacks in the playoffs this year and none of those five player’s teams made it to a Conference Championship game.

This is a dumb statistic to use. Pass rushers who play the most games in the playoffs will naturally have better sack totals, but ignoring that, taking a sample size of two games is a terrible way to prove elite pass rushers are overrated. The #1 and #2 seeds in the AFC and NFC both will have only played one game prior to the Conference Championship Game, so naturally it's expected those pass rushers won't have as good of a sack total in the playoffs prior to the Conference Championship Game. Chandler Jones could have 1 sack in the one game he played prior to the Conference Championship Game. This doesn't mean he isn't elite or he didn't help his team win the Super Bowl.

The four teams that made it to Championship Sunday do not feature a single pass rusher that has recorded two sacks in the playoffs yet. Further evidence that dominant pass rushers do not directly equate to winning in the NFL.

Fact #2:

Again, over the last six seasons (including the 2014 season) 16 of the 30 players in the top five of the NFL in regular season sacks have also appeared in the playoffs. That's 53%, which by the way, is more than half. Sure, more elite quarterbacks have appeared in the playoffs during that time span, but no reasonable person is arguing a pass rusher is as valuable as a quarterback. The fact a pass rusher isn't as valuable as a quarterback doesn't mean an elite pass rusher is overrated.

Oddly enough, it seems the opposite is true.

Oddly enough, you use one season's worth of data to show this to be true.

The trend I’m noticing is that teams with multiple above-average pass rushers win with much more consistency than teams with one elite pass rusher.

Well yeah, that's true too. A team with multiple pass rushers that are very good will win more games than a team with one elite pass rusher and shitty pass rushers around him. That's blindingly obvious. Are elite offensive linemen overrated because a team with one elite offensive linemen and a bunch of useless assholes around him doesn't win with as much consistency as a team with multiple above-average offensive linemen? I think not. The author's argument is so terrible. He misunderstands that football is a team sport. A team with better players at more positions will win more games than a team with better players at just a few positions.

Fact #3:

The league’s most dominant pass rusher, and defensive player, couldn’t lead his team to the playoffs.

Fact #3: This is information gathered from one season. Over the past six seasons a player who has appeared in the top 5 of the NFL in sacks during the regular season has been on a team that won the Super Bowl three times. That's 50% of the time a team with an elite pass rusher wins the Super Bowl. I know, I know, I'm cheating by using a sample size larger than one season. How dare I try to get to the truth of whether pass rushers are overrated because they don't lead their team to the playoffs by searching out information and data that covers more than one NFL season!

The Texans’ Watt is the undisputed king of the NFL, on the defensive side of the ball that is. Yet, even his incredible impact couldn’t raise the Texans to the postseason. Would the Texans be worse without him? Certainly! 

Does this mean an elite pass rusher is overrated? Certainly not! It just means the Texans didn't make the playoffs in the AFC this season.

But if the Texans added Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady would it become a playoff team? I’m inclined to say yes, of course.

And because Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady would take the Texans to the playoffs when J.J. Watt could not, this means a quarterback is more valuable than a pass rusher, which means an elite pass rusher is overrated. So OF COURSE an elite pass rusher is overrated, because there are unnamed people in the world who think an elite pass rusher is as valuable as an elite quarterback. Obviously.

So do elite pass rushers really equal success in the NFL? Or is one player, even so great as one of 2014’s five elite pass rushers, not enough to truly make a huge difference in today’s NFL.

Based on one season's worth of data, these two questions aren't even worth answering with a definitive answer one way or another. Also, you forgot a question mark in the second question you asked.

Fact #4:

None of the for teams playing on Conference Championship Sunday boast an ‘elite’ pass rusher.

Fact #4. This information from one season doesn't mean elite pass rushers are overrated. Also, Clay Matthews has 61 sacks in his six year career. I would say he's pretty close to an elite pass rusher.

Also, the author's Fact #4 basically says the same thing as Fact #1. 

As far as 2014 statistics are concerned, the Patriots, Seahawks, Packers, and Colts do not feature as single elite pass rusher. That isn’t to say they’re bad pass rushing teams — that isn’t the case. These teams can get the quarterback, but they feature multiple players that can get to the quarterback and don’t rely on just one elite player.

Which is a nice thing to be able to do, just like having one elite pass rusher and multiple other players who can rush the quarterback on the same team is also a nice thing to have.

Look at the top pass rushers of the last four teams standing. The Packers’ Clay Matthews was 12th in the NFL in sacks in 2014. The Patriots’ Rob Ninkovich was 26th in the NFL in sacks in 2014. The Seahawks’ Michael Bennett was 36th in the NFL in sacks in 2014. The Colts’ Jonathan Newsome was 40th in the NFL in sacks in 2014. 

It's one year's worth of data. If you take a larger trend out of one season then you are the idiot here, not anyone who thinks an elite pass rusher can still help his team get to the playoffs. Data over the last six years shows defensive players in the top 5 of the NFL in sacks have led their team to the playoffs more often than not.

None of these pass rushers would be considered ‘elite’ pass rushers if just this years’ statistics were referenced. Matthews is the possible exception to this, although he hasn’t been lining up as a pure rusher in 2014 as much as he used to.

And yet, he still had 11 sacks on the season. Don't try to state Matthews isn't a pass rusher because he isn't lining up as much as a pure rusher in 2014 as he used to. If you are going to judge a player by sack totals, be consistent.

The top four teams in the NFL didn’t have a single pass rusher ranked in the top 10 in sacks this year and only one (Matthews) ranked inside the top 25.

You can restate the same thing 100 ways and it still doesn't take away from the fact you are using information based on one NFL season.

Quarterbacks don’t just get more media attention because it’s the flashy position, it’s because their impact on games is tremendous. Look at the quarterbacks of the last four teams standing. Brady, Rodgers, Russell Wilson, and Andrew Luck. All four can either be considered elite or on the verge of elite at the quarterback position. It seems as though quality quarterbacks are still much more valuable than elite pass rushers.

Yes, quarterbacks are more valuable than elite pass rushers. I'm not sure anyone is arguing otherwise. Guess what though? That doesn't mean an elite pass rusher is overrated. An elite pass rusher can be less valuable than an elite quarterback and still not be overrated. 

These facts cannot be disputed that 2014’s elite pass rushers are in every way overrated, 

I literally just disputed the fact that 2014's elite pass rushers are in every way overrated by pointing out how the information you gathered for 2014 is contradicted by data from the previous five NFL seasons. Besides who is overrated and who isn't overrated is a purely subjective opinion. There are no "facts" that can definitively disprove a purely subjective opinion. It's an opinion and it's subjective. Facts can only go so far. Nice hot take to call J.J. Watt overrated in your title. I am sure it pumped up some pageviews for you. 

That is, if we all agree that winning games, going to the playoffs, and winning the Super Bowl is the main goal of every NFL team, how can these elite players not be overrated?

Because three of the Super Bowl-winning teams over the last six playoffs had a pass rusher rated in the top 5 of the NFL in sacks for that season. I would go further past six seasons, but this bullshit article isn't even worth it. I think six seasons pretty much proves the point I want to prove. Over the last six seasons, 53% of the players in the top 5 of the NFL in sacks made the playoffs. So winning games, going to the playoffs, and winning the Super Bowl IS the main goal of every NFL team. More often than not over the last six seasons, a team with a player in the top 5 of the NFL in sacks has made the playoffs. Over the last six seasons, 50% of Super Bowl-winning teams had a player in the top 5 of the NFL in sacks. So that's why these elite pass rushers are probably not overrated. I'll call that Fact #5.

I’m a huge

idiot for using one season's worth of information to jump to a conclusion?

Watt fan, don’t get me wrong, but perhaps investing in elite pass rushers isn’t as paramount to hoisting the Lombardi Trophy as most people believe.

Or perhaps you should go stop writing hot takes like this if you aren't willing to go back more than one season to come to the conclusion your hot take supports. Football is a team sport. Investing in elite pass rushers is worthless if there aren't other good pass rushers on the roster, but an elite pass rusher does help in hoisting the Lombardi Trophy. Simply because quarterback is the most important position on the field, doesn't mean elite pass rushers are overrated.

Fact #6:

This article was an embarrassment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lynch is a first round draft pick by the way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Times did make the mistake, but because:

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

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

Became confused about who's on first

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, that's 54.79 years.

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

From TMQ last week:

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

That seems like a bigger distinction!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 comments Gregg Easterbrook Says Special Teams Aren't as Important as Offense or Defense Unless Special Teams Becomes as Important as Offense and Defense

It's almost time for Gregg Easterbrook and TMQ (because they are two separate entities in Gregg's mind) to go into hibernation for the winter, or at least until draft time. So I will enjoy berating Gregg for his weekly contradictions and attempts to mislead his readers while he is still around for me to berate him. Gregg tells us this week that whichever team has a pick-six will win the Super Bowl, unless that team loses the coin toss. One would think the Authentic Games metric would allow Gregg to tell us NOW who will win the Super Bowl, but apparently the metric that predicts the Super Bowl pairing can't predict which team will actually win the Super Bowl. Gregg also takes issues with bottomless pits (irony alert!) and names his non-QB non-RB NFL MVP. I'm kidding of course. He has his readers name the winner of this award and nominates two undrafted players, a 5th round pick and a 2nd round pick in an effort to make sure the winner is undrafted or lowly drafted so he can crow about how undrafted players are the best. It's fun how Gregg skips over highly-drafted offensive and defensive players as the non-QB non-RB NFL MVP. He could include guys like Jamie Collins, Darrelle Revis, Vince Wilfork, Rob Gronkowski, Bruce Irvin, and Earl Thomas, but he wants to nominate two undrafted players and a 5th round pick as his non-QB non-RB NFL MVP. Not that Gregg would ever have an agenda of course.

There's data, there's big data, and then there is slam-dunk data. In the latter category: Teams that return an interception for a touchdown are 12-0 in the Super Bowl. Get a pick-six, win the Super Bowl. It's pretty much that simple.

So both the Patriots and Seahawks need to ignore whatever game plan they have and just try to get a pick-six. Once they do that, they can rest easy knowing they have won the game. It's slam-dunk data.

Teams that run back a fumble for a touchdown in the Super Bowl are 2-2. Teams that run a kick back for a touchdown are 4-6, that winning total diluted by two Super Bowl victors who had both kickoff and interception return touchdowns.

The pick-six rules the Super Bowl.

Again, each team's secondary should jump all routes and do whatever it takes, even if the opposing team gets a touchdown as a result, to get a pick-six.

Why do interception return touchdowns link so tightly with Super Bowl victory when other kinds of return touchdowns don't?

I'm not a smart man, but I'm guessing this is probably a coincidence and not any type of data that is indicative of a trend that actually means something. A pick-six is a big swing in a football game, but there is no reason a team that has a pick-six has won every Super Bowl. I'm not sure there is a causation here.

One answer may be sample size. There have been only 48 -- excuse me, XLVIII -- Super Bowls. Maybe that's not enough to wash out the role of luck in the XII-0 record for pick-six teams.

Right, it's a smaller sample size. I don't know of a way to find this information, but I would bet that teams over the history of the NFL (INCLUDING THE TRIASSIC PERIOD!) who have a pick-six in a game are more likely to win that game. So what we have is a smaller sample size, along with a pick-six making it more likely the team that gets the pick-six will win the game, leading to Super Bowl teams with a pick-six are now 12-0. It's an indicator a team will win a game, but not to the extent the 12-0 record in the Super Bowl shows.

Perhaps this is because high-level quarterback play is needed for Super Bowl success, and an interception returned for a touchdown causes the quarterback to lose confidence in himself -- or his teammates to lose confidence in him.

Or maybe because it's six points scored against a team while they are on offense is a large swing of points and it doesn't have a ton to do with reading the quarterback's mind and knowing if he has lost confidence or not.

Fumble return touchdowns are great, but all players know that being in the right place at the right time for a scoop-and-score is almost entirely chance.

A pick-six is partly chance too. There is skill in causing a fumble, like there is skill in making an interception, but to return it for a touchdown requires a certain amount of luck that there aren't five offensive players directly around the defender who made the interception to where he has a chance to run it back for a touchdown.

Kick return touchdowns are nice, too, but they involve special teams on both sides -- and while special-teams play is important, offense and defense are more important.

Oh. Well then, I guess it's official. Someone should tell Tony Romo or Scott Norwood that special teams aren't that important. I'm sure they probably would think otherwise. I bet the Patriots and their fans think special teams are as important in the Super Bowl as offense and defense, considering they have won two Super Bowls on game-winning kicks. As a Panthers fan, I'm liable to disagree that special teams aren't as important as offense and defense considering John Kasay kicking the ball out of bounds in the Super Bowl undid all the good work that the Panthers' offense did in the fourth quarter. But yeah, special teams isn't as important as offense and defense until it is.

Gregg kills me. Special teams isn't as important as offense or defense until a team screws up on special teams. Then it suddenly becomes as important.

When the quarterback throws an interception run back for touchdown, this may mean the quarterback, the team's leader, just made a huge mistake, or that the opponent's defense is really good. Both are unsettling. Peyton Manning won his first Super Bowl, versus Chicago, then lost his next two, versus New Orleans with Indianapolis and versus Seattle with Denver. In both losses Manning threw an interception returned for a touchdown. Both times as the intercepting player scampered down the field, one could feel the air drain from Manning's team.

There was even a measurement on the scoreboard showing how much air was in each team and after Manning threw both interceptions for a touchdown the Air Drain Percentage for the Colts and Broncos increased dramatically. Everyone in the stadium saw the Air Drain Percentage go from 4.32% to 74.3% both times Manning threw a pick-six in the Super Bowl.

While I won't doubt there is a psychological component to a pick-six, part of the reason the pick-six thrown by Manning against the Saints hurt so much is it put the Saints up ahead by more than a touchdown late in the fourth quarter. So it wasn't a matter of air being drained, but a matter of the Colts then being down by more than a touchdown late in the fourth quarter. In the Super Bowl against the Seahawks, the safety on the first play of the game set the tone for the game more than anything else did, at least in my opinion.

Super Bowl XXXV was close until early in the third quarter, when Baltimore's Duane Starks intercepted a Kerry Collins pass and ran it back for a touchdown; the Giants went on to lose 34-7. There are many examples of the interception return touchdown breaking a team's psychology.

It was close, but it was also 10-0 in favor of the Ravens prior to Collins throwing this interception. Then Ron Dixon ran a kick back for a touchdown on the ensuring kickoff, putting the Giants right back in the game where it was "close" again. Then know what happened? Jermaine Lewis of the Ravens ran a kick back for a touchdown, putting the Ravens up 24-7, which really put the game out of reach for the Giants against the Ravens' defense.

Notice how Gregg points out the pick-six broke the Giants in this Super Bowl, but fails to mention the Giants special teams unit that isn't as important as offense or defense put the Giants right back in the game to where it was (in Gregg's own words) a "close" 10 point deficit for the Giants. Then the Ravens ran a kick back for a touchdown, which put the Giants right back down by 17 points. So Gregg points to the pick-six as the psychologically damaging play, but it was really the Jermaine Lewis touchdown on the kickoff that did it, because it put the Giants down by 17 points in the third quarter. The special teams unit that wasn't as important as offense or defense suddenly became as important as offense or defense in the very example Gregg uses to show the damage to a team's psyche that a pick-six can do.

Come Sunday, should Seattle or New England take an interception back for a touchdown, turn to your friends and confidently predict victory for that team. Act like you have access to some incredible Vegas insider service. And if the pick-six team doesn't win, remember this column's ironclad guarantee: All Predictions Wrong or Your Money Back.

"If I'm right, tell everyone how smart I am and know that the pick-six is a definite indicator of whether a team will win the Super Bowl or not, but if I'm wrong, then it's all a joke anyway and I have no idea what I'm talking about. When I'm right, it's because my conclusion is based on fact, when I'm wrong, it was all a joke anyway so don't take me seriously."

This is the same shit Gregg did with the Authentic Games metric. He wants it both ways. He wants credit for his accurate metric when it's right, but when it's wrong, the metric was only a joke anyway so don't take it so seriously.

In column news, it's time to name the recipient of the coveted "longest award in sports" -- Entertainment and Sports Programming Network's Tuesday Morning Quarterback Non-Quarterback Non-Running Back National Football League Most Valuable Player.

As with last year, I nominate, then readers decide. Before you jump to a conclusion spelled "J.J. Watt," remember only players from teams that reach the Super Bowl are eligible -- my logic being if one is to wear the mantle of Most Valuable, one must have created value.

And of course, how could a defensive player who had one of the best individual performances ever by a defensive player have created value for his team? According to Gregg Easterbrook, the answer is that he did not.

The idea a player doesn't create value if his team doesn't make the Super Bowl is ridiculous. Just dumb. It's the same line of thinking that MVP voters in MLB use.

Stats To Ponder No. 1: This season, when New England and Seattle win the coin flip that starts a game, they are 18-2; when losing the flip, they are 10-6. 

Clearly whichever team wins the coin flip will win the game, but what if the team that wins the coin flip gets a pick-six? What if both teams get a pick-six?

Last week, I asked readers for their favorite bottomless pits.

And if there is ever an expert on a bottomless pit, then it's Gregg. Every week TMQ is a bottomless pit of misleading information and facts withheld in order to help prove the point Gregg wants to prove that week.

Mike Turschmann of White Plains, New York, noted that in "300," Leonidas has a bottomless pit in Sparta that he uses to dispose of Persians. If Sparta could build bottomless pits 2,500 years ago, why did Persia rule the ancient world?

Because it's a fictional movie.

Ryan Ottele of Renton, Washington, notes that in "Return of the Jedi," the evil emperor ends up hurled into a bottomless pit that conveniently is about 10 feet from his throne. I know if I ruled the galaxy, I'd want a bottomless pit in my office.

Ryan Ottele of Renton, Washington should probably know that it wasn't a bottomless pit that Emperor Palpatine was thrown into, but the reactor shaft of the Death Star. So he didn't have a bottomless pit hanging around his throne, but he had a reactor shaft for the Death Star near his throne. And the reactor shaft wasn't even bottomless, as can be seen in that video where there is an explosion when Palpatine hits the bottom. So this is just a big fail by Ryan, though it would help if Gregg wouldn't print something as bottomless when it was not indeed bottomless. It would require research to find out if the "bottomless pit" was in fact a bottomless pit and Gregg has no time for silly things like research.

Spencer Ferrero of Los Angeles notes that in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," Indy has to leap across a bottomless pit, then is pulled out of an abyss -- the secret temple had one of each! -- by his father.

The secret temple didn't haven abyss, but an abyss was created when the temple started pulling apart, sort of like what happens during an earthquake when the ground separates to create an abyss.

John Yaeger of Minneapolis ‏notes there is an actual bottomless pit in Minnesota.

If Minnesota has a bottomless pit, then why don't they rule the world?

The physics of bottomless pits are never spelled out. How is one built?

I don't know, ask the people in Minnesota.

Where does the stuff go?

Well Gregg, since it's bottomless I think that question sort of answers itself doesn't it?

Why don't bottomless pits have guard rails?

Darth Vader did have to raise the Emperor over a rail before dumping him down the reactor shaft. So...maybe watch the movie or something.

Since the MVP award almost always goes to a quarterback or running back, Tuesday Morning Quarterback confers an MVP for which quarterbacks and running backs are not eligible. Given pass-wacky trends, soon the award may be the Non-QB Non-WR MVP.

Because wide receivers are winning the MVP award all the time now and all. The last time a wide receiver won the MVP award was....it was....oh yeah, never. Anyway, I think I'll worry about it becoming the non-QB non-WR MVP as soon as a wide receiver actually wins the MVP for the first time ever.

Only players from teams that reached the Super Bowl are eligible.

Which is dumb.

Cast your vote nearby. Next week's column will announce the winner.

And of course Gregg has to provide the nominations for his readers to ensure that no highly-drafted glory boy would be named non-QB non-RB MVP or anything like that. So Gregg nominates as many undrafted and lowly drafted players as possible so he can lead his readers in the direction of voting an undrafted player as non-QB non-RB MVP. This achieves the purpose of allowing Gregg to crow about how an undrafted player was voted as the winner, as if he didn't provide nominations that led the voting in that direction in the first place.

New England, offense: Dan Connolly, guard. Undrafted out of lower-division Southeast Missouri State, Connolly is the man who replaced perennial Pro Bowler Logan Mankins. For five seasons, Connolly has started almost every Patriots game. Against Indianapolis, most of the Patriots' rushing yards came up the middle between the guards. Connolly helped open holes a runner could have gone through holding a medicine ball.

You mean the guy who was rated by Pro Football Focus as the Patriots' worst offensive linemen? That guy? I'm sure those numbers don't mean anything though and Gregg's visual observation that Connolly was undrafted and plays for a team in the Super Bowl means PFF is wrong.

New England, defense: Rob Ninkovich, linebacker. Kyle Arrington, Darrelle Revis and Jamie Collins have had fine years for the Flying Elvii defense,

But two of them are highly-drafted players, so Gregg can't count them as part of this discussion for fear he won't get to go on a "Undrafted players are so valuable and here's proof" rant.

He has great instincts whether dropping into coverage or rushing the passer, and must be accounted for. Bonus: Ninkovich was let go by New Orleans (twice!) and by Miami.

That is a bonus! Obviously knowing Ninkovich was let go years ago by two NFL teams means his performance on the field in 2014 should be judged in a more positive light. Ninkovich may be a 5th round pick but he's also considered "unwanted" by Gregg.

Seattle, defense: Bobby Wagner, linebacker. On a team of defensive standouts, Wagner is the man who gets it done. Who's most "valuable" is usually hard to measure, but not in this case. Wagner missed a few games because of injury: Seattle was 3-2 without him, 11-2 with him. Offensive coordinators find Kam Chancellor, Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman annoying; Wagner makes them tear their hair out.

Wagner was a second round pick, so he's the only hope to win this award and prevent Gregg talking about how valuable undrafted players are compared to highly-drafted glory boys. You know highly drafted guys like Earl Thomas, who is the catalyst for the Seahawks' defense. Notice that Wagner's draft position is not included in the discussion of how valuable he is.

The Super Bowl may be over at the coin flip, since Pete Carroll and Bill Belichick both like to defer and their teams perform better when deferring.

Deferring is thought to confer a slight tactical advantage since the team that gets the second-half kickoff knows what happened in the first half, what tactics were used and what the scoreboard situation is. Deferring also creates the chance of the back-to-back score -- scoring to end the first half, then scoring again to begin the second half. This can be demoralizing for the opponent.

Unless that opponent then gets a pick-six, in which case they have then demoralized their opponent that got back-to-back scores. The nature of demoralization is very complicated.

New England's performance has been reasonably uniform, a 292-194 margin in the first half then a 265-157 margin after intermission. The Patriots' best quarter is the second. They've outscored opponents by 79 points in the second quarter, which has fourth-quarter tactical dynamics but lacks the drama of the fourth quarter.

I think there are certain times in TMQ that Gregg just starts rambling without totally thinking about what he's rambling about. This may be one of those times.

Since about the middle of 2013, the Seahawks have disdained the blitz -- they brought pressure on five of 65 Green Bay snaps in the NFC Championship Game, much lower than the league average of 20 percent blitzing.

But as I always say, it's not just a matter of the Seahawks deciding they aren't blitzing, it's also a matter of the fact they can get pressure with four pass rushers. Not every team can get pressure with just four rushers, so teams that are able to do this don't have to blitz as much.

Given extra time to prepare, Seattle may try to surprise Brady by offering coverages it hasn't shown on film this season.

Or they may not offer coverages not shown on film this season. It may or may not happen.

When Seattle has the ball, expect a traditionalist approach of run-run-run then play-fake and throw long. In a pass-wacky era, the Seahawks' offense is a throwback. Early three-and-outs that might frustrate other teams don't seem to frustrate the Seattle offense, 

Partially because the Seahawks' offense knows their defense is good enough to not allow points that would put the Seahawks behind by a lot in the game. It's easy to not get frustrated with a three-and-out when you know that your defense won't allow the other team to score a ton of points and the three-and-out won't cause your offense to change the game plan drastically.

New England has been using press corners this season, playing a similar style to Seattle's. Adding Revis made press corners possible for the Patriots. 

Adding Revis allowed the Patriots to change their entire defensive strategy, but he's not in the running for non-QB non-RB MVP because he's a first round pick.

Statistically, by yards, Seattle is superior to New England on offense as well as on defense. Football Outsiders finds the Patriots' special teams better,

Yeah, but special teams aren't as important as offense and defense, so I'm not even sure why Gregg is choosing to discuss special teams at all.

and three of the past five Super Bowls included important special-teams plays by the victors.

Gregg Easterbrook from earlier in the column:

Kick return touchdowns are nice, too, but they involve special teams on both sides -- and while special-teams play is important, offense and defense are more important.

Gregg Easterbrook now:

"One thing that may make a difference in the Super Bowl is special teams. Three of the last five teams to win the Super Bowls had important special teams plays by the team that won. So special teams aren't as important as offense and defense, unless it is as important as offense or defense. It depends on what point needs to be proven at that moment."

The latest New England ethical lapse -- how many times do the Patriots have to let the whole country down? -- means Bill Belichick henceforth will be Bill Belichick* to this column.

Oh God, please don't let this become a "thing" in TMQ. Please.

A Nissan commercial showing a car driving through a pack of evil living snowmen says "do not attempt." If you encounter evil living snowmen, don't drive through them!

I think what the disclaimer means is don't drive your car through a lot of snow because it could damage the car in some way. It's more fun though to be intentionally ignorant and think the disclaimer is about evil snowmen.

The last time Bill Belichick's*

Crap, it's a "thing" that Gregg is going to be doing.

Patriots reached the final contest and also were in hot water was Super Bowl XLII, versus the Giants, the season of Spygate. As punishment for cheating, the football gods denied New England the first 19-0 record in NFL history. Now the Patriots once again have reached the final contest while being in hot water. Will the football gods once again exact vengeance?

They very well could. The football gods have been punishing the Patriots for Spygate so far by only allowing them to reach two Super Bowls since Spygate was uncovered, as well as allowing them to be one of the best teams in the NFL since 2007. It's been a harsh punishment, so I don't see why it would end in this upcoming Super Bowl.

When astronomers are puzzled by unknown high-energy events in the cosmos, TMQ asks: Why assume what we are seeing is natural? Perhaps astronomers are seeing the muzzle flashes of doomsday weapons. 

This from the guy who has a real issue with the use of bottomless pits in a fictional movie. Gregg has no issue with high-energy events in the cosmos possibly being muzzle flashes of doomsday weapons. Of course if a movie tried to set up a scenario where these were muzzle flashes of doomsday weapons then Gregg would make a great effort to point out how unrealistic this and then point out the scientific fallacies which the writers of the movie ignored and should not have.

Belichick* told the packed house. Shocked, shocked! In the famous scene from "Casablanca," the moment after Captain Renault shuts down Rick's cafe because he is shocked, shocked to find out gambling was going on, the croupier walks up, hands the captain cash and says, "Your winnings, sir." Captain Renault takes the cash and says, "Thank you very much." So when Belichick* declared himself shocked about Patriots cheating, a team assistant should have walked up to the podium and said, "Your Super Bowl plane ticket, sir."

I realize Gregg is attempting to be funny, but his example isn't the same as the scenario presented in the movie. In "Casablanca," Captain Renault was handed the very object which proved he should not have been shocked by the gambling. In Gregg's scenario, a Super Bowl ticket isn't the very object which proved Belichick should not have been shocked by the deflating of footballs. If the team assistant had walked up to the podium and said, "Here is the deflated football you ordered" then Gregg's scenario would make sense. Even when making a joke, Gregg just sort of mails it in without worrying about whether the joke makes sense in the context of the real life event he's commenting on.

Newspaper front pages, the lead story of network evening newscasts, 24-7 cable news coverage -- if the Patriots doctored game balls, that's wrong, but why the four-alarm level of coverage?

One reason is simply that football is the king of sports. America is obsessed with this game, down to its minutiae. The NFL has an outsized role in society, and never hesitates to use that outsized role for money and ratings. When the NFL screws up, it's an outsized screwup.

That's the long and short of it. The NFL is very, very popular and any news that happens involving the NFL is big news. It's the main reason the deflating of footballs has led news coverage.

Initially mulling this, I was tempted to say another factor in the reaction is that so many people viscerally dislike Belichick*. But the Saints' bounty scandal and the Ray Rice imbroglio got four-alarm treatment, and neither involved Belichick*.

The fact the Patriots were involved with Spygate a few years ago had something to do with the coverage, but before mulling it too long, just know the reason the deflating of footballs story is so big is because the NFL is so big.

But on reflection I don't think the reaction to PSIcheated is about Belichick*. It's about the assumption that people reach positions of power and privilege -- in sports, business, government, school, Wall Street -- by cheating, and most are never caught.

I'm just glad Gregg is finally getting to the bottom of what this football deflating scandal is really about. Because it certainly can't be about a Hall of Fame-caliber coach and quarterback suspected of cheating for a second time. It can't be that simple. It has to be about society and the idea people in power cheat to get there. There has to be some sort of macro-level to the Patriots deflating footballs, so it can't simply be about how some people believe Belichick and Brady are found to have cheated for the second time and they are about to appear in the Super Bowl (some claim) as a direct result of cheating. That can't be it.

But if there's a fair, open competition and one person ends up with a powerful, highly remunerative position while another ends up with little or nothing, we may prefer to believe the whole thing was fixed. Seeing a powerful, wealthy person caught cheating reinforces this.

Or many people just don't like the idea one team is cheating in order to win games. Or many people don't like the Patriots and can't wait to eviscerate them for getting caught violating NFL rules for a second time.

Postscript No. 3: TMQ regularly reminds -- including in this 2007 column as Spygate started

I find it interesting that Gregg links a column from 2007 and refers to it as when "Spygate started" considering a few years ago he tried to justify his whole "The Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl or had postseason success because of football gods punished them" stance based on Spygate not really having started until AFTER the Patriots lost the Super Bowl to the Giants. Gregg wanted to push the start of Spygate to the end of the season to justify his insistence the Patriots had not had postseason success since Spygate occurred. I can't find the exact TMQ, but that was Gregg's position. When called out on this being incorrect, I recall Gregg mealy-mouthed his way around it by saying Spygate didn't start until the Patriots were punished for it. So basically, I find it interesting he acknowledges Spygate started before the 2007 season started, because that wasn't always his position when he had a point he wanted to prove.

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

This is an excellent example of how Gregg's position on an issue will change depending on what he wants to prove. After most NFL seasons, Gregg writes in TMQ about "hyper specificity" and how there is no difference in a player running a 4.41 40-yard dash and a 4.48 40-yard dash because both should be rounded to 4.4 or 4.5. All of a sudden, Brady's hand size isn't 9 inches or 10 inches wide. Not at all. Now Gregg embraces hyper specificity and says Brady's hand size is 9.4 inches long. In fact, here is Gregg mocking those who do exactly what he's doing here.

Football is wild for absurd precision. Here, a combine 40-yard dash time is touted as "4.27" seconds, trailing only a record of "4.24" seconds. A player who runs a "4.24" is half of 1 percent faster than a player who runs a "4.27," and would finish a 40-yard dash three inches ahead.

Maryland just raised its state income tax rate to 8.95 percent. It's certainly not 9 percent!

Medicare taxes are rising this year by 0.9 percent for many filers to help finance ObamaCare. It's certainly not a 1 percent increase!

When Gregg has a point to prove, he is allowed to use hyper specificity, but it's outrageous when anyone else dares to say Medicare taxes are rising 0.9 percent rather than 1.0 percent. Gregg's own rules need not apply to himself.

In the aftermath of Green Bay facing four fourth-and-1s in the NFC Championship Game and kicking four times, many readers, including Rebecca Wayne of Bellingham, Washington, noted that as the decisions happened, Fox's on-air announcers seemed to agree. She wrote, "So in hindsight Mike McCarthy was wrong but it wasn't obvious in real time."

In most fourth-and-short situations, on-air personnel for CBS, ESPN, Fox and NBC (CBS provides the booth crew for NFL Network broadcasts) express approval when the coach sends out the kicking unit. Announcers tend to assume that if coaches who do nothing all year but study football think kicking on fourth-and-short is the right move, they must be right.

This could be true. What is also true is that most play-by-play guys are older and the analysts tend to be older ex-football players as well. I view going for it on fourth down as a more progressive and more recent trend. Those people, like on-air personnel, that don't have to make the decision and have traditionally favored taking points over going for it on fourth down will think the head coach did the right thing by taking the points. It's why Twitter blows up with negativity when a coach like Mike McCarthy kicks a field goal so close to the end zone. Twitter trends younger and younger people tend to favor the more aggressive and progressive tactics, while the tactic of "take the points" isn't as entrenched in them as it is the older play-by-play guys and analysts. It's my small little theory about why on-air personnel tend to seem more conservative.

It's obvious when athletes make errors -- interceptions are not supposed to happen -- but not obvious when coaches err, thus they receive the benefit of the doubt. Announcers even use the "have to" construction. As in, "It's fourth-and-1, the Screaming Lemurs have to punt."

Again, they favor less aggressive tactics because going for it on fourth down being supported by data stating this is the right strategy is a relatively new thing. It's why baseball announcers also tend to be more conservative and less accepting of newer Sabermetric principles. They call the game based on how they played/grew up around the game, which may be slightly different from how the current game is played in terms of strategy.

Blame-shifting is essential to understanding why so many football coaches opt for the "safe" tactic even if it reduces the odds of winning. Of course every coach wants to win, but that is not necessarily the No. 1 objective in the coach's mind. Avoiding criticism, and thus prolonging job security, may be objective No. 1.

Mike McCarthy just signed a new contract extension that takes him through 2018 and it's probably worth more than the $5 million per year he got in his last contract extension. So why would McCarthy give a shit about job security? If he gets fired, the Packers will be paying him for four seasons that he doesn't even coach the team. Job security isn't objective No. 1. Maybe this blanket criticism is correct for other head coaches, but Gregg can't explain away why McCarthy was conservative against Seattle with this "job security" explanation. It doesn't pass the bullshit test.

Usually coaches are criticized for fourth-down tries -- Belichick* was hammered for going for it in Patriots territory at Indianapolis. McCarthy's situation is a rare case of a coach criticized for doing the "safe" thing.

Probably because it was so egregious. Gregg explains job security is the concern of a coach when he decides not to go for it on fourth down. I don't think that pertains to McCarthy, so I would love to know if Gregg thinks McCarthy is that concerned about avoiding criticism. I can't believe McCarthy would have that thin of skin.

Football aside: Yours truly watched the tape of the fourth-and-1 decisions and was struck by this: All four times Aaron Rodgers trotted off passively, not arguing to go for it. Can anyone believe Brett Favre in this situation would have trotted off passively? This may be emblematic of the difference between the modern analytics-based, emotionally cool approach to sports and old-fashioned passion for athletic battle.

For the love of God, running off the field and throwing a tantrum like a child or questioning the head coach while yelling at him IS NOT LEADERSHIP! It is not. I wish Gregg would get this out of his head. Maybe Favre would trot off passively, maybe he wouldn't. Rodgers was probably thinking about how the Packers left opportunities to score on the field instead of thinking about showing "leadership" by acting like a child and stomping off the field.

Trotting off passively has nothing to do with an analytics-based approach to sports. It has to do with real leaders not questioning their coach publicly or acting like a spoiled brat in cases where that quarterback doesn't agree with the decision of his coach. Is leadership showing fellow teammates that it's okay to question the coach? Is leadership showing fellow teammates that it's okay to act like a spoiled brat? This is not leadership.

Political aside: Hillary Clinton is so far ahead in the early polls that the very size of the lead ought to make her nervous. The Packers thought a 16-0 lead was insurmountable, too.

I'm sure Hillary Clinton knows that being far ahead in an early poll isn't the same thing as the Packers having a 16-0 lead in a football playoff game. If only Gregg knew it.

Next Week: That Super Bowl thing you might have heard about.

Actually the Super Bowl takes place this week. Is this an example of Reverse-Creep where Gregg talks about an event occurring next week when it really takes place this week?