8 comments TMQ: Gregg Continues His Onslaught Against Logic and Humanity- AFC Edition

Before I get to this week's AFC Preview from Gregg I want to address the beginning of my last post about TMQ. My post (and I am appreciative) got linked somewhere on the Interwebs and the linking resulted in what I wrote in regard to the whole Harrison "devil and crook" comment about Roger Goodell being briefly discussed. This section of my TMQ post wasn't terribly well-received, nor was the rest of the post for that matter, by one commenter on this specific message board. I criticize others so I can take criticism myself. I don't traditionally respond to any criticism on another blog/message board because I don't mind when people don't like what I write or disagree with me. It isn't my place to go desperately try to prove myself right or defend myself whenever someone at another site disagrees. I do want to make one point and then get on to this week's over-critical discussion of TMQ.

The one point I feel the need to respond to is for those who may think I implied timing in what Gregg wrote about Harrison's comments. I never said the players weren't reaping benefits prior to the new CBA, but the statement I was responding to wasn't talking about the previous CBA, but the new CBA. I thought that was clear, but maybe it wasn't. I will try to make my point and show I didn't imply the timing in Gregg's statement where I think he tried to mislead his audience into believing Harrison made those comments after the new CBA was reached. I will dissect what Gregg wrote in an effort to do this:

Though commissioner Roger Goodell just led a collective-bargaining negotiation that resulted in NFL players being showered with money and benefits, according to Steelers Pro Bowl linebacker James Harrison, Goodell is "a crook" and "the devil."

I don't think I implied the timing of this statement as dealing with the current CBA nor do I believe a person would go overboard to believe Harrison's comments were made after the new CBA was reached. It plainly is referring to the new CBA not the old one. Maybe my reading comprehension skills are terrible, but when words like "just led" (in reference to a collective-bargaining negotiation) and "that resulted in NFL players being showered with money and benefits" (clearly referring back to the just led collective-bargaining negotiation) I am not implying Gregg is talking about the new CBA. He is clearly talking about the new CBA in my opinion. Gregg says "Though" this collective-bargaining negotiation led to players being showered with money and benefits (again, referring to the new CBA) Harrison called Goodell "a crook" and "the devil." This statement was made before the new CBA was reached, but Gregg doesn't put this out, but I think clearly indicates it was made after the new CBA was reached. Gregg did not thing to indicate otherwise. The sentence is structured clearly to say in essence:

"Despite the fact Roger Goodell just helped sign a new CBA that led to the players getting more benefits and money, James Harrison still criticizes Goodell for being 'a crook' and 'the devil.'"

So whether the previous CBA showered players with benefits or not is irrelevant, and my point was that Gregg structured the sentence to say Harrison still criticized Goodell despite the result of the new CBA that was favorable to the players. I don't think there was much implication on my part when criticizing Gregg for playing around with facts. The sentence is structured to indicate Harrison made those comments after the CBA was agreed upon. That's what I criticized. Here is another sentence similar to what Gregg wrote which I hope further illustrates my point by taking a fictional situation which takes away the bias of having previous information (the previous information being the old CBA was also fairly good for the players). I was basing my criticism on the structure of the sentence Gregg wrote and what I believe it indicated to the reader.

Though Frank hasn't missed a child support payment in 7 years and just led the court to file a motion which resulted in him to having joint custody of his child, according to his ex-wife Margaret, he is "a deadbeat" and "not fit to have custody of his child."

For this situation, I haven't changed the important parts of the sentence that Gregg used which indicate time, merely changed the situation. Based on the structure of the sentence the implication is that Margaret is talking about Frank now and not that she made those comments 8 years earlier. A person reading this would have no idea when the comments about Frank's ability to be a father were made and so would rightfully assume they were made in the present. Gregg tied in Harrison's comments to the present CBA with the word "though" leading off the sentence, as if saying "despite what just occurred by the agreement of the new CBA," and then reinforces the time being used as the present by saying "just led." Then he uses quotes Harrison made prior to the agreement. It's misleading to the reader because I think it is clear Gregg was talking about the new CBA through the entire sentence. The only part of the sentence that dealt with the past, was Harrison's comments, which Gregg left out the time period for that. This allowed the reader to expect that Harrison had made those comments after the new CBA was reached. Gregg was intentionally vague about that time period.

Perhaps I should have been more clear with what I had written last week. We do appreciate the link for the article being shared with others even if some who read what we write don't like what we wrote. I felt the need to clear this up and I really hope I don't start a huge discussion of semantics.

Gregg Easterbrook has posted an AFC Preview for the upcoming season in his latest TMQ. What is so unique about his AFC/NFC Previews is that there is very little previewing actually undertaken. The entire column is just a retrospective of what happened with each AFC/NFC team last year with no regard for future predictions or comments for what may happen this year. Whatever works for him I guess. Still, to base what you are saying about a team on what happened in the past is a "review," not a preview. Of course accuracy in what he is writing about isn't always a quality TMQ has and maybe all previews for upcoming sports seasons are really just reviews.

Gregg thinks that some NFL teams are not trying to win the Super Bowl, but instead are trying to cut corners to make money. I don’t like this line of thinking on principle, but an NFL team is a business so it wouldn't shock me if this happened. I know we don’t like to think of it that way.

The new collective bargaining agreement adds a hard salary floor, mandating that nearly all cap space be spent each year -- as cash, not as amortization of past bonuses. This is a provision NFL players are going to like quite a bit. Fans of perennial cheapskate teams will like the provision, too.

When I think of the NFL, I just don’t immediately think of cheapskate teams. MLB teams? Yes. NBA teams? Yes. Not NFL teams though. Maybe I think of the Bengals, but mostly I think of front office incompetence in regard to them.

The result is that many NFL teams have oodles of unused cap space, yet made few if any moves in free agency.

Perhaps there weren’t players these teams wanted in free agency? Teams shouldn’t just spend money because they have it to spend. That’s a good way to end up in salary cap hell and isn’t a smart way to run a team. Smart use of salary cap space is how great teams like the Patriots and Colts have stayed on top.

Another six teams have at least $10 million unused. And cap space is not cellphone minutes. It doesn't roll over to next season.

Actually it does roll over to the next season in a way. If a team signs a player to a 5 year $30 million deal then that is money spent for the next year on the 2nd year of the player's deal. If the team decides not to sign this player to a contract then the team has the cap space for the upcoming year to spend on another free agent. So it doesn't roll over from year to year, but money not spent on a player is still vacant cap space for the next year.

The $125 million each NFL club will receive this season from the league's many national television contracts will cover player expenses, while ticket sales and local marketing cover overhead, and then some, even for small-market clubs. That leaves mucho grande greenbacks. Yet many NFL teams are not spending anywhere near as much as they could.

I agree some teams should spend more money than they currently do, but I don’t really see this as a huge problem in the future since teams are going to have to get to the salary cap floor by 2013 anyway.

I think it is completely stupid argument to argue teams should max out cap space or spend money for the sake of spending money. I can only assume a team is not spending cap space for this reason, but maybe they are being cheap. Gregg is saying teams should spend more money, but what if there aren't players they want to spend money on or this cap space is reserved for current players on the team? Managing cap space is important for a team and sometimes that includes leaving plenty of cap space for future re-signings of current players on that team.

Because most teams are in the middle of that calculation, going all-out to win with player and coaching salaries will add considerably less than $10 million in profit on packing the stadium. Contrast that with not spending up to the cap, which can add $20 million to $30 million to the bottom line. If your first goal is financial results, losing cheap can look a lot sweeter than winning expensive.

But there is a salary cap floor coming in 2013. This argument that teams should spend more money now completely ignores the reality of this. In two years, teams will have to spend money to get to this salary cap floor.

When this is taken into account, seeming nonsense suddenly makes sense. The Bengals, a low-spending team, are refusing to trade Carson Palmer, who says he retired but actually wants out of the Queen City. What's the point of getting nothing for Palmer?

I don’t know the reason the Bengals didn't trade Carson. This is the Bengals we are talking about. This is the same team a few years ago that put a clause in a few player’s contracts they couldn’t bash the team publicly. I think Gregg may misunderstand this situation. This move to not trade Palmer has nothing to do with the Bengals being cheap, but they are just being difficult with Palmer. They don’t want him dictating what happens with the team. Sure, it may not make sense, but it isn’t like the Bengals (a low spending team apparently) didn’t give Palmer a huge contract and, as far as I have heard, the dispute isn't over money. So really this has nothing to do with the discussion of money or the want of the Bengals to not spend cap space.

The point is to shed Palmer's large salary while creating an excuse for another bad season.

Not at all. The point is they wouldn’t get what they perceive to be a great amount of value for Palmer, so they want him quarterbacking their team. If they wanted to shed his salary, they would have cut him the first chance they had.

When in this situation, teams with winning mindsets shrug and trade the unhappy star for whatever they can get -- think Green Bay with Brett Favre or Philadelphia with Donovan McNabb.

This is what I am talking about with Greg misleading his audience. He gives 25% of the facts in order to trick the audience. Green Bay got good value for Favre and it helped they had a great backup in Aaron Rodgers ready to play at a high level. So they did shrug and trade Favre, but after many months of drama, and they were able to do so because they had a quality backup available. The Bengals don't have this luxury so trading Palmer may not be their best move. Also, the Eagles didn’t trade McNabb “for whatever they can get,” they got great value from the Redskins. The Redskins got ripped off in that trade, plus the Eagles had a backup they felt comfortable starting (Kolb/Vick) games for them.

Cincinnati management does not make winning its first priority.

I’m not sure overall I can argue with this.

Trading Evans makes a winning season less likely, but the odds of a profitable season go up -- and a built-in excuse is created. How long until a Buffalo team official says, "We knew we'd have an off year when we lost Lee Evans," as if he had been swept from the practice field by helicopter-borne commandos, rather than deliberately traded away.

I don’t think a Buffalo team official will ever say that. The team official may say, “We knew we’d have our typical bad year when we saw the players that were on the roster,” but I doubt they will blame the entire year on the loss of Lee Evans.

For Buffalo, this is a recent pattern. Just before the 2009 season began, the Bills waived their starting left tackle, Langston Walker, and the team's highest-paid offensive player. Two games into the 2010 season, the Bills waived their starting quarterback, Trent Edwards, their second-highest-paid offensive player. Both actions increased profits while setting up an excuse for a losing season.

Here we go again, glossing over reality for fiction. The reality is Walker wasn’t worth the money the Bills paid for him and Trent Edwards had lost his starting job and wasn’t that good of a quarterback to begin with. Teams cut underachieving players to save money, but many times this is a result of good cap management not necessarily being cheap. Gregg desperately wants us to believe these two cuts weren’t performance-related, but I think they were.

There is a way most NFL teams could enhance the bottom line while also spending freely on players: reduce front-office costs.

Does Gregg really think firing a few front office personnel is the way to cut more costs than cutting a player who makes a $1 million dollars or upwards? It is one thing to say teams are too bloated in the front office, which is true, and Gregg does a great job of pointing this out on a weekly basis. It is completely another thing to believe teams can save more money by reducing front office staff as compared to cutting NFL players.

Chicago has a chairman of the board, a secretary, a president and CEO, a general manager, seven senior directors and numerous people with the title director or manager. The team masthead lists 38 people in the front office, and that's not including clerical and sales personnel.

But yet, they could probably save more money by cutting a football player rather than 5-10 of these staff members. How does Gregg not get this? Only Gregg Easterbrook would decide a millionaire player shouldn’t get fired while middle to upper class workers are the ones who should be laid off.

One minute Gregg Easterbrook is complaining teams are too cheap and the next minute he is complaining teams aren’t cheap enough and don’t cut front office staff. So he pretty much wants to complain teams are too cheap, while also complaining teams don’t cut enough money from their expenses in order to truly be cheap. I guess if a team is going to cut payroll, Gregg wants them to do it his way and that's his real beef.

The story repeats at other NFL clubs. Revenue will be about the same whether the team wins or loses; profit will be a lot higher if salary-cap money isn't spent; family members would rather the team lose with them in cushy front-office roles than win with streamlined management.

So it isn’t the teams being cheap that is the problem, it is the way teams go about being cheap? Also, this is a moot point in two years so who really cares?

Now, Tuesday Morning Quarterback's AFC preview:

Review. It feels more like a review.

For those three years, the Ravens' offensive coordinator has been the canny, crafty, cagey Cam "Cam" Cameron, and he just hasn't put together good game plans. Last season in the playoffs, Baltimore led Pittsburgh 21-7 and had possession of the ball in the third quarter. The Ravens' next seven offensive snaps were a lost fumble, two sacks, an incompletion, 1 net yard rushing and a punt, swinging the momentum to the Steelers.

And clearly the fumbles, sacks, and incompletion were all Cam Cameron’s fault.

It was as if Pittsburgh knew the Ravens' calls; TMQ blames a predictable game plan.

Fumbles aren’t necessarily caused by a team knowing another team’s game plan. The same thing goes for sacks. The Steelers may have known the blocking assignments for the Ravens, but if the Ravens had blocked effectively and picked up the defenders this may not have mattered as much. I'm not sure this is Cam Cameron's fault.

Let’s not forget the Ravens defense gave up 14 points. It isn’t like the Ravens and their predictable game plan were losing the entire game, they were winning and the Ravens defense gave up points to lose the game.

Wearing America's colors, the Bills reached the Super Bowl four times and the playoffs six other times -- 10 of 16 seasons in that uniform were playoff years.

This season the Bills go to a retro-1970s uniform, which is better than the Rusting Russian Dreadnaught look. But why did the Bills return to a uniform style they wore when making the postseason three times in 17 years? They could have gone back to a gloried Super Bowl look based on red, white and American-flag blue –

Somebody needs to give Gregg a lesson in causation. The Bills uniforms don’t have much of an effect at all on how the team does or whether they made the postseason that year or not. This is just silly.

Making a great show of discussing how bad the previous regime's high draft pick was creates an excuse for Gailey and Nix to present a losing team in 2011 -- "What did you expect, when the guys who came before us blew the team's 2009 first-round pick?"

Again, so the Bills are supposed to keep highly paid, underachieving players on the roster? This leads to success? What world does Gregg live on?

Didn't Ohio used to be a hotbed of football culture?

Like 20 years ago.

“Didn’t Commodore computers used to be popular? What happened?”

"On April 11, 2011, The New York Times ran an ad for the Radio City Music Hall Christmas spectacular. Not only was a Christmas show being advertised before Easter, the show opens before Thanksgiving."

What? They attempt to make money BEFORE Christmas actually begins? That’s just pure madness. You would think the Radio City Music Hall Christmas spectacular would run only on Christmas Day…you know to minimize revenue and all.

This “creep” stuff Gregg does on a weekly basis shows his ignorance of how companies need to make the public aware of an event in order for the public to partake of said event more than it proves anything else about "creep" of a holiday or season.

Cleveland: The net of the Browns' spectacular draft-day deals is that Cleveland traded Julio Jones and Justin Houston for Phil Taylor, Greg Little, Owen Marecic, and Atlanta's first- and fourth-round selections in 2012. Since Little is, like Jones, a wide receiver, should Little prove to be the better player, these deals will be seen as steals.

If Little was a better receiver than Jones was an offensive lineman, then the deal would be seen as a steal since the Browns got more players than just Little back. I have to wonder how stupid Gregg believes his audience to be. Did he really just feel the need to explain out of two players, both of whom are receivers, if one of those receivers end up being better than the other that team which got the better player got a steal in the deal? Gregg must think his audience is dumber than I think I thought he thought they were.

The trouble is Cleveland can't come out ahead for at least a year, after the 2012 draft, while the long-suffering Dawg Pound must endure another season now.

Complaining a team cuts high priced players who don’t produce at a high level and not understanding long-term thinking of trading high draft picks for a quantity of picks both prove that Gregg Easterbrook lacks the ability on how to begin to build a winning NFL team. This is how the Patriots are keeping their team competitive. Gregg criticizes the Patriots for this but I am not sure it is a terrible strategy.

In the pair of memorable wins, they showed moxie. Leading the Patriots 10-0 in the first half, facing fourth-and-1 in their own territory, they went for it. So what if on the next snap, the Browns lost a fumble?

Who cares the Browns did exactly what Gregg Easterbrook encourages more teams should do and it didn’t work out? I do. If the Browns had punted and then the punt was returned for a touchdown, Gregg would say this is why the Browns shouldn’t have punted. He bases nearly all of his criticism on the outcome and doesn’t care if it was the right move if the outcome was bad. Since Gregg’s suggestion didn’t work, he gives it the whole “who cares” excuse and then decides the whole “outcome-oriented” criticism he uses for the rest of the regular season shouldn’t be used in this case.

The football gods smile on boldness.

Which is why the Browns had such a great year after beating the Patriots. Right?

This season's Texans cheerleader squad offers not one but two sets of twins, which could be male fantasy overload.

Is Gregg’s entire life a beer commercial?

“Oh man! Twin cheerleaders!” (taps beer bottles with his buddy)

A third reason is that the Colts don't panic and change their coaches and systems whenever they play a couple of bad games.

Just last year, after the Colts lost in the playoffs, Gregg was accusing the Colts offense of being too predictable and stated he thought the Colts should change things up a little. Now one of the positive attributes of the organization is they don’t change their system when they don’t experience success. As usual, Gregg wants it both ways so he can criticize as he sees fit when the outcome for the Colts isn’t positive.

I guarantee this year Gregg will say the Colts are too predictable if they start struggling, but if they don’t struggle he will continue to say they stick with what works and that is good…until it doesn’t work anymore, in which case sticking with what works is bad.

Expect big things from someone on this list: Travis Baltz, David Bedford, Chris Colasanti, Darren Evans, David Gilreath, Mike Hartline, Joe Horn, Jake Kirkpatrick, Joe Lefeged, Mike McNeill, Adrian Moten, Kerry Neal, Ollie Ogbu and Chad Spann. They are the undrafted free agents signed by the Colts. Indianapolis gets more from undrafted free agents than any other team except perhaps New England –

Gregg will go overboard with praise if one of these players turns out to be a quality NFL player and ignore the other 13-odd players failed. If one of the Colts high picks in the 2011 NFL Draft fail, we will get to hear all about that.

a reason the Patriots and Colts are Nos. 1 and 2 for most wins over the past decade.

Well, that and drafting really well over that time period, as well as being lucky enough to have/develop a franchise quarterback on the roster. Those two things have something to do with the Colts and Patriots success as well.

Two of his top four pass-catchers from last season are gone, as Rex Ryan keeps chasing whatever name is trendy on the free-agency market. This season's trendy guy is Plaxico Burress. It's great to see him back. But he's yet another target whose moves Sanchez does not know.

Gosh, if only teams could get together on a daily basis and go over what plays they plan on running in the upcoming week’s game. Perhaps the coaches could be there as well to help the players run the plays effectively. This would be a great way for Burress and Sanchez to get together and learn how to work together. If these informal get-togethers did exist, I think it would be a good idea if water was provided and the media was allowed to attend. It’s only a pipe dream though, so good luck getting to know each other Mark Sanchez and Plaxico Burress. It looks like during games is the only time you will have to do this.

Cut by the Jets, DE Shaun Ellis signed with archrival New England, causing Ryan to say, "There's no way I am going to wish him well." But New England made Ellis the best offer. If Ryan had been fired by the Jets and gone to New England because that's where the best offer was, no one would bat an eyelash. This seems to be yet another example of a pro sports double standard: If a player does what's in his best interest, he is condemned as a mercenary. If a coach does what's in his best interest, he's viewed as just taking care of business.

If Ryan got fired by the Jets and hired by the Patriots, I can guarantee you the Jets players would not want to wish him well. There would not be a double standard and Ryan would be viewed as the enemy by the Jets. I would bet the same rule would apply for Ryan as it does Ellis and there isn't as big of a double standard as Gregg believes.

Miami twice passed on Ryan Mallett, who's now in their division at New England and likely to torment the quarterback-hungry Dolphins and Bills for years to come.

Mallett is “likely” to torment the Dolphins and Bills for years to come. It’s possible, but where is the proof this is "likely?" I realize it is an opinion, but I just don't get how Mallett torturing the Bills and Dolphins for years is likely. Mallett hasn’t ever played a non-exhibition NFL game, so what basis does Gregg have to say it is likely he will torment the Dolphins? None, it’s his speculative opinion based on the fact Mallett fell in the draft and was taken by the Patriots...who by the way, we will learn in a minute are cursed because of Spygate.

Here's the deal: The New England Patriots have not won a playoff game since Spygate broke. Bill Belichick continues to refuse to say, "I cheated and I apologize." Until he does, the football gods will torment this team by allowing the Patriots to play very well during the regular season, then denying them in money time.

Earlier in the column, Gregg accuses books written about climate change of passing off the “truth” about what will happen in the future as fact when it isn’t. Gregg is easily able to notice when authors do this because he makes a habit of doing it himself. This statement isn’t “the deal.” It is a weak attempt to pass off some stupid curse put on the Patriots for Spygate as fact. Gregg may be antagonizing Patriots fans with this, but his use of Spygate to reason why the Patriots don't win the Super Bowl every year is tiresome.

the 2008 second round of the draft continues to be a tumultuous one for the wide receiver profession. Picks were either terrific or terrible.

The 2008 second round produced DeSean Jackson and Eddie Royal, both stars; Jordy Nelson, who was terrific in the Packers' Super Bowl win; and Donnie Avery and Jerome Simpson, both of whom have shown flashes.

So the 2008 second round produced receivers who were either terrific or terrible…except for Donnie Avery and Jerome Simpson, both of whom have neither really been terrific or terrible? So he disproves his very own opinion of how well wide receivers chosen in the second round of the 2008 draft have performed.

When your columnist looks at the team's 2010 stats, he zeros in on the 3-5 road record. The Bolts seemed spoiled by their city's ideal conditions, foundering elsewhere.

This wouldn’t make them the first team to struggle winning games on the road.

Big-college football and men's basketball players shouldn't be paid like NFL or NBA players -- the only way to do that would be to pay stars exclusively, while eliminating scholarships for average players. But providing a stipend is feasible and in sync with existing college customs.

Oh, so you mean working in sync with the existing college custom of college students not receiving a stipend for merely attending a school and participating in extracurricular activities?

Typically, theater stage crew members, college newspaper editors and other students receive modest stipends for their contributions to the overall atmosphere of university life.

From my experience, many times in these cases these stipends are to offset the lack of a scholarship for these students or the stipend is to be paid for services performed. These newspapers editors and theater stage crew members don’t typically receive the stipend for merely participating in a play or working for the paper. Maybe things have changed since I went to college. Also, if I remember correctly these stipends are not very large at all, so wouldn’t fit the supposed purpose put forth to help college athletes. That purpose of the stipend being to pretty much pay for that athlete’s entire cost of living while at school.

Many college athletes hail from disadvantaged backgrounds and lack walking-around money, making taking cash or gifts from boosters tempting.

Why does the school have to be the one paying the athletes? Why not let the athletes earn money on the free market while in school? College students overall lack walking-around money, which doesn’t lead many normal college students to a life of crime in order to buy beer.

If walking-around money were not a problem, temptation might be easier to resist.

I could possibly get behind this, but I don’t know if the university or the NCAA should be the one giving the athlete money.

The Eagles become the Philadelphia Heat, plus the rest of TMQ's NFC preview.

That really won’t be a “preview” of any kind. Talking about what happened last year isn’t previewing anything. At least it is better than haikus.