2 comments Allen Barra Thinks Everyone Who Thinks Derek Jeter Shouldn't Be in the Hall of Fame (Very Few People) Specifically Stats Nerds (Why Them?) are Just Plain Wrong

Allen Barra is very proud of the way he has mastered Jemele Hill's art of creating an argument few people are making and refuting this argument. He's so proud he has mastered this he is showing off his new found skill in an article about Derek Jeter. See, those haters and stats nerds who don't think Jeter should be in the Hall of Fame are wrong. There is the fake argument. It's an argument that doesn't exist. There are probably a few people who don't think Derek Jeter should be in the Hall of Fame, but there isn't a vast conspiracy of stats heads who don't think Jeter should be in the Hall Fame. Yet, Barra insists there is. Hence, he refutes the argument that few are making. Very impressive.

Barra is well-known for loving himself some Derek Jeter. So much so his Wikipedia makes mention of this fact. So much like Jemele Hill (when she wrote more than she does now) would write an article entitled, "Rex Ryan is not a racist who dresses like a clown and has sex with vagrants" and then disprove this idea, Allen Barra is very pissed off that the stats nerds and haters who generally don't exist think Derek Jeter shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

To my knowledge, what the Baseball Hall of Fame did yesterday was unique: It tweeted the date for an induction ceremony for a still active player to be welcomed into Cooperstown. The date, if you want to make your reservations now, is July 26, 2020. (A player must be retired for five years before he goes on the ballot.) And if I were you, I wouldn’t wait.

Allen Barra will be there with a picture of Derek Jeter that he wants autographed, along with some boxers that he sucker-punched Minka Kelly for on a brisk, autumn day as she was walking down the street with Jeter's dirty laundry. Obviously Derek Jeter would never have a washing machine in his abode, because Derek Jeter has no dirty laundry anywhere near him. So after Barra sucker-punched Kelly he got a pair of Jeter's boxers and one of Jeter's jock straps that he sniffs every morning in order to wake up in a good mood. So let's just say, Barra will be there at the induction ceremony in 2020. Even if he's dead, he has paid for a hologram of himself to show up at the induction ceremony.

Not only will Derek Jeter be a first ballot selection, he may well be what Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Bob Feller, Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron weren’t  – 

Super-cute and still a little bit mysterious?

a unanimous choice.

Oh. I don't think Jeter will be unanimous, though I have learned through the years to never underestimate a sportswriter's love for Derek Jeter. I just think if Greg Maddux can't get into the Hall of Fame unanimously then Jeter will probably miss a few votes too.

If that happens, and I think there’s a very good chance that it will

Really? "A very good chance?" No baseball player has ever gone into the Hall of Fame unanimously and a surefire guy like Greg Maddux wasn't voted in unanimously, but there's a good chance Jeter is the first unanimous selection? I wouldn't take a bet that Jeter will be the first baseball Hall of Fame member to be voted in unanimously.

If one had to synthesize most of the recent Jeter coverage under one headline, it would be: Is Derek Jeter a True Hall of Famer or Is He Overrated?

If I had to synthesize my response to this then I would have to do so in two parts:

1. What the fuck is a "True Hall of Famer" mean when this is in all-caps? Is Jim Rice a "True Hall of Famer" or just a "Hall of Famer"?

2. Derek Jeter can be a Hall of Famer and be overrated. They are not mutually exclusive from each other.

I guess I forgot that we live in a world where there is no medium and a person has to take either one extreme viewpoint or another. This world is better known as "A lazy way to write a column" and right now Allen Barra is happily inhabiting this world.

There isn’t any doubt that he is going to get into the Hall of Fame. Only nine players in the history of baseball have more hits than Jeter. He’s a 13-time All-Star with five World Series rings. And he’s tremendously popular. If you put down a deposit on a hotel room in Cooperstown for July 2020, it’s good as gold.

I think it is universally accepted that Derek Jeter is going in the Hall of Fame. Even the stats nerds who think Jeter is a bit overrated as it pertains to fielding accept this view (which it turns out Barra accepts this view...only he doesn't acknowledge he accepts this view because that would be a criticism of Derek Jeter, which is against the rules). Quite simply, the group of people that Allen Barra believes to exist does not in fact exist.

Those who have cast doubts about his HOF worthiness have always stressed  the lack of bold numbers on his statistics page on BaseballReference.com. In other words, he never led the league in many offensive categories.

Part of the problem is Allen Barra is too busy being angry and pounding angrily at his keyboard with his vitriol directed at anyone who says Jeter isn't the best Hall of Famer in the history of Hall of Famers that he doesn't understand the argument being made. The argument isn't about Jeter not being Hall of Fame worthy, but the argument is that Jeter is just a bit overrated. Barra doesn't comprehend that Jeter can be a Hall of Famer and a bit overrated. It's possible.

This is true. He only led the league in runs scored in 1998 and in hits in 1999 and 2012, and HOFers have usually topped the list in more stats than that.

So in the realm of the "The best baseball players of all-time" Jeter might be getting a big boost for his clean reputation, that he has only played for one team during his career and the fact he has been on five World Series champion teams. Few are saying Jeter should not be in the Hall of Fame and if anyone is saying that then that person is not intelligent. Jeter should be in the Hall of Fame, but his intangibles and being "a winner" seem to help make his Hall of Fame case for him, which means in terms of statistics he is a bit overrated. I realize it is a sin to even acknowledge that Jeter may not be perfect or slightly overrated in some aspect or another.

He was never quite a match for the top superstars of his era. Or as Ted Berg put it in USA Today (in a piece titled “Derek Jeter is the most fervently overrated shoo-in for the Hall of Fame”), 

Oh, so Allen Barra has read the article, he just can't read and comprehend what he is reading. Great.

“In terms of overall value to his teams, Jeter just doesn’t stack up to recent historic greats like Albert Pujols and Barry Bonds, and can’t quite match great contemporaries like Chipper Jones and Jeff Bagwell either.”

This is also true, but not to the point.

It's exactly the point if you are writing an article stating that you bet Derek Jeter will be the first unanimous Hall of Fame selection. If Jeter can't match his great contemporaries like Bagwell, Bonds, Pujols, and Jones then how does he deserve to be the first unanimous Hall of Fame member? Therefore, one could logically deduce that since Jeter could be the only member of the Hall of Fame unanimously voted in then he could be a slightly overrated. So the fact Jeter doesn't measure up to his contemporaries is exactly the point. If Jeter isn't as good as his contemporaries then how would he deserve to be the first, and only, unanimous Hall of Fame selection?

Jeter is a greater player than a Yankee shortstop of the 1940s and early 1950s, Phil Rizzuto, who is in the Hall of Fame. Nobody said Rizzuto should not be inducted because “He doesn’t quite stack up with Ted Williams and Stan Musial.”

No one was saying that Rizzuto was probably going to be the first unanimous Hall of Fame selection either.

For that matter, of the 23 shortstops in the Hall of Fame, Jeter is probably more worthy than all but three or four – Honus Wagner, for sure, probably Arky Vaughan, maybe Cal Ripken and Ernie Banks (who is officially listed as a first baseman, though he won back-to-back MVPs at shortstop).

I don't know that anyone is arguing this point that Jeter is very, very deserving of being in the Hall of Fame. I think the point being made is that Jeter is slightly overrated, which is especially true if he is unanimously elected into the Hall of Fame. Jeter isn't even the best shortstop of all-time, much less the best baseball player of all-time, so a unanimous selection would be overrating him a bit.

I don’t trust any of the supposedly scientific measures of fielding ability, but here are two that surely have  some measure of validity: Jeter’s career fielding percentage, going into the 2014 season, is .976, compared to the average for players at this position over the same period has been .972.

The fact you don't trust (though more likely this means, "I don't understand them and don't care to understand them") scientific measures of fielding ability is a reflection on you, not a reflection on the fielding metric itself. A fielder can't commit an error on a ball he can't get to. So Jeter's career fielding percentage is great compared to other fielders at his position, but there are metrics that measure what balls a shortstop was able to get to as part of how well he fielded his position. That's what makes Andrelton Simmons such a great fielder, that he gets to balls other shortstops can not get to, which means he is a better fielder because he can get to these balls. See how it works? So Jeter's career fielding percentage is great, but if you don't argue on the merits of the argument this fictional conspiracy of stats heads are using to keep Jeter out of the Hall of Fame then there is no point in arguing. The merits in this situation are that stats heads point out how Jeter's range was limited for portions of his career according to UZR, so refuting this by pointing out Jeter's fielding percentage misses the point completely.

His range in the field has been four chances per nine innings while other shortstops over the same span averaged 4.5. I’d say that on the whole this indicates that Jeter was an average fielding shortstop, perhaps a tad below average.

Which is the argument advanced by stats heads who insist on pointing out that Jeter was indeed an average to below-average shortstop at times during his career. Yet, the Gold Gloves kept piling up, which didn't always make sense. THAT is the point being made, so thanks for helping that point to be proven.

But he hit and ran the bases well enough for the Yankees to keep him there regardless of his defensive deficiencies.

In any event, he isn’t going into the Hall of Fame because of his fielding – he’s going in because of his hitting and base running.

But...but...but...the point being made is that Jeter is a tad overrated because he wasn't a great fielder according to some advanced fielding metrics. It seems that Allen Barra is willing to concede this point while still violently clutching to the idea that there is no way Derek Jeter was overrated in any way.

Let’s save time and compare Jeter to a hitter who everyone acknowledges as a legitimate Hall of Famer – or at least they would if Pete Rose hadn’t  tarted betting on baseball games.

An editor is badly needed for this sentence. Again, comparing Pete Rose to Derek Jeter isn't going to convince the vast conspiracy of stats heads that don't exist that Derek Jeter deserves to be in the Hall of Fame...mostly because this group doesn't seem to exist. Have I mentioned they don't exist yet? Allen Barra seems to have critically misread Ted Berg's column for "USA Today." I'm not even sure he read it at this point.

Writing, "Derek Jeter should be in the Hall of Fame because he favorably compares to Pete Rose" doesn't mean that Derek Jeter isn't overrated nor does it mean Jeter should be the first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee. Barra's argument is just so silly. His points so far about why stats heads are wrong about Jeter are:

1. Fine, they aren't wrong about the main criticism of Jeter, which is his fielding. Still, don't be a hater and stats heads are still wrong.

2. Jeter is a perfectly average fielder and to call him an excellent fielder is wrong, but fuck it, let's do it anyway.

3. Derek Jeter isn't overrated and should be a first ballot Hall of Famer because he compares favorably to Pete Rose.

4. Mostly, you know that argument that Ted Berg made that Derek Jeter is a Hall of Famer, yet still a little overrated? Well, he's wrong because Derek Jeter is a Hall of Famer no matter what Ted Berg never said otherwise.

Jeter’s career batting average is .312 to Rose’s .303, and even if Derek played another five seasons to match Pete’s 24 years, and his skills declined over that time as Rose’s did late in his career, Jeter would still end up with a higher batting average.

Jeter has a higher on-base percentage than Rose, .381 to .375, and had a considerably better slugging percentage, .446 to .409.  When you combine these two numbers into the stat beloved by so many analysts, on-base plus slugging, Jeter has an even bigger edge, .828 to .784.

I think rather than spending time proving that Derek Jeter is a Hall of Famer because he compares favorably to Pete Rose, Allen Barra should spend time looking for all these stats heads who say Derek Jeter shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame so the entire premise of his article doesn't seem like a joke or a desperate attempt to defend Jeter's honor.

And, if you want to throw in fielding, whatever shortcomings Jeter has had with a glove, he was better than Rose, who was never more than adequate at any of the several positions he played.

What a disaster. If the premise of this article was supposed to be "Derek Jeter was a better baseball player than Pete Rose" than these comparisons to Rose would be pertinent. Unfortunately it's not the premise and these comments about Jeter being a better player than Rose are not pertinent and in no way tells us why the fictional stats heads who don't want Jeter in the Hall of Fame are wrong.

If you check my Wikipedia page – and I’m not advising you to since just about everything on it is wrong – you’ll find reference to a Deadspin story back in 2009 titled “Jesus Is the Derek Jeter of Christianity.” The author (unnamed) says that I “think Derek Jeter should win the MVP despite the pesky fact that Joe Mauer is a better candidate …”

The author was in fact not unnamed. It was "Junior" from "Fire Joe Morgan." Clearly, Barra seems to show a willing lack of reading comprehension on various levels and not just when it comes to reading articles that pertain to Derek Jeter.

I never said Joe Mauer was a better MVP candidate than Jeter. What I said was that most of Mauer’s statistics were better and that “the case for Mr. Jeter” – the Wall Street Journal makes you refer to men who are living as “Mr.” – “as American League MVP is made by more subjective arguments.”

Well unfortunately the MVP award isn't a subjective award where you can be like Bernie Miklasz and state that because you see a guy like Yadier Molina play everyday and know what he means to his team then that means he should be MVP. So subjective attributes like leadership, banging supermodels/actresses/brunette women in general and being a nice guy aren't quantifiable and therefore shouldn't be taken into account when selecting an MVP.

Come on, are you going to tell me that Derek Jeter wasn’t a great teammate and that he didn’t contribute to his team in ways that don’t necessarily show up in a box score?

It's obvious with this sentence being written that Barra has missed the point entirely. The point isn't that Jeter doesn't contribute in ways that don't show up in the box score or he isn't a great teammate. The point is that the MVP is decided by statistics and which player is most valuable in tangible terms to his team. I don't know if Barra is smart enough to know he's making a typical straw man argument. The argument isn't about whether Derek Jeter is a great teammate, but about whether Jeter's performance exceeded Joe Mauer's performance in 2009 to where he should be named MVP over Mauer. Barra is the typical sportswriter who is incapable of arguing on the merits of what is being discussed without changing topics or countering with a straw man argument.

Except maybe in the “win” category?

Wins are a team statistic and should be somewhat irrelevant as it pertains to an MVP vote. A win or loss for the Yankees is partially representative of the teammates that Jeter has around him.

After all, the Yankees did win the American League pennant and the World Series that year. And really, why would Jeter need special arguments to be an MVP in a year when he hit .334 with 18 home runs, 212 hits, 107 runs scored, 30 stolen bases and an OBA of .406?

I'm not sure what "OBA" is, though it appears to be "OBP." The fact Barra can't put three letters together accurately shouldn't be a shock given his apparently inability for reading comprehension.

Also, Mauer hit .365 with 28 home runs, 191 hits, 94 runs scored, 4 stolen bases and an OBP of .444. He did this in 523 at-bats while Derek Jeter had 634 at-bats. I think the 21 fewer hits and 13 fewer runs scored can sufficiently be explained by the 111 fewer at-bats that Mauer had during the season. Of course, this requires analysis to understand and Allen Barra appears incapable of understanding an article he is reading and what it states, so I wouldn't expect him to understand that Jeter had over 100 more at-bats than Mauer and what this means for Jeter's statistics.

Have some of us overrated him a bit? A bit, maybe, but we’ll happily bear that cross.

So it is possible for Jeter to be a Hall of Famer and a little bit overrated. Also, if Jeter is a little bit overrated then how in the holy hell does he "deserve" to be the first unanimous Hall of Famer? This makes not of sense. No Hall of Fame inductee has ever been unanimously inducted, so I still don't get why Jeter should be that first inductee to be unanimous. Also, where in this article is there any evidence that stats heads are wrong about Jeter? Was that just a cheap way to try and get pageviews, by trolling the audience?

See you in Cooperstown in 2020.

Which is where Derek Jeter deserves to be and no fictional stats heads conspiracy has said differently. 

2 comments It's Okay, This Column was Written by a Freelance Contributor

ESPN is an easy target for a lot of people. I include myself in that category of "people," in case you were wondering. I tend to focus more on ESPN's writers rather than ESPN as a whole, but the point remains the same in many ways when I am focusing on a specific writer for writing a column I thought was bad or very much disagreed with. Mark Cuban and Bill Simmons got in a Twitter fight, well it wasn't quite a "fight" since at this point Simmons had not responded to what Mark Cuban had said about him on Twitter. A Mark Cuban/Bill Simmons Twitter fight isn't quite a huge ESPN issue, especially since Simmons is only tangentially related to ESPN through Grantland at this point. I what caused a lot of Mark Cuban's frustration with Bill Simmons' Twitter comment (which I will get to in a minute) is his frustration with ESPN's coverage of LeBron and the discussion he had with Skip Bayless after the Finals were over.

There seems to be an overwhelming attitude at ESPN of "We are ESPN, we are big, so we are going to do whatever the fuck we want to do." When one of their employees is caught in a somewhat-scandal over using Wikipedia, ESPN comes back with a sort of "boys will be boys" type response. If it isn't a "boys will be boys" response, it certainly doesn't seem like a response that shows any type of concern for what was discussed about Lynn Hoppes copying and re-wording Wikipedia entries.

The exact statement by ESPN in that situation consisted basically of saying "it was an example of journalistic laziness and we've addressed it." This wasn't simply AN example of journalistic laziness, it was a pattern of journalistic laziness. There were repeated examples of Wikipedia entries copied and re-worded. Just look at how often Lynn Hoppes re-worded or copies a Wikipedia entry over the last few years. That's a pattern, not a single example, of journalistic laziness. It's not even laziness, that's outright copying. Laziness is doing this once or twice over a year or two, while re-wording or copying Wikipedia entries repeatedly is a pattern that shows Hoppes relied on this information to help write his columns.

No one wants to see Hoppes publicly executed or his body hung by a cross in the hot sun for an entire week to show his contrition, but to downplay this as a sort of incident that could result in a slap on the wrist or that it doesn't concern ESPN that other writers may be doing this is concerning to me. That's a pretty big deal to re-word Wikipedia entries or copy them like Lynn Hoppes did. Yet, ESPN doesn't seem to have a sense of urgency or concern in the statement they released. It's a "we've dealt with this already, so please stop talking about it" type of statement. ESPN wants us to continue watching and reading, but they seem displeased when having to give us a reason to believe that what we are watching or reading is an original thought. I feel like they want the public to trust them because they are ESPN.

It's a pattern that can be seen in other ESPN employees as well. I received an email recently from someone who stumbled across this blog and he linked a passage about Fred Jackson that Gregg Easterbrook wrote in TMQ. It was a passage where Gregg was showing the type of criticism that Fred Jackson had gotten and why he had not started at running back in high school. Gregg said Jackson was "too small" and "too slow." I wanted Gregg to cite exactly where he got this specific criticism of Fred Jackson. Gregg seems to do this all the time, quote certain articles that aren't linked. He did it when he called Julio Jones a diva last year and he did it when discussing why Fred Jackson didn't start at running back in high school. I searched at the time I wrote the TMQ post, but couldn't find anything. I didn't look in the most obvious place perhaps.

I didn't come up with much of the following the research, so all the credit goes to the kind gentleman who emailed me about this. I didn't ask if I could use his name, so I won't. Either way, he seemed to show me Gregg Easterbrook makes use of Wikipedia as well in this instance and I would bet this isn't the first or only time Gregg has used completely uncited criticism from Wikipedia in TMQ. It's one thing to use Wikipedia for facts, but Gregg used Wikipedia to cite an opinion as if it were fact from an actual scouting report of Fred Jackson out of high school, which I completely disagree with doing.

The TMQ post I wrote is here.

Gregg wrote the following:

Runner-up: Fred Jackson, tailback, Buffalo. Jackson never started a game in high school, being "too small" and "too slow."

I wrote the following:

Usually when a writer puts words in quotation marks he is actually quoting something that exists in literature. I'd love to see Gregg provide proof that Jackson didn't start a game in high school because he was "too small" and "too slow." This may be true, and I'm not English teacher, but I'm pretty sure if you put words in quotes they need to be an actual quote that exists and not the figment of the writer imagining what was said. Mostly likely Gregg did here what he usually does, which is deceive his readers into believing these were words used on an actual evaluation of Jackson's skill set in high school. He attempts to deceive his readers by putting "too small" and "too slow" in quotes as if this came from a specific evaluation of Jackson in high school.

It turns out I was wrong, Gregg did have a citation, he just didn't tell us about it. He seemed to have directly copied this evaluation of Jackson directly from Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page, which states:

Jackson attended Lamar High School (Arlington, Texas) and although he was a member of the powerful Lamar Vikings teams of the late 1990s, he never started a game in his two years on the varsity. Back then he was considered too small (5-8, 160 pounds) and too slow. He began his senior year as a third-string running back, and only after a knee injury to starter Justin Faust (headed to Stanford), was he elevated to second-string behind Tommicus Walker (headed to TCU).

The emphasis in red is mine from the Wikipedia entry on Fred Jackson that was emailed to me. So it appears Gregg Easterbrook enjoys the use of Wikipedia as well. The issue I have with this is Gregg isn't discussing a fact. It isn't a fact that Fred Jackson was considered too small or too slow. This is an opinion. Yet, it seems Gregg uses the opinion of Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page writer as empirical proof for why Jackson didn't start in high school. That's a bit shady to me. It's fine to use Wikipedia to research facts, but I'm not sure we can trust a Wikipedia entry to provide opinion-based information like whether a player was "too small" or "too slow" to start in high school. If this were from an official Scout.com or Rivals.com scouting report I think it has much more credibility...but not an evaluation of Fred Jackson on Wikipedia. Yet, that's the information Gregg Easterbrook relied upon. Who knew such a lofty and well-known writer like Gregg Easterbrook did his research in Wikipedia? Now I know why he doesn't cite or provide a link to a lot of the criticism he uses in TMQ. Most likely he's just looking for some sort of comment on the Internet which agrees with his point of view and he doesn't want us to know where he got the information from. I don't know what other conclusion I can come to.

So we know about the journalists of ESPN and their propensity to use Wikipedia. There have also been instances of ESPN freelancers doing whatever the hell it was that Sarah Phillips was doing and even making up interviews that were done with an athlete, even though the athlete denies there was ever an interview. In both instances ESPN hid behind the idea these interviews were done by freelancers, as if in some way they weren't responsible for content that was put on ESPN.com or any ESPN.com affiliates. That's the good thing about freelancers. You can blame them when something goes wrong, but also take the credit (by having the freelancer's story on your site) when the story is done very well.

ESPN said, in response to Awful Announcing questioning what had happened in the case of fake interview,:

"The story was written by a freelance contributor. We removed the story as soon as we discovered sourcing questions and are looking into those."

ESPN, much like in the Sarah Phillips case, is very quick to point out this was done by a freelance contributor and doesn't reflect on the journalistic standard ESPN wants to be held to. I'm sure you can excuse the audience's confusion since this article appeared on an ESPN.com site. This incident with a freelance contributor, which ESPN is in no way affiliated with outside of publishing his material on their website, had "sourcing issues" which I commonly refer to as "making shit up." I don't know what type of "sourcing issue" an interview published detailing an interview that never actually took place might be, but it sounds a lot less like a sourcing problem and more like an honesty problem.

It was clear from the Sarah Phillips incident(s) that ESPN doesn't hold their freelance contributors to as high of a standard as their ESPN-employed writers. It seems in their excuse-filled apologies ESPN treats their freelance contributors like the weird uncle-by-marriage of the company's online presence.

"Uncle Dave always drinks too much at weddings. He isn't our uncle by blood though, purely through marriage."

I understand that things go wrong and with all of the articles that get published on ESPN.com and their affiliates sometimes things go really wrong. I don't want ESPN to lay their soul bare in apologizing, but the excuse a person was a freelance contributor and some vague promise to look into "sourcing issues" with the interview doesn't feel right to me. You want your audience to believe the content on your site is informational and original, then don't you owe to your audience to not separate yourself from your contributor and then provide no promise of doing better the next time?

I can talk around this all day, but ESPN can get away with it. The reason they can get away with it is because they have no competition. That day will end though. ESPN will get competition and they will have to compete for their share of the sports market. Let's all keep waiting for that day. It will come.

So back to the Mark Cuban-Bill Simmons one-sided Twitter war. It's not even a war because in typical Simmons fashion, he hasn't responded. This is the same reason Bill doesn't allow comments on his columns. He doesn't want feedback and he ignores any criticism he gets because it discourages his own held point of view that many of the things he says and does are absolutely correct simply because he says and does them. That recent article on "The Onion" hit the nail on the head.

I think much of Mark Cuban's frustration stemmed from his appearance on "First Take" when he eviscerated Skip Bayless and others like him. He's tired of being second-guessed by those who don't have experience running an NBA team. I'm not going to defend the Maverick's moves this offseason, that's not the point, nor will I say the whole "he doesn't have experience on a championship team" statement is persuasive either. We all know Bill Simmons wants to be an NBA GM. He did nothing short of beg-without-begging to be the Bucks and Timberwolves GM over the last 4-5 years. This non-exchange with Cuban is part of the reason in my opinion Bill's being a GM of an NBA team can't happen. It's the major divide between being a journalist with an opinion and believing you can run an NBA team. Bill is great at documenting what happens in the NBA and his original Tweet I thought was funny and accurate.

Put it this way: I wasn't crazy about Elton Brand and Chris Kaman playing together in 2006 when they were still good.

But Bill is the guy who documents and writes the book of basketball. He isn't the type of person who creates and is responsible for the events in the book of basketball. There's a difference in a how a GM/owner wants to run an NBA team and how a GM/owner is able to run an NBA team. Bill is a writer. His ideas are sometimes good, but reality doesn't give a shit about great ideas. That's why I make fun of his "Who says no?" comments. A good idea is great, but the implementation of that great idea is hard to do. There are more than just two people with an opinion involved. Bill does a (generally) good job of documenting (and dissecting) what happens in the NBA. Bill has no idea what he would have done other than not sign Elton Brand or Chris Kaman. If he had an idea, I'm sure we would have heard it by now.

There is a divide between those who know NBA basketball and those who run NBA basketball teams. I think the divide is clear here. Mark Cuban responded to Bill:

@sportsguy33. They next smart personnel comment you mae will be your first

Mark Cuban deleted that Tweet eventually for some reason. Bill is a know-it-all type guy. It rubs people the wrong way. Dan Gilbert, the owner (I originally had Gilbert as the GM of the Cavs. As a commenter noted, that wouldn't probably end well) of the Cavs, actually Retweeted this comment by Mark Cuban at Bill Simmons. I wouldn't rank Dan Gilbert as one of the top 5 owners in the NBA by any means, but I find it interesting we have two of the most Twitter-active NBA owners showing ESPN's top NBA guy (he is ESPN's top NBA guy when it comes to opinions and influence...at least in my opinion) he doesn't have their respect. Maybe it is two owners being bitter or angry, but do we really believe Bill could be an NBA GM and deal with personalities like Mark Cuban and Dan Gilbert on a regular basis? I'm not sure he could. Running an NBA team is a different world from pretending you can run an NBA team because you think you have great ideas.

Of course then the one-sided conversation went downhill and Mark Cuban ruined his point when responding to someone defending Simmons...a guy named Mufasa-7000 (maybe he is a big "Lion King" fan?).

@mcuban @sportsguy33 Well to be fair, Simmons also didn't let an entire championship team minus the superstar walk away for nothing.

Followed by Mark Cuban's silly response...

@CmackChase @sportsguy33 possibly because he has never had any involvement with a championship team.

That's just silly. It puts Mark Cuban in a position to never be criticized by anyone who hasn't won a title. My point, and I think I do have one, is that Bill Simmons can't be an NBA GM/VP of Common Sense. He's good at what he does, which is get people to read his columns and NBA opinions. Bill Simmons did have a point. Elton Brand and Chris Kaman isn't a great combination power forward-center for the Mavericks. I think his debate after the NBA Finals win by the Heat still has Mark Cuban in a fit and he is overly-sensitive to criticism from anyone at ESPN at this point.

If Bill Simmons was a freelance contributor he could create an entire interview he had with Mark Cuban where Cuban admits he was wrong and try to pass this off on Grantland as a real interview that occurred. Or Bill could base all of his Chris Kaman or Elton Brand-related criticism on something written in Wikipedia. It seems that's the safer way for him to go.

15 comments Instead of Worrying About Helmet Safety, Let's Make the Field Softer!

Gregg Easterbrook is still talking about concussions in the NFL. That discussion was so last week. I refuse to be somewhat nice to Gregg two weeks in a row, so I will say he is still semi-right about helmet safety. I guess he has realized when he talks about actual football he tends to sound pretty dumb at times, so he wants to stick to discussing concussions and the proper helmets that football players should wear. The title is "Concussions are a huge issue in football." Clearly the creative juices of ESPN's editors are really flowing.

If football wants to make a fundamental change in protecting players from neurological harm -- and to avoid being regulated out of business by Congress -- rules tinkering won't do. Radical change is required.

You know the real problem isn't the players or the helmets, it is the field. Football should be played on a field that consists of only marshmallows being supported by a layer of cotton candy underneath it. The players hit the ground and would only get a sugar rush. The players aren't the problem, it is the ground that is the issue. Change the playing surface before someone dies from the dangerous surface that is planet Earth!

Here's how: Put padding on the outside of the helmet, so the helmet stops being a weapon.

Here's a problem...if a football player knows he has padding outside the helmet he will definitely attempt to use this non-weapon as a weapon. After all, if the helmet doesn't seem to be a weapon there wouldn't be any harm in using it as a weapon. I'm pretty sure even with the outside shell helmets the players could learn to use them as weapons.

I've been told the padding outside the helmet doesn't hurt at all. I am assuming these people haven't been hit by a 260 pound linebacker you don't see coming. Much like how safety belts and airbags have been shown in some studies to lead to more car accidents because people believe they can drive more recklessly, putting padding on the outside of the helmet could lead to more players leading with their head. It is a possibility.

So pad the outside. It's been tried before, and it worked.

Hey maybe it will work. Or players could just accept the fact football is a violent sport. It's not like anyone trapped them into playing in the NFL under the impression there was no tackling.

Mark Kelso, a safety for the Bills from 1986 to 1993, wore an outer-padded helmet as a starter in four Super Bowls and finished with 30 career NFL interceptions. Many highly drafted, highly paid safeties wish they could say they had a career as good as Kelso did.

All because of the padded helmet. It gave him more skills!

Steve Wallace, an offensive tackle for the 49ers from 1986 to 1997, wore an outer-padded helmet and made the Pro Bowl. Many highly drafted, highly paid tackles wish they could say they played as well as Wallace did.

It is good to see an outer helmet doesn't affect a player's ability to play well. I think we have that covered. I'm a little confused. Wallace wore the outer-padded helmet, but his wikipedia page says,

"Throughout his career, Wallace endured many concussions, and was known for wearing a styrofoam helmet atop his normal helmet to reduce the impact."

Did he suffer the concussions before or after he wore the styrofoam helmet on his normal helmet? I would assume he suffered the concussions before he wore the styrofoam helmet atop his normal helmet. More importantly, Gregg does realize these styrofoam helmets can fall off when one player hits another player wearing one? It sounds like a reasonable suggestion, but the outer helmet can fall off. So the outer helmet doesn't seem to be a cure-all.

"The Bills' trainer knew an inventor who had been tinkering with padding," Kelso told me last week. "With padding, I played an additional five seasons, almost 100 more games, and sustained only one concussion, which wasn't a helmet-to-helmet hit -- someone kneed my head.

Doesn't this still count as a concussion? So the helmet helps unless a player finds another way to hit an opposing player or if the outer helmet falls off.

Do that with a standard polycarbonate shell helmet, and you'll howl in pain. If both players were wearing this in a helmet-to-helmet hit, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad."

Oh good. So the solution isn't regulating helmet-to-helmet hits, but making it safer for players to make helmet-to-helmet hits on each other? That sounds like a great policy.

"We should worry less about violent criminals having access to guns and worry more about making sure everyone wears a bulletproof vest at all times."

So what's standing between current football helmets and far safer helmets -- safer for the wearer, safer for the person being hit -- is looks and the word "soft."

That and the fact the NFL players may not want to wear an outer shell outside of their helmet because they just don't want to. There's that too.

If everyone were required to wear an outer-padded helmet, initially all football players would complain about a geeky appearance. Within a year, the padded helmet would be perceived as normal and the appearance forgotten -- while severe injuries declined.

Gregg's got the public and player's reaction to the outer shell helmets all mapped out.

Mainstream helmet manufacturers, who have shied away from outer padding on fears that players won't wear it, will jump in with all-new, safer designs if the NFL takes the lead with a mandate.

Now Gregg has the helmet manufacturer's reaction to the outer shell helmet all mapped out. I like how Gregg is projecting what he believes will happen after the outer shell helmet is introduced as if it were fact and not pure speculation.

College hoops tip soon, too. Hope you didn't miss this important article on college basketball, showing cheating coaches prosper while the only coaching flaw that's punished is losing.

Let's see how many teams that have appeared in the National Championship game over the last five years have had coaches accused by the NCAA (really accused and not suspected...because every coach cheats in his own little way) or caught cheating:

2010: Duke/Butler- neither Coach K or Brad Stevens has been caught or accused of cheating.

2009: UNC/Michigan State- neither Roy Williams or Tom Izzo have been caught or accused of cheating.

2008: Kansas/Memphis- Bill Self has been clean and John Calipari has had a few allegations through his career but he is a guy who has had allegations directed towards him.

2007: Florida/Ohio State- neither Billy Donovan or Thad Matta have been caught or accused of cheating.

2006: Florida/UCLA- neither Billy Donovan or Ben Howland have been caught or accused of cheating.

Out of the 9 coaches who have coached in the NCAA Championship game over the last five seasons, only one of them could be labeled accurately as a cheater. So I understand what Gregg is saying, but Tim Floyd isn't taking his team to the pinnacle of college basketball. His college basketball teams have never gotten past the Sweet Sixteen. Coaches that cheat and are accused of cheating, don't normally become some of the most successful coaches in college basketball, at least not recently.

Suppose this simple rule were added to college football and men's basketball: Unless at least 80 percent of a team's players graduate, the coach is suspended for one year.

I am trying to think of a less sensible and more idiotic rule and I really can't. Should the professors at a school get suspended one year if a certain percentage of students who came through his class don't graduate or pass his/her class?

City of Tampa turned third-and-goal from the 34 into a field goal. With the Raiders facing third-and-goal from the 19, leading 24-0 in the second quarter, the Broncos' coaches called a six-man blitz. Denver's defensive call made little sense, since the best-case scenario was to hold Oakland to a field goal,

Actually, the best-case scenario is a pick-six and a touchdown for the Broncos. Another good scenario for the Broncos is any type of turnover caused by the blitz. So the best-case scenario is not a field goal by the Raiders.

Why does ESPN pay Gregg to write this column every week?

Leading 23-20, New England faced fourth-and-1 on its 49 at the two-minute warning. The host Chargers stuffed the run, despite six offensive linemen on the field for the Flying Elvii; that was sweet for San Diego. New England simply used a power set, no shifts, no man in motion. That was sour for the Patriots. On fourth-and-short, defenders are primed to charge straight ahead. The offense must do a little dance to create some uncertainty.

Defenders are not video game characters. They are primed to follow the football, not just run blindly straight ahead. So if the Patriots had put a man in motion, then run straight ahead the defenders would not have been primed to charge straight ahead? So defenders become un-primed to go straight ahead when they see movement? Why this man get to write a football column? There has to be 2.5 million more qualified candidates.

The Chicago Bulls sent their first-round draft pick and Kirk Hinrich to the Washington Wizards for a second-round choice. A first and a player for a second suggests Hinrich has negative value. Which was the case; Chicago's objective was to unload Hinrich's guaranteed contract. Chicago was so desperate to remove Hinrich from its books that it threw in $3 million to help Washington pay the contract. Miami traded a first-round choice and Daequan Cook to Oklahoma City for a second-round choice -- again the player, Cook, had negative value, and again the point was to unload his contract.

And your point? Does Gregg think this is bizarre or dumb? This is how the financial aspect of the NBA works. Both teams were opening up cap room to sign free agents.

Robert Drago of Washington, D.C., writes, "Tonight I downloaded the latest Norton security update, and it was advertised as Norton 2011. Is Norton taking a holiday for the rest of 2010?"

I wish a plague upon your family. I think Gregg keeps this "creep" shit in his column just to piss off his more intelligent readers.

I got a Sports Illustrated this week that said "October 28, 2010" on the cover, but IT WAS ONLY OCTOBER 21! How did I get this issue a week before it was even published?????? Do Sports Illustrated's editors have the ability to predict the future???

The second part of the ruling -- that review couldn't tell who recovered the ball -- reflects an officiating problem that has been driving TMQ crazy for years. In a scramble for a loose ball, if any player takes possession for even an instant, with a knee down and in contact with an opponent, the play should end. But zebras don't officiate mad scrambles this way. They let the players fight for the ball, then award possession to whoever wins the Darwinian struggle.

That's because the officials need to know who has POSSESSION of the ball, not who has touched the ball first. It's hard to award possession to a player or team that doesn't actually have possession. What happens if the officials can't see who touched the ball first with their knees on the ground or there is no replay that can help with this problem.

I'm not altogether on the NFL rulebook, but a player has to actually possess the football, rather than just look like he has possession for an instant. It seems like in many of these scrums for the football it is hard to decide possession.

On the 92-yard DeAngelo Hall interception return touchdown that provided the game's winning points, the Bears had six blockers for five rushers, yet no one touched Redskins defensive lineman Vonnie Holliday, who hit Jay Cutler as he released, causing the pick-six.

Gregg constantly talks about how terrible it is that a team who has six blockers can't block five pass rushers, but he fails to understand that sometimes an offensive lineman can't block a defensive lineman by himself. Say Brian Orakpo was doubled on this play because the offensive lineman responsible for him needed assistance, well then Holliday beats his man and the throw by Cutler resulted. So while it appears the Bears have plenty of offensive linemen to block the Redskins pass rushers, there are four one-on-one matchups and if one of the offensive lineman gets beat then a sack results. All pass rushers are not blocked with just one offensive lineman. I hope Gregg knows this.

The Bears now have allowed a league-worst 31 sacks and are a miserable 15-of-84 on third downs. Counting sacks and scrambles, Mike Martz has called 261 passes and 141 rushes. How's that working out for you, Bears?

They are currently 4-3 and tied for the lead in their division. It seems to be working well enough to win four games.

In the past week, a few former NFL players have endorsed the league's move to reduce vicious hits. Rodney Harrison of NBC called for suspensions, while Steve Young of ESPN said "the media must stop glorifying big hits." Yet many former players have denounced the initiative. Let's examine their arguments.

"They can't change the game:" Dolphins linebacker Channing Crowder to AOL FanHouse. They change the game constantly! Once a field goal was five points. Once the forward pass was illegal. Once an incompletion was a turnover.

That's not at all was Crowder was talking about. He was saying you can't change how violently the game is played and you can't change that players are going to try to hit the opposing players hard as well. Either Gregg is playing dumb or he is actually that stupid to misunderstand what Crowder is saying.

Reader Steve Hasegawa of San Francisco proposes this fix for the one-and-done problem plaguing college basketball: "Instead of allowing each school 13 one-year basketball scholarships annually, the NCAA should allow a total of 13 four-year basketball scholarships. If a player only sticks around for a year, the school is stuck with three years when it can't use that scholarship (with an exception for players who transfer but remain in college). Schools would have an incentive to limit, though not necessarily eliminate, reliance on obvious one-and-done candidates. One-and-done players would spread out to a larger number of schools, increasing competitive balance."

This may be the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. What's the purpose of this stupid rule? To stop players from being one-and-done or to increase the competitive balance in college basketball? I have so many issues with this idea, so I can't even list all of them. Here are a few of the problems:

1. What is the purpose of this rule? Competitive balance or to stop players from being one-and-done?

2. Why should schools be punished for accepting players who leave college after one year? It is the right of the college basketball player to leave school after his first year for the NBA, the schools should not get punished for the player doing this.

3. Gregg is too stupid to know this, but the one-and-done rule isn't a college basketball rule, it is an NBA rule. So essentially a college basketball program would get punished for a rule they don't like nor did they create. If it were up to college basketball programs and coaches EVERY player would stay four years in school. Punishing a school for an NBA rule is stupid and pointless.

4. Why again should schools get punished for players leaving for the NBA after 1-3 years in college? Take a player like Gordon Hayward...Butler should not be able to use his scholarship for two more years because his game advanced to the point he could leave for the NBA and get drafted in the lottery? No one saw this coming, why should Butler be punished for Hayward leaving early in this situation? It makes no sense. This retarded-ass-stupid-fucking-rule doesn't just hurt programs who have one-and-done players, but ANY player who leaves before his four years of eligibility are up.

5. What's wrong with the competitive balance in college basketball? We just had a season where Butler almost won the national title, Northern Iowa knocked out Kansas, and Cornell and St. Mary's made the Sweet Sixteen. If anything, the competitive balance is getting better in college basketball. This scholarship rule is beyond dumb. I could not hate it more. It punishes schools for developing players who can make it to the NBA and makes colleges pay a fee in the currency of scholarships for a rule college programs HATE.

6. What teams rely so much on one-and-done players? Kentucky is the only team that seems to rely on them a lot. So we should make a rule specifically for one team? That doesn't make sense. None of the four teams in the Final Four in 2010 had a player that was a one-and-done.

Facing third-and-7 at Baltimore, seventh-round-drafted Ryan Fitzpatrick of Harvard threw a touchdown pass to seventh-round-drafted Stevie Johnson against a Ravens blitz. Undrafted free-agent tailback Fred Jackson of Division III Coe College blocked Ray Lewis while undrafted free-agent tackle Cord Howard blocked the NFL's highest-paid defensive player, Terrell Suggs.

So these are the same "great" undrafted players that come from a team that hasn't won a game yet this year? These are the same undrafted players that are on a team which Gregg mocks weekly for its mediocrity? So the Bills absolutely suck except when Gregg doesn't want us to focus on that and instead focus on the undrafted players they have which contribute so much to a winless team.

Now the Giants have second-and-2 on the Dallas 14. Maybe it's occurred to Dallas coaches at this point that Eli Manning, like all skilled quarterbacks, wants to be blitzed.

It is not about a skilled quarterback wanting to be blitzed. It is about having a well-disguised blitz that can confuse or throw off the timing of the quarterback. That's what it is about. Most quarterbacks want to be blitzed if they know where the blitz is coming from, but as was seen with the Saints in last year's playoffs, no matter how good the quarterback is, if he can't anticipate where the blitz is coming from, he doesn't want to get blitzed.

Martell Webster went straight from high school to the NBA as the sixth pick of the 2005 draft and since has been a marginal player, including spending time with the Fort Worth Flyers of the D-League, a club that no longer exists. Had Webster gone to college, he would have matured physically and emotionally, and might be an NBA star today.

Pure speculation. Martell Webster may have flamed out in college, not gotten drafted, and then not received a four year $20 million contract in 2008 if he had not gone straight to the NBA. The time he spent in the D-league was in 2006 when he was 19 years old. That time spent there probably helped him mature physically and emotionally and he is now a productive (albeit injured) player. Yet again, Gregg tried to mislead his readers who don't know better. Webster spent time in the D-league early in his career and is now a productive player.

This past June, J.A. Adande argued that the teens-eligible rule makes the draft nearly irrelevant to pro basketball. Most of the players picked are 19 years of age and won't become proficient for several years -- at which point they will become free agents and sign with someone else.

I urge you to read that article. Gregg is coming to a completely different conclusion that Adande came to. Adande was coming to the conclusion that the draft won't matter because players will collude with other players to choose a team. He wasn't suggesting the draft was pointless because the players don't mature until they hit other teams, he was saying the draft was pointless because players can become free agents at the same time (which is nearly impossible to stop) and then all join the same team. I can't help but wonder if Gregg is actually dumb or he just misunderstands some things intentionally.

The solution is to not allow players into the NBA until age 21. If you think that's the cranky, middle-aged, didn't-play-basketball-in-college view, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar recently advanced this idea.

Even if players weren't allowed in the NBA until the age of 21, James, Wade, and Bosh still could have played on the Heat team together. They could have signed contracts to guarantee this happening.

Teams seem to be taking Adande's advice, if perhaps unintentionally -- there's a clear trend of NBA clubs simply discarding high choices.

Minnesota used the sixth choice of the 2009 draft on Ricky Rubio, who won't play in the NBA until 2011, if he ever does.

This wasn't a wasted pick because Rubio will play in the United States at some point. The Timberwolves had made a lot of mistakes, but spending a pick on Rubio wasn't a waste of a pick because he has talent.

Interestingly, Rubio is 20 years old and wouldn't be able to play in the NBA until 2011 under Easterbrook's plan to only allow 21 year olds to enter the NBA Draft. Naturally, Gregg didn't think about this when criticizing how long it will take Rubio to make it to the NBA.

Last winter, the Grizzlies tried desperately to trade Thabeet, just to get rid of him, but no team wanted the player, who combines dreadful performance with an entitled attitude of stardom. Why not simply open the window and throw first-round draft choices out?

The Grizzlies were the only team that didn't know Thabust sucked. This isn't a matter of wasting 1st round picks, but not properly evaluating the talent available in the draft. It was a wasted pick because of poor talent evaluation.

Telfair is a walking billboard of the reasons teens should not be permitted in the NBA. Jumping to the NBA as a teen cost Telfair tens of millions of dollars in lifetime earnings potential.

This is all based on the false assumption that Telfair would have been a great NBA player if he had gone to college. Suppose he stunk in college and never made the NBA, then Telfair actually made himself millions of dollars he never would have had by going straight to the NBA out of high school.

I wish Bill Simmons would do a point-by-point article about how much of an idiot Gregg Easterbrook is when talking about the NBA. I don't often (if ever) wish for Simmons' help, but I would like to see it here.

By the way, Gregg Easterbrook has done what defensive coordinators can't do. He has figured out how to stop the Oregon offense:

OK. I watched tape of the Oregon-UCLA contest. Down after down, the UCLA defense hustled like mad to get back into position before the snap, to honor gaps. That meant that every time Oregon quarterback Darron Thomas looked up before the snap, he saw the same thing -- a conventional defense lined up exactly as it had been on all previous snaps. With its fast tempo, the Ducks' offense just assumes the defense will never vary. No offense could snap so quickly if the quarterback had to read the defense and then make his calls.

Which is assuming the Oregon quarterback has the autonomy to change calls or change how the offensive linemen block depending on what the defense shows. That's a fairly large assumption that Gregg doesn't think about...but he's the football expert, not me.

So defenses facing Oregon -- don't race to get back to the same spot. Jump around. Vary your positions pre-snap.

I can't see how this could end up being a disaster at all.

Allow front-seven players to move of their own volition, if that's all you can signal in quickly.

Just let the linebackers and defensive linemen move whatever way they damn well please. That should really confuse the quarterback when three defensive linemen and two linebackers move left. He will be confused as to why the defense is so stupid.

I find it hard to believe that defensive players moving on their own volition without knowing where the other defensive players are going to go will actually work. It seems like seven players freelancing could turn out to be a terrible defensive game plan.

Economist Tim Kane of the Kauffman Foundation proposes that a player who causes an injury ">must leave the game too and cannot return -- that day, that year -- until the other player heals.

So if Ray Lewis hits Jerome Harrison and injuries his knee, then Lewis couldn't come back until Harrison came back? I take back what I said earlier about the idea for college basketball teams to lose scholarships for players who leave early...this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard of.

Why wouldn't the Eagles sit Harrison the rest of the year to ensure Ray Lewis can't play? Why wouldn't a player fake an injury and spend the year on IR to make sure the guy who hurt him, who may be a crucial part of the opposing team, can't play all year either? If Cody Grimm gets blocked by Roddy White and blows knee out, then White should have to sit for the rest of the year? What a terrible idea.

Mark Asher of St. Louis proposes, "Booth review of suspect hits, initiated by the booth official not a coach's challenge. If the review booth finds there was a flagrant helmet-to-helmet hit, eject the offending player. Using replay would relieve officials on the field of making split-second judgments about body position at game speed.

More replay that stops the flow of the football game, now that's a great idea.

Next Week: Adding to its acclaimed realism, "Madden 12" will suspend virtual players for helmet-to-helmet contact.

How clever! How about next week Gregg Easterbrook sticks to writing articles about the government and how terrible NASA and the space program is?

8 comments MMQB Review: Redemption Song Edition

Every week Peter King writes his MMQB and surprises me with something not-so-genius he says or annoys me with an entire conversation he has with a player that he has to relate. Fortunately, he doesn't relay any conversations for the current week's MMQB. This week redemption is the name of the game for Peter and naturally he is talking about Mike Vick. Because in Peter King's warped mind, abusing and murdering animals can be atoned for with excellent football play. Did you accidentally run over a pedestrian? Redemption comes with a good season at wide receiver. Did you try to sexually assault a woman in a bathroom? Just outperform the backup or keep the momentum the backup quarterback has started and all is forgiven. Let's get ready to feel good.

PHILADELPHIA -- Michael Vick is not going away. In fact, he's getting better.

That's interesting because some of the things Ron Mexico gave people aren't going away either. They are only getting worse.

Yes, he is currently doing great at playing quarterback for the Eagles. He beat the Jaguars. I'm afraid I still require more proof that he is a different Mike Vick. I will have no problem giving Vick credit if he looks great after playing the Redskins and Falcons, but I have seen him do this in the past, only to look bad a couple weeks later. I don't doubt his talent.

NEW YORK -- Braylon Edwards shaves (thank God), calls Roger Goodell to apologize for being an idiot, sits a quarter and makes a big play to help the Jets beat Miami.

I am sure Braylon Edwards learned his lesson.

"Don't drive and drive kids or else you may miss 1/4 of a football game and then still have a chance to be praised as the hero for the game by Peter King."

There is no way the Jets were sitting Edwards longer than they did anyway.

PITTSBURGH -- The quarterback America's rooting for, Charlie Batch, gets his biggest win in years.

I'm not cheering for Charlie Batch. I don't care about Charlie Batch. Let me tell you a secret Peter (leans into Peter's ear and whispers)...I don't give a shit nor do I openly cheer for any quarterback that doesn't play for my favorite NFL team.

Good for Charlie Batch, but I have my own quarterback to cheer for. I'm not going to cheer for Batch simply because he has never been a good quarterback and now he won a game as he got older.

How much longer will we ask if Vick is fool's gold? He's responded to every challenge, favorably, so far as the most surprising story of the season. After Sunday's 28-3 rout of the Jags in Jacksonville, this is his 2010 resume:

Was there ever any doubt NFL sportswriters would forget all about the constant condemnation of Vick by...them...and jump on the "Vick is back" bandwagon? Nothing is easier to write for a lazy sportswriter than a redemption story. Well, maybe a fluff piece, but redemption stories are a close second.

He entered the first game of the season, against Green Bay, when Kolb suffered a concussion, and in the two-and-a-half games since, has led the offense to 80 points, accounting for seven touchdowns and 920 passing and rushing yards. He's thrown no interceptions, and has a 110.2 quarterback rating. He's never had a rating higher than 81 in his career.

The fact Vick has never had a rating higher than 81 in his career, the fact he is older and slightly less mobile now than he used to be, the fact he is playing for a new contract...none of these little items are tip offs that maybe Vick won't do this for the rest of the season or next season? He's having a contract year! Plain and simple. Good for him.

There's a group of people (I hear from them every time I write about Vick) who won't be happy if Vick succeeds, because of his dogfighting history. But the fact is he did his time and has tried to redeem himself by doing and saying all the right things in the 14 months since the Eagles signed him.

This is in the past and irrelevant really. Peter is writing about Vick and calling him a redemption story. He is not redeemed from his crimes simply because he is good at football. That's all I am saying. Peter is mixing up issues. Some people hate Vick no matter what and others are like me in that they don't really care about Vick or how what he does on the football field relates to his actions off the field. He isn't redeemed because he plays football well. He is redeemed because of his actions off the field and it has nothing to do with whether he is a practice squad member or a Pro Bowl quarterback.

Atlanta, up 24-21, had a fourth-and-six at the Saints' 37 with 3:36 left in the fourth quarter, with the potent New Orleans offense on the sidelines waiting to strike. Instead of punting, Smith chose to go for it. And in the NBC viewing room, the Football Night in America fellows were surprised.

Fortune favors the bold! Verily, the Falcons went on to win the game! When this happened I wrote "Game Over" in the notebook I carry around that has pictures of high school cheerleaders on the cover.

There is a 123% chance this fourth down conversion ends up in Gregg Easterbrook's TMQ.

Logic said you pin the Saints back, or try to, with a lead late in the game. Smith chose to gamble, thinking the Falcons had a winnable play called to tight end Tony Gonzalez. "My thought process was we had a matchup we liked, and if our punt went into the end zone, it would be a net of only 17 yards,'' Smith said. "The ball got tipped at the line of scrimmage. No regrets, though. None at all.''

Because he went for it, the Falcons players became more inspired because their coach was trying to win and then it became a formality that the Falcons would win the game...all because they went for it on fourth down. Well, that and because Garrett Hartley missed a chip shot field goal, but he was probably intimidated by the Falcons will to win by going for it on fourth down.

We've seen in the Vick and Roethlisberger cases that the public may one day forgive after a scandalous offense, though the process is slow.

It seems that Peter is indicating the public has forgiven Ben Roethlisberger for his offense (that was never charged) and he thinks this process is slow. Roethlisberger got into trouble for his offense a little bit over 7 months ago. If Peter thinks he is forgiven already, then the process is not slow at all. He would be forgiven by the public before he even took another NFL snap.

One of the most philanthropic players in the league, Batch runs a summer basketball league for the kids in the hardscrabble, gang-ridden area of town where he grew up, trying to keep kids from meeting the same fate his sister met in 1997 -- when she was murdered as an innocent bystander in the crossfire between rival gangs.

Oh, I guess that is why I am supposed to feel good for Charlie Batch. The fact he has played well on the football field completely makes up for the death of his sister or at least makes him feel a little bit better about her death? I can feel good for Charlie Batch that he is such a charitable and nice person, but I am not sure if I feel good for him because his sister died tragically and now he is playing football well. As if, again, one issue really makes one feel better about the other.

He threw deep to Mike Wallace twice, connecting on 46- and 41-yard touchdowns --ironically, once beating the son of former Steeler assistant Russ Grimm, rookie safety Cody Grimm --among his three scoring passes.

I am not sure if this is actually ironic or not.

Not to keep you hanging, but in tomorrow's column, I'll update you on what Roethlisberger's been doing while suspended.

Bangin' bitches and not sweatin' the trick-ass hoes who have brought him down in the past?

4. Troy Polamalu, S, Pittsburgh. Might have been higher if not for a pretty quiet game Sunday in Tampa. But to me, Polamalu looks more valuable to the Steelers than Ben Roethlisberger.

If only there were a remedial, oversimplistic way to determine which player were more valuable. Oh yeah, there is!

(Bengoodfella looks at the Steelers' record without Roethlisberger and without Polamalu and determines that Polamalu is more valuable)

MVP Watch

1. Michael Vick, QB, Philadelphia. Seriously. Eagles have outscored foes 80-49 in Vick's 10 quarters of play, his touchdown-to-interception ratio is 6:0, and he's still the most dangerous running threat at the position.

9. Philadelphia (2-1). The Eagles' line and defense probably isn't good enough to go deep into January, but we've learned one thing of late: With Michael Vick, all things are possible.

I had honestly forgotten about the media's love for all-things-Mike Vick. I am slowly starting to remember why I never really liked Vick. When he played for the Falcons, sportswriters just loved him. Then he did something wrong and the same sportswriters turned on him. Now he is playing well again and they are back up his ass and say he is redeeming himself. It's all ridiculous to me.

What are the odds Vick starts playing well again and then becomes the last guy to show up to practice and the first guy to leave practice like he did in Atlanta...except he does this in Philadelphia now? No one ever doubted his talent, but it was his practice habits that were always the question.

Quote of the Week II

"I guess in this world we don't have a lot of people with, like, backbones. Just because somebody pay you money don't mean they'll make you do whatever they want or whatever. I mean, does that mean everything is for sale? I mean, I'm not for sale. Yeah, I signed the contract and got paid a lot of money, but ... that don't mean I'm for sale or a slave or whatever."

-- Washington defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth, to radio station 106.7 The Fan. Haynesworth has been paid $34-million since signing with the Redskins 19 months ago, and is not happy the team is asking the defensive tackle to play defensive tackle.

I could get on-board the Haynesworth pity train if he would just express himself a little bit better. If he would explain eloquently, rather than whine, how he feels like he would be better put to use in the 3-4 defense than playing nose tackle than I could maybe, maybe, get behind what he has to say. He could be better used as an outside defensive end in the 3-4 defense, but there is no proof of that obviously. Instead he cries, whines and says absolutely stupid things to the media like this about the situation. Part of me thinks Haynesworth could be better served as a defensive end in a 3-4, but he doesn't help himself by his shitty performance on the field and his insane comments to the media.

He is this week's example #1 of why the average sports fan can't connect with today's athlete. Possibly, Haynesworth could state his case and get some people on his side. The Redskins signed him as a pass-rusher/run-stopper hybrid, but at the nose tackle position he is responsible mostly for taking up blocks and stopping the run. Perhaps he could be of more use at the defensive end position in a 3-4, but he compares himself to a slave and pretty much forces the public to hate him.

Tweet of the Week

"Wow. From his Wikipedia page: 'Kareem Michael McKenzie (born May 24, 1979) is literally human garbage for the New York Giants ...' ''

-- NJ_StevePoliti, columnist Steve Politi of the Newark Star-Ledger, 63 minutes after the Giants lost to Tennessee, and McKenzie, the Giants' right tackle, committed two personal-foul penalties for New York.

I checked. Politi's spot on. There's a Wikipedia sports terrorist out there.

I love Wikipedia terrorists. As of right now it says,

"McKenzie wears a Schutt DNA football helmet which is evidently too tight based on his bone headed play on September 26, 2010."

It also says,

"Kareem Michael McKenzie (born May 24, 1979) is team killing player for the New York Giants of the National Football League."

I'm guessing that has to suck to read if you are Kareem McKenzie.

This lead me to look up Peter King's wikipedia entry and look what I found out about his early childhood:

His father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. Petter's mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. His father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Some times he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy, the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. His childhood was typical, summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring he'd make meat helmets. When he was insolent he was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds. At the age of 12 peter received his first scribe. At the age of fourteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved his testicles.

Quite interesting. It seems Peter King and Dr. Evil had similar upbringings. I wonder if Peter King finds his wikipedia terrorist as interesting as he found Kareem McKenzie's.

Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me

The Green Bay Packers can thank Brett Favre for one more thing,

It's about Brett Favre. Yep, it only interests Peter because of that funny feeling in his loins when he talks about Favre.

Mostly, the Packers should thank Favre for retiring initially and acting like a baby when he didn't get the starting job immediately handed back to him. They should thank him for this because Aaron Rodgers is awesome.

I will save you all the headache from reading the wall of text, but the Packers got Clay Matthews with the pick they got from the Jets for Favre, which they traded to the Patriots to draft Matthews. I am surprised in his next chart about the Patriots that Peter doesn't mention the Patriots traded away an opportunity to draft Matthews.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

In the last seven days, I've been on Southwest, AirTran, the Amtrak Acela (twice); I've been stranded in Baltimore for four hours, been in Houston, in Manhattan ... and I have these five questions:

2. Why, when a child is crying that endless, bloodcurdling cry on an airplane, does a parent over and over say "Shhhhhh, shhhhhh,'' instead of taking the baby out of the seat, putting the child over his/her shoulder and rubbing or gently patting the baby in the back -- anything to change the dynamic or to try to coax a burp out of the poor kid?

Peter King has turned into "Super Nanny" on us. Don't know how to parent your kid? Ask Peter King. He knows the correct way to pretty much do anything.

3. Why could I find the New York Post, New York Times, New York Daily News, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Investors Daily at the Hudson News outlet in the Baltimore-Washington International Airport ... but not the hometown Baltimore Sun?

Hasn't Peter seen "The Wire?" It's because the newspaper is dying.

4. Why, if a flight is scheduled to leave at 10:15 a.m. out of Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport, and your plane backs away from the gate at 10:15 a.m. and gets out to the runway on a cloudless, windless day (last Thursday), and it isn't the morning rush hour or the afternoon rush hour, does it then take 32 minutes to get up in the air? Atlanta's infamous for this, in all weather.

Call me not an impatient asshole, but I would prefer that a plane flight crew and air-traffic controllers take as much time as they would like to work on the plane. There's probably air traffic or some other reason why a plane can't immediately take off. It's annoying, but if this is a major issue in your life, then you have a nice life. Why does Peter King insist on bitching about every little travel inconvenience? If he doesn't like it, he can drive a few hours to the next airport and fly to wherever he is going from there.

I have to tell you about a great experience I had in Boston last Tuesday. The PR man for Runners World, David Tratner (some of you in football might remember Dave as one of the Jets' PR people in recent years),

Oh yeah, Dave! How is he?

We got a coffee in the Starbucks at the Sheraton -- the same hotel that houses the marathon runners every April -- and now I was the running nerd, needing affirmation from one of the greatest American runners ever. I didn't know how to ask it, so I just blurted it out:

"What'd you think of me as a runner?''

"You look smooth, comfortable,'' he said. "In eight miles, I never heard you breathe. You've got a very economical stride. You don't look like you're working hard. You're smooth. You're an athlete.''

Oh, stop!

This is an absolute ego trip that Peter King is taking. What is this guy going to say to him? "You suck" and then have Peter bitch about it in his MMQB?

"You're just a little hunched over at the shoulders. But you look like a lifelong marathoner in terms of the ease and the comfort of your stride. I really think you could run a marathon if you wanted to. You could fit into a running group with experienced runners here in Boston and fit right in.''

I'm blushing.

"You're really going to do well,'' he said. "You're going to love it.''

There is nothing like fishing for compliments. Peter hasn't had so much smoke blown up his ass since Brett Favre said Peter loved like a young Robert Redford as they were laying on a blanket at dusk in a field off the main highway in rural Mississippi.

a. Kyle Orton has really taken command of the Denver offense, and I don't say that just because he threw for 476 yards Sunday. You notice that Tim Tebow was the third quarterback Sunday? That's a nod to the fact that Orton's running the offense so well that Josh McDaniels doesn't think there's any point right now in taking Orton off the field to throw the Tebow change-up at the defense.

I am sure Woody Paige still thinks Tim Tebow should be the starter though. Wait, we haven't heard from Woody about this issue? There's a shock. A sportswriter takes a strong stand about a local team and when he is proven wrong doesn't talk about it again.

a. Adrian Peterson is going to see that first-quarter drop, with nothing but open field in front of him, for a long time.

Earlier in the column, Peter praised Peterson for not fumbling this year. Perhaps he has replaced one running back vice with another.

f. You're staring down your targets, Jimmy Clausen.

Warning: Slight rant coming.

The least of Jimmy Clausen's worries right now is that he is staring down his targets. He fumbled the snap twice yesterday. Twice. That's a main concern right now, getting the ball from the center to start the play. Clausen isn't staring down his receivers that badly. It was his first NFL start. First NFL start. First NFL start against a decent Bengals defense. Contrary to what the media wants you to believe, Clausen is not a proven veteran, but a 22 year old rookie. He was an upgrade over Matt Moore and even had a better QB rating than Carson Palmer (slightly) yesterday. Give the kid a few weeks and let's teach him the basics of taking a snap before worrying too much about him staring down his targets which was #21 on the list of problems for him this week. In fact, if Peter had watched the game he would know Clausen had more dropped snaps from the center than interceptions. He only had one interception and no other close calls from passes that could have been intercepted.

j. The Giants, in general, are contending with San Francisco for 2010's most disappointing team.

Really? Peter King personally had Carolina in the playoffs and John Fox as Coach of the Year. They have lost to an average Bengals team, lost to the "disappointing Giants" Peter just mentioned and lost to the Buccaneers. They are more disappointing than the Giants because the Giants beat Carolina.

4. I think I buy Chris Mortensen's report Sunday that Brett Favre has had second thoughts about his return to the Vikings. And why wouldn't he, when the team basically dragged him off his property a month ago?

They dragged him off the property because they needed a fucking answer on whether he was playing this year or not. Favre is the most unlikeable athlete in the world right now. You know he is thinking of quitting or he should not have come back. He only wanted to come back so he could be the hero and have a good year. He doesn't give a shit about his teammates or the Vikings organization to stick through a tough year. He was dragged off his property because he would not tell the Vikings if he was returning this year or not. They needed an answer. Favre gave one and like a baby he regrets that decision. Favre only wants to be a part of the Vikings when things are good.

But will he act on his emotions and quit? I don't believe it. Not for a second.

I believe it. I believe he wants his consecutive games started streak to continue (because he is all about personal goals, no matter how much he tries to admit he isn't), so he is in quite a situation now. He can't retire now, because he would look bad, but he needs to keep playing to keep that consecutive games started streak away from Peyton Manning.

If the Vikings nose dive it would not shock me if Favre got "injured" and had to retire. Nothing he does shocks me. I believe he could retire right now and 50% of the sports media would stick up for him.

a. Congrats on 2,500 wins, Bobby Cox.

Fun fact: Every MLB team where the Braves have played this year (on the road) has done something or given something to Cox, except for one team...the Florida Marlins. They are too cheap to spend any money on him. This just contributes to the continuing terribleness of that organization.

c. The last week of the baseball season was looking interesting, until Papelbon and Okajima took the mound Sunday night.

I like how many "true" Red Sox fans (Bill Simmons being one of them) got more interested as the Red Sox got closer to contending at the end of this year. It's like there is a correlation in their interest and the Red Sox ability to contend.

e. I wish something could make me interested in the National League West race.

Have it be between three teams on the East Coast. Then that's all we would hear about over here. The NL West race is taking place on the West Coast, so East Coast snobs who live in their Boston/New York-centric world don't give a shit about anything that doesn't involve those two teams.

i. Missed The Office the other night. I thought Michael was off the show. What's the story? Does he have one more year?

How can you enjoy this show and be this clueless about the show? It's widely known, especially among fans of the show, that Steve Carell has one more year.

Actually, I feel the same way about Peter and other things (like baseball) that he likes as well. He can be so clueless about things he claims to like.

9 comments TMQ: ESPN Does Know It Is a Sports Network Right?

ESPN is a sports network. They cover sports and pimp other Disney-affiliated things like movies that may be coming out soon, but mostly they focus on sports. They are a sports network that tends to cover sports while covering the other items they want to pimp. So I was a little confused when reader Cory linked me (thank you to him for sending me the email about this column) to a Gregg Easterbrook column that appeared on ESPN.com that was completely about the show "24."

It is bad enough that ESPN lets Gregg Easterbrook write for them, but now he writes an entire column that is not sports-related at all, outside of the article appearing on ESPN.com, and they put it on their site? What's the point of this? Apparently ESPN will publish anything if it is by one of their Page 2 columnists, even if it isn't sports-related at all. Of course, now I have made it worse by critiquing a column on a sports blog that wasn't even about sports, but I don't give a crap. In lieu of some football-related TMQ, let's have Gregg Easterbrook second-guess and criticize a fictional television show.

My regular Tuesday Morning Quarterback column doesn't return until August, but here's some bonus TMQ-like substance to tide you over.

Except it isn't like Tuesday Morning Quarterback because this column isn't related to sports at all. Possibly this column should be posted on Entertainment Weekly's site or Tvguide.com, though I am not sure Gregg meets those site's high journalistic standards to criticize a television show.

The Fox series "24" concluded Monday night, and not a moment too soon. It had become so preposterous; it was more like science fiction than drama.

As I always say, if there is nothing I look for in a television show more than entertainment, it is realism. If a show isn't realistic, then what's the point in watching?

If a person watches television expecting to see realistic scenes that can be duplicated in real life, then that person is an idiot. Television shows are inherently fantasy, no matter what genre they are supposed to be. Even reality shows are mostly fantasy and scripted in many ways. So Gregg's an idiot for expecting realism in a television show.

Through the eight years depicted,

This is absolutely incorrect. More than 8 years were depicted. From the ultra-reliable wikipedia page for "24:"

(Let's keep a running total of the amount of time that took place between each season)

Set 18 months after season 1, season 2 begins and ends at 8:00 AM in Los Angeles.

(18 months have gone by)

Set 3 years after season 2, season 3 begins and ends at 1:00 PM in Los Angeles.

(4.5 years have gone by)

Set 18 months after season 3, season 4 begins and ends at 7:00 AM in Los Angeles.

(6 years have gone by)

Set 18 months after season 4, season 5 begins and ends at 7:00 AM in Los Angeles.

(7.5 years have gone by)

Set 20 months after season 5, season 6 begins and ends at 6:00 AM in Los Angeles.

(Tough math...9 years and 2 months have gone by)

Redemption is a television movie which aired on November 23, 2008, bridging the gap between the sixth and seventh seasons of 24. Set three and a half years after season 6,

(12 years and 8 months have gone by)

Set 65 days after the events of Redemption, season 7 begins and ends at 8:00 AM in Washington, D.C.

(12 years and 10 months have gone by)

Set 18 months after season 7^[3], season 8 begins and ends at 4:00 PM in New York City.

(14 years and 4 months have gone by when the series ended)

So five Presidents over a 14 year span does initially seem a bit excessive...but this is a television show, let's remember this. The United States did have four Presidents from 1988-2002, and that is when no President had his four-year term interrupted. So maybe five Presidents over a 14 year span really isn't that unrealistic. It could actually happen in real life. So Gregg Easterbrook has no point.

a nuclear bomb went off near Los Angeles, a former president was murdered by the CIA, Air Force One was shot down, martial law was declared, U.S. nuclear missile launch codes were stolen, Russian nuclear missile launch codes were stolen, the Secretary of Defense was kidnapped and government computers were taken over. Jack Bauer solved all these problems (except the Los Angeles explosion) single-handedly, always by running from place to place, shouting at everyone he met, then shooting people using one of those special guns that never runs out of bullets, while thousands of rounds fired back at him at close range missed their target.

It's a television show. This column was written on a sports web site. Why is this being published and why I do feel like I am taking crazy pills?

Bauer also single-handedly foiled a nerve gas attack on diplomats, a radioactive dirty-bomb attack on New York, five other nuclear bomb attacks on U.S. cities, and an attempt to cause several U.S. nuclear power plants to melt down.

It wouldn't be a very interesting television show if it showed Jack Bauer doing paperwork and sharing stolen glances at the new secretary outside his boss's office would it? I think it is pretty much known that if you are going to tune into a television show, or even a movie for that matter that is action-oriented, you will need to suspend some belief and just be entertained while you watch it.

This is obvious to everyone but Gregg Easterbrook, who looks for accuracy in all things...except in the weekly NFL column he writes for ESPN of course. He feels comfortable just eye-balling and taking guesses when he writes that. Jack Bauer has to been shown re-loading his gun on "24," but it is perfectly fine for Gregg Easterbrook to incorrectly state the defense a team was in when criticizing a coach's move or second-guessing a decision made by a player.

This veered well beyond nonsense, even given Jack's amazing ability to move across town -- or across country -- during commercials.

Gregg Easterbrook's dream for "24" is to have it be about Jack Bauer doing paperwork, hurrying to a meeting and then showing him stuck in Los Angeles traffic for 30 minutes on his way to a meeting. Gregg's ideal "24" episode:

8:00am: (Jack Bauer notices the PowerPoint presentation isn't ready for the meeting at 8:45am. He immediately starts putting the missing parts of the presentation together. Time is not on Jack's side and so he rushes against the clock)

8:17am: (Jack jumps in his car to make the meeting. His car screams out of the parking deck and he runs a red light. He's in a rush and he may not make the meeting in time)

8:21am: (Jack is stuck in traffic. He's going to be late. May God have mercy on him)

8:37am: (Jack is still stuck in traffic)

8:44am: (Jack begins to violently pound the dashboard knowing he will be late for the meeting. He turns up the air conditioning and turns down the radio...he's pissed)

8:50am: (Jack sees traffic was held up because of an accident. Jack screams that people need to get off their cell phone and quit driving distracted. He calms down because he is near to the building where he is having the meeting and needs to focus...time is running out)

8:56am: (Jack pulls in the parking deck. He forgets his computer in the trunk, yet he knows he needs it and has to go back and get it. This wastes valuable seconds of time)

8:59am: (Jack runs into the office where the meeting is being held, desperately asking the secretary which room the meeting is in...Jack runs down the hall)

8:59am and 56 seconds (Jack enters the meeting and everyone stares at him with a certain look in their eyes)

9:00am: (Next week on "24"...what will the reaction be to Jack's late arrival? Is it too late to convince the client his ideas will work? Will they even accept his idea? How will Jack show the presentation effectively without his laser pointer? Is the entire account going to go up in smoke? Find out next week on "24: Gregg Easterbrook Version")

Another sci-fi aspect: The countless conspirators of "24" endlessly discuss their conspiracies, in specific language, over cell phones!

Holy shit! They don't talk in code? Craziness...just now...read...can't believe it.

Here is my favorite sci-fi line from the series: "The president has ordered the media not to report any criticism." And how did that work for you, George W. Bush?

Doesn't "24" know you can't shut the media up without donuts and fresh coffee? The media is going to report a story incorrectly whether you want them to or not. It's in the Constitution they can do this! THIS SHOW PAYS NO ATTENTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OR THE MORALS OF OUR NATION!

In the final two episodes, Jack killed a dozen people, including five Russian bodyguards standing in a hotel room, all of whom died instantaneously on the first shot, without any of them ever getting a shot off at him.

Does Gregg know there is no one in the world who can't do this? Because I bet there is someone who only needs five shots to kill five guys. These people don't get television shows made after them, but it is completely and entirely possible to have a man trained so well to kill that he doesn't require multiple bullets for one person. I guarantee there are individuals so well-trained they can do this.

Plus, lots of gunshots were fired in a fancy hotel and no policemen came.

PROBABLY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT ORDERED NO POLICEMEN TO COME TO THE SCENE! HE PROBABLY DID THIS IN SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, OVER A CELL PHONE!

At one point, Jack is running down a Manhattan street holding only his never-empty pistol, then a scene later has a large backpack with sniper weapons and electronics. Where did the large backpack come from?

Jack beat the shit out of a terrorist, while running down the Manhatten street of course, this terrorist was planning on attacking a group of people on the street and then Jack stole his backpack full of weapons after beating his ass. This wasn't shown or reported because Jack quickly waterboarded the suspect and the President ordered all criticisms of this procedure to stay un-reported. Remember?

I doubt there has ever been a human being who killed that many people in any form of face-to-face encounters, including during war; certainly there has never been a law enforcement officer who's killed more than a few people. (Most law enforcement officers retire without ever having fired their guns except on the training range, let alone killing anyone.)

Who would have ever thought a fictional action-oriented television show would stretch the truth a little bit? Other than everyone in the world except for Gregg Easterbrook. Gregg must be the biggest pain in the ass to watch television with. I would spend most of my evening thinking of new ways to bludgeon him to death with just a remote control and a tub of butter popcorn.

And yes it's television, which means absurdity.

And yet knowing this, Gregg Easterbrook still feels the need to criticize the absurdity of "24" for not being realistic.

As the series' climatic scene begins, the setup is that if the president signs, the United States will be sold out to the Russians. The U.N. Secretary General pronounces, "By signing, you commit your respective countries to abide by the terms therein." Signing any treaty is a symbolic gesture!

(Sticks up middle finger at Gregg Easterbrook's picture as a symbolic gesture)

In the United States, treaties only acquire force once ratified by the Senate.

Well if the President signs the treaty and no one else seems to have a problem with it, then the Senate would probably ratify it as well. I am not sure the Senate is really paying attention to any bill they pass at this point unless it is about healthcare or involves decreasing the amount of drilling the U.S. does for oil.

Come on, Hollywood. Isn't there anyone on the scriptwriting staff with a passing knowledge of the U.S. Constitution?

Says the guy who writes a weekly NFL column where he displays, at best, a passing knowledge of how and why NFL teams and coaches make the decisions they make on the football field.

This leads to the disturbing thing about "24" -- not its blood, but its distorted depictions of how U.S. government works. Not only did the show present warped pictures of the constitution, the military and the legal system, it went beyond to the most negative, cynical view of the United States ever seen on television.

I am sure the biggest problem the United States military is having right now is with how they are being portrayed on television on a fictional television show. I think there is maybe 1% of the population who thinks the way government and military business is conducted on a television show is how it works in real life as well. Then there are 1% of those 1% people who actually think this puts the military in a bad light as compared to the other ways the government and military are presented in Hollywood films and television shows. Then there is Gregg Easterbrook who thinks everything on a television show should be realistic and he doesn't think a person can tell the difference in fiction and real life.

Throughout the series, hardly anyone is honest or patriotic -- most high White House officials, and practically everyone in the military and in national intelligence, is either corrupt or a traitor or both. The CIA, especially, is depicted as employing traitors exclusively -- like a hiring requirement.

Actually, it is just the CIA officers who are involved in Jack Bauer's mission who are corrupt. It actually makes sense for traitors or corrupt officers to be involved predominately on what Jack Bauer was working on, since he is usually stopping a major attack or crisis from occurring. What is the point of employing a traitor or being corrupt if you can't put yourself in a position to implement and make sure the plan works effectively? So the traitors will run across Jack because they want to make sure the plan works, so they are always going to be in a position to ensure this happens...and therefore will be around Jack or partially in control of the plan to end up running into Jack.

In the series' penultimate scene, as the valorous Chloe finally regains control of the fictional super-secret CTU, she orders everyone but Ortez and Arlo out of headquarters -- because everyone else in the CTU is a traitor.

How unrealistic! They don't once show Chloe having to take a piss and EVERYONE knows that women have weak bladders and have to pee a lot. Not to mention, they never show Chloe putting on makeup and women ALWAYS put on makeup as the day goes along. This show presents that women pee exclusively in their pants and don't care how they look while at the job. "24" represents a warped view of women in the workplace, like they are animals who don't ever use the bathroom in the appropriate facilities.

If I were a U.S. military officer or intelligence official, I would be offended by "24" and its depiction of the United States government and national security apparatus as dens of lawbreakers and turncoats.

If Gregg were a U.S. military officer then this country would probably be in the hands of North Korea or be in even worse shape than it currently is.

What a relief it's over.

That's what I am feeling about this column on television show which for some reason appears on a sports web site.

TMQ suspects Jack Bauer might have killed 1,000 people during eight seasons of "24." No NFL receiver caught 1,000 passes during that span. Think about that.

I have a few problems with this comment:

1. This is the only sports-related part of this column and it makes absolutely no sense. There is nothing even remotely similar or comparable between how many people died on a fictional television show and how many passes were caught by NFL wide receivers in that time.

2. Jack Bauer killed 1,000 people over a span of 14 years and 4 months...not 8 years. Over a 14 and 4 month span, I am sure one NFL wide receiver caught 1,000 passes.

3. Gregg Easterbrook is basing this comparison on a guess of how many people Jack Bauer killed, he doesn't really know. This doesn't make a big difference, but as I stated earlier, Gregg wants everything on television to be accurate and realistic, but he feels free to just guess whenever he is writing or comparing something.

4. I refuse to think any more about this comparison because I am afraid the stupidity of TMQ will invade my brain.