4 comments The Long National Nightmare Has Returned

You may recall that Gregg Easterbrook was let go by ESPN, which means his TMQ had no home. I figured it would find a home, but when TMQ's new home was linked in the comments of a different post, I couldn't help but laugh. TMQ is now at "The New York Times." It's part of "The Upshot" section online at the "Times." It's interesting that Gregg has partnered with this specific newspaper because he used to run a list of hilarious (to him) retractions the "Times" had to make over the past year in his TMQ that appeared on ESPN. I've shown multiple, multiple, multiple times that Gregg contradicts himself and this move is no exception. One month he is mocking the "Times" for it's inaccuracies and the next month he's collecting a paycheck from them. Life comes at you fast. And what is even more hilarious is that in Gregg's first TMQ, there is a correction at the bottom. Yes, Gregg can no longer go in and make covert corrections to his factual inaccuracies, but they will be noted at the bottom of the page. In this TMQ it reads:

Correction: September 15, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated that Eagles Coach Chip Kelly called running back LeSean McCoy “jingle-footed.” Kelly said in 2008 that he does not like “jingle-footed” running backs, but that was not a reference to McCoy.

Oh no, does this mean TMQ is going to have to be factually correct and Gregg can't just assert shit without any real factual backing? Of course not, but he will see what he can get away with I'm sure. One month Gregg is mocking the corrections in the "Times" and the next month he is the one having a correction to his TMQ that appears in the "Times." Life is funny sometimes, but this irony will simply be ignored by Gregg and he'll just continue to pretend his shit don't stinks as he second-guesses the decisions made by NFL coaches and players that he doesn't even understand in the first place.

Sorry I'm a week late on this TMQ, but I'm trying to catch up. This is TMQ from Week 1. I didn't even know it existed until a few days after it posted. Also, TMQ is much shorter now. It seems he was told to bloviate less. And also also, the picture that runs beside TMQ features Gregg from what looks like about 20 years ago. Couldn't they find a more modern picture? Why not just run a baby picture of Gregg beside the column?

What did Eli Manning know and when did he know it? This seems to be the question as the New York Giants — the last time you will see that name in this column —

Oh no, more cutesy nicknames for the Giants. Please stop.

face the aftermath of their botched outing at Dallas, the team’s worst epic fail since the 2010 contest in which they allowed the Eagles to score four touchdowns in the final seven minutes to overcome a seemingly bulletproof 31-10 mid-fourth-quarter advantage.

Let me guess, the Giants punted on fourth-and-one and this told the team that Tom Coughlin didn't really want to win the game?

The Giants’ faithful are rending their garments and gnashing their teeth over the team’s nutty pass attempt on third-and-goal at the Dallas one-yard line with 1 minute 43 seconds remaining and a 3-point edge on Sunday night. Had the Giants run, either they would have scored, almost certainly icing the contest, or would have kept the clock remorselessly advancing toward double-naughts.

It's not long before we get the first "almost certainly" assumption that Gregg will make in order to further his point. I've discussed this play in MMQB Review, so I won't do it again, but Gregg continuously talks about how NFL head coaches aren't aggressive enough. He thinks if NFL head coaches are more aggressive then it tells their team he is super-serious about winning the game, which motivates his team to play better. But alas, when Tom Coughlin is very aggressive and shows confidence in his team to win a game by making an aggressive play call and it fails, Gregg is all like, "Why did you do that? How stupid!"

Nothing has changed. Gregg has no beliefs and will always base his criticism on the outcome of a play and not on any certain belief that he has espoused previously. His contentions are always correct, unless they don't work in reality, in which case he pretends he never advocated for that contention and proceeds with his criticism.

But what did Eli know and when did he know it? Bill Pennington reports that Manning told tailback Rashad Jennings not to score on the snap before the fateful incompletion.

I know "what did Eli know and when did he know it?" sounds interesting and cutesy, but it's not really pertinent to this situation.

At work is what Isaac Asimov called “psychohistory.” In the 2012 Super Bowl, Eli told the Giants’ Ahmad Bradshaw not to score in a somewhat similar situation, to keep the clock moving. Bradshaw couldn’t resist, and scored anyway.

In a similar situation in the Super Bowl, Eli was right because the decision worked out for him, but in this similar case Eli was wrong, because the decision didn't work out for him. That's how it works in Gregg's world. Whatever worked was the correct decision.

Two years ago, when Peyton Manning’s Broncos were at Dallas in a somewhat similar situation, the Broncos deliberately did not score, to keep the clock moving. During family holiday dinners, the brothers may swap tales about how Peyton got this situation right and Eli got it wrong.

Then Eli and Peyton swap tales about how it's harder for Eli to hold his hand steady with the weight of two Super Bowl rings on his fingers, while Peyton only has one Super Bowl ring holding him down.

Except on Sunday night in the endgame at Dallas, a touchdown would have put the Giants ahead by 10 with less than two minutes remaining and with the Boys out of timeouts. There wasn’t any need for elaborate game theory. Just run the ball into the end zone and the Giants win.

And there is no way the Cowboys could have scored with no timeouts left, even though they did score a touchdown with no timeouts left, and then get the onside kick and tie the game with a field goal. Yes, it wasn't the best decision on the part of the Giants and Eli Manning, but the Giants chose to be aggressive. Not to mention, there is no guarantee Jennings would have scored a touchdown. It's not like he dove to the ground at the goal line and tried to prevent himself from scoring like Bradshaw did in the Super Bowl. So who knows if Jennings would have scored and the Giants tried to show faith in their offense (which always leads to victories!) and pass the ball to secure the victory. It didn't work, therefore Gregg criticizes them. If it had worked, Gregg would have written about how this aggressive play call showed faith in the offense, which led the Giants to victory.

Note the 74-word lead says the fiasco at the goal line “seems” to be the question about the Giants-Dallas contest. Maybe it’s not. Thrice in the second half, the Giants used too-conservative tactics and kicked on fourth-and-short. Just to prove it was no fluke, Jersey/A (see explanation below) also punted in Dallas territory.

So the Giants lost because they kicked on fourth-and-short, but they wouldn't have lost the game if they had just run for a touchdown and gone up 10 points? So the punting on fourth-and-short is why the Giants lost the game, unless it ends up not being the reason they lost the game. The Giants weren't aggressive enough, which cost them a victory, but then they were too aggressive, which also cost them a victory. Whatever works, that's what the Giants should have done.

Had the Giants gone for it on fourth-and-goal from the Dallas 1 with 1:37 remaining and the Cowboys out of timeouts, they either would have scored a touchdown to sign-and-seal the victory, or would have pinned the hosts on their 1. As it was, Coughlin did the “safe” thing and took the field goal, meaning a 6-point lead that Dallas could overcome with a touchdown.

Yeah, but didn't Coughlin's insistence on doing the not "safe" thing by throwing the ball on third down inspire his team to play well and let the Giants know he was serious about winning the game? Using Gregg's prior contention that coaches who go for it on fourth down inspire their team to victory, shouldn't the Giants offense have converted the third down because they knew Coughlin wasn't trying to be safe? Fortune favors the bold and it's bold to pass on third down when doing the "safe" thing and running out the clock can win the game. Gregg thinks the Giants were too "safe" on fourth down and then they weren't "safe" enough on third down. It's all very confusing.

Consistently, N.F.L. coaches make the “safe” choice and lose. Atlanta leading, 26-24, with 2:37 remaining in the “Monday Night Football” opener, the Eagles faced fourth-and-1 on the Falcons’ 26. Philadelphia’s Blur Offense had gotten hot in the second half: On their previous three possessions, the Eagles went touchdown, touchdown, touchdown. For the night, they averaged 5.9 yards gained per snap.

But again, passing on third down isn't "safe" and I don't know why Gregg doesn't address this. Well, I do. He wants to complain NFL coaches are too conservative while also criticizing an NFL coach for making a decision that wasn't safe but didn't end up working out for his team.

Instead Kelly sent out the place-kicker, who missed. “Safe” fourth-down tactics meant defeat.

But "safe" third down tactics mean victory. 

Next week, The Upshot’s 4th Down Bot returns — buzz, whir, clank — from vacation at a robot resort on the dark side of the moon. Tuesday Morning Quarterback will delve into the deep-seated psychohistorical reasons that coaches send out kickers on fourth-and-short.

Imagine how much MLB sportswriters would hate it if there was a machine that determined whether a manager's lineup was optimal or he made the correct decision during a game. Their heads would spin, followed by 100 "Baseball is played people, not robots" columns that most certainly would end up on this blog. Murray Chass and Jerry Green would be responsible for about 75 of these articles. 

Sweet Play of the Week. Thanks to “safe” tactics by the Giants, Dallas had hope when reaching the Jersey/A 11 with 13 seconds remaining.

The Cowboys set a trips (three-receiver set) left with the reliable Jason Witten as a flexed tight end. Witten “got off the line,” evading an attempted jam, then ran a simple curl to catch the winning touchdown pass. Sweet!

Yes, Witten "got off the line" which means I have no idea why "got off the line" is in italics in this situation. I don't know why I ask these types of questions anyway. 

In the Super Bowl, the Flying Elvii (see explanation below) split tall tight end Rob Gronkowski wide to the right, almost along the sideline. The Seahawks’ secondary was confused — a linebacker went over to cover Gronkowski, while no safety shaded to that side. Seeing his defense confused, why didn’t Pete Carroll call time out? Touchdown pass and emphatic spike.

This is an example of where Gregg has a total misunderstanding of how defenses work. The call by Dan Quinn may not have involved doubling Gronkowski or providing safety help over the top. Earl Thomas or Kam Chancellor can't just decide on their own that they don't give a shit what the defense call was and they are going to double whichever receiver they feel like they should be doubling on a specific play. Maybe Carroll didn't call timeout because he didn't think the defense was confused. He thought he had a linebacker on a tight end and figured that was the play call Dan Quinn made in that situation.

Gregg Easterbrook is under the impression that a defensive player can just do whatever the fuck he wants to do on a play.

(Defensive player) "Oh, Julio Jones is lined up in the slot? I'll just not play Cover-1 on this defensive play and provide help over the top to the corner."

(Another defensive player) "There's Rob Gronkowski over on the right side of the field. Sure, I'm supposed to be covering the running back out of the backfield...but I think the linebacker is going to need some help. I'll probably ignore the defensive play call and shade Gronkowski's way." 

Sweet ‘n’ Sour Play of the Week. Trailing, 31-24, with 59 seconds remaining in regulation, St. Louis had the ball on the Seattle 39. St. Louis lines up with a trips right, tight end Lance Kendricks flexed wide left, doing a Gronkowski imitation.

Generally, I'm betting that Lance Kendricks does a really crappy impression of Rob Gronkowski. You know, based on each player's production over his career. 

On the down, Seattle was in Cover 1, meaning just one safety deep — though the Seahawks knew the Rams had to reach the end zone.

The Seahawks trust their corners and the rest of the secondary to cover guys in man coverage on certain plays. So the safety often plays centerfield and when that safety is Kam Chancellor there tends to be few things that go wrong. So I don't know if Gregg thinks the Seahawks should have played Cover-2 or some other defense in this situation, but they trust their secondary enough to only have one safety deep. It's what had made the defense so good in the past that they are able to do this. 

The lone deep safety shaded toward the trips side, meaning strong safety Dion Bailey had single coverage — no help — versus Kendricks.

It's Lance fucking Kendricks. Why the hell would the Seahawks need to double him? Jesus Christ, Gregg wants a defense to double every single receiver on the field, as if the defense can trot 20 guys out there at a time. Kendricks has 132 receptions over his five year career. The only reason the Seahawks would double him is if they were trying to be ironic. Really, does Gregg not understand if Lance Kendricks gets doubled then that means other offensive players can score? Does he understand numbers and why a defense shouldn't double every single tight end that lines up on the far right or left side of the line of scrimmage? 

Yet the entire Seattle secondary looked surprised when Kendricks took off deep.

Probably because they didn't know what route he was going to run. Again, it's Lance Kendricks. He's not T.Y. Hilton or another really fast receiver who sees a safety lined up on him and immediately thinks of making a play deep. Kendricks is a tight end. It's very possible he could have run another route that didn't involve going deep. 

BOLO of the Week. All units, all units, Be on the Lookout for the Seattle defense. It disappeared in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl and has not been seen since. All units, all units, Be on the Lookout for the Detroit Lions’ defense. Ranked second in 2014, Detroit’s defense was torched for 483 yards at San Diego, allowing a fourth-quarter third-and-19 conversion that helped the Bolts ice the contest.

I wonder if Kam Chancellor's absence had anything to do with the Seahawks defense struggling? Probably not, because that would be crazy. Also, the Lions lost much of their defensive line and one of the best defensive linemen in the game to free agency, so it's not that the defense is lost, but that the defense is struggling to replace certain players. Go ahead and send the BOLO, but there is a reasonable explanation for the struggles of the Lions and the Seahawks are still in the middle of the pack on defense without Chancellor. 

Purists may lament the situation, but to fans, roster churn matters not. Football’s Rule of 90/90 holds that 90 percent of the fans have no idea who 90 percent of the players are.

Gregg Easterbrook doesn't know who 90 percent of the players are either. I'm glad Gregg thinks he knows enough to say roster churn matters not. Ask Panthers fans when Steve Smith was released if roster churn matters. Ask Lions fans who lost Ndamukong Suh in free agency how they feel about roster churn. It's very hard to know 90% of the players in a league full of 1696 players, but I'm guessing fans care about roster churn on their own team. Of course, who I am to argue with Gregg? 

So long as a team has a couple of well-known stars, the identities of the wedge guys are irrelevant.

This shows how disconnected Gregg really is from what fans think. Any person who follows his favorite team regularly sees how other fans get excited about wedge guys and the 50th man on the roster who did something great in training camp and could he be the next great tight end for the team? If anything, fans know these wedge guys too well in training camp and put too much faith in these wedge guys to be difference makers. But whatever, Gregg. Whatever. You know more about what fans think while high up on your pedestal.

New England just won the Super Bowl. How many of its starting linemen can you name without peeking at the Web?

Four. I can name four of them. David Andrews, Tre Jackson, Sebastian Vollmer, and Nate Solder. How many can you name, Gregg? Zero? Or just the highly-paid glory boys like Julio Jones who you pretend to know something about? 

Great Moments in Football Management No. 1. On “Monday Night Football,” Julio Jones caught nine passes for 141 yards and two touchdowns — none too shabby. Netting the 2011 Cleveland-Atlanta trade and subsequent transactions, the Browns gave up Jones, one of the N.F.L.’s best players, for Johnny Manziel, one of the N.F.L.’s players.

Wait, what is this? Gregg Easterbrook says Julio Jones is one of the NFL's best players? But the Falcons didn't make the playoffs last year and that is all Jones' fault. I'll let Peter explain better than I can. From his August 2014 TMQ:

Since they took their home field for the NFC title game, the Falcons are 4-13. General manager Thomas Dimitroff gambled the club's future on the 2011 kings' ransom trade for Julio Jones, and the gamble failed. Not only did Atlanta fail to reach the Super Bowl, but Jones also has failed to justify the trade.

It's amazing how Jones has gone from being a part of a failed trade where he hasn't justified his abilities enough to one of the NFL's best players in the matter of a season. Not to mention, the Falcons had a losing record last year, but Gregg somehow fails to blame Jones for this losing record in 2015 when in 2014 the Falcons losing record proved how Jones failed to justify the picks the Falcons gave up for him. It's almost like Gregg constantly contradicts himself and talks out of his ass.

One year Jones fails to justify the trade the Falcons made to get him, the next year once the Browns have gotten rid of all the players in that trade, Jones has suddenly justified the trade and is one of the NFL's best players. This despite the fact that the Falcons didn't make the playoffs last year, so the reasoning Gregg used to bash Jones is still relevant, except now Gregg realizes how fucking stupid his assertion was and wants to pretend he never wrote anything negative about Jones.

It's not a one time thing either that Gregg bashed Jones. From 2012:

Rookie Julio Jones is playing well, but the king's ransom of draft choices Atlanta gave for him has already resulted in decline of the Falcons' power game.

Or from November 2013:  

The king's ransom in draft choices paid two years ago for Julio Jones led to talent depletion of the Atlanta roster.

You will notice in there that Gregg called Jones a "diva" for some inexplicable reason.

The Falcons might right themselves, but for now, there seems a concern that the Julio Jones trade will explode in their faces. Atlanta gave a king's ransom for Jones, not only depleting its ability to restock other positions but inserting a diva character into a locker room that previously was cohesive.

Or should I point out the TMQ dedicated to why mega-trades (like the one for Jones) don't work?  

Gregg Easterbrook is a contradicting hack and anyone who employs him should be prepared for him to mislead his audience and write things he will later contradict or try to pretend he never wrote. Facts aren't things that Gregg worries about. He passes his opinion off as fact and then tries to pretend it never happened when he contradicts his previous facts.

Great Moments in Football Management No. 2. With Robert Griffin III selling popcorn in the stands and Kirk Cousins looking befuddled on the field, consider: Netting transactions, in the last five years the Washington franchise has invested three No. 1 draft choices, two No. 2s and a No. 4 on quarterbacks, and is in panic mode at quarterback.

Yes, the Redskins traded many of these picks to the Rams for Robert Griffin III, but I don't know if I consider that investing the pick into a quarterback. And also, Gregg has taken great pains to criticize the Rams for this trade as well. It's not like the Rams did much with the picks anyway. I actually don't think the Redskins are in panic mode at quarterback. I think Gruden likes Cousins and McCoy pretty well. 

Maybe It’s Just as Well George Halas Did Not Live to See This. Trailing Green Bay by a touchdown in the fourth quarter, the Bears, playing before a raucous home crowd, reached second-and-goal on the Packers’ 2. On the day, the team rushed for 189 yards. So did Chicago punch the ball in on three tries from the 2? Incompletion, incompletion, incompletion, and I wrote “game over” in my notebook.

There was 7:42 left in the game at that point. I'm glad Gregg felt the need to write "Game Over" in his notebook, though I wonder how many times he erases "Game Over" after he's written it, because the Bears in fact did score another touchdown in the game, so it wasn't totally over after this failed fourth down conversion. 

McCoy, now running for the Bills, has walked his comments back so many times it’s no longer clear exactly what his point is, other than that he dislikes Kelly. Kelly has said he does not like tailbacks who are “jingle-footed,” whatever that means.

Chip Kelly has said this repeatedly. He has said he likes running backs who make one cut and hit the hole, then run downhill. A "jingle-footed" running back is a running back who doesn't hit the hole and then run downhill. It's really not complicated at all to figure out what Kelly means. I like how this is the comment that required a correction to TMQ. Previously, Gregg would have just changed this sentence from referring to LeSean McCoy to referring to all running backs and pretended it never happened, all while criticizing others for making mistakes in their column. Because the "New York Times" publishes corrections, Gregg can't pretend his shit don't stink while pointing out the mistakes of others. I like it. 

Super Bowl Flashback. Reaching the New England 1 in the closing seconds of the Super Bowl, all Seattle had to do was hand the ball to Marshawn Lynch and a second Lombardi Trophy was likely.

Yes, it was "likely" because that's the conclusion Gregg wants to reach in order to prove his conclusion. Sure, maybe Lynch would have scored, but is that "likely" Lynch would have scored? Who knows? It's dangerous to just make assumptions like this, but as long as it proves the point Gregg wants to prove he doesn't care.

The folly of Seattle’s final offensive call prevented the sports world from noticing something else: The Seahawks committed pass interference on the play.

Hang with Gregg on this. He says the final offensive call prevented the sports world from noticing the pass interference on the play. So the way Gregg is working this contention is that he noticed pass interference that the rest of the sports world didn't notice. Others were unaware of the pass interference...well, until Gregg decides that's not true. No one noticed, except he needs people to notice the pass interference in the very next sentence. 

Had Seattle scored on the play, millions today would believe that an officiating blunder awarded the wrong team the Lombardi Trophy. Millions would think the 2014 N.F.L. season built up to a conclusion as badly botched by zebras as the ending of the 2012 Fail Mary game,

Millions would believe that an officiating blunder awarded the wrong team the Lombardi Trophy, because they saw the pass interference on the play that Gregg just claimed the sports world didn't see. I guess Gregg is assuming everyone is too stupid to catch those things that he catches, like there was offensive pass interference on the play, because we saw the ball get intercepted. So yes, the millions would wonder about the officiating blunder that Gregg claims the sports world didn't notice. 

Human nature says we pay more attention to what happens than to what doesn’t happen. What did not happen was that the 2014 N.F.L. season — which began with the extreme unpleasantness of the Ray Rice videotape, then proceeded to another Patriots cheating accusation — did not end with Seattle receiving a tainted win because offensive pass interference was not called.

The pass interference no one noticed would taint everything. And also, I'm not sure that would have been pass interference. The Patriots run plays like that themselves and aren't often called for pass interference. Gregg has now created a whole new controversy that doesn't exist and may have never existed. I wonder how many times he'll mention this controversy that never was over this upcoming football season, in between writing a TMQ on concussions, blur offenses and how offenses are far ahead of defenses early in the season? 

Scandal Nickname Note. Aren’t you weary of “____”-Gate? Yours truly contends the ball-inflation hullabaloo should be called PSIcheated.

I'm weary of your nicknames for NFL teams. Hopefully the "Times" will keep TMQ at an abbreviated length and possibly I can look forward to a correction every week in TMQ. God knows if the editors are doing their job, the list Gregg used to make of "Times" corrections will look small compared the list of corrections made on a weekly basis to TMQ.

6 comments Gregg Easterbrook Picks the Broncos or the Colts To Win the Colts-Broncos Game

Gregg refused to reveal the trade secrets behind writing TMQ in last week's TMQ. Lying and misleading are two trade secrets, though they aren't really secret. He also had a reader write in with an impossibly stupid idea that fans watching a game should vote one way or another on whether a replay challenge should be upheld or overturned. This week Gregg talks about the advantage of being at home in the playoffs, continues to update his Authentic Game standings that mean nothing except when he wants them to mean something, and just cuts to the chase and asks if teams should sexualize their cheerleaders. It's like he's asking for permission to be creepy and leer at woman half or almost a third of his age. He needs his readers to confirm it's okay to feel sexually excited about seeing cheerleaders while also claiming the NFL is exploiting them.

Longtime TMQ readers know my compromise with my Baptist upbringing is to believe sex is good, gambling is bad.

I've never understood this comment Gregg continuously writes in TMQ before and still don't understand it today. For society, sex has probably caused more problems throughout record history (INCLUDED THE TRIASSIC PERIOD) than gambling has, but I've learned sometimes it's best not to argue with everything Gregg writes. He likes sex and doesn't like gambling.

But if you must wager, take the home teams in the divisional round this weekend. They are the surest sure-thing in sports.

Unless you want to count other sure things in sports like #1 seeds beating #16 seeds in the NCAA Tournament, #2 seeds beating #15 seeds in the NCAA Tournament, #1 seeds beating #8 seeds in the NHL and the NBA playoffs, or any of the other surer bets in sports than the home team winning in the divisional round. 

Tuesday Morning Quarterback is predicting home teams will run the table in the upcoming round, with Denver, Green Bay, New England and Seattle advancing. This prediction pertains to victory only: I don't know the lines, and the Baptist in me won't even look. 

Very holy of you.

Since the current playoff format was adopted in 1990, home teams in the divisional round are 70-26, a 73 percent winning figure. That's well north of the 57 percent rate at which NFL home teams won 2014 regular season contests.

Two things:

1. The 73% win rate for home teams in the divisional round is not the surest bet in sports. There are more sure bets in sports. I listed some above.

2. Comparing the 73% win rate during the playoffs to the 57% win rate during the regular season is a bit misleading. The team that gets the home game in the divisional round is almost always a team with a better record than the visiting team. The home teams in the divisional round got a week off because they have the two best records in their division. So the reason the 73% win rate is higher than the regular season rate of 57% is because during the regular season inferior teams are guaranteed to get eight home games and they will end up losing some of these games. In the divisional round of the playoffs, the home team is almost always a team with the better record, so that team is (theoretically) more likely to win the game due to this.

Gregg points this out, but I really wanted to point it out. Because comparing the playoffs and the regular season in terms of winning percentage for home teams isn't a great comparison.

For the divisional round, the reason the hosts are hosting in the first place is that they are the best teams.

Nope, not the best teams, just the team with the better record. There is a slight difference.

Seattle enters the divisional round on a 24-2 home stretch, while at 8-8-1, visiting Carolina is not even a winning team. If the Seahawks don't prevail, it will be the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan.

If I were someone who didn't look at gambling lines then I probably wouldn't be talking about what the biggest upset may be. Stanford over USC when Jim Harbaugh was the Stanford head coach was a pretty big upset and if Carolina had beaten the Seahawks then it wouldn't have even been the biggest NFL playoff upset of the last 20 years. The Seahawks were favored by 11 points and since 1998 three teams have won the Super Bowl with higher point spreads against them. It would have been an upset, but not the biggest upset in NFL playoffs history, much less the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan. That's an incredibly stupid comment to make, considering the NCAA Tournament has bigger upsets than Carolina over Seattle nearly every year. Of course, leave it to Gregg to be all, "I don't look at the point spreads" and then claim he can tell what the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan may be.

New England. In the postseason at New England, Bill Belichick is 1-2 versus the Ravens, 11-1 versus all other teams -- and Baltimore heads to New England for the divisional. Nonetheless, TMQ foresees a Flying Elvii triumph.

TMQ sees a Patriots triumph because they are at home and for no other reason. It's like foreseeing a Patriots triumph because their coach doesn't dress like it's freezing outside when it is freezing outside. The result may end up being accurate, but the reasoning leaves something to be desired.

The Patriots finished fourth in points scored, eighth in points allowed, tied for second in give/take. That's strong. New England is 122-38 since the start of the 2005 season, most wins by any NFL club in that period.

Come on Gregg, start quoting how the Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since Spygate as if they are being punished for their transgressions still. It used to be that Gregg would point out how the Patriots can't win the Super Bowl since Spygate occurred, but I guess he's backed off that once he realized how incredibly stupid he sounded. Now Gregg has started touting what a great team the Patriots are without mentioning the "curse" he used to claim was holding the team back from success.

Belichick knows it will not be long until Tom Brady's magazine modeling agent means more to him than any football coach: if there is to be another Brady-Belichick ring, now's the time. And if the Patriots win this weekend, they play the AFC title game at home.

Which was all part of Bill Belichick's plan to win as many games as possible during the regular season to ensure this would happen. He's quite the gambler in that way.

The red flag for the P-Men is a recent trend of late swoon. In the last seven seasons, New England is 84-28 in the regular season followed by 4-5 in the postseason. Perhaps when Belichick and Brady draw nigh to another Super Bowl appearance, weariness sets in.

Yeah, that's probably it. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the postseason simply being a crapshoot due to one game deciding whether a team advances to the next round or not.

The Packers finished first in give/take and first in points scored. Aaron Rodgers hasn't thrown an interception at home since 2012. Green Bay hasn't punted in the first half at home in four consecutive outings. The Packers' worry is that their super-precise passing attack tends to peter out over the course of a game, with Green Bay outscoring opponents 310-146 in the first half, then only 84-69 in the third quarter, then being outscored 92-133 in the fourth.

For a smart guy, Gregg sure can be stupid at times. So after outscoring opponents over the season by 179 points over the first three quarters, the Packers get outscored by 41 points in the fourth quarter? Could this have something to do with the Packers running the ball more in the fourth quarter and the opposing team throwing the ball in an attempt to catch up while the Packers play a softer defense? Of course not. That would be a logical conclusion. So there is a good chance the Packers super-precise passing attack doesn't peter out as the game goes on, it's just fewer aggressive passing plays are called and the Packers run the ball more.

In fact, if Gregg spent less time spouting nonsense and more time actually doing fucking research then he would see the Packers have run the football 16 more times in the second half and thrown the ball 90 fewer times in the second half as compared to the first half. THAT is the reason they get outscored in the fourth quarter, along with statistics that show the Packers' defense allows more adjusted net yards per pass attempt in the second half of games. So not only doesn't the Packers offense peter out more than it pulls back, the Packers defense is more responsible for the Packers getting outscored in the fourth quarter. The fact the Packers give up 133 points in the fourth quarter and 215 points in the other three quarters isn't the fault of the Packers' offense.

I did 5 minutes of research and found this stuff out, yet Gregg claims Green Bay's offense "peters out" in the second half. Why can't an intelligent person simply do research rather than make shit up and hope that it's true?

Denver. If there's to be a visitor victory in the divisional round, the Broncos seem most vulnerable. Denver has sputtered in the second half of the season, while falling in TMQ's Authentic Games metric -- see below.

Denver averaged 30.6 points per game during the first half of the season, while giving up 23.1 points per game.

Denver averaged 29.6 points per game during the second half of the season, while giving up 21.1 points per game.

But no Gregg, keep doing very little research and continuing to push the narrative that the Broncos were sputtering in the second half of the season. That 1 point per game less they scored while giving up 2 less points per game is a sure sign of sputtering. At what point does Gregg give enough of a shit to just do research to see if what he claims is accurate or not? There is an argument the Broncos didn't sputter in the second half of the season at all, especially since they lost two games during both the first and second halves of their season and they scored and gave up nearly the same amount of points in each half of the season.

Having won last season's AFC title contest against New England in Denver, the Broncos may be looking ahead to restaging that event in Massachusetts. They'd best keep focused on the Colts. Danger sign: Peyton Manning's 11-12 postseason record includes the most playoff losses ever by a starting quarterback.

Which also means that Manning has been good enough to make the playoffs consistently enough to lose the most playoff games ever.

Though TMQ calls the divisional round the surest sure-thing in sports, a week later in the championship round, homefield advantage dissipates. Since 1990, hosts in conference championship games are 29-19, a 60 percent winning figure, barely above the rate at which hosts win regular season games.

No. A 60% winning percentage at home isn't homefield advantage "dissipating." 6 out of 10 times the home team wins. That's a clear advantage. It's not a huge advantage, but it's an advantage. Gregg never fails to mislead his readers who want to read TMQ and not think about what they are reading.

Players leave everything on the field in championship contests, so home teams won't necessarily be the favorites.

But they do win the game 6 out of 10 times, favorites or not. Besides, how would Gregg know who the favorite is if he doesn't pay attention to the gambling lines?

Stats Of The Week No. 1: In the 2014 NFL regular season, the 1,000-yard mark was surpassed by 13 running backs -- and by 23 receivers.

Without context of a comparison to other NFL seasons this statistic means nearly nothing other than a recitation of facts. What's the takeaway supposed to be?

Stats Of The Week No. 7: New Orleans was 32nd in defense in 2012, rose to fourth in 2013, dropped back to 31st in 2014.

Rob Ryan everyone! If his name were Rob Guyton then he probably wouldn't have gotten another season with the Saints. Instead, the Saints are just going to give him more to work with. That's the issue.

Sweet Touchdowns Of The Week: Detroit leading 20-7 in the fourth quarter, the Boys faced fourth-and-goal from the Lions 1. The "safe" thing is to kick. But fortune favors the bold! Dallas went for it, touchdown.

Fortune favors the bold, unless the bold don't "do a little dance" or are bold in a way that Gregg Easterbrook doesn't like. In that case, fortune doesn't give a shit about the bold.

All that mattered was the fourth-and-1 decision. Fortune favors the bold, victories don't come in the mail, you need one yard, go win the game! Caldwell ordered a namby-pamby attempt to draw Dallas offside, then sent out the punt unit. Outraged, the football gods caused a 10-yard shank. Dallas went on to victory.

On the day, Detroit averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap. Yet when the Lions needed one single yard to take command of a postseason game, Caldwell demurred.

I do agree with Gregg in this instance, though his reasoning that the Lions averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap does ignore that fourth-and-1 is a different situation where this statistic isn't terribly relevant. Gregg consistently ignores situational down-and-distance when making his criticism of NFL head coaches not going for it on fourth down. Caldwell should have gone for it, but to say the Lions could have gotten one yard on fourth-and-1 because they averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap on the day is bad reasoning.

Sweet 'N' Sour Play: Baltimore leading 23-15, the Steelers faced third-and-4 on their 26 midway through the fourth quarter. At a time when unorthodox defensive fronts have practically become common, Baltimore managed to show a wild look: one defensive lineman as a nose tackle, three overload blitzers far left of Ben Roethlisberger, three overload blitzers far right. But it wasn't a blitz, rather, a Steelers-style zone rush. At the snap, all three on the left came; only one came from the right; and the nose tackle dropped into coverage.

This wasn't a blitz, just a zone rush where the nose tackle dropped back in coverage, there was no defensive linemen rushing the passer and linebackers tried to sack the quarterback. It's totally different from a blitz and certainly couldn't be a zone blitz.

Flummoxed, Roethlisberger flipped a flare pass that bounced off Ben Tate's hands and was intercepted by Terrell Suggs. Ravens touchdown on the next play and the visitors would never look back. Sweet.

Roethlisberger was so flummoxed that he threw the ball to an open receiver who couldn't manage to catch the pass. Is it really Roethlisberger that was flummoxed on this play? It sounds like he knew where the ball needed to go.

With just one defender inside the area defined by the Steelers' offensive tackles, Roethlisberger simply could have run straight ahead, with a first down likely.

A first down was "likely"? Did Gregg even watch the game or did his "trade secret" employee who is responsible for watching each NFL game just relay this to him? How could Roethlisberger have run up the middle when there was a defender on him by the time he had dropped back? He couldn't have made the decision to run straight ahead prior to the snap because he had no idea a linebacker or two wouldn't drop back into the middle of the field and after the ball was snapped Terrell Suggs was in the middle of the field prior to intercepting the pass. Maybe Roethlisberger could have run for the first down, but a first down was not at all "likely" as Gregg inexplicably claims. Watch the game, Gregg. Just watch it and take time to know what are you writing before you actually write it.

TMQ shudders to think the 2016 election will pair Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush. As it is the United States presidential succession is Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. If the 2016 race pits Hillary against Jeb, the country will be assured that four of the last five presidents came from the same two aristocratic landed families. This wouldn't be good for the republic. Pakistan will seem like an open political system by comparison.

This is an excess of hyperbole. If Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton are elected then the United States would simply have an open political system, simply an open political system dominated by two families.

Clinton did a fine job in the Senate and as secretary of state; she's highly qualified. My big worry is that she's an opportunist whose first priority is self-promotion, not the interests of the nation. One example: around the time she was leaving the White House as first lady, Clinton decried "a consumer-driven culture that promotes values that undermine both capitalism and democracy" while declaring the nation "being undermined by consumer capitalism."

Shortly thereafter, she bought a $1.7 million house and signed an $8 million book contract. In today's money, that's a $2.4 million house and an $11 million book contract. There's nothing wrong with nice houses or high income. What's disturbing is when a political leader pretends to be modest, urges other to be modest -- and then cashes in.

If being a hypocrite were to prevent a candidate from running for President then there would never be any candidates for President.

Bush did a fine job as governor of Florida and has the sort of hands-on economic experience many candidates lack; he's highly qualified. He presents himself to the electorate as someone whose ego is in check. My big worry: so did his brother.

Plus if Hillary becomes president, we'll face more years of Bill Clinton this, Bill Clinton that. If Jeb becomes president, we'll face more years of Bush family this, Bush family that. Regardless of their experience and skill, their last names should disqualify both: it would be healthy for the nation if neither were on the 2016 ballot.

While I don't know if I would vote for either candidate, if both are qualified to be President (in Gregg's opinion) then why should they be disqualified simply due to their last name? It's better for the United States to push qualified candidates out of the race rather than have a candidate with the last name "Clinton" or "Bush"? If anything, there needs to be more qualified candidates running for President, not fewer.

New Bills owners Terry and Kim Pegula can't be thrilled they must pay departing head coach Doug Marrone an extra $4 million to do nothing. Marrone's contract contained a golden-parachute clause: if ownership changed, he could blow town, while receiving a $4 million bonus on top of any salary he may draw at a new coaching post. So you'd assume Marrone waved goodbye simply for a double-dip payday. More likely he knows he mismanaged the Bills and wants somebody else to deal with the problems he created.

Or more likely than that, he knew he would get paid to leave town and there would still be interest in him as the head coach of a different NFL team. He could get paid $4 million for leaving the Bills and get paid as the head coach of a different NFL team. Gregg would do the same thing in Marrone's situation no matter what he tells his readers.

In just two years at the helm, Marrone spent three first-round draft selections -- Buffalo's 2015 first choice is promised to Cleveland -- running up a debt for someone else to cover, like a politician who borrows without any plan to repay. 

Doug Marrone didn't make these decisions. In fact, he was reportedly very much against the decision to trade the 2015 first round pick for Watkins. Again, do some fucking research before spouting off bullshit in TMQ that you want your readers to believe simply because it fits some narrative that you have pre-packaged every week.

For the price of three first-round draft choices, plus a fourth-round pick, Marrone got just two players, EJ Manuel and Sammy Watkins. Manuel doesn't start. Watkins is a fine performer, but the Bills paid way too much for him. Several quality wide receivers were available in the 2014 draft: Buffalo panicked and overspent on Watkins though standing pat would have allowed Odell Beckham Jr. to drop into the Bills' laps. Most important, the NFL is a quarterback league. Marrone left the Bills with no quarterback nor any 2015 first-round choice to employ in search of one.

These weren't solely his decisions. Buffalo has a General Manager who makes decisions like this.

Marrone went along with panicky personnel decisions, failed to develop a player at the league's most important position, stripped the franchise of future draft picks then whistled a merry tune as he skedaddled with a multimillion-dollar bonus. Nice work if you can get it.

I won't defend Marrone's record in Buffalo. Still he "went along" with panicky personnel decisions? What was Marrone supposed to do when the GM wants to make this trade? Quit? That's essentially what he did when he was given the chance. So Gregg criticizes Marrone for making decisions that he alone didn't make, then claims Marrone "went along" with these decisions when his only other option was to quit, which he eventually did...which Gregg again criticizes him for.

Postscript No.2: Watkins caught 65 of the 128 passes targeted to him, or 51 percent. Jordy Nelson caught 98 of 151 (65 percent), Antonio Brown caught 129 of 182 (71 percent). Nelson and Brown were receiving pinpoint passes from franchise-caliber quarterbacks. Buffalo's two quarterbacks were so inaccurate, Watkins was chasing passes that sailed far beyond his reach or clanged into the ground.

Watkins was also a rookie wide receiver while Antonio Brown and Jordy Nelson are more veteran receivers. I don't even understand what Gregg wants to prove here. The Bills need a franchise quarterback? Yes, of course they do.

"Trailing in the fourth quarter, Marvin Lewis sent in the kicking unit. TMQ wrote the words 'game over' in his notebook. Victories don't come in the mail, play to win, don't play to avoid losing!"

Right, because the game wasn't already over at that point. The Bengals were down 16 and couldn't move the ball, but there was hope. The hope was extinguished by this choice to not going for it on fourth down.

After last year's Cincinnati postseason flameout, I noted that as Lewis sent in the kicking unit, Andy Dalton passively trudged off the field: Brett Favre would have demanded the coach go for it. "Next season, Dalton needs to become a leader," your columnist opined. Sunday, when Lewis sent in the punting unit on fourth-and-short in Indianapolis territory, Dalton passively trudged off the field. 

After last year's flameout when Gregg suggested that Dalton yell at Lewis for sending in the kicking unit, I suggested that perhaps Dalton undermining his coach in front of the team isn't showing leadership. How is Gregg to know that Dalton didn't privately demand Lewis go for it next time when they were standing on the sidelines? Gregg has no idea if Dalton did this or not. Second-guessing the head coach in front of the team and the national television viewing audience isn't leadership.

Wonder why Dalton is 3-11 in playoff and primetime games? At this point Cincinnati backers must accept: Dalton is never going to become a leader.

Yelling at the head coach isn't leadership.

Oregon posted scoring drives of 0:21, 1:24, 1:32, 2:01, 2:11, 3:00 and a poky-puppy drive of 4:45. Though Florida State had significant extra time to rehearse for the Blur Offense, the Seminoles' defense seemed stunned, the front seven "sucking air" -- gasping for breath -- by midway through the second quarter.

They may have been prepared for it, but it doesn't mean they were capable of stopping it. There is a difference in preparing for the Blur Offense and actually being able to get off the field against the offense.

Oregon style muddle-huddle deuce plays should be employed in short field goal attempt situations.

Oregon has a snapper, holder and kicker at the center; three blockers and one back wide on each side. If there are less than four guys across from either outside set, the snapper hikes to the holder, who throws to the back on that side; if both sets are properly defended, Oregon kicks. That both sides often aren't properly defended -- they weren't by Florida State, two points scored -- suggests the muddle-huddle would work at least sometimes in the pros. But NFL coaches don't want to use this set, or the similar swinging-gate set, for status reasons. At press conferences they don't want to hear, "You're using college trick plays."

So this is why NFL teams don't use this formation? NFL teams are fine with hiring college coaches who bring their college offense and offensive philosophies to the NFL, but they just don't want to be seen as running college trick plays? That's what I am to believe it seems. I think if NFL teams are fine with hiring coaches who are from college and intend to bring their college philosophies with them to the NFL, then those NFL teams would be fine using college trick plays.

The Alabama-Ohio State side of the semis came down to one team being bold while the other played it "safe," and just saying those words tells you what you need to know. 

No, because you didn't say which team was safe and which team was bold.

Well into the 2012 regular season, John Harbaugh fired offensive coordinator Cam Cameron. This move, viewed as shocking at the time, seemed to fire up the Ravens, and proved essential to their Super Bowl run.

It was shocking and Gregg claimed at the time that John Harbaugh was shifting blame off him on to Cam Cameron. It's interesting how Gregg leaves out any criticism he had at the time about this move. Well, it's not interesting, this is just a typical thing Gregg does in an effort to mislead his readers and remove any information from a discussion that may end up making him look bad. Ego before all else. Mislead readers and leave out information that may make Gregg look bad while linking information in TMQ that makes Gregg look good. Here's what Gregg wrote at the time:

And it wasn't just players who quit. Many coaching staffs quit on Sunday's games, too. Norv Turner, job in jeopardy, nevertheless looked bored on the sideline as his charges were embarrassed at home. Chan Gailey has acted all season as though he was fired last season. John Harbaugh was more concerned with shifting blame than fixing his team.

By firing Cameron now -- rather than this past offseason, when the offensive coordinator position could have turned over in an orderly manner -- Ravens coach John Harbaugh sent the signal that he expects yet another playoff collapse and wants an excuse lined up. At the postgame media event following the playoff collapse Harbaugh/East appears to expect, he can blame Cameron for the team's troubled offense. Firing an assistant coach just before the playoffs isn't a bold move to invigorate the team. It's a desperate move about blame shifting. 

Then Gregg later wrote this:

John Harbaugh fired offensive coordinator Cam Cameron midseason, trying to make the Ravens' plodding offense his fault: though Baltimore averaged 25 points under Cameron, and has averaged 23 points since. 

But now this move that was about blame shifting in 2012 was "essential" to the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Will Gregg mention that the shocking move John Harbaugh made in 2012 endured the boring "blame shifting" criticism from Gregg? Of course not, because it worked out. Gregg has no beliefs, simply criticism based on whether something works or not. Gregg didn't think this shocking move would work in 2012, but now he's touting the move as "essential" to the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Will Gregg mention his criticism of Harbaugh for blame shifting and how he accused Harbaugh of giving up on the season? Of course not! That's Gregg Easterbrook. When he's correct, it gets linked, when he's wrong it never gets mentioned again in an effort to cover up for the fact his bullshit "blame shifting" criticism isn't always accurate.

Next Monday's inaugural CFP title tilt will pit Oregon versus Ohio State -- which along the sidelines means sex-bombshell cheerleaders versus cheerleaders in traditional outfits.

Hopefully Gregg won't be too distracted by the sight of exploited women who are half or one-third his age that he doesn't pay attention to what happens on the football field. I'm kidding of course. Even if Gregg watches the whole game (or has his "trade secret"/employee watch the game for him) then he still will have inane observations that have the potential to be inaccurate.

Owing to its Nike-driven marketing focus, Oregon has led college sports both toward dazzling flashy uniforms and helmets, and toward scantily attired cheerleaders. Is the latter a good idea?

I don't know, they are cheerleaders. What they wear is irrelevant to me when I'm watching a football game.

Professional cheerleaders ought to exude sex appeal. They are after all professionals, and the dancing girl who shows lots of skin has a long history in entertainment, at least as far back as vaudeville. High school cheerleaders should not show skin.

So the same cheerleaders who Gregg believes are exploited by the NFL should be further exploited by exuding as much sex appeal as possible? After all, it IS their job and they are specifically hired/exploited (in Gregg's opinion) to do this job.

Obviously teens will have sex on the brain no matter how often adults wag their fingers, but sexualizing high school sports is a step one hopes is never taken.

But if high school cheerleaders don't show skin, then how will Gregg know if they are showing the proper amount of cheerleader professionalism required for their high school team to win the game?

That leaves college cheerleaders. They're adults legally, and sociologically more like grown-ups than kids. College women should make their own choices about everything, including whether they want to dance half-naked on national television. But considering that football factories are already exploiting players for income, should colleges also sexualize their cheerleaders in order to rev up crowds and ratings?

Do college cheerleaders who wear less clothing really rev up the ratings for a game? Are there people who watch a football game specifically to see 30 seconds of each team's cheerleaders? I can't believe Gregg believes college cheerleaders who wear less clothing will rev up ratings. I'm dubious about this claim.

Tweet your views to @EasterbrookG.

Tweet your view to Gregg so he doesn't feel bad when he's ogling a 19 year old college student who should make her own choice about anything, like for example, whether she wants to date a 61-year old man. Make Gregg feel better about himself and his urges to find these women sexy. It's not pervy, it's normal and Gregg has the Tweets to prove it!

Bart Starr Can Only Dream Of Under Armour Cold Gear: Not many teams that stage a 99-yard touchdown drive, then lead by 13 points in the second half and go on to lose: Detroit found a way.

That's a pretty specific set of criteria a team must meet, so I would say this doesn't happen often.

Falling behind 24-20, the Lions got the ball back on their 23 with two minutes remaining, holding two timeouts. Here's what happened: short pass, short pass, deep incompletion, short pass, short incompletion, short pass, short pass, fumble and Dallas sends in the victory formation. Seventy-seven yards were needed and every call save was a short pass -- that's the "safe" thing! Ye gods.

I'm sure the Lions never thought to throw the ball deep in this situation. I'm sure it never crossed their mind. If only Gregg Easterbrook were around to remind the Lions to throw the ball deep late in the game when needing to score a touchdown.

Does Gregg really believe the Lions were trying to do the safe thing by throwing short? Does it get through his thick skull that the Lions couldn't go deep because the Cowboys had taken the deep ball away? Matthew Stafford could have just thrown the ball deep, but it very well could have resulted in a turnover. I joked on Twitter the Lions should just throw it deep to Calvin Johnson, but it's not always possible to just sling a deep pass. It's not that the Cowboys expected short passes, it's just they wanted the Lions to throw it short. The Lions were not being safe, they were trying to score without committing a turnover.

Authentic Games Standings: Carolina may have reached the divisional round but still isn't included. How can an NFL team that does not have a winning record in January be considered Authentic?

Because the Authentic Games Standing are a farce?

Today's column lead notwithstanding, the Authentic Games index warns of an Indianapolis upset at Denver.

So for those of you keeping score (me), that is three Super Bowl predictions from Gregg AND he just picked the Broncos to beat the Colts, but wants to warn his readers that the Colts could beat the Broncos. What the fuck does this even mean? "Today's column lead notwithstanding," does that mean "My previous opinion not withstanding"? So ignoring Gregg's previous opinion, here is another opinion. There are two options. The Colts could beat the Broncos or the Colts could lose to the Broncos. Gregg Easterbrook has managed to now predict both outcomes could occur. Thanks for the contribution, now go away.

The funny part is I just know Gregg is going to take credit for whatever happens in the Colts-Broncos game. He'll be sure to crow about how right he was either way, notwithstanding the fact he essentially predicted that both possible outcomes could occur, so he really predicted nothing.

On third-and-1 in the fourth quarter, zebras called defensive pass interference against Dallas. They began walking off the foul to set up a Detroit first-and-10 on the Dallas 34, which would have put the Lions in command. Then referee Pete Morelli announced, without explanation, that he was picking up the flag.

Key issue: Was there pass interference? TMQ thinks no. Despite the popular misconception, NFL pass defenders do not need to turn to the ball -- face-guarding is legal in the pros. (It's not legal in NCAA or NFHS play; these kinds of confusions are one reason football rules should be simplified and standardized.) Boys linebacker Anthony Hitchens made contact with Lions receiver Brandon Pettigrew, but the contact seemed incidental.

Key fact about the play: Pettigrew was never open. Hitchens had him tightly covered all the way down the field. Defensive pass interference usually entails a desperate defender trying to prevent an open man from making the catch. Hitchens had Pettigrew so well covered that incidental contact was inevitable.

There is a very thin line between covering a receiver so well that incidental contact is inevitable and covering a receiver to where the incidental contact is part of the coverage and means this is pass interference. Hitchens had his hands on Pettigrew as the ball got closer to him. It didn't seem like incidental contact to me and Mike Pereira seemed to agree.

I am out of here. Biggest call was the DPI pickup. It was DPI and it was defensive holding as well. Not good. Flying back to Sac tonight.
— Mike Pereira (@MikePereira) January 5, 2015

I can understand why Lions fans are salty and Gregg's explanation doesn't make sense to me. It wasn't incidental contact because Hitchens was extending his arms out to grab Pettigrew with his hand away from the football. He wasn't fighting for position to make the catch and this wasn't incidental contact to me. Of course, Pettigrew did have his hand on Hitchens facemask as well.

Next Week: If right about the divisional round, I will say I told you so. If wrong, I will change the subject.

Oh, don't I know it ever so well. 

5 comments Gregg Easterbrook Remembers His Preseason Analysis That Never Actually Occurred Regarding Why The Seattle Seahawks Wouldn't Make the Playoffs

Gregg Easterbrook figured out the NFL's playoff seeding issue in last week's TMQ, as well as didn't understand the use of decimal points and typically left out an undrafted player's draft position when he made a bad play on the field. This week Gregg discusses the increase in flags called on defensive players, updates his Authentic Game standings (as I update my non-Authentic Games standings), and uses hindsight and deception to explain why he thought he Seahawks wouldn't make the playoffs.

I love the consistency of TMQ. Every week it's consistently awful. It's like a cold, wet blanket I can hold on to every Tuesday afternoon during the NFL season.

Green Bay and New England have outscored opponents by more than 100 points. Touchdown passes are lighting up the night sky. Seven NFL quarterbacks already have at least 20 touchdown passes -- 20 years ago, only eight reached this mark on the entire season. Scoreboards are spinning as never before. 

There are only so many times that Gregg can re-phrase "Current NFL teams have great offenses and rules have opened up these offenses" before he's essentially just saying the same shit week after week.

Is the reason better athletes on offense -- or is the reason more penalties?

The major reason is probably neither of these. It has more to do with more protection for quarterbacks and rule changes that favor offenses. Gregg is about to further the idea that NFL offenses are scoring more points because of more penalties against the defense. Not surprisingly, he chooses to do this while providing very little data to support his conclusion. The data he does use compares the NFL today to the NFL a decade ago. Yes, the game has changed in the last decade. It's another example of Gregg saying, "Here's a conclusion I have reached that I haven't researched that well, so go ahead and totally buy my conclusion as reasonable because I write for ESPN.com and I wouldn't lie would I?"

I wouldn't doubt that part of the increase in scoring is a result of more penalties. Absolutely, but the root cause isn't the increased penalties, but the rule changes favoring the offense. Gregg doesn't really get to the root cause, which is the rule changes which have resulted in more penalties. It's not just more penalties that are the problem. It would also help if Gregg used data from the last 2-3 years using the rule changes protecting the quarterback and receiver as a constant, while showing how increased penalties have led to a further increase in offensive scoring. Yes, scoring is up from 10 years ago due to rule changes, but what caused scoring in the NFL to be up from even two years ago?

Peter King showed in MMQB this week that flags per game are increased, but only by one flag and 6.2 yards per game. So the reason for more offensive scoring IS due to more penalties being called. It's the rule changes that cause these penalties. It's been a slow increase and not as dramatic for the 2014 season as expected (at least from what Peter and even I expected).

It's well known that defensive holding flags have increased this season -- blame the Seattle secondary for that. But there's a 10-year trend toward more flags against the defensive secondary. These trends translate into more first downs and fewer punts. Result? More scoring drives.

Part of what Gregg won't acknowledge is that defensive holding seems to be called in place of defensive pass interference. So part of the increase in defensive holding (0.845 calls per game this year from 0.678 calls per game last year) is also seen in the decrease in defensive pass interference calls (0.857 calls per game this year from 0.925 calls per game last year). There definitely has been an increase in defensive holding being called, but there is also a decrease in defensive pass interference being called.

By the way, there is an increase in offensive pass interference calls too. There are 0.391 offensive pass interference calls per game this year compared to 0.247 offensive pass interference calls per game last year. Gregg has a point, but the offense is also getting more interference calls against them. Offensive holding is also up to 2.453 calls per game this year with 2.199 calls per game last year. Again, these aren't numbers that Gregg wants to acknowledge because it might go to hurt the point he wants to prove.

I'm not doubting that there are more flags being thrown and that the rule changes have caused NFL offenses to score more points, but there is an increase in offensive holding and offensive pass interference, with a decrease in defensive pass interference and an increase in defensive holding. I would say there is some equaling out possibly going on here.

Considering only accepted penalties, so far there have been 137 defensive pass interference walk-offs this season, compared to 110 at the same point in the season a decade ago. That's a 25 percent increase. There have also been 137 accepted defensive holding penalties, compared to 99 at this juncture a decade ago. That's a 38 percent increase.

Defensive pass interference means a chunk of yardage, and both fouls provide an automatic first down. A decade ago at this point in the season, there had been 568 first downs by penalty. This season it's 652, a 15 percent increase. More first downs means fewer punts. A decade ago, 1,581 punts had been launched at this juncture. This season it's down to 1,468.

I'm not sure where Gregg is getting his numbers from because he fails to cite his source for this information. I based the information above on the same site where Peter King got his information about penalties on Monday. It shows that when comparing the 2013 season to the first 11 weeks of the 2014 season, there has been more defensive holding called, but more less defensive pass interference called. Gregg is comparing numbers to a decade ago, which is fine, but there have been so many rule changes that have resulted in these penalties in the last decade. The reason for the increase in offense is the rule changes implemented by the NFL, not the penalties called as a result of the rule changes. It may be nit-picking, but also gets to the root cause. It would be helpful if Gregg would compare penalties called over the last 2-3 years with the new rule emphasis on defensive holding for 2014. I think that could better explain how "penalties" have increased offensive scoring during the 2014 season.

And now Gregg Easterbrook, who has pounded the drum for player safety and reducing concussions, thinks the NFL makes too many ticky-tacky calls.

New rules against deliberate helmet-to-helmet contact also help the offense. Sunday at New Orleans, Cincinnati facing third-and-long, A.J. Green ran a stutter-go and beat the cornerback. Saints' safety Rafael Bush was closing but pulled up one step before he would have drilled Green, who made a 38-yard reception that proved the game's decisive down. Five years ago, Bush legally could have laid Green out, which might have broken up the catch. This year, Bush knew that contact with Green's helmet would be an automatic first down whether the catch was made or not. So he pulled up and hoped the pass would be dropped.

That's exactly what reformers want defenders to do in potential helmet-to-helmet situations-- and if reducing helmet-to-helmet contact favors the offense, so be it. Vicious hits on defenseless players are "substantially down," which is good news.

YOU! That's exactly what YOU want defenders to do in potential helmet-to-helmet situations. Gregg loves taking credit for being among those who first claimed the NFL needs to use different helmets to prevent concussions, but when it comes time to reduce contact in the secondary, Gregg thinks the NFL is going too soft, like little pansy boys.

This is typical Gregg Easterbrook. He wants it both ways. He wants to be a reformer, while also criticizing the NFL for rule changes that attempt to reduce concussions and contact in the secondary.

But much of the increase in flags against the secondary comes from what seems like a trend toward ticky-tacky calls, as if there is now an assumption of guilt against pass defenders. 

For God's sake. Now the calls are too "ticky-tacky" for Gregg's taste. He wants to reduce concussions, he wants to criticize the NFL for not taking steps to reduce concussions, but he also wants to criticize the NFL for the rule changes that are intended to make the game safer for a receiver to catch the football without being contacted by a defender. Interesting. Just interesting.

Just as defensive holding was an officials' "point of emphasis" this season, ignoring incidental contact should be next season. At Rule 8, Section 4, Article 4 says: "Beyond the five-yard zone, incidental contact may exist between receiver and defender as long as it does not materially affect or significantly impede the receiver, creating a distinct advantage. Additionally, Rule 8, Section 5, 3 (a) says: If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference."

The zebras need a refresher course in this standard.

Maybe they need a refresher course, but the officials have been told to emphasize this penalty and they are doing so. The rules favor the offense, that's for sure.

Rather than automatic first down, defensive holding should be 10 yards and replay the down, just like offensive holding. 

Maybe, but this would do nothing about the "ticky-tacky" penalties that are called in the secondary against defensive players for incidental contact. If anything, it gives the defensive player incentive to make more illegal contact, which would result in a rise in defensive holding calls, which would result in Gregg Easterbrook complaining about "ticky-tacky" calls. I don't think the increase in defensive holding penalties have ruined the game of football, just as long as these penalties are called consistently against both teams. It also doesn't help that the offensive players know if they act a little bit they can get a defensive holding call from the official.

Stricter enforcement of the pick play by the offense.

This is a sentence fragment which has no meaning to me.

This season on two-man combo patterns, many wide receivers and tight ends look like Fuzzy Thurston pulling on a Green Bay Packers 1960s power sweep. No secondary can cover a receiver who for intents and purposes has a downfield blocker before the pass is released.

I don't disagree. I think the offense gets away with a lot of contact prior to the pass being thrown. I don't know how strictly enforcing the pick play by the offense would really affect the NFL's tilt toward favoring offensive players over defensive players, as offensive coaches would simply teach players the correct way to run a pick play or just not run the play.

And a fabulous suggestion from reader Zac Maodus of Fort Lauderdale, Florida:

When Gregg says it is a fabulous suggestion, you know it isn't a fabulous suggestion.

"If defensive pass interference results in automatic first down, shouldn't offensive pass interference result in an automatic fourth down?"

Um, no it should not. Maybe a loss of down, but not an automatic fourth down. The assumption behind a defensive pass interference call is that if a defensive player had not interfered then the offense would have gotten a first down. There is no assumption that if an offensive player had not interfered then his team would have had to punt on fourth down. If it's first-and-10 and an offensive player pushes off, then it simply would have been an incomplete pass (or interception) had he had not interfered, so it should be first down plus a penalty, or even second down plus a penalty. There's no real reason the offensive pass interference should result in an automatic fourth down, as a fourth down wouldn't always be the direct result of there being offensive pass interference. The offense gets an automatic first down in the case of defensive pass interference because the assumption is the offense would have gained a first down had the defensive pass interference not occurred.

So this was a terrible idea from Zac in Florida and he is probably to blame for many of Florida's troubles when it comes to voting for political office.

That rule change would discourage pick plays and pushing off by offensive receivers, swinging the pendulum toward officiating parity between offense and defense.

No, it's a stupid rule.

The NFL's goofy playoff formula is marching toward its worst outcome since 2008, when 8-8 San Diego hosted a postseason party, but 11-5 New England wasn't invited to the playoffs. 

And the Chargers beat a 12-4 Colts team in the playoffs that year. Carry on, while ignoring information that may be contradictory to what point you want to prove.

Unless you think its worst outcome was 2010, when 7-9 Seattle hosted 11-5 New Orleans, while two 10-6 clubs did not reach the postseason.

And the Seahawks beat the Saints during that postseason. Again, Gregg has a point about seeding, but he also ignores information contradictory to the point he wants to prove. If he acknowledges in both of his examples the 8-8 and 7-9 teams won their home playoff game over a favored opponent with a better record, it could submarine his point that the NFL needs new playoff seeding because it rewards bad teams in bad divisions.

Since NFL players are adults who are well-compensated for knowingly assuming risks, why should anyone care if they become addicted to narcotics? Because, as in head injury and weight gain, the NFL is setting a terrible example for society. Prescription drug overdoses now cause more deaths than street-drug overdoses, and 72 percent of the deaths are from opioid painkillers. The United States is in the midst of a painkiller-abuse epidemic. Having NFL players popping painkillers -- and then performing with abandon, as if football doesn't hurt -- sends the wrong message. That taxpayers subsidize this wrong message should be seen as an outrage.

Consider me outraged and not at all surprised. Though there are many other things I subsidize as a taxpayer that outrages me more than pain-killer abuse by adults which leads to a bad example for "the kids." 

Stats Of The Week No. 3: Ryan Mallett threw his first touchdown pass in his four-year career.

This is probably one of the most pointless facts that Gregg has conveyed over the years. Mallett was a backup quarterback (or third-string quarterback) to Tom Brady for four years. I wouldn't expect him to have thrown a touchdown pass. 

Leading 24-20, Kansas City had the defending-champion Seahawks facing second-and-goal on the Chiefs' 4 with eight minutes remaining. A completed pass produced no gain; the Chiefs held Marshawn Lynch to 2 yards; on fourth-and-goal from the 2, incompletion. Now it's under four minutes, same score, and the Bluish Men Group faces fourth-and-1 in Kansas City territory. Lynch up the middle -- no misdirection, just a dive -- stuffed, Chiefs' ball.

Obviously if the Seahawks had "done a little dance" or used misdirection they would have gotten the first down. The same Chiefs defense that got penetration to stuff the run in this situation couldn't have gotten penetration to stop Lynch in the backfield if the Seahawks used misdirection.

Jordy Nelson running a "go" up the right sideline, with no safety help, was the play that killed Chicago the previous week. Now Nelson runs a "go" up the right sideline, touchdown and the rout is on. Sweet for home fans who have the simple common sense to wear plastic cheese on their heads. For the Eagles, they'd just spent a week watching film of this play torching the Bears and then allowed exactly what the Bears had allowed -- and to boot, no safety in sight. Sour.

Yes, the Eagles should have played two safeties over the top for the entire game simply so they could have stopped the Packers from successfully running this one play. Forget whatever else their defensive game plan was, they needed to always make sure a safety was over Jordy Nelson the entire game to prevent this very play from happening. It's not like the Packers have other good receivers or anything.

Benjamin Freed notes Maryland cut support of the fine arts in order to funnel subsidies to "House of Cards." Rather than fund local nonprofits producing music and theater -- a public-purpose case can be made for that -- Maryland subsidizes big-commercial efforts by Netflix, which ought to pay its own way. And it's not going out on a limb to suppose that Kevin Spacey or other Hollywood grandees involved in the show have said, "Why don't politicians do more to support the arts?"

Gregg is assuming that actors like Kevin Spacey are capable of their very own thought or any type of in-depth thinking which would allow them to be self-aware enough to notice that the tax credits their series received came at the expense of supporting the arts. Considering actors are a group of people who essentially pretend to be someone else for money and have all of the words they need to say handed to them, actors aren't always the most self-aware or in-depth thinkers.

There's a reason Scientology has used actors as their recruiting tool for the cult. It's not because actors are just really nice people who like to think for themselves.

Running the APR formula, we find that if all players are present at practice and have at least a 1.9 GPA (or whatever the school sets as a minimum standard), the APR is 1000. One thousand is a perfect score on the APR scale. To the NCAA, a C-minus is perfection! What gets a football program to 935? If all 85 players are living in dorms and coming to practice, and 74 have a GPA of at least C-minus, while 11 are flunking out, the result is an APR of 935. This sort of thing is why the NCAA likes the mysterious APR rather than the easily understood graduation rate.

While I understand Gregg's point, in my experience many football athletes don't necessarily live on-campus in a dorm. Some are required to live in a dorm, while others live in off-campus housing.

PC Watch: My children are graduates of the Montgomery County, Maryland, public school system, which annually proves that public schools can provide excellent education and do so in a cost-effective manner. Ovetta Wiggins of the Washington Post: "Montgomery County Public Schools regularly rates among the top-performing districts in Maryland and spends $12,649 per student, according to a new study of the 2011-12 school year, far less than the public school system in the District of Columbia, which spent $15,743 per student but ranks poorly nationwide."

Great point, Gregg! Why doesn't every parent send their child to an upper-middle class high school where they receive a great education in a cost-effective manner? Every parent should love their child enough to send their child to a great public school.

The Authentic Games standings are refreshed as the NFC South is exiled and prior games versus New Orleans removed from consideration. Kansas City rockets to the second position, while San Diego -- pasted at Miami, then taken to the final snap by the woeful Raiders -- verges on Authentic elimination.

Again, it's a constantly changing metric that can produce a new result every week. What could go wrong?

This week Gregg's Super Bowl prediction is Arizona and Kansas City, which is different from his prediction over the last two weeks. This is what happens when teams move in and out of being "authentic" in Gregg's metric. A team that might have played five "authentic" teams last week could now have only played three "authentic" teams and been moved down in the metric. Regardless of whether that team won or not, they get moved down in the metric because of circumstances out of their control. One week a team may be "authentic," the next week that team may not be "authentic," though they could end up being "authentic" again the following week.

Can the Rams really be an Authentic team even with an overall losing record? They've defeated both of last season's Super Bowl entrants, Seattle and Denver, which sounds pretty Authentic, so they're in for the moment. 

They have also lost to the Vikings, but I guess that doesn't matter.

Down the stretch, the defending champions play five of six versus Arizona, Philadelphia and Santa Clara. Even if the Niners are themselves on the verge of fade-out, there is no love lost between them and the Seahawks, so the home-and-home contests should be hotly contested. In the preseason, your columnist said Seattle not only was a long shot to repeat, but that the Hawks were a long shot to reach the playoffs.

Of course, the Seahawks would reach the playoffs under Gregg's new playoff seeding metric, but he wants us to ignore that his new playoff seeding metric would result in his prediction the Seahawks won't make the playoffs being incorrect.

This week in my Non-Authentic Games standings, which are based on which teams won by the largest margin in each conference over the past weekend, I am predicting the two Super Bowl participants will be Green Bay and New England. So far my metric has predicted the Super Bowl participants will be,

Packers and Broncos
Saints and Dolphins

and now the Packers and the Patriots. Hey, the metric has picked the Packers twice so it must be working, right?

One reason I was skeptical about Seattle's chances was free-agency losses on the defensive line, and now defensive tackle Brandon Mebane is out for the season, too.

Except Gregg never actually wrote this reasoning down in his column, but instead is using hindsight to make believe there was some real analysis into his prediction the Seahawks wouldn't make the playoffs. Gregg based his prediction on this statement:

The 2013 NFL season ended with the Seattle Seahawks crushing Denver in the Super Bowl. But will they even reach the playoffs this season?

Recent precedent says no. The two prior Super Bowl victors, the Ravens and Giants, failed to reach the postseason the following year. Those two clubs were a combined 17-15 in the seasons following their confetti shower after the final contest. Fifteen of the 48 Super Bowl winners -- nearly a third of those to hoist the Lombardi Trophy -- didn't make the playoffs the next year.

He based his reasoning on "precedent" and not any real on-the-field analysis that he had done. In fact, only once in that column do the words "defensive line" appear and that was in reference to the Lions. But now Gregg wants to mislead his readers into believing he isn't simply using hindsight based on seeing the Seahawks play 10 games. He's reaching a conclusion based on seeing how the Seahawks have played during the 2014 season and then tries to go back and pretend that conclusion is the same one he reached in August when that's not true at all. The ballsy part of it is that Gregg links the column where he mentions nothing about the Seahawks defensive line, because he knows his readers will believe him and not check to see if he is lying, which he is.

Here is what Gregg wrote about the Seahawks in the column he linked:

Seattle: In Super Bowl matchups of No. 1 offense versus No. 1 defense, defense is now 5-1. The Super Bowl story might as well have been Seattle Defense 9, Denver Broncos 8, given that the Bluish Men Group's defense not only contained the Broncos' record-setting offense, but the Seahawks' defense also outscored the Denver offense.

Playing a conventional, position-oriented defense in 2013, rarely blitzing -- in the Super Bowl, Seattle blitzed six times on 64 Denver snaps, well below the league average of 20 percent blitz -- the Seahawks not only allowed the fewest points in the league, but they also allowed just 131 second half points in 19 games. That's seven points allowed per second half, a stat every bit as hard to believe as Denver's 2013 offense numbers. Seattle also led the league in takeaways with 39.

It's a passing league, and Seattle stops the pass, with its 172 passing-yards allowed average the league's best, plus 12 more interceptions than touchdown passes allowed. Yet somehow the Seahawks won this passing league without throwing well themselves -- Seattle's 26th rank in passing yards was the lowest ever for a Super Bowl victor. That said, the Seahawks did finish the regular season with 27 passing touchdowns, better than pass-wacky Atlanta, Green Bay and New England.

Defenses that choked up to stop Pete Carroll's power runs paid the price when Russell Wilson threw over them. Run, run, run then play-fake and throw deep is a venerable football tactic. Wilson's 28 victories in his first two seasons are the most ever for an NFL quarterback. Seattle not only has won three straight at home versus rival San Francisco, but it has also outscored the Niners 84-33 in those contests. Seattle's challenge is to win in San Francisco, where the Niners are on a 5-0 streak versus the Hawks.

As usual, if I'm being polite, I will say Gregg is misleading his readers. If I'm being honest, he's lying and claiming that he stated something he really didn't state. I'm proud of him for lying and then being so gutsy to not worry about someone easily being able to research his lie. Gregg was skeptical because of a reason that he didn't actually state. Sure, I believe that.

Santa Clara is struggling -- 32 sacks allowed, ye gods -- but remains in the Authentic Games Index out of respect for three straight NFC title game appearances.

The Crabtree Curse strikes again!

Unified Field Theory Of Creep: Your columnist likes Starbucks' Thanksgiving blend and always picks up a couple of pounds in whole bean around this time of year. Apparently, I waited way too long. Reader Joe Hodanich of Bethesda, Maryland, reported on Nov. 12: "I couldn't get Thanksgiving blend today at my Starbucks, which has already switched to Christmas blend -- 15 days before Thanksgiving."

That's one Starbucks out of the thousands that there are. The Thanksgiving blend was on shelves when I visited Starbucks earlier this week.

Song I'm Blaring: That thing where you can't stop playing the same song: I can't stop playing this new song.

(Bengoodfella immediately removes this song from his iPod...he's angry he even had the song now and even angrier the lead singer looks like a hipster Johnny Manziel)

Many readers, including Anand Iyer of San Francisco, have been protesting my use of "Santa Clara 49ers," including by asking why I don't refer to the Arlington Cowboys and the Orchard Park Bills.

Jerry Jones' flying saucer is about 19 miles from Dallas and within an area that has long presented itself to the nation as DFW. Ralph Wilson Stadium is about 11 miles from Buffalo and is part of the same county. Levi's Stadium is at least 42 miles from San Francisco and is in a different county; Santa Clara and San Francisco differ sociologically in countless ways. That's why the Santa Clara 49ers but not the Arlington Cowboys or Orchard Park Bills.

I know there was writing here, but this is all I heard as Gregg wrote these sentences.

Coach Will Muschamp was shown the door at Florida for the unimaginable sin of going only 27-20 so far in four seasons. Just two years ago, when the Gators were ranked second, Muschamp was being proclaimed a great coach -- in the past two years, he must have forgotten everything he knew!

Florida's latest football graduation rate is an admirable 81 percent, which puts the Florida program in excellent company -- near academic leaders Notre Dame, Duke, UCLA and TCU.

It also puts Florida right ahead of Gregg Easterbrook's football factory punching bags Alabama, Ohio State, and Georgia. Of course Gregg wants us to ignore that he is essentially complimenting a team he would describe as a "football factory," as well as ignore the fact there are other teams he calls "football factories" with graduation rates right below the graduation rate of the team he is complimenting. He must mislead his audience by leaving out information as much as possible. It's not important that Gregg be intellectually honest, he just must be right and convince others of how right he is. That is all that matters.

Analyzing the Muschamp dismissal, did any sports touts even mention the strong graduation rate -- that is, regard "student-athletes" as actual student-athletes? Maybe Muschamp's error was working to make sure his players were in class rather than spending every second in the weight room or film room.

Yes, maybe that was Muschamp's error. I'll remember this the next time Gregg criticizes the University of Florida for being a "football factory" and not caring about their student-athletes. And again, Muschamp's main priority is winning football games. As the head coach of the football team, that's his job. Just like an English professor wouldn't be fired for the University of Florida football players in his class losing too many football games, Muschamp won't keep his job because his players are graduating. It doesn't make it right, it makes it college sports.

TMQ's prediction of Indianapolis to the Super Bowl is fading fast.

Don't worry Gregg, you update your predictions every week, so next week you may have a better Super Bowl prediction you can brag about.

Meanwhile, has any NFL team ever rebounded as spectacularly as the Patriots?

Yes.

Once again, Bill Belichick is doing it with guys you've never heard of.

Thanks for telling me who I had heard of. I wasn't sure if I had heard of someone or not until Gregg told me.

Starters included several players most other teams didn't want -- Brandon Browner, Michael Hoomanawanui, Chris Jones. 

Part of the reason the Seahawks didn't want Browner is because they had the cornerback position covered (no pun intended) already and he has been suspended twice for violating the NFL's drug policy. Why would Gregg mention this when there's a good narrative to be told?

In swirling snow at Chicago, Jay Cutler was hit before his arm started forward, losing the ball in an "empty hand" gesture. Three Vikings scrambled for the ball, one falling on it after several bounces. Officials incorrectly ruled incompletion. After a Minnesota challenge, officials ruled fumble but that possession could not be awarded to the Vikings because replay can only award possession if a fumble is recovered "immediately." Huh? Set aside that it was only a couple seconds from when the ball hit to the turf to when a Minnesota player recovered, which sounds fairly immediate. The rulebook says possession may be awarded if "the recovery of a fumble by an opponent or teammate occurs in the action that happens following the fumble." Perhaps there's some reference to immediate recovery in the officiating guidelines the NFL won't disclose. If there's any reference to this concept in the rulebook, I couldn't find it.

I'm guessing the officials determined that the ball bouncing a few times meant the recovery of the fumble by the Vikings didn't occur in the action that happened following the fumble.

Upholding the A.J. Green fourth-quarter touchdown catch that put Cincinnati ahead 27-10 at New Orleans, referee Craig Wrolstad announced, "The receiver's left toe was inbounds." Replay can see a player's toes?

The official can see Green's shoe, which was inbounds, you smartass.

Arizona leading Detroit 14-6 early in the fourth quarter, the Cardinals tried to pin the visitors deep with a punt. A coverage man stopped the punt at the Detroit 1, held the ball for an instant, then pushed it back up the field; a Detroit player snagged the ball and ran to the Arizona 46. Bruce Arians challenged, and officials brought the spot back to the Detroit 1, saying that because the coverage man had "possessed" the ball, it should have been whistled dead. Had the action of the down been the same except the coverage man was a wide receiver trying to make a reception, zebras surely would have ruled incompletion.

This is not a good comparison because possession on a kickoff and possession on when a wide receiver catches a pass are determined in different ways. Nice try though.

Note that for the late-slot start, Fox had the call for both Philadelphia at Green Bay and Detroit at Arizona and chose to show most of the nation the former contest, though the latter offered the best combined records (15-3) so far this season.

It's almost like networks choose to televise games that will get the best ratings. That would be crazy to do though.

Why Certain Teams Are On A 2-19 Road Streak: Trailing San Diego 13-3 with four minutes remaining, Oakland faced fourth-and-2 on the Bolts 7 -- and took the field goal. Yes, the Raiders needed 10 points, but a field goal can be launched from long distance, while touchdowns require crossing the goal line. Needless to say, Oakland would not get close to the goal line again.

A field goal can be launched from long distance, but if the Raiders don't convert the fourth down here, then they have essentially lost the game. I may have gone for it if I were Tony Sparano, but he took the guaranteed points so it was a one score game.

TMQ had an item about MIT football three years ago and noted the MIT football team has cheerleaders. Here is a proposed MIT cheer: "Our hands are high our feet are low/and into the clouds our IQs go."

Why do this to your readers?

This action is the "pop pass," a standby of high school offenses, a favorite of Tim Tebow when he was at Florida and a play that is fun to watch. Mississippi State -- coached by Dan Mullen, who was Tebow's position coach at Florida -- tried the pop pass Saturday at Alabama, though the ball clanged incomplete. I've never seen it called in the NFL, perhaps because professional coaches don't want people to say, "You're so desperate you're using high school trick plays."

Yeah, I am sure this is true considering Gregg has detailed at-length how NFL teams are using high school plays in the hurry-up offenses they are running. Gregg wants his readers to believe that NFL coaches are stealing offensive plays from high schools that run up-tempo offenses, but NFL coaches are afraid of using high school trick plays.

In NCAA action, leading by two points at Arizona, mega-underdog Washington had first-and-10 near midfield, 1:33 showing, the hosts down to their final timeout. Had Washington knelt three times, the worst case was punting back to Arizona with about 20 seconds remaining. True, such a punt might have been blocked, but the likely result would have been forcing Arizona to go about 50 yards in 20 seconds with no timeouts.

Or, as often happens, the punt block being run back for a touchdown. Gregg shouldn't only use the assumptive scenarios that support his conclusion, yet he does.

Notre Dame faced a nearly identical situation. Leading Northwestern by three points with 1:35 remaining and the Wildcats out of timeouts, the Irish faced second-and-8 on the Northwestern 31. Notre Dame could have knelt twice, then punted into the end zone with about 20 seconds showing. Instead, Notre Dame ran a play, and that's all you need to know.

But "fortune favors the bold," Gregg! Isn't that what you always used to write? If a head coach is bold then he is telling his team he is playing to win the game and they will respond accordingly by winning the game. Isn't that what Gregg has rammed down his readers' throats for the past few years? Now when a team is bold and the play doesn't work, Gregg ignores his own motto and criticizes the team for being bold and playing to win the game. As always, Gregg bases his criticism on the outcome of the play. What a hack.

True, a coach can't be afraid to have his team run plays, but in the last-minute, clock-killer situation, when the defense is close to certain the call will be a rush between the tackles, risk of a fumble rises as defenders all swipe at the ball.

Does the risk of a fumble rise in this situation? Where's the data you have to support this statement? It seems like Gregg is just spouting bullshit again, basing his bullshit on data he doesn't provide and most likely doesn't even have, while using this bullshit data to support the point he wants to prove.

Buck-Buck-Brawkkkkkk No.3: Trailing 14-6 at the end of the third quarter at Arizona, Detroit punted on fourth-and-1 from midfield. You don't need to know anything else.

Actually I do need to know more. Jim Caldwell was trusting his defense to get the ball back to the offense without the Cardinals scoring more points. How many points did the Cardinals have at this point in the game? 14. How many points did the Cardinals end the game with? 14. So Caldwell was trusting his defense in this situation to hold the Lions without points and they did. I may have gone for it personally, but the whole "you don't need to know anything else" comment is dumb. It's important when judging this decision to know how the Lions defense played after the punt. They gave up zero points. Caldwell was playing field position and this decision did not backfire.

Obscure College Score: Augsburg 62, Bethel 61. The Bethel Royals joined The 500 Club by gaining 589 yards and losing; they also joined The 600 Club by scoring at least 60 points and losing. In heavy snow, Bethel went for two and the win in a second overtime and was denied.

Fortune favors the bold!

Last week the Bears won this accolade for failing to have anyone at all cover Jordy Nelson as he streaked deep for a 73-yard touchdown. TMQ blamed a bad defensive call by Bears defensive coordinator Mel Tucker. Now the Chicago Tribune reports that Lance Briggs made the bad call: "I saw something, tried to check out of it and we don't have a check out of that defense." TMQ has been maintaining for a while that a reason for increased scoring is that NCAA and NFL defenses now make so many last-second, pre-snap checks and shifts, they end up only confusing themselves. This is a prime example.

So Gregg was wrong in attributing this mistake to Mel Tucker, but he was right in that Lance Briggs tried to check out of their defense, and wasn't able to. This goes to prove that NFL defenses make too many pre-snap shifts and checks, so Gregg was right based on his theory that I don't recall him having ever espoused in TMQ. As we learned earlier in this TMQ, Gregg would NEVER claim to have made a statement in TMQ that he didn't actually make, would he? Fortunately, Gregg can now smile smugly at himself in the mirror and know he wasn't wrong.

Next Week: Should punting on fourth-and-short in opposition territory be a penalty?

It should be an automatic touchdown for the opposing team in the opinion of some dude from Florida.