3 comments Gregg Easterbrook is Attending the Super Bowl, But He Won't Sit in the Press Box, Mostly Likely Because He Wasn't Invited To

I have the two TMQ's that I missed over Christmas going to be posted soon. You know I can't miss out on posting a TMQ, even if it will be a little bit late. They will unfortunately be posted after this one though. This week Gregg talks about how cold it is outside, but doesn't talk about what happened to the Crabtree Curse or why the 49ers are in the NFC Divisional Round when he flailed himself off their bandwagon earlier in the year. Gregg also provides "analysis" of the wild card weekend games and of course has 50% of the TMQ content taken up by non-football related topics. Why talk football when you can show pictures of Saturn or discuss whiskey?

"Baby it's cold outside" is the theme of the rest of the NFL season.

Great, I was looking forward to Gregg announcing the official theme of the 2013 NFL season. I hope the weather of every divisional round game is 65 degrees and sunny now.

Both conference title contests may be held at winter-climate sites.

Or they may be held in a dome in Indianapolis and in San Francisco. I love it when Gregg writes something "may" happen. It's just fun to read because he couches his "may" statement around other statements that make the "may" seem like a certainty.

Currently, much of the nation is iced over by a cold wave. Many cities will see record lows this week. On Monday in Chicago and Minneapolis, the temperature never got above zero. It's as if the weather gods are weighing in on the cold-weather Super Bowl plan.

Or, it's as if it is January and it gets cold in January. But sure, I'm guessing the weather, at the specific request from God (not the football gods, but God) is weighing in on the cold-weather Super Bowl plans. Sounds logical.

Your columnist will be freezing his keister off at the Super Bowl next month and, if I'm not shivering too much to take notes, will report what the experience was like.

No it's okay, don't worry about doing this.

(A coming TMQ will detail why I never use the press box, the press box being the worst possible place for sportswriting.)

Again, Gregg doesn't have to worry about doing this. I'm good without it. I'm betting the other sportswriters specifically requested that Gregg not use the press box so they don't have to hear him second-guess every decision the head coach's make and say "Game Over" fifteen times during the game.

Being outdoors in the cold is thought to build character. If so, large numbers of NFL fans are about to get character! Though not the talking heads. ESPN, Fox and NFL Network, which will do week-long location broadcasts leading up to the Super Bowl, all are building indoor sets to keep their on-air types roasty-toasty.

It makes sense. As a viewer I really don't care if the talking heads are in a studio or at the location freezing their ass off. It's not like Terry Bradshaw has to freeze his ass off to show solidarity with the people attending the Super Bowl.

So as thousands freeze in the stands, they can wave to the cozy-warm broadcasters.

This is the absolute smallest of big deals. I seriously doubt those who buy tickets to the Super Bowl will be annoyed that the broadcasters are not out in the freezing cold too.

In playoff news, Kansas City's epic collapse against Indianapolis was caused in part by starters Jamaal Charles, Donnie Avery and Brandon Flowers leaving with concussions.

New Orleans flirted with defeat at Philadelphia when starter Keenan Lewis, who had shut down DeSean Jackson in single coverage, left with a concussion, and Jackson promptly busted loose...Instead he had no helmet, because coaches took it away: the new move when a player is concussed.

These facts mean one team lost a playoff game, and another nearly lost one, partly because concussions were treated as more important than victory. Congratulations to the NFL! This is a major step forward.

We'll see how much of a step forward the NFL has taken when Marshawn Lynch suffers a concussion in the Super Bowl and after being begged to be let back into the game is allowed to continue playing. So keeping these players out of the game was a step forward, but we'll see how much of a step forward some NFL teams have really taken when the stakes are higher.

But the NFL sets the example for 3 million youth-league and 1.1 million high school players who aren't adults and aren't compensated. If concussed NFL athletes go back into games, youth and prep players will feel they should, too -- and there will be 100 cases of head harm to young players whose names we'll never know for each one case at the NFL level.

What about the kids? Gregg Easterbrook is all about the kids. If Keenan Lewis had gone back into the game then young players around the nation would go back into a youth league game because their hero Keenan Lewis went back into an NFL playoff game after suffering a concussion.

A publicly subsidized enterprise must set a good example for the public. If the NFL were to pay its own way, perhaps NFL players could run any risk with their health.

So Gregg believes that if the NFL didn't take subsidies then there would not be an obligation to set an example for "the kids"? This doesn't make sense to me. Why doesn't the NFL have an obligation to youth leagues if the NFL isn't subsidized in some way by tax payers? The obligation to the kids just magically disappears? This doesn't make sense to me.

TMQ has been reminding Denver Broncos fans this season that high-scoring teams tend to tail off late. The Bengals averaged 34.7 points per game at home during the regular season, then wheezed out at only 10 points scored at home in the playoffs.

It also so happens that the Bengals were playing one of the best teams in the AFC, which meant they were probably going to score fewer points than they had all season. Gregg can't seem to understand the talent level of the competition is a factor in whether a team scores a lot of points or not and in the postseason the talent level of the competition is increased.

The two highest-scoring football-factory teams of 2013, Baylor and Oregon, both exhibited the tail-off effect. Oregon opened 8-0 at 56 points per game, then closed 3-2 at 29 points per game. Baylor opened 9-0 at 61 points per game, then closed 2-2 at 32 points per game. 

Again, and this isn't difficult to understand, the caliber of team Oregon and Baylor were playing was higher. Oregon ended the year playing Texas, Oregon State, Stanford, Utah, and Arizona. These are all teams that were in a bowl game and Stanford was in the Rose Bowl. Baylor ended the year playing Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas and UCF. Three of those teams were in a bowl game and Baylor played UCF in a BCS bowl game. The talent level of the competition was higher, so the scoring is decreased. It's not a tail-off effect, but the effect of playing a higher level of competition.

Very high-scoring teams declining to roughly half as much scoring down the stretch is exactly what happened to the 2007 Patriots, until 2013 the NFL's highest-scoring team. They declined from 36.8 points per game in the regular season to 14 points in the Super Bowl.

The Patriots played the best team in the NFC in the Super Bowl. It was doubtful they were going to score 38 points (like they did against the Giants in the last game of the year) again because the Giants had two weeks to prepare. The Giants were a higher level of competition than the Patriots had faced for most of the season.

Since the current playoff format was adopted in 1990, home teams in the divisional round are 67-25, a 73 percent winning figure. The reason the hosts are at home in the first place is that they are the best teams.

#analysis

Equally important, in the divisional round, hosts have spent a bye week relaxing in hot tubs while their opponents were out being pounded. Home teams dominate the NFL divisional round -- check-mark them in your office pool. You don't even need to know who's playing!

Actually, it would be smarter to pick three of the home teams and one away team since the winning percentage of home teams in the divisional round is 73%. The odds say one home team will lose this weekend (ahem, Carolina).

For the championship round, nobody's had the previous week off, and the Super Bowl is just one W away. Players leave everything on the field in championship contests.

Thanks for the hyperbole, Gregg. Nobody believed in you. There are no individuals that write TMQ because it was a real team effort.

But the Kansas City collapse could as easily be blamed on a coaching decision. Game tied at 7 early, Kansas City reached third-and-goal on the Colts' 1. The Chiefs used a simplistic power dive play -- no misdirection -- and were stuffed. Now it's fourth-and-goal from the 1. Andy Reid sent in the kicking unit, leaving four points on the field, in a contest Kansas City ultimately would lose by one point.

Andy Reid definitely should have used his time machine to jump ahead in the future and find out the Colts would lose this game by one point, then decide to go for the touchdown instead of the field goal. After all, in a game where his team was winning 38-10 it must be the four points Reid left on the board in this situation that are the real reason the Chiefs lost this game.

Last season when he was Eagles' head coach, Philadelphia was trailing 2-8 Carolina at home on "Monday Night Football." The Eagles faced fourth-and-2 in Carolina territory and, at 3-7, had nothing to lose. Reid sent in the kicking unit to loud and well-deserved boos. You don't need to know anything else about the contest.

Actually I do need to know more about this game to decide if this one decision is what caused the Eagles to lose to the Panthers. What was the final score in the game (30-22 was the score) and when did Andy Reid choose to punt (in the fourth quarter and it wasn't fourth-and-2, but it was fourth-and-1...not that Gregg ever gets facts wrong of course)? Knowing all of this information, it's clear Reid should not have punted in this situation, but merely knowing he punted the football isn't all I need to know about the contest.

It's fourth-and-goal on the 1 in the playoffs on a day the Kansas City offense would gain 513 yards.

In Reid's defense, it was early in the game and he didn't know his offense would gain 513 yards. Only using the ability of hindsight is it possible to have this knowledge.

One single yard here might have meant the team's first postseason victory in two decades. Instead Reid did the "safe" thing, and in football tactics, the "safe" thing usually is dangerous.

I'm not arguing that Reid should not have gone for it, but argue the point using facts and logic rather than hindsight. Knile Davis had tried to gain one yard on the two previous tries and was unable to gain that one yard against the Colts defense, so one can see why Reid at least chose not to run the ball again in this situation.

Sweet 'N' Sour Merges with Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! San Francisco leading 20-17 with 7 minutes remaining at Lambeau Field, the hosts faced second-and-2 on the visitors' 34. Defensive coordinator Vic Fangio -- was there ever a better defensive coordinator's name? -- sent a corner blitz from the left of Aaron Rodgers. The blitzer did not contain; Rodgers stepped around him and hits Randall Cobb for a 25-yard gain. Sour for the Niners. 

Right, but the blitz call was not the issue here. The issue was the missed tackle. No matter the call from the defensive coordinator, if the defense doesn't execute the play call well then the defensive play call won't work. So it's ridiculous to believe the blitz call was the issue in this situation because if the corner had tackled Rodgers and not let him step out of the pocket, then Rodgers would have been hit for a loss.

Contest tied, San Francisco reached third-and-8 at the Green Bay 38 with 1:13 remaining, holding one timeout. On a very cold day, this is not realistic field goal range: Green Bay doesn't need a sack, just an incompletion. That cannot seriously be a seven-man blitz! The cornerback blitz from the left of Colin Kaepernick did not contain. Kaepernick spun around him and ran for the first down;

Again, the issue is not the play call. The issue is the blitzing corner didn't keep containment on Kaepernick. The play call was not the issue, the issue was the execution of the play call was the problem. If the Packers had not blitzed and simply run a simple Cover 2 then Kaepernick could still run for the first down if the defensive linemen don't successfully keep Kaepernick in the pocket. Blitzing wasn't the issue here. The issue was the poor execution of the play call.

Why defensive coordinator Dom Capers would call an all-out blitz against a mobile quarterback whose team was out of field goal range is anybody's guess. On both the blitzes, lack of contain allowed quarterbacks to make big plays.

Right, the lack of contain is what allowed the quarterbacks to make big plays, not the blitz play call. 

The outside pass-rusher should never cut inside to get the shortest line to the quarterback; that just allows the quarterback to get outside. Rushers who have the quarterback in their sights are taught to slow down a little: if you come at maximum speed, that makes you easy to step around.

I've never heard this in my life. I've never heard that a rusher needs to slow down upon getting closer to the quarterback because it makes it easier for the quarterback to evade the rusher if he (the rusher) is running full speed. It sounds like this is bullshit.

NFL ticket prices keep rising though the NFL is rolling in government subsides, shutting average people out of attending games while reserving plenty of space for the rich. This is just one of many things wrong with NFL economics.

Never one to fail to self promote, that link Gregg provides is a link to an article written by Gregg Easterbrook for "The Atlantic."

Another reason for trouble selling playoff tickets is two curves moving in opposite directions -- HD TVs make football viewing ever more attractive, while the high cost and hassle factor of attending a game makes being there in person ever more unattractive.

Not every NFL team had trouble selling out their playoff tickets. Cincinnati had trouble because...well, I don't know why...while Green Bay struggled because it was going to be historically cold outside during the game. Gregg has a point, but not every team had trouble selling playoff tickets, so it isn't an NFL-wide epidemic.

The NFL needs to do a serious rethinking of the stadium experience. Forget the games; the stadium experience is a product, and the league keeps trying to charge more for less quality.

And yet fans keep buying tickets to the NFL games and there is a very healthy secondary market for fans who have season tickets who want to resell these tickets.

California team visiting Wisconsin in January, kickoff temperature 5 degrees, Colin Kaepernick came out with bare arms and no glove on his throwing hand. Obviously posing nude in the offseason was good experience for him!

Gregg's obsession with Colin Kaepernick, no, nearly any male athlete who poses nude or nearly-nude, has no bounds. I'm not sure Gregg can think of Kaepernick without thinking of him naked.

TMQ contends that Cold Coach = Victory. When Jim Harbaugh trotted out for the kickoff in slacks and a pullover -- surely Under Armour ColdGear artfully concealed -- while Mike McCarthy was bundled for a K2 ascent, I thought I had the perfect example. The 49ers jumped to a halftime lead. Then after intermission, Harbaugh/West donned a heavy parka, and the Packers surged ahead. A scientific test case! Harbaugh/West cold in first half (control), not cold in second (dependent variable). But my long-sought scientific proof proved elusive when the Niners' winning field goal sailed as the clock hit all-naughts.

The fact Gregg wastes his time thinking of this theory and then wasting words determining whether his theory is correct or not should tell the uninformed how useless many of Gregg's theories included in TMQ truly are. What a head coach wears during a football game has no bearing on the outcome of the game.

San Francisco started strong: The Niners are on a 49-0 scoring streak in the first quarter, something Carolina must take into account.

Yes, the Panthers must take into account that the 49ers may try to score points during the first quarter of their divisional playoff game this week. Plan accordingly for this surprise tactic!

Now Gregg explains (perhaps correctly) why the officials didn't call pass interference penalties in the San Francisco-Green Bay game, then posits a different theory that the officials just wanted the game to end, while finally ending this paragraph admonishing the officials for wanting the game to end as if this assumption is now a fact.

Zebras allowed a lot of contact between defensive backs of both teams and receivers -- half a dozen defensive pass-interference no-calls occurred, and there should have been offensive pass interference against Jordy Nelson on his touchdown catch. Officials tend to allow more pass interference and holding in the playoffs, because they want the players to decide who wins.

Well, that explains why more pass interference penalties weren't called. It's entirely possible this is the most reasonable explanation for the lack of penalties.

And in this case, at 5 degrees, zebras seemed to want the game to end as quickly as possible so they could get indoors.

Maybe, but this is speculation. I think the first explanation Gregg gave made more sense, but Gregg is never one to pass up the chance to turn an assumption into a fact to admonish someone so he keeps going...

Penalties stop the clock, and lead to discussions with coaches. Hochuli's crew called just seven penalties for both teams combined, quite a low number. (Five were accepted.)

Again, this doesn't mean the officials were not calling penalties simply for the sake of getting indoors quicker. There were a few missed penalties, just like there are a few missed penalties in nearly every NFL game.

Yes it was really cold, but rules are rules -- wanting the game over with is no excuse for pretending not to see pass interference.

Well, so there we go. What started with a reasonable explanation for the lack of pass interference calls has turned into Gregg speculating a different reason for the lack of pass interference, followed by Gregg just now assuming his speculated reason is some sort of a fact and accusing the officials in the 49ers-Packers game of pretending not to see pass interference.

TMQ's Law of Short Yardage holds -- do a little dance if you want to gain that yard.

And like the TMQ law that says the coach who wears the least clothing in cold weather wins the game, it is not based on facts, but is based mostly on anecdotal evidence.

On short yardage, misdirection is essential, to make defenders hesitate for a second rather than come upfield full steam.

Actually on short yardage runs a good push by the offensive line is essential. If the offensive line gets a significant push then there doesn't need to be any misdirection involved. Gregg will actually show an example of the Saints offensive line getting a good push against the Eagles, which meant the Saints didn't need to use misdirection. The push by the offensive line is more important than "doing a little dance."

Michigan State leading 24-20 with 1:47 remaining in the Rose Bowl -- excuse me, the Rose Bowl Game -- Stanford faced fourth-and-1. The Cardinal lined up jumbo without wide receivers, everyone packed in close to the quarterback, then simply plunged straight ahead. No man-in-motion, no shift, no misdirection, no fakes of any kind. You don't need to know anything else about the contest.

I don't like it when Gregg writes "you don't need to know anything else about the contest" as if this one play decided the football game and there wasn't a series of plays just as important as this one that decided the outcome of this game. This was an important play, but just knowing the Cardinals had a ball play call on fourth-and-1 doesn't say why/how they lost the Rose Bowl.

Early, the Kansas City starters looked well-rested, after sitting out their regular-season finale. Indianapolis made boneheaded mistakes: Trent Richardson auto-fumbled without being hit, Donnie Avery caught a 79-yard Kansas City touchdown pass when Colts safety Antoine Bethea just let Avery ran past and didn't cover anyone.

"And you don't need to know anything else about the contest."

That's what Gregg would have written had the Chiefs not ended up blowing this game, but since the Colts ended up coming back, Gregg is much more kind to the Colts. He says:

Kansas City made plays early, Indianapolis made plays late, and in the NFL, it's often about who is playing best at the end. In the second half and overtime this season, the Colts are plus-94 in points.

And:

The Chiefs led by 28 points early in the third quarter -- but Indianapolis had just as much time to come back as Kansas City had used building the lead.

The outcome of the game depends on whether Gregg criticizes a single play for having lost the game for a football team. If the team loses then Gregg criticizes this one play as the reason for the loss and hits us with "And you don't need to know anything else about the contest." If that football team comes back to win the game, then Gregg doesn't criticize the single play he would normally criticize and hits us with "Team X had just as much time to come back as Team B had building the lead."

Grand reduction targets far in the future sound great -- the California grand goal was announced with much fanfare by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, while Obama grandly has said the United States should by 2050 cut emissions to 83 percent below the level of 2005. Not by 84 percent, not by 82 percent, by 83 percent! Goals for decades distant can be dramatic because the politicians involved know they'll be long gone from power, if not from the Earth, when the goal comes due.

I can understand this point, but politicians are also keenly aware of the legacy they leave after they die. As much of a President's legacy is decided in retrospect as it is decided in the immediate impact of the decisions that a President will make. This goes for a governor as well, so I doubt President Obama or Governor Schwarzenegger were making dumb decisions now thinking it doesn't matter what happens after they die. It's part of their legacy and I would think a great legacy is important to a high-ranking politician.

So when fourth-and-short with a good chance of success was available, Lewis did the 'safe' thing. When there was no hope, Lewis went for it. Footnote: when Lewis sent in the kicking unit on fourth-and-short, Andy Dalton passively trudged off the field. Brett Favre, Tom Brady, RG III -- they would have gone nuts if the coach wouldn't let them try to win in this situation. Next season, Dalton needs to become a leader.

Is acting like a baby and undermining your coach in public showing "leadership"? I'm not entirely sure this qualifies as leadership to make it clear you question your coach's decision.

Later, Lewis ordered a punt on fourth-and-1 in San Diego territory, then punted again on fourth-and-5 from midfield. That's playing not to lose, rather than playing to win. Dalton did not protest any of these passive, wimpy coaching decisions, each time trotting off the field with his head bowed. In the final moments, Bengals down two scores, then Lewis went for it on fourth down. Everything was exactly like it had been last season in the playoffs -- hyper-conservative afraid-of-my-own-shadow tactics when the game was close, risks when it no longer mattered, and Dalton acting like a JV player who's afraid to talk back to his high school coach.

I don't think I completely understand what Gregg Easterbrook wants from Andy Dalton. He's the quarterback, while Marvin Lewis is the head coach. It's fine to disagree with Lewis privately or even go to the sidelines and encourage Lewis to give the offense a chance to pick up the first down. But stomping off the field and acting like a child at a coach's decision isn't a productive action.

As for the Bolts, they ran two corner blitzes in the first half, both times hitting Dalton hard as the corners came unblocked.

Stop me before I blitz again! 

Maybe blitzing does work sometimes.

The Bolts have surged to 5-2 in TMQ's quirky Authentic Games metric, and now trail only Denver and New Orleans.

It seems this week the Authentic Games metric is predicting that the Chargers are the second-best team in the AFC. Unfortunately they play the best team in the AFC this weekend. What a wonderful metric that predicts who will make the Super Bowl and the prediction changes on a weekly basis. I'm not one to criticize prediction metrics, but if I were producing a prediction metric I would ensure a new prediction isn't made every week. It sort of ruins the authenticity of the metric that is supposed to predict something when the metric doesn't actually predict anything but only acts in a reactionary manner to what happened in the previous weeks' games.

Leading 35-17, the Blue Devils were at the Aggies' 1-yard line with 2 seconds remaining before intermission. Cutcliffe sent in the field goal team. Normally a 21-point halftime lead would be considered secure, but Texas A&M has one of the country's best offenses -- and in the second half, had as much time to come back as Duke used in building the lead.

I didn't think this was a terrible decision by Cutcliffe. Duke was getting the ball to begin the second half (I believe) and he had a chance to tack three more points on to the lead to put Duke up 21 points at halftime.

Then in the third quarter, Duke took a field goal from the Aggies 2. On the night, Duke averaged 8.1 yards per offensive snap, including 6.3 yards per rush, against a low-ranked Texas A&M defense. Doing the "safe" thing twice at the Texas A&M goal line cost Duke dearly in a game ultimately lost by four points.

Yes, if Duke didn't convert either of these first downs then they would have lost by ten points instead of four points. I prefer coaches to go for it on fourth down in many cases, but Gregg can't base his criticism entirely on the outcome of the game while assuming both fourth downs would have been converted. At that time, the field goal going into halftime wasn't a bad move and there's no guarantee Duke would have converted both fourth downs and therefore won the game. There's a chance Duke wouldn't have converted either first down, especially since their best running back wasn't playing in the game, and they would have lost by more than four points.

Philadelphia scored to take a 24-23 lead with a little under five minutes remaining; on the kickoff to New Orleans, the Eagles were called for horse-collar tackle, positioning the visitors at midfield for their winning drive. The call was correct, but why is the horse collar illegal? TMQ is all for strict enforcement of helmet-to-helmet rules. Grabbing a player's shoulder pads does not seem especially risky. I've watched way too much football and not seen a runner injured by a horse-collar tackle.

Terrell Owens famously torn ligaments and broke his leg when being tackled using a horse collar tackle. Gregg is either blind or doesn't watch enough football because you don't have to look hard to see players who have been injured by a horse collar tackle.

News from Space: If you are in the mood to be awed, check these photos from Saturn.

I'd like to be awed by a well-written TMQ where the author makes statements backed by factual data or where the author doesn't make statements without even doing a Google search to see if his statement is correct.

Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels, but sustain or stop drives. New Orleans leading 13-7 in the third quarter, Philadelphia faced third-and-4. Riley Cooper, alone on a crossing pattern, dropped a perfectly thrown pass; he would have gained at least 20 yards. The Nesharim punted; the Saints drove the other way for a 20-7 margin.

Again, highlight reels are 30 seconds long, so plenty of important plays won't be contained in the highlights. If a person looks to a highlight reel to determine what plays in a game were important then that person deserves the small measure of information he will receive.

"The Saints' defense may determine who wins this game," yours truly wrote last week. Verily, it came to pass.

The Seahawks' defense may determine who will win the game between the Saints and the Seahawks. Now everyone tell me how smart I am when this comes to pass and be sure to include "verily" when telling me how smart I am.

Gregg really lowers the bar for being correct when wanting to get credit for such an obvious statement and believing he is actually telling his readers something. Of course the Saints defense may determine who will win the Saints-Eagles game. The Saints/Eagles offense also may determine who wins the game.

(Gregg made this statement in the TMQ leading up to this Saints-Eagles game and I will post the TMQ he stated this AFTER I post this one. I know, it's confusing)

What made the Eagles offense go this season was No. 1 rusher LeSean McCoy. An offense with a back who regularly snaps off big gains, and averaged 5.1 yards per carry, is formidable. New Orleans held McCoy to 3.7 yards a carry and, through discipline, contained his cutbacks: McCoy's best run was just 11 yards. Taking away McCoy frustrated the host's tempo tactics.

Which diverted attention from the question: With his high-powered second-ranked offense, why did Chip Kelly order a punt on fourth-and-short in opposition territory?

You may have answered your own question, Gregg. Perhaps Chip Kelly didn't want to give Drew Brees a shorter field than necessary. 

TMQ contends that short-yardage plays must involve misdirection. Yet twice on its game-winning late drive, the Saints converted on third-and-1 and with a simple quarterback sneak, no theatrics.

It's almost like Gregg makes these rules up and they aren't factually correct.

New Orleans' blocking was terrific, especially from the center of the line -- Ben Grubbs, let go by the Ravens, Jahri Evans, who played in Division II, and undrafted Brian De La Puente.

In the TMQ before this one, Gregg bemoaned that both Saints guards made the All-Pro team over Zane Beadles. Maybe he has a better understanding of why now.

Of the head coaches who labored under Snyder, not a one remains an NFL head coach. Steve Spurrier returned to the college ranks; Norv Turner and Terry Robiskie are NFL assistants; Joe Gibbs does his stuff with NASCAR; Marty Schottenheimer and Jim Zorn are OOF -- Out of Football. Schottenheimer's last football gig was in 2011 as coach and general manager of the Virginia Destroyers; Zorn was last seen auditioning for a CFL position. Schottenheimer is 200-126-1 as an NFL head coach, and no one wants him. His years in San Diego didn't help, but the big knock against Schottenheimer seems to be that his name is associated with Snyder's.

Actually, I would bet the big knock against Schottenheimer is his age (he's 70 years old) combined with the fact he has a reputation for not being able to win the big playoff game. I doubt the season Schottenheimer coached the Redskins is what is keeping him from employment as an NFL head coach.

But Kansas City was hardly blameless in collapsing. From the point at which Kansas City led 38-10, Reid called 23 passing plays and 10 rushes. Six of the passes fell incomplete, stopping the clock and preserving time for the Colts' comeback. True, both Charles and his backup were out injured by the late third quarter.

I'm not going to defend Andy Reid's play-calling, but the fact the Chiefs were on their third-string backup is more than just a "true, but..." issue. It's a major problem.

But the Chiefs have a third-string back and also have Dexter McCluster, a college tailback. They could have carried out clock-grinding tactics.

Dexter McCluster isn't the clock-grinding out type of running back at all. He's 5'8" and 170 pounds. But Gregg won't let facts get in the way of his argument.

Reid's second-half passing calls did result in some first downs. But they not only stopped the clock for Indianapolis, they kept Indianapolis alive psychologically. Seeing Smith constantly heave-ho the ball into the air helped Indianapolis think a collapse could happen.

This makes not of sense. Why would the fact the Chiefs are throwing the football make the Colts think a collapse could happen?

Next Week: TMQ starts a religious denomination that is pro-topless but anti-gambling.

But only if it is men named "Colin Kaepernick" going topless, right Gregg? 

4 comments MMQB Review: Full Blown Precociousness Edition

Last week in MMQB, Peter King put the St. Louis Rams in the running as being a team to watch in the NFC West. This week the Rams lost to the Jets at home. It's almost like Peter jumped the gun a little bit based on the Rams performance against the San Francisco 49ers. He would never do that. Fortunately, the national election is over, so maybe Peter won't give his political opinion any time soon. This week Peter talks Gronk, encourages Ben Roethlisberger to heal and tells us the riveting, tense story of him almost getting a parking ticket. It's like the sequel to "Argo."

Eleven main characters from an eventful Week 11 that had its share of drama.

Super duper! That's why I watch the NFL. Screw the competitive spirit of two teams playing a game at a high level, I watch the NFL to see if Jim Harbaugh will flip over a table in anger at something Joe Vitt said or if a comment Mike Mularky says to Bruce Arians gets totally misconstrued in a way to where it sounded like Mike Mularky didn't think Pete Carroll was a very good NFL head coach. I think Mike totally meant it the way he said, but Bruce still covered for him and I don't know why, especially since Pete totally helped Bruce get his job with the Colts, which Bruce will deny of course. Drrrrrrama! 

1.Baltimore defensive keystone Terrell Suggs, who was supposed to be in his seventh month of rehab for an Achilles tear right now, prancing off Heinz Field,

BUT DID HE PRANCE LIKE A CHILD?

2. The Gronk, New England tight end Ron Gronkowski,

There's another Gronk brother? This one is named Ron? I'm guessing he has a mustache and enjoys karate flicks from a by-gone era.

Before you freak too freakishly, Patsland, you'll have Aaron Hernandez and Visanthe Shiancoe this week to sub for Gronkle (the Gronk, Gronkle, Gronkie ... all nicknames NFLNet's Ian Rapoport is trying to trademark on Mr. Gronk). About 31 other teams in the league would kill for Hernandez.

Whatever. The Panthers don't want Aaron Hernandez. They already have one talented tight end they don't make it a priority to get the ball to. They don't need more talent on offense because it will only highlight the lack of a coherent offensive game plan.

5. Ben Roethlisberger and his dislocated first rib missed the 13-10 loss to Baltimore, and boy, was he missed. I'm not optimistic about him returning soon, and neither is a leading thoracic surgeon.

I don't know why, but that sentence made me laugh. I'm not entirely sure the Broncos will win the Super and neither is a leading authority in the field of penile implants.

Who is this leading thoracic surgeon? Turns out it is McDreamy from "Grey's Anatomy," so fear not Steelers fans. We all know McDreamy is way off his game since the plane crash, so I fully expect Ben Roethlisberger to be back very soon.

6. The sixth playoff seed in the NFC. Look at the combatants for it: Seattle, Tampa Bay and Minnesota, all 6-4, and a pair of 5-5s: New Orleans (the Saints may not lose again this season) and Dallas.

I'm going on a limb and saying if the Saints don't lose again this season they will have the inside track on the #6 seed in the NFC.

10. Robert Griffin III just had a game for the ages. Anyone notice?

Not if you didn't Peter! We all know if you don't watch or pay attention to a game then that means no one else paid attention or watched that game either. 

1. There is no best team in the NFL. I say it's New England, but let's be honest: If the Patriots played Houston or Baltimore or Denver tomorrow, how confident would you be? And the AFC is supposed to be the weak conference this year -- remember that.

And the Rams are a sleeping giant in the NFC West. I've written it all down, don't worry.

Coaches have 45 active players each game. They don't have a "second team'' of the point-after-try unit. The PAT is one of the most risk-free plays in football. Rodney Harrison, the former Patriots safety now in the NBC studio with me on Sunday nights, didn't get taken off the kickoff team in routs.

I did not know this. Good job by Peter to tell his readers some important tidbit of information. Bad job for...well, a lot of other things.

Roethlisberger has no sense when he'll be able to return. But according to Dr. Clark Fuller, the director of Thoracic Surgery at St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif., Roethlisberger has to be careful about returning too soon because of damage it can do to nerves in the right shoulder and arm, major blood vessels in the area, and, as Roethlisberger admitted last week, the aorta around the heart.

(an angry mob with pitchforks scream) Ben Roethlisberger has no heart. He's a rapist!

"This is not about being a tough guy,'' said Fuller, who has neither examined Roethlisberger nor seen his X-rays or scans. So he made it clear he was speaking generally about the dislocation of the first rib, which is connected to the breast bone on one side and the spine on the other.

Great, this is one of those "I know nothing about this specific medical situation but I'm the only guy Peter King could get on the phone so I'm going to give my opinion as if it were specific to the situation when really it is a generalized statement based on what knowledge I have of the medical situation." These are always handy and ripe for some speculation. This doctor has enough information and knowledge to give an opinion, just not a 100% educated opinion.

Fuller said he thought Roethlisberger would miss a minimum of four weeks. "I do remember their coach, Mike Tomlin, not allowing that safety [Ryan Clark] to play in altitude in Denver because of his sickle-cell disease,'' Fuller said. "That is a good sign, to me. I believe he won't risk the health of Roethlisberger."

Now this doctor is an expert on the thought process of Mike Tomlin and how he handled the situation of "that safety," Ryan Clark. Got it. Clark missing one game and Roethlisberger missing four games is a completely different thing. If Roethlisberger says he can go and the Steelers doctors say he can go, I'm betting he goes ASAP. Of course, I know as much about the situation as this good doctor, so what do I know?...other than Byron Leftwich is a downgrade at quarterback and the Steelers want to be in the playoffs.

This is modern football at its Monopoly-money best: Justin Blackmon and Johnson became the first two receivers in a game ever to each go over 200 yards. They combined for 21 catches and 509 yards, for a 24.2-yard average reception. I'm incredulous just writing that sentence. Where will it all end?

Where will all this pass-wacky offense end? I don't know, Gregg Easterbrook.

One other interesting note from Ellenbogen, the chairman of the department of neurological surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine. He attended a FIFA-sponsored conference on head trauma three weeks ago in Zurich and came away with respect for rules.

Rules?

That's right: rules.

Okay, but do these "rules" even count?

"Rules count,'' he said.

Well then, I like rules.

We forget Freeman is 24 years old. He's six months younger than Ryan Tannehill.

No Peter, "we" haven't forgotten this. He's younger than Ryan Tannehill and five years younger than Brandon Weeden. This has all been kept in mind by us.

Well, I did the all-time stupid thing Saturday. Thought I was direct-messaging agent David Canter on Twitter Saturday, asked him to call me, and, much to my terror, found it went to all of my followers. I bet it was up for six seconds before I took it down, but that was long enough to enable quite a few loyal Peter Kingites (and gee, thanks, Deadspin) to post the number all over the place.

Gosh, Deadspin. Don't you know Peter wants to use his fame and connections for only things that help him out, like getting a new contract when his contract with Sports Illustrated runs out in January of 2013? He doesn't want all this attention on him if it isn't going to be good attention. What is this world coming to when a person can't reap the rewards of fame without any of the hassles?

Phone calls received in the five hours between posting and canceling of the number: 373.

Text messages received in that time: 255.

Angriest text message, from the 773 (suburban Chicago) area code: "You ------- skunkheaded ------. Go ---- Favre. Have a nice day."

Love my fans!

That's probably a bit much to specifically text Peter in this manner, but Peter can be rest assured while thinking of that big pile of money Sports Illustrated or another sports site will back up to his apartment that the hatred will be worth it. People don't like you when you are in the public eye and write some mean shit about you, it's part of the deal.

Since their 1-3 start, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have gone 5-1 and averaged 34 points a game in doing so. On the face of it Josh Freeman's 94.6 quarterback rating and 21-7 touchdown-to-interception differential seem to indicate a substantial reason for the turnabout, but that would be too simple; Freeman's season (and his performance here) has been far more enigmatic than that.

The short game. He struggles on shorter throws. When he has to read linebackers in coverage and when the space is condensed, his passer rating drops from 125.6 on those deep throws to 86.2 on throws between zero and nine yards. Compare this with Peyton Manning, who rates 95.8 on deep throws but 115.9 on those same underneath passes.

BREAKING NEWS: Josh Freeman isn't a better quarterback than Peyton Manning.

1. New England (7-3). No Gronk for a while, but I'd be surprised if the Patriots don't score enough to beat the Jets Thanksgiving night. This is a ridiculously explosive team, with a defense that played better Sunday than it had in recent weeks. I had to think about the top of the rankings for some time Sunday night, and the fact that no one can stop the Patriots tipped the scales. In their last three games: nine takeaways, two defensive touchdowns (both Sunday), 47.0 points per game.

This is the same team that Peter is concerned in this very MMQB won't get a first round bye in the playoffs without Gronkowski, but he has them as the best team in the NFL without Gronkowski. I'm not saying Peter's power rankings have to make sense, but I tend to wonder about these small contradictions.

2. Houston (9-1). Now for the Three-Game Trip From Heck: at Detroit (Thanksgiving afternoon), at Tennessee (Titans 10-4 in last 14 against Texans), at New England. AFC home-field in the playoffs on the line.

5. Atlanta (9-1). Sorry, Falcons fans. Just seeing too much out of this team, especially on offense, that I don't like the last couple of weeks.

Apparently the Texans giving up 37 points to the Jaguars at home doesn't concern Peter.
  
10. Pittsburgh (6-4). That was just plain weird, seeing strong-armed (or so we thought) Byron Leftwich wind up, throw bombs downfield, and have them flutter to earth three or five or eight yards short. 

Yes, "we" did think this. You weren't wrong, Peter, because everyone thought Byron Leftwich had a strong arm. It must feel good to be rarely wrong because you KNOW everyone is thinking the same things you are thinking. 

12. Seattle (6-4). On his bye Sunday, Russell Wilson went to church and when he left, he told the minister, "Go Hawks!" He went grocery shopping and told his checkout gal, "Go Hawks!'' He went to ... You get the message. The guy ends most conversations -- with the media and with real people -- with "Go Hawks!''

That doesn't sound annoying at all.

Offensive Players of the Week

Robert Griffin III, QB, Washington. The best game of a precocious rookie season:

Precocious, dammit. It's a precocious season Robert Griffin is having. He doesn't even know what the fuck he is doing, it's so cute. He's like a child. Like a little baby playing football, shitting his pants in the middle of the game because he isn't potty-trained.

Defensive Players of the Week

John Abraham, DE, Atlanta. One of these days -- I have no idea when -- he'll start playing like his age, 34. He still sprints around end as though he's a decade younger.

A decade younger? Like a child? That seals it, John Abraham is such a precocious little guy.

Von Miller, OLB, Denver. He could win this every week. Another ridiculous game in the division-defining win over San Diego, with three sacks and two forced fumbles. With 24.5 sacks in his first 25 NFL games, he's approaching Lawrence Taylor/Derrick Thomas impact ... and he's only 23.

You know what I think Von Miller is? Take a guess, it's a hard one to guess. Making an impact at the age of 23 that's just so precocious of him. Von Miller plays football with a binky in his mouth and can't even eat without a bib. He's like a child. A child who Peter King just can't take his eyes off.

Goat of the Week

Andrew Luck, QB, Indianapolis.

Come on, man. I know Peter hears the criticism that he has been fawning over Andrew Luck too much, so he takes any chance he can get to criticize Luck as if to show us he can be fair and balanced. I understand Luck threw three interceptions, but there are plenty of other goats on the Colts team and I think it is a bit unfair to name Andrew Luck the "Goat of the Week."

The mantra around the Colts all week, entering their game at explosive New England, was they couldn't turn it over. Give the Patriots any freebies, and the Colts had no shot. We can debate whether it really would have mattered in New England's 59-24 win, but let's be honest here: Luck handed it over four times, leading to 21 New England points. Let's say he converts two of those four into Indy touchdowns. Is it so far-fetched that the Colts would have been in the game late, say, behind 45-38 as the clock wound down

No, it isn't far-fetched, but it is very speculative. If Luck didn't throw those interceptions or fumble the ball, then the Colts may have scored a touchdown, or maybe not. Luck had a terrible game, but he's a rookie quarterback going on the road against the defending AFC Champions. He struggled and that makes him a "goat?" I think it is unfair and Peter is just coming down hard on Andrew Luck to make it seem like he doesn't always fawn over him. It's forced criticism, especially since there are probably 10 other players or coaches who would be better placed in this"goat" spot.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Three of them:

ONLY three? How did we get so lucky?

Nov. 14. Step on the Hertz bus at O'Hare. Andy Williams and a chorus are warbling. "Ding dong, ding dong ... It's the most wonderful time of the year ... '' Christmas carols eight days before Thanksgiving. Why, America? Why?

It is official that Peter King is turning into Gregg Easterbrook before our very eyes. If you don't like the Christmas carols, ignore them. The world isn't yours for you to decide what music gets played on the radio and what music doesn't.

And this: There's a Starbucks in downtown Indy, on the circle surrounding the Soldiers and Sailors Monument, and I pulled up behind an Indianapolis police officer in front of it, put my flashers on, and ran in to get coffee. On my way out, five minutes later, the officer rolls down his window and says to me, "That your car?''

"Yes,'' I said.

"Need your driver's license,'' he said. "I can't believe you did that, right behind a cop. You parked in front of the hydrant.''

"Bitch, I'm Peter King. Haven't you read my columns? I'm better than you. Move away from me middle class human being. I'm Peter King and I needed coffee. I'm rich and feel like I can pretty much do or complain about whatever I want to. My need to get coffee was so urgent, I didn't feel the need to obey the law."

"My God, I never saw it,'' I said. "What an idiot I am."

Suuuuuure, Peter.  You got that caffeine-craving and weren't thinking clearly. Stick to that story and you will go far.

He took my license, wrote out the ticket, handed it to me, and I said, "Sorry.'' I got in the car, and as I got set to leave, the officer got out of his car and gave me the stop sign, walking to the passenger window. I rolled it down.

"Give me that ticket,'' he said. "You were just in there for a couple minutes.''

"No, I did it,'' I said. "It's OK. My fault.''

And I started to realize: This man is about to rip up a ticket, for whatever reason, and I'm trying to argue him out of it?

Perhaps you are trying to talk him out of it because you broke the law, no matter how ignorantly, and realize you are about to get a ticket ripped up because you are famous? Perhaps you realized this same fame you semi-complain about when your phone number was posted on the Internet just saved you money on a ticket?

Officer: "No, I'll take it. Just come back and see us. Say nice things about our city."

Me: "Hey, thanks a lot."

Say nice things about Indy, the greatest city on the face of the earth, kind sir? Sure thing!

This was Peter's not-so-subtle and not-so-humble reminder that he is famous and people know his name. He has many leather-bound books and his office smells of mahogany. It's very important to Peter that his readers know he got out of a ticket because of his celebrity. It's fairly infuriating that Peter passes this story along to his readers, mostly because I'm not sure the point of telling this story in MMQB other than to brag how he got out of a ticket because of his fame.

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 11:

d. Phil Dawson -- with his fifth 50-yard-plus field goal of the season Sunday in Dallas -- now has a comfortable lead as the NFL's 2012 All-Pro kicker.

But what about Greg Zuerlein? He's precocious and has a cool nickname.

g. Arian Foster's in-traffic cuts. Things of beauty. How'd this man not get drafted?

If I remember correctly, it was because of injuries and the fact he didn't play well in his senior year.

I'm sorry, was Peter not looking for a real answer and wanted a cutesy, fun answer?

r. Just my imagination, or does Malcolm Jenkins make a huge defensive play in every New Orleans game -- as he did with an interception returned for TD in Oakland?

I'm pretty sure that is just your imagination.

2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 11:

a. Announcers who say "Tanney-hill.'' There's no "y'' in the man's name. Short "e'' in Tannehill.

How dare you mess this man's name up? Ron Gronkowski and Peter King are horrified you can't get a player's name right.

f. The Arizona tackles. They're going to get people fired on that team.

But they do have Michael Floyd and that was an important draft pick for them, you know.

i. Armanti Edwards wide open on a corner route in the end zone for Carolina. Cam Newton throwing it three yards over his head. There aren't many times when a receiver's that open in the end zone, and when he is, a good quarterback has to hit him.

Edwards wasn't in the end zone. He was on the sidelines short of the end zone. Newton threw one pass incomplete in the second half, which not shockingly since it doesn't fit his (seeming) agenda, Peter does not mention. Newton was all over the damn place in the first half and he struggles with accuracy because he's regressing, but Peter won't give him credit for the great third down throws he made to Steve Smith and Louis Murphy because that's now how Peter King works. Cam Newton once upon a time wouldn't give Peter King the time of day after Peter took a quote by Newton and gave it no context ("Icon...entertainer," that quote). This season Peter is getting his revenge by pointing out how poorly Newton has played whenever possible.

m. Onside kicks aren't supposed to travel 22 yards, Dan Bailey.

I'm just happy Peter King is here to snidely tell Dan Bailey these things.

p. Preview of what I won't like about Week 12? Panthers-Eagles. Monday night. Combined record: 5-15. Start your Jon Gruden coaching rumors early, folks.

If Carolina hires Jon Gruden to coach them, I will have a major problem on my hands. I don't like Gruden and I don't want him coaching my favorite NFL team.

6. I think Cam Newton is playing nothing like an entertainer or an icon, though his defense didn't help him down the stretch in the loss to Tampa Bay, allowing four long drives in the last 25 minutes of the game.

I was pretty entertained when Carolina had a 21-10 lead before the defense laid down. Not that Peter is stuck on that "Entertainer, icon..." comment since he just explicitly referred to it here. If you think that incident and Newton's refusal to give Peter the time of day doesn't in some way affect Peter's coverage of Newton then you are in some way naive.

9. I think, and I've got my NBC hat on here, you'll enjoy Cris Collinsworth's idea on the Thursday night Pats-Jets game on NBC. John Madden's going to introduce the game, focusing on his Thanksgiving tradition of football, family and food, and NBC, which has a Thursday night game for the next decade, will inaugurate the John Madden Thanksgiving Player of the Game. Collinsworth's idea, executed by game telecast director Drew Esocoff. I'm looking forward to seeing Madden's ode to turkey and football.

That's not a bad idea, because the other day I was thinking the one thing not missing from the Thanksgiving Day football games was John Madden.

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

e. Great line: "I don't know who deserves more blame: Western Carolina for taking the money, or Alabama for scheduling Western Carolina." That's from NBC studio host Jimmy Roberts, showing highlights of the game between national power Alabama and one of the worst teams in the NCAA FCS, formerly NCAA I-AA, Western Carolina.

At the time the highlights were shown, Alabama had possessed the ball five times and had a 35-0 lead; the final score was 49-0. Roberts also had one of the best stats I heard all weekend: In its last 27 games, Western Carolina is 2-0 against 1,200-student Mars Hill (N.C.) and 0-25 against all other teams. Western Carolina got a check for $475,000 for playing the game Saturday.

In defense of Western Carolina, they aren't that smart of a school as a whole and they are used to losing. They continue to think a "rivalry" exists with Appalachian State when the two teams meet every year, but a "rivalry" would indicate one of those teams doesn't get its ass kicked every year. So in summary, Western Carolina is stupid and you can't blame them for being stupid. It's their nature. You can't prevent stupid.

g. Coffeenerdness: Woman in the Indianapolis Airport Friday, in front of me in line at the Starbucks in the rotunda/lobby before the security gates, was just finishing some kind of frappucino, a huge one, and got to the front of the line. "Grande pumpkin spice latte, with four extra shots.'' So ... you've finished a 16-ounce frap, loaded with caffeine, and now you're getting a pumpkin drink, which normally has two shots of espresso, and now you're getting six shots. Wow. I wonder if she's been to sleep since.

Peter is way too concerned with what other people are doing while in public.

i. All this talk about Twinkies makes me want one. Like, now.

How precocious of you.

Now, for San Francisco 17, Chicago 13 tonight at Candlestick. It's likely I would have picked the 49ers if Jay Cutler were healthy as a mule.

If Cutler was as healthy as a donkey? Maybe Peter could pick the Bears, but if Cutler isn't as healthy as a mule or a pony, or anywhere lower than healthier as a sheep, then Peter will have to choose the 49ers to win the game.

The Adieu Haiku

So no more Twinkies.
No! Oh the humanity!
I'll miss Ding Dongs too.

At what point did Peter think, "All that is missing from MMQB is a short form example of Japanese poetry"? I need to know the thought process that went into using haikus at the end of every MMQB.

4 comments Bill Simmons Waits Until He Has Something to Whine About Before Writing His First Red Sox Column of This Season Part 2

Yesterday I posted the longer-than-expected post on Bill Simmons' brief return to writing about the Boston Red Sox. "Writing" is probably not the correct term to use. He was really trying to elicit sympathy from his readers because his favorite baseball team is having a bad year and he seemed to want to elicit this sympathy through being a little whiny. Because I hate you all, I have broken this column into two parts. So here is the second part of that Simmons-Red Sox cry-fest.

Not long ago, the Red Sox organization ranked among the most thoughtful in baseball. Epstein played the market's inefficiencies just about perfectly in 2003 and 2004 (power/OBP bargains mixed with expensive, sure-thing pitchers), then created a long-term strategy: We're avoiding mammoth contracts for free agents hitting their 30s; we're using much of our financial advantage to outspend competitors on draft picks, scouting and foreign-born prospects; and hopefully, we're "growing" our own potential stars and either locking them up to long-term deals or flipping them for elite players. I loved this plan. Everybody did.

Bill didn't love this plan, he loved the fact this plan worked. Bill also liked the plan from the late 2000's where the Red Sox acquired the best possible players on the free agent market, he just doesn't like it now that this plan didn't work.

So what changed? Everyone else in baseball started emulating what the smarter teams were doing (Boston, Oakland, etc.), leaving Theo without any real market inefficiencies to exploit other than defense (they tried, with limited success) and this one: He could simply outspend 95 percent of the league.

So it isn't Theo Epstein's fault the Red Sox started throwing money at expensive free agents. That's how the market forced him to behave. After every other team started copying the Red Sox (and of course, to a lesser extent Oakland) Theo had no choice but to abandon his plan not to spend on free agents. That's what Bill wants us to believe.

Of course, this half-assed theory about what changed doesn't answer the biggest question I have...why didn't Theo keep using the financial advantage that Bill states the Red Sox had over other teams in order to,

outspend competitors on draft picks, scouting and foreign-born prospects; and hopefully, we're "growing" our own potential stars and either locking them up to long-term deals or flipping them for elite players.

This was still possible. Regardless of whether the rest of the league had caught up to market inadequacies the Red Sox still had the financial advantage over nearly every other major league team. The Red Sox could outspend on draft picks, still scout foreign-prospects and grow potential stars or flip these potential stars for elite players through trade. This did not have to change because the Red Sox could use their financial advantage to outspend on draft picks and scout foreign-born prospects. I hope Bill realizes this didn't have to change. The fact other teams caught up with the market inadequacies would not have prevented the Red Sox from sticking to this part of the plan.

What Bill Simmons is really doing is (surprise, surprise) making shit up in order to make it seem like Theo Epstein and Red Sox ownership had no choice but to sign expensive free agents when this couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, other teams caught on to market inadequacies and found players who may not seem to fit the bill as a major league talent, but truly were a major league talent. The fact other teams caught up with this market inadequacy doesn't preclude the Red Sox from using the other market inadequacies, namely playing for a high-profile team (the Red Sox) and being able to offer more money, to continue building a winning team.

In fact, the Red Sox built this current team using the exact plan Bill claims the Red Sox got away from. They signed Daisuke Matsuzaka from Japan and traded some of their prospects for elite players. Bill is so ignorant about baseball and even his own Red Sox team (in some ways) it amazes me. He outlines a plan Theo Epstein followed that led to success (that Bill and everyone loved), then claims the Red Sox got away from it. Did they get away from it completely though? Isn't part of this plan Bill claims Theo got away from a similar plan to how the 2012 Red Sox team was built? Yes, the Red Sox didn't stay away from expensive free agents, but otherwise the plan stayed intact in some ways.

Remember that asshole Josh Beckett? The same Josh Beckett that Bill Simmons is so thankful he didn't name his child after? How did the Red Sox acquire him? They traded Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez for him. The Red Sox traded their top prospects for elite players, just like the masterplan that was supposed to work (and Bill loved) said to do.

Remember Adrian Gonzalez? How did the Red Sox acquire him? They traded Casey Kelly and Anthony Rizzo for him. The Red Sox, again, traded top prospects in order to acquire an elite player. This is part of what the masterplan that was supposed to work (and Bill loved) said to do.

Jacoby Ellsbury, Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester, Kevin Youkilis, and Clay Buchholz? All homegrown players.

My point is the Red Sox didn't get entirely away from the plan Bill is claiming they got away from because they could no longer exploit market inadequacies. This plan just didn't work. Sometimes a plan is good, but the execution fails. Sure, the Red Sox signed expensive free agents. That's the part of the plan that was deviated from, but otherwise the plan stayed intact. It just didn't work for the 2012 season. Bill is always trying to push a theory on his readers when this season's struggles can simply be explained by a bad season. In Bill's mind the Red Sox can't just have a bad season, there has to be an underlying reason or he has to create a reason to explain what happened.

So this plan, the same one everyone loved, was still being used in some ways by the Red Sox. It just didn't work for the 2012 season. The idea other teams caught up to the Red Sox and affected this plan is simply bullshit. The Red Sox still could have executed the plan by using their financial advantage and hoping the personnel moves they made worked out.

The Red Sox splurged heavily on their minor league system, using their money to sway tough-to-sign picks and highly regarded foreign players.

Which is exactly what Theo Epstein's plan called for them to do. Bill seems to be criticizing this move, which I think he should not do.

They overpaid for J.D. Drew, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Lackey, Beckett and Crawford. They tried to overpay Mark Teixeira. They paid veterans market value to stick around. They paid, they paid and they paid.

And Bill liked it, liked it, liked it when the Red Sox did this. Wasn't part of the plan that Bill liked where the Red Sox would go out and acquire foreign talent or trade prospects for elite players? That's how the Red Sox acquired Daisuke and Josh Beckett. I'm sure it made him a little nervous to sign these players but Bill didn't want to see Crawford/Matsuzaka/Lackey go to the Yankees or another team did he? Not when they filled a need the Red Sox had. Beckett had pitched well for the Red Sox, why would the Red Sox not re-sign him after trading for him? Were the Red Sox really going to let Beckett go after his 2007 and 2009 season? The Red Sox fans would have revolted at the thought of letting Beckett go. Don't let Bill tell you differently and revise history to make himself seem smarter.

Maybe he knew going from a now-spoiled, relentlessly passionate fan base that expected 100 wins and a World Series appearance every season and cared a little too much to an emotionally scarred fan base with comically low expectations was a safer move.

Bill is talking about Theo Epstein here. Red Sox fans are too passionate and care a little bit too much. Bill even manages to make the negatives seem like positives, like he is at a job interview, reinforcing the super-specialness of the Red Sox in his own mind.

"A negative about me? Sometimes I am a little too-detail oriented."

I'd be about 100 times more skeptical if they hadn't just pulled off that hijacking of a Dodgers trade — somehow convincing them to assume Crawford and Beckett as a Gonzalez trade tax while forking over two highly regarded pitching prospects. This seemed utterly and totally improbable as recently as early Friday afternoon,

Throughout this whole column, Bill sometimes glosses over the fact the Red Sox were able to get rid of expensive, long-term contracts while getting two of the Dodgers top prospects in return for these players. They managed to dip themselves in shit and then come out completely clean by trading $250+ million in contracts when every single contract traded away was in the first or second year of that contract. Bill sometimes glosses over this because he calls the Los Angeles Lakers during his NBA columns, but wants his readers to ignore how incredibly fucking lucky it was for the Red Sox to pull this off. It's not an equal comparison, but this trade was twice as lucky as the Grizzlies handing Gasol to the Lakers on a silver platter or waiting it out until they got Howard. This Red Sox-Dodgers trade got rid of payroll and gave the Red Sox a chance to rebuild with elite prospects. You know Bill is self-conscious about the Red Sox being considered lucky to be bailed out by the Dodgers and is afraid it will be brought up by his readers whenever he does his weekly whining about how lucky the Lakers are.

It was a great job by Ben Cherington and he managed to unload salary and get top prospects back in one trade. There is nothing to complain about if you are a Red Sox fan. How did he even do that? Who cares if the Red Sox got lucky? Well, Bill does because he would have a heart attack if the Yankees managed to pull a trade off like this and we all know his previous comments about how lucky the Lakers are.

I never imagined Crawford's contract (five years remaining, $102.5 million) was tradable because of reasons like, "He clearly lost the ability to play baseball at a high level," "His body is breaking down in multiple places," "In a best-case scenario, you probably have to platoon him" and, "Oh, he just had Tommy John surgery THIS WEEK." Somehow, none of this deterred the Dodgers, who were so desperate to acquire Gonzalez (who started out slowly before returning to Rake Mode these past few weeks) that they probably looked at the big picture and thought …

Notice again, how Bill slips in there that Crawford returned to Rake Mode over the last few weeks, as if Crawford didn't just have Tommy John surgery and isn't due four more years at $80+ million on his contract. Bill is terrified readers will email him and mock him for every time he wrote about how the Lakers have gotten lucky in acquiring the players they have acquired. At least that's my theory.

You can't say enough about this trade from Boston's perspective: In the span of 24 hours, we went from "How the hell are we ever going to be good again?" to "Wait, there's a chance we're going to be good again!"

Good for you. Everyone loves it when a large-market team spends a ton of money on free agents who underperform and then that team gets their ass bailed out by another large-market team who can't seem to take on enough payroll. Gosh, we are so happy for Bill and would feel even better for him if he had not spent the previous 75% of this column needlessly beating the corpse of the 2012 Red Sox team.

Here's the irony: More often than not, big-market teams make the fatal mistake of thinking, We have to do something to get our fans excited!

I would agree with this, even though it isn't ironic. More often than not, fans of big-market teams get upset when their team doesn't spend enough money on free agents. A guy like Mark Teixeira hits the free agent market and fans of large-market teams want their team to go after this guy. Sure, the front office doesn't have to do this, but as Bill said earlier in the column,

After all, you are in a relationship with your favorite teams, right? We purchase tickets and merchandise; they purchase the players. We agree to remain loyal; they agree not to defecate on that loyalty.

Teams that can afford not to defecate on that loyalty go make a move to get fans excited for the season and hopefully improve the team. Imagine if the Red Sox don't go after a guy like John Lackey and then sign a pitcher like Kevin Correia to fill that rotation spot. How would the Red Sox fans feel? What if Carl Crawford is available in free agency and the Yankees make no move to sign him and end up platooning Andruw Jones and Eric Hinske out in left field all season? Fans would wonder why the hell the Yankees, who can afford to sign Crawford, just don't do it. So I do blame the organization, but fans also have expectations, regardless of whether they are fair or unfair expectations.

But you know what's more amazing? That these teams haven't realized how smart WE are. In 2012, fans are embarrassingly sophisticated about their favorite teams...For any big-market team to think, We have to do something to get our fans excited! in 2012 is legitimately, categorically insane.

Again, I would agree with this. Once Bill moves his point of view away from beating the corpse of the Red Sox and reminding us how lucky they were to get out from under these large contracts and get prospects in return, he is making a few good points.

You know what gets us excited? Shrewd, logical moves. Patience over recklessness.

I disagree in some ways. What gets fans excited is when a team makes a big move and adds a big, important piece to their team. Drafting well and signing a mid-market free agent who is a good platoon candidate is a shrewd, logical move, but these moves don't always excite fans. Smart fans get excited, that's true, but splashy moves can get an entire fan base excited.

When the Lakers finally landed Dwight Howard a few weeks ago, what made it special wasn't the move itself — a big-market team swallowing up yet another superstar — but the unflappable patience they exhibited for months and months leading up to that specific moment. I hate the Lakers with every fiber of my being. And you know what? I respect the hell out of them, too. They're a really smart franchise that always puts thought into their moves.

In six months Bill will be talking yet again how lucky the Lakers got in landing Howard. He may even throw a "6 for 24" joke in there as well just to thrash that unfunny joke to death one more time.

I thought the Red Sox were like that once upon a time. We won twice in four years. Somewhere along the line, we lost our way. I don't know if we found it. Time will tell. I just know that I'm interested again.

Now that Bill can whine about how bad things in Red Sox Land are, Bill is interested in following baseball again. Bill thrives on misery. I feel terrible for Red Sox fans this man represents your team in the minds of many people.

Last thought: It's strange to think how many Red Sox fans bought Gonzalez jerseys these past two years (and now they're stuck with them), or how many Red Sox fans out there did name their son "Beckett." That's another thing this trade banged home: As Jerry Seinfeld once warned us, we're rooting for laundry.

(looks away introspectively)

Don't get me wrong — I want to live in a world in which we could name our children after our favorite athletes without worrying about the consequences. I just don't think it exists.

Deep. Athletes and teams aren't loyal and fans are irresponsible for expecting players and teams to be loyal. These are new facts we've never been presented with before.

I guess the fact Bill is interested in the Red Sox again means we will get more than one column per summer in the future, followed by an eventual Red Sox World Series victory, followed by a book about the World Series victory written by Bill, followed by the Red Sox signing Bryce Harper and Justin Verlander, followed by a few years of the Red Sox going down "the wrong path" when Bill doesn't write about the Red Sox as much, followed by Bill writing a column saying he knew three years ago the Red Sox never should have signed Bryce Harper and Verlander, and finally he will be interested again in the Red Sox again when he can soak in their misery. Lather, rinse, repeat.

10 comments Bill Simmons Waits Until He Has Something to Whine About Before Writing His First Red Sox Column of This Season Part 1

Bill Simmons doesn't write about the Red Sox anymore. I don't know why. I can guess why. They aren't winning or competing for World Series titles over the past couple of years, so Bill doesn't seem to have as much of a need to write about them. Plus he has this insatiable need to be an NBA GM, so he writes about the NBA in the hopes of landing a GM gig. So far this season we have gotten a mailbag about Fenway Park and he has exchanged emails with a knowledgeable Red Sox fan. That's it though when it comes to the Red Sox. Otherwise, it has been a summer of NBA and Olympics talk. Now that the Red Sox have traded away Adrian Gonzalez and dumped Josh Beckett and Carl Crawford's salary on the Dodgers, Bill finds a way to review the bad direction the Red Sox were taking and tries to elicit sympathy (as usual) from his readers for a large market team that wasted millions of dollars. In typical Bill Simmons fashion he finds everything the Red Sox fans have suffered through to be exclusive to the Red Sox. Bill even uses the championships the professional teams from Massachusetts have won over the last decade of further proof of just how bad Red Sox fans have it. He tries to point out how great and bad Boston-area fans have it. He's insufferable and I feel sorry for Red Sox fans that he is your unofficial spokesman.

I wanted to name our newborn son "Beckett" right after the Red Sox won the 2007 World Series. If not for a reader intervening, my son might be named Beckett Simmons right now. We could start there.

Naming your child after an athlete who has been with your favorite team for less than five years and choosing that child's name simply because it is the last name of said athlete is always a bad idea. In fact, if you as a sports fan choose to name your child after an athlete and only choose that name because it is the athlete's name as well, then you probably deserve to be embarrassed five years later when that athlete becomes a punchline. This person would deserve at the very least to feel like an asshole every time he calls that child's name for the next 30-40 years.

The Red Sox have trotted out eight "superstar" hitters in my lifetime: Carl Yastrzemski, Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Mo Vaughn, Nomar Garciaparra, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez and Adrian Gonzalez. The first seven guys played a combined 83 seasons in Boston. Gonzalez lasted 21 months. We could start there.

"We're so cursed because we have only had eight superstar hitters over the last forty years, three of them probably/did use PEDs and one of those players didn't even stay for a full two years. We're so cursed! I need sympathy!"

I can't help but wonder what would happen if Bill cheered for a smaller market team who couldn't afford to keep their talent around. What if he was a Milwaukee Brewers fan? How annoying would he be at that point? Given the massive amount of navel-gazing and "woe is me" crap we get from him concerning the Red Sox, who are one of the most successful MLB teams over the last decade, I am guessing Bill would be whatever is worse than insufferable if he cheered for a small market team. If I were Bill Simmons, I would make a theory of insufferability based on bands who are insufferable. If Bill is at "Coldplay" level of insufferability as a Red Sox fan, he would be at "Maroon Five" level of insufferability if he were a Brewers fan.

My favorite baseball team just traded its best offensive player and a proven playoff starter

You will notice throughout this column how Josh Beckett vacillates between a no-good piece of shit overweight pitcher and a proven playoff starter depending on what Bill Simmons is trying to prove. In this situation, Bill wants sympathy so Beckett is labeled a proven playoff starter who Bill almost named his son after and not the overpaid useless pitcher who helped to destroy the Red Sox team and made Bill glad he didn't name is son after him. I have to give Bill credit, it is hard to gain sympathy for your team trading Beckett, while also bashing your team (in retrospect of course) for even having Beckett on the roster. To achieve this balance, Bill has to bend the truth a little bit.

in a massive salary dump that had no correlation to anything that's ever happened in Red Sox history except for … you know … the time we sold Babe Ruth.

Grow a pair of fucking balls. That happened 100 years ago.

Somehow, Red Sox fans are delighted about the trade. We could start there.

Yes, "somehow" Red Sox fans are delighted about the trade. Somehow Bill says Red Sox fans are happy and then spends the rest of this column describing how this trade is a good thing for the long-term prospects of the Red Sox. Yet again, he wants your sympathy for the Red Sox essentially giving up on the season, while glossing over the fact this is a great deal for the Red Sox.

The current Red Sox owners brought us our first championship since 1918 and a second title three years later. Since last October, they've replaced the most successful Red Sox manager in 90 years with the least-liked Red Sox manager of my lifetime not named "Grady Little." They've allowed the franchise's most successful general manager ever to break his contract without getting anything decent for him. They've assembled one of the league's three most expensive rosters, failed miserably, then lucked out when the Dodgers miraculously handed them a RESET button.

"Oh pity me! My team has won two World Series titles in the past ten years and the owners haven't made it three titles in the past ten years or maybe even eleven titles in the past ten years. The owners spent a shit-ton of money on players to make the fans happy and it didn't work out. How cursed are we? Our owners actively attempt to make the Red Sox team better than it was the year before, even if they are a bit misguided in their efforts, but this is a bad thing. I need sympathy!"

Quit whining. Bill gives Red Sox fans such a bad name. Try being a Cubs fan. Try being an Astros fan. Try being a Pirates fan. The last time the Pirates made the playoffs Barry Bonds was skinny before he got fat before he got skinny again. Every baseball fan hates his team at a certain point. My favorite team is run by a soulless corporation. They don't give a shit about what the team's record was last year or if there is a missing piece that would put the team over the top in the NL East. If it doesn't fit the budget, it doesn't fit the team. At least the Red Sox owners are trying to put a team on the field to win games and ignoring how they could make mistakes along the way. Every losing season isn't a disaster of epic proportions.

And now, headed for the worst Red Sox season in 20 solid years but blessed with financial flexibility again, these owners expect fans to (a) pretend the past two years never happened, and (b) trust their big-picture judgment again. We could start there.

The Red Sox owners have won two World Series in the last decade. We could start there. We could start at the part where Bill wrote an entire book saying he can die in peace and now only five years after the last World Series victory Bill doesn't trust the Red Sox owners anymore. We could start there.

After all, you are in a relationship with your favorite teams, right? We purchase tickets and merchandise; they purchase the players. We agree to remain loyal; they agree not to defecate on that loyalty.

This is where Bill is wrong. Not every team agrees not to defecate on that loyalty by actively putting together a great roster. Some teams try harder than others to put a good team together. The Marlins basically put together a roster for half a season in order to sell tickets to the new stadium, saw it wasn't working out immediately and then said "fuck it" and began yet another sale of players. The Astros aren't even trying at this point. The Padres are stuck with a small budget and basically are telling fans that this is as good as it is going to get for right now. The Nationals were going to suck for a few more years (you can't convince me this isn't true. They even resorted to the whole "we paid a lot of money for a player in free agency" tactic) until managed to stumble on the best pitcher and second-best hitter to come out of the draft in the past five years. Smart teams combine spending money with great player development. The Red Sox didn't want to be the Yankees so badly they have spent the past five years turning into the Yankees.

And it goes from there. The best-case scenario for any season? Winning the title. The worst-case scenario? Hate-watching your team while rooting for things to bottom out in a comically dreadful way just so you can remain entertained.

What Bill unsurprisingly fails to see is the best case scenario isn't even in play for some teams. He's fortunate in that this isn't true for the Red Sox because ownership will spend money on player development and free agents. Bill sees an even playing field where every year there is a best case and a worst case scenario that he just described. For certain teams this is possible, but for teams like the Blue Jays, Pirates, Orioles (and yes, I am including this year), Padres, Diamondbacks, Brewers, and a few other teams a solid run at the World Series is the best they can hope for. They aren't able to go into each season knowing their team will have a shot at making a run to the World Series.

By the way, I picked the Diamondbacks in the World Series this year. Do you know why? I'm a fucking idiot. For every year I put the Packers in the Super Bowl, I do something stupid like pick the Diamondbacks to make the World Series.

And look, I get it — listening to Boston fans bitch about sports is like listening to John Mayer bitch about his love life.

But Bill doesn't get it because he is writing this column. This is the whole "I won't be the person to complain" type of writing, which is normally followed by some complaining. So no, Bill doesn't get it. He defaults to what he knows best when discussing the Red Sox, which is whining.

We won seven titles in 10 years. Over that same time, we endured five of the most brutal playoff defeats in Boston sports history (the Aaron Boone Game, Super Bowl XLII, Super Bowl XLVI, the 2006 AFC championship game and Game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals),

And now begins the whining. What entitled sports fan Bill fails to see is that these are five separate playoff appearances where the Boston sports fans endured brutal defeats. So Boston teams won seven titles in 10 years and had five other brutal losses in the playoffs. While Bill feels sympathy for himself and can't get past his entitled only-child syndrome to realize this is stupid, everyone else is wondering how they can get their favorite teams to make the playoffs on a consistent enough basis to suffer five brutal playoff defeats. Nobody wants to lose a tough playoff game, but it shows how successful Boston-area teams have been...yet Bill continuously whines and whines about how bad he has it as a fan of these teams.

Bill is just being a drama queen. Any loss in the Super Bowl or a Game 7 is brutal, so it isn't like Boston-area teams have a monopoly of tough losses over the last ten years. The enormous amount of entitlement shocks me. Well, it shouldn't shock me, Bill has written this way for years. Bill is using the fact his favorite teams were so successful over the last ten years as a negative and trying to act like Boston-area teams have suffered more difficult defeats over the last ten years (which again, any Super Bowl or Game 7 loss is tough), which really only speaks to the success of these Boston teams over the last ten years.

and trust me, Game 7 of the 2008 ALCS and Game 6 of the 2012 Heat-Celtics series weren't exactly a barrel of laughs. I can't imagine any fan base has experienced more extreme highs and lows over a 10-year span.

You are super-special, Bill! Is that what you want to hear? You aren't though. Every fan base has highs and lows over a 10-year span.

Bill should try to be a fan of teams who haven't experienced any extreme highs over the last ten years. How about him becoming a fan of Cleveland-area teams? Their extreme highs consist of getting far enough in the playoffs to experience an extreme low.

Nobody was more overdue for a hatefully expensive, totally unredeeming, insane clusterfuck of a season more than Red Sox fans. We knew it, too. We could handle a lousy season. It happens.

That's thing though. Bill can't handle a losing season. This column is what happens when a losing season occurs. There is a bunch of navel-gazing and gnashing of teeth about the future.

But something deeper was happening here. The Red Sox had morphed into something else.

Bill could handle the Red Sox having a losing season, but that's not what was happening here. What was happening here, was something so big and unexpected that it was deeper than the Red Sox having a losing season. Bill can't just simply let the Red Sox have a bad season. There has to be an underlying reason exclusive to the Red Sox as to why they are having a bad season.

So after stating he could handle a losing season, Bill claims this wasn't a losing season but was something much bigger than a losing season, thereby providing a narrative about how a Red Sox losing season is much bigger than a losing season other teams have. For some reason, Boston Celtics/Red Sox/Bruins and New England Patriots fans haven't hung Bill in effigy yet. He's probably 50% of the reason they get such a bad rap.

Once upon a time, the phrase "Red Sox fan" carried clear responsibilities and implications.

Oh for God's sake, stop writing this crap. It's tripe.

You loved something that, ultimately, was going to break your heart. You pined for a World Series title that was never going to happen.

Except the World Series victory has now happened, so shut the hell up about it. This is Bill's default setting when it comes to writing. He whines. What happened is called "the entrance of bandwagon fans" and every fan base has them. I know this disappoints Bill to no end, but hangers-on started calling themselves Red Sox fans. Success, the same success Bill craved so much and for some reason he doesn't believe the Red Sox ever achieved, changed the makeup of the fan base.

You watched family members pass away without ever seeing the Red Sox win a title. You wondered if it was cruel to saddle your children with this franchise, whether you should "save" them by nudging them in a different direction.

Yes, but that is the past and the present is happening now. Let go of the past and embrace the future. I know it is hard for Bill to do considering how much mileage (and money) he has gotten from constantly harping on the past.

And then everything turned. We won the World Series, shed the curse, buried some demons, moved on with our lives.

Moved on with your lives, huh? You can tell by this column Bill has completely moved on.

Maybe Bill was saying he doesn't pay attention to baseball anymore and has moved on from the sport. That would be more accurate.

Well, here's what happened. We started spending money like the Yankees.

Apparently signing Manny Ramirez to an 8 year $160 million deal in 2000, J.D. Drew $70 million in 2007 and giving Curt Schilling $12 million in 2004 were just under-the-radar signings.

The Red Sox won the World Series in 2007 with five guys who made $10 million or more and the team had the second-highest payroll in the majors at $143 million. The Red Sox had a payroll of $127 million in 2004, which was the second-highest payroll in the majors. Don't give me this crap about how the Red Sox started down a bad path by spending money like the Yankees. The Red Sox just didn't get the results they wanted by spending like the Yankees from 2008 until 2012. No team could match the Yankees when it came to spending, but the Red Sox were the closest team in the majors to spending like the Yankees spent even when they won their two World Series titles. The 2004 Red Sox "little team that could" was well-funded. I'm not taking anything away from them or knocking them. Bill's revisionist history doesn't sit well with me though. Don't give me this crap about how the Red Sox started spending like the Yankees. Compared to other MLB teams in 2004, the Red Sox were the Yankees.

The owners relentlessly pimped the Red Sox brand inside the stadium, on their website, on their 24-hour TV channel, on your street, in your house, on your forehead and everywhere else you could imagine (leading to a general dumbing down of the fan base

Of course Bill Simmons, the most popular columnist on the most popular sports site, relentlessly pimped the Red Sox as well by writing column after column about their run to the World Series title. Bill then pimped an entire book about this experience and I'm pretty sure he made a few bucks off that. Of course the most popular columnist on the most popular sports site could NEVER be responsible for the dumbing down of the fan base could he? I would submit Bill is one of the most high profile Red Sox fans in the United States, or at least in sports journalism. He wrote column after column about the Red Sox and made money off a book he wrote about the Red Sox. He tied everything back in to the Red Sox in his columns. Yeah, it's everyone else's fault for pimping the Red Sox brand though.

only we looked the other way because they kept funneling so much of their profits back into the team.

Which is what Bill will do again in five years. He's look the other way again when the Red Sox start winning again. I love the passing of the blame to the Red Sox owners. Granted, they share a lot of blame, but Bill had quite a time during the mid-2000's peddling Red Sox nostalgia and curse-discussion which led to an increased focus on the Red Sox and their hunt for a World Series title. He got a lot of fame and money from this peddling, but he would never blame himself would he? How could one of the most influential columnists in the United States, who just so happens to be a Red Sox fan, have any influence on that team's fan base?

Nobody really cared until the Red Sox finished the biggest September swoon in baseball history —

Everyone started freaking out at the idea the Red Sox aren't automatically penciled into the playoffs every single year. This realization must have really thrown Bill and his entitled attitude for a loop.

When Theo Epstein fled a few weeks later, for the first time, Red Sox fans started examining these last eight years the same way you look at a massive dinner check. You know when you go out with a bunch of friends, order food and drinks for three hours, never worry about anything, and then there's that moment when the check comes and everyone's passing it around in disbelief? That's for us? Did you think it was going to be that high?

Or as normal writers who have the capability to actually write concise, readable material might say,

"When Theo Epstein fled a few weeks later, for the first time, Red Sox fans started examining these last eight years and realized when expensive players don't produce it creates a bloated payroll and reduces roster flexibility."

The fan bases for other teams despised us just as much. We had the same "If you don't win the title, you've totally failed" conundrum staring at us every spring.

"We are cursed with such unjustifiable high standards for our team because we carry an entitled attitude about our team's inherent superiority. Feel sympathy for us."

Wasn't that the Red Sox? What were we building? What's fun about rooting for a team of staggeringly overpaid players who were collected with little rhyme or reason?

I don't know, it sure sounds like the Red Sox had a lot of fun making the playoffs and knowing they could be in the running for the best free agent hitter or pitcher during every offseason. I don't recall Bill complaining the Red Sox shouldn't sign John Lackey or predicting that Josh Beckett wasn't worth re-signing over 4 years at $68 million for 2011-2014. So obviously there was a lot of fun had by all. Bill is throwing this whole "It wasn't very much fun to cheer for these guys" bullshit when he seemed perfectly happy playing the game at the time.

Throw in the team's general unlikability (especially Beckett, who regarded the fans and media with real contempt) and for the first time I can remember, Red Sox fans were hate-watching games much like you'd hate-watch Teen Mom or something.

We haven't had many forced pop culture references. I'm glad Bill made up for this by throwing a "Teen Mom" reference in.

Well, who wants to spend three-plus hours a day hate-watching something? If you wanted to enjoy a Red Sox game in 2012, you had to get stoned, break out the 2004 and 2007 DVDs, put in one of the most exciting games and pretend it was happening in real time.

Or you could just deal with the fact nearly every team can have a bad season.

But here was the worst part … there was no way out!!!! Adrian Gonzalez had six years and $127 million remaining on his deal. Carl Crawford had five years and $102.5 million remaining. John Lackey had three years, $45.75 million.

And yet again, when the Red Sox traded for Adrian Gonzalez and gave him a large new contract where was Bill Simmons at complaining about this? Bill was popping champagne corks and celebrating one of the best hitters in baseball was joining his favorite baseball team. There's a line from "The Sopranos" that reminds me of Bill Simmons. It is spoken by Tony Soprano's wife (Carmela) and it is said when Tony wants Carmela to sympathize with Tony's mistress who tried to kill herself after Tony broke up with her. Carmela says,

"You are putting me in a position where I am feeling sorry for a whore who fucks you?"

That's how I feel in this situation. Bill is putting his readers in a position where we are supposed to feel sorry for a large market team that has spent recklessly and didn't get a return on their investment? I can't do it and I don't see how his readers can. Well, I can see how his SimmonsClones readers can. They worship the very ground Bill Simmons hovers above.

(On a side note, I did an Internet search for "Carmela whore who fucks you" while at work like a moron. If you see my resume posted on this blog in a couple of days, you will know why.)

According to this list, four teams spent between $150 million and $200 million (Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, Angels), five teams spent between $100 million and $149 million (Tigers, Rangers, Marlins, Giants, Cardinals), then 14 teams spent between $75 million and $99 million. That means the Red Sox, having totally squandered their spending advantage thanks to those four deals, needed to outmaneuver everyone else in 2013 and 2014 just to regain any semblance of a competitive advantage again.

Oh my God, if the Red Sox are unable to ever have a competitive advantage again then how will Bill continue to go on with life? He can't simply cheer for the Red Sox. He has to cheer for them fully knowing they have a competitive advantage over the other major league teams. It's not fun to cheer for a mid-market team. It's only fun to cheer for a baseball team who has a competitive advantage over nearly every other baseball team.

But the owners who OK'd the Lackey/Crawford/Beckett contracts, turned Francona into Valentine, didn't get anything for Theo, turned Josh Reddick and Jed Lowrie into Andrew Bailey and Mark Melancon, thought Daniel Bard could be converted into a starter, and paid another AL contender to take Kevin Youkilis when he wasn't really washed up yet?

How sad for you that your team doesn't have the best owners in baseball. Not only have the Red Sox lost their competitive financial advantage over other major league teams, but the air of superiority is rapidly being taken out of the fan base. At some point, the Red Sox are going to have to win more games or Bill may have to face the fact the Red Sox aren't entitled to be the one of the best teams in the majors every single year...and we just can't have that. Everything Bill says and does is the best. If the Red Sox stop winning over a few year span Bill would have to pronounce himself a "baseball widow" until the Red Sox get better owners who care enough to put a winning team on the field. This isn't Bill being a fair-weather fan at all. He will only exclusively be the fan of a winning team, that's all.

Maybe we hadn't veered into James Dolan territory or anything,

I would give it another ten years before the Red Sox are even close to this. The audacity of Bill even writing this sentence amazes me. The Red Sox would need a full decade of futility before they could come close to Dolan territory.

but in professional sports, you can't overcome poor management no matter how much money you have. The 2012 Red Sox were poorly managed. And have been for the past couple of years. It finally caught up to them.

In pretty much anything you can't overcome poor management. This isn't exclusive to professional sports. Of course Bill wasn't saying the Red Sox were poorly managed when they re-signed Josh Beckett, signed Carl Crawford and John Lackey and traded for Adrian Gonzalez, but that's the whole fun part about the revisionist history of it all. Looking back, Bill knows how everything should have been done differently, but he sure didn't say it at the time. Feel sympathy for him. He desperately wants it.

Part 2 in a day or so...