Showing posts with label playing prettily. Show all posts
Showing posts with label playing prettily. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

9 comments MMQB Review: The Greatest Super Bowl Ever Until The Next Closely Contested Super Bowl is the Greatest Super Bowl Ever Edition

Peter King gave his readers vocabulary lessons in last week's MMQB. He also gave a few thoughts about the NBA season, all while stating that he knows nothing about the NBA and doesn't really watch professional basketball much. Peter was also upset at Marshawn Lynch for grabbing his crotch (Lynch grabbed his own crotch, not Peter's crotch...though it would be interesting if Lynch did grab Peter's crotch instead of his own), while enjoying a few good jokes about balls. This week Peter talks about the exciting Super Bowl that took EVERYONE'S breath away ("we" didn't know that would happen!), talks about the Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, and sort of screws up his "Goat of the Week" again. A little bit. He blames one person when there are probably two or more people to blame. Russell Wilson seems to be off the hook for throwing the pass in the first place, which I'm not sure should be the case. Still the play call was bad, but I blame Wilson for 25% of the interception since he threw the ball.

Pacific Northwest: What are we doing throwing at the 1 with three shots to let Marshawn Lynch win the game?!

Exactly. Just an absurd play call. I thought the Patriots were going to let the Seahawks score so they could get the ball back to Brady.

New England: Great play by a guy we never heard of!

I had heard of Butler, so I imagine Patriots fans had heard of him too. Just because Peter King had not heard of Butler doesn't mean no one else had heard of him. Though assuming because he had not heard of Butler then no one else had either, and using "we" in making this statement, is typical Peter King.

The Super Bowl That Took Our Breath Away has a good ring to it.

Actually it doesn't because it sounds like a bad 80's song.

What happened there is the essence of what Bill Belichick is as a coach.

As Belichick spoke, offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels took his blue Sharpie and wrote two things on the top of his laminated play-call sheet he’d carry with him on the sideline in Super Bowl XLIX. Whenever McDaniels looked down at the sheet, he’d see these two bold reminders:


ADJUST


CORRECT PROBLEMS AND GET THEM FIXED

Said McDaniels: “What Bill said was, ‘This game is no different than any other one. It’s a 60-minute football game, and whatever issues we have, let’s make sure we correct them, coach them, and fix them. That’s our job.’

John Fox doesn't understand what you are talking about. Adjust? You mean, "Do the same thing you have done all season and refuse to double or put your best corner on the other team's best wide receiver if he is killing you?"

Example two saved the game for New England. Of that there is no doubt. Adjust. Correct problems and get them fixed. Early in the third quarter, with the Patriots getting abused by the size of out-of-nowhere Seahawks rookie receiver Chris Matthews, another undrafted rookie, cornerback Malcolm Butler from the University of West Alabama began playing in the nickel. Butler got the nickname “Scrap” for being a scrappy player in mini-camp, not backing down. The coaches liked him because when they’d quiz players about assignments, they could tell he’d been studying tape and knew how to anticipate what was coming.

That's probably because undrafted players work harder than highly-drafted glory boys. Obviously.

The Seahawks spread their formation at the one, despite having an Earl Campbell type of bruising runner, Marshawn Lynch, plus one timeout, on their side. “I knew they were going to throw it,” said Butler. “From preparation, I remembered the formation they were in and I knew they were doing a pick route.”

Well, Wilson didn't have to throw the ball on the pick route, but I guess that's a discussion for later in this MMQB Review. It's amazing how film study pays off. It's nice to read about NFL players that watch film and learn from it, rather than my favorite team sometimes looking like they haven't ever seen a forward pass before, much less a forward pass with this crazy formation.

Kearse was supposed to pick the corner trying to stay with Lockette. Wilson threw. Butler burst through the poor pick and made an easy catch.

I know the Seahawks were trying to stay away from Revis, but to expect Kearse to pick a big, physical corner like Brandon Browner? I don't know, that seems like not the best strategy either. Browner makes some bone-headed plays in the secondary, but he's big and physical.

Butler was shellshocked by it all, standing by his locker after the game, and Patriots PR czar Stacey James was explaining to him how his life was about to change, and suddenly owner Robert Kraft appeared. The shock in Butler’s face was precious.

It was precious. Not precocious, but precious. Peter has replaced the word he loves to use that gives grown men child-like qualities and replaced it with a word that gives grown men cute, child-like qualities. He just can't help himself. Butler looked so precious that Peter just wanted to lick him. He's not sure why, but Peter just wanted to lick Butler's face because of the preciousness that was radiating from him. Butler was like a new mother radiating love, lying in wait for her child to be handed to her for the first time, except the baby is Robert Kraft in this situation and Butler is the mother. Precious AND precocious.

“Mr. Kraft would like a photo of you with him and the Lombardi Trophy,” someone said, and Butler, in his skivvies and game T-shirt, trying to comprehend what was happening, sheepishly stood next to Kraft and smiled for the cameras.

Oh yes, Butler was in his skivvies and looking precious. Peter noticed both because he was leering at Butler for a full five minutes, just wondering what child-like quality to assign him during this moment so that Peter could close his eyes and remember this image for the rest of his life.

Now for the sandpaper to the cheek to all you 12s, the newest and most fervent and suddenly loyal fan base in the country.
 
That was the dumbest big play-call in Super Bowl history.

Maybe Wilson shouldn’t have thrown it.

Maybe. Very debatable. I was initially blaming Wilson for 50% of the interception since he threw the ball. Then I saw this angle of what he was looking at...




A few things about that picture:

1. It's easy to second-guess based on a still picture hours after the play has occurred. So I feel silly analyzing a play that happened so quickly. Yet, I will continue to analyze.

2. I still think Wilson shouldn't have thrown the ball, but I completely understand why he did throw it. Please remember that Wilson is a professional quarterback. This is what he does for a living. To me, Lockette looks open, but Wilson has thrown this pass many times in practice and in games. He does know and should know how much time he has to sneak that ball in to the receiver.

3. Notice in that picture that Butler has already made a break on the ball and it's still in Wilson's hand. Butler is closer to the goal line than Lockette is and as Lockette continues his route toward the end zone, Butler will also get closer to the point where the ball is being thrown, so it's going to be a close completion.

4. Given the terribleness of the play call, as a professional quarterback I don't know if I still throw this ball with all that's at stake. If I do and given Butler is breaking on the ball, I would lead Lockette a bit less to where the ball went more into his body and he is the only person who can catch the pass. A throw more into Lockette's body could have shielded the ball from Butler. Here is another idea. See that wide open space in the middle where the Pats safety is standing at the "A" in Seahawks? Use that area to your advantage, rather than throw the slant to where it's a contested ball. This would cut the route off a bit, but Lockette probably could have straightened the route out just a bit seeing the open end zone he had in front of him, knowing there was a Pats defender right behind Browner who is supposed to have been picked. So if Lockette and Wilson get on the same page to straighten the route out a bit to avoid the traffic (and there are no linebackers in the middle of the field) or Wilson threw the ball more into Lockette's body, then it looks like a touchdown.

5. So my point is I don't blame Wilson as much as I did. But in a situation like this, that will be a close completion and Russell Wilson knows that. He's a professional, he knows how much time he has even if Butler doesn't jump the route. Given the fact the play was for a Super Bowl victory, I think Wilson had to know he would want to have Lockette straighten out his route slightly more while leading Lockette more to the left (Lockette's right) with the pass to take Butler out of the play completely (though the pass may have Lockette slightly short of the goal line and Brown could have tackled Lockette short of the goal line), throw the ball more into Lockette's body while not changing the route at all, or if there is any chance of an interception, just throw the ball away. He needed to be super-careful and he wasn't. I may have thrown the pass, but I'm also not a professional quarterback who has practiced this route repeatedly. From that picture, it's clear Wilson has a clear view of Butler and Lockette, so he knew he was throwing it into some traffic. It's 25%-30% his fault (and those are EXACT percentages).

6. Serious question. IF Wilson didn't see Butler, could it be possible that's because he's under six feet tall and had issues seeing over the linemen in that situation? 

Maybe he should have thrown it out of the end zone. But I’m not blaming Wilson for the play. It wasn’t an audible.

I wouldn't expect you to blame Wilson at all. After all, he gets the credit for great passes, why should he be blamed for a bad pass that he didn't HAVE to make? The play call was bad, but Wilson didn't have to throw the ball. If he didn't like what he saw, he could have had it in his mind to run right, scramble and make something out of nothing. He's very, very good at that type of thing.

The play came from the sidelines, from offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell. Though coach Pete Carroll took the blame afterward, it’s not his call, and it sounded very much like Carroll falling on his sword for a coach on his staff. Whatever, this was a play you simply do not call.

Look, I get it. It was a bad play call. But don't act like Wilson is a robot who has to do exactly everything he's told. He freelances all the time. I don't want Wilson to take all the blame, but at least point the finger at him a bit. Don't spare him because you like him.

New England didn’t call timeout. Belichick is brilliant, and I’m sure he had his reasons. (He said he’d have called time if the Seahawks had run the next play and not scored, but by then, with 20 seconds left, there wouldn’t have been enough time left to do anything fruitful if Seattle scored.) But I think that’s a huge mistake. If New England calls time there, and Seattle scores on the next play, the Patriots get the ball back, down 31-28, with about 50 seconds left. That’s far preferable to getting it back down 31-28 with two timeouts and, say, 18 seconds left.

I didn't understand that either. I thought the Patriots should have let the Seahawks score on first down or called timeout in that spot. It was an odd decision. If the Patriots were going to let the Seahawks score, they should have done so. If the Patriots were going to try and prevent a TD then they should have called timeout after first down just in case the Seahawks did score a TD. If they are digging in, at least give the offense more time if things go wrong.

One Patriot told me a couple of things that made sense. He thought Belichick bypassed the the timeout because the coach was comfortable defensively—as comfortable as he could be with who was on the field trying to stop Lynch—and that a timeout would have given Seattle a chance to stop and consider different plays, and why give the enemy more time to think?

I mean, yeah, that is the only reason I could think of. On the same line of thought, the Seahawks weren't exactly hurrying to the line and had plenty of time to think of different plays while the game clock ticked down.

Carroll’s explanation:

“We sent in our personnel. They sent in goal-line [defense]. It’s not the right matchup for us to run the football, so on second down we throw the ball really to kind of waste that play.

I've got so many things to say about this. It's not the right matchup to run the ball? Pete Carroll is going to let the opposing team dictate when the Seahawks run the ball? When did this start? He's never worried about it before. Also, they were going to throw the ball and waste that play? Just waste a fucking play? This just strengthens my argument Wilson should have thrown the ball away. If he knows it's a wasted play, he needs to tuck the ball down or throw it out of the end zone if he doesn't see exactly what he wants to see.

If we score we do, if we don’t, then we’ll run it in on third and fourth down. Really, with no second thoughts or no hesitation in that at all.

This is a dumbass explanation. What if the Patriots have their goal-line defense in at that point? What to do then? Why is Pete Carroll letting the defense dictate his offensive strategy and take away his best offensive weapon?

And unfortunately, with the play that we tried to execute, [Butler] makes a great play and jumps in front of the route and makes an incredible play that nobody would ever think he could do. And unfortunately that changes the whole outcome.

If Wilson knew the second down throw was a wasted play, his pass makes even less sense. If he didn't know it was a wasted play, then perhaps someone should have told him.

Of course, Bill Belichick is comfortable in close games. It’s the one thing I’ve always noticed about him.

The Seahawks played close games all the time over the past two seasons. They are used to close games, but this one just didn't turn out their way. Peter has ALWAYS noticed Belichick likes close games. "We" didn't notice, but Peter did. Now Peter is trying to push a "the Patriots and Belichick are used to close games" narrative like this isn't true for the Seahawks as well.

Check out the scores of the six New England Super Bowls in the Belichick/Brady Era:


Super Bowl 36: Patriots 20, Rams 17.  
Super Bowl 38: Patriots 32, Panthers 29. (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!)
Super Bowl 39: Patriots 24, Eagles 21.
Super Bowl 42: Giants 17, Patriots 14.
Super Bowl 46: Giants 21, Patriots 17.
Super Bowl 49: Patriots 28, Seahawks 24.

But think about it: The Patriots are two miracle Giant passing plays—the David Tyree Velcro catch seven years ago, and the Eli Manning-to-Mario Manningham miracle completion three years ago—from a 6-0 Super Bowl record in a 14-year span … and being the greatest team since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970.

They are also a completed pass and two missed field goals away from potentially being 1-5 in the Super Bowl. What's your fucking point? It goes both ways.

“Even though we were behind in the fourth quarter,” McDaniels said, “we didn’t want to start abandoning the game plan, because you really can’t. They don’t allow you to do that. So I thought it took a lot of poise for our guys to understand, ‘Look, it’s not going to happen on four plays against these guys. We’re going to need a 12-play drive, or an 11-play drive, we’re going to have to convert some third downs and that was really the feeling on the sideline. It was stay with what we’ve talked about the last two weeks: patience and poise. We knew it was going to be an execution game. And it was! Meaning you have to catch a six-yard catch, get tackled, get up, do it again.

Then possibly skip the concussion protocol, get back in the game, try to figure out where the hell you are, and then catch the game-winning touchdown pass.

And then the Patriots agonized over the fluky but great Kearse catch while on the ground (“David Tyree on steroids,” Jonathan Kraft called it), and waited for someone to make a play, which Butler did.

If the Patriots had lost the game on that fluky catch by Jermaine Kearse I may have had to tap out reading a Bill Simmons column forever. He would have been absolutely insufferable with his whining and bitching about how the Patriots were three fluky plays (two fluky plays in reality and both of them didn't decide the game any more than the eventual game-winning touchdown really decided the game) away from being 6-0 in the Super Bowl, while forgetting John Kasay spotted the Patriots 20 yards in Super Bowl 38 by kicking the ball out of bounds. Because that wasn't fluky and happens all the time in the Super Bowl.

In the 49-season Super Bowl era, only one other coach-quarterback combination (Chuck Noll/Terry Bradshaw) has won four. Next opening night—Sept. 10, 2015, at Gillette Stadium—Belichick will be 63 and Brady 38, and the press box wags will say the Patriots are too old to repeat. “Age is a number,” Brady will say about 64 times between now and then. Sunday night in the desert, he and Belichick proved they’re not done yet.

Well, damn. Peter has that narrative all written out now doesn't he? He knows what "the press box wags" will say and he knows what Brady will say in response. What's weird is how Peter doesn't mention he is one of those "press box wags" that started to write the Patriots off earlier in the year.

I had a strange moment Saturday in an upstairs ballroom at the Phoenix Convention Center, site of the voting for the 53rd class of the Hall of Fame.

You called a grown man precocious and he punched you? You stared at someone so long in public that you forgot where you were?

The list of 10: Jerome Bettis, Tim Brown, Tony Dungy, Kevin Greene, Charles Haley, Marvin Harrison, Orlando Pace, Junior Seau, Will Shields, Kurt Warner. 

I marked an X next to Bettis, Haley, Seau and Shields. Now I was stuck. Dungy and Pace were worthy, in my mind.

It's ridiculous to me that Bettis gets a vote over Orlando Pace and Marvin Harrison on anyone's ballot. That's a benefit of Jerome Bettis being all smiles and friendly with the media. He gets an honor he possibly should have received, but received the honor before others who I believe to be more deserving.

But as I winnowed, I found myself in a three-way mental tie for the fifth X: Brown, Greene and Harrison.

Few things are more exciting than to be in the mind of an Pro Football Hall of Fame voter. I like how Peter states he doesn't want to take his readers through the play-by-play of the Super Bowl, but he doesn't mind taking his readers through the play-by-play of his Hall of Fame vote.

I'll spare you the play-by-play. Greene is underappreciated, Harrison is the better receiver with the better quarterback throwing him the ball, but he didn't have the diverse skill set that Tim Brown had. That's about it.

I really wanted Greene in. I absolutely thought Brown was deserving. I marked the X next to Harrison. I just thought he was a better receiver by the eye test. But not by much. I folded the ballot, handed it to the auditor and sat back in my chair. Felt like I’d just run three miles.

Yes, being one of 46 people to have the privilege of voting for the Pro Football Hall of Fame is such a chore. Peter's diamond shoes are too tight and his wallet can't fit all of his $50 bills in it.

Some of my takeaways from the vote:

Good. Some of Peter's thoughts. We hardly get these in MMQB every week. 

I would have voted yes on 12 of the 15 modern-era candidates had they made it to the final five. Many in the room feel the same way. So it’s not that “we don’t think player X is a Hall of Famer.” It’s that we can only put in five per season, plus the three Seniors and Contributors.

I personally think this should be changed. I know the Hall of Fame is for elite football players only, but to only be able to elect five players seems like a small number to me, especially given they can elect three Senior and Contributors every year.

This was a cleanup year to me, with four new members (Charles Haley, Tim Brown, Jerome Bettis, Will Shields) who’d waited a combined 26 years for entry … Marvin Harrison is upset about missing for the second straight year, and I get it. It’s not going to get easier, either, with Terrell Owens, Hines Ward and Randy Moss joining Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt on the waiting list in the coming years

Yet another reason why there should be more than five candidates who can make it into the Hall of Fame in a given year. Players who deserve induction are going to have to wait or end up clogged in the pipeline waiting for their induction. I can't wait for Hines Ward to make it over Marvin Harrison. Hines is so friendly with the media and is a part of the media. He'll definitely make it and I'm sure some shit about "he was a great blocker" will be mentioned repeatedly.

The leading candidates to be finalists for future Hall of Fame classes:

2016: Brett Favre, Terrell Owens, Alan Faneca, Darren Sharper. 

2017: LaDainian Tomlinson, Brian Dawkins, Donovan McNabb, Jason Taylor, Hines Ward, Matt Light, Derrick Mason, Joey Porter. 

2018: Ray Lewis, Randy Moss, Ronde Barber, Steve Hutchinson, Brian Urlacher, Donald Driver, Jeff Saturday.

2019: Tony Gonzalez, Ed Reed, Champ Bailey.

Players are going to get jammed up in the Hall of Fame pipeline. I claim to be a Hall of Fame snob, but the way the Pro Football Hall of Fame does the voting they are testing my claim. I don't think the Pro Football Hall of Fame should just elect decent players, which is what I would characterize most of these names listed as, but I think Marvin Harrison should be in. If he smiled a lot and was from Detroit maybe he would be in this year.

Armen Keteyian has an eye-opening interview with NFL executive vice president of football operations Troy Vincent on Showtime’s “60 Minutes Sports” show that airs Tuesday night.

Two things surprised me the most. Vincent admitted it was Colts GM Ryan Grigson who turned in the Patriots for the suspected underinflated football.

Ah, so Grigson was the snitch? Maybe he's still salty about spending first round picks on Trent Richardson and Bjoern Werner.

And there was this exchange with Keteyian that, quite frankly, makes Vincent look just terrible, regarding the exhaustive investigation of the Ray Rice case by former FBI director Robert Mueller:

Keteyian: “Did you read the Mueller report?” Vincent: “No sir.” 

Keteyian: “You did not?”
 

Vincent: “No sir.”
 
 

Keteyian: “And as the head of game operations in your position, why not?”
 

Vincent: “The crime had already been committed … There was a ton of public speculation at the time what we did, what we didn’t do. We acknowledge we made a mistake. We didn’t apply the proper discipline. I’m not sure how much we can continue to keep talking about that particular …”

Ah, the NFL. Why would Vincent read the Mueller Report? He knew the "exhaustive" report that was requested by the NFL was just going to say some kind of mean things about how the league handled the situation and he knew what the outcome would be. What's the purpose of reading the report when you know the ending?

The Super Bowl Awards

Peter's awards get a new name for this week. Very exciting times.

Defensive Player of the Week
 
Malcolm Butler, cornerback, New England. Butler spent most of the postgame in a daze. He seemed unable to comprehend what just happened.

It was sooooooooo precious.

And it was his interception at the goal line with 20 seconds left in the game and Seattle driving for the winning touchdown that gives Butler a spot in New England sports lore forever. Just as Dave Roberts’ stolen base ignited the Red Sox to four straight wins over the Yankees in the ALCS in 2004, Butler’s interception always will be remembered from Bridgeport to Bangor. 

Malcolm Butler is the new Dave Roberts. I'm sure it won't get annoying when Bill Simmons refers to Malcolm Butler repeatedly in his mailbags/columns as the new Dave Roberts.

Special Teams Player of the Week
 
Ryan Allen, punter, New England. There wasn’t a tremendous special teams performance on Sunday night in Super Bowl 49,

But someone HAS to win the award. It's not like Peter can just not award a Special Teams Player of the Week for the Super Bowl or anything. He HAS to name a player to win the award. Don't blame Peter, thems the rules.

Goat of the Week 
 
Darrell Bevell, offensive coordinator, Seattle. For years to come, fans of the Seahawks and just plain fans will ask one simple question about Super Bowl 49: What in the world was Seattle doing throwing a slant pass on second and goal from the 1, with one of the game’s best short yardage backs in the backfield?

It's so easy to name just one person as the Goat of the Week when it's not really that simple. Darrell Bevell thought Ricardo Lockette could have come stronger at the ball, I think the play call should have been something different, Lockette could have changed the route slightly to avoid Butler better, I think Wilson could have located the ball better, and I think Wilson could simply have not thrown the pass. There are three people who can be blamed, even though it was a failure by more than just three people. I know Peter HAS to name a "Goat of the Week," but to simply blame Bevell isn't necessarily fair. After all, Pete Carroll called it a "wasted play," so it's not like there were high expectations for a touchdown. Bevell deserves the most blame, but to pin it all on him doesn't seem right. He didn't throw the pass and better execution would have made the terrible play call a non-issue. 

It’s a question that will torment the Pacific Northwest for years and will make it difficult for Bevell ever to fulfill his dreams of becoming an NFL head coach. It simply was an incredibly wrong call. 

While I get that, there's nothing that was off about the execution of the play call? Again, Russell Wilson isn't a robot and is entirely capable of making decisions on his own. He's very good at making decisions on his own. Bevell made a terrible call, but it's just too complex for me to remove any blame from Russell Wilson or anyone else responsible. When Wilson made a great play, like when he led the Seahawks to their comeback over the Packers in the NFC Championship Game, I didn't read Peter talking about what a great set of play calls that Bevell called. Peter talked about Wilson being super-clutchy and coming up big when it matters. Why is it when Wilson gets good play calls the attention goes to him for executing them well, but when Wilson gets a bad play call it's just assumed Wilson is a robot and poor execution will obviously just happen? I'm not blaming Wilson, I simply find it interesting that Wilson is not really taking a ton of blame for throwing the ball. It was a bad play call (for the 100th time), but Wilson should know better about what he sees on the field than he did in this situation. 

“Yeah, I’ve seen two of them.”
 
—Bill Belichick, when asked if he’d ever seen a catch like Jermaine Kearse’s on-his-back sideline reception that set up Seattle, first and goal, with 70 seconds remaining. Belichick was referring to David Tyree’s helmet catch in Super Bowl XLII and Mario Manningham’s sideline snare in Super Bowl XLVI.

Come on. The Manningham catch was just a great catch and throw. That catch wasn't anything like the Kearse or Tyree catch. I don't consider them to be the same at all.

“I’m just here so I won’t get fined.”
 
Marshawn Lynch, at Media Day on Tuesday.
 
Lynch made a deal with the league: appear in media sessions (scheduled to be at least 45 minutes daily) for at least five minutes, or risk a heavy fine. So Lynch went and said silly things over and over.

What did anyone expect Lynch to say? He didn't want to be there and was forced to be there. I would probably have given better answers, but Lynch was forced to be there, so he was pissy about it.


I mean, really? Matthews was released by the Browns in 2011. That's three years ago and he worked at Foot Locker since then. He wasn't exactly on the Seahawks active roster either, he was on the practice squad. It's ridiculous to even think the Browns should in some way be ashamed for cutting Chris Matthews three years ago when he didn't do jack shit in the NFL until two days ago. No other NFL teams wanted Matthews either. Its not like the Browns missed on a great prospect. Quit with the shaming of the Browns for things they shouldn't be ashamed of. The Browns have screwed up enough things in the past decade without new things they screwed up being invented.

TEN THINGS I THINK I THINK

1. I think this is what I liked about Super Bowl week, and the game:

d. Russell Wilson rebounding from a bad start—again—to be very, very big when it mattered, except at the very end.

As I always write, what if Wilson was great in the beginning of the game, but terrible at the end? The narrative would just switch around about how Wilson is big when it matters, but his statistics would be the same. And Peter, Wilson was good "when it mattered"? It's the fucking Super Bowl. Wilson's performance matters in the first two quarters also, so don't give me that cliched shit to protect Wilson and your opinion of him. His performance mattered in the first two quarters, it just so happens he didn't turn the ball over and the Patriots weren't able to score too many points on the Seahawks' defense, so Wilson's performance during the first quarter and a half didn't put the Seahawks in a big hole. I mean, it's the Super Bowl. Every possession and quarter matters.

h. Doug Baldwin wisely using umpire Bill Schuster as an unofficial but obvious pick, rubbing off Darrelle Revis and getting open for a big third-quarter touchdown.

This is the play where Richard Sherman was so impressed with the official's pick of Revis that he started taunting Darrelle Revis by putting his hands up in a "2" and "4" so everyone knew who got beaten on that play.

k. Fifty throws by Brady. Didn’t seem that many, but he was fast and efficient, a 74 percent passer against the greatest defense of the day.

It completely felt like Brady threw the ball 50 times. At least to me.

m. Phoenix. The city and the region do a great job putting on the game. Scottsdale is one of the great areas in America.

A REAL UNDERRATED CITY. PETER WANTS TO KNOW WHY NOBODY TALKS ABOUT SCOTTSDALE AS A GREAT CITY!

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Super Bowl week, and the game

c. Doug Baldwin, Stanford man, getting a 15-yard infraction in the biggest game of the year for simulating pulling down his pants in the end zone and simulating something else while the simulated pants were pulled down.

Yeah, that was gross and immature. I would expect more from an adult. Hey Peter, want me to make a few jokes about balls that you can snicker at?

d. What possesses a human being to do that? In the Super Bowl, knowing all eyes are on you—and the eyes of the officials too? Just really dumb. He’s really got to do something about this everybody-hates-me mentality he has. It’s worse than Steve Smith.

Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Baldwin thinks everyone hates him and then takes actions that ensures everyone does end up hating him.

3. I think you can add Bill Belichick to the list of those who have not been interviewed by the Ted Wells/Jeff Pash committee, according to Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio. No Belichick. No Tom Brady. But 40-plus people have been talked to. Seems Wells and Pash and the investigators want to know as much as they can about everything before talking to the two most important people in the case.

I understand that perspective, but wouldn't they learn the most by talking to the two most important people in the case? Are Wells and Pash looking for information they can nail Brady/Belichick to the wall with or trying to catch them in a lie, so they will interview them last in an effort to not gain the most information, but to gain information that shows they are lying when they eventually do interview Brady/Belichick?

 5. I think Media Day is a ridiculous clown show that embarrasses and demeans everyone who plays even a little part of it. (And yes, I do want you to get off my lawn.)

Which is why it is silly to start questioning Marshawn Lynch's character and understanding of his responsibilities because he doesn't fully participate in Media Day (it's capitalized!) to the extent the media wants him to.

7. I think a few of us in the press box noticed something of a bitter-football justice trend in the playoffs this year:

• Part 1: Detroit gets officiating injustice against Dallas, and the Lions lose a bitter wild-card game.
• Part 2: Dallas gets a great catch overturned late against Green Bay, and the Cowboys lose a bitter divisional game.
• Part 3: Green Bay gets four interceptions but blows a 12-point lead in the final four minutes against Seattle, and the Packers lose a bitter NFC title game.
• Part 4: Seattle gets a golden chance at the 1-yard line in the last minute against New England with three plays to score, but Russell Wilson throws an interception, and the Seahawks lose a bitter Super Bowl.
• Part 5: Well, there is no part five. Yet. But New England opens the 2015 season in seven months and one week. The football gods might be on the prowl that night.

This is sort of a trend, but any time an NFL team loses a close playoff game there is going to be bitterness. So the trend isn't really the bitterness, but these games were all close, which means the team that barely lost will be bitter. The bitterness is a side effect of the close game. And also, don't turn into Gregg Easterbrook with the "football gods" crap.

9. I think this is one of the easiest smackdowns of Roger Goodell there can be. Two days after he said at his state of the NFL press conference that he was available to the press almost every day, he wasn’t available on 11 hours of Super Bowl programming to NBC. That is a ridiculous statement, for Goodell to say he is available to the press “almost every day.” 

He's going to stop saying stupid shit like this when the NFL stops making a ton of money due to tremendous fan interest or the owners make him stop saying stupid shit like this. Neither one is likely to happen before next season.

Just ridiculous. I also didn’t like his condescending tone to CNN’s Rachel Nichols, who asked a reasonable question about conflict of interest, during Friday’s press conference. Goodell has to understand he has a public perception problem

Just a problem? 

—no, a crisis—

Thank God you fixed it. 

that is not going away.

The crisis doesn't need to go away. Ratings are still through the roof, as is fan interest. Roger Goodell is just a heel in the show that is the NFL. He'll continue playing the heel for the owners if it means they can take daily baths in their profits. As soon as the ratings and fan interest goes away, the crisis will start to become an actual crisis and not just the bleating of fans who don't like Goodell, but watch the NFL anyway. 

The Adieu Haiku

This just in: Hoodies,
not business suits, are the rule
this week in Boston.


The Adieu Haiku still serves no purpose. It's the appendix of MMQB. What's the purpose of this haiku about hoodies in Boston other than to write a haiku? 

Friday, September 5, 2014

8 comments Gregg Easterbrook Not Only Writes Haikus, But He Writes Really Boring Haikus

Gregg Easterbrook's NFL preview is here. There will be no rejoicing from me, for this is the TMQ I dislike the most...which is something I say every single week. So Gregg will be making predictions for this upcoming season, not standing by the predictions and then mocking others for making bad predictions in a TMQ after the season is over. Gregg also talks about "creep," like he does every single week to my annoyance and talks again about concussions. The not-so-secret about TMQ is that the topics for discussion don't really change that much from year to year. It's the same crap every year that Gregg writes about, he just finds different methods by which to lie and mislead his readers when he talks about the NFL.

America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions! This is the 15th year, the crystal anniversary -- Bristol, I'd like a dilithium crystal, please.

How about giving your readers a cyanide tablet? That sounds better than reading haikus against my will, though it's not against my will since I obviously choose to do so.

First, one of those serious topics that comes before fun. There's progress at the intersection of sports and society -- especially, of football and society. In just the past five years, a bleak picture has improved. So -- is victory won?

Could there be a more vague question based on a vague set of information? Oh, "progress at the intersection of sports and society." Wow, since that spells it out for me then I say, "yes" victory has been won.

First the recent positive developments:

You will stop writing TMQ effective immediately?

Emphasis on reducing deliberate helmet-to-helmet contact at all levels of football -- pro, college, high school and youth.

Oh, concussions. Again. Let me guess, next week is the fifth bi-annual discussion of how NFL and college offenses are moving at such a fast pace? Gregg tends to harp on certain topics and this is the second straight year Gregg has discussed concussions in the TMQ before the season begins. Last year Gregg talked about concussions in his NFL haiku preview.

ESPN put its weight and brand behind adding graduation rates to the ranking of college teams.

Oh yes, the horseshit ESPN Grade that only takes Top-25 teams in the AP and Coach's Poll into account and then only compares the graduation rate of these Top-25 teams to each other. It's an essentially useless metric, but Gregg can't stop pounding his chest about it.

These are movements in the right direction. Your columnist has been pounding the table about athletic reform for years, and many times expressed cynicism regarding whether there would ever be positive change. Now there has been. In just the past five years, football has begun to emphasize risk reduction while high school and college athletics have made strides toward enlightened management.

TMQ/Gregg Easterbrook has also pounded the table that high school football programs may no longer exist in the future due to lawsuits resulting from concussions and other injuries while playing the sport. Obviously since this prediction is starting to look less and less likely, Gregg will gloss over the fact he has pointed this out as an actual concern. Still, many times Gregg has indicated school districts may get rid of football which would lead to a smaller pool of high school football players that enter college, thereby ruining the pool of talented players for the NFL to choose from. It's a doomsday scenario Gregg has floated that he will immediately forget he ever brought up once/if it is proven incorrect. If proven correct, his readers won't hear the end of it. The rule, like always, Gregg will mislead his readers and then ignore any statements he might have made that ended up being incorrect.

But we're not there yet: victory is far from won.

So there has been progress at the intersection of sports and society, but victory is not won? Besides, to indicate victory has been won before victory is actually won would be "victory creep" and we know Gregg won't stand for that.

Further reforms are needed. Among them:

(Bengoodfella falls asleep)

Construction and operating subsidies to the NFL must end. If Google demanded that taxpayers pay for its server farms, there would be outrage. Why isn't there outrage when the billionaires of the NFL demand public subsidies that they convert to private profit?

I don't know. Perhaps because fans enjoy the fact there is an NFL team close to their home and they are able to share in the enjoyment with their family and friends, which can't be said for Google? Maybe taxpayers and municipalities understand that having an NFL team in the area is a great boon to the city's economic base and brings money into the city? Sure, Google brings jobs, but I would imagine having Google in a city doesn't bring quite the revenue that eight NFL games a year (and maybe more in the playoffs and preseason) bring to a city during the football season.

Reform of NCAA athletics has barely begun. Failing to graduate football and men's basketball players, not failing to pay them, is the big defect of the NCAA structure -- since a bachelor's degree adds more to lifetime earning than college players would receive in pay-for-play proposals.

Yes, the NCAA should encourage schools to graduate these student-athletes, but I feel it is important to add that these student-athletes should want to graduate and earn a degree. A college can't force a player to go to class and graduate. As long as that student-athlete meets the criteria to play athletics at the school, the university can't force a student-athlete who is a junior and wants to enter the NFL (or a student-athlete who has used his four years of athletic eligibility) to graduate.

The NCAA and universities should do more, but it has to be some semblance of a two-way street.

As you settle onto the couch and fire up the flat-screen HD to watch this autumn's performances, you can feel better than you might have felt five years ago -- football is becoming moderately less abusive of young people's bodies.

Well, I feel more comfortable now that Gregg Easterbrook has assured me I can feel better about watching football. His approval is all I needed.

Now -- America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions.

I'm not sure what is more pathetic, that Gregg Easterbrook has done haikus for 15 years now, or Peter King is using Gregg's idea of using haikus to talk about football. I think both are equally pathetic. There are no winners.

Brady's last hurrah?
Modeling career beckons.
The New England Pats.

Forecast finish: 11-5


One of the things that irritates me about Gregg's haikus is how he ends each one with the name of the team he is discussing. If he insists on doing a haiku preview, at least don't half-ass the last line of each one. There are other ways to indicate which team the haiku refers to.

A smoking wreckage
of Jeff Ireland era.
Miami Dolphins.

Forecast finish: 6-10


When commenting on the smoking wreckage of the Jeff Ireland era, it's important to know Gregg predicted the Dolphins would win the AFC East last year.

Billionaire demands
corporate welfare for field.
Miami Dolphins.
Forecast finish: 12-4


I guess the wreckage wasn't so bad last year? Everyone gets predictions wrong, but I enjoy pointing out when Gregg is wrong due to the fact he takes great pride in pointing out whenever other NFL experts make predictions that turn out to be incorrect.

"I am the greatest!"
Ali boast seems mild to Jets.
The Jersey/B Jets.

Forecast finish: 6-10


I don't really understand why Gregg thinks the Jets seem to boast a lot. I feel like Gregg stopped paying attention to the Jets three years ago and is coasting on what the team thought of themselves then. Gregg seems to do this type of thing a lot. He prefers to coast on his assumptions rather than take the time to determine if his assumptions are true. He does this here with the Jets and ESPN allows him to get away with it. Also, 6-10 is the same record he picked for the Jets last year. 

Ferrari's new $1.6 million, 950-horsepower supercar is named LaFerrari. Calling it "the LaFerrari" would become "the The Ferrari."

Well, that's why a person wouldn't call it "the LaFerrari" and would simply call it "LaFerrari." No one says the word "the" has to be in front of the name for the car.

Warp speed does not help
if the shields (defense) no good.
The Philly Eagles.

Forecast finish: 10-6


By the way, Gregg had the Eagles at 6-10 last year, followed by him talking about how West Coast and warp speed football is taking over. It would have been nice if he had thought West Coast and warp speed football was taking over prior to the season beginning and mentioned it in regard to the Eagles, but Gregg is reactive and doesn't work that way.

New York Times Corrections On Fast Forward: During the past six months, the Paper of Record, according to its corrections page:

Confused Ho Chi Minh City, the former Saigon, with the United States;

This is a little misleading. Ho Chi Minh City wasn't confused with the United States. The words "United States" were used in the article instead of "Ho Chi Minh City." There was no confusion about where Ho Chi Minh City was located. If I accidentally type "Tom Kelly" instead of "Chip Kelly" then I am not confusing Chip Kelly with the former manager of the Minnesota Twins, I simply used the wrong name before writing "Kelly." I don't think Tom Kelly is Chip Kelly and the New York Times didn't think Ho Chi Minh City was in the United States.

Mixed up the difference between apes and monkeys. What was the subject of the article? Intelligence;

The article Gregg linked and didn't read was on the subject of intelligence in animals, not intelligence in humans. So Gregg has no point and is more interested in cutesy bullshit like this which allows him to make jokes rather than being upfront with his readers and hoping they don't click on the link provided. The newspaper did mix up apes and monkeys, but unless the writer of the article was an animal, it's not really ironic for the reason Gregg thinks it is.

"referred incorrectly to a visit by Peter the Great to the Netherlands." Did the 18th century call to complain?

Says the guy who takes the time to point this mistake out.

Confused Spider-Man with Iron Man;

Again, maybe it is semantics, but they didn't confuse Spider-Man and Iron Man, they confused which comic John Romita Jr. was first offered work. The confusion wasn't with Spider-Man and Iron Man, but with which comic Romita was first offered work. If I write that Peter King writes TMQ every week, then I am not confusing TMQ and MMQB, but am confusing which column Peter King writes. I think there is a difference.

I also think it is funny that Gregg takes the time to point out the mistakes of others who admit their mistakes, while he is a person who won't admit when he's made a mistake or intentionally misled his audience with deceptive writing tactics.

Admitted it was wrong to say that all elite male athletes have testosterone levels "in the female range";

I can't understand how Gregg is allowed to mislead his audience, but I'm beating a dead horse at this point. This was an op-ed column, so it wasn't an article written by a New York Times columnist. Also, the op-ed didn't say that all elite male athletes have testosterone levels "in the female range." The op-ed stated:

An Op-Ed article on April 12 about “sex testing” of athletes referred imprecisely to the overlap in testosterone levels among elite athletes of both sexes. While 16.5 percent of elite male athletes in one study had testosterone levels below the lower limit of the so-called male range, not all of them had levels within the female range.

The op-ed wasn't referring to "all" male athletes, but "all" male athletes in a specific study. Gregg is making it seem like "all" refers to the entire population of male athletes and not a subset of the male population that participated in this specific study. He's indicating the error references a larger population than it really does by leaving out important information.

Graying defense, no
run game. Still -- watch out for them.
The Pittsburgh Steelers.

Forecast finish: 8-8


Gregg predicted the Steelers would go 8-8 last year as well. I like how Gregg plays both sides on the Steelers. His stupid haiku says the Steelers have an old defense and no run game (which is negative obviously), then says "watch out for them" (positive) and then says they will go 8-8 and be 3rd in the AFC North (again, negative). So no matter how the season goes for the Steelers, Gregg is right. You would think if Gregg really thought the Steelers were a team to watch then he would have them being better than 8-8.

Johnny, LBJ,
GOP: Cleveland does rock.
The Browns (2.0).

Forecast finish: 7-9


I don't even understand the point of these haikus. If they were clever, then I see the idea of building a column around them, but this isn't clever. It's silly and pointless. The only way I would chuckle at any of these haikus is if I was eating lunch while reading them, got food lodged in my throat and had to chuckle slightly to clear my throat.

Bears: high-scoring team
with no defense. Yes, the Bears.
The Chicago Bears.

Forecast finish: 10-6


Gregg from last year...

Lovie, Urlacher
gone; 10 wins must be punished!
The Chicago Bears
Forecast finish: 6-10


Except it wasn't. The Bears went 8-8 and had success even when their starting quarterback got injured. Of course, Gregg would have created a "Lovie Curse" if the Bears had gone 6-10 last year, but because they did not, Gregg will wait until the Bears struggle and then desperately attempt to create a fake curse to explain how because Lovie Smith was fired the Bears aren't playing well. There's nothing I like about Gregg's writing.

AAU football:
Superstars but poor results.
The Detroit Lions.

Forecast finish: 6-10


I don't understand. How is "AAU football" correlate to poor results? Does Gregg seem to think AAU teams have bad results? Does Gregg know anything about AAU? Why would an AAU team have superstars and bad results?

The answers, of course, are "It doesn't," "He's making shit up," "He's writing out of his ass, so don't hold him to what he is writing," and "They wouldn't. Gregg wants to criticize others for a lack of accuracy, but doesn't care to turn that criticism on himself because he wants to write a light-hearted football column where he takes credit for those things he says that are right, but hides behind the idea his comments are just cutesy schtick when he gets facts wrong."

Two weeks ago, TMQ declared the Philadelphia 76ers have become "Zen masters" of the NBA art of getting rid of players in order to lose deliberately.

Apparently Sixers management remained nervous about the chance of an accidental victory, so proceeded a few days ago to trade away the team's leading scorer, Thad Young, for a draft choice and more backups. 

Well, Young was a free agent after this season and the Sixers were probably not going to get a chance to re-sign him. Rather than have him play well on a team going nowhere, they got some value for him. I wouldn't expect Gregg to understand any nuance involved with a sport he doesn't have the time to pay any attention to though. It seems the only time Gregg pays attention to the NBA is when he is pointing out NBA teams make dumb moves.

As noted by many readers, first Joe Maiz of Palmyra, New Jersey, Disney just released its 2014 holiday ornaments. Tom Delio of Virginia Beach, Virginia, reports, "On August 15, I saw pumpkin spice lattes advertised at the Joe Muggs coffee shop at the Virginia Beach Books-a-Million. Also, this past Friday the At Home store in Chesapeake, Virginia, in addition to having Halloween decorations on sale, had Thanksgiving and Christmas decorations on sale as well."

It doesn't make any sense to buy a Christmas ornament after Christmas does it? If a person is giving a Christmas ornament to someone else or buying a Christmas ornament for him/herself then it makes sense to do so before Christmas season begins so the ornament can be hung on the tree. I've explained how retail works so many times. It's just pure stupidity on the part of those who don't understand how retail stores try to drive sales. And yes, I would like pumpkin coffee or a pumpkin latte (if I drank them) prior to the month of November. It's not creep, it's just that if a coffee shop is going to create a pumpkin-flavored drink then it makes sense to try to sell as many of them as possible. Hence, the sale of pumpkin-flavored drinks begins early.

Fisher shown the door
after 16: downhill since.
Tennessee Titans.

Forecast finish: 7-9


Now we all know I think this is funny. Fisher was 8-8 and 6-10 during his last two seasons in Tennessee and in his 16 seasons with the team they were at or below .500 ten times. It seems like it was downhill for quite a few seasons while Fisher was with the Titans. Since Fisher left the Titans, they have gone 9-7, 6-10, and 7-9. So it sort of sounds like business as usual without Fisher, right? But of course I wouldn't expect Gregg to do research before popping off about how the Titans have gone downhill since Fisher left as their head coach. Research is for people who give a shit about whether what they say has accuracy or not.

NFC title
game seems very long ago.
Atlanta Falcons.

Forecast finish: 6-10


It was one NFL season ago. That's it. Gregg wrote a TMQ in August about how hard it is for an NFL team to repeat as Super Bowl champions, yet he acts surprised when it's hard for an NFL team to get back to the playoffs in back-to-back seasons. I just don't understand him at all.

Scoreboard was spinning
'til met the Bluish Men Group.
The Denver Broncos.

Forecast finish: 11-5


Gregg can't even preview NFL teams in haiku version without talking about last year more than he talks about the upcoming season.

Dude, let's hit the beach.
Whoa, we have a game today?
San Diego Bolts.

Forecast finish: 9-7


The worthlessness never ceases. Are there really readers of TMQ who think, "Man, I can't wait for the all-haiku NFL preview that is really a 2013 NFL season review in haiku form"? I can't believe there are.

This column has noted that newspapers long have had a touchy relationship with auto reviewing. Auto dealers are major advertisers, so reviewers tend to praise all marques. Reviewers tend to extol maximum horsepower, regardless of cost, environmental impact or the relationship between horsepower and road rage -- after all, they don't fuel or insure the cars they test-drive.

I'm glad someone is finally brave enough and willing to blow the lid off newspapers who give good reviews to car companies who buy advertising money. 

New Cognomen: Reader Damon Spear of Seattle argues, "If you're going to use Jersey/A, Jersey/B and City of Tampa, you should call Colin Kaepernick's team the Santa Clara 49ers." Mr. Data, make it so!

Oh god, please don't encourage Gregg to do this stupid re-naming of NFL teams to call them something other than their real name.

Second-best for two
straight years. This year may be best?
Santa Clara team.

Forecast finish: 12-4


Remember last year how Gregg threw himself off the 49ers bandwagon, never to acknowledge he did so when they made the NFC Championship Game? So I guess he's back on the bandwagon and isn't buying the Crabtree Curse anymore? I only ask because if the 49ers start 1-2 then Gregg will probably write another TMQ about how the read-option is dead and the 49ers should use a more traditional defense to win games. Then when the 49ers make the NFC Championship Game again he'll laud a few undrafted free agents on the team (on a team surrounded with draft picks taken in the first two rounds who have made an impact) and forget he ever was off the 49ers bandwagon.

Chose Bradford over
Griffin: Regrets begin now.
The St. Louis Rams.

Forecast finish: 4-12


Gregg from last year...

Left RG III on
the table; can they rebound?
The St. Louis Rams.
Forecast finish: 4-12


So Gregg pretty much copy and pasted his haiku from last year, left the same record for the Rams in that TMQ and changed a few words around? It seems that way. I don't need to underscore the stupidity of the all-haiku preview when Gregg's choice of topics in the haiku does it for me.

Four and a half years ago the media world went atwitter with the amazing story of a 13-year-old who already had a college football scholarship! Here is the ESPN report from 2010. The story was picked up by many news organizations, leading to the boy appearing with his father on ABC's "Good Morning America." Thirteen-year-old has college football scholarship -- amazing!

Signing a national letter of intent couldn't happen, in this boy's case, until February 2015. Mention that and the "amazing" story goes poof. So media accounts didn't mention that. Steve Clarkson, the hustler behind the phony story, sure didn't bring it up. More details of how this happened are in my 2013 book "The King of Sports."

Gregg has got to keep pushing his "The King of Sports" book hard, doesn't he?

The young quarterback, David Sills V, just started his senior year. You will not be surprised to learn the USC "commitment" evaporated. All parties to the 2010 charade -- Clarkson; former USC coach Lane Kiffin; Sills' father, a wealthy man who essentially founded a school to promote his son -- got what they wanted, which was national publicity.

For fear of seeming like I am defending the idiocy of a 13 year old verbally committing to a college, this story isn't memorable in that when there is a coaching change at a college football program many times the recruits who have given a verbal commitment will search to play college football at another university. So the story is unique and silly in that a 13 year old verbally committed to USC, but I'm mostly not surprised the commitment evaporated because USC had a change in head coaches. Sills had a good relationship with Kiffin, and if Gregg read the column he linked he would know this. Sills even visited the USC campus every spring. Again, I won't defend a 13 year old committing to a college, but when there is a head coaching change verbal commits often look to play college football elsewhere.

Brady said he agreed to less than maximum value to ensure the Flying Elvii have the cap space to retain other starters. (This view is not entirely selfless; being at juggernaut New England is good for Brady's endorsement income.) Last week the Patriots asked perennial Pro Bowl guard Logan Mankins to take a pay cut. When he declined, he was summarily traded to City of Tampa. There but by the grace of the football gods goes Brady!

The Patriots' signal-caller can't be happy he agreed to work for less than market value, only to find the team offloading a guy who stands between him and some Ticonderoga-class nose tackle.

Well, actually it is the Patriots center AND guards would often have to block a huge nose tackle trying to get at Tom Brady. It depends on where the nose tackle lines up, but it's not accurate to say Logan Mankins stood between Brady and a nose tackle, because the other guard and the center will also face off with the opposing team's nose tackle.

Candidates for the spot include a bevy of undrafted free agents -- Ryan Wendell, Dan Connolly, Jordan Devey and Josh Kline -- all of whom earn substantially less than Mankins.

Well, that's great then! Rather than have a highly-drafted, highly-paid glory boy like Logan Mankins blocking for Tom Brady, the Patriots have a large group of undrafted free agents who work hard and only care about the team blocking for Brady. This must be a dream for Gregg Easterbrook since he loves to tell his readers how undrafted free agents work harder and perform better than highly-drafted, highly-paid glory boys like Logan Mankins, a guy who loves money so much he refused to take a pay cut for the betterment of the team.

Yet, Gregg doesn't seem to sound like he thinks this is a positive development that Mankins is gone and undrafted free agents are blocking for Brady. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Gregg in the last paragraph of this week's all-haiku TMQ:

During the preseason, Tuesday Morning Quarterback uses "vanilla" items designed to confuse scouts from other sports columns. Starting next week as the football artificial universe resumes, TMQ will come at readers from all directions with obscure references, recondite analogies and unorthodox fact packages.

Gregg in the last paragraph of last year's all-haiku TMQ:

During the preseason, TMQ uses "vanilla" material designed to confuse scouts from other sports columns. Starting next week, I will come at readers from all directions with complex sentence structures, exotic joke packages and quick-snap items.

He could at least pretend like he puts some effort into TMQ and just doesn't plagiarize himself because he is too damn lazy to write a completely original final group of sentences to his all-haiku TMQ. It shouldn't shock anyone that Gregg puts no effort into writing new, original material. After all, he doesn't read the articles he links and he has no care to put effort into determining whether the assertions he makes in TMQ are factual or just shit he has made up based on his own incorrect assumptions.

I'll employ an up-tempo format in which each new item begins before the previous one ends.

How about you end TMQ and begin to write a new column on a completely new topic at a completely new website and then not tell anyone that you write at that new website? 

Thursday, August 29, 2013

12 comments Gregg Easterbrook (Not Really) Previews the NFC

Gregg Easterbrook didn't really preview the AFC last week in TMQ, as well as did his 100th column about concussions. Gregg believes that high schools and youth leagues follow the lead of the NFL, unless the NFL needs to follow the lead of high schools and youth leagues of course. It really works whichever way Gregg needs it to work at that very moment to prove a point. This week Gregg asks if the zone-read is a fad, discusses the plot issues with "Star Trek" and continues to not really each NFL conference by not really previewing the NFC.

Is the zone-read option the flavor of the month, or is it the new vanilla? The first few weeks of the NFL season might tell.

Or the first few weeks of the season might not tell. Either way, stay tuned to TMQ where Gregg will tell us the Packers lost the first game of the season because their cornerbacks got caught looking in the backfield while playing zone coverage and the receiver ran right past one of these Packer corners. This would never have happened if the Packers cornerbacks would ignore the defense called and play man coverage all the time like Gregg seems to believe an defensive player has the option to do.

Last season, the Forty Niners, Seahawks and Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons (see below)

A. Nobody cares.

B. Everyone knows you are referring to the Redskins. You aren't as clever as you think yourself to be.

There are likely to be numerous all-zone confrontations. San Francisco and Seattle play each other twice, plus each line up against Carolina. Washington faces the Eagles twice and also the Niners.

The question is whether the zone-read is a fad or a fixture...or will the zone-read be a part of some teams' playbook and they will continue to use it as long as they have a quarterback who can execute the zone-read well, but possibly not use it to the extent it is currently being used? I vote C.

Considering the zone-read was a surprise tactic last season, who will surprise with it this season?

Oh Gregg, always misunderstanding offensive and defensive strategies. The zone-read doesn't serve solely as a surprise tactic, but relies on the quarterback's ability to run with the football and make a great decision as to when to pitch the football to the running back. What makes it work isn't necessarily the surprise, but the skill at which the play is blocked and the decision-making ability of the quarterback. It's like any other running play, where it is generally successful if blocked correctly and executed well.

Green Bay didn't sign Vince Young, or the New England Patriots sign Tim Tebow, because they need someone to fill the Gatorade bucket. 

No, really, the Patriots did sign Tebow because they needed someone to fill the Gatorade bucket and also for the purpose of seeing if there were ways to use Tebow successfully outside of the quarterback position. At this point, Tebow seems to be better at refilling the Gatorade bucket.

Imagine having to prepare for the disciplined traditional passing of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady and also for zone-read chaos when a guy who can run or throw takes a few snaps.

Or imagine having to play against Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin, or Colin Kaepernick. Not that preparing for Rodgers or Brady is easy, but the defense generally knows if either Brady or Rodgers are in the game then the Packers/Patriots aren't going run the read-option. So the real confusion comes in when a quarterback can run the read-option and also pass the football successfully. It's kind of a tip-off about the play the offense is running when Tebow is back in the shotgun, but the defense has to respect Kaepernick's legs and arm when he is back in the shotgun.

In college, the quarterback is assumed to be a rushing threat, if only because his economic value is so low: He works for free, and an injury does not cost the school anything.

Well, plus college defenses don't have the caliber of athlete that an NFL defense has, which generally makes defending the quarterback when he runs more difficult at the college level.

An NFL team might have $20-$50 million invested in its starting quarterback and thus wants to protect him from harm.

I can't make a blanket, generalized statement, but I'm guessing an NFL team would decide to use the read-option with their quarterback if they thought it could help them win games and the quarterback would be smart in trying to be smart while carrying the ball. Obviously an NFL team doesn't want their starting quarterback injured, but I don't know if a team would go away from the read-option (or zone read) if they think this could help them win games. Will teams run the read-option with Tom Brady? No, but the new type of quarterback that is athletic and can throw the football well makes the read-option a more viable strategy.

A zone-read rushing play is 11-on-11, and, as the Niners showed the Packers, you'd better be ready to account for that extra man.

Gregg specializes in summarizing information that the reader probably already knows.

TMQ noted in January that having the edge rusher force the action back inside is "the adjustment the whole league will make next season".

As usual, Gregg makes something black and white when it isn't really that simple. That's great if the whole league will have the edge rusher force the action back inside, but what will happen if the edge rusher gets blocked or the opposing team is running up the middle instead of the quarterback keeping the football and running outside? Things aren't always just as simple as Gregg wants to make them.

Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, only three NFL teams -- San Francisco, Seattle and Washington -- ran more often than they passed in 2012. All three made the playoffs; two won a playoff game, and the only reason it wasn't three was that Washington and Seattle faced each other.

What Gregg neglects to mention is that he has been telling us for the past couple of years that the NFL is a pass-wacky league and it will continue to trend that way. This is all forgotten of course when he finds data that comes close to contradicting this point of view.

In 2012, the top four rushing teams -- Washington, the Minnesota Vikings, Seattle and San Francisco -- reached the playoffs. The top three passing teams -- the New Orleans Saints, Detroit Lions and Dallas -- did not. Last season's stats show that, just like in college, a team can win by featuring the rush. For 2013 at least, expect an uptick in rushing plays.

Remember these statistics in mid-November when Gregg starts talking about pass-wacky offenses around the league and how the NFL is now a passing league where good defensive teams don't matter and the team that outscores the other team makes the playoffs. In fact, Gregg sort of talks about this very subject in this TMQ. 

Now, Tuesday Morning Quarterback's NFC preview.

Again, Gregg is using the term "preview" very lightly since he only seems to talk about what happened last year as it pertains to each team.

The Oakland Raiders gave the sun, moon and stars for Carson Palmer, kept him just two seasons, then shipped him to the Arizona Cardinals for a late draft pick. Arizona gave the sun and moon, though not the stars, for Kevin Kolb, kept him just two seasons, then waived him. Now, Arizona has Palmer, while Oakland is left holding a pair of late-round draft picks. Had Arizona simply acquired Palmer two years ago for what it spent on Kolb, this would have been praised as a brilliant move.

So it would have been smart for the Cardinals to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Carson Palmer two years ago, but it wasn't smart for the Raiders to do the same thing? The going price for Palmer at the time was a 1st and 2nd round pick, so the Cardinals would have had to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Palmer and there's no guarantee that he would have been successful in Arizona. So I'm not sure I am able to see why it wasn't smart for the Raiders to trade for Palmer, but the Cardinals should have traded for Palmer. They got him for a late-round pick this past offseason. That seems like a better deal, even in retrospect, then giving up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Palmer (which would have resulted in them giving up the chance to draft Michael Floyd and Kevin Minter---or Jonathan Cooper instead of Minter if the Cardinals made the playoffs with Palmer starting for them). The Cardinals have been terrible at quarterback, but a 1st and 2nd round pick for Carson Palmer is a steep price to pay. Of course the Cardinals did give up a 2nd round pick for Kolb, plus gave him a extension. So maybe Gregg has a point, but I'm always inclined just to think he doesn't have a point.

Arizona had an above-average defense in 2012 but the league's worst offense. Considering the offense could not stay on the field, the stout performance by the defense was impressive. The Cardinals' big problem on offense was an abysmal average of 5.6 yards per pass attempt. Palmer can only improve that number.

Right, which is why it was such a good deal to get him for a late-round draft pick. I'm not sure it was worth trading for Palmer if the Cardinals had to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick. Palmer just isn't worth that to me and I'm guessing he isn't worth it to the Cardinals either if they could go back in time and make this deal.

Arizona held a 10-point lead over the Atlanta Falcons, who would go on to host the NFC title game. Whisenhunt pulled starter John Skelton and sent in the never-used Ryan Lindley, who immediately lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown.

This is a fantastic example of how Gregg lies and misleads his readers. The Cardinals held a 10-point lead and were even in this game because the Falcons turned the ball over seven times. Ken Whisenhunt pulled John Skelton because Skelton was 2-7 for six passing yards at that point in the game. He had six passing yards, so you can see why Whisenhunt chose a different quarterback at this point in the game. Gregg of course doesn't tell us this, but just tells us that Ryan Lindley was never-used and the immediately lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown.

Whisenhunt replaced Skelton when there was 9:39 left in the second quarter of the game. Lindley was an improvement over Skelton and he only committed one turnover, that is one turnover, during the game. The Cardinals did not lose this game because Whisenhunt pulled Skelton for Ryan Lindley. They lost the game because both quarterbacks were bad.

Arizona was not only defeated in that game but was 1-6 for the remainder of the season.

ALL BECAUSE THE CARDINALS REPLACED A SHITTY QUARTERBACK WITH ANOTHER SHITTY QUARTERBACK! IT RUINED THE CARDINALS ENTIRE SEASON!

Atlanta: The easiest thing to forget about the 2012 NFL season was that the Falcons went 14-4 and came without a couple snaps of the Super Bowl.

This is one of easiest things to forget about the 2012 NFL season? The NFC Championship Game is probably of one of the three most high-profile games of the NFL season and the Falcons blew a lead at home. This is quite easy to remember.

It was as if in last season's playoffs the Falcons suddenly forgot how to play football.

They made the NFC Championship Game. How is making it to the NFC Championship Game and coming close to making the Super Bowl "forgetting how to play football"?

The Atlanta defense finished 24th statistically, and often -- at inopportune moments -- forgot how to play football.

My God, somebody please tell Gregg that the other team practices too. It's not like the Falcons just magically forget to play football, they get beaten by a team that showed themselves to be the better team. The 49ers came close to winning the Super Bowl two weeks after beating the Falcons. In fact there's a trend here:

The season before, the Falcons went to Jersey/A in the postseason and seemed to forget how to play football, losing 24-2.

The Giants went on to win the Super Bowl. 

The season before that, the Falcons had the table set, opening at home after a bye, then seemed to forget how to play football, losing 48-21 to the Packers.

Green Bay went on to win the Super Bowl.

In 2008 the Falcons lost to the Arizona Cardinals, who went on to make it to the Super Bowl. So it isn't like the Falcons are losing to shitty teams in the playoffs.

When Newton arrived in the league, defensive coordinators assumed he'd be mainly a running quarterback and kept their safeties near the line of scrimmage. Newton responded by throwing for a record-smashing average of 427 yards in his first two contests. Defensive coordinators then told their secondaries to drop into a regular shell; since then, Newton has averaged 248 yards passing per game.

Which is about average for an NFL quarterback. Newton also led the Panthers in rushing last year, which apparently Gregg doesn't count as deserving to be a part of this discussion.

Now there are 24 seconds in regulation, Buccaneers ball on the Cats' 24. Vincent Jackson, the opponent's best receiver, was able to run into the end zone covered only by a linebacker -- touchdown.

To be really fair to Ron Rivera, which I am not inclined to be, Jackson was covered by the defensive rookie of the year on this play (Luke Kuechly) and Josh Freeman made an absolutely perfect throw to get the ball into Jackson. It was a gorgeous throw and Kuechly had pretty good coverage on the play.

Otherwise, Gregg has a point when discussing Ron Rivera.

During the offseason, the Bears used first- and fifth-round draft choices on offensive linemen, then traded offensive tackle Gabe Carimi, their first-round choice just two years ago, to the Buccaneers at the fire-sale price of a sixth-round draft choice.

Gregg wants to know why the Buccaneers didn't just draft Carimi when they had the chance two years ago rather than give up a sixth round choice for him in 2013.

Why discard Carimi, a great college player and a major investment for the Bears, even if his NFL career started slowly?

Because he wasn't playing well in comparison to the salary that he was getting paid?

Front-office politics are the likely answer. New general manager Phil Emery needs to shift blame, so he gave the heave-ho to Smith, a hire of former general manager Jerry Angelo. Now he tells the world that Angelo's final first-round draft choice was a blown pick. Emery also waived Chris Williams, an offensive lineman chosen in the first round in 2008 by Angelo. This allows Emery to enter the 2013 season with excuses lined up.

It also allows the Bears to rid themselves of underachieving offensive linemen on the roster, regardless of where these offensive linemen were chosen. A General Manager's job is to make a team better and getting rid of two underachieving picks isn't front office politics, but an attempt to make the Bears better. I would think if anyone could understand getting rid of an underachieving player it would be Gregg Easterbrook. He is the one who constantly harps on first round picks being overpaid glory boys. Yet, the Bears get rid of a couple of these underachieving guys and Gregg doesn't like it.

If the Bears win, fine; if they lose, Emery can blame Angelo's bad draft picks.

Which is valid to do as it pertains to Chris Williams and Gabe Carimi. Neither player produced what was expected of them for the Bears. They weren't very good picks.

In the Dallas-San Francisco draft trade, the Boys gained only a third-round choice to allow the Niners to swap up 13 spots to the middle of the first round. In other trades involving the first round, to swap up eight spots, the St. Louis Rams gave the Bills a second-round choice. To swap up from the second round to the late first,

Perhaps Jones paid so much to Romo that he needed to move down in the first round to lower his rookie bonus costs and was so focused on moving down he allowed himself to be fleeced.

Actually if Gregg took the time to do any type of research he could see that the contract extension to Tony Romo actually opened up cap room so the Cowboys could sign free agents and their draft picks. It's irritating how Gregg makes these types of comments without doing any research. Maybe the 3rd round pick wasn't enough compensation for moving up 13 spots and maybe the Romo extension wasn't a great idea, but signing Romo to the contract extension freed up cap space rather than cost the Cowboys cap space.

In my draft column, yours truly observed that Mel Kiper and his kith get a hard time because their predictions are public, while we never know what mistakes NFL scouts make in private. 

Sort of like when Gregg states he wrote "Game over" in his Selena Gomez Trapper Keeper notebook and Gregg's readers have no way of verifying whether this is true or Gregg is just stating this using hindsight to make himself look smarter? Gregg's readers also have no idea of when Gregg has written "Game over" in his notebook and this hasn't been true.

Reader John Martin in Washington, D.C., reports that because Jones allowed himself to be filmed -- looking manly, of course -- in the Boys draft room, it was possible to freeze-frame and zoom in on the Dallas board. The Boys slotted DJ Hayden, taken by Oakland with the 12th selection, as a second-round choice. The Boys' board reflects guesses about value specifically to the Cowboys, not necessarily a Kiper-style overall ranking.

Yeah Gregg, pretty much every team's NFL draft board consists of that team's guesses about a player's value. That's what a draft board is.

Ben Cohen of the Wall Street Journal calls the new palace at the University of Oregon "the physical embodiment of this gilded age of college football." In the most recent academic year, Oregon cleared a $31 million profit on football, according to Department of Education data, while graduating just 49 percent of its African-American players.

How many of these players would have gone to college, much less graduated, without having played football or received a football scholarship? Not excusing the profit Oregon cleared, but I think looking at whether these African-American players would have been able to attend college without football is important.

Exploiting young black males without conferring education ought to shame Chip Kelly, the University of Oregon alumni and trustees and the NCAA.

Again, we have to also focus on two other factors:

1. How many of the 49% who graduated would have gotten a college degree without a sports scholarship? This is a difficult question to answer for sure, but I think it is an important question.

2. It takes two to tango. Chip Kelly has a responsibility to make sure his players go to class and graduate, but you can't make a person graduate college and attend class during college if that person doesn't want to. I guess Kelly could kick players off the team who don't go to class and aren't on-track to graduate.

Assuming Knight is in the top bracket, donating $68 million to the University of Oregon football program would cost him about $43 million. Taxpayers would be hit for the other $25 million. To cover Knight's deduction, average people must be taxed more or the national debt must increase.

The theory of tax deductibility for donations to colleges and universities is sound: Higher education benefits society as a whole. But when the tax expenditures go to football programs, society does not benefit.

Tell that to the Oregon football players and boosters who can proudly show off the new facility.

And if the money given to football might have instead been donated to the university's endowment or core academic mission, society is actively harmed.

Society is harmed under the assumption that Phil Knight would have donated this money to the university's endowment or core academic mission. I'm not sure Phil Knight would have donated $68 million to the university's endowment or not, so the only way to conclude society is harmed is if assumptions are made. And we all know what happens when you assume? That's right, Gregg makes shit up in order to better prove a point he wants to make.

That athletics diverts money from college education, and does so at taxpayer expense, is a broad problem. 

Again, we are working under the assumption that the money given to athletics would otherwise be given to an education fund. This isn't an assumption I am willing to make, mostly because I don't want to make an assumption to try and prove my point correct like Gregg does.

The University of Maryland just reported a $21 million athletic department deficit despite all UMD undergrads being charged $398 annually to subsidize athletics. That's about $11 million taken annually from regular students who are struggling to pay tuition and diverted to sports.

That's not what I'm seeing. I'm actually seeing $406.38 to pay for athletics. Of course students are also being charged the following fees annually as well:

Stamp Union Fee: $308.24
Recreation Building: $362
Technology Fee: $264

In fact, out of the $1,771.82 in fees charged to a full-time student during the 13/14 year, athletics is responsible for 22.9% of the cost of these fees. I'm betting in terms of students getting use out of these fees, that athletics is a much better deal than paying $362 for a recreation building. Maybe not, but in terms of the fees it costs a student to attend the University of Maryland athletic fees don't make up the majority of the cost.

Detroit: Stacked with high first-round draft picks and mega-contract players, no NFL team underperforms like the Lions. The talent-stacked defense, which allowed 49 touchdowns in 2012, has given up more total points than any other NFL team over the past four seasons.

I'm not sure you can call the Lions defense "talent-stacked" if the defense doesn't play well. Maybe the defense should have talent, but they clearly lack some sort of talent somewhere.

In a pass-wacky league, the Lions are wackiest. Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, Detroit coaches radioed in 378 more passes than rushes last season -- 24 more called passes than rushes per contest. While Seattle rushed 57 percent of the time (see below), the Lions threw just shy of twice as much as they ran. Because the NFL has become a passing league, even Bill Belichick is now pass-wacky. But Detroit takes pass-wacky too far.

It also doesn't help the Lions offensive line and running backs haven't helped the run game flourish even when a running play is called. You may ask in Gregg's opinion how we know when a team takes pass-wacky too far. That's an easy answer. A team has taken pass-wacky too far if they don't win games. If that team is pass-wacky and wins games then that is the right amount of pass-wacky. It all depends on the result, because otherwise Gregg has no suitable advice on what a team should do (or should have done) without knowing the result.

This column is a longtime fan of Vince Young. It might be chaotic when he's on the field, but at the double whistle, his team has more points than the other team. So it's nice to see Young get another chance with the Packers.

Vince Young just wins games. Lazy analysis will always survive no matter what.

Considering Green Bay's passing system relies on precise execution -- the Packers throw deep sideline routes, a favorite pattern of the Manning brothers -- it's hard to see Young running the same offense Rodgers runs.

So the Packers will just completely change their offense if Vince Young ends up having to start for the Packers. I can't see how anything could go wrong in this situation.

Mike McCarthy's charges were eaten alive by the zone-read in the playoffs and now open against the Niners. Young can impersonate Kaepernick when the Packers run the scout team. And if Young comes in a few times a game for zone-read plays, this will force Green Bay opponents to prepare on defense for two entirely different philosophies of offense.

The initial problem I see with the Packers running the read-option successfully is that at this point they don't have a running back that really scares NFL defenses. It's much different to run the read-option with Robert Griffin and Alfred Morris or Colin Kaepernick and Frank Gore than it is to run the read-option with Vince Young and (the unproven) Eddie Lacy. Before Gregg starts getting excited about the Packers running two entirely different offensive philosophies he needs to think whether the offensive line that can't block for Aaron Rodgers can block for Young when running the read-option.

Then Gregg publicizes a book he wrote about youth football that goes on sale in September. I'm not linking it right now and no one can make me.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback has long felt the Giants are a better reflection of the New York City milieu than the Jets, setting aside that both neither practice nor performs in the Empire State. The Giants bicker openly about money and ego, seem constantly on the verge of collapse, then rally and do something special. That's New York!

What? The Giants do not openly bicker about money and ego and seem on the verge of collapse. If anything, the Jets are the team that openly bicker about money and ego. Of course the Jets don't always follow it up with something special, but like always, we can't have reality infringe on Gregg's comparison. Gregg prefers to create his own reality that fits the point he wants to prove. He wants the Giants and Jets to reflect their respect states and so that's how he will frame his comparison, reality be damned.

The Jets seem constantly depressed and fouled up. That s New Jersey.

Okay...this is a really bad analogy. It seems there is more bickering about money and ego in the Jets part as compared to the Giants.

There's no sane reason to expect the Giants to be good this season -- but touts felt that way going into 2011, which ended with Eli Manning hoisting the Lombardi.

Why is there no reason to expect the Giants to be good this season? Gregg constantly makes statements like this with little to no factual backing. Why couldn't we expect the Giants to be good? They still have a really defensive line, great receivers, and Eli Manning as their quarterback with David Wilson just waiting to breakout. I hate it when Gregg makes a statement without explaining what the hell he is talking about. This is an opinion being framed as a statement of fact.

The Vikings' last season came down to this: In the playoffs, trailing Green Bay 24-3 with 11 minutes remaining, facing fourth-and-2, Leslie Frazier sent in the punting unit.

Since he did the "safe" thing and punted, he wasn't criticized. But down by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a playoff contest, punting on fourth-and-2 is like running up the white flag. Needless to say, the day ended with Minnesota decisively defeated.

I am willing to bet the Vikings still would have been decisively defeated even if the Vikings had converted this fourth down instead of punting the football. Gregg's point stands that the Vikings probably should have gone for it, but he is trying to tie the result of the game to this decision by Leslie Frazier when there seems to be a very tenuous connection.

And, as usual, led by Jared Allen, the Vikes did well for sacks. But the team finished just 20th overall on defense -- Allen and other Vikings defenders gambled for sacks at the expense of gap discipline.

On every play the Vikings defenders gambled for sacks at the expense of gap control. Gregg has no specific play that shows this to be true, mostly because he really, really enjoys just making shit up that he believes makes sense in his head.

In a third scene, New Improved Kirk and New Improved Scotty dangle together from a great height. New Improved Chekov comes along and hauls the pair up, using one arm to raise the weight of two men -- something not even an Olympic power lifter could accomplish. Perhaps by 2255, fitness DVDs are more effective at building muscle mass.

Or maybe, just maybe, this is a movie and the fact it involves time travel and aliens from other planets that happen to also speak English means Chekov lifting more than an Olympic power lifter could lift is not the most unrealistic part of the film. It's science-FICTION. The key word being "FICTION" which means "not real." So the movie is not intended to be realistic and I don't get why Gregg wants a science-fiction movie to be realistic.

In the flick, Starfleet is run by a neo-Nazi megalomaniac intent on galactic domination. He is able to build a secret starbase, there to manufacture the ultra-gigantic space dreadnaught, without anyone noticing. Wouldn't building a starbase in orbit around Jupiter require a fantastic investment of material and labor? Wouldn't an auditor have spotted trillions of quatloos missing from the Starfleet budget?

1. It is a movie and Gregg is stupid for asking this question. I can't comprehend why he takes movies seriously enough to ask these types of questions.

2. Gregg has described quite a few times how the United States government and other entities have lost millions of dollars they can't find. So let's pretend that happened here. Starfleet misplaced $500 million and can't find what happened to it.

said to be impossible in all previous "Trek" iterations, including the movies and TV shows set a century after 2255. Attacking a ship in a warp field was previously said impossible, even for Species 8472, the most advanced civilization the Federation has ever encountered. Suddenly, doing this is a snap.

I can't imagine how irritating it would be to watch a movie with Gregg Easterbrook. I would probably get so irritated by his comments about a movie that I would try to force feed him popcorn in the hopes he chokes to death or at least loses enough oxygen to forget what he was commenting about.

Everyone's waiting to see if Kelly implements his Blur Offense with the Eagles. Michael Vick, named the starter, would seem the perfect quarterback for the Blur; Nick Foles and Matt Barkley are pocket passers.

Never underestimate how uneducated Gregg Easterbrook can be. A pocket passer can thrive in Chip Kelly's offense as well and Nick Foles seemed to run the Eagles offense pretty well in the preseason. It's not like Kelly's offense always requires the quarterback to scramble and run option plays.

Regardless, TMQ is putting his chips on this wager -- not only will Barkley win the Eagles' starting job sooner rather than later, he will be the top quarterback of the 2013 draft class.

I am more than willing to wager on this. Also, Gregg doesn't count as being correct if Vick and Foles get injured this year because Gregg said Barkley will "win" the starting job. That's not winning the job he gets it because the other two quarterbacks were injured. Also, I don't know what the hell "sooner rather than later" really means so it's obvious TMQ is putting his chips on the wager, but not feeling confident enough to set out a timeline for when "sooner rather than later" might be.

But it's hard to see Barkley operating a zone-read action. The compromise might be Barkley running a quick-snap spread. 

It's not really a compromise since elements of this are currently present in Chip Kelly's offense.

What was this year's Song of the Summer? "See You in September", by the Tempos, was the No. 1 single of Summer 1959, then the top summer hit again in 1966 when rebooted by the Happenings. Summer of 2008, Coldplay's "Viva la Vida" was pounding out of every beach boom box and the speaker towers of every lakeside watering hole.

I don't know if "Viva la Vida" is the Song of the Summer for 2008. I can't really imagine that song pounding out of a beach boom box or at a watering hole. Maybe it's just me since it is an opinion. I would say "I Kissed a Girl" by Katy Perry was the 2008 Song of the Summer. You couldn't avoid it.

Perhaps the Song of the Summer 2013 is "Get Lucky" by Daft Punk. It's nice to see an act that has been around for a long time reach No. 1 in middle age -- 

The two members of Daft Punk are 39 and 38 years old. They have put four albums out and the first album came out in 1997. I don't know, again, it is a matter of opinion, but I'm not sure Daft Punk is in middle age for a band. They made their first album only 16 years ago.

The 2012 Niners were both impressive statistically and fun to watch, owing to the midseason switch from conventional passing to Kaepernick. Lots of things went very well. San Francisco finished second in total defense; the offensive line was stable for the entire season; 14 players scored touchdowns (lots of guys handling the ball is usually a positive sign);

Or a really bad sign because it means the team has suffered a lot of injuries during the season. I know, I hate to ruin Gregg's assumptions like I tend to do.

A mild question is why San Francisco used its three seventh-round choices rather than banking some of them, too. Considering the Niners have the league's strongest roster, can three late picks make this team?

Well of course they can Gregg. Aren't you the one who constantly tells us how great late-round and undrafted players are? I always love to notice how Gregg backs away from his insistence that late-round and undrafted players are often better than first or second round draft picks when it fits the point he wants to prove. When an undrafted player does well in the NFL, all of a sudden Gregg is back talking about highly-paid glory boys and how these first and second round players are lazy unlike those hard-working undrafted free agents.

In this TMQ, Gregg also suggests that undrafted players should make more money in bonuses, which could have the side effect of fewer undrafted players being signed by teams in order to save money. Obviously Gregg didn't think about this when making the suggestion to up the bonus of undrafted free agents. He's hurting the players he claims to want to help.

The Bluish Men Group attempted 405 forward passes and 536 rushes, the kind of ratio that was common half a century ago. With most NFL defenses geared to stop the pass, Seattle's run-first offense seemed to baffle opponents, allowing the Seahawks to average 4.8 yards per rush and 8 yards per pass attempt, both healthy numbers.

Yes, I'm sure every NFL team that played the Seahawks last year were baffled on how to stop the run. They had completely forgotten how to stop the run. Because NFL teams are only able to stop an opposing team from passing the football or running the football and can't simply do both. It always has to be one or the other. God, I hate Gregg's type of reasoning.

Carroll's defense played a power style, holding opponents to 6.2 yards per pass and 4.5 yards per rush -- both nice margins compared to Seattle's own numbers. The Hawks defense finished fourth against yards and first against points.

This really good defense was led by Defensive Coordinator Gus Bradley, who Gregg called "a weak, insecure coach" last week in TMQ.

Since the arrival of Jeff Fisher as Rams coach, the team has been active in draft-choice trades. Notably, the Rams dealt away the chance to select RG III;

Yep. I'm not big on what-if situations, but without using a "what-if" scenario one has to wonder how choosing to keep Sam Bradford around rather than draft Robert Griffin will look for the Rams in the coming years. Was three picks and keeping Bradford worth passing up the chance to draft Griffin? As Joe Morgan says, it's too early to tell. Granted, the Rams did get some draft picks out of the deal, which is always helpful to build a good team around Bradford.

Summing Fisher's trades, St. Louis swapped Griffin and two first-round picks, plus second-, sixth- and seventh-round selections for Tavon Austin, Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins, Alec Ogletree, Isaiah Pead, Stedman Bailey, Rokevious Watkins, Zac Stacy and Washington's 2014 first-round pick.

I realize I harp on this, and for fear of agreeing with Gregg, but when Peter King is praising the Rams organization's genius during the 2013 draft I wonder if he imagines Tavon Austin playing with Robert Griffin instead of Sam Bradford?

First in run defense, last in pass defense -- sounds like Buccaneers coaches were not employing balanced tactics. 

This could be why the Buccaneers signed Dashon Goldson, drafted Johnthan Banks, and traded for Darrelle Revis. It's hard to be a balanced defense when Eric Wright is one of your starting corners and a converted corner (Ronde Barber) is playing safety alongside a rookie (Mark Barron).

In March, the American Astronomical Society "expressed deep concern about the U.S. government's new restrictions on travel and conference attendance for federally funded scientists." Attending conferences is useful for many professions, but why should average people be taxed to fund science junkets? I write novels and benefit from attending literary conferences. If I demanded that scientists be taxed to fund my travel, scientists would be outraged.

The difference that Gregg is too blind to see is the term "federally funded scientists." Regardless of which side of this matter I agree with, these scientists are federally funded and believe their knowledge base can be improved and expanded by attending conferences which would help society as a whole. Gregg Easterbrook is not a federally funded author so an increase in his knowledge base theoretically would only help him sell books and the idea is this wouldn't help society as a whole. 

TMQ banged the drum for years about eliminating the Redskins name. Then, when the world seemed to lose interest, I returned to using the name in the column. Now that interest is rising anew -- two lawsuits are in progress -- this column will go back to calling the franchise in question the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons.

What a sellout. Always following what's popular to do.

Next Week: Still America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions!

I most likely say this every week when reading the one sentence preview of next week's TMQ, but this is my least favorite TMQ of the year.