There are very few redeeming qualities that Skip Bayless has. He's a troll, but he's also good for amusement. He's such a joke, that it is amusing. So that's his one redeeming quality. He's fun to laugh at and makes me feel better about myself. Skip Bayless has written another column that is essentially about Skip Bayless. Sure, it's about Andrew Luck, but it's about how Skip Bayless doesn't hate Andrew Luck. I'm pretty sure Skip Bayless farts into a glass and then smells it.
Not long ago I had the unexpected pleasure of meeting Mike Wells in ESPN's cafeteria. I read every word Mike writes about the Indianapolis Colts for ESPN.com. And right away I thought, "He's as good a guy as he is a reporter."
That's a great story, Skip. I bet Mike Wells' version of the story goes this way:
"Not long ago, I saw Skip Bayless in ESPN's cafeteria. I tried to avoid him by running over to the salad bar, but he saw me and then approached me. He was nice to say he likes my writing, but then began to ask me why I have never written about Andrew Luck not being the quarterback Tim Tebow could have been. He got distracted halfway through the conversation by seeing his reflection in a mirror, then said I should consider writing about how overrated Andrew Luck is because he isn't in the Hall of Fame, yet 'everyone' says he's already a first-ballot Hall of Famer. I asked him why he hated Andrew Luck and then Skip turned bright blue yelling about LeBron James. I pretended I was choking and got taken away by ambulance just to get away from him."
But then he turned his investigative skills on me. "I have to ask you
something I get asked so often by Colts fans," he said. "Why do you hate
Andrew Luck?"
And Skip immediately thought, "That's a great column idea! It could be about ME not liking Andrew Luck. I was wondering when the next column idea about myself would come to me."
I'm sure it sometimes seems that way to Colts fans who watch "First Take." Allow me to explain.
I DO NOT HATE ANDREW LUCK.
Oh, well allow me to explain then. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. GO AWAY.
It's true I love the previous Colts quarterback, guy named Peyton, far more than I do Luck so far.
And of course, based on the fact he is supposed to be an objective observer, Skip should base his criticisms and praise on which players he likes the most and least. Obviously.
And it's true I like (or liked) Robert Griffin III slightly more than I do Luck.
Jump off that RG3 bandwagon as quickly as possible, Skip! Hurry!
But that's as a quarterback, not as a guy.
Again, "as a guy" shouldn't matter when discussing RG3's performance on the field. Well, it shouldn't matter to an objective observer who doesn't enjoy creating narratives, strawman arguments, leaps in logic, and poor conclusions of an athlete's skill based on how much this observer personally likes the athlete. Once the objective observer starts basing conclusions on feeling and opportunities to troll, they turn into what Skip Bayless is. It's a sad state to be in.
From all I read and hear, Andrew Luck just might be the finest young man
ever to be a star NFL quarterback. Not an ounce of RG-Me in him. No Johnny Manziel "money" signs or bad signs after hours. None of Colin Kaepernick's chip-on-shoulder-pads.
But he does have a disgusting beard. That's not the sign of a fine young man.
No Twitter or Instagram blunders -- Luck doesn't even have an account.
And of course having a flip phone, no Twitter or Instagram blunders means that Andrew Luck is a good person. He doesn't publicize his blunders or choose to show his life in a very public manner, so that makes him a fine young man.
No relentless national-TV ads for Nationwide-is-on-your-side or Papa John's or Buick, like that former Colts quarterback.
So let's be clear about the logic Skip Bayless is using. Skip likes Peyton Manning more than he likes Andrew Luck due to on the field reasons. The reason Skip thinks Luck is a fine young man compared to other quarterbacks is because he doesn't do commercials like these other quarterbacks (including Peyton Manning), who apparently aren't fine people, are seen doing. So Skip bases his opinion of Andrew Luck on his on-the-field abilities, except for RG3, who doesn't perform as well as Luck on or off the field, but Skip still likes him better. Skip likes Peyton Manning best of all because he performs well on the field, except when Skip decides Manning doesn't perform well on the field. So Skip thinks Manning doesn't have the legacy he should because he hasn't won only a single Super Bowl, and isn't a fine man because he does commercials. Meanwhile, Skip wants to wait for Andrew Luck to win a Super Bowl (presumably so he can criticize Luck for not winning more Super Bowls), but thinks he's a fine young man because he doesn't do national commercials. I'm just confused as to how Skip judges these NFL quarterbacks. One minute he cares about what Manning does on the field, while also stating Manning needs to do more, the next minute he is stating he won't give Luck credit until he achieves what Peyton Manning has achieved.
Obviously nothing to hate there.
And yet, Skip by his own admission likes RG3 more, even though Griffin isn't on Luck's level on or off the field. Go figure.
But what I do not like -- and cannot fathom -- is the premature
enshrinement of Andrew Luck. Seriously, it's as if he already has been
inducted into Canton's Hall of Fame.
Skip Bayless is taking a page from the Jemele Hill school of sportswriting where he attempts to disprove something that few people believe. No one is prematurely enshrining Andrew Luck into the Hall of Fame. Luck's eventual ascent to one of the NFL's best quarterbacks is simply being acknowledged, that's all. Of course, if Skip didn't overstate his opposition's opinion then HE would seem like the one who is exaggerating. He can't have that. So Skip paints the opinion of others that Luck is becoming an elite quarterback as an exaggerated stance of putting Luck into the Hall of Fame already in order to cover up for his own exaggerated position on Luck.
Again and again I hear analysts refer to him as a cinch first-ballot Hall of Famer.
Where the fuck are you reading this stuff? Are the voices in your head saying these things, Skip?
A Google machine search shows this isn't being discussed. In fact, THIS ARTICLE came up as one of the first hits on the search. Sounds like Skip is making up his opponents' argument.
He's "already a top five quarterback" and some experts make the reverential case he just might already be the NFL's best QB.
There are a lot of arguments being made. There is also a huge leap from "cinch first-ballot Hall of Famer" to "already a top five quarterback." It's an epic leap that must be taken to get there.
Call him Andrew Lock, as in Hall of Fame Lock. Fans everywhere -- not
just Indy fans -- have been conditioned to believe Luck is well on his
way to becoming The Greatest Ever.
Very few people are writing or saying this. This argument exists only in the head of Skip Bayless, which is probably one of the most frightening places in the world to exist. Again, Skip is making the opposition to his position seem to have their own extreme opinion when this isn't true.
That's all they hear on TV.
This is a lie.
No doubt the young man, in his third NFL season, is almost as good on
the field as he is off it. But -- and it's quite possible I dreamed this
-- didn't Andrew Luck throw SEVEN INTERCEPTIONS in two playoff games
last January?
Yes, he did throw seven interceptions in two playoff games in January. He threw six touchdowns as well, but he threw seven interceptions in two games. That's two fewer interceptions than completions Tim Tebow threw the last time he appeared in a playoff game.
Did anyone but me notice this?
No Skip, you are the ONLY ONE who noticed this.
Most fans, if their QB threw seven picks in two playoff games, would be
more inclined to believe that QB belonged in Canton, China, instead of
Canton, Ohio.
Yeah, maybe. But again, very few people are making the argument that Andrew Luck should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. This seems to be an argument that Skip Bayless is making up.
It's now out of bounds, even un-American, to exercise the slightest
objectivity when it comes to Andrew Lock, who just might be the most
media-protected third-year QB in NFL history.
That's a rather specific criteria there Skip.
Notice the rather Bayless-ian argument Skip is making here. He's saying he doesn't dislike Andrew Luck, he just doesn't like the argument by others (which doesn't exist) that Luck is a first-ballot Hall of Famer already. This makes him not like Andrew Luck...yet. So Skip's opinion of Andrew Luck is entirely formed based on his perception of others' opinion of Andrew Luck.
"I don't like 'NCIS: Los Angeles' because my mom thinks it's one of the best shows on television right now."
See how insane that argument sounds? That's Skip's argument. It's not that Skip has an argument against Andrew Luck, he has an argument against his perception of the argument others have IN REGARD to Andrew Luck. Skip is his own special kind of crazy.
CAN WE PLEASE WAIT UNTIL THIS JANUARY TO CORONATE THIS KID, JUST TO MAKE
SURE HE CAN WIN ONE PLAYOFF GAME WITHOUT TURNING THE BALL OVER?
Right, because that's the only criteria that matters. Luck could go 4-24 for 45 yards, but as long as he doesn't turn the ball over then he's all good with Skip Bayless. Sure.
He's now all of 1-2 in the postseason -- six touchdown passes to eight
interceptions. I certainly don't hold his first playoff game against him
-- that was Luck's rookie year and that was The Return of Ray Lewis, in
Baltimore, and the Ravens were about to go on a Super Bowl roll. Luck
was only 28-of-54 for 288 yards, no TD passes and one interception.
Yes, he "only" threw for 288 yards as a rookie quarterback starting a road playoff game against the team that won the Super Bowl.
For that matter, I'm willing to disregard a rookie season in which Luck
completed a surprisingly low 54 percent of his passes and finished
second in the NFL (to Mark Sanchez) in total turnovers.
Yes, I can see it's forgiven. Thanks be to Skip Bayless for his forgiveness.
Peyton Manning completed 56.7% of his passes during his rookie year, while leading the NFL in interceptions.
Irsay basically told the NFL world that Luck would be better than an aging Peyton Manning with a surgically repaired neck, maybe even in the short term.
No, he did not. He said he wanted to draft a younger franchise quarterback rather than try and get a few more years out of Peyton Manning and then go searching for a franchise quarterback that may not be available at that time.
Still, during his second season last year, Luck continued to play
surprisingly subpar games that nobody (but me) seemed to notice. His QBR
(scale of 0-100) was only 42.5 in Week 6, a 19-9 Monday night loss at
San Diego ... only 13.6 in Week 10, a 38-8 home loss to St. Louis ...
21.9 in Week 12, a 40-11 loss at Arizona ... and 37.1 in Week 13, a
22-14 home win over Tennessee.
Yes Skip, you are the only one who notices these things. Thank God (or should I say, "Thanks be to You, Skip Bayless") that you are around to notice these things.
As of the time Skip wrote this, Luck also had QBR's of 83.1 against Denver, 89.3 against Philadelphia, 94.1 against Jacksonville, 96.7 against Tennessee, 62.0 against Baltimore, 91.4 against the Texans, 73.5 against the New York Giants, and 74.7 against the New England Patriots during the 2014 season. But why talk about Luck's third season when Skip can point out how a quarterback whose greatness is based on his projected improved play didn't play at times well during his second season?
By the way, Luck's QBR against the Chiefs in the playoffs last year was 93.5. This won't be mentioned by Skip because he's too focused on Luck's interceptions, while ignoring the QBR criteria he himself used to prove Luck isn't very good.
Then came the home playoff game against Kansas City last Jan. 4. Luck
threw his second interception on the first play of the second half.
Moments later, the Chiefs led 38-10. He threw his third interception
later in the third quarter, setting up a Chiefs field goal that kept the
Colts in a 41-24 hole.
From then on Andrew was very good ... but very Lucky. The Chiefs lost their top two running backs, Jamaal Charles and Knile Davis. They lost their fastest receiver, Donnie Avery. On defense, they lost two of their best players, sack artist Justin Houston and cornerback Brandon Flowers, and bookend pass-rusher Tamba Hali
was also hurt. Luck was pressured on only two of 25 second-half
dropbacks. A goal-line fumble bounced right back to Luck, who dived home
for a touchdown.
Indy won 45-44.
Sure, he got lucky. That's fine. He also had a QBR of 93.5. Stick to the criteria you yourself use to judge Luck.
But at New England the following Saturday night, Luck went from three to
FOUR interceptions and somehow the Patriots stayed healthy enough to
hang on to a 43-22 win.
"Somehow" the Patriots stayed healthy enough. It wasn't luck they stayed healthy enough, because luck only kicks in when Skip Bayless needs it to in order to prove his point.
And please feel free to focus on my personal biases when it comes to Luck.
That's all that needs to be focused on, because that's the main reason Skip Bayless evaluates professional athletes in the way he does. His personal biases ARE his evaluation of a player.
I watched a lot of Luck at Stanford, and before his draft, I could not
forget the awful second half at Oregon his junior year, the late
pick-six he threw at USC his senior year and that he got outplayed by Brandon Weeden (three TD passes, one interception to two TD passes, one interception) while losing his final college game in the Fiesta Bowl.
I like how Skip conveniently skips the different offenses these two quarterbacks were running. Colt Brennan outplayed a lot of quarterbacks when he was in college. Weeden ran a spread, quarterback-friendly offense at Oklahoma State. You know, a similar offense that led to Weeden and Geno Smith being drafted in the first and second rounds respectively, while Luck ran a pro-style offense at Stanford.
I'd like to hear from Skip on how Luck's line of 27-31 for 347 yards with two touchdowns and one interception was him getting outplayed by Weeden's line of 29-42 for 399 yards with three touchdowns and one interception. Luck had a rating of 196.0 to Weeden's 167.7. Luck had 52 fewer yards on 11 fewer pass attempts.
By the way, Tom Brady didn't even start full-time in college and Peyton Manning couldn't beat Florida. Bringing up shit that happened in college isn't always the best indicator of a quarterback's ability in the NFL.
I predicted Robert Griffin III would prove to be the slightly better pro -- and for a season I was right.
For a season Skip was right, which means to the rest of the population that Skip was wrong. But Skip can't be wrong because he was right for a really short period of time. Skip wants readers to focus on that short period of time instead of the larger period of time where Griffin has regressed while Luck has progressed.
For now, RG III has lost confidence in his injured legs, has lost some
of his teammates and has been in danger of losing his job. But RG III
vs. Luck isn't over. Not yet.
Okay, no one said RG3 v. Luck was over yet. Notice how Skip is desperately trying to turn this discussion of Andrew Luck into a debate over RG3 versus Luck. It's all he knows. Debate, debate, debate where facts don't matter if the volume of your voice is loud enough.
On air, I also took this stand the day Irsay parted ways with Peyton:
big mistake. Peyton, I said, would give the Colts a better shot at
winning the Super Bowl in each of the next three seasons. I believe I've
been right about that, too.
And Skip was making the fallacy of assuming the switch from Manning to Luck was a short-term move, which it clearly wasn't. So as usual, Skip is arguing on the wrong points in the hopes of scoring points by changing the frame of the discussion through making assumptions that help to prove his point.
But remember, I'm now forced to evaluate Luck by "top five" standards.
Nope, that's a standard you set by claiming others set this standard.
That's the context in which Luck is often reverently ranked on "First Take."
This doesn't mean this is the context on which Luck is ranked everywhere else. "First Take" is an outlier because it has two moronic mouth-breathing trolls debating each other. You can't assume you are skinny just because you are the lightest one at fat camp. Being the tallest midget doesn't mean you can dunk a basketball on a ten foot goal.
Remember, too, our show is two hours of live, unscripted debate five
days a week. We defend our positions with often stubborn pride and
passion -- sometimes twice a show on an issue such as Luck vs. Peyton or
Luck vs. RG III. "Hating" Luck is more about hating losing a debate.
As I have said previously, the debate over Luck has nothing to do with his performance, but has to do with Skip's ego and which way his personal biases steer him.
But I'm starting to wonder who has lost more objectivity about Luck --
me or his universe of supporters. Just about every analyst I know (as
well as Stephen A.) dug in on Luck's future greatness before he was
drafted.
Nobody, Skip. Nobody could ever have more objectivity than the guy who admits he lets his personal biases against Luck affect his opinion of Luck. Who could be more objective than a person who admits his personal biases play a part in his player evaluations?
They all want to be proved right.
Said Skip Bayless while talking about himself.
Heck, many fans surely root for Luck just because he comes across as
such a humble, normal guy who happens to be star quarterback.
Earlier in this column Skip stated that Luck was a good guy because he came across as a humble, normal guy. So it's not okay to cheer for Luck because of this. It's interesting that Skip thinks these people lose objectivity of Luck's performance because they personally like him, while Skip thinks his own objectivity isn't marred by the fact he doesn't personally like Luck for reasons created in Skip's own head.
But, at the risk of committing heresy, is it fair to ask if Luck has a
weird propensity for almost inexplicably losing focus for a quarter, or a
half, or even a game and throwing what-was-he-thinking interceptions?
No, it's not heresy if you can name specific situations where this has occurred. It's relevant in regard to Luck's performance. Stop acting like a victim and misframing the opposition's argument.
I (for one) need to see Andrew Lock win a few more playoff games.
Of course you do, Skip. You ragged on Peyton Manning and his legacy after he won a few more playoff games. Keep moving the goalposts, Skip, so that you can save your ego from the possibility that you may ever be wrong. Once Luck wins a few more playoff games it will be, "Why hasn't Luck won more Super Bowls?" Also, no one said Luck is a lock for the Hall of Fame, so don't call him "Andrew Lock."
And this could (even should) be his turn and time. He now has a running game (thanks to Ahmad Bradshaw)
He's injured now.
Who knows? Luck's team could wind up with home-field advantage all the way to the Super Bowl. If he pulls off what Russell Wilson did last playoffs, I'll be the first to stand and applaud.
No, you won't. You will move the goalposts again in an effort to not be seen as wrong. Then you'll screech some bullshit on "First Take," and the only idiot in the media ESPN could find who can't out-debate Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, will screech bullshit back and we all lose.
Until then, alone, I will wait and see.
You are not alone. No one said Andrew Luck was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. You make things up. Go away.
Showing posts with label Andrew Luck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Luck. Show all posts
Monday, December 8, 2014
Saturday, February 8, 2014
4 comments Skip Bayless Trolls as Hard as Possible When Talking about Andrew Luck
There is a certain awfulness that goes without explanation. Skip Bayless displays this type of awfulness. He's horrible, an attention-whore, and a massive troll. He's mastered the art of taking a strong position that gets him attention and then not moving from that position. He's incapable of being argued with because he's so stupid you can't refute his points, because he has no points, only a differentiating level of volume at which he yells his desperate attempts to troll. Today, Skip writes about Andrew Luck. He says that Andrew Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer and he isn't an elite quarterback yet. Yep, this is all true. I don't know why the point is being argued. In fact, I jokingly call Luck "a future Hall of Famer" and other sarcastic names because it feels like he's been anointed by some in the media, so you would think I could agree with Skip. But that's the beauty of Skip Bayless. He takes a relevant point, that Andrew Luck is not elite, and somehow manages to make someone (such as myself) who agrees with this point disagree with him because Skip takes it to the extreme and argues using a straw man argument that make zero relevant arguments.
No doubt I'll soon snap out of my stupor, update my Lasik surgery and view Andrew Luck the way seemingly everyone but me does: as the next Greatest Quarterback Ever
I say this jokingly and as a parody of many who are overly-enamored with Luck. This is a reasonable viewpoint. So why is Skip seem so unreasonable when defending the viewpoint?
and even (beware lightning strike) the NFL's Michael Jordan.
The Colts GM compared Andrew Luck to Michael Jordan. This is not a widely-accepted opinion and is only an example of a team's GM talking up that team's quarterback. Yet, Skip makes it seem like everyone thinks Luck is the NFL's Michael Jordan.
"It's like Jordan when he'd take the last shot -- he wants the ball," Grigson told NFL.com after his Colts had come from 38-10 down to mortify the Chiefs in last Saturday's very wild-card game.
And yes, Colts coach Chuck Pagano merely suggested that Luck "is probably gonna go down as one of the best, if not the best, ever to play when all is said and done."
This is just an example of a team's coaches and upper management talking up their franchise player. So yes, Skip is excused for not thinking as much of Andrew Luck as Luck's employer does. I'm betting Andrew Luck doesn't think as much of Skip Bayless as ESPN does.
Understand, Grigson went MJ and Pagano reached for Greatest Ever soon after Luck had thrown THREE interceptions in his home dome
Luck did lead a pretty good comeback after throwing those interceptions. Luck threw four interceptions the following week at New England, which obviously is not so good. Again, Luck isn't elite and those who believe Luck is elite probably are employed by the Indianapolis Colts. He's not there yet, but that doesn't stop Skip Bayless from acting like EVERYONE thinks Luck is elite.
against a Kansas City team that had lost five of its final seven games, had lost to injury early in this game its best offensive weapon (Jamaal Charles), then its fastest receiver (Donnie Avery), then its backup running back (Knile Davis) … while also losing both starting cornerbacks, Brandon Flowers and Dunta Robinson, and eventually losing its best pass rusher, Justin Houston, whose bookend, Tamba Hali, was sadly limited on a knee that had to be drained the week before.
Once the Chiefs' pass rush disappeared, and they were down to third-string running back Cyrus Gray,
Yes, the Chiefs were injured and this was fortunate for the Colts. Davis wasn't injured until later in the game, as was Justin Houston, so Luck still did a great job leading the comeback.
and they had no one left who could cover T.Y. Hilton, I (for one) would've been disappointed in Luck if he HADN'T finished off the comeback
See, this is typical Skip Bayless writing. He would have been disappointed if Luck didn't come back from 28 points down in the third quarter to win the game. Just think about for a second, because we know Skip didn't think about it before writing the sentence. Down 38-10 in the third quarter it's fine to think, "Man, the Colts could come back if they get a few breaks to go their way." Sure, it could happen. To expect the Colts to comeback and win the game to the point you would be disappointed if the Colts didn't outscore the Chiefs by 28 points in the second half is absolutely unreasonable. But that's Skip. He's unreasonable and that's why you can't argue with him. He will throw his fingers in his ears and try to hammer home the same point you have already disproven several times over.
Andrew was really good, but Andrew was Lucky.
If this were the late 1800's a man could hang for writing such a bad pun in a sentence.
I'm sorry, but THAT game -- Luck's first playoff win in two tries --
Two whole tries. Luck lost last year to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens and I'm sure Skip would argue Luck wasn't elite then either.
is being viewed by many as Luck's Canton-bound coronation?
In all seriousness, who is doing this? I joke about it, but Skip clearly has a bug up his ass and thinks somebody somewhere (or the proverbial "they" that often don't exist except in the deluded mind of a person) is saying Andrew Luck should be in the Hall of Fame after his comeback against the Chiefs. We won't find any links because Skip won't and can't provide any. He's just disproving an argument he wants others to make, not a real argument that is widely being made.
What exactly is it about this kid that inspires so many to race to proclaim him the This or the That while stumbling blindly past obvious negatives?
He's a white, pocket-passer quarterback from an excellent school who is smart and plays well with the media. It also helps that Andrew Luck seems to have no life outside of playing football, which the media always appreciates. He's also made the playoffs in both of his seasons as an NFL quarterback, which really, really helps the media's opinion of him.
I see a big, smart, fairly athletic, remarkably resilient QB who throws a nice deep ball -- a fine young player. I do not see a lock first-ballot Hall of Famer. Not yet, at least.
So Skip's basic argument is that Luck isn't a first ballot Hall of Famer yet. Is there really someone out there who thinks Luck IS a first ballot Hall of Famer at this point in his career? I doubt it. But in his efforts to troll, attention can't be paid to the fact few or no people are making the argument Skip is refuting.
I watched Luck a lot in college. On an ESPNU show, I picked Stanford to win at Oregon when Luck was a redshirt sophomore. Stanford led 31-24 at half … and lost the second half 28-0 as Luck threw two interceptions.
Andrew Luck made Skip Bayless look stupid one time. That's really what this is all about. Also, lost in Skip's "me me me" commentary, notice the Stanford defense gave up 52 points in this game. 52 points. But yes, this one college game from three years ago goes to prove Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer. Great point.
When Luck was a junior, I saw the late interception returned for a touchdown that nearly cost Stanford the game at USC, and while Luck played pretty well in the Fiesta Bowl, I watched Oklahoma State's Brandon Weeden outplay him.
Here's Skip's biggest problem when making his trolling arguments. Very few of these arguments are based on fact and he relies on his audience being as dumb as he is. Luck "played pretty well" in the Fiesta Bowl. I would say so. He was 27-31 for 347 yards, throwing two touchdowns and one interception. He threw four incompletions during the entire game. I guess that's "pretty good" though I'm sure Skip would argue he would have been disappointed if Luck threw any incompletions.
Brandon Weeden was 29-42 for 399 yards, throwing three touchdowns and one interception by the way. I'll let you as the reader decide which quarterback outplayed the other, but I'm feeling like this was a draw. Leave it to Skip to describe a quarterback who threw four incompletions in a BCS game as "playing pretty well."
I see no Elway or Favre or Marino in his game -- no wow factor. While his teammates all seem to love him -- how could they not? -- I don't see dynamic leadership. I see consistently, solidly unspectacular.
I forgot where flair and dynamic leadership were prerequisites for being a Hall of Fame quarterback or even a quarterback who can win a Super Bowl. Does Eli Manning or Joe Flacco have dynamic leadership? Heck, is Peyton Manning even a dynamic leader or just a really good quarterback who leads by example? I would argue the "wow" factor is probably the worst way to evaluate a quarterback's eliteness or not. Yes, Luck isn't elite, but it has nothing to do with whether he has the "wow" factor or not. This is what Skip Bayless looks for. Flash and the "wow" factor when he looks at a quarterback. This is also why Skip Bayless is horrible.
This is why Skip likes Tebow so much, because Tebow has the "wow" factor and has charisma. A quarterback has to have more than that, which is why Tim Tebow is currently a co-worker of Skip Bayless and no longer playing quarterback in the NFL.
This season, Luck has thrown for 300 or more yards only three times -- all spectacular losses, 38-8 to St. Louis at home, 24-20 to Miami at home (when Ryan Tannehill outplayed Luck) and 42-28 at Cincinnati.
You be the judge on whether Tannehill outplayed Luck in this game.
Luck: 25-43 for 321 yards with one touchdown and one interception. He had a 51.5 QBR and 79.7 QB rating.
Tannehill: 23-34 for 319 yards with one touchdown and zero interceptions. He had a 44.4 QBR and a 107.4 rating.
It looks like Luck got outplayed, but it wasn't because he necessarily played poorly, but because Tannehill played so well.
Peyton Manning, the Colts' legend replaced by Luck, has thrown for 300 or more 12 times this season, winning 11
Comparing an actual first ballot Hall of Famer in his 15th season who has receivers by the name of Wes Welker, Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker and Julius Thomas to a guy playing his second season in the NFL who has receivers by the name of Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton, Coby Fleener, and Darrius Heyward-Bey is the epitome of stupidity. Or should I just say, "Being a Skip Bayless"? No one is arguing Luck is currently on Manning's level, so the comparison is just dumb.
His only loss? Naturally, his wildly anticipated return to the House That He Built in Indy. That Sunday night, Peyton threw for 386, three touchdowns and an interception. Luck: 228, three touchdowns, no interceptions.
That's Luck.
Yes, that is Luck. He's a second year quarterback who isn't capable of keeping up with elite NFL quarterbacks because he is not yet elite. The opinion of Luck's employer doesn't mean everyone else shares the opinion. Again, Skip is refuting a point I'm not sure is widely being made. Luck looks like he may one day be an elite quarterback, but he's not there yet.
At his best -- and worst -- he's actually more Eli than Peyton.
That sucks because Eli has two Super Bowl rings. How embarrassing for Andrew Luck.
But like Eli, Andrew has an unsinkable, almost oblivious confidence. High football IQ but no ability to remember mistakes. Luck knows he was born to play QB, so if he screws up, so what, he just shrugs and keeps playing, as Kansas City will attest.
This is as opposed to being like David Carr and ducking at the upcoming pass rush because you are shell-shocked from being sacked too many times?
Peyton seems keenly aware of the moment and its historical perspective...But Luck will let his pedigree get the better of him -- he will occasionally go Eli and try something he shouldn't. In the past two seasons, he has had four three-interception games in the regular season, second-most in the NFL to … Eli, with six. Last season, his rookie year, Luck had the NFL's second-most turnovers, 23, just three fewer than Mark "Butt Fumble" Sanchez.
I've criticized Luck for being turnover prone as well, so Skip has a point in regard to Luck's turnovers. Where Skip has no point is he is comparing Luck, a rookie quarterback, to Mark Sanchez who is not a rookie quarterback, and only in the context of turnovers. It's misleading. Luck is turnover-prone, but Peyton Manning threw 43 interceptions is his first two years in the NFL. Andrew Luck has 27 his first two seasons in the NFL. Fine, I won't count Manning's first two seasons in the NFL. In Manning's third and fourth year in the NFL he threw 38 interceptions. Good point, let's not include Manning's third or fourth year. In Manning's fifth and sixth season in the NFL he threw 29 interceptions. Luck threw 27 interceptions his first two seasons in the NFL. Yes, he has fumbled quite a bit but this is a product of being a rookie and lacking pocket awareness, along with his offensive line having deficiencies. The argument that Luck has thrown too many interceptions to be elite doesn't hold up even when comparing Luck to Skip's cherry-picked Hall of Fame quarterback.
Andrew Luck turned the ball over too much in his rookie season and he turned it over too much in the playoffs, but these turnovers aren't a warning that he can't one day be an elite quarterback. It's a warning that he needs to improve his decision-making and ability to read an NFL defense. You know, things nearly every young quarterback has to do. As far as Skip's lazy-ass analysis that Luck throws the interceptions because his pedigree gets the better of him, but Peyton seems keenly aware of the moment, well the turnover totals for each quarterback doesn't reflect this as true. Possibly Peyton NOW understands the moment and historical perspective, but Skip is comparing two quarterback in completely different stages of their careers.
Back on that field for a playoff game this Saturday night, Luck is just as likely to outplay Brady as he is to throw the same interceptions he did last Saturday against the Chiefs.
He did not outplay Brady and Luck threw four interceptions. He played badly and he isn't an elite quarterback yet. No bad comparisons to Eli/Peyton Manning are needed to show this as being true.
Luck now has nine fourth-quarter comebacks and 11 game-winning drives -- hence "Michael Jordan." Yet nearly all are of the slow, steady variety.
Considering an offense can only score 7-8 points in a single touchdown drive it's kind of hard to overcome a 28 point deficit in a quick and easy manner. But yeah Skip, you are an idiot. What does it matter if Luck's comebacks have been slow, steady or fast comebacks? Skip is ridiculously trying to criticize Luck for not coming back fast enough. Troll hard, enemy.
Against Seattle, the Colts took the lead for good at 31-28 after a 14-play, 86-yard drive produced a touchdown (and two-point conversion) with 8 minutes, 55 seconds left.
This is typical Skip Bayless. When presented with evidence of his being wrong, he argues further rather than just concede a comeback is a comeback no matter how long it takes.
Yes, the Colts' defense still had to stop Russell Wilson and Co. twice more to preserve Luck's "Jordanesque" heroics.
In any comeback the defense has to stop the opposing offense for the comeback to work. This isn't new nor is this telling us anything of importance. The fact the Colts defense stopped the Seahawks is impressive, but when discussing a quarterback who has led a comeback it is always necessary for the defense to stop the opposing offense to preserve the heroics.
What's really funny about Skip Bayless arguing a quarterback isn't heroic because he leads a comeback since the defense has to stop the other team is that he has argued the exact opposite on repeated occasions when discussing Tim Tebow. When discussing Tebow's heroics Skip never mentions the Broncos defense had to stop the opposing team. No, in that case the comeback was all Tebow. When Skip wants to bash Andrew Luck, all of a sudden the Colts defense is an important part of the comeback.
The great news Saturday was the second-biggest comeback in NFL history. The bad news: The Chiefs led 38-10 without Jamaal Charles.
And gosh, what unit could be partially responsible for the Chiefs scoring 38 points? I guess the defense that played such a vital part in the comeback isn't a vital part of allowing the Chiefs to score 38 points by the third quarter.
Yes, the Colts' defense ranks no better than 20th, while they're tied for 20th in rushing. And yes, Luck lost a mentor and go-to receiver, Reggie Wayne, for the season on Oct. 20. But seriously, is Luck having Jordanesque impact?
His coach said that. This isn't a widely-held opinion.
Does that, as my "First Take" debate partner Stephen A. Smith says, qualify Luck as a "game-changer who just oozes greatness"?
Stephen A. Smith is as brain-dead as Skip Bayless is. They each take strong opposing views and then scream and yell at each other like delusional senior citizens fighting over the last Bingo card until the next commercial break. Neither of them is right.
Maybe I'd be more sold if Luck acted more like a star. Maybe so many rush to lionize Luck because he's just so ordinary-Joe likeable.
As I said, Skip is brain-dead. He would think Luck is a better quarterback if he acted more like a star? What does Luck's actions have to do with his quarterbacking skill? And again, Tim Tebow is very unassuming and ordinary-Joe likeable, yet Skip couldn't wait to lionize him. If Luck acted more like a star then Skip would criticize Luck for acting like the star he isn't. Can't fool me.
I was on record before Luck's draft that Robert Griffin III would prove to be the better NFL QB. He certainly made me look right last season with his 20 TD passes to just five interceptions, fifth-in-the-NFL QBR, division title and 14-0 lead over Seattle in his first playoff game before aggravating, then wrecking, his knee.
Good thing Griffin wasn't playing Luck or else Skip wouldn't give Luck any credit for leading a comeback down 14-0 on the road in a playoff game.
But this season, RG III made the Luck-lovers beam when he let his stardom go to head, rushed back from knee surgery and forgot how to play quarterback.
I don't understand Skip's insistence on playing this out as a Griffin v. Luck debate where those people who like Andrew Luck are happy for the misfortune that befalls Robert Griffin. I think Skip assumes that everyone lives their life in a constant antagonistic debate between two strong opposing points of view. I don't know why the Luck-lovers would be happy Griffin had a bad year.
The day the Colts eased Peyton out the back door in favor of Luck, I said they were making a monumental mistake. The NFL is a win-now business and Peyton, I said, would give the Colts a better chance of winning a Super Bowl for the next three seasons (last year, this year and next). For the second straight year, Peyton has lifted Denver to a 13-3 record and potentially two home playoff games, this time with a record-shattering 55 TD passes and 5,477 yards.
But last year, of course, Peyton's postseason record fell to 9-11 and he lost his third straight playoff game thanks to a Hail Flacco that forced the overtime in which Peyton threw the killer interception.
Advantage, Andrew?
It sounds like Luck has won this fictional antagonistic debate that Skip Bayless seems to believe is a reality.
Maybe I'm asking for it to dare to doubt this kid as he returns to face the Patriots (my Super Bowl pick) and the pretty-boy quarterback who got Eli-ed twice in Super Bowls.
This is Skip Bayless saying, "Troll me and give me attention. I thrive off attention because my mom never loved me, my dad ignored me and I'm so insecure that I don't believe I exist unless I'm given constant attention."
This is Skip's intention in writing this column. He writes a strongly-worded column that takes a strong point of view and then thrives off the attention given to him that he has so desperately attempted to receive in writing the column.
Maybe, late Saturday night, you'll tell me, "Told you."
Seriously, please give Skip attention. He's saying Andrew Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer right now and is comparing him to veteran Hall of Fame-caliber quarterbacks to prove his point. It's a terribly written article and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not, but one thing is for sure on purpose. Skip wants your attention and he wants people to hate him or love him for his strong hot sports takes.
No doubt I'll soon snap out of my stupor, update my Lasik surgery and view Andrew Luck the way seemingly everyone but me does: as the next Greatest Quarterback Ever
I say this jokingly and as a parody of many who are overly-enamored with Luck. This is a reasonable viewpoint. So why is Skip seem so unreasonable when defending the viewpoint?
and even (beware lightning strike) the NFL's Michael Jordan.
The Colts GM compared Andrew Luck to Michael Jordan. This is not a widely-accepted opinion and is only an example of a team's GM talking up that team's quarterback. Yet, Skip makes it seem like everyone thinks Luck is the NFL's Michael Jordan.
"It's like Jordan when he'd take the last shot -- he wants the ball," Grigson told NFL.com after his Colts had come from 38-10 down to mortify the Chiefs in last Saturday's very wild-card game.
And yes, Colts coach Chuck Pagano merely suggested that Luck "is probably gonna go down as one of the best, if not the best, ever to play when all is said and done."
This is just an example of a team's coaches and upper management talking up their franchise player. So yes, Skip is excused for not thinking as much of Andrew Luck as Luck's employer does. I'm betting Andrew Luck doesn't think as much of Skip Bayless as ESPN does.
Understand, Grigson went MJ and Pagano reached for Greatest Ever soon after Luck had thrown THREE interceptions in his home dome
Luck did lead a pretty good comeback after throwing those interceptions. Luck threw four interceptions the following week at New England, which obviously is not so good. Again, Luck isn't elite and those who believe Luck is elite probably are employed by the Indianapolis Colts. He's not there yet, but that doesn't stop Skip Bayless from acting like EVERYONE thinks Luck is elite.
against a Kansas City team that had lost five of its final seven games, had lost to injury early in this game its best offensive weapon (Jamaal Charles), then its fastest receiver (Donnie Avery), then its backup running back (Knile Davis) … while also losing both starting cornerbacks, Brandon Flowers and Dunta Robinson, and eventually losing its best pass rusher, Justin Houston, whose bookend, Tamba Hali, was sadly limited on a knee that had to be drained the week before.
Once the Chiefs' pass rush disappeared, and they were down to third-string running back Cyrus Gray,
Yes, the Chiefs were injured and this was fortunate for the Colts. Davis wasn't injured until later in the game, as was Justin Houston, so Luck still did a great job leading the comeback.
and they had no one left who could cover T.Y. Hilton, I (for one) would've been disappointed in Luck if he HADN'T finished off the comeback
See, this is typical Skip Bayless writing. He would have been disappointed if Luck didn't come back from 28 points down in the third quarter to win the game. Just think about for a second, because we know Skip didn't think about it before writing the sentence. Down 38-10 in the third quarter it's fine to think, "Man, the Colts could come back if they get a few breaks to go their way." Sure, it could happen. To expect the Colts to comeback and win the game to the point you would be disappointed if the Colts didn't outscore the Chiefs by 28 points in the second half is absolutely unreasonable. But that's Skip. He's unreasonable and that's why you can't argue with him. He will throw his fingers in his ears and try to hammer home the same point you have already disproven several times over.
Andrew was really good, but Andrew was Lucky.
If this were the late 1800's a man could hang for writing such a bad pun in a sentence.
I'm sorry, but THAT game -- Luck's first playoff win in two tries --
Two whole tries. Luck lost last year to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens and I'm sure Skip would argue Luck wasn't elite then either.
is being viewed by many as Luck's Canton-bound coronation?
In all seriousness, who is doing this? I joke about it, but Skip clearly has a bug up his ass and thinks somebody somewhere (or the proverbial "they" that often don't exist except in the deluded mind of a person) is saying Andrew Luck should be in the Hall of Fame after his comeback against the Chiefs. We won't find any links because Skip won't and can't provide any. He's just disproving an argument he wants others to make, not a real argument that is widely being made.
What exactly is it about this kid that inspires so many to race to proclaim him the This or the That while stumbling blindly past obvious negatives?
He's a white, pocket-passer quarterback from an excellent school who is smart and plays well with the media. It also helps that Andrew Luck seems to have no life outside of playing football, which the media always appreciates. He's also made the playoffs in both of his seasons as an NFL quarterback, which really, really helps the media's opinion of him.
I see a big, smart, fairly athletic, remarkably resilient QB who throws a nice deep ball -- a fine young player. I do not see a lock first-ballot Hall of Famer. Not yet, at least.
So Skip's basic argument is that Luck isn't a first ballot Hall of Famer yet. Is there really someone out there who thinks Luck IS a first ballot Hall of Famer at this point in his career? I doubt it. But in his efforts to troll, attention can't be paid to the fact few or no people are making the argument Skip is refuting.
I watched Luck a lot in college. On an ESPNU show, I picked Stanford to win at Oregon when Luck was a redshirt sophomore. Stanford led 31-24 at half … and lost the second half 28-0 as Luck threw two interceptions.
Andrew Luck made Skip Bayless look stupid one time. That's really what this is all about. Also, lost in Skip's "me me me" commentary, notice the Stanford defense gave up 52 points in this game. 52 points. But yes, this one college game from three years ago goes to prove Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer. Great point.
When Luck was a junior, I saw the late interception returned for a touchdown that nearly cost Stanford the game at USC, and while Luck played pretty well in the Fiesta Bowl, I watched Oklahoma State's Brandon Weeden outplay him.
Here's Skip's biggest problem when making his trolling arguments. Very few of these arguments are based on fact and he relies on his audience being as dumb as he is. Luck "played pretty well" in the Fiesta Bowl. I would say so. He was 27-31 for 347 yards, throwing two touchdowns and one interception. He threw four incompletions during the entire game. I guess that's "pretty good" though I'm sure Skip would argue he would have been disappointed if Luck threw any incompletions.
Brandon Weeden was 29-42 for 399 yards, throwing three touchdowns and one interception by the way. I'll let you as the reader decide which quarterback outplayed the other, but I'm feeling like this was a draw. Leave it to Skip to describe a quarterback who threw four incompletions in a BCS game as "playing pretty well."
I see no Elway or Favre or Marino in his game -- no wow factor. While his teammates all seem to love him -- how could they not? -- I don't see dynamic leadership. I see consistently, solidly unspectacular.
I forgot where flair and dynamic leadership were prerequisites for being a Hall of Fame quarterback or even a quarterback who can win a Super Bowl. Does Eli Manning or Joe Flacco have dynamic leadership? Heck, is Peyton Manning even a dynamic leader or just a really good quarterback who leads by example? I would argue the "wow" factor is probably the worst way to evaluate a quarterback's eliteness or not. Yes, Luck isn't elite, but it has nothing to do with whether he has the "wow" factor or not. This is what Skip Bayless looks for. Flash and the "wow" factor when he looks at a quarterback. This is also why Skip Bayless is horrible.
This is why Skip likes Tebow so much, because Tebow has the "wow" factor and has charisma. A quarterback has to have more than that, which is why Tim Tebow is currently a co-worker of Skip Bayless and no longer playing quarterback in the NFL.
This season, Luck has thrown for 300 or more yards only three times -- all spectacular losses, 38-8 to St. Louis at home, 24-20 to Miami at home (when Ryan Tannehill outplayed Luck) and 42-28 at Cincinnati.
You be the judge on whether Tannehill outplayed Luck in this game.
Luck: 25-43 for 321 yards with one touchdown and one interception. He had a 51.5 QBR and 79.7 QB rating.
Tannehill: 23-34 for 319 yards with one touchdown and zero interceptions. He had a 44.4 QBR and a 107.4 rating.
It looks like Luck got outplayed, but it wasn't because he necessarily played poorly, but because Tannehill played so well.
Peyton Manning, the Colts' legend replaced by Luck, has thrown for 300 or more 12 times this season, winning 11
Comparing an actual first ballot Hall of Famer in his 15th season who has receivers by the name of Wes Welker, Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker and Julius Thomas to a guy playing his second season in the NFL who has receivers by the name of Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton, Coby Fleener, and Darrius Heyward-Bey is the epitome of stupidity. Or should I just say, "Being a Skip Bayless"? No one is arguing Luck is currently on Manning's level, so the comparison is just dumb.
His only loss? Naturally, his wildly anticipated return to the House That He Built in Indy. That Sunday night, Peyton threw for 386, three touchdowns and an interception. Luck: 228, three touchdowns, no interceptions.
That's Luck.
Yes, that is Luck. He's a second year quarterback who isn't capable of keeping up with elite NFL quarterbacks because he is not yet elite. The opinion of Luck's employer doesn't mean everyone else shares the opinion. Again, Skip is refuting a point I'm not sure is widely being made. Luck looks like he may one day be an elite quarterback, but he's not there yet.
At his best -- and worst -- he's actually more Eli than Peyton.
That sucks because Eli has two Super Bowl rings. How embarrassing for Andrew Luck.
But like Eli, Andrew has an unsinkable, almost oblivious confidence. High football IQ but no ability to remember mistakes. Luck knows he was born to play QB, so if he screws up, so what, he just shrugs and keeps playing, as Kansas City will attest.
This is as opposed to being like David Carr and ducking at the upcoming pass rush because you are shell-shocked from being sacked too many times?
Peyton seems keenly aware of the moment and its historical perspective...But Luck will let his pedigree get the better of him -- he will occasionally go Eli and try something he shouldn't. In the past two seasons, he has had four three-interception games in the regular season, second-most in the NFL to … Eli, with six. Last season, his rookie year, Luck had the NFL's second-most turnovers, 23, just three fewer than Mark "Butt Fumble" Sanchez.
I've criticized Luck for being turnover prone as well, so Skip has a point in regard to Luck's turnovers. Where Skip has no point is he is comparing Luck, a rookie quarterback, to Mark Sanchez who is not a rookie quarterback, and only in the context of turnovers. It's misleading. Luck is turnover-prone, but Peyton Manning threw 43 interceptions is his first two years in the NFL. Andrew Luck has 27 his first two seasons in the NFL. Fine, I won't count Manning's first two seasons in the NFL. In Manning's third and fourth year in the NFL he threw 38 interceptions. Good point, let's not include Manning's third or fourth year. In Manning's fifth and sixth season in the NFL he threw 29 interceptions. Luck threw 27 interceptions his first two seasons in the NFL. Yes, he has fumbled quite a bit but this is a product of being a rookie and lacking pocket awareness, along with his offensive line having deficiencies. The argument that Luck has thrown too many interceptions to be elite doesn't hold up even when comparing Luck to Skip's cherry-picked Hall of Fame quarterback.
Andrew Luck turned the ball over too much in his rookie season and he turned it over too much in the playoffs, but these turnovers aren't a warning that he can't one day be an elite quarterback. It's a warning that he needs to improve his decision-making and ability to read an NFL defense. You know, things nearly every young quarterback has to do. As far as Skip's lazy-ass analysis that Luck throws the interceptions because his pedigree gets the better of him, but Peyton seems keenly aware of the moment, well the turnover totals for each quarterback doesn't reflect this as true. Possibly Peyton NOW understands the moment and historical perspective, but Skip is comparing two quarterback in completely different stages of their careers.
Back on that field for a playoff game this Saturday night, Luck is just as likely to outplay Brady as he is to throw the same interceptions he did last Saturday against the Chiefs.
He did not outplay Brady and Luck threw four interceptions. He played badly and he isn't an elite quarterback yet. No bad comparisons to Eli/Peyton Manning are needed to show this as being true.
Luck now has nine fourth-quarter comebacks and 11 game-winning drives -- hence "Michael Jordan." Yet nearly all are of the slow, steady variety.
Considering an offense can only score 7-8 points in a single touchdown drive it's kind of hard to overcome a 28 point deficit in a quick and easy manner. But yeah Skip, you are an idiot. What does it matter if Luck's comebacks have been slow, steady or fast comebacks? Skip is ridiculously trying to criticize Luck for not coming back fast enough. Troll hard, enemy.
Against Seattle, the Colts took the lead for good at 31-28 after a 14-play, 86-yard drive produced a touchdown (and two-point conversion) with 8 minutes, 55 seconds left.
This is typical Skip Bayless. When presented with evidence of his being wrong, he argues further rather than just concede a comeback is a comeback no matter how long it takes.
Yes, the Colts' defense still had to stop Russell Wilson and Co. twice more to preserve Luck's "Jordanesque" heroics.
In any comeback the defense has to stop the opposing offense for the comeback to work. This isn't new nor is this telling us anything of importance. The fact the Colts defense stopped the Seahawks is impressive, but when discussing a quarterback who has led a comeback it is always necessary for the defense to stop the opposing offense to preserve the heroics.
What's really funny about Skip Bayless arguing a quarterback isn't heroic because he leads a comeback since the defense has to stop the other team is that he has argued the exact opposite on repeated occasions when discussing Tim Tebow. When discussing Tebow's heroics Skip never mentions the Broncos defense had to stop the opposing team. No, in that case the comeback was all Tebow. When Skip wants to bash Andrew Luck, all of a sudden the Colts defense is an important part of the comeback.
The great news Saturday was the second-biggest comeback in NFL history. The bad news: The Chiefs led 38-10 without Jamaal Charles.
And gosh, what unit could be partially responsible for the Chiefs scoring 38 points? I guess the defense that played such a vital part in the comeback isn't a vital part of allowing the Chiefs to score 38 points by the third quarter.
Yes, the Colts' defense ranks no better than 20th, while they're tied for 20th in rushing. And yes, Luck lost a mentor and go-to receiver, Reggie Wayne, for the season on Oct. 20. But seriously, is Luck having Jordanesque impact?
His coach said that. This isn't a widely-held opinion.
Does that, as my "First Take" debate partner Stephen A. Smith says, qualify Luck as a "game-changer who just oozes greatness"?
Stephen A. Smith is as brain-dead as Skip Bayless is. They each take strong opposing views and then scream and yell at each other like delusional senior citizens fighting over the last Bingo card until the next commercial break. Neither of them is right.
Maybe I'd be more sold if Luck acted more like a star. Maybe so many rush to lionize Luck because he's just so ordinary-Joe likeable.
As I said, Skip is brain-dead. He would think Luck is a better quarterback if he acted more like a star? What does Luck's actions have to do with his quarterbacking skill? And again, Tim Tebow is very unassuming and ordinary-Joe likeable, yet Skip couldn't wait to lionize him. If Luck acted more like a star then Skip would criticize Luck for acting like the star he isn't. Can't fool me.
I was on record before Luck's draft that Robert Griffin III would prove to be the better NFL QB. He certainly made me look right last season with his 20 TD passes to just five interceptions, fifth-in-the-NFL QBR, division title and 14-0 lead over Seattle in his first playoff game before aggravating, then wrecking, his knee.
Good thing Griffin wasn't playing Luck or else Skip wouldn't give Luck any credit for leading a comeback down 14-0 on the road in a playoff game.
But this season, RG III made the Luck-lovers beam when he let his stardom go to head, rushed back from knee surgery and forgot how to play quarterback.
I don't understand Skip's insistence on playing this out as a Griffin v. Luck debate where those people who like Andrew Luck are happy for the misfortune that befalls Robert Griffin. I think Skip assumes that everyone lives their life in a constant antagonistic debate between two strong opposing points of view. I don't know why the Luck-lovers would be happy Griffin had a bad year.
The day the Colts eased Peyton out the back door in favor of Luck, I said they were making a monumental mistake. The NFL is a win-now business and Peyton, I said, would give the Colts a better chance of winning a Super Bowl for the next three seasons (last year, this year and next). For the second straight year, Peyton has lifted Denver to a 13-3 record and potentially two home playoff games, this time with a record-shattering 55 TD passes and 5,477 yards.
But last year, of course, Peyton's postseason record fell to 9-11 and he lost his third straight playoff game thanks to a Hail Flacco that forced the overtime in which Peyton threw the killer interception.
Advantage, Andrew?
It sounds like Luck has won this fictional antagonistic debate that Skip Bayless seems to believe is a reality.
Maybe I'm asking for it to dare to doubt this kid as he returns to face the Patriots (my Super Bowl pick) and the pretty-boy quarterback who got Eli-ed twice in Super Bowls.
This is Skip Bayless saying, "Troll me and give me attention. I thrive off attention because my mom never loved me, my dad ignored me and I'm so insecure that I don't believe I exist unless I'm given constant attention."
This is Skip's intention in writing this column. He writes a strongly-worded column that takes a strong point of view and then thrives off the attention given to him that he has so desperately attempted to receive in writing the column.
Maybe, late Saturday night, you'll tell me, "Told you."
Seriously, please give Skip attention. He's saying Andrew Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer right now and is comparing him to veteran Hall of Fame-caliber quarterbacks to prove his point. It's a terribly written article and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not, but one thing is for sure on purpose. Skip wants your attention and he wants people to hate him or love him for his strong hot sports takes.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
9 comments MMQB Review: The Bengals Should Just Start Over Completely Edition
Last week in MMQB Peter King called for the public shaming of the NFL officials who didn't call a penalty on the Chargers which would have given the Chiefs another chance at a game-winning field goal. This missed field goal allowed the Chargers to make the playoffs over the Steelers, which resulted in Peter King acting as if this one missed call is the only reason the Steelers didn't make the playoffs. Peter also was annoyed by people who took pictures at the Apple store in New York. Of course, nearly everything people do in public annoys Peter, so that's nothing new. This week Peter talks about the scintillating weekend of playoff football (except for the Bengals), talks about the great playoff performances by the quarterbacks (except Andy Dalton), and Peter name-drops to a passenger that he was talking to Dan Fouts (and not an ex-member of the Bengals).
Oh, and by the way, this week's overreaction to what happened during the previous weekend of NFL action is all related to the Bengals if you couldn't tell already. Andy Dalton is a bum and the Bengals aren't sure he's the guy to lead the franchise into the future. It's like what we've seen all year from Peter. A player is great until the team starts losing and vice versa. As I wrote in my preview of the Chargers-Bengals game, it's not like Andy Dalton just started throwing interceptions. He's been pretty inconsistent for a good portion of this season and even his career.
Seven teams playing scintillating playoff football (some even dabbled with defense), and then Cincinnati. You know, the same old Bengals. Isn’t that what the weekend felt like?
Not really. Unless Peter has trouble remembering the same old Bengals. The same old Bengals would have given up 40 points and not scored at all. The "same old Bengals" means the game would not have even been competitive. Cincinnati was leading at halftime.
But what an Akili Smith-sized egg the Bengals laid, and the resurgent Chargers were only too happy to take the win they overwhelmingly deserved.
If there is one takeaway from this past weekend, Peter wants it to be the Bengals played terribly and Andy Dalton is a bum. It's like Peter hasn't seen Dalton in the playoffs before and hasn't watched any of the regular season games where Dalton hasn't been very good. I count five regular season games this season. Dalton threw four interceptions just a week ago. Him having a bad game isn't completely unforeseen, but as always, Peter doesn't seem to notice until the Bengals get a negative result. Dalton was 14-23 for 190 yards with a touchdown and interception in the first game against the Chargers.
Which of these things doesn’t belong:
a. 45-44, with a team winning after trailing 38-10.
b. 26-24, on a field goal at the gun by a kicker who was unemployed three weeks ago.
c. 27-10. Drama-free.
d. 23-20, in minus-14 wind chill, on a field goal at the gun by a 15-year NFL kicker who’d never won a playoff game.
Man, Peter is going all-in on the Bengals today. Here's more salt on the wound.
Not to break any hearts in the Queen City, and not to set an NFL record for overreaction, but a snapshot of the 2011 and 2012 drafts show how sick Bengaldom must be today.
I think we should hold off on the "Russell Wilson is the second coming of Drew Brees" talk. Let's let the guy beat Drew Brees next week, play at a high level for another decade, win a Super Bowl and then maybe this conversation can be had.
The Bengals have to be despondent this morning. They should be. They’re not sure if their 4,000-yard quarterback is the future of the franchise.
I've always thought Dalton got a little too much credit, but I think it's a bit of an overreaction to wonder if he is the future of the franchise. The Bengals have made the playoffs three years in a row with Dalton as the quarterback. He's been bad in the playoffs, but he's not exactly a bum.
So much to talk about after one of the great playoff weekends in memory, and let’s not be all Debbie Downer about it.
"Let's" is a contraction for "Let us" and "us" aren't being a Debbie Downer, Peter. You are the one writing the column, not us.
The divisional round schedule:
Saturday, 4:35 p.m. ET: New Orleans (No. 6, 12-5) at Seattle (No. 1, 13-3). They met five weeks ago tonight, at CenturyLink Field, and the Seahawks embarrassed the Saints 34-7. Seattle’s shown signs of mortality since.
Seattle lost at home once to the Cardinals and lost on the road to the 49ers over the past five weeks. They were mortal before that time, regardless of what Peter wants his readers to believe.
First thoughts after a thrilling weekend of football (and don’t take my word for it; 30.8 million people watched Saturday’s twinbill, up 15 percent over last year):
Every game’s a revenge game now for the Niners. They’ve played four of the seven other teams in the playoffs and lost to all four—Seattle, Indy, Carolina and New Orleans. But they’re playing better now, winners of seven straight, and Colin Kaepernick has two trustworthy things he didn’t have in midseason: his own legs (he’s running with more confidence now)
Thanks for clearing that up Peter, because I really thought Kaepernick was using someone else's legs to run earlier in the year because I'm just one of your stupid readers who doesn't have the IQ to match wits with you.
and Michael Crabtree.
Of course the 49ers are favored on the road against a team that beat them earlier in the year, but if revenge is what gets them motivated then more power to them. Seems Vegas thinks the 49ers are the better team.
Cam Jordan’s quick pressure could be the key for New Orleans in Seattle. Russell Wilson had tons of time the last time they played, and the emotion of the night will be hard to duplicate, even in a playoff game. Jordan was in Nick Foles’ grill consistently Saturday night.
Jordan was all up in Foles' grill. For real no doubt, yo. (Peter turns on some LL Cool J because he thinks that is relevant hip-hop music)
Andrew Luck is so rare, so precocious and so able to put the past behind.
He's so precocious. So precocious. Andrew Luck is like a two year old child who needs a good smack on the ass when he's bad and a good tickle around his belly he's good. So precocious. Like a child. It's so precocious to play shitty in the first half and then play well in the second half. What a great way to display characteristics of someone who is older than Luck truly is. No 24 year old man should even be starting a playoff game in the NFL (has it ever been done before?), much less winning a home playoff game. So precocious. Peter's got a playground he has to go hang out at for a few hours now so he can stare at the children to determine which one reminds him the most of Andrew Luck.
It’s highly doubtful next weekend can match the one we just had, even with the stinker in Cincinnati. But for different reasons, I love every one of these games.
And they love you Peter! They love you because you are so fucking precocious in your love for the NFL. Comparing adult men to children is in no way creepy at all, so don't worry about that.
We’ve learned one thing about the future of the Colts while the 35-year-old Wayne recuperates from midseason ACL surgery: When the day comes that Wayne can’t play anymore—at least at a high level—Hilton could morph into Andrew Luck’s No. 1 receiver long-term.
Yeah, it certainly sounds like Hilton is already there or will be there next year. But sure, maybe one day in the future this will happen.
Hilton, at 5-9 and 183, doesn’t have the size NFL teams today want in a franchise receiver, and he’ll have to prove that a smaller guy can take the beating over time that top guys do.
And since no other wide receivers that are Hilton's size have played in the NFL and been a franchise receiver then Hilton will be the first 5'9" (or close to that height) wide receiver to prove he can be a franchise receiver. Just as long as Peter doesn't include Steve Smith, Randall Cobb, Wes Welker or DeSean Jackson in this discussion. They don't count right now.
Just before the Colts took over at their 20 to try to complete the comeback from 28 points down, coach Chuck Pagano had seen enough of the battered Chiefs’ secondary to say to Hilton: “T.Y., go win the game.” He’d not said that to Hilton before, and Hilton loved what he heard.
This is some third-grade sounding writing.
"The coach told the Bobby to catch the ball to win the game. Bobby liked that his coach liked him and had never heard his coach say this. Bobby won the game for his team. Bobby wants to know why that scary man named Peter shows up to every game to stare at him."
Luck sent three receivers—Rogers, Hilton and tight end Coby Fleener—in a close bunch to the left, with Hilton in the middle, and before he got too far out of earshot, Hilton heard this from Luck: “Run. Just run.”
Apparently Andrew Luck thinks Hilton is Forrest Gump. "Run T.Y. Run!"
“I got to the line and saw 39 [safety Husain Abdullah] across from me, and I thought, ‘We’ve got to take advantage of this,’ ” said Hilton. The speed matchup, he meant. “[Brandon] Flowers was out for them and so was [Dunta] Robinson, so I knew they were running out of corners.”
Justin Houston was also out of the game, as was Jamaal Charles. Not that the players the Chiefs were missing should ever be mentioned at any point when drooling over the Colts comeback. It's irrelevant obviously.
T.Y. became a dad in high school and had several schools competing for him to come play wide receiver. The night before he decided where to go, he put two caps—West Virginia’s and the hometown Florida International’s—in front of his infant son. He said he son put his hand on the FIU cap six straight times.
Even an infant knows he doesn't want to live in West Virginia for any long period of time.
The Pats had better find someone to cover Hilton (Aqib Talib, physically, perhaps) because Luck’s going to him a lot.
It might be better to cover Hilton physically rather than just trying to cover him mentally.
“Here” is the NFL’s Final Eight, hugging just-had-to-be-there Chargers fan Phil Mickelson and his family
Because no mention of Phil Mickelson would be complete without a mention of Mickelson's family. Phil Mickelson is the only active PGA Tour golfer who has a family and doesn't hate his family. All other golfers must hate their family or not have a family since so much is always made of Mickelson even missing a school play to participate in a golf tournament.
So McCoy clearly know the routes Manning likes and the plays he wants to run. But this will be a classic spy versus spy scenario. Manning knows McCoy knows, and so Manning’s going to take McCoy’s knowledge and try to counter how he thinks McCoy will play him. And so forth.
But does Mike McCoy do Papa John's commercials? Advantage Peyton Manning.
I know exactly why Jim Harbaugh set a personal record for post-game giddiness Sunday in Green Bay. When he finished his post-game press conference, he hugged one veteran beat man, Matt Maiocco of CSN Bay Area and said, “I love you, Matt!” And he kissed another one, Matt Barrows of the Sacramento Bee, on the top of the head and said, “I love you too, Matt!”
Then Harbaugh stands outside the building of other newspapers to search for another beat writer to cover the 49ers in place of these two beat writers and then later claims he didn't have an interest in finding other beat writers to cover the 49ers and is very comfortable with the beat writers the 49ers have. Later in the season Harbaugh will replace these beat writers with a younger, more exciting beat writer and no one points out Harbaugh lied.
This is the offense San Francisco will need if it’s to win at Carolina, with Kaepernick posing a dual threat and Gore pushing the pile. Funny thing: Carolina’s convinced it has the same thing, a quarterback who can beat you running or passing, and a couple of physical backs.
Oh my God, both teams have a quarterback who can run with the football! They are pretty much the same team. Peter King thinks this is the game where Cam Newton has to justify his selection as the #1 overall pick in 2011. If he fails, he may as well just kill himself.
Then Peter kills space by allowing a Packers fan to relate what it was like to attend the game on Sunday. It's interesting and all, but one of the many parts of MMQB that I find would be better served to have it's own column away from MMQB. MMQB is supposed to be a recap and inside dish on what happened during the past week's NFL games, but it has slowly become bloated to where Peter King doesn't even write portions of the column.
Fine Fifteen
It's fairly pointless to do a power ranking once the playoffs have started, but considering the Tweet of the Week, Quote of the Week, Travel Note of the Week and what Peter thinks he thinks also seem pointless on a weekly basis, I'm not surprised Peter doesn't stop doing the power rankings. Have to make MMQB seem longer.
3. Denver (13-3). The NFL didn’t have enough drama this year. To reach the Super Bowl, Peyton Manning will have to beat his old offensive coordinator (Mike McCoy) and either Tom Brady or his successor in Indy, Andrew Luck.
Peter is all about the drama and making the NFL seem like it has Hollywood endings. It's very precocious of him to be such a drama queen about these things.
6. New Orleans (12-5). Tremendous second half by Drew Brees. Now I’m thinking the long shot in Seattle isn’t such a long shot after all, especially with the Seahawks looking pretty mortal on offense since wiping out the Saints in December.
The reason the Seahawks look so mortal to Peter now is because he had them as being immortal for the majority of the season. The Seahawks only seem mortal because Peter seemed to have higher expectations for the Seahawks than he probably should have had.
7. Indianapolis (12-5). Andrew Luck laughs at big deficits.
Peter King wrote this earlier in the year about the Colts getting behind in games. It contained quotes like these relating to the Colts getting behind early and having to come back to win games. The Colts had just gotten beaten 40-11 by the Cardinals.
Indianapolis is a shell of the team it was in September.
He’s doing so with so many of his important players gone for the season—guard Donald Thomas (the best offensive lineman on the team), wideout Reggie Wayne, tight end Dwayne Allen—that you wonder if Indianapolis will be able to hold off the flawed Titans and rebound for the playoffs.
Sunday was the seventh straight game the Colts have trailed in the first half. Two of the last three have been downright embarrassing.
Andrew Luck laughs at big deficits, but Peter King doesn't worry about the Colts getting behind early as long as they eventually win the game. If the Colts can't come back and win the game, then they are a shell of what the team used to be.
9. Kansas City (11-6). I realize a pair of key members of the secondary were gone down the stretch, but the lack of a rush on Andrew Luck and any defensive cohesion in the second half was galling.
It doesn't help when one of the Chiefs best pass rushers goes down in the fourth quarter and the "key members" of the Chiefs secondary is their two starting cornerbacks.
10. Green Bay (8-8-1). The Packers need reinforcements; Bryan Bulaga, Casey Hayward and Clay Matthews to get healthy; to figure out who kidnapped B.J. Raji … and basically Ted Thompson to have his best offseason.
This is what I mean when I say Peter is a drama queen. The Packers simply need to do some work on the offensive line and on defense. Find better players. All is not lost and Ted Thompson doesn't need to have his best offseason. Simmer down.
13. Cincinnati (11-6). It’s one thing for fans to not trust Andy Dalton, and those from Lima to Lexington surely won’t in 2014. But Dalton’s biggest problem going forward is that his own locker room isn’t going to trust him, regardless of what the players and coaches say publicly.
And Peter King already has Andy Dalton losing the Bengals locker room. That's nice.
14. Pittsburgh (8-8). The Steelers would have given the Chargers a much better game than Cincinnati did.
We get it Peter! You wanted to see the Steelers in the playoffs. The Steelers didn't win the AFC North and the Bengals did, so don't act like the Bengals got in the playoffs on a fluke. They earned the chance to play at home against the Chargers over the course of the season. Wasn't it just last week Peter was railing against the Chargers being in the playoffs because he thought the Steelers should have made it? Now that the Chargers have won a road playoff game, Peter has taken his Northeast-biased ass anger and misdirects it towards the Bengals. It wasn't a "Bengals or Steelers?" situation during Week 17, so Peter shouldn't act like the missed call in the Chiefs-Chargers game let the Bengals into the playoffs where they choked. The missed call let the Chargers in the playoffs over the Steelers and Peter is trying to deflect his anger towards the Bengals, as if the Bengals didn't deserve their playoff spot over the Steelers. That's probably what all this anger directed towards Andy Dalton is all about. Peter is mad the Bengals "took" the Steelers playoff spot, even though they didn't.
Offensive Players of the Week
Andrew Luck, quarterback, Indianapolis.
Very rarely does a quarterback who committed three turnovers in a playoff game receive one of Peter's thirteen Offensive Player of the Week awards.
But somehow, Luck had enough presence to throw three second-half touchdowns, and even more presence to pick up a bouncing fumble near the goal line and stretch it over for a bizarre but vital score in the 45-44 Indy win. Let the unauthorized Luck biographies (plural) be contracted out.
At least Peter no one is comparing Luck to a US Senator (yet) like was done earlier this year in regard to Robert Griffin.
“They had their hearts ripped out. They should hurt. That’ll make us better.”
—Kansas City coach Andy Reid, a day after after he and his players blew a 38-10 third-quarter lead and lost to Indianapolis 45-44 in one of the strangest games in NFL history Saturday.
And yet, no matter how many games Andy Reid loses for his team with his weird play-calling and poor clock management, he doesn't seem to learn. His players probably learned that lesson best on Saturday.
Then Peter harps again on how bad Andy Dalton was against the Chargers.
I don’t want to be too knee-jerk, but the Bengals are going to have to consider bringing competition to training camp for Andy Dalton. I don’t mean he should be benched, and I don’t mean Cincinnati should necessarily draft a quarterback in the first round, but the Bengals have too much defensive talent to watch the quarterback put up 33 points in 34 playoff drives.
It doesn't sound knee-jerk at all. I wonder at what point Dalton will have to justify his selection as the quarterback-of-the-future for the Bengals? I'm sure Peter will alert us on Twitter as to when this time might be.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Forward, friendly, 40ish guy next to me on the train from Grand Central Terminal to Stamford Friday: “Who was that on the phone?”
Oh goodie! Peter has a chance to name-drop who he was talking with on the phone. Think of all the times Peter has bitched about someone talking on the phone while on the train or complained a person's conversation is too boring. Now know for sure that he has conversations in public on the train himself. Think any of those conversations are loud or boring? Probably.
Me: “Dan Fouts.”
Forward guy: “THE Dan Fouts?”
No, the real estate guy in Washington.
Me: “I think so—the former football player.”
Also notice how Peter has called this guy "Forward guy" because he had the audacity to listen to Peter's conversation and then ask Peter about it. Listening to conversations and then reporting to others what the conversation is about seems to be something Peter loves to do routinely, yet when someone does it to him then he thinks that person is being "forward." I guess writing down a transcript of a perfect stranger's conversation in MMQB isn't being "forward" to Peter.
Forward guy: “I bet that’s cool, talking to Dan Fouts.”
Me: “Yeah, it’s good.”
Silence for the next 35 minutes. He texted, I wrote, I got off in Stamford, he got off, and that was it.
This was such an interesting story, I'm glad Peter relayed it to us. It's obvious that Peter didn't tell this story just to name-drop that he talked to Dan Fouts and relay a story about how people find his job to be so awesome.
1. I think this is what I liked about wild-card weekend:
d. T.Y. Hilton. Everything about him.
So precocious.
k. Chris Mortensen’s information that Mike Munchak turned down an extension with Tennessee that would have paid him “almost double” his current $3 milion annual salary. Good information. And absolutely mind-boggling. Munchak was head coach for three playoff-less seasons, was 7-9 in a mediocre (at best) division, and spent massively to build a running game this year that was just average. Wow. That was a stunner to me. And to pay him that money while insisting he change half the coaches on his staff? Hey, right hand: Have any idea what the left hand is doing?
Probably calling Dan Fouts and then telling everyone about it, while describing a grown man as precocious.
p. Kudos, GM Tom Telesco of the Chargers … for many things. The biggest I can think of this morning is signing Danny Woodhead for two years and $3.5 million. Woodhead is worth three times that.
I like Danny Woodhead and all, but two years at $10.5 million? I'm not sure Woodhead is worth that anywhere but in Peter King's world.
r. Just give me Jordy Nelson, Anquan Boldin and a competent quarterback, and I’ll give you any two receivers in football, and I’ll take my chances against you.
Okay. A.J. Green and Calvin Johnson quarterbacked by Aaron Rodgers are probably going to beat your team of Nelson, Boldin and a competent quarterback. But I do LOVE the hyperbole behind this statement.
2. I think this is what I didn’t like about wild-card weekend
The Bengals preventing the Steelers from making the playoffs. Because that's exactly what happened.
a. Jamaal Charles going down in the first five minutes of the game. Love watching him play. Amazing this game produced 89 points without him.
It's amazing the Colts were able to score points without Jamaal Charles playing running back for the Chiefs. How did they manage to do that?
d. Colts: 14 turnovers in the regular season; four Saturday.
Including three by future Hall of Famer and 8-time Super Bowl champion Andrew Luck. Hey, he made a great comeback, but he also helped to dig the hole by throwing three interceptions. Of course the lemming media doesn't care if a quarterback starts off playing shitty, as long as he ends the game playing well. The narrative doesn't go backwards though. If a quarterback starts off playing well, then throws three interceptions in the second half then he is a choker, even if the number of turnovers would be the same at three.
l. If Micah Hyde makes that pick with four minutes to go, there’s a very good chance the course of 2013 NFC playoff history would be a lot different.
Just like if Andrew Luck had thrown his three interceptions in the second half then he would be considered a choker or if Donald Brown's fumble had bounced a different direction then Peter would have pointed out the Colts have been playing from behind all year and it finally came back to bite them.
3. I think I don’t care one bit who Aaron Rodgers—or any player, coach, fan or writer—has sex with. Nor should anyone. If a player chooses to discuss, it’s his business. If not, leave it alone, world.
But if Aaron Rodgers chooses to talk on the phone in public then Peter will feel free to transcribe the entire conversation.
8. I think I’ll have a mini-MMQB on Tuesday this week, because of the voluminous news week. Coming: a Saints item, interviews with Bill O’Brien and Lovie Smith, and your email.
As I have said before, rather than have a MMQB on Tuesday why not cut the fat from this MMQB or put certain parts (like the diary of the Packers fan) into it's own column to be posted on THE MMQB? Peter could cut the Fine Fifteen or Tweets of the Week and just make his Tuesday column a mailbag.
10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:
d. My sincere thanks to Dave Goren of the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association, and all the NSSA voters, who voted me sportswriter of the year for 2013. I’m humbled and so appreciative. Thank you.
But not too humbled to fail to mention he received this award in MMQB. In sportswriting sometimes it seems the best way to win an award is to keep writing and don't die. The NSSA has elected Mitch Albom into their Hall of Fame if that gives you any insight into their thought process and what they consider to be great sportswriting. Mitch Albom has lied and made up stories for a column and he is still in the NSSA Hall of Fame. I guess there is no morality clause when it comes to NSSA Hall of Fame voting.
e. Baseball writers have a tough job with this Hall of Fame voting, tougher than we have it in football. Do not envy them one bit, trying to decide if Bonds and Clemens belong.
It's really not hard or worth the teeth gnashing required. If a voter believes players who have used PED's or are linked to PED's should be in the Hall of Fame, vote them in. If the voter doesn't believe these guys should make it, then don't vote for them. For a group of people who take such a hard stance on PED's these Hall of Fame voters certainly seem to make it seem like they are deciding the fate of the free world and not simply voting based on their beliefs.
f. Coffeenerdness: No Tom Curran/coconut coffee tales for you this week, unfortunately, but I am looking for help in this regard for coffeephiles: I need a recommendation on how to clean a veteran Krups coffeemaker that hasn’t been cleaned in over a year. Baking powder and hot water, run through a normal cycle?
Hey buddy, how about you Google/Bing the answer to that question? You tell your readers to Google information they don't know, so take your own advice.
The Adieu Haiku
Harbaugh kissed writers.
Gadzooks. I doubt Tom Coughlin
ever kissed Vito.
I wish we could kiss the Adieu Haiku goodbye.
Oh, and by the way, this week's overreaction to what happened during the previous weekend of NFL action is all related to the Bengals if you couldn't tell already. Andy Dalton is a bum and the Bengals aren't sure he's the guy to lead the franchise into the future. It's like what we've seen all year from Peter. A player is great until the team starts losing and vice versa. As I wrote in my preview of the Chargers-Bengals game, it's not like Andy Dalton just started throwing interceptions. He's been pretty inconsistent for a good portion of this season and even his career.
Seven teams playing scintillating playoff football (some even dabbled with defense), and then Cincinnati. You know, the same old Bengals. Isn’t that what the weekend felt like?
Not really. Unless Peter has trouble remembering the same old Bengals. The same old Bengals would have given up 40 points and not scored at all. The "same old Bengals" means the game would not have even been competitive. Cincinnati was leading at halftime.
But what an Akili Smith-sized egg the Bengals laid, and the resurgent Chargers were only too happy to take the win they overwhelmingly deserved.
If there is one takeaway from this past weekend, Peter wants it to be the Bengals played terribly and Andy Dalton is a bum. It's like Peter hasn't seen Dalton in the playoffs before and hasn't watched any of the regular season games where Dalton hasn't been very good. I count five regular season games this season. Dalton threw four interceptions just a week ago. Him having a bad game isn't completely unforeseen, but as always, Peter doesn't seem to notice until the Bengals get a negative result. Dalton was 14-23 for 190 yards with a touchdown and interception in the first game against the Chargers.
Which of these things doesn’t belong:
a. 45-44, with a team winning after trailing 38-10.
b. 26-24, on a field goal at the gun by a kicker who was unemployed three weeks ago.
c. 27-10. Drama-free.
d. 23-20, in minus-14 wind chill, on a field goal at the gun by a 15-year NFL kicker who’d never won a playoff game.
Man, Peter is going all-in on the Bengals today. Here's more salt on the wound.
Not to break any hearts in the Queen City, and not to set an NFL record for overreaction, but a snapshot of the 2011 and 2012 drafts show how sick Bengaldom must be today.
| Overall Pick | Player, Pos., School | Status |
| 2011 | ||
| 35. Cincinnati | Andy Dalton, QB, TCU | 0-3 in the playoffs. Not exactly a fan favorite today. |
| 36. San Francisco | Colin Kaepernick, QB, Nevada | 3-1 in the playoffs. Pretty darn good. |
| 2012 | ||
| 53. Cincinnati | Devon Still, DL, Penn State | 289 mostly futile snaps in two years. |
| 75. Seattle | Russell Wilson, QB, Wisconsin | The second coming of Drew Brees, perhaps. |
I think we should hold off on the "Russell Wilson is the second coming of Drew Brees" talk. Let's let the guy beat Drew Brees next week, play at a high level for another decade, win a Super Bowl and then maybe this conversation can be had.
The Bengals have to be despondent this morning. They should be. They’re not sure if their 4,000-yard quarterback is the future of the franchise.
I've always thought Dalton got a little too much credit, but I think it's a bit of an overreaction to wonder if he is the future of the franchise. The Bengals have made the playoffs three years in a row with Dalton as the quarterback. He's been bad in the playoffs, but he's not exactly a bum.
So much to talk about after one of the great playoff weekends in memory, and let’s not be all Debbie Downer about it.
"Let's" is a contraction for "Let us" and "us" aren't being a Debbie Downer, Peter. You are the one writing the column, not us.
The divisional round schedule:
Saturday, 4:35 p.m. ET: New Orleans (No. 6, 12-5) at Seattle (No. 1, 13-3). They met five weeks ago tonight, at CenturyLink Field, and the Seahawks embarrassed the Saints 34-7. Seattle’s shown signs of mortality since.
Seattle lost at home once to the Cardinals and lost on the road to the 49ers over the past five weeks. They were mortal before that time, regardless of what Peter wants his readers to believe.
First thoughts after a thrilling weekend of football (and don’t take my word for it; 30.8 million people watched Saturday’s twinbill, up 15 percent over last year):
Every game’s a revenge game now for the Niners. They’ve played four of the seven other teams in the playoffs and lost to all four—Seattle, Indy, Carolina and New Orleans. But they’re playing better now, winners of seven straight, and Colin Kaepernick has two trustworthy things he didn’t have in midseason: his own legs (he’s running with more confidence now)
Thanks for clearing that up Peter, because I really thought Kaepernick was using someone else's legs to run earlier in the year because I'm just one of your stupid readers who doesn't have the IQ to match wits with you.
and Michael Crabtree.
Of course the 49ers are favored on the road against a team that beat them earlier in the year, but if revenge is what gets them motivated then more power to them. Seems Vegas thinks the 49ers are the better team.
Cam Jordan’s quick pressure could be the key for New Orleans in Seattle. Russell Wilson had tons of time the last time they played, and the emotion of the night will be hard to duplicate, even in a playoff game. Jordan was in Nick Foles’ grill consistently Saturday night.
Jordan was all up in Foles' grill. For real no doubt, yo. (Peter turns on some LL Cool J because he thinks that is relevant hip-hop music)
Andrew Luck is so rare, so precocious and so able to put the past behind.
He's so precocious. So precocious. Andrew Luck is like a two year old child who needs a good smack on the ass when he's bad and a good tickle around his belly he's good. So precocious. Like a child. It's so precocious to play shitty in the first half and then play well in the second half. What a great way to display characteristics of someone who is older than Luck truly is. No 24 year old man should even be starting a playoff game in the NFL (has it ever been done before?), much less winning a home playoff game. So precocious. Peter's got a playground he has to go hang out at for a few hours now so he can stare at the children to determine which one reminds him the most of Andrew Luck.
It’s highly doubtful next weekend can match the one we just had, even with the stinker in Cincinnati. But for different reasons, I love every one of these games.
And they love you Peter! They love you because you are so fucking precocious in your love for the NFL. Comparing adult men to children is in no way creepy at all, so don't worry about that.
We’ve learned one thing about the future of the Colts while the 35-year-old Wayne recuperates from midseason ACL surgery: When the day comes that Wayne can’t play anymore—at least at a high level—Hilton could morph into Andrew Luck’s No. 1 receiver long-term.
Yeah, it certainly sounds like Hilton is already there or will be there next year. But sure, maybe one day in the future this will happen.
Hilton, at 5-9 and 183, doesn’t have the size NFL teams today want in a franchise receiver, and he’ll have to prove that a smaller guy can take the beating over time that top guys do.
And since no other wide receivers that are Hilton's size have played in the NFL and been a franchise receiver then Hilton will be the first 5'9" (or close to that height) wide receiver to prove he can be a franchise receiver. Just as long as Peter doesn't include Steve Smith, Randall Cobb, Wes Welker or DeSean Jackson in this discussion. They don't count right now.
Just before the Colts took over at their 20 to try to complete the comeback from 28 points down, coach Chuck Pagano had seen enough of the battered Chiefs’ secondary to say to Hilton: “T.Y., go win the game.” He’d not said that to Hilton before, and Hilton loved what he heard.
This is some third-grade sounding writing.
"The coach told the Bobby to catch the ball to win the game. Bobby liked that his coach liked him and had never heard his coach say this. Bobby won the game for his team. Bobby wants to know why that scary man named Peter shows up to every game to stare at him."
Luck sent three receivers—Rogers, Hilton and tight end Coby Fleener—in a close bunch to the left, with Hilton in the middle, and before he got too far out of earshot, Hilton heard this from Luck: “Run. Just run.”
Apparently Andrew Luck thinks Hilton is Forrest Gump. "Run T.Y. Run!"
“I got to the line and saw 39 [safety Husain Abdullah] across from me, and I thought, ‘We’ve got to take advantage of this,’ ” said Hilton. The speed matchup, he meant. “[Brandon] Flowers was out for them and so was [Dunta] Robinson, so I knew they were running out of corners.”
Justin Houston was also out of the game, as was Jamaal Charles. Not that the players the Chiefs were missing should ever be mentioned at any point when drooling over the Colts comeback. It's irrelevant obviously.
T.Y. became a dad in high school and had several schools competing for him to come play wide receiver. The night before he decided where to go, he put two caps—West Virginia’s and the hometown Florida International’s—in front of his infant son. He said he son put his hand on the FIU cap six straight times.
Even an infant knows he doesn't want to live in West Virginia for any long period of time.
The Pats had better find someone to cover Hilton (Aqib Talib, physically, perhaps) because Luck’s going to him a lot.
It might be better to cover Hilton physically rather than just trying to cover him mentally.
“What Peyton did for my career—and what
everyone in Denver did, John Fox and John Elway and Pat Bowlen and the
players, I owe them everything. I’m here today because of those people,”
McCoy said.
“Here” is the NFL’s Final Eight, hugging just-had-to-be-there Chargers fan Phil Mickelson and his family
Because no mention of Phil Mickelson would be complete without a mention of Mickelson's family. Phil Mickelson is the only active PGA Tour golfer who has a family and doesn't hate his family. All other golfers must hate their family or not have a family since so much is always made of Mickelson even missing a school play to participate in a golf tournament.
So McCoy clearly know the routes Manning likes and the plays he wants to run. But this will be a classic spy versus spy scenario. Manning knows McCoy knows, and so Manning’s going to take McCoy’s knowledge and try to counter how he thinks McCoy will play him. And so forth.
But does Mike McCoy do Papa John's commercials? Advantage Peyton Manning.
I know exactly why Jim Harbaugh set a personal record for post-game giddiness Sunday in Green Bay. When he finished his post-game press conference, he hugged one veteran beat man, Matt Maiocco of CSN Bay Area and said, “I love you, Matt!” And he kissed another one, Matt Barrows of the Sacramento Bee, on the top of the head and said, “I love you too, Matt!”
Then Harbaugh stands outside the building of other newspapers to search for another beat writer to cover the 49ers in place of these two beat writers and then later claims he didn't have an interest in finding other beat writers to cover the 49ers and is very comfortable with the beat writers the 49ers have. Later in the season Harbaugh will replace these beat writers with a younger, more exciting beat writer and no one points out Harbaugh lied.
This is the offense San Francisco will need if it’s to win at Carolina, with Kaepernick posing a dual threat and Gore pushing the pile. Funny thing: Carolina’s convinced it has the same thing, a quarterback who can beat you running or passing, and a couple of physical backs.
Oh my God, both teams have a quarterback who can run with the football! They are pretty much the same team. Peter King thinks this is the game where Cam Newton has to justify his selection as the #1 overall pick in 2011. If he fails, he may as well just kill himself.
Then Peter kills space by allowing a Packers fan to relate what it was like to attend the game on Sunday. It's interesting and all, but one of the many parts of MMQB that I find would be better served to have it's own column away from MMQB. MMQB is supposed to be a recap and inside dish on what happened during the past week's NFL games, but it has slowly become bloated to where Peter King doesn't even write portions of the column.
Fine Fifteen
It's fairly pointless to do a power ranking once the playoffs have started, but considering the Tweet of the Week, Quote of the Week, Travel Note of the Week and what Peter thinks he thinks also seem pointless on a weekly basis, I'm not surprised Peter doesn't stop doing the power rankings. Have to make MMQB seem longer.
3. Denver (13-3). The NFL didn’t have enough drama this year. To reach the Super Bowl, Peyton Manning will have to beat his old offensive coordinator (Mike McCoy) and either Tom Brady or his successor in Indy, Andrew Luck.
Peter is all about the drama and making the NFL seem like it has Hollywood endings. It's very precocious of him to be such a drama queen about these things.
6. New Orleans (12-5). Tremendous second half by Drew Brees. Now I’m thinking the long shot in Seattle isn’t such a long shot after all, especially with the Seahawks looking pretty mortal on offense since wiping out the Saints in December.
The reason the Seahawks look so mortal to Peter now is because he had them as being immortal for the majority of the season. The Seahawks only seem mortal because Peter seemed to have higher expectations for the Seahawks than he probably should have had.
7. Indianapolis (12-5). Andrew Luck laughs at big deficits.
Peter King wrote this earlier in the year about the Colts getting behind in games. It contained quotes like these relating to the Colts getting behind early and having to come back to win games. The Colts had just gotten beaten 40-11 by the Cardinals.
Indianapolis is a shell of the team it was in September.
He’s doing so with so many of his important players gone for the season—guard Donald Thomas (the best offensive lineman on the team), wideout Reggie Wayne, tight end Dwayne Allen—that you wonder if Indianapolis will be able to hold off the flawed Titans and rebound for the playoffs.
Sunday was the seventh straight game the Colts have trailed in the first half. Two of the last three have been downright embarrassing.
Andrew Luck laughs at big deficits, but Peter King doesn't worry about the Colts getting behind early as long as they eventually win the game. If the Colts can't come back and win the game, then they are a shell of what the team used to be.
9. Kansas City (11-6). I realize a pair of key members of the secondary were gone down the stretch, but the lack of a rush on Andrew Luck and any defensive cohesion in the second half was galling.
It doesn't help when one of the Chiefs best pass rushers goes down in the fourth quarter and the "key members" of the Chiefs secondary is their two starting cornerbacks.
10. Green Bay (8-8-1). The Packers need reinforcements; Bryan Bulaga, Casey Hayward and Clay Matthews to get healthy; to figure out who kidnapped B.J. Raji … and basically Ted Thompson to have his best offseason.
This is what I mean when I say Peter is a drama queen. The Packers simply need to do some work on the offensive line and on defense. Find better players. All is not lost and Ted Thompson doesn't need to have his best offseason. Simmer down.
13. Cincinnati (11-6). It’s one thing for fans to not trust Andy Dalton, and those from Lima to Lexington surely won’t in 2014. But Dalton’s biggest problem going forward is that his own locker room isn’t going to trust him, regardless of what the players and coaches say publicly.
And Peter King already has Andy Dalton losing the Bengals locker room. That's nice.
14. Pittsburgh (8-8). The Steelers would have given the Chargers a much better game than Cincinnati did.
We get it Peter! You wanted to see the Steelers in the playoffs. The Steelers didn't win the AFC North and the Bengals did, so don't act like the Bengals got in the playoffs on a fluke. They earned the chance to play at home against the Chargers over the course of the season. Wasn't it just last week Peter was railing against the Chargers being in the playoffs because he thought the Steelers should have made it? Now that the Chargers have won a road playoff game, Peter has taken his Northeast-biased ass anger and misdirects it towards the Bengals. It wasn't a "Bengals or Steelers?" situation during Week 17, so Peter shouldn't act like the missed call in the Chiefs-Chargers game let the Bengals into the playoffs where they choked. The missed call let the Chargers in the playoffs over the Steelers and Peter is trying to deflect his anger towards the Bengals, as if the Bengals didn't deserve their playoff spot over the Steelers. That's probably what all this anger directed towards Andy Dalton is all about. Peter is mad the Bengals "took" the Steelers playoff spot, even though they didn't.
Offensive Players of the Week
Andrew Luck, quarterback, Indianapolis.
Very rarely does a quarterback who committed three turnovers in a playoff game receive one of Peter's thirteen Offensive Player of the Week awards.
But somehow, Luck had enough presence to throw three second-half touchdowns, and even more presence to pick up a bouncing fumble near the goal line and stretch it over for a bizarre but vital score in the 45-44 Indy win. Let the unauthorized Luck biographies (plural) be contracted out.
At least Peter no one is comparing Luck to a US Senator (yet) like was done earlier this year in regard to Robert Griffin.
“They had their hearts ripped out. They should hurt. That’ll make us better.”
—Kansas City coach Andy Reid, a day after after he and his players blew a 38-10 third-quarter lead and lost to Indianapolis 45-44 in one of the strangest games in NFL history Saturday.
And yet, no matter how many games Andy Reid loses for his team with his weird play-calling and poor clock management, he doesn't seem to learn. His players probably learned that lesson best on Saturday.
Then Peter harps again on how bad Andy Dalton was against the Chargers.
I don’t want to be too knee-jerk, but the Bengals are going to have to consider bringing competition to training camp for Andy Dalton. I don’t mean he should be benched, and I don’t mean Cincinnati should necessarily draft a quarterback in the first round, but the Bengals have too much defensive talent to watch the quarterback put up 33 points in 34 playoff drives.
It doesn't sound knee-jerk at all. I wonder at what point Dalton will have to justify his selection as the quarterback-of-the-future for the Bengals? I'm sure Peter will alert us on Twitter as to when this time might be.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Forward, friendly, 40ish guy next to me on the train from Grand Central Terminal to Stamford Friday: “Who was that on the phone?”
Oh goodie! Peter has a chance to name-drop who he was talking with on the phone. Think of all the times Peter has bitched about someone talking on the phone while on the train or complained a person's conversation is too boring. Now know for sure that he has conversations in public on the train himself. Think any of those conversations are loud or boring? Probably.
Me: “Dan Fouts.”
Forward guy: “THE Dan Fouts?”
No, the real estate guy in Washington.
Me: “I think so—the former football player.”
Also notice how Peter has called this guy "Forward guy" because he had the audacity to listen to Peter's conversation and then ask Peter about it. Listening to conversations and then reporting to others what the conversation is about seems to be something Peter loves to do routinely, yet when someone does it to him then he thinks that person is being "forward." I guess writing down a transcript of a perfect stranger's conversation in MMQB isn't being "forward" to Peter.
Forward guy: “I bet that’s cool, talking to Dan Fouts.”
Me: “Yeah, it’s good.”
Silence for the next 35 minutes. He texted, I wrote, I got off in Stamford, he got off, and that was it.
This was such an interesting story, I'm glad Peter relayed it to us. It's obvious that Peter didn't tell this story just to name-drop that he talked to Dan Fouts and relay a story about how people find his job to be so awesome.
1. I think this is what I liked about wild-card weekend:
d. T.Y. Hilton. Everything about him.
So precocious.
k. Chris Mortensen’s information that Mike Munchak turned down an extension with Tennessee that would have paid him “almost double” his current $3 milion annual salary. Good information. And absolutely mind-boggling. Munchak was head coach for three playoff-less seasons, was 7-9 in a mediocre (at best) division, and spent massively to build a running game this year that was just average. Wow. That was a stunner to me. And to pay him that money while insisting he change half the coaches on his staff? Hey, right hand: Have any idea what the left hand is doing?
Probably calling Dan Fouts and then telling everyone about it, while describing a grown man as precocious.
p. Kudos, GM Tom Telesco of the Chargers … for many things. The biggest I can think of this morning is signing Danny Woodhead for two years and $3.5 million. Woodhead is worth three times that.
I like Danny Woodhead and all, but two years at $10.5 million? I'm not sure Woodhead is worth that anywhere but in Peter King's world.
r. Just give me Jordy Nelson, Anquan Boldin and a competent quarterback, and I’ll give you any two receivers in football, and I’ll take my chances against you.
Okay. A.J. Green and Calvin Johnson quarterbacked by Aaron Rodgers are probably going to beat your team of Nelson, Boldin and a competent quarterback. But I do LOVE the hyperbole behind this statement.
2. I think this is what I didn’t like about wild-card weekend
The Bengals preventing the Steelers from making the playoffs. Because that's exactly what happened.
a. Jamaal Charles going down in the first five minutes of the game. Love watching him play. Amazing this game produced 89 points without him.
It's amazing the Colts were able to score points without Jamaal Charles playing running back for the Chiefs. How did they manage to do that?
d. Colts: 14 turnovers in the regular season; four Saturday.
Including three by future Hall of Famer and 8-time Super Bowl champion Andrew Luck. Hey, he made a great comeback, but he also helped to dig the hole by throwing three interceptions. Of course the lemming media doesn't care if a quarterback starts off playing shitty, as long as he ends the game playing well. The narrative doesn't go backwards though. If a quarterback starts off playing well, then throws three interceptions in the second half then he is a choker, even if the number of turnovers would be the same at three.
l. If Micah Hyde makes that pick with four minutes to go, there’s a very good chance the course of 2013 NFC playoff history would be a lot different.
Just like if Andrew Luck had thrown his three interceptions in the second half then he would be considered a choker or if Donald Brown's fumble had bounced a different direction then Peter would have pointed out the Colts have been playing from behind all year and it finally came back to bite them.
3. I think I don’t care one bit who Aaron Rodgers—or any player, coach, fan or writer—has sex with. Nor should anyone. If a player chooses to discuss, it’s his business. If not, leave it alone, world.
But if Aaron Rodgers chooses to talk on the phone in public then Peter will feel free to transcribe the entire conversation.
8. I think I’ll have a mini-MMQB on Tuesday this week, because of the voluminous news week. Coming: a Saints item, interviews with Bill O’Brien and Lovie Smith, and your email.
As I have said before, rather than have a MMQB on Tuesday why not cut the fat from this MMQB or put certain parts (like the diary of the Packers fan) into it's own column to be posted on THE MMQB? Peter could cut the Fine Fifteen or Tweets of the Week and just make his Tuesday column a mailbag.
10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:
d. My sincere thanks to Dave Goren of the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association, and all the NSSA voters, who voted me sportswriter of the year for 2013. I’m humbled and so appreciative. Thank you.
But not too humbled to fail to mention he received this award in MMQB. In sportswriting sometimes it seems the best way to win an award is to keep writing and don't die. The NSSA has elected Mitch Albom into their Hall of Fame if that gives you any insight into their thought process and what they consider to be great sportswriting. Mitch Albom has lied and made up stories for a column and he is still in the NSSA Hall of Fame. I guess there is no morality clause when it comes to NSSA Hall of Fame voting.
e. Baseball writers have a tough job with this Hall of Fame voting, tougher than we have it in football. Do not envy them one bit, trying to decide if Bonds and Clemens belong.
It's really not hard or worth the teeth gnashing required. If a voter believes players who have used PED's or are linked to PED's should be in the Hall of Fame, vote them in. If the voter doesn't believe these guys should make it, then don't vote for them. For a group of people who take such a hard stance on PED's these Hall of Fame voters certainly seem to make it seem like they are deciding the fate of the free world and not simply voting based on their beliefs.
f. Coffeenerdness: No Tom Curran/coconut coffee tales for you this week, unfortunately, but I am looking for help in this regard for coffeephiles: I need a recommendation on how to clean a veteran Krups coffeemaker that hasn’t been cleaned in over a year. Baking powder and hot water, run through a normal cycle?
Hey buddy, how about you Google/Bing the answer to that question? You tell your readers to Google information they don't know, so take your own advice.
The Adieu Haiku
Harbaugh kissed writers.
Gadzooks. I doubt Tom Coughlin
ever kissed Vito.
I wish we could kiss the Adieu Haiku goodbye.
Friday, November 8, 2013
8 comments This Week Gregg Easterbrook Thinks the Indianapolis Colts Are the Best Team in NFL
Gregg admitted to being wrong (yet again) in TMQ last week when he stated a football game was over. The game wasn't really over and the team Gregg didn't expect to win ended up winning the game. Have you noticed that Gregg seems to make this mistake on a near-weekly basis? Not shockingly, Gregg didn't change much of what he usually writes in TMQ last week. He acted like an ass-monkey by criticizing the Cowboys for "jogging" after Calvin Johnson and stayed on the fence about whether the Chiefs were for real or not. This week Gregg decides that the 6-2 Colts might be a playoff contender, makes a few comments about how NBA GM's make trades, and criticizes television shows for not being accurate enough. For a weekly column that is intended to be about football there is always a lot of discussion that has very little to do with football. I think this is due to the fact I really don't believe Gregg understands the game of football and this is why many of his observations, criticisms, and critiques of NFL teams sound so nonsensical at times. He creates these rules like "do a little dance" to convert fourth downs in order to make rules that help him understand the game of football better.
As the Indianapolis Colts stormed back in the fourth quarter at Houston, a question presented itself: Will the Colts, even without Reggie Wayne, emerge as the best NFL team?
I don't know. So far Gregg has asked whether the Broncos and Chiefs are the AFC's best team. It seems every week a new "best team" in the AFC emerges in TMQ.
Indianapolis is not impressive statistically, outgained on the season. But the Colts make plays when the pressure is on.
Hyperbole alert!
In terms of what this column calls authentic wins -- victories over other top teams -- the Colts are the best so far, 3-0 versus those on track for the playoffs (San Francisco, Denver and Seattle).
How surprising that the Colts are the best team so far in this sub-category of wins that Gregg has just created. The amount of wins in this sub-category for the Colts miraculously supports Gregg's thought that the Colts may be the best team in the NFL. Funny how that works.
How do others compare? Undefeated Kansas City and stats-a-palooza Denver each have only one victory over a team with a winning record, in both cases shaky 5-4 Dallas.
Ah yes, "shaky" Dallas that has one fewer win than the Colts do. This is the same "shaky" Dallas team that lost to the Chiefs and Broncos, who have one loss between them, by a grand total of four points. In fact, this "shaky" Dallas team has lost four games this year by a grand total of 14 points or as many points as the Colts have lost by in their two losses this season. Aren't numbers fun?
Cincinnati has a quality win over New England, but also three losses; Chicago has a quality win over Cincinnati, but also three losses; Green Bay is 1-3 against other winning teams; Detroit 2-2 against other winning teams. Seattle beat the 49ers but lost to Indianapolis, making the Seahawks 1-1 in authentic games. San Francisco 1-2 against top teams. New England has just one quality victory, over New Orleans, which in turn has just one victory over a winning team. For authentic accomplishments, so far Indianapolis is tops.
And yet, notice how Gregg changes his metric throughout this paragraph. The Bears have one "quality" win, the Packers have a 1-3 record against "winning" teams, the Seahawks are 1-1 in "authentic" games. Gregg has to change the metric around because the Bears have two wins over teams with winning records (or "authentic" wins as Gregg would normally would call them) and if the Bears have two wins over winning teams then it doesn't make the Colts three "authentic" wins quite as much of an accomplishment. The Patriots have a victory over the Jets and Saints, as well as a win against the 4-4 Dolphins, so they have lost two games and could be seen as really close to the best team in the NFL if you use Gregg's ever-changing "winning team" metric.
The first choice of the 1998 draft brought them Peyton Manning and a long stretch of winning; the first choice of the 2012 draft brought Luck, whose style of play is so similar to Manning's it's spooky.
They are both right-handed white quarterbacks. It's amazing how they are so similar.
Though Luck has an athletic dimension Manning lacks -- Luck runs well, and seems unfazed when hit in the pocket.
Luck throws passes from the pocket, just like Peyton Manning does! Are we sure they aren't related?
Feels an awful lot like it's 2003 again in Indianapolis, the year Manning's Colts began their streak of seasons with at least 12 victories.
I guess it doesn't feel like any of the three other seasons prior to 2003 when the Colts made the playoffs with Peyton Manning as the quarterback. Does it feel like 1999, Manning's second year in the NFL when the Colts won 13 games? I guess not, even though Gregg saying it felt like 1999 (Manning's second year in the NFL) would better achieve the symmetry he is trying to find between Andrew Luck and Peyton Manning. Wait, I just realized both Luck and Manning have an "e" AND an "n" in their first names. It's so crazy how alike they are.
In a development that made this columnist cheer, in the fourth quarter on "Monday Night Football," Bears coach Marc Trestman heeded years of hectoring by Tuesday morning quarterbacks and went for it on fourth down in his own territory. The result was victory.
But the Bears had dropped six straight to the Packers and needed a change of mindset. Chicago went for it and converted with a 3-yard rush. The possession became an 18-snap, 95-yard, 8:58 affair that numbers among the greatest clock-killer drives in the annals of the sport.
Gregg really needs to stop with the hyperbole. This wasn't one of the greatest clock-killer drives in the annals of sport. It was a great, long drive. Let's pull back the reins on the hyperbole. Gregg went hyperbole-crazy last week when he asked whether a Super Bowl-caliber team ever had a player receive a taunting call. His hyperbole is getting to be a bit much.
Trestman's decision even followed the metric, tested by thousands of computer simulations, laid out in my 2007 column linked to above:
• Inside your own 20, punt.
• From your 21 to 35, go for it on fourth-and-2 or less.
• From your 36 to midfield, go for it on fourth-and-3 or less.
• From the opposition 49 to opposition 30, go for it on fourth-and-4 or less.
• From the opposition 29 to opposition 3, go for it on fourth-and-3 or less.
• From the opposition 2 or 1, go for it.
• Exception: inside the opponent's 25, attempt a field goal if it's the fourth quarter and a field goal causes a tie or gives you the lead.
I'm not going to argue these points. There's no way that it is possible to make hard-and-fast rules on when a team should punt or go for it. I know Gregg prefers hard-and-fast rules or seeing things as black and white because it helps bring order to his understanding of football, but there's no way strict rules like this should be used by an NFL head coach to determine when to and when not to go for it on fourth down. Coaches should make a decision to go for it or not on fourth down based on the situation, not by using some strict rules that don't take time left in the game, the score of the game or any other variable aspect of a football game into account.
Sweet 'N' Sour Series of the Week: Washington leading 24-21 with 21 seconds in regulation, officials signaled touchdown for San Diego's Danny Woodhead. Then they reversed -- correctly -- and spotted the ball on the 1. The home crowd roared. The visiting Bolts had first-and-goal on the 1 with 21 seconds, holding two timeouts. San Diego went run no gain, timeout, incompletion, incompletion, field goal to force overtime. The Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons took the opening kickoff of overtime and moved the length of the field for the win. Sweet for the home team, sour for the visitors -- who left a timeout on the table.
Perhaps the Chargers should have called a timeout, but they shouldn't have called a timeout simply for the sake of using all of their timeouts and they shouldn't have run the ball just so they could claim they used all of their timeouts either. The Chargers have Philip Rivers as their quarterback so it's usually a good idea to make sure the ball is in his hands, especially since Danny Woodhead got no movement forward on first down at the goal line.
Some might say the R*dsk*ns prevailed by going back to their roots, spending much of the contest in a college-style pistol set with two running backs and a tight end forming the letter "A" around Robert Griffin III, resulting in 209 rushing yards. But TMQ attributes the Persons' victory foremost to the Washington cheer-babes.
Of course he does. Why else could the Redskins have won this game other than for non-football related reasons? It's Gregg's middle-aged, pervy love for cheerleaders wearing as few clothes as possible that led the Redskins to victory, not anything the Redskins football team did to win the game. I wonder what Gregg would have said about the cheerleaders if the Chargers had rushed the ball in regulation to score a touchdown and win the game? I'm guessing he would have left out what the cheerleaders wore during the game because it didn't fit his theory that the team whose cheerleaders wear the least clothes in the coldest weather will win the game.
Prime-time NFL contests on NBC and ESPN consistently dominate their ratings periods. But there's an opponent the NFL cannot seem to get off the field -- the two top prime-time ratings dramas of last television season and, so far, this one: "NCIS" and its little brother, "NCIS: Los Angeles."
Which is ridiculous because these kind of shows are so unrealistic. Who wants to watch a cop show that isn't only about police officers drinking coffee and pulling over speeders?
Now, desperate to crank out plots -- the shows are up to 340 total episodes -- "NCIS" scriptwriters often dispense altogether with jurisdiction. Businessman murdered? NCIS is on the scene. Terrorist sympathizer owns shell corporation? Call in NCIS. Cold War-era atomic warheads stolen by a creepy guy with a Peter Lorre accent? NCIS to the rescue: no FBI, CIA, local or state police on the case, just a bunch of boat-lovers.
I guess Gregg is really looking forward to the "NCIS" episodes that feature a multi-episode arc where the members of NCIS discuss jurisdiction issues with the local police regarding a murder that was committed. It sounds exhilarating, doesn't it? But hey, these are the kind of television shows that Gregg Easterbrook wants to watch because they are realistic.
A high percentage of episodes concern dire terrorist threats from sinister foreigners who are vaguely Middle Eastern, wear $1,000 suits and are terrible shots. The creepy guys are plotting mass slaughter; good-looking, wisecracking NCIS agents use super-advanced technology, plus kickboxing moves, to stop every plot in time for a buddy-bonding scene.
As I always write, for someone who doesn't like this show very much Gregg Easterbrook seems to watch it a lot and know a lot about the plot of each episode.
Most television crime dramas exaggerate both the frequency with which law-enforcement officers kill suspects, and the likelihood of law-enforcement officers themselves being killed.
Yes, we know this because you tell us this regularly. Every. Single. Week. We get it, the frequency of times in which law enforcement kills suspects is exaggerated on television.
At least a dozen NCIS agents have been murdered during the shows, which depict just two small units of a large agency. Last year the actual NCIS held a memorial service for the six agents killed in the line of duty in its history.
Yep, it's a television show and is completely fictional. I think everyone but you has a grasp on this fact.
"NCIS: Los Angeles" depicts the bustling NCIS office in the City of Angels, but there is no NCIS bureau in Los Angeles.
Well, in the fictional world of television shows there is an NCIS office in Los Angeles. It's fictional, not real. Fictional, not real. Fictional, not real.
Last season's story arc had the Justice Department relentlessly pursuing heroic agent Jethro Gibbs to put him in jail, though Gibbs has pretty much single-handedly rid the entire world of crime. The smirking prosecutor obsessed with destroying Gibbs was identified as an "independent counsel." Congress abolished the Office of the Independent Counsel in 1999. Within the tube, the job lives on.
I wish someone had abolished TMQ in 1999. Yet, much like any horror movie antagonist Gregg Easterbrook can not be killed and will always come back to haunt his readers with criticism of fictional television shows.
Viewers get no clue: in one frame the agents look cool in tight clothes and in the next frame they are holding stuff, they're never actually seen pulling anything out. Except that a close look at "NCIS: Los Angeles" action scenes shows all four agents have their handguns stuffed down the backs of their pants, even during office work or routine field investigation. A gun in the waistband may fall out when the bearer is running or exiting a car -- why don't their guns fall?
Most likely because it is a television show and is supposed to be entertaining while not reflecting reality. I don't want to spoil anything for Gregg, but those aren't real guns the actors are using either. They are prop guns.
TMQ guesses the actual NCIS does not allow agents to carry guns in their waistband. Plus, stuffing a gun down the back of your pants an excellent way to shoot yourself in the keister.
Actual NCIS also doesn't employ only attractive people who crack-wise and seem to have no other life outside of their job.
The tough-guy detective played by LL Cool J is fluent in Arabic, Ruah's character is said to be fluent in five languages, the lead detective played by actor Chris O'Donnell is said to be fluent in nine languages. Regardless of how they acquired language skills a diplomat would envy, none seems to spend a single moment maintaining proficiency, which is essential to fluency.
They probably practice their fluency while on the toilet, which is something else that isn't shown because this is a television show and no one cares to see someone take a poop or a piss.
Then Gregg criticizes "NCIS: Los Angeles" a little bit more for making it seem like terrorism is rampant. I've said it a million times before, but it's a television show. It's not supposed to be realistic.
The Colts gave up a lot of yards, but figured out the weaknesses of the Houston offense in time to hold the hosts scoreless in the fourth quarter. Indianapolis coaches seem to have prepared their team for early success by the desperate Texans, followed by gradual comeback.
Yeah, I'm sure Chuck Pagano prepared his team to start losing early in the game, followed by the Colts trying to come back later in the game.
(Chuck Pagano): "What we are going to do is start losing early, maybe get down by 15-20 points, then start to come back in the second half."
(Andrew Luck in his Kermit the Frog voice): "Coach, why don't we just start playing well in the first half and then we won't have to come back in the second half?"
(Chuck Pagano): "It's the game plan shithead! The game plan is to start losing early in the game and then play well in the second half. Everyone gather round me, fortunately the Indianapolis area had a child with cancer die this week. Let's get some inspiration from his death so we can win the game in the second half (flips off Andrew Luck), not the first half."
Houston coaches could not have prepared for Gary Kubiak suffering stroke-like symptoms as the first half concluded, which put the sideline into turmoil.
If the Colts are smart enough to prepare to lose in the first half and then come back in the second half, they could also prepare for a stroke by the opposing team's coach.
the Texans blitzed seven; extra blockers gave Luck time to find T.Y. Hilton for the touchdown, as Luck took a lick that might have unsettled Peyton Manning.
How could it unsettle Peyton Manning? He and Andrew Luck are exactly alike.
The Texans' late attempts to "make a play" on defense only made plays for Indianapolis. Houston is now first in defense against yards but 27th against points. Don't blame all of that on pick-six mistakes by Matt Schaub, who was not on the field Sunday. The Texans' defense could not hold a fourth-quarter lead at home. That's on the Texans' defense.
Well, part of the reason the Texans are first in yards on defense allowed and 27th in points is because Matt Schaub has given the Texans' opponents good field position with his nine interceptions. Schaub has thrown 4 pick-sixes this year. If you take away the 4 pick-sixes that Schaub has thrown and the pick-six T.J. Yikes! threw, then the Texans would be first in yards on defense allowed and 16th in points allowed. So yes, Matt Schaub isn't to blame for the Texans collapse against the Colts, but his habit of throwing pick-sixes hasn't helped the Texans defense ranking at all in terms of points allowed per game.
NBA general managers like nothing more than getting rid of players, allowing the team to position itself to sign new players to get rid of.
The fact this is how Gregg believes the NBA works tells me enough to know he somehow manages to be even less informed about the NBA than he is about the NFL. NBA general managers get rid of players to acquire draft picks, expiring contracts, and valuable young players in order to build a better team in the future.
In the NFL, most teams enter the season with a decent chance of a winning year; in the NBA, many teams enter the season knowing they are certain to stink, and needing excuses lined up in advance. The most reliable excuse is, "We're losing now to clear cap space for those fantastic players we will sign next summer."
Except in some cases it is absolutely true this is what a team is doing. The Rockets had been dumping salary for a year or two so they could go after Dwight Howard and they were fortunate enough to land him. Teams also clear cap space so they can get draft picks in exchange for expensive players. The Thunder built their team by drafting well, the Pacers built their team by smartly signing free agents and drafting well, and the same goes for the Bulls. It's not about just signing free agents, but drafting players who will develop into stars. A good way to get draft picks is to trade players currently on the team for these draft picks.
NBA general managers talk endlessly of the fantastic players they might sign the following summer.
Actually, NBA general managers don't talk at all about the fantastic players they might sign the following summer because that's called tampering. But no Gregg, it's clear you know jackshit about the NBA, know jackshit about what NBA general managers do, and are just making things up right now. Just keep writing about the NBA so you can make it clear to your readers that you are the kind of asshole who manages to be completely wrong and isn't scared of showing us all just how wrong you can be.
The amount of times over the years that Gregg Easterbrook has lied to his readers is outrageous. Here is a great example of just an outright lie. Gregg claims NBA general managers talk endlessly about the players they might sign the following summer, but this is impossible because it's tampering. Gregg is lying.
Usually the desired free agents never materialize. When they do, half the time it doesn't take long until the team is desperate to get rid of them.
Gregg has zero examples of this he can share with us. He prefers to just make generalized statements and can count on his fellow uninformed readers to email him saying, "Wow, you are so right Gregg. The NBA sucks. I haven't watched a game in five years now, but like you, I am going to pretend I still know everything about the NBA."
Because the 2014 draft and 2014 summer signing period are expected to be strong, NBA teams including Boston, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Milwaukee have denuded their rosters to stockpile cap space and/or picks. Any team taking this tack must ensure it has a terrible season to maximize its lottery odds.
Considering the following players have been taken in the first three picks of the last five NBA Drafts (I won't include the 2013 draft, so the five drafts before that one):
Anthony Davis
Kyrie Irving
John Wall
Blake Griffin
James Harden
Derrick Rose (with Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook taken immediately after him)
You can see why a team would count on getting a high draft pick in order to help turn their team around. LeBron James, Dwight Howard, and Kevin Durant were draft picks taken in the first three picks of the draft. It's not silly to hope to get a high draft pick in order to turn the team around.
The Chiefs remain undefeated, following a 1-12 streak last season with a 9-0 streak so far. But in addition to a soft schedule, the Chiefs haven't faced a starting quarterback since September. Opposition quarterbacks in Kansas City's past five games have been second string, second string, second string, third string and fourth string. Sunday at Buffalo, the Chiefs barely bested a losing team with an undrafted rookie quarterback making his first career start. Kansas City was outplayed on both sides of the ball, prevailing only when presented two gift-wrapped touchdowns by a team with the league's longest playoff drought.
So Gregg seems to be going the whole "the Chiefs are overrated" route based on the competition they have played. Of course, Gregg will be quick to remind us he thought Alex Smith was the best offseason acquisition if the Chiefs end up with a 14-2 record and make the Super Bowl. This is the advantage of playing both sides of an issue and never definitely taking a stand on what you believe. Gregg wants to be right no matter what happens. He wants his readers to believe he thinks the Chiefs are overrated and won't go far when they face better competition, but he doesn't actually say this so he doesn't have anything to take back later.
At the trade deadline, New England sent a fifth-round draft pick to Philadelphia for nose tackle Isaac Sopoaga and a sixth-round draft selection. Since in the 2014 draft, Philadelphia's sixth choice is likely to be high while New England's fifth is likely to be low, there is little difference between the selections, meaning Bill Belichick obtained Sopoaga for next to nothing.
Why the Eagles, ranked last in defense, should be trading a defensive starter for next to nothing is anyone's guess.
Because the Eagles weren't doing anything great with Sopoaga on the roster and figured they would clear some salary cap room by getting the other two years of Sopoaga's contract off their books while getting some sense of value for him. The fact the Eagles are last in defense explains why they are trading a starter on such a bad defense. Middling players starting on a bad defense aren't generally the kind of players a team wants to keep around and Sopoaga has two more years left on his contract.
Looks like neophyte Kelly got snookered by veteran Belichick. The trade may become another knock against the former Oregon coach.
Yes, if Chip Kelly fails in the NFL then he will be remembered well for trading a veteran defensive tackle to the Patriots for a fifth round draft pick. It's this trade that will be remembered along with Chip Kelly's failed offense. Sure, I believe that.
Considering the Nesharim had laid eggs in their previous two games, it was defensible for Kelly to keep the pedal down in the second half of Philadelphia's destruction of Oakland. But one wonders -- was Kelly trying to get his team to believe its season can be saved, or does he think there are style points in the NFL?
When the Eagles don't score enough points, Gregg points out how Chip Kelly's offense doesn't work in the NFL. When the Eagles score too many points, Gregg criticizes Chip Kelly for trying to get style points. I'd love to know what the correct amount of points the Eagles should score in a game would be to avoid criticism from Gregg. 25 points? 35 points? What point total could cause Gregg to get off Chip Kelly's ass about his offense not working in the NFL, but also avoid Gregg criticizing Kelly for trying to get style points?
Gregg Easterbrook is the worst.
Then Gregg criticizes the media's comments about Robert Griffin, which is justified. They love building him up so they can tear him down. But then Gregg writes this...
Yours truly has not been consistent in a few rare cases.
I think what Gregg meant to write was:
"Yours truly has rarely been consistent, except for a few cases."
There is very little consistent about Gregg's criticism of NFL head coaches and their tactics. One week Gregg will criticize a coach for blitzing and the next week he will mention because a team blitzed that team won the game. In this very TMQ, Gregg mentions how the Texans blitzed Andrew Luck a lot and knocked him down, followed by the Colts bringing in an additional offensive lineman to protect Luck in the second half from the Texans blitzes. Gregg will claim he was consistent because he never mentions that the blitzes by the Texans were working and therefore when he writes the "Stop me before I blitz again" he is only highlighting when blitzing doesn't work. So as long as he doesn't mention blitzing has worked for an NFL team, while indicating that blitzing rarely works, then he remains consistent. His consistency lies in his ability to ignore reality.
Early in the fourth quarter, Georgia, leading 23-20, went for it on fourth-and-1 from its own 39, and failed. TMQ contends it can be better to go for it on fourth-and-short and fail -- this lets players know their coach is challenging them to win -- than do the "safe" thing and punt. From the moment of the failed Georgia fourth-and-1 until the game's conclusion, Florida had negative yardage -- its possession following the failed fourth-and-1 ended on a fourth-and-26 -- while Georgia staged an eight-minute clock-killer drive that iced the contest.
Of course trying and failing on fourth-and-short is no guarantee of success. Sunday, Minnesota, New Orleans and Pittsburgh failed on fourth-and-short, then were defeated.
It's almost like hard-and-fast rules can't be created when it comes to game management by a head coach. I like how Gregg even is hedging on his hard-and-fast rules now. He says TMQ contends "it can be better" to go for it on fourth-and-short and fail. Anything can be contended. I can contend it is better to not go for it on fourth-and-short and fail, while cherry-picking every single time a team didn't go for it on fourth-and-short and still won the game, but that doesn't mean my contention is right. It just means the strategy I chose worked in that instance. As you can see from when the Vikings, Saints, and Steelers went for it on fourth-and-short and lost, rules on what a team should do in a situation will never always work or always fail and there is no right answer.
Sometimes a team wins a game after going for it on fourth-and-short and other times a team loses after going for it on fourth-and-short. This is much of the reason why it is stupid for Gregg to criticize a team for not going for it on fourth down, because he acts like his hard-and-fast rules will always work if followed, and this couldn't be further from the truth.
Unsuccessful fourth-down tries that pin the opponent against his goal line are especially attractive, though.
Because any time a team can be on the opposing team's 1 or 2-yard line and come away with no points it's a good thing for that team.
All football teams perform better when they protect the ball, but the Jets seem particularly sensitive to the turnover stat line.
Who would have thought turnover margin would be important to a team starting a rookie quarterback?
Not fun fact: The teams combined to kick on three consecutive fourth-and-1 situations. When Miami punted from the Cincinnati 40 on fourth-and-2 in overtime, the home crowd booed mercilessly, and it seemed the wrong call to your columnist, too. But the downed punt on the 8 was the first step to setting up the winning safety.
So this punt led to a safety which led the Dolphins to eventually winning the game. Using the rules for fourth-down that Gregg provided earlier in this column, if he were Joe Philbin he would have gone for it in this situation. Who knows what would have happened if the Dolphins had not punted? Of course Gregg isn't willing to say, "perhaps those hard-and-fast rules I listed earlier in this column should be more situation-specific rules and not rules I would expect every team to follow in every case," but he doesn't even acknowledge a violation of his fourth down punting rules led to the team that punted winning the game.
It was impressive to watch three New England receivers gain more than 100 yards receiving, and Tom Brady advancing to 91-16 at home. But why was Brady still on the field once the lead was insurmountable in the fourth quarter? In 2007, Bill Belichick kept Brady in late during blowouts, trying to run up the score. This generated bad karma that came back to haunt Belichick in that season's Super Bowl loss. What's the point of generating more bad karma now?
This is just stupid. Losing a Super Bowl isn't due to bad karma.
TMQ continues to believe that on a replay, the referee should get to watch the play twice, and that's it -- monitor turned off. Either the call on the field was clearly wrong, or should stand.
As usual, Gregg displays his lack of football knowledge when providing "fixes" to the game of football. A referee isn't only determining whether the call on the field was clearly wrong or should stand when viewing a replay challenge, but he is also determining where the ball should be spotted. So Gregg's brilliant two replay idea would give the referee one look at the replay and one look to see where the ball is spotted, essentially ruining the purpose of instant replay, which is to provide accurate calls and make up for any officiating mistakes. There are also multiple angles that the official would need to look at on a given play, especially since the call on the field could potentially be seen as clearly right or wrong depending on the angle the referee sees the play from. Giving the officiating crew only two chances to view the replay is a bad idea.
Leading 10-3 in the third quarter, Buffalo faced third-and-goal on the Kansas City 1 with a fourth-string quarterback but a blazing-hot rushing attack. The crazy pass call not only resulted in an interception; the pick was returned 100 yards for a touchdown, a 14-point swing in a game decided by 10 points. The Bills would finish the contest with 241 yards rushing. Had Buffalo run on this down and run again if needed on fourth-and-goal, the Bills likely would have upset the league's last undefeated club.
How is it "likely" the Bills would have won the game in this situation? Does Gregg realize how stupid he sounds to say that the Bills would have beaten the Chiefs by running the ball in the third quarter instead of throwing the ball? Sure, this was a big swing in points, but how is it "likely" the Bills would have won the game? The Chiefs scored 13 more points after this interception and the Bills scored 3 more points after this interception. I understand the pass should not have been thrown, but the difference in the game was 10 points, not 7 points. I hate it when Gregg uses the term "likely" to describe whether a team would have won a game or not. Despite his attempts to get us to believe he is, Gregg is not omnipotent, so he doesn't know what would have happened in this game if the Bills had run the ball instead of throwing it in this situation.
Next Week: The biggest non-Saturday ever for CFB -- Thursday doubleheader of Oklahoma at Baylor followed by Stanford at Oregon. On a school night!
By the way, on Twitter Gregg Easterbrook said TMQ is his alter ego. I don't get it. He writes the column, it's his name on the byline and he refers to himself in the first person when promoting his book, yet he claims the column is an alter ego? I think it's a load of crap. Gregg Easterbrook tries to write TMQ as an alter ego, but his repeated references to "your author" and his promoting of his book shows us that Gregg Easterbrook is writing this column as himself.
As the Indianapolis Colts stormed back in the fourth quarter at Houston, a question presented itself: Will the Colts, even without Reggie Wayne, emerge as the best NFL team?
I don't know. So far Gregg has asked whether the Broncos and Chiefs are the AFC's best team. It seems every week a new "best team" in the AFC emerges in TMQ.
Indianapolis is not impressive statistically, outgained on the season. But the Colts make plays when the pressure is on.
Hyperbole alert!
In terms of what this column calls authentic wins -- victories over other top teams -- the Colts are the best so far, 3-0 versus those on track for the playoffs (San Francisco, Denver and Seattle).
How surprising that the Colts are the best team so far in this sub-category of wins that Gregg has just created. The amount of wins in this sub-category for the Colts miraculously supports Gregg's thought that the Colts may be the best team in the NFL. Funny how that works.
How do others compare? Undefeated Kansas City and stats-a-palooza Denver each have only one victory over a team with a winning record, in both cases shaky 5-4 Dallas.
Ah yes, "shaky" Dallas that has one fewer win than the Colts do. This is the same "shaky" Dallas team that lost to the Chiefs and Broncos, who have one loss between them, by a grand total of four points. In fact, this "shaky" Dallas team has lost four games this year by a grand total of 14 points or as many points as the Colts have lost by in their two losses this season. Aren't numbers fun?
Cincinnati has a quality win over New England, but also three losses; Chicago has a quality win over Cincinnati, but also three losses; Green Bay is 1-3 against other winning teams; Detroit 2-2 against other winning teams. Seattle beat the 49ers but lost to Indianapolis, making the Seahawks 1-1 in authentic games. San Francisco 1-2 against top teams. New England has just one quality victory, over New Orleans, which in turn has just one victory over a winning team. For authentic accomplishments, so far Indianapolis is tops.
And yet, notice how Gregg changes his metric throughout this paragraph. The Bears have one "quality" win, the Packers have a 1-3 record against "winning" teams, the Seahawks are 1-1 in "authentic" games. Gregg has to change the metric around because the Bears have two wins over teams with winning records (or "authentic" wins as Gregg would normally would call them) and if the Bears have two wins over winning teams then it doesn't make the Colts three "authentic" wins quite as much of an accomplishment. The Patriots have a victory over the Jets and Saints, as well as a win against the 4-4 Dolphins, so they have lost two games and could be seen as really close to the best team in the NFL if you use Gregg's ever-changing "winning team" metric.
The first choice of the 1998 draft brought them Peyton Manning and a long stretch of winning; the first choice of the 2012 draft brought Luck, whose style of play is so similar to Manning's it's spooky.
They are both right-handed white quarterbacks. It's amazing how they are so similar.
Though Luck has an athletic dimension Manning lacks -- Luck runs well, and seems unfazed when hit in the pocket.
Luck throws passes from the pocket, just like Peyton Manning does! Are we sure they aren't related?
Feels an awful lot like it's 2003 again in Indianapolis, the year Manning's Colts began their streak of seasons with at least 12 victories.
I guess it doesn't feel like any of the three other seasons prior to 2003 when the Colts made the playoffs with Peyton Manning as the quarterback. Does it feel like 1999, Manning's second year in the NFL when the Colts won 13 games? I guess not, even though Gregg saying it felt like 1999 (Manning's second year in the NFL) would better achieve the symmetry he is trying to find between Andrew Luck and Peyton Manning. Wait, I just realized both Luck and Manning have an "e" AND an "n" in their first names. It's so crazy how alike they are.
In a development that made this columnist cheer, in the fourth quarter on "Monday Night Football," Bears coach Marc Trestman heeded years of hectoring by Tuesday morning quarterbacks and went for it on fourth down in his own territory. The result was victory.
But the Bears had dropped six straight to the Packers and needed a change of mindset. Chicago went for it and converted with a 3-yard rush. The possession became an 18-snap, 95-yard, 8:58 affair that numbers among the greatest clock-killer drives in the annals of the sport.
Gregg really needs to stop with the hyperbole. This wasn't one of the greatest clock-killer drives in the annals of sport. It was a great, long drive. Let's pull back the reins on the hyperbole. Gregg went hyperbole-crazy last week when he asked whether a Super Bowl-caliber team ever had a player receive a taunting call. His hyperbole is getting to be a bit much.
Trestman's decision even followed the metric, tested by thousands of computer simulations, laid out in my 2007 column linked to above:
• Inside your own 20, punt.
• From your 21 to 35, go for it on fourth-and-2 or less.
• From your 36 to midfield, go for it on fourth-and-3 or less.
• From the opposition 49 to opposition 30, go for it on fourth-and-4 or less.
• From the opposition 29 to opposition 3, go for it on fourth-and-3 or less.
• From the opposition 2 or 1, go for it.
• Exception: inside the opponent's 25, attempt a field goal if it's the fourth quarter and a field goal causes a tie or gives you the lead.
I'm not going to argue these points. There's no way that it is possible to make hard-and-fast rules on when a team should punt or go for it. I know Gregg prefers hard-and-fast rules or seeing things as black and white because it helps bring order to his understanding of football, but there's no way strict rules like this should be used by an NFL head coach to determine when to and when not to go for it on fourth down. Coaches should make a decision to go for it or not on fourth down based on the situation, not by using some strict rules that don't take time left in the game, the score of the game or any other variable aspect of a football game into account.
Sweet 'N' Sour Series of the Week: Washington leading 24-21 with 21 seconds in regulation, officials signaled touchdown for San Diego's Danny Woodhead. Then they reversed -- correctly -- and spotted the ball on the 1. The home crowd roared. The visiting Bolts had first-and-goal on the 1 with 21 seconds, holding two timeouts. San Diego went run no gain, timeout, incompletion, incompletion, field goal to force overtime. The Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons took the opening kickoff of overtime and moved the length of the field for the win. Sweet for the home team, sour for the visitors -- who left a timeout on the table.
Perhaps the Chargers should have called a timeout, but they shouldn't have called a timeout simply for the sake of using all of their timeouts and they shouldn't have run the ball just so they could claim they used all of their timeouts either. The Chargers have Philip Rivers as their quarterback so it's usually a good idea to make sure the ball is in his hands, especially since Danny Woodhead got no movement forward on first down at the goal line.
Some might say the R*dsk*ns prevailed by going back to their roots, spending much of the contest in a college-style pistol set with two running backs and a tight end forming the letter "A" around Robert Griffin III, resulting in 209 rushing yards. But TMQ attributes the Persons' victory foremost to the Washington cheer-babes.
Of course he does. Why else could the Redskins have won this game other than for non-football related reasons? It's Gregg's middle-aged, pervy love for cheerleaders wearing as few clothes as possible that led the Redskins to victory, not anything the Redskins football team did to win the game. I wonder what Gregg would have said about the cheerleaders if the Chargers had rushed the ball in regulation to score a touchdown and win the game? I'm guessing he would have left out what the cheerleaders wore during the game because it didn't fit his theory that the team whose cheerleaders wear the least clothes in the coldest weather will win the game.
Prime-time NFL contests on NBC and ESPN consistently dominate their ratings periods. But there's an opponent the NFL cannot seem to get off the field -- the two top prime-time ratings dramas of last television season and, so far, this one: "NCIS" and its little brother, "NCIS: Los Angeles."
Which is ridiculous because these kind of shows are so unrealistic. Who wants to watch a cop show that isn't only about police officers drinking coffee and pulling over speeders?
Now, desperate to crank out plots -- the shows are up to 340 total episodes -- "NCIS" scriptwriters often dispense altogether with jurisdiction. Businessman murdered? NCIS is on the scene. Terrorist sympathizer owns shell corporation? Call in NCIS. Cold War-era atomic warheads stolen by a creepy guy with a Peter Lorre accent? NCIS to the rescue: no FBI, CIA, local or state police on the case, just a bunch of boat-lovers.
I guess Gregg is really looking forward to the "NCIS" episodes that feature a multi-episode arc where the members of NCIS discuss jurisdiction issues with the local police regarding a murder that was committed. It sounds exhilarating, doesn't it? But hey, these are the kind of television shows that Gregg Easterbrook wants to watch because they are realistic.
A high percentage of episodes concern dire terrorist threats from sinister foreigners who are vaguely Middle Eastern, wear $1,000 suits and are terrible shots. The creepy guys are plotting mass slaughter; good-looking, wisecracking NCIS agents use super-advanced technology, plus kickboxing moves, to stop every plot in time for a buddy-bonding scene.
As I always write, for someone who doesn't like this show very much Gregg Easterbrook seems to watch it a lot and know a lot about the plot of each episode.
Most television crime dramas exaggerate both the frequency with which law-enforcement officers kill suspects, and the likelihood of law-enforcement officers themselves being killed.
Yes, we know this because you tell us this regularly. Every. Single. Week. We get it, the frequency of times in which law enforcement kills suspects is exaggerated on television.
At least a dozen NCIS agents have been murdered during the shows, which depict just two small units of a large agency. Last year the actual NCIS held a memorial service for the six agents killed in the line of duty in its history.
Yep, it's a television show and is completely fictional. I think everyone but you has a grasp on this fact.
"NCIS: Los Angeles" depicts the bustling NCIS office in the City of Angels, but there is no NCIS bureau in Los Angeles.
Well, in the fictional world of television shows there is an NCIS office in Los Angeles. It's fictional, not real. Fictional, not real. Fictional, not real.
Last season's story arc had the Justice Department relentlessly pursuing heroic agent Jethro Gibbs to put him in jail, though Gibbs has pretty much single-handedly rid the entire world of crime. The smirking prosecutor obsessed with destroying Gibbs was identified as an "independent counsel." Congress abolished the Office of the Independent Counsel in 1999. Within the tube, the job lives on.
I wish someone had abolished TMQ in 1999. Yet, much like any horror movie antagonist Gregg Easterbrook can not be killed and will always come back to haunt his readers with criticism of fictional television shows.
Viewers get no clue: in one frame the agents look cool in tight clothes and in the next frame they are holding stuff, they're never actually seen pulling anything out. Except that a close look at "NCIS: Los Angeles" action scenes shows all four agents have their handguns stuffed down the backs of their pants, even during office work or routine field investigation. A gun in the waistband may fall out when the bearer is running or exiting a car -- why don't their guns fall?
Most likely because it is a television show and is supposed to be entertaining while not reflecting reality. I don't want to spoil anything for Gregg, but those aren't real guns the actors are using either. They are prop guns.
TMQ guesses the actual NCIS does not allow agents to carry guns in their waistband. Plus, stuffing a gun down the back of your pants an excellent way to shoot yourself in the keister.
Actual NCIS also doesn't employ only attractive people who crack-wise and seem to have no other life outside of their job.
The tough-guy detective played by LL Cool J is fluent in Arabic, Ruah's character is said to be fluent in five languages, the lead detective played by actor Chris O'Donnell is said to be fluent in nine languages. Regardless of how they acquired language skills a diplomat would envy, none seems to spend a single moment maintaining proficiency, which is essential to fluency.
They probably practice their fluency while on the toilet, which is something else that isn't shown because this is a television show and no one cares to see someone take a poop or a piss.
Then Gregg criticizes "NCIS: Los Angeles" a little bit more for making it seem like terrorism is rampant. I've said it a million times before, but it's a television show. It's not supposed to be realistic.
The Colts gave up a lot of yards, but figured out the weaknesses of the Houston offense in time to hold the hosts scoreless in the fourth quarter. Indianapolis coaches seem to have prepared their team for early success by the desperate Texans, followed by gradual comeback.
Yeah, I'm sure Chuck Pagano prepared his team to start losing early in the game, followed by the Colts trying to come back later in the game.
(Chuck Pagano): "What we are going to do is start losing early, maybe get down by 15-20 points, then start to come back in the second half."
(Andrew Luck in his Kermit the Frog voice): "Coach, why don't we just start playing well in the first half and then we won't have to come back in the second half?"
(Chuck Pagano): "It's the game plan shithead! The game plan is to start losing early in the game and then play well in the second half. Everyone gather round me, fortunately the Indianapolis area had a child with cancer die this week. Let's get some inspiration from his death so we can win the game in the second half (flips off Andrew Luck), not the first half."
Houston coaches could not have prepared for Gary Kubiak suffering stroke-like symptoms as the first half concluded, which put the sideline into turmoil.
If the Colts are smart enough to prepare to lose in the first half and then come back in the second half, they could also prepare for a stroke by the opposing team's coach.
the Texans blitzed seven; extra blockers gave Luck time to find T.Y. Hilton for the touchdown, as Luck took a lick that might have unsettled Peyton Manning.
How could it unsettle Peyton Manning? He and Andrew Luck are exactly alike.
The Texans' late attempts to "make a play" on defense only made plays for Indianapolis. Houston is now first in defense against yards but 27th against points. Don't blame all of that on pick-six mistakes by Matt Schaub, who was not on the field Sunday. The Texans' defense could not hold a fourth-quarter lead at home. That's on the Texans' defense.
Well, part of the reason the Texans are first in yards on defense allowed and 27th in points is because Matt Schaub has given the Texans' opponents good field position with his nine interceptions. Schaub has thrown 4 pick-sixes this year. If you take away the 4 pick-sixes that Schaub has thrown and the pick-six T.J. Yikes! threw, then the Texans would be first in yards on defense allowed and 16th in points allowed. So yes, Matt Schaub isn't to blame for the Texans collapse against the Colts, but his habit of throwing pick-sixes hasn't helped the Texans defense ranking at all in terms of points allowed per game.
NBA general managers like nothing more than getting rid of players, allowing the team to position itself to sign new players to get rid of.
The fact this is how Gregg believes the NBA works tells me enough to know he somehow manages to be even less informed about the NBA than he is about the NFL. NBA general managers get rid of players to acquire draft picks, expiring contracts, and valuable young players in order to build a better team in the future.
In the NFL, most teams enter the season with a decent chance of a winning year; in the NBA, many teams enter the season knowing they are certain to stink, and needing excuses lined up in advance. The most reliable excuse is, "We're losing now to clear cap space for those fantastic players we will sign next summer."
Except in some cases it is absolutely true this is what a team is doing. The Rockets had been dumping salary for a year or two so they could go after Dwight Howard and they were fortunate enough to land him. Teams also clear cap space so they can get draft picks in exchange for expensive players. The Thunder built their team by drafting well, the Pacers built their team by smartly signing free agents and drafting well, and the same goes for the Bulls. It's not about just signing free agents, but drafting players who will develop into stars. A good way to get draft picks is to trade players currently on the team for these draft picks.
NBA general managers talk endlessly of the fantastic players they might sign the following summer.
Actually, NBA general managers don't talk at all about the fantastic players they might sign the following summer because that's called tampering. But no Gregg, it's clear you know jackshit about the NBA, know jackshit about what NBA general managers do, and are just making things up right now. Just keep writing about the NBA so you can make it clear to your readers that you are the kind of asshole who manages to be completely wrong and isn't scared of showing us all just how wrong you can be.
The amount of times over the years that Gregg Easterbrook has lied to his readers is outrageous. Here is a great example of just an outright lie. Gregg claims NBA general managers talk endlessly about the players they might sign the following summer, but this is impossible because it's tampering. Gregg is lying.
Usually the desired free agents never materialize. When they do, half the time it doesn't take long until the team is desperate to get rid of them.
Gregg has zero examples of this he can share with us. He prefers to just make generalized statements and can count on his fellow uninformed readers to email him saying, "Wow, you are so right Gregg. The NBA sucks. I haven't watched a game in five years now, but like you, I am going to pretend I still know everything about the NBA."
Because the 2014 draft and 2014 summer signing period are expected to be strong, NBA teams including Boston, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Milwaukee have denuded their rosters to stockpile cap space and/or picks. Any team taking this tack must ensure it has a terrible season to maximize its lottery odds.
Considering the following players have been taken in the first three picks of the last five NBA Drafts (I won't include the 2013 draft, so the five drafts before that one):
Anthony Davis
Kyrie Irving
John Wall
Blake Griffin
James Harden
Derrick Rose (with Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook taken immediately after him)
You can see why a team would count on getting a high draft pick in order to help turn their team around. LeBron James, Dwight Howard, and Kevin Durant were draft picks taken in the first three picks of the draft. It's not silly to hope to get a high draft pick in order to turn the team around.
The Chiefs remain undefeated, following a 1-12 streak last season with a 9-0 streak so far. But in addition to a soft schedule, the Chiefs haven't faced a starting quarterback since September. Opposition quarterbacks in Kansas City's past five games have been second string, second string, second string, third string and fourth string. Sunday at Buffalo, the Chiefs barely bested a losing team with an undrafted rookie quarterback making his first career start. Kansas City was outplayed on both sides of the ball, prevailing only when presented two gift-wrapped touchdowns by a team with the league's longest playoff drought.
So Gregg seems to be going the whole "the Chiefs are overrated" route based on the competition they have played. Of course, Gregg will be quick to remind us he thought Alex Smith was the best offseason acquisition if the Chiefs end up with a 14-2 record and make the Super Bowl. This is the advantage of playing both sides of an issue and never definitely taking a stand on what you believe. Gregg wants to be right no matter what happens. He wants his readers to believe he thinks the Chiefs are overrated and won't go far when they face better competition, but he doesn't actually say this so he doesn't have anything to take back later.
At the trade deadline, New England sent a fifth-round draft pick to Philadelphia for nose tackle Isaac Sopoaga and a sixth-round draft selection. Since in the 2014 draft, Philadelphia's sixth choice is likely to be high while New England's fifth is likely to be low, there is little difference between the selections, meaning Bill Belichick obtained Sopoaga for next to nothing.
Why the Eagles, ranked last in defense, should be trading a defensive starter for next to nothing is anyone's guess.
Because the Eagles weren't doing anything great with Sopoaga on the roster and figured they would clear some salary cap room by getting the other two years of Sopoaga's contract off their books while getting some sense of value for him. The fact the Eagles are last in defense explains why they are trading a starter on such a bad defense. Middling players starting on a bad defense aren't generally the kind of players a team wants to keep around and Sopoaga has two more years left on his contract.
Looks like neophyte Kelly got snookered by veteran Belichick. The trade may become another knock against the former Oregon coach.
Yes, if Chip Kelly fails in the NFL then he will be remembered well for trading a veteran defensive tackle to the Patriots for a fifth round draft pick. It's this trade that will be remembered along with Chip Kelly's failed offense. Sure, I believe that.
Considering the Nesharim had laid eggs in their previous two games, it was defensible for Kelly to keep the pedal down in the second half of Philadelphia's destruction of Oakland. But one wonders -- was Kelly trying to get his team to believe its season can be saved, or does he think there are style points in the NFL?
When the Eagles don't score enough points, Gregg points out how Chip Kelly's offense doesn't work in the NFL. When the Eagles score too many points, Gregg criticizes Chip Kelly for trying to get style points. I'd love to know what the correct amount of points the Eagles should score in a game would be to avoid criticism from Gregg. 25 points? 35 points? What point total could cause Gregg to get off Chip Kelly's ass about his offense not working in the NFL, but also avoid Gregg criticizing Kelly for trying to get style points?
Gregg Easterbrook is the worst.
Then Gregg criticizes the media's comments about Robert Griffin, which is justified. They love building him up so they can tear him down. But then Gregg writes this...
Yours truly has not been consistent in a few rare cases.
I think what Gregg meant to write was:
"Yours truly has rarely been consistent, except for a few cases."
There is very little consistent about Gregg's criticism of NFL head coaches and their tactics. One week Gregg will criticize a coach for blitzing and the next week he will mention because a team blitzed that team won the game. In this very TMQ, Gregg mentions how the Texans blitzed Andrew Luck a lot and knocked him down, followed by the Colts bringing in an additional offensive lineman to protect Luck in the second half from the Texans blitzes. Gregg will claim he was consistent because he never mentions that the blitzes by the Texans were working and therefore when he writes the "Stop me before I blitz again" he is only highlighting when blitzing doesn't work. So as long as he doesn't mention blitzing has worked for an NFL team, while indicating that blitzing rarely works, then he remains consistent. His consistency lies in his ability to ignore reality.
Early in the fourth quarter, Georgia, leading 23-20, went for it on fourth-and-1 from its own 39, and failed. TMQ contends it can be better to go for it on fourth-and-short and fail -- this lets players know their coach is challenging them to win -- than do the "safe" thing and punt. From the moment of the failed Georgia fourth-and-1 until the game's conclusion, Florida had negative yardage -- its possession following the failed fourth-and-1 ended on a fourth-and-26 -- while Georgia staged an eight-minute clock-killer drive that iced the contest.
Of course trying and failing on fourth-and-short is no guarantee of success. Sunday, Minnesota, New Orleans and Pittsburgh failed on fourth-and-short, then were defeated.
It's almost like hard-and-fast rules can't be created when it comes to game management by a head coach. I like how Gregg even is hedging on his hard-and-fast rules now. He says TMQ contends "it can be better" to go for it on fourth-and-short and fail. Anything can be contended. I can contend it is better to not go for it on fourth-and-short and fail, while cherry-picking every single time a team didn't go for it on fourth-and-short and still won the game, but that doesn't mean my contention is right. It just means the strategy I chose worked in that instance. As you can see from when the Vikings, Saints, and Steelers went for it on fourth-and-short and lost, rules on what a team should do in a situation will never always work or always fail and there is no right answer.
Sometimes a team wins a game after going for it on fourth-and-short and other times a team loses after going for it on fourth-and-short. This is much of the reason why it is stupid for Gregg to criticize a team for not going for it on fourth down, because he acts like his hard-and-fast rules will always work if followed, and this couldn't be further from the truth.
Unsuccessful fourth-down tries that pin the opponent against his goal line are especially attractive, though.
Because any time a team can be on the opposing team's 1 or 2-yard line and come away with no points it's a good thing for that team.
All football teams perform better when they protect the ball, but the Jets seem particularly sensitive to the turnover stat line.
Who would have thought turnover margin would be important to a team starting a rookie quarterback?
Not fun fact: The teams combined to kick on three consecutive fourth-and-1 situations. When Miami punted from the Cincinnati 40 on fourth-and-2 in overtime, the home crowd booed mercilessly, and it seemed the wrong call to your columnist, too. But the downed punt on the 8 was the first step to setting up the winning safety.
So this punt led to a safety which led the Dolphins to eventually winning the game. Using the rules for fourth-down that Gregg provided earlier in this column, if he were Joe Philbin he would have gone for it in this situation. Who knows what would have happened if the Dolphins had not punted? Of course Gregg isn't willing to say, "perhaps those hard-and-fast rules I listed earlier in this column should be more situation-specific rules and not rules I would expect every team to follow in every case," but he doesn't even acknowledge a violation of his fourth down punting rules led to the team that punted winning the game.
It was impressive to watch three New England receivers gain more than 100 yards receiving, and Tom Brady advancing to 91-16 at home. But why was Brady still on the field once the lead was insurmountable in the fourth quarter? In 2007, Bill Belichick kept Brady in late during blowouts, trying to run up the score. This generated bad karma that came back to haunt Belichick in that season's Super Bowl loss. What's the point of generating more bad karma now?
This is just stupid. Losing a Super Bowl isn't due to bad karma.
TMQ continues to believe that on a replay, the referee should get to watch the play twice, and that's it -- monitor turned off. Either the call on the field was clearly wrong, or should stand.
As usual, Gregg displays his lack of football knowledge when providing "fixes" to the game of football. A referee isn't only determining whether the call on the field was clearly wrong or should stand when viewing a replay challenge, but he is also determining where the ball should be spotted. So Gregg's brilliant two replay idea would give the referee one look at the replay and one look to see where the ball is spotted, essentially ruining the purpose of instant replay, which is to provide accurate calls and make up for any officiating mistakes. There are also multiple angles that the official would need to look at on a given play, especially since the call on the field could potentially be seen as clearly right or wrong depending on the angle the referee sees the play from. Giving the officiating crew only two chances to view the replay is a bad idea.
Leading 10-3 in the third quarter, Buffalo faced third-and-goal on the Kansas City 1 with a fourth-string quarterback but a blazing-hot rushing attack. The crazy pass call not only resulted in an interception; the pick was returned 100 yards for a touchdown, a 14-point swing in a game decided by 10 points. The Bills would finish the contest with 241 yards rushing. Had Buffalo run on this down and run again if needed on fourth-and-goal, the Bills likely would have upset the league's last undefeated club.
How is it "likely" the Bills would have won the game in this situation? Does Gregg realize how stupid he sounds to say that the Bills would have beaten the Chiefs by running the ball in the third quarter instead of throwing the ball? Sure, this was a big swing in points, but how is it "likely" the Bills would have won the game? The Chiefs scored 13 more points after this interception and the Bills scored 3 more points after this interception. I understand the pass should not have been thrown, but the difference in the game was 10 points, not 7 points. I hate it when Gregg uses the term "likely" to describe whether a team would have won a game or not. Despite his attempts to get us to believe he is, Gregg is not omnipotent, so he doesn't know what would have happened in this game if the Bills had run the ball instead of throwing it in this situation.
Next Week: The biggest non-Saturday ever for CFB -- Thursday doubleheader of Oklahoma at Baylor followed by Stanford at Oregon. On a school night!
By the way, on Twitter Gregg Easterbrook said TMQ is his alter ego. I don't get it. He writes the column, it's his name on the byline and he refers to himself in the first person when promoting his book, yet he claims the column is an alter ego? I think it's a load of crap. Gregg Easterbrook tries to write TMQ as an alter ego, but his repeated references to "your author" and his promoting of his book shows us that Gregg Easterbrook is writing this column as himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)