9 comments Paying Players Will Not Clean Up College Athletics

LZ Granderson seems to believe paying college players will help to clean up the college game by reducing the amount of cheating and lessen the effect outside influences have on the student-athletes. It's a complicated issue because many people don't want to pay players. I am not sure if I believe players should get paid, but I also believe a college athlete should be able to make money off their name in college. For me, I'm not sure a student-athlete should be paid for playing a sport, but I don't mind a student-athlete making money off of his fame from playing that sport. How athletes would go about being paid is a completely different topic as well. Do you pay women's volleyball players as much as you pay men's basketball players? If not, doesn't this violate Title IX? I think it does, LZ Granderson says this reasoning is a cop out and then never explains why this is a cop out. Modern sports journalism at its best.

There are a lot of issues present in this discussion. I simply don't think paying players will drastically lessen a player's incentive to cheat or take money from a booster. Professionals in high paying jobs in "the real world" will take bribes and cheat, despite the fact they earn a good salary. The need for more money is part of human nature and I don't believe a stipend paid to college athletes will change this. I think if a college athlete gets paid, he still wouldn't mind taking $100,000 to go to one college over another. LZ Granderson seems to also believe runners and boosters are a product of the system and would decrease in influence if players got paid. I can't help but disagree.

My feelings are simple: There is so much money involved with big-time college sports, it's unethical that they're not better compensated.

I don't know if "unethical" is the right word. Maybe it is. College athletes should probably be compensated in some way for the revenue they bring into the school, but I read many articles on why players should get paid, but don't read much about how exactly this would work logistically. It seems like there are many who want student-athletes to get paid, but provide no hint on how this would work exactly. A good idea with no ideas on how to implement the idea successfully is simply useless.

That's why I'm not too disgusted with third-party runners -- such as relatives or AAU coaches -- who shake down schools for cash in exchange for highly sought after recruits.

So it is perfectly fine for third-party runners and relatives to shake down schools $100,000 as long as the players are getting paid, but if a player got paid a $1000/month stipend it all of a sudden becomes morally wrong to shake down a school for $100,000? I don't understand this point of view. What's the difference? The runner or AAU coach isn't looking out for the player's well-being in either situation. In both situations, he is selling the player's services to a university and LZ can't be naive enough to think this money is going to pay for food and books.

Not to mention, if every Division-I college team pays their football players $1000/month, these runners and coaches will still sell the services of players to schools. An even playing field is an even playing field. Runners and outside influences aren't going to magically disappear once student-athletes get paid. They are still going to want money and the stipend isn't going to be enough for some highly recruited athletes.

There is a quote from a Nas song (that of course I can't find) where he says if it were up to him everyone would be a millionaire. Because I'm a loser, I analyze rap songs. If everyone in the world is a millionaire then the price of goods would increase and being a millionaire would no longer mean anything. It's a severe form of inflation.

In the 1980's wealthy people had a cell phone, but now in 2012 nearly everyone has a cell phone. In 2012 it is a matter of who has the better cell phone with more features, while in the 1980's only those who could afford a cell hone had one. If Nas had wished in the 1980's that everyone could have a cell phone, well it came true, but it doesn't mean everyone is wealthy because having a cell phone is no longer a sign of wealth. The same thing would happen in college football. If every Division-I football player got paid, it wouldn't stop cheating or the buying of highly recruited players by colleges, because every Division-I player gets paid. What would matter is how much one school is willing to offer an AAU coach to sell a player to that school. The price each school was willing to pay for a highly recruited player would still very much matter. Paying players wouldn't get rid of dirty tactics at all because the playing field is still level when every Division-I player gets a stipend.

I understand how moving cash underneath the table is cheating, but it's hard for me to characterize the schools or their coaches as cheated.

The question when it comes to boosters isn't who is getting cheated, but whether the act itself is cheating or illegal in some fashion. The cheating isn't classified by who gets hurt when coaches cheat, but is classified by the fact cheating by coaches is against NCAA rules. Me buying a pound of marijuana from someone isn't cheating or hurting anyone, but it still is against the law.

the University of Central Florida received the first major NCAA sanctions since Penn State. The school is banned from postseason play in football and men's basketball for one year; is hit with a reduction in scholarships; and is on probation after the NCAA committee on infractions ruled that runners and cash were involved in attracting a high level of talent to UCF. The runners in question were a pair of men with ties to a sports agency.

Can LZ Granderson honestly say he thinks this type of thing will go away if these UCF players were getting paid? I really doubt it would stop. Why or how would runners or boosters stop trying to attract top talent to UCF if the players were getting paid? The runner or booster still needs to sell the talent to a school. Why would the athlete getting paid $1000/month affect this in any way?

Now I'm not saying what they did was right, but it's not hard to see why UCF felt it needed to cheat.

To make money and win.

Since joining Conference USA in 2005, the school's athletic program has exploded in terms of infrastructure -- an athletic village was built, an indoor football practice facility was constructed and in 2007-08 it the school opened a stadium and arena.
If you're gonna do all of that, you gotta win big. And in order to do that, you need big talent.
So explain to me how the hell UCF will no longer need to pay for this talent if the football players are now getting a stipend? How would a stipend help UCF attract better talent than they attracted when the football players didn't get a stipend? Every Division-I football student-athlete would be getting paid, so UCF would still have to attract top talent in some way. Even if the stipend is handed out based on football revenue, UCF would still have trouble attracting talent. I completely fail to see how a stipend fixes any issues the NCAA has with runners.

Not only are there no guarantees an athlete is going to see much of the money being exchanged but they can also become indebted to the runner in a way that isn't healthy or equitable.

Well, right. The players aren't seeing a lot of that money. I think that much we can all agree on. What kind of booster or runner won't pay a player or sell a player to a school under the line of thinking, "Well I don't need to sell Player X for $100,000 to the University of Nebraska because he gets paid $2000/mo anyway."

It's naive to think there is a link between players getting paid and AAU coaches selling players to schools. Players aren't going to be paid any amount of stipend amount (at least without schools going bankrupt) that will prevent AAU coaches from selling players to certain schools. How in the hell can a stipend of even $5000/month prevent an AAU coach from selling a player to UCF for $200,000?

But what about the moral erosion caused by the system perpetuated by the NCAA and its members that gave birth to these runners in the first place?

The NCAA is dirty. We all know that. The system that perpetuated these runners in the first place isn't going to go away once college athletes start getting paid. Human nature gave birth to these runners in the first place. Human nature to make as much money as possible and use a valuable asset you have (in this case, the talent of a college athlete) to make this money.

Think about it: Millions of construction dollars flew out of the door in a handful of years at UCF, but the young men expected to create the cash flow of tickets, memorabilia, TV appearances and postseason games couldn't take an equitable sip from the stream.

Fine, say we pay the players. They are paid. Explain to me how this will stop vultures from preying on these athletes and directing players to certain colleges in return for cash rewards? How will this prevent highly recruited players from wanting cash payments to choose between schools? Either way, he gets paid for playing football, so what would stop him from wanting a little extra to sign with one college over another? The answer? It won't.

LZ Granderson is mixing up his messages here. He is getting paying players as a fairness issue mixed up with paying players as a way to rid college athletes of the dirty underbelly.

You wanna know how these runners gain so much influence in the lives of highly recruited athletes? They show them how much a jersey costs in a bookstore.

You wanna know how these runners will continue to gain so much influence in the lives of highly recruited athletes? These runners will tell highly recruited players the backup quarterback for a 6-6 team earns $1500/month in a stipend, shouldn't he as a highly recruited player earn more than that for leading his team to a 10-2 record? Of course he deserves more money, that's why the runner is working hard to get $100,000 from LSU to secure the player's commitment.

There will always be a message and a way to sell kids. Always. This won't change even when money starts changing hands from the university to the players. That jersey in the window becomes a different example used once the stipends to college athletes start flowing. That jersey becomes a nicer car, money for choosing Oklahoma State over Oklahoma, or some other form of receiving an illegal benefit. The example used for why that highly recruited athlete deserves more will change, but the need for wanting more won't change.

Student-athletes are not slaves, but given the amount of money associated with big time college sports, it's not a stretch to view them as the NCAA's version of indentured servants.

Except for the fact they don't have to play football and could choose to pursue a college education without playing sports. Other than their ability to freely choose whether they play sports or not in college, these players are indentured servants. Once you pretend a person doesn't have free-will, any person can be seen as an indentured servant. I realize not all high school athletes could qualify academically to their college of choice, but not all high school students can qualify academically to their college of choice either. I find it hard to view people who make a choice to play sports as indentured servants.

Ohio State got in trouble last season because eight players exchanged their rings and jerseys for tats and cash totaling $14,000, roughly $1,750 a player. The football program made a net profit of $35 million.

I have no problem with college athletes selling their jersey or rings for cash. I think this is something college athletes should possibly be able to do, as opposed to being paid a stipend. Let the free market rule. If someone wants to pay $2000 for a signed Terrelle Pryor jersey, that's his business and Pryor's play on the field made the jersey worth that amount.

And while it is true much of that money is used to fund other departments, the notion that a school like OSU can't afford to pay players seems disingenuous. The argument that Title IX complicates the discussion is a cop out.

I don't believe the argument that Title IX complicates the discussion is a cop out. LZ won't tell us here exactly how or why using Title IX as an argument is a cop out, so I'm guessing we will probably never hear exactly why it is a cop out. He just writes "it's a cop out" and leaves it at that. I don't see how you can pay male athletes and not female athletes. I think Title IX makes it clear under the 10 guidelines the Department of Education uses. The fourth guideline specifically states:

Travel and per diem allowance;

This must be equal for men and women's sports.

The three prong test used in determining the ways Title IX can be achieved says the following,

"male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.as well as,

"the athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."

I think this makes is fairly clear it would be hard to pay male athletes in any disproportionate amount compared to female athletes. So I think saying using Title IX as a reason not to pay college athletes is a cop out is a cop out in itself. Just don't say "it's a cop out" and not explain. I think Title IX makes it very difficult for men and women athletes to receive different amounts of compensation based on the different amount of revenue each gender's sport would bring in. Frankly, it isn't fair for the swimming team to be compensated with a stipend when revenues from the football are helping to support the swimming team.

Runners may be sleazy, but they are only the byproduct of a system that feels worse.

I'm not sure of a way to change the system to get rid of runners. Paying college athletes won't achieve this goal. This much I feel pretty sure.

So the NCAA has every right to turn its focus on the UCFs of the world, but until its members start paying student-athletes, it's not going to generate much sympathy from me.

I'm not sure the NCAA wants sympathy, they want to keep up the appearance of no impropriety in college athletics.

For as long as the student-athletes responsible for generating millions are living in poverty, runners have a better chance of being viewed as Robin Hoods than the NCAA as victims.

Every college students lives in some form of poverty. Of course some college athletes generate enormous amounts of revenue for their school, so perhaps these athletes should be compensated for this. Runners and AAU coaches aren't selling players to schools in order to benefit the player, but to benefit and line their own pockets. They aren't Robin Hoods and no one is viewing the NCAA as a victim. Either way, AAU coaches, boosters, and runners who give players money to play for certain programs are in the wrong whether student-athletes get paid or not. I don't see how this point of view changes depending on whether student-athletes are getting paid or not.

The idea paying college athletes could lessen the incentive to sell players to a school is very naive. This just isn't realistic. Even if college athletes get paid, there will still be plenty of incentive to sell a player to a certain program. Runners and AAU coaches aren't using the money they receive from schools as a sort of pledge drive to buy food for a highly recruited player, they are using this money to line their own pockets. If college athletes got paid, there would still be an even playing field and there would still be plenty of incentive to shake down a college for a recruit. Does LZ Granderson really think a stipend is going to stop the flow of cash under the table for players? That's pretty naive.

7 comments MMQB Review: If a Tree Falls in the Forest, Could Robert Griffin Fly In and Save the Litter of Kittens About to Be Crushed Under It? Edition

Peter King warned us last week that we needed to hold off on putting Andrew Luck in the Pro Football Hall of Fame quite yet. Since Luck and the Colts (but mostly Luck) won a game this week does this mean we can start canonizing him again? More importantly, if Andrew Luck put shampoo from a hotel into his overnight bag, would he be stealing or not? Obviously since it is Andrew Luck taking the shampoo, no one would care, but assuming Luck was a normal human being...would that be stealing or not? This week Peter puts Joe Flacco on blast, talks about Malcolm Jenkins saving the Saints' season and tells us all how Robert Griffin has marked his territory all over the city of New York. 

If the Saints make something of this wreckage of a season -- with Sean Payton watching on TV from his place in Dallas, with the fate of their reputation in so many courtrooms and lawyers' offices in Washington and New York, with one interim/interim coach giving way to an interim coach this morning, with the new judge and jury in the case the savior of football in New Orleans -- they'll look back at a play every Pop Warner, junior high school, high school, college and NFL coach should show their players before practice today. They'll look at a trait that warms the heart of every fan, a trait so many of us think is missing all too often from the games we invest so much of ourselves in.

Strategery.

Hustle.

Sweat. Grit. Sticktoit-tiveness.

"I knew I had a long way to go,'' Saints safety Malcolm Jenkins said from Tampa after a scintillating 35-28 win over the Bucs. "I knew I just had to go."

"What was going through your mind?'' I asked. "What were you thinking?''

Peter King asking the hard questions no one else has the guts to ask.

"Not much thinking,'' he said. "Just, 'Go as fast as you can.' ''

"If you were a flavor of ice cream, which flavor of ice cream would you be and Brett Favre."

Bucs quarterback Josh Freeman lofted a throw to wide receiver Vincent Jackson between the numbers and the left sideline, and Jackson caught it at the 26 in full stride, having beaten two Saints defenders. Every Saint's heart sank. There was nobody between Jackson and the goal line, 74 yards away. It was a gimme touchdown.

Oh, but there was somebody between the goal line and Jackson. Speed, hustle, probably God, and Malcolm Jenkins.

I've looked up the dimensions of the NFL field, and ran the play over and over about 20 times on NFL Game Rewinds in the wee hours of this morning.

Pant-less, while thinking about nothing but haikus, hustle, probably God, and Malcolm Jenkins.

By the way, when/if Gregg Easterbrook brings this play up in TMQ, he will leave out the whole part about Malcolm Jenkins being a first round draft pick. Highly-paid glory boys get no recognition for hustle.

When Jackson got to midfield, Jenkins was 10 yards to the side and six yards behind.

At about the 12, Jenkins, now behind him, reached out and contacted Jackson. At first touch, Jackson was at the 10. When Jenkins got both hands on him, Jackson was at the 7. 

I'm on the edge of my seat right now. DOES HE CATCH HIM BEFORE HE SCORES A TOUCHDOWN?

Then it was a pigpile on Jackson, who contacted the earth, with Jenkins on his back, at the 1.5-yard line.

Saints season saved, and the Saints defense, or probably God, then stopped the Bucs from scoring a touchdown.

No time to back-pat. The ball was spotted at the 1.5-yard line, and the play clock started. Jackson went to the sideline and fresh troops came in for Tampa Bay, including a fresh running back, LeGarrette Blount. But Jenkins stayed in. The Saints stoned the Bucs on first and second down. Now it was 3rd-and-goal from exactly the 1. Jenkins was still huffing and puffing when he lined up outside the right end's shoulder. 

Jenkins was huffing and puffing but could he blow the house down?

(That's a bad Chris Berman-type line for you all to not enjoy)

The Saints' problems aren't over.

What? I thought this saved touchdown ended the Saints problems for not only this season, but for next season as well? I'm vexed.

The Saints' problems aren't over. They're still adjusting to defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo's new scheme, which de-emphasizes the endless blitzing former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams commandeered. It's not a great day for the defense when it gives us 28 points and 513 yards.

So the Saints defense still sucks and this goal line stand was the exception and not the rule? That does sound like quite an issue for the Saints, doesn't it?

If the Saints can find a way to go 8-2 and save one of the strangest seasons in NFL history, every man in that locker room -- and the coach in exile, watching on TV -- will have Jenkins to thank.

Along with Drew Brees, who will most likely be responsible for leading an offense that scores 30+ points in the remaining games to help the Saints win each game. In fact, I think the Saints can thank the following people in the following order if they go 8-2:

1. Drew Brees
2. Drew Brees
3. Drew Brees
4. God
...
21. Malcolm Jenkins

Jenkins' hustle on that player was great, but if the Saints go 8-2 over the rest of the season then Malcolm Jenkins' play will just be one of many reasons why. Right now Jenkins is still a part of a Saints defense that can't stop the opposing team very well.

I always judge the mark of an incredible play in an NFL game by the reaction it gets in the NBC viewing room on the fifth floor of our Rockefeller Center building in Manhattan.

If there is another more accurate and certain way to determine if a play is incredible or not, then I certainly am not aware of it.

And when Washington quarterback Robert Griffin III had a 4th-and-10 with 2:07 left at the Meadowlands, his team down 20-16 to the Giants, this is the sound I recall hearing from the likes of Rodney Harrison, Tony Dungy, Dan Patrick, Mike Florio and a score of other football wackos in the room as Griffin took the snap, looked for a receiver, found them covered, then rolled left, Giants chasing him -- "Getridofit! ... Noooooo! .... Whoaa!!! ... Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!''

Is that a direct quote or is Peter paraphrasing?

Sounded louder than "Born To Run" at a Springsteen concert.

Well of course this is the natural comparison to the sounds heard in the NBC viewing room on the fifth floor of our Rockerfeller Center building in Manhattan, the same room that is the ultimate decider on how exciting a play may or may not be. Some plays, like many in the Raiders-Jaguars game, are as quiet as the stripped down version of "The River." 

By the way, don't you love the hyper-specific description Peter gives of where the NBC viewing room is? As if we couldn't get his point about the exciting Griffin play without the hyper-specificity on where the NBC viewing room is located. It's a shame he didn't tell us exactly which studio number the viewing room is located in.

Watching this game, I kept thinking how glad I was that Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen paid whatever it is they paid to deal for Griffin. And whatever it is, it'll be worth it. He's one of the great, special players to come into the league in the 29 seasons I've covered it. No play's ever over.

Said everyone about Cam Newton last season and this season he is nothing but a ego-driven, washed-up pouting piece of shit that probably needs to just go die.

So get used to this. Manning's had a good rivalry with Tony Romo, and an OK rivalry with Michael Vick. But Manning-RGIII could really be special. Manning's 31. Griffin's 22. I hope Sunday was the first of about 20 meetings in the regular season and postseason between them.

20 meetings? Make it 100 meetings, just as long as these games continue to pass the test of being enjoyed at "Born to Run" volume levels in the NBC viewing room of course.

When the 2013 season kicks off, the Browns want to have the braintrust (Banner, the coach and the GM) in place for several years. Haslam believes in the stability of the Pittsburgh model ...

Doesn't every franchise and owner believe in the stability of the Pittsburgh model? Is there an owner out there (cue Daniel Snyder joke) who says, "I love instability. I believe in the instability model of the Oakland Raiders"? I doubt it. Owners love stability and will always want the Steelers' model. It almost goes without saying at this point.

Fine Fifteen

1. Houston (6-1). Amazing, just amazing, to see J.J. Watt continue to make game-changing plays, like the first-half tipped pass resulting in the Johnathan Joseph interception returned for a touchdown. That's the fourth time this year Watt has tipped a ball that's resulted in an interception

And in no way is there any bit of luck involved with this statistic. Watt is so damn good he manages to tip the ball to one of his teammates, almost like a shot-blocker tips a blocked shot to a teammate. Peter's man-crush on Watt continues.

2. Atlanta (6-0). Average yards after the catch through six weeks: 36-year-old Tony Gonzalez 3.23, Reggie Wayne 3.07, A.J. Green 2.98, Roddy White 2.70, Brandon Lloyd 2.29, DeSean Jackson 2.21.

A person would be better off putting Peter's 15 best teams in a hat and drawing them out at random to determine their placement in his Fine Fifteen. Atlanta didn't even play this past weekend and they dropped a spot in Peter's power rankings. Apparently Houston beating Baltimore was just that impressive to Peter. I'm not disagreeing with Peter, just not enjoying how he seems sort of fickle with his rankings. If Atlanta is #1 going into the bye week, why aren't they #1 coming out of the bye week?

4. Chicago (4-1). It's been 15 days since the Bears played (bye, then a Monday nighter), so you're forgiven if you forgot how well Chicago was playing entering the off-week. Average margin of victory in a three-game winning streak: 23.6 points.

Great. My disaster of a team, Carolina, has the Bears next. Just for some perspective, Carolina will have played three of Peter's top four teams after this weekend. Things are terrible, but Carolina is playing some good competition as well.

8. New England (4-3). I don't like putting them two spots ahead of Seattle and one spot ahead of Baltimore -- 

And it isn't like Peter has full control of these power rankings either. These rankings write themselves people! There's no turning back once the random team names are being drawn out of a hat.

9. Baltimore (5-2). Stunningly bad performance by a good team. I understand the injuries, of course, but I don't get it, honestly.

So Peter gets it, but he doesn't get it. I'm not sure I get it.

11. Washington (3-4). Odd to have a losing team No. 11, but Robert Griffin III makes all things possible.

It sure sounds like the media is setting up Robert Griffin for a major fall. What kind of shit sportswriting is this?

"Robert Griffin makes all things possible..." 

Could this writing be more hyperbolic?

12. New Orleans (2-4). Odd to have a losing team No. 12, but who out there is going to stop Drew Brees and that passing game?

You mean other than the two 1-5 teams that have beaten them and the other two teams that have beaten the Saints this year? Other than those four teams, no one can stop the Saints.

Apparently it is "Write in meaningless cliches Week" for MMQB.

15. Pittsburgh (3-3). So the Steelers, six games in, are 1.5 games behind Baltimore with both games left against the Ravens (two weeks apart, Nov. 18 and Dec. 2), and are back in the AFC North race. But the NFL's Bono comes to town Sunday -- Robert Griffin III at Steelers, at 1 p.m. ET --

"The NFL's Bono?" Robert Griffin isn't nearly as douche-like as Bono is, though he does seem to have the same mass appeal to 50+ year old white men that Bono has.

So far in this MMQB Peter has referred to Robert Griffin as a Jesus-like figure and Bono. Maybe he needs to step back a little bit with the Griffin comparisons.

Goat of the Week

Joe Flacco, QB, Baltimore. You can be a goat and not blow the game at the end. And that's what Flacco was in Houston, with his abysmal play helping pave the wave for a 26-3 Houston halftime lead. Numbers at the half: 7 of 20, 50 yards, two interceptions ... for a passer rating of 4.2. Goat material.

Joe Flacco reads this and agrees. He thinks he's the goat too...the Greatest of All-Time that is. Vote Joe Flacco for Elite Quarterback!

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

I moved from Boston to Manhattan last fall. Last Wednesday, I had a noon appointment with my dermatologist, Dr. Suzanne Grevelink, in Boston. 

That's great. I had a very productive bowel movement early last week and this week I have a dentist appointment. Mark your calendar accordingly.

I got on a subway in Manhattan for Penn Station at 7:25 a.m. Departed New York on the Acela at 8:03 a.m. Arrived Boston Back Bay Station at 11:40 a.m. Got into cab. Arrived at derm office at 11:55 a.m. Taken into exam room at 12:07 p.m. Examined and had slight procedure done. Finished at 12:55 p.m. Got into cab. Arrived Boston South Station at 1:10 p.m. Got on 1:15 p.m. back to New York. Arrived at 4:55 p.m. Got on subway at Penn Station. Arrived home at 5:25 p.m.

In Boston: 95 minutes. With doctor: 48 minutes. Interviews by cell while in transit: four. Peace of mind: the next four months, sort of.

Somewhere there is a person on the Acela complaining on his personal blog about this jerk who insisted on talking loudly on the phone while taking notes on a piece of paper and taking up two seats the entire train ride to Boston.

"Brandon LaFell: 'If we keep playing like this, we're not gonna make the playoffs.' *cue Jim Mora clip''

-- @billvoth, freelance TV guy reporting from Carolina after the Panthers, and wide receiver LaFell, fell to the Cowboys ... and to 1-5.

I think it either (a) shows how LaFell and his team still believe they can win games or (b) LaFell's LSU education didn't give him the appropriate math skills to determine that ship has sailed and he's just standing on the shore with the rest of his teammates in denial that the ship won't come back for them.

 "Today's locker room laugh from practice was hearing how Paul Ryan looked Colt McCoy dead in the eye & said "great job at Oklahoma State' ''

-- @scottfujita99, the Cleveland linebacker, after Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan got Colt McCoy mixed up with the real McCoy, Browns starter and Oklahoma State product Brandon Weeden, on Wednesday while on a visit to the Browns practice facility.

This story has been repeated a lot over the last week. Yeah, it's a funny story for a day or so, but I don't give a shit if Paul Ryan knows who Brandon Weeden is or not. I care if he is a suitable Vice-Presidential candidate or not. What does it prove, other than to get a chuckle, about Ryan being able to help run the United States? This is a microcosm of what I hate about politics and people who give their opinion (whether Peter knows it or not he is giving an opinion here) about politics. It's not that interesting of a story and the fact Barack Obama can fill out an NCAA Tournament bracket and pick UNC to win every year doesn't mean he is a good President or isn't a good President. This is a good story, but not notable a few days after it has occurred. Unfortunately, things like this become relevant and interesting in an election year.

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 7:

f. Two touchdown runs, Andrew Luck? Who are you trying to be, RGIII?

Or are you trying to be the guy who holds the NFL record for most rushing touchdowns by a quarterback? I can't remember his name right now, but I know he is a selfish piece of shit that apparently doesn't deserve to be referred to when discussing NFL quarterbacks who ran for a lot of touchdowns.

h. Catch of the day, and I don't mean fish:

I thought you meant fish! How clever!

k. How clutch is Eli Manning?

According to my clutchiness rating he is a 96 on a scale of 1-100. Apparently Robert Griffin makes all things possible, other than making it possible for the Redskins defense to stop the opposing team. I guess he only has time to make things all possible on offense.

2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 7:

h. And Carson Palmer, if you're going to make a dumb left-handed throw, study Brett Favre first, please.

And if you do need to study Brett Favre, then Peter King has 19 DVD's full of Favre's career highlights. Though the cases of a few of them are stuck together...you know, let Peter clean them off and he will just ship them to you.

n. Stephen Hill's big late drop in New England. Can't build trust with your quarterback playing like that.

Yes, but Sanchez also missed Hill when he was open and could have gotten a touchdown. Ex-backup quarterback punt protector Jets would have instilled trust in Hill without even having met him before in his life. With ex-back up quarterback punt protector Jets, all things are possible...except for completions, those aren't so possible a good portion of the time.

4. I think you should watch for chinks in the Steeler offensive harmony. Ben Roethlisberger has been taking little shots at first-year offensive coordinator Todd Haley, and Friday, he told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "Haley's offense is not a big-play offense. It's kind of a dink-and-dunk offense." Asked about wanting more downfield throws, Roethlisberger said: "There's a guy calling the plays. That's on him." There was a gulf between Haley and his quarterback in Kansas City, Matt Cassel, and now there might be some with Roethlisberger.

I"m going to harp for a second. So why is it when Cam Newton says comments about the Panthers offense articles like this one get written, but when Ben Roethlisberger openly calls out his offensive coordinator for the type of offense he runs it isn't a story at all. Cam Newton is a cry-baby, but a lot was made of his comments that I found to be pretty generalized and not offensive towards Carolina's offensive coordinator. Then idiot writers like Jason Cole and Jason Whitlock latch on to this story and run with it to create an even bigger story. Newton just acknowledged Carolina needs to run the ball. I get tired of "sticking up" for Newton. I just want some honesty and writers to not fish for stories in regard to him. Talk about how he hasn't improved in his second season or how he needs a strong running game to win. That's all he was saying anyway and I'm tired of talking about pointless shit in regard to him. Meanwhile, Roethlisberger makes comments that I also don't have a problem with, but seem more inflammatory towards his offensive coordinator and I don't read much about it. Are Newton's comment less true because he doesn't have two Super Bowl rings and isn't winning games? These two quarterbacks are clearly on very different levels, but at what point does the truth become "the truth" rather than blaming others for your performance? Newton is right. The Panthers have personnel to run the ball and they aren't running the ball.

I'm going to answer my own question. It is because Roethlisberger is a proven NFL quarterback and the Steelers are winning games. That seems to be the only difference in my mind. Winning makes everything better. Ben Roethlisberger could call Todd  Haley a Nazi and it wouldn't matter as long as the Steelers keep winning. Roethlisberger and his comments get respect from the media because Roethlisberger has two Super Bowl rings and therefore his comments are more true in the minds of the media. Roethlisberger speaks the truth, while Newton plays the blame game.

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

a. I may be the last person on earth still to have an AOL email address, I guess I'm just too lazy to change. Now I have a good reason to change. On AOL's front page the other day, the page with news and social and sports commentary, there was a picture of Kim Kardashian, with the news that she was caught going "commando,'' which, and you don't need to use Urban Dictionary for this, means she was photographed with no underwear. Of course you could click the link and go find out more about this important story. So I'm a prude. Do I need to see a headline about some celebrity's underwear displayed prominently on the front page of a supposedly respectable internet company? Aren't there idiot websites for that? Shame on you, AOL.

I'm sorry, AOL can't hear you right now. They are deep under the huge pile of money they make every quarter.

e. From those who enjoy calling someone who has lost four parents and parents-in-law to cancer (me), pro-cancer, it's a free country.

f. My point in questioning those who continue to support Lance Armstrong and the cancer-cure charity, Livestrong, that arose out of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, was not to criticize anyone for giving money to try to help eradicate cancer. It was this, very simply: When I contribute money to a cause, I want to know where it's going, and I want to respect the people and or the cause.

The problem is nobody every really knows when they contribute money to a cause exactly what kind of people run the organization and what kind of people are going to benefit from the money given. It's silly to question those who support Livestrong because it is impossible to "know" any organization that receives money for cancer research. It's just a faulty principle to only donate money to a cause you respect based on your own perceived knowledge of that organization.

If you donate money, it should be to a cause that's totally above board.

I think everyone wants to do this. I think it is fine to hold this opinion, but it is not fine to question those who support Lance Armstrong. For Peter, it is a little bit of hypocrisy. I thought it was wrong for Peter King to solicit money from his readers in the form of an auction to help Dr. Z get expensive rehabilitation after his strokes a few years ago. Does that make me a bad person? No, because if someone wants to give money to that cause that is their choice. I thought it was dumb for Peter, who makes more than 99% audience to ask for donations from said audience for a risky, expensive procedure for one of his friends when an average, normal person who had a stroke has less ability to pay for this same risky, expensive procedure. I didn't question anyone who contributed money because that's their choice.

I have found it funny that Peter questions those who contribute money to Livestrong, but felt great soliciting funds from his readers to pay for an expensive, non-medically necessary risky procedure for one of Peter's good friends. A few years ago Peter and other NFL-related figures held auctions for lunches, etc to help pay for a medical treatment that would help Dr. Z write again. I love and respect Dr. Z, but this seemed ridiculous to me. This procedure didn't seem to be medically necessary and rather than some reader pay $3000 for lunch with Tedy Bruschi, why didn't Tedy Bruschi just give $3000 to the cause? If anyone should have ability to pay for an expensive procedure or help someone pay for a procedure like this, then it would be a sportswriter who works for Sports Illustrated and his friends in the media. This is especially true considering Peter works with NBC Sports, where there are plenty of people who earn more money than Peter's MMQB audience does. So it strikes me as odd that Peter questions those who still contribute to Livestrong in any way. I think those who bid on these Dr. Z auction items are great people. The auction eventually raised about $150,000 and I have no idea if the procedure worked or not. That money could have gone somewhere else to another person who required an actual life-saving procedure, and while it is fine to give money for this cause, I feel like it is ironic Peter is questioning people who donate to Livestrong.

h. For those who say, I don't care how they raise the money, it's sorely needed, I say: I'm glad people felt so passionate about cancer research and causes that they contributed more than a dollar for every man, woman and child in the country toward it. I just believe that if you ask complete strangers for money for anything, you should be honest in doing so.

Really? How did the expensive, experimental treatment for Dr. Z work out? I read MMQB every week and haven't gotten an update. Peter updates us on Dr. Z in this MMQB and he doesn't seem to be improving very much, so where did that money for the expensive, non-medically necessary procedure go? Maybe Peter can't hear me way up high on that pedestal.

The Adieu Haiku

Love football? Me too.
Learned one thing in Week 7:
RGIII's something.

J.J. Watt. Not Favre.
RGIII is not a God.
Please write no cliche.

8 comments ...Our Pets' Head Are Falling Off!: Week 7

San Francisco 49ers 13 Seattle Seahawks 6

I had no doubt the 49ers were going to come out and give an excellent defensive performance in this game. The Seahawks are also a good defensive team, so this was pretty much the game I expected it to be. Let's just say I wasn't starting any offensive players in my fantasy leagues for this game if I could help it. Alex Smith was efficient and didn't have to do too much because Frank Gore ran the ball so effectively. The "Russell Wilson is just so amazing and is a dedication to small quarterbacks everywhere" train took a derail this week, but that isn't completely unexpected. He's a rookie and these things happen. The 49ers are such a good defensive team but I would be lying if I didn't think the fact they are what I call "a formula team" won't hold them back at some point in the playoffs. They have a formula for winning and while it works to win games, good teams can ruin this formula for the 49ers. Run the ball, play great defense and don't force their quarterback into long third downs or situations where he has to win the game on his own. That's the formula. They can obviously win games if this formula is off, but it greatly decreases their chances. It's not a knock on them, but just an acknowledgement of how they lean on their running game and their defense. Alex Smith isn't a terrible quarterback, but more times than not the 49ers can't have the game be in his hands to win. Anytime someone says, "You need an elite quarterback to win a Super Bowl" someone scoffs and says, "What about Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson." They are the outliers. Look at the names of the winning quarterbacks in the Super Bowl since 1980.

Eli Manning
Aaron Rodgers
Peyton Manning
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Tom Brady
Brad Johnson
Kurt Warner
Trent Dilfer
John Elway
Brett Favre
Troy Aikman
Steve Young
Mark Rypien
Jeff Hostetler
Joe Montana
Doug Williams
Phil Simms
Jim McMahon

The non-elite quarterback names on this list are Jim McMahon, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

McMahon and Dilfer had historically great defenses behind them.

Brad Johnson was the game-winning quarterback for the Bucs, whose coach (Jon Gruden) knew nearly every play the opposing team (the Raiders) were running and how to counter their personnel in that Super Bowl since Gruden was the head coach for the Raiders just a year before. Johnson played well, but the Bucs had a clear advantage over the Raiders due to Gruden's knowledge of the Raiders offense and defense.

So there are three non-elite quarterbacks over the last 25 years who won the Super Bowl without a historically good defense (and the Giants behind Hostetler had an all-time great defensive performance in that Super Bowl, they also had some great individual defensive players) or an outlying circumstance that gave one team an advantage over the other have won the Super Bowl. So the question remains for the 49ers is whether their defense is historically good or not, or if Alex Smith can be really good when he needs to be. I'm not saying he can't, I am just saying he isn't an elite quarterback and that is usually what it takes to win the Super Bowl. I'm not getting excited about Alex Smith consistently being the guy who can win games for the 49ers and repeating his performance against the Saints in the playoffs last year. Smith is like tricking-out an old model Buick Skylark (which I saw the other day). It looks new because of all the modifications done and the hard work put into it, but at the end of the day it is still an older model Buick Skylark.

Houston Texans 43 Baltimore Ravens 13

The Texans bounced back nicely against the Ravens. Joe Flacco further proved his status as the one of the elite inconsistent quarterbacks in the NFL by leading the Ravens to 176 total yards of offense. I know the story is going to be that the Ravens miss Ray Lewis, but they were giving up a lot of points to teams before Ray Lewis got injured. I don't know if I can predict a free fall for the Ravens like others probably can, but it seems to be me like the Ravens offense is going to have to carry more of the load than they are used to. I guess we will find out if Joe Flacco is really an elite quarterback or not by his performance over the rest of this year. I'm not sure the Texans are still an great defensive team or not, but they certainly looked like it against the Ravens. It's hard when the opposing team is able to score at will on your defense, so I probably shouldn't put much of the blame or sarcasm on the Ravens offense. I still have questions about the Texans ability to throw the ball well if the running game isn't working due to a lack of threats outside of Andre Johnson, but when they can run the ball it really opens up the field for Schaub to throw the ball off play-action. They are very, very hard to beat when they can run the ball and are able to put pressure on the opposing offense with their pass rush. They don't look so threatening when they can't run the ball well, but I guess I should tell that to the Ravens and explain how exactly they are supposed to prevent Houston from running the ball. It's one thing to see the problem and another thing to be able to correct the problem.

Tennessee Titans 35 Buffalo Bills 34

I guess I was wrong a few weeks ago when I said Chris Johnson was done running well for the year. He went crazy against the Bills for 195 yards, though it has to be acknowledged the Bills defense isn't very good. So it was the non-moving object against the non-resistant force in this game. Ryan Fitzpatrick giveth and he taketh away again. Fitzpatrick played well for most of the game, but then he had an interception and a fumble lost late in the game. He just can't help it. He has to do just enough to help his team win and lose the game. Matt Hasselbeck subbed in nicely for Jake Locker and he sort of has the Titans moving in the right direction. That is two straight weeks of comeback victories for him. The Bills defense simply can't stop the run or the pass at this point. I'm not sure how Dave Wannstedt keeps his job after this season or even during this season for that matter. Not that the Titans are anything special obviously, but it seems to me (as an admitted outsider) the Buffalo defense should be able to stop the run at the very least better than they are doing. It's funny because there isn't a lot of drop-off in the Titans offense when Jake Locker isn't playing quarterback. Maybe that speaks to how good of a backup quarterback Matt Hasselbeck is or maybe it says Locker is about on the same level as Hasselbeck at this point in his career. I'm going to go ahead and count Chris Johnson out again for the rest of this year and say he doesn't hit 1000 yards rushing on the season. He may not even hit 900 yards rushing. He can't play the Bills every week, as much as he would like to.

Indianapolis Colts 17 Cleveland Browns 13

After taking a week off from helping the Colts win games for Chuck Pagano, God showed up again on Sunday and helped the Colts to beat the Browns as a tribute to Pagano. It seems God hates the Browns (which I am sure Browns fans already knew) and the Packers. All sarcasm aside, it is nice to hear Pagano is out of the hospital. Grandpa Weeden played pretty well yesterday, but he didn't get much help from his teammates. Trent Richardson was injured and ineffective and after that there was no running game for the Browns. Andrew Luck did his best running quarterback impression and ran for two touchdowns, which was pretty much all the Colts needed to win this game. Josh Gordon dropped a touchdown pass in the end zone that would have put the Browns ahead for good, but that's one of the issues when you have a young team, drops and mistakes like that happen. The Browns just hope the rookies are able to grow into the game and build something great 3-4 years down the road right around the time Brandon Weeden is looking to retire/collect Social Security. I would mention Andrew Luck and how great he was, but it goes without saying that he was his typical Hall of Fame self.

Green Bay Packers 30 St. Louis Rams 20

Aaron Rodgers threw seven incomplete passes in this game against a pretty good Rams secondary. That's impressive. Rodgers picked on Janoris Jenkins a lot in the game and it is unfortunate since the Rams have Jenkins' personal life all straightened out for him, they couldn't also have taken care of covering the Packers receivers for him as well. Really, the Rams need to be a better full service organization. Jenkins can't be expected to do everything. The Packers were 9-15 on third down, which seems like a pretty reliable way to win a football game. If the opposing team can't keep you from converting on third down then there's a pretty good chance to win the game. Rodgers has put all talk of a slump to rest over the past few weeks, while Sam Bradford didn't play poorly either. Bradford threw for 255 yards and seemed to be in control of the offense. Good thing for Rams fans they have a home game next week in England. The Rams even get to play the Patriots in England, which is doubly good news. Not only do the Rams lose a home game this year (after this game was overrun by those mysterious Packers fans that seemingly cheer for the home team when the Packers aren't in town but cheer for the Packers when they show up in town...it's just my experience, I'm not saying it is true everywhere), but they also get to play Tom Brady and the Patriots in England. Gosh, I love how the NFL is expanding like this and rewarding loyal Rams fans for cheering on their team. Fuck you Rams fans, not only do you lose a home game, but you miss a chance to see Tom Brady play in your home stadium. The NFL appreciates your support and wishes you would kiss their ass.

Minnesota Vikings 21 Arizona Cardinals 14

Haven't these two teams played like twice already this year? I swear they have. Anyway, the NFL is a cruel little bitch. Both teams committed two turnovers. The Cardinals had 356 yards of offense and the Vikings had 209 yards of offense. The Vikings quarterback threw for 58 yards and the Cardinals quarterback threw for 262 yards. So how did the Cardinals lose this game? Of course it helped the Vikings that Harrison Smith got a pick-6 and Adrian Peterson ran for over 150 yards, so maybe that had something to do with it. Christian Ponder said the statement of the game in my opinion,

"To win an ugly game like this is huge. That shows how good of a team we are," said Ponder, who finished 8 for 17 for 58 yards and two interceptions.

Yes, only having 209 yards of offense and still managing to win the game does show what kind of team the Vikings are. They are a team that somehow managed to win a game when they played badly and only had the ball for 25 minutes in the game. Minnesota is a team that has to play better than this next time out. That's the kind of team they are. This win is the result of the Vikings defense playing lights-out against the Cardinals by sacking John Skelton seven times. It's almost like the Cardinals need offensive line help. If only there were a draft full of college offensive linemen where they could get such a high quality player to help protect their quarterback. Oh well, it is nothing but a pipe dream it seems, there is only an NFL Draft where the Cardinals can draft from a pool of available wide receivers like Michael Floyd. The Cardinals offensive line doesn't even have the excuse they couldn't run the ball to explain the seven sacks since Levon Howling-Drowlings-Poole-Quartermaine (fine, it is Stephens-Howling) ran for 100 yards in this game.

New York Giants 27 Washington Redskins 23

At this point can the Giants just pretty much throw a touchdown pass any time they want to? I ask this only because it seems like whenever the Giants need a long touchdown pass they are able to connect on one. It must be nice to have a competent quarterback throwing the football and great set of receivers he can throw the ball to. I have to say, while I have criticized Mike Shanahan a lot over the past few years, he is pretty good at finding running backs later in the draft. Alfred Morris has been really good so far this year. He ran for over 100 yards this week. Of course the story of this game was how Robert Griffin played against the Giants. He only had eight incomplete passes and also ran for 89 yards. One of the reasons I don't care about NFL players talking shit during the week, like Jason Pierre-Paul did this week, is no one remembers what was said after the game is over. The media blows these words or threats during the week up as if they have actual ramifications when they don't. Earlier this week Pierre-Paul warned Griffin against running on his side, and what do you know, Griffin eluded Pierre-Paul on a crucial fourth down and then threw a 19 yard pass to convert the first down. It turns out Griffin can run to this side. Pierre-Paul's words are just bluster and few people remember what he said at this point. For me, the Giants are the team to beat in the NFC. If I were a Giants fan I would probably feel better if the Giants played poorly now and played better towards the end of the season. That seems to be their formula to win a Super Bowl.

New Orleans Saints 35 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 28

I guess it is official that the Saints defense still isn't very good. They gave up 513 yards to the Buccaneers offense and could have lost the game in overtime if Mike Williams had not illegally touched the football after stepping out of bounds when Josh Freeman was out of the pocket. That's not a rule I entirely understand, but it seems like a defender's best move near the end zone is once the quarterback leaves the pocket to push the receiver out of bounds so he can't be the first to touch the football, meaning not be eligible to catch a touchdown pass. Jonathan Vilma came back and though God didn't help the Saints win the game solely because of Vilma's return, it appears Vilma was able to lift the Saints up and help them in the victory through his speeches and moral support. This doesn't sound at all like bullshit that is completely made up to explain why the Saints won this game,

"It's awesome to have him back," receiver Lance Moore said. "To go through the things that he's gone through individually, then to just kind of break through and get a chance to get out there, be with his teammates -- he spoke to us last night, got us all fired up, and we had to come out here and play well."

The Saints HAD to come out here and play well. Why did they have to do this, you ask? Because Vilma said he was going to pay any Saints player $1000 to injure a fellow teammate who didn't play well against the Buccaneers. What a motivator that Vilma is. Vincent Jackson went bananas and had 216 yards receiving, which would impress me more had it not come against the Saints secondary. I think it is clear the Saints need to ride Brees out the rest of this year and hope he can simply outscore the opposing teams enough for them to get back in the playoff hunt.

Win: Dallas Cowboys 19 (3-3)
Loss: Carolina Panthers 14 (1-5)
Save: NFL Officials (1)

Even though I just posted that really whiny score above, let me make clear I absolutely do not think Carolina lost this game because of poor officiating. I do think poor officiating took away three opportunities Carolina had to win the game. It's very difficult to come back after three bad calls go against a team in the last 2 minutes and 11 seconds of a game. The Cowboys took care of winning this game and the officials helped to seal the victory. Let me explain and have every Cowboys fan who reads this blog comment angrily to disagree with me. On fourth down with 2 minutes and 11 seconds in the game, the Cowboys were changing personnel. Cam Newton saw this and hurried up a play which was complete to Greg Olsen for the first down. As Olsen caught the ball, the officials blew the whistle and signaled the Cowboys had called timeout. It didn't seem to me like the Cowboys got the timeout called before the play was called and witnesses (admittedly biased) at the game indicated the timeout was called after the play was running. Oh well. Then after the timeout Morris Claiborne committed pass interference (at least from my biased point of view) and the Panthers weren't able to complete the pass. Dallas got the ball back and then the officials called a phantom horse-collar tackle on James Anderson on second down when he stopped Phillip Tanner for no gain, which gave the Cowboys a first down. What can you do? Dallas is self-proclaimed "America's Team." Guess you can't expect calls to go your way when going up against America's Team when your team stinks.

Tony Romo was really good in this game and proved why he tends to get more blame than necessary for the Cowboys losses. If the Cowboys had lost this game it wasn't because of Romo. Winners win and losers lose. The Cowboys' offensive line did an excellent job keeping Romo clean all day and I think the only time he got his uniform dirty is when he may have spilled a drop of Gatorade on it while standing on the sidelines. The story this week is that Romo knows how to win close games, let's see if the media chooses to follow this narrative a few weeks from now.

Oakland Raiders 26 Jacksonville Jaguars 23

As I have never said, you don't want to give Carson Palmer a chance to comeback against you and the Jaguars gave Palmer a chance to comeback. The big story in this game was that Chad Henne got a chance to prove he is not the answer to the Blaine Gabbert Question. The Jaguars were 1-15 on third down and Henne performed slightly worse than Gabbert did in this game. So for Jags fans who clamor for Henne, you got him and now you can go back to clamoring for Geno Smith or whichever college quarterback savior you have your eye on this year. I know it is his first year in Jacksonville, but for a guy known as an offensive coach, Mike Mularky's team doesn't seem to gain a lot of yards on offense. Granted, it doesn't help when Maurice Jones-Drew gets injured and barely plays. The Jaguars offense has to be better than this though. At this point, Jags fans won't give a shit if all of the home games are played overseas, just as long as they don't have to pay to watch Jacksonville play (yes, I realize this was a road game for the Jags). The Jags defense didn't play terribly through the first half, but started to give up touchdowns after that. It's hard to pin this on the Jags defense when the Jags offense fumbles in overtime and easily sets up the Raiders to win the game. This sounds crazy, and I know I jokingly linked Gruden to the Cowboys last week, but I wonder if the Jags are going to fire Mularky (if they fire him, which I have no idea if they will or won't) and then go after a big name coach? It makes sense from a PR perspective and the Jags seemingly need someone to turn the momentum of the franchise around.

New England Patriots 29 New York Jets 26

Mark Sanchez blew another game for the Jets. He failed to block well enough to prevent himself from fumbling the ball and this enabled the Patriots to kick the game-winning field goal in overtime. All joking aside, Sanchez had played fairly well until that point and dealt with a Stephen Hill drop that could have helped the Jets win this game in regulation. Of course if Sanchez had hit Hill in stride earlier in the game then the Jets would have had a touchdown, and instead the ball was intercepted by Alonzo Dennard. Tom Brady was his usual efficient self and the difference in this game was the Jets turned the ball over when they couldn't afford to and the Patriots did not. I am sure this game will just give more fuel to the crowd who wants ex-backup quarterback punt protector Jets to get more snaps as the first team quarterback, but this loss wasn't completely on Sanchez. I'm just happy this was a good game because the NFL was so intelligent to only schedule two 4:25pm games on Sunday and if this was a blowout then we would be stuck with Jacksonville-Oakland (which was actually a good game as well).

Pittsburgh Steelers 24 Cincinnati Bengals 17

Yet again, the Bengals have a chance to prove they can beat good teams and they fail to beat a good team. The Steelers were missing their top two running backs and Troy Polamalu, but they still had Ben Roethlisberger, which seems to be good enough to win games. Jonathan Dwyer got confused and thought he was back at Georgia Tech running the triple-option and accidentally ran for 122 yards. Andy Dalton was fairly mediocre in passing for only 105 yards, even on a night when he didn't get sacked. The Steelers weren't even that sharp in the first half and the Bengals still couldn't build up a lead in order to win the game in the second half. The Steelers held A.J. Green to one catch and the Bengals weren't able to run the ball too well on the ground as well. This game re-taught me two things:

1. I don't count the Steelers out no matter how many injuries they have, because they have two important parts of a great football team. Great coaching and a great quarterback.

2. The Bengals are fakers until further notice. I don't mean to be hard on them, and while the Bengals have made the playoffs over the last two seasons, but they haven't consistently shown they can't beat good teams in the playoffs. This bleeds over to the regular season as well it seems.

The Steelers are annoyingly effective. They lose a road game to the Titans, and then while being short-handed, win a road game against the Bengals. I guess there goes part of the "The Steelers can't win a game on the road" narrative.

8 comments Gregg Easterbrook Wonders Where All the Sexy Pictures of Tim Tebow Have Gone

Gregg Easterbrook, who is well-known for criticizing science-fiction television shows and movies, began criticizing commercials last week for their lack of accuracy. I missed it in my TMQ, but it was pointed out in the comments that Gregg had done this. He was disappointed the NFL used actors in a commercial and didn't tell us these were actors. Basically, Gregg wants 100% accuracy in everything, except for his TMQ of course. It's perfectly fine with Gregg if he continues to mislead and confuse his readers with statistics like,

Bears defensive back Charles Tillman has more career touchdowns (seven) than Bears wide receivers Earl Bennett, Dane Sanzenbacher or Alshon Jeffrey.

This isn't very shocking and is somewhat misleading because Tillman has been in the NFL since 2003, Jeffrey is a rookie and Sanzenbacher was drafted in 2011 and is barely used. That's just how Gregg is though. He enjoys slightly misleading his readers. This week he focuses on Ray Lewis' "transformation" while wondering why no one still talks about how he covers up for murderers, criticizes more television shows (that he clearly watches) for a lack of accuracy and follows up with Pulaski Academy and their efforts to punt as little as possible. 

Father Time is catching up to others on the Baltimore front, too. But Lewis' decline is obvious. Traditionally teams run away from him; this season they've run at him. The reason is aging, a human condition that appears irreversible.

Yeah, well tell that to Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. They didn't seem to think that aging was irre---wait, nevermind. Carry on.

So how to assess Lewis? The positive are many: Super Bowl ring, two defensive Player of the Year awards, an amazing 12 Pro Bowl trips. Among the few middle linebackers of the modern era who do not come off the field on passing downs (Brian Urlacher and London Fletcher head the short list of others). 

"Short list" and London Fletcher is short. I see what Gregg inadvertently did there.

 Active in public service. 

The negative: Lewis has a criminal record, from pleading guilty to a serious crime. He cannot be understood without this context, which in recent years has been strangely absent from sportscasting and sportswriting.

I'm not a big Ray Lewis defender, but he isn't the only NFL player with a criminal record. Granted, his criminal record is for a crime other NFL players probably don't have on their record also. Then again, his criminal record was started 12 years ago, which explains perfectly why it has been absent from sportscasting and sportswriting. It happened 12 years ago and isn't a typical part of a conversation during a football game. So it makes sense to judge Lewis based on the events in Georgia twelve years ago, but I don't think it is strange for mention of these events to be absent from sportscasting. It would actually be weird if a mention of his criminal record wasn't absent from sportscasting during a game.

(Announcer#1) "Ray Lewis with a great play in running down Mendenhall. He's still showing the sideline-to-sideline speed isn't he? "

(Announcer #2) "Yes, he is! Remember the time Ray Lewis was arrested for murder and then pled guilty to a less serious crime?"

(Announcer #1) "I do. What does have to do with his sideline-to-sideline speed?"

(Announcer #2) "Well, absolutely nothing, but I feel like we need to keep bringing this fact up in the discussion of Ray Lewis' football abilities."

(Announcer #1) "Ok, then. Roethlisberger drops back, no one open, steps up in the pocket and is sacked by Ray Lewis! Great anticipation by Lewis to see Roethlisberger was about to take off running and keep him in the pocket for the sack."

(Announcer #2) "Ray Lewis has slowed down some, but he still shows great anticipation. Better anticipation than he showed 12 years ago when he was arrested for murder and then later pled to a lesser crime. What does that say about him regarding this specific game? I'm not sure, but it---"

(Announcer #1 has the producer mute Announcer #2's microphone)

Lewis admitted lying to police, and based on his testimony, the best-case reading of his actions is that a huge, muscular NFL player stood by doing nothing while his companions killed a pair of men.

This may be true. Of course Gregg will go on to say we aren't really ever sure what happened in this case, so Gregg's "at best" situation may have not even occurred. It's a part of Lewis' legacy though, so it will be considered. I don't know why sportscasters should bring this topic up.

The companions subsequently were acquitted on grounds of self-defense; it was suggested, though never proved, that the two men killed threatened Lewis' group with a gun. Society might never know for sure what happened that night.

So about that "at best" situation Gregg just theorized. How do we know that's true again? It may be or Lewis may have killed this guy. Who knows, but this isn't something sportswriters or announcers are going to talk about when discussing Lewis' football exploits.

That is -- Lewis, by appearances, is redeemed. No one can know what is in another person's heart. But since 2000, Lewis has seemed a changed man. And this is more important than his achievements as a football player. 

Are we going to consider Ben Roethlisberger's bathroom sexual exploits when considering him for the Hall of Fame or considering his career? I'm not against a conversation like this, but Gregg is acting like sportswriters and announcers are remiss for not continuously bringing up this 2000 incident when this isn't something that needs to be continuously brought up at this point. We know it is a part of the story. His "redemption" is part of who he is as a person, but announcers should stick to calling the game they are working.

Sweet Play of the Week: Backup corner Sheldon Brown snagged a pick-six in the fourth quarter to ice Cleveland's victory, making the Browns the final team of the 2012 season to post a win. 

Doesn't Gregg mean "second round pick glory boy Sheldon Brown" snagged a pick-six? I keep forgetting that Gregg fails to mention it when a highly drafted player makes a good play on the football field.

Sweet 'N' Sour Plays of the Week: Trailing favored New England 23-10 halfway through the fourth quarter, Seattle faced fourth-and-3 on the Patriots 10. New England appeared to expect something short; rookie Russell Wilson threw to the end zone, touchdown, sweet. 

I hope Gregg knows that even though New England expected something short this doesn't mean they had defenders out of position if the Seahawks threw to the end zone. He probably doesn't know this. This was simply bad defense.

Now New England leads 23-17 with 1:27 remaining, the Bluish Men Group has possession on the Flying Elvii 46. Where oh where might the pass go? Maybe up the field! Yet Sidney Rice was able get behind the entire New England secondary for the winning touchdown. Sweet for Seattle, sour for New England -- how can a receiver get behind a secondary that expects a deep pass?

Doesn't Gregg mean how did highly-paid, highly drafted glory boy Sidney Rice get behind the secondary for a deep pass? The answer to this question Gregg poses is that New England didn't necessarily expect a deep pass in this situation. The Seahawks only had 46 yards to go in order to get a touchdown, so it wouldn't necessarily make sense for Seattle to take a chance deep when they could run the game clock down and not allow the Patriots offense to get the ball back. So the secondary didn't have a logical reason to expect a deep pass. Should they have been covering to prevent a deep pass? Of course, but the secondary wouldn't have a reason to expect a deep pass since the Seahawks could take their time scoring a game-winning touchdown.

Postscript: Because the voter rolls, which are public record, show the members of my household always vote in every election, including primaries, biennially our home is buried under campaign mailings. In this election cycle, our home phone has rung nonstop with robocalls backing John Delaney, Democratic candidate for the new 6th District seat. The outfit robocalling for Delaney calls itself Accountable America. But when the phone rings with Delaney's robocalls, the caller ID says "anonymous." Some accountability! 

There is probably a reason the robocalls come from an anonymous number. For example, caller ID sometimes says "anonymous" if there is no call back number or if it is a private line. Most likely, the caller ID says "anonymous" so people don't call the robocall back or perhaps because that phone can't take incoming calls. There is a reason that could have nothing to do with accountability.

I propose this rule: Always vote against any candidate or single-issue group that robocalls your home.

Or simply get rid of your landline and have a cell phone.

Weirdly, in pro football, some equipment use is optional -- mouth guards still aren't obligatory. A clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement says the NFLPA must consent to any equipment mandates, and the NFLPA doesn't want to give on knee and thigh pads unless it gets a concession in return.

Mandating knee and thigh pads would improve player safety -- isn't that getting something in return?

Oh my. No, this is not "getting something in return" from the NFL. There is a difference in "getting something in return" as Gregg so well turns the phrase around and "getting a concession in return." Gregg turns this phrase around to make them seem like they are the same thing when they are not. Players are getting something in return for wearing thigh and knee pads, more safety, but the NFL isn't conceding anything. The NFLPA would want the NFL to concede something if knee and thigh pads are mandated. There is a difference in "getting something in return" and the NFL making a concession that I know Gregg understands, yet he plays dumb.

The Squared Sevens looked very mortal -- the Giants basically toyed with them. The vaunted Forty Niners offensive line surrendered six sacks to a conventional four-man rush. 

What Gregg really means is the 49ers vaunted offensive line gave up six sacks to Giants players, four of those sacks were caused by highly drafted players drafted in the first or second round. Alex Smith was intercepted three times, all three times by players who were first round draft choices. You can guarantee if these players were lowly drafted or undrafted Gregg would have reminded us of this fact.

As for the Bills, at this point it's a moral victory when they don't collapse in the second half. Mario Williams had his first good game since signing the richest contract in NFL annals for a defender.

This was Mario Williams first good game since signing this contract as long as we don't count his 4 tackle, 1.5 sack game against the Browns. Why would this game count though? It doesn't help to prove Gregg's point, which is all Gregg seemingly cares about.

TMQ's second law of comebacks holds that if the big lead is attained by halftime, the trailing team has just as much time to come back as the leading team had to get ahead.

This isn't a law. This is logic. If a team is trailing by 20 at halftime, then that team has thirty more minutes to catch up to that team. Hence why it is called "halftime," because half of the time in the game is already over. This is by no means a law, but instead is common sense.

With San Diego leading 24-7 late in the third quarter, the Bolts had third-and-8 on the Denver 33. Football IQ needs to be at work here. A field goal makes it a 27-7 edge with little more than a quarter remaining. When you're behind, be bold; when you're winning by this much, rush, then get three.

As always, Gregg has hard-and-fast rules every NFL team should adhere to, unless those rules don't work in which case NFL teams should avoid these rules. I thought "fortune favors the bold?" Why would San Diego not be bold and aggressive? That's right, because the team winning a game shouldn't continue to be aggressive. I never knew this was a position of Gregg's that a team in the lead needs to be conservative to win the game. I'll have to remember this next time Gregg criticizes a team that plays soft defense and allows the opposing team to come back and win the game. Gregg also criticizes San Diego for continuing to pass the ball. They were simply being bold and aggressive. What happened to fortune favoring that? Why doesn't Gregg's hard-and-fast rule not apply in this situation?

The Broncos showed a double overload blitz -- two edge rushers outside each offensive tackle. Rivers had six to block six, but with an unorthodox blitz coming and an undrafted rookie at tackle, the odds of an offensive line breakdown were higher than usual.

My world is rocked. For years now we have been hearing Gregg preach that "fortune favors the bold" and undrafted players work harder and are better players than first round draft picks. So now Gregg doesn't think fortune favors the bold and he thinks an undrafted rookie is a liability? Gregg's rules are stupid in the first place, but his moving away from this rules when convenient is even more stupid.

Peyton Manning is a serious quarterback. At halftime, he knew he was on the cusp of ridicule. Had Denver lost, the sports world today would be saying Manning was washed up. Touts would be noting Manning was 2-4 in his first six Broncos starts, while Tim Tebow was 5-1 in his first six Broncos starts last season. 

No, stupid NFL writers and every single person who works at ESPN, both of whom are desperate to mention ex-backup quarterback punt protector Jets in every possible column would notice this and then mention it. Most other people would give this little statistic the attention it deserves by ignoring it.

Rivers seemed to take the second half off -- like, hey, the Chargers never bring it until December.

I believe two or three years ago Gregg said the Chargers disappear in December and then made a stupid comment about how the players are too busy hanging out on the bench at this point in the year to worry about football. I couldn't find it in my archive unfortunately.

Now that the new television season is in swing, consider "NCIS: Los Angeles" one of the top-rated shows. Your columnist has viewed perhaps a quarter of the episodes in its oeuvre. Not once, but twice in that sampling, three NCIS agents and one LAPD officer have flown from Los Angeles to a distant nation, entered posing as tourists, gotten weapons and seemingly a case of ammunition through airport security unnoticed, killed a dozen bad guys, rescued someone, then simply returned to the airport to fly home on a commercial jet. 

It's almost like this is a television show that is presented for the purpose of entertainment and isn't in any way supposed to be represent reality. Of course we all know television shows are supposed to perfectly adhere to reality, so this couldn't be the case.

Forget that there is never the slightest hint what conceivable jurisdiction the LAPD has in Dubai or Romania.

The NCIS members aren't LAPD because they are special agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, so the fact LAPD has no jurisdiction in Dubai and Romania may be irrelevant if NCIS has jurisdiction of any kind in those countries. So perhaps asking about LAPD's jurisdiction is an irrelevant question, even if one member of the LAPD accompanies members of NCIS to another country. 

In Hollywood and TV nonsense, no one is ever checked at airports. 

And you never see someone go to the bathroom on television either! How do network executives have the guts to continuously falsely portray the bathroom habits of human beings!

Near-perfect last season, the Packers always had an opponent-specific game plan.

Every NFL team has an opponent-specific game plan. As general rule I just made up, if you write a weekly NFL column and don't understand each NFL team game plans for each specific opponent, then you need to stop writing a weekly NFL column.

The Packers are now 3-3 -- an asterisk 4-2 owing to the officiating fiasco at the end of their contest against the Seahawks. A .500 record is not flashy. But check Aaron Rodgers: 16 touchdown passes versus four interceptions. That's the sort of amazing number he posted in the past two seasons, when the Pack were the team to beat. By Thanksgiving, they might be the team to beat this season.

So now Gregg thinks the Packers could end up being the team to beat? In his Week 1 TMQ, Gregg proposed maybe the Packers streak of winning was over. 

Funny how time changes a person's perception of a team. 

Tebow Beefcake:

I'm not sure why Gregg is continuing to search out pictures of men on the Internet, nor am I sure why he was complaining earlier this year there weren't enough pictures of men without clothes on to be found on the Internet, but it sure is a bit disturbing. Now he is calling ex-backup quarterback punt protector Jets a "beefcake." It seems Gregg has given up discussing NFL cheerleaders so he has more time to discuss men without shirts on.

As recently as last week, Jockey's website offered numerous beefcake photos of Tim Tebow in naught but briefs. Now it offers this with this the only Tebow/Jockey photo yours truly could locate. What happened?

I don't know Gregg, perhaps you should have bookmarked those photos or saved these photos to your hard drive when they were posted. More importantly, why are you continually looking for pictures of ex-backup quarterback punt protector Jets without clothes on? This is as creepy, if not more creepy, than Gregg's insistence at including pictures of cheerleaders in his TMQ.

Let's hope it's not that Tebow get a hard time from the religious right for posing shirtless for Jockey and Vogue.

Yes, that would be a tragedy if this occurred and the religious right was responsible. Regardless of who is responsible, it is already a huge tragedy to Gregg that shirtless pictures of men have been taken off the Jockey website. I'm not sure why this is a tragedy for Gregg, but he certainly seemed concerned enough to mention it in TMQ.

There's no reason a person cannot be religious and also admire the human form, or be enthusiastic about sex appeal.

Keeping telling yourself that Gregg...and pull your pants back up. Can't have anyone catch you like that.

Reader Matt Anderson of Richmond, Va., reports, "I attended Vikings at Redskins. For the first quarter, the cheerleaders wore pink tee shirts, and the home team fell behind 9-0. To start the second quarter, the cheerleaders stripped to two-piece bikini-beach numbers. The Skins instantly became unstoppable on offense and a wall on defense, outscoring the Vikings 38-17 for the remainder of the contest." 

Matt, you are a part of the problem. Please stop egging Gregg on (damn, that's a lot of "g's" in that sentence).

Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! Les Mouflons leading Miami 6-0 in the second quarter, the Rams' defense showed big blitz. Ryan Tannehill audibled to a go to wide receiver Marlon Moore, who caught a 29-yard touchdown pass. Corner Janoris Jenkins ignored Moore, letting him run up the field uncovered: Jenkins was busy making the high school mistake of looking into the backfield trying to guess the play.

I don't know what the heck Jenkins was thinking on that play, but it wasn't the blitzing that caused the touchdown, it was the fact Jenkins either got his coverage mixed up or thought he had safety help. He just let Moore go right by him. So even if there wasn't a blitz, I can see a situation where the safety wouldn't have gotten there in time. It looks like the Rams were playing Cover 1 off the blitz and the safety couldn't get there in time. Maybe if the Rams have a safety back the touchdown could have been prevented, Moore did blow right by Jenkins, so there is a chance a safety couldn't have helped anyway. The bottom line is this play isn't a warning against blitzing, but is a warning that rookie cornerbacks will often get confused and make mistakes. This touchdown is mostly on Jenkins, not the fact the Rams blitzed.

Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! No. 3: Washington led visiting Minnesota 31-26 with 2:56 remaining, facing third-and-4 on its 26. The Vikings, holding two timeouts, were fine if they forced an incompletion. Instead, Minnesota blitzed six. RG3 stepped up into the pocket and took off -- when he crossed the line of scrimmage, he had already passed six of the 11 Minnesota defenders. Seventy-four yards later, his untouched touchdown run was complete, and the rest was filler. 

This touchdown wasn't only caused by the blitz. It was also caused by the defender for the Vikings not holding containment and allowing Griffin to escape the pocket. If the Vikings edge defenders had held containment then there is a good chance the Vikings could have sacked Griffin.

Interested in Modern Online Finance? Get the scoop from a handsome guy. 

It's just becoming bizarre now how Gregg will actively start looking for handsome men on the Internet.

This season, TMQ is following the fourth-down results at Pulaski Academy in Little Rock, Ark., where coach Kevin Kelley has eschewed the punt for years. Last season, Pulaski punted once and won the state title. 

Pulaski has also won a state title while punting the football, but because Gregg selectively chooses his facts in order to prove his point, he neglects to mention this little tidbit.

Friday, Pulaski won 45-14 to advance its record to 5-2. Kelly reports, "This week one for six on fourth downs in awful weather conditions."

Results:

Fourth-and-4 on opponent 34-- pass, did not convert.
Fourth-and-2 on opponent 44-- pass, did not convert. 
Fourth-and-4 on opponent 42-- pass, did not convert. 
Fourth-and-13 on opponent 25 -- pass, did not convert. 
Fourth-and-11 on own 23 -- pass, did not convert. 
Fourth-and-1 own 17 -- pass, convert. 

One for six is how well Pulaski did. It was the weather conditions' fault though and not representative at all of whether going for it on fourth down every single opportunity works or not.

Trailing Jersey/A 23-3 in the third quarter, San Francisco's Harbaugh/West went for it on fourth-and-15. When the play was a short underneath pass with little chance of gaining 15 yards, the home crowd booed lustily. 

But Harbaugh was bold! Doesn't fortune favor him because of this? Apparently fortune doesn't favor him because Alex Smith had the audacity to throw the ball short. If Alex Smith had gone for a longer pass there is no doubt in Gregg's mind he would have completed it and gotten the first down.

I opined that considering the way the arts are financed, when civic orchestras go on strike, essentially they are striking for more charity. Ryan Leonard, of Pittsburgh, notes that although civic orchestra members are well-paid if they work the full year, often they don't, while they constantly audition: "The auditions are insanely competitive, you do them at your own expense, then sometimes it ends up no one is hired. Skilled musicians would be very content with one-tenth the annual pay of skilled football players." 

This isn't a very good defense of civic orchestras by this reader. The arts tend to be financed through the giving of others. I don't think this reader disputed this. Quite a few people would be very content with one-tenth the annual pay of skilled football players since that would be around a salary of $100,000. So it isn't like musicians go through more to find a job than a normal person may or a skilled musician is working for peanuts. Job openings in the normal working world are also insanely competitive and job hunters have to go to the interviews on their own time, often taking time off work from their current job to go to the interview. Basically I am saying it isn't a good defense to say skilled musicians would be very content with one-tenth the annual pay of skill football players and there is a competitive environment for a job, because both are true statements related to many jobs.

Next Week: Why doesn't General Motors market Batmobiles? 

That wouldn't be a waste of taxpayer money at all. 

11 comments It Seems Bill Simmons Friday NFL Picks Column Has Not Improved Considerably

I've been asked a lot (three times is now "a lot" by the way) recently why I don't write more about Bill Simmons columns on this blog. I really should and I want to, but it's a matter of logistics really. He usually posts his Friday article around 2pm at the earliest and at that point I am too lazy to write anything more before the weekend. When the next week starts I am focused on MMQB, TMQ, and any other thing that may have happened during the weekend. Bill's NFL picks columns only have a shelf life of one week since they are essentially picks for that weekend's games, so it causes an issue for me because I tend to accumulate articles and post them leisurely. Basically Bill has done a great job of foiling me by preying on my laziness on Friday afternoons. He posts something then so I have less of a chance of getting to it. It's all about me, don't you know?

Having said that, I figured I would try to stay somewhat ahead of the curve for a week and post Bill's Friday picks before his next picks are posted. Bill has basically stopped writing any type of column on Friday for his NFL picks and has made his Friday "column" essentially a mailbag. I'm not sure whether to call him lazy or credit for him realizing he is running out of column ideas. 

Let's get to the various emails sent to Bill from SimmonsClones, which are a group of people who have no other goal in life than to have Bill answer their email and thereby give them validation of their existence in this world.

Things I've given up on through five-plus weeks of the NFL season: Pittsburgh, Philly and Green Bay being contenders (they aren't); New Orleans or San Diego doing anything in 2012 (they won't); Detroit's special teams; Denver's running backs; Arizona's offensive line; St. Louis's receivers; Buffalo's everything; Mike McCarthy and Mike Tomlin in tight games; Houston's philosophy of running Arian Foster into the ground; Ron Rivera, Norv Turner, Chan Gailey and Pat Shurmur in any game; Arizona's sleeper chances; the Buffalo/Oakland/Detroit/New Orleans/Tennessee defenses;

See what I mean? So much changes so fast in the NFL, Bill's column has a limited shelf life. Green Bay showed they are a contender, Buffalo won this week, Pat Shurmur and Chan Gailey's team won, and the Oakland/Buffalo/Tennessee defenses had a pretty good week.

any QB named "Matt," "Mark" or "Mike" who doesn't have the last name "Ryan" or "Schaub"; 28-year-old rookie QBs;

Weeden is 29 years old now.

Things I'm wavering back and forth on: Could Philly and Seattle contend if they promoted their backup QBs?

I think Seattle possibly could, but my faith in Trent Edwards and Nick Foles isn't very high. I'm all about Mike Vick losing his starting job, but I don't trust the guys playing behind Vick to help the Eagles win games. Of course, the Eagles did fire Juan Castillo for having the audacity of being an offensive line coach hired by Andy Reid to coach the defense, so everything must be fixed now in Philadelphia.

Let's hit the Week 6 picks mailbag, sponsored as always by Dr. Moreau …

Last week in his mailbag Bill did a whole "Island of Dr. Moreau" riff that was about as interesting as it sounds like it was.

Q: You can't say the Turkish movie death scene is the best ever, not when Charles Bronson's The Evil That Men Do bar scene is out there. Watch Bronson defend a much larger man with gigantism over a dame's safety — he knocks the guy to the ground, puts his boot on his throat, and two-hands his old peckeroo to death. Now, my question is, why isn't there more dong-grab death in Hollywood anymore? You tell me why women wouldn't swoon over a man who chokes a man to death by grabbing his junk?
—Mark R Sheehan, Quincy

I wonder if Mark from Quincy has a relative or friend named "Tommy?"

Oh, and there aren't many dong-grab death scenes in movies anymore because generally men either don't leave their dongs exposed enough to be grabbed or are too far away to be dong-grabbed. Not to get in an analysis of a dong-grab, but a man would have to be standing still or in an exposed position to have his dong-grabbed. Perhaps in the middle of a fight there could be a sudden dong-grab, but men generally protect their privates very well. I'm also not sure women would swoon over a man who chokes a man to death by grabbing his penis either. Mostly the women would wonder why this man felt the need to grab the other man's dong in the process of killing him. I can imagine a conversation between two women swooning over a man who chokes another man to death by grabbing his penis.

(Woman #1) "I love watching Ryan Martin do pretty much anything in a movie. It doesn't matter to me what he is doing as long as I can watch him."

(Woman #2) "Ryan Martin. Who is he again?"

(Woman #1) "He's the guy who choked that another guy to death in "Death Match 2" by grabbing his penis."

(Woman #2) "Oh yeah! I know him. He is easy on the eyes isn't he? Especially the way he instantly grabbed that other man's penis and choked him to death. That was so hot. I love it when one man attempts to injure another man by grabbing his penis or any time a hot guy makes a move for another man's private parts. I'm having hot flashes just thinking about it."

SG: It's a great point. Just remember, these things come in waves in Hollywood. You know how we're on a run of "found video footage" horror movies right now? We could easily go on a run of dong-grab death movies any year now.

Since action movies are generally directed towards men I'm not sure it is a good idea to include too many dong-grab death scenes. It seems like this would chase part of the target market away. But I'm not a super-smart producer of television shows like Bill Simmons is, so what do I know?

Colts (+3.5) over JETS

Q: I loved a tease with the Packers all week, and got completely talked out of it after hearing Chuck Pagano's leukemia story. Did the Colts have any business at all beating them? Absolutely not. But every time something like this happens, the underdog ends up winning. Remember the Jets winning their season opener on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. (You might as well have changed the Cowboys' name to the Al Qaeda Cowboys for this game, because if the Jets had lost, the terrorists would have won.) Remember the Saints' first game back in the Superdome after Katrina? (23-3 Saints win over Falcons.) Never underestimate the "The Tragedy Factor," it's the biggest lock in sports betting.
—Doug Raney, Atlanta

Bill will end up agreeing this could be a theory. It's a great theory other than it not being true. Again, Joe Philbin's son died last year and the Packers ended up losing their home playoff game to the Giants that very same week. Where was this "tragedy factor" last year when this happened? Not to mention, as tragic as Chuck Pagano's leukemia story may be, I don't think even he would compare that as a tragedy on par with Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. It seems like his diagnosis has a much smaller "tragedy factor" than the death of thousands of Americans at the hand of terrorists and an entire city flooding leaving thousands without home and water, while having to completely rebuild their lives. I don't feel like these three events should be lumped together into the same "tragedy factor." Not to mention, plenty of tragedies occur and sports teams in that city don't start winning games after the tragedy occurs. Otherwise the state of Colorado would have quite a few championship trophies at this point.

It's almost like creating a set of rules to govern gambling in Bill's columns hasn't been working for ten years now and probably isn't a pursuit worthy of his time anymore.

SG: There appears to be real legs to this "Chuckstrong" story line, which is great on a macro level (it's inspiring) and fascinating from a football level. Could their coach's health issues band the Colts together and push them toward 10 wins and a playoff spot?

Bill is all about "ubuntu" and a group of players banding together and achieving something extraordinary through sports because they were inspired to do so. Basically, Bill believes sports are entirely exemplified through the lyrics to the song "One Moment in Time." The Colts improbable playoff run, while inspired by the loss of their coach, did seemed to come to a screeching halt this past weekend.

Q: Following the 666th installment of Monday Night Football, Mark Sanchez has 6 TD's, 6 interceptions, 6.6 YPA, and most remarkably a passer rating of 66.6. Will this game inevitably mark the height of his Satanic villainy when he is Tebow's foil in Fourth and God II: God Willing?
—Blake N., Sioux Falls

SG: Roughly 431,345 people e-mailed me those satanic Sanchez numbers this week, 

This tells me roughly 431,345 people need to go find some friends somewhere else to share this information with. When your first reaction to hearing these statistics is, "I have to email Bill Simmons and tell him about this," then you probably have some serious social issues or crave Bill's acceptance a little too much.

I'm totally against the idea of crossing Fourth and God 2 with The Omen or The Devil's Advocate and making it a combination sports movie/horror movie.

(Follow-up note: Grantland editor Dan Fierman read this and vehemently disagreed that we don't need evil Sanchez for the sequel, arguing, "He's the perfect foil! Tebow goes to New York, basically Sodom and Gomorrah combined, then conquers the town only to find that Satan is actually lurking in his own locker room. It's Rosemary's Baby meets Rudy!" Crap, he might be right.

Bill realizes he can edit this stuff out of his column, doesn't he? We don't need to read about Bill changing his mind. Of course if Bill edited this part out then he wouldn't get the chance to do some hilarious riffs like,

I nominate that Sanchez drops the satanic wrinkle and just goes back to making snide Tebow comments and sleeping with celebrity cougars.

Absolutely hilarious. If you think Bill is going to edit his column in a way that doesn't show off just how damn hilarious and creative he is, well then you haven't read a Bill Simmons column before. They are mostly about him, even the mailbags, which by definition should be a little bit about Bill's readers and their ideas. If a reader makes a funny joke or a creative observation then Bill has to improve upon this idea or contribute his own idea as well. He wants us to know he is always the funniest and most creative guy in the room.

Q: I work in the finance dept of a very conservative Fortune 100 Company. It's 8:40 on Tuesday morning and I hear a very distinct TEEEBOOOWWW!!!! Shout from across the floor that is then echoed by 3 or 4 response TEEEBOOOWWWs from different directions.

I know what this reader is going to ask and the answer is, yes, you do need to find a new job with less douche-like co-workers.

There is no chance any other athlete elicits this reaction following a 5 carry, 19-yard performance. Isn't that all the Jets need to know to put the wheels in motion for Fourth and God II?
—Pat, Hartford

I find it very cute how Bill's SimmonsClones write into him by reinforcing in Bill's mind that his ideas are so creative and exemplary. Bill's readers are like a cartoon side-kick that only serves the purpose of telling another character how great his ideas are. I can hear SimmonsClones saying, "You're right boss, that's a great line!" as Bill stares at one of them dismissively. Bill's mailbags seem to mainly consist of his readers reminding him of how great his ideas are and Bill thinking of more ideas his readers can fawn over in his next mailbag. It's like one big circle-jerk.

Q: Ron Rivera reminds me of when you play that late night Madden game against your buddy who is on the verge of passing out. His guys are moving, but not really. His play calling is obvious and conservative because he is just "Asking Madden." Instead of saying "Eff it, I'm hammered, it's late, let's go for the W any way possible," he plays "not to lose."...Every year I convince myself in the offseason things like "Matt Moore has the intangibles, this is our year" or "Charles Godfrey is about to step on the scene in a major way" …and then usually 2-3 weeks into the regular season I question not only my Panthers fanhood, but my priorities in life. Help me Bill, help me.
—Chip, Hoboken, NJ

If anything should make Chip question his priorities in life, it should not be which NFL team he cheers for, but the following issues I see with this email:

1. He bases a quarterback having a good season based solely on "intangibles."
2. He writes into Bill whining about his favorite team.
3. He asks for Bill's help in dealing with his favorite team in the email, like a whiny little person would do.
4. The mere fact he is writing into Bill, this alone should make him question his priorities in life.
5. He uses a comparison to "Madden" rather than just saying how he feels or what he means, which is something Bill Simmons does all of the time.

Q: I'm sitting in my dark basement after the Browns blew a 14 point lead (21 if you took the points) to the Giants and realized three things.
1. The Browns will have the 1st pick in the 2013 draft.
2. The Browns will draft QB Geno Smith.
3. The Browns essentially traded Julio Jones for Brandon Weeden … our 29 year old backup QB.
… huffing leaded paint never sounded so good.
—Jeremy, Cleveland

SG: I thought Jeremy was kidding, but looked it up just to be sure...Just for fun, can we pay-per-view a phone call of Cleveland's Mike Holmgren calling Atlanta and seriously offering Taylor, Little, Marecic and Weeden for Julio Jones, with all proceeds going to Chuckstrong?

I don't know how big of a Browns fan this drama queen is, but Brandon Weeden is the Browns starting quarterback, not their backup quarterback. If he is ignoring the acquisition of Phil Taylor and Greg Little then he can't be that big of a Browns fan. These two guys have contributed to the Browns team over the past two seasons. Not to mention, it would be great to have Julio Jones on the roster, but who would be throwing him the football? Colt McCoy? It helps Julio Jones' productivity that he has Matt Ryan throwing him the football. Don't overlook this important part of Jones' success that he has a Pro Bowl quarterback throwing him the ball and has Tony Gonzalez and Roddy White helping to take pressure off of him.

Q: Last week saw a major turning point in Atlanta sports history. After seeing one of the worst calls in baseball history, during a sudden death playoff game, Atlanta fans reacted the way Philadelphia/Boston/New York fans would have reacted: by chucking shit onto the field. It was the wrong thing to do, of course, for safety and other reasons. But at the same time, I felt proud of my city. Atlanta fans are notoriously soft, not nearly as passionate as other fan bases. But raining trash on the field showed that we cared, we really cared.
—Dan, Atlanta

SG: I'm a Red Sox fan who defended when we threw stuff on the field after the umps screwed us in Game 5 of the 1999 ALCS at Fenway, so don't expect me to judge you or throw any stones from this glass house. But I'd say Atlanta's turning point started earlier with the Joe Johnson trade...Once you dumped him and his undumpable contract, you had one of those "Will Ferrell running down the street naked in Old School" moments and it never really stopped.

Apparently it is "forced pop culture analogy time" in Bill's mailbag. I really wish he would give us a heads-up before he forces an analogy into a column. This one really snuck up on me. Bill can't go without a pop culture analogy in his columns, but what once felt like natural analogies that were clever have quickly become forced and much less creative. He ends up shoehorning an analogy into a column as if he is contractually obligated to do so.

Q: Can you please stop coddling the Raiders? I love your continued insistence that the Raiders 35-13 loss in Week 2 to Miami was because 'they were wearing their black jerseys in the Miami sun'. Really? You are better than that. What's the blowout excuse this week? The air conditioning was too low in the Georgia Dome? You can't put any lipstick on this pig. White jerseys, black jerseys … The Raiders have lost 35-13 and 37-6 on the road this year. When the Falcons take the Silver and Black behind the woodshed this weekend, let's all agree it's because Carson Palmer just isn't that good, okay?

Falcons fans are so funny. They are like N.C. State fans in that way. You give them a little bit of success and then it completely goes to their head and they can't figure out why their team isn't winning back-to-back championships. The Falcons seemingly haven't played a very difficult schedule yet and their fans are starting to get cocky and mean. In regard to the comment about taking the Raiders behind the woodshed, the Raiders almost beat the Falcons at home this week. Not that Falcons fans care, this just makes them think their team is even better than originally thought because they won the game, didn't they!

SG: Aren't we overdue for the defining Carson Palmer BQBL game? I'm going all out with this pick: Atlanta 55, Oakland 17.

Well, Bill was only 30+ points off from what the final score really was. That's not so bad, is it?

Q: As I was watching the A's/Tigers playoff game, I realized baseball is the only sport where the coaches/managers wear their team uniforms.

You just realized this? How old are you, nine years old? Why is your mom letting you use the computer at this late hour?

How much funnier would all the other sports be if the coaches had to wear the uniforms? If you could choose 2 coaches each from the NFL and NBA that had to wear their team uniforms, who would you pick?

File this under the same heading as the "why do we drive on a parkway, but park in a driveway" observations that have been played out at this point. Needless to say, Bill answers the question and one of his answers is "Andy Reid." Bill has been riding Andy Reid jokes for almost his entire ESPN career.

Regardless, I'm worried about this game: Seattle's defense and special teams are significantly better than New England's defense and special teams. We already know they love playing home. The Pats just slapped together three of the greatest offensive halves in the history of football: 80 points, 10 touchdowns and fifty-one first downs … there's just no way that can keep going; they're due to regress a little, right? There's some serious "Pete Carroll Revenge Game" potential here, as dopey as that sounds. And after torturing me for five weeks, wouldn't it be fitting if my pick for the NFC's Super Bowl QB (Russell Wilson) ended up torturing my favorite team?

I would normally give Bill credit for writing this, but he is so negative about his favorite teams sometimes he ends up being right at some point.

Q: Just broke out Madden 12 for the first time in 4 months. Fired up a Cardinals franchise. Larry Fitzgerald breaks his collar bone. Who tackled him? BERNARD KARMELL POLLARD
—Jon H, Mountain View, CA

Gee, this doesn't sound like something Jon H. from Mountain View, California completely made up in order to write in to Bill and bait him with a "BERNARD KARMELL POLLARD" joke. Jon H. is actually smart because he knows if you massage Bill's ego and remind him of how smart he is then you have a good chance of getting your comment published. Seriously though, if this story is even real, who writes in to Bill Simmons and tells him this? Was Jon H. sitting there and saw Bernard Pollard hurt Larry Fitzgerald, then immediately have to run to the keyboard and email Bill about what happened? Why do SimmonsClones rely so much on Bill's affirmation and tell him such needless things? It honestly disturbs me how they seem to crave his acceptance.

SG: This isn't the first "Bernard Karmell Pollard injured one of my Madden guys" e-mail I've gotten.

Now I'm just getting sad. There is more than one person who thinks to email Bill Simmons about the results of a video game?

Did the Madden people put something into the game that made Pollard much more likely to injure opponents during franchise seasons?

No, your readers are liars who make up a story in an effort to get you to acknowledge their comment and thereby validate their existence.

Q: My boyfriend and I are pretty thrilled by your "noodle arm" Peyton observations.

Great. Now there is a risk of a pregnancy between these two people and those who enjoy reading Bill's columns could multiply. Something needs to be done about this. Perhaps sterilization?

Q: Have defenses figured Rodgers out and how to stop him? Was his year-and-a-half ridiculous run a fluke? He seems off in almost every aspect: his throws aren't pinpoint, his decision-making is questionable, he's back to holding the ball too long and he locks onto receivers too early in the play. Did Tom Brady ever go through a phase like what Rodgers is going through?
—Jarrett, Milwaukee

Jarrett, I think Aaron Rodgers would respond to this by saying, "Shhh...."

This is the part where Bill overreacts to Aaron Rodgers having a bad start to the season (well, a bad start for Aaron Rodgers).

SG: It's not a fluke — he misses Greg Jennings,

Rodgers threw for six touchdown passes on Sunday night.

he doesn't have any semblance of a running game,

This is true, though Alex Green has run for 128 yards over the last two weeks.

Rodgers will be fine. Just not this week. I say Houston trounces Green Bay (Rodgers's rock-bottom moment), then the Packers right the ship with three straight wins over St. Louis, Jacksonville and Arizona heading into the bye.

Green Bay sort of trounced Houston. Maybe Rodgers rock-bottom moment were his performances over the last few weeks?

Still don't think Green Bay is a playoff team, though — don't like their mojo this year.

Oh, Bill doesn't like their "mojo." I remove all my criticism of Bill when discussing Aaron Rodgers. I didn't know he didn't like the Packers "mojo." This seems like such definitive proof the Packers aren't a playoff team that Bill does not need to explain any further.

SG: I can't pick the Broncos violently enough. You're preaching to the choir. And for the record, Denver follows this game with a bye week, then hosts New Orleans, goes to Cincy and Carolina, hosts San Diego, goes to Kansas City, hosts Tampa and plays Oakland on Thursday night. Could we really see Mr. Noodle taking a 9-3 record into that Oakland game? Absolutely!

Is calling Peyton Manning "Mr. Noodle" or some other version of using the word "Noodle" to describe Manning's arm now going to become "a thing?" It's not really that good of a nickname and it feels very forced. Of course, one SimmonsClone has already written in telling Bill how great the nickname is, so I guess there's not much hope at this point for Bill to get negative reinforcement from his cult-like followers this isn't a very good nickname.

Pass me the grated cheese and the red pepper: We're riding Peyton's linguini arm these next few weeks.

Imagine if Rick Reilly wrote this sentence (which Reilly would never do because he is a Broncos fan and is a starfucker). I would bet Bill's readers would think this is a terrible piece of writing, but because it is Bill who is writing linguini-related analogies to Peyton Manning's arm, it's brilliance has no equal.