4 comments Gregg Participates in Using the Same Hyper Specificity of Numbers He Criticizes Others for Using

In the comments of the TMQ post for last week some of us were trying to guess what the topic would be for this week's TMQ. It's not hard to guess, since he essentially just rotates a few topics on a weekly basis. Yet, I was still wrong. I thought TMQ would be about concussions, since another high school football player died over the past week. I was wrong. Gregg has repeated a different topic in this TMQ. It's the annual, "Look at how many points are being scored" TMQ, followed by the later season "I can't believe the defenses caught up with the offense" TMQ. So Gregg (again) talks about how many points are being scored in college and NFL football these days. He talks about it on a smaller level every week, much like he talks about the same topics every week in TMQ, but this week he is writing more than a paragraph about how pass-wacky and points-crazy football has become.

The football scoreboard won’t stop spinning.

Says Gregg Easterbrook every single year in TMQ.

So far this season, N.F.L. games are averaging 46.6 total points. That’s up from 45.2 points per game in 2014 and 41.2 points per game a decade ago.

Gregg used to write an entire TMQ dedicated to hyper specificity and how numbers shouldn't be rounded out to too many decimal points. For example, he likes to mock the time difference in an athlete who runs a 4.39 and 4.32 40-yard dash. He'll often write things like, "How do they know the difference in 0.07 seconds?" or write something sarcastic about how the 40-yard dash should be 4.39614 seconds. Gregg also likes to make fun of statistics that might say an NBA team hits a three-point shot every possession, with him saying, "How do you go down the floor 0.6 times?" and believing himself to be the smartest and most clever human on the planet for being snarky about this.

Well, knowing that...I have to ask how the fuck an NFL game scan feature 46.6 points? Is there a 0.6 field goal or an extra 0.6 point that I'm not aware of? Are certain touchdowns only worth a percentage of 6 points?

This is typical Gregg Easterbrook. He goes to great lengths to criticize hyper specificity in the use of statistics, yet has no issue with using hyper specificity himself when using statistics. The "unsophisticated" will laugh at his jokes about an athlete running a 4.562874 second 40-yard dash, but he hopes they won't notice that Gregg uses the same types of statistics he likes to criticize in TMQ. Gregg is special, so he can talk about an NFL game featuring 46.6 total points, while mocking another writer for claiming an NBA team hits a three-point shot every 3.6 possession. The rules, as written by Gregg Easterbrook, do not apply to Gregg Easterbrook.

Big-time college football, where Baylor and West Virginia just combined for 100 points, spins the scoreboard faster: 27 Division I programs are averaging more points per game than the highest-scoring N.F.L. club, the Patriots at 36.6.

HOW CAN AN NFL TEAM SCORE 36.6 POINTS IN A GAME? I'M GREGG EASTERBROOK AND I LIKE TO CRITICIZE OTHERS FOR THE THINGS THAT I MYSELF DO. 

One-hundred twenty-four Division I programs — that’s 97 percent — are averaging more points per game than the lowest-scoring N.F.L. team, the 49ers. North Texas, Old Dominion, Vanderbilt, Army, the Roadrunners of the University of Texas at San Antonio: All score more than the Niners.

What a coincidence! 96.8%, make that 97%, of NFL teams are also scoring more points per game than the lowest scoring NFL team. That's so weird isn't it? It's almost like college teams score more points, but the percentage of teams that score more than the 49ers doesn't change regardless of whether that team is in the NFL or Division I NCAA.

You know Gregg didn't look up the percentage of NFL teams that score more than the 49ers and was very proud of himself when he saw the 97% number that showed how many Division I teams score more points than the lowest scoring NFL team. It means SO MUCH and proves how high-scoring college football is. He just forgot to look at the percentage of NFL teams who are also outscoring the 49ers. Whoops!

The fad for hurry-up tactics and rules changes designed to encourage pass completions are some of the reasons. But there’s an often overlooked factor: New safety rules favor offense.

This is literally one of the most cited reasons for why NFL offensive scoring is at an all-time high. Defensive players and other NFL analysts have stated over and over and over and over again that the NFL has taken steps to protect offensive players and it makes it more difficult for defensive players to do their job. Yes, the new rule changes to encourage completions are a reason for increased offense as well, but the fact the safety rules favor the offense is also often cited as a reason also. Perhaps Gregg believes if he just says this is an overlooked factor then it will suddenly become true and he won't be wrong. 

The most common deliberate helmet-to-helmet hit was by a safety against a receiver on a crossing pattern; a linebacker using his helmet as a weapon against a ball carrier was second-most common.

Now this form of contact is illegal, which benefits offense; especially, assisting the short-passing tactics that have proliferated.

Right. The short-passing tactics have proliferated because of the new rules. Hence, the new safety rules that favor the offense is not an overlooked factor in the increased offense. 

Sunday night at Indianapolis, the Patriots’ Julian Edelman repeatedly ran “low crossers,” short patterns directly in front of Tom Brady, who targeted 10 throws Edelman’s way.

One of the overlooked reasons why the Patriots are so good on offense is that Julian Edelman finds a way to get open on these short crossing patterns. No one ever thought of this before I broached this subject right now. 

Only once on these 10 targets was Edelman hit in the helmet. A decade ago, he would have absorbed several deliberate helmet-to-helmet impacts when prancing over the middle in this fashion; a generation ago, he would have been drilled in the head or the back even after an incompletion sailed past.

Right. NFL receivers aren't as afraid to run a route over the middle of the field, which means the middle of the field becomes more open in the passing game, which means there will be more scoring, which means offense will increase, and because this is the widely known result then the new safety rules that favor the offense is not overlooked. 

The rules need to become stricter still, especially at the high school level, where the most football is played.

But football’s safety initiatives are in almost every case a boon to the offense. Let the scoreboard spin!

But who knew the new safety rules were having such an effect on scoring? It's such an overlooked factor!

Sweet Play of the Week. Denver’s Aqib Talib sprinted 63 yards for an interception return touchdown at Cleveland, the Broncos’ third pick-six of the young season. Not only was the play sweet — the Broncos’ defense has allowed nine touchdowns while scoring four, a net of just five touchdowns for the opposition in six games. Denver’s No. 2 overall defensive ranking is the key to the Broncos’ 6-0 start.

Is this the highly-drafted, highly-paid glory boy Aqib Talib that returned this interception for a touchdown? Interesting how Gregg leaves off the draft position of Talib. We know Gregg wouldn't leave off the draft position of Talib or any of the other members of the Broncos defense if they were lowly-drafted or undrafted players. The Broncos defense starts four 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick, while having two 1st round picks as backups. Naturally, Gregg leaves out that the No. 2 overall defense in the NFL has six 1st round picks making a contribution to the team. 

Later in this TMQ, Gregg will mention the draft position of the Patriots offensive players, but when he doesn't have a point to prove about how great undrafted players are, then Gregg feels it isn't necessary to note the draft position of a team's offensive/defensive unit.

But Peyton Manning’s fade is accelerating. He has seven touchdown passes versus 10 interceptions, a ratio that is not sustainable.

No, this ratio is absolutely sustainable. The ratio isn't sustainable if the Broncos want to keep winning football games, but overall, this ratio of throwing more interceptions than touchdown is sustainable. Manning could keep doing this. 

He’s been “throwing with his body,” a bad sign.

Gregg must have read this somewhere and then repeated it here in order to make it seem like he knew what he was talking about. This is too much like analysis for me to believe Gregg thought of this himself. 

In overtime at Cleveland, Manning tossed the ball directly to the wonderfully named Browns linebacker Barkevious Mingo, as if Mingo were running the pattern.

And what round was Barkevious Mingo drafted in? The first round. This would be relevant if Mingo was undrafted or was considered "unwanted" by Gregg, but because he was drafted in the 1st round, Gregg fails to mention this little fact. Only undrafted players get their draft position noted, because Gregg wants his readers to believe undrafted players produce more than highly-drafted players produce.

Sour Recurring Play of the Week. A week ago versus Cincinnati, Seattle’s vaunted Legion of Boom secondary twice simply ignored a tight end running straight up the field, leaving him uncovered for a touchdown. Now it’s Seahawks 23, Panthers 20 with 36 seconds remaining, Carolina ball on the Seattle 26, Panthers out of timeouts. Carolina tight end Greg Olsen runs straight up the field, the “seam” route on which a good tight end is most dangerous.

This is the route in which a good tight end is most dangerous. Don't be confused when Gregg claims a good tight end is most dangerous when lined up to the far side of the field with single coverage on him. In that situation, a good tight end is most dangerous regardless of the route he runs. So whatever route that a good tight end runs from whatever position on/off the line of scrimmage that results in a touchdown is the route in which a good tight end is most dangerous. It changes based on what point Gregg is trying to prove at that very moment. 

No Seattle defender so much as attempted to cover Olsen, who caught the winning pass. The highly hyped Seattle secondary stars Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas were yelling and gesturing at each other about who was to blame before the play was even over.

I laugh a little bit at the Seahawks blaming coaching (and anyone but themselves) for the loss, but it seems there were two play calls given to the Seahawks defenders, so that's probably why Thomas and Sherman were gesturing to each other. The crowd noise prevented the Seahawks from getting the correct play call, so that's the reason for the confusion. One could ask how the Panthers got a play call in (late as it may be) and the Seahawks couldn't manage to do the same at home, but the truth is Thomas and Sherman were blaming each other because they didn't know at that point there had been two defensive plays called. So they really both believed the other screwed up.

This is a good example of what I've said on repeat, which is that defensive players can't just freelance like Gregg thinks they can. A defensive player can't just run back into zone coverage when the defensive called for is man coverage, despite what Gregg will claim when he criticizes a defender for not "covering" the offensive player. Gregg doesn't seem to understand defensive players have to all work in concert with each other based on the play call or else the defense will be extra shitty.

Stretching back to the Super Bowl, the Seahawks, whose trademark is monster defense, have been unable to hold fourth-quarter leads in five of their last seven outings. Since kickoff of the Super Bowl, Seattle is minus-48 points in the fourth quarter and overtime.

The Seahawks have been traditionally very good at holding leads late in the game, so sometimes the balance shifts back the other way. Perhaps that is what is being seen now. 

As for the Colts play — ye gods. Indianapolis lined up to punt, then nine guys shifted far wide in a variation of the swinging-gate PAT look. In the center of the field were the snapper and safety Colt Anderson.

Doesn't Gregg mean "undrafted, unwanted safety Colt Anderson"? I guess not. 

The whole point of a swinging gate is if the defense doesn’t put enough guys in front of the snapper, then run straight ahead; if the defense puts enough guys in front of the snapper, then pitch sideways where blockers exceed defenders. New England positioned four guys in front of the snapper, meaning one to block four. Yet the Colts chose the up-the-middle move: instant loss of yardage.

You just can't trust undrafted players to make smart decisions in important situations like this. Doesn't Gregg know this?

Not clear what, if anything, the Colts were thinking. Sour.

Griff Whalen went to Stanford and Colt Anderson went to Montana, so these players from non-football factories just don't know how to act in tough situations. It's not their fault, but if they were from football factory schools then they may have a better idea of how to think better in tight games against elite competition. 

Stats of the Week. The Panthers are on a 9-0 streak in the regular season.

I'm glad he clarified "regular season" or else everyone would have thought the Panthers won the Super Bowl last year. 

BOLO of the Week. All units, all units, be on the lookout for defensive lineman Marcell Dareus, accused of football grand larceny. Just before the season, he signed a contract with $60 million guaranteed; so far he has one sack.

A couple of things: 

1. Dareus does get sacks, but it's not his entire job as a DT or DE in a 3-4 defense. He does other things to earn his contract. 

2. Dareus states that he has been dropped back into coverage a lot and hasn't had the chances to get sacks. Whether it is true or not, I'm not sure, but it's hard to get sacks as a DT/DE if you are being dropped back into coverage rather than consistently rushing the quarterback.

What Makes Samuel L. Jackson and Cobie Smulders Hill Fly? The tiny drones that are driving everyone crazy can float on four downward-facing fans because their payloads, typically a camera and transmitter, weigh so little. In Marvel’s Avengers movies, S.H.I.E.L.D. has a flying aircraft carrier that uses four downward-facing fans. How big would the fans need to be to lift an actual aircraft carrier?

TMQ is shorter this year and Gregg still has to kill space. Unbelievably believable. 

Assume S.H.I.E.L.D. engineers used minimum-weight criteria to trim the helicarrier weight to 50,000 tons. Assume that the fans themselves have no mass, generate no drag, and that their power source is weightless — maybe they run on arc reactors. How big would four downward-facing fans need to be to lift 50,000 tons? Tweet your calculation to @EasterbrookG.

They would need to be as big as Gregg's ego multiplied by how many times Gregg has misled or lied to his readers. That's some big fans. 

Hire an Orangutan. Steve Spurrier just resigned as South Carolina coach: The boosters were in an uproar because the Gamecocks were 2-4. 

This is what I talk about when I say Gregg misleads his readers. The way Gregg writes this sentence indicates that Spurrier resigned because the boosters were in an uproar, when this isn't entirely the truth. Spurrier was 70 years old, so he wasn't going to be coaching for much longer anyway. I don't know, and Gregg doesn't know, if the boosters being in an uproar caused his resignation. Everything I've read says this isn't true, especially since Spurrier is one of the most successful coaches in South Carolina history. Gregg tries to tie the boosters in with Spurrier's resignation when I don't think this is the truth.

Steve Sarkisian just got the heave-ho at U.S.C.: He’d appeared in public seeming to be drunk, but the real issue may be that boosters were in an uproar over the Trojans merely being 12-6 with the whistle around his neck.

No Gregg, the real issue is that Steve Sarkisian has a really bad drinking problem and became an embarrassment to the university. So he got fired for bringing embarrassment to the school and now he is allowed time to face the severe drinking problem he seems to have. I really doubt USC fired Sarkisian because of his 12-6 more than they fired him because he seems to be an alcoholic. Also, "the real issue may be...," is some mealy-mouth language that Gregg would normally criticize when seen in the writing of others. 

These three coaching changes share in common what T.M.Q. calls the Orangutan Theory of Division 1: that football-factory programs have such incredible built-in advantages in recruiting power and gimmick schedules that an orangutan should be able to lead one to bowl eligibility.

Except it doesn't work that way at all. Before hiring Steve Spurrier, South Carolina had a problem keeping elite talent in state, had 10 winning seasons since 1980 and had won 10 games or more once in the history of the program. These so-called football factory teams have an advantage in money, but that doesn't always translate to success on the field without the right players and coach. 

Not only do the top recruits flock to prestige programs like South Carolina and U.S.C., but they also play under gimmick conditions...Such schedules are as if the Denver Broncos played twice as many games at home as away, and one of the home games was against an Arena League team.

Right, but if every NFL team played an Arena League team? Then the playing field would be somewhat leveled. I'm not defending how college teams schedule, but it's important to know that recruits don't just flock to a school. Elite recruits didn't flock to South Carolina before Steve Spurrier was there. Gregg remembers it that way now, because he's used to how things are with Steve Spurrier as the head coach, but it's not always been that way. 

In the wake of the Spurrier and Sarkisian departures, the sports world — “SportsCenter,” Sports Illustrated, ESPN’s “College GameDay” — wondered when glory would return to these programs. Unless I missed it, not a word was said about the educational goals that are the ostensible purpose of the universities in question.

That's because it is a show called "SportsCenter" and "College GameDay" and a magazine called "Sports Illustrated." If these shows were called "AcademicCenter" or "College Educational GoalsDay" or "Academics Illustrated" then Gregg would have a point. They aren't called that, so Gregg has no point. These shows and this magazine are about sports. For better or worse, discussing the academic goals of the university is not a part of the discussion. Sports are what the discussion on these shows and in this magazine revolves around. 

Spurrier’s team had a 51 percent graduation rate, including a 46 percent rate for African-Americans. He should have been given the boot for exploiting players without ensuring their educations: Instead all the boosters and the networks seemed to care about was his won-loss ratio. South Carolina is an SEC school. CBS has the contract for that conference, and benefits when the Gamecocks win. Where is the “60 Minutes” segment on SEC football graduation rates?

This 51% graduation rate and 46% graduation rate for African-Americans are irrelevant without knowing the five year graduation rate of the South Carolina student body and for African-Americans at the university. What if the five year graduation rate at South Carolina is 47% or the five year graduation rate of African-Americans is 37%? All of a sudden, 51% and 46% look pretty good for a graduation rate. Naturally, Gregg doesn't provide the five year graduation rate for South Carolina because either (a) he's not smart enough to realize it gives context to the point he wants to prove or (b) it would make his point about the graduation rate of football players under Steve Spurrier seem weak. Gregg is not above misleading his readers when faced with information he doesn't think proves what he wants to have proven.

Sarkisian’s team was graduating 47 percent of players, including 38 percent of African-Americans; Kiffin’s team had a 48 percent graduation rate, including 39 percent for African-American players. ESPN and Fox, which broadcast Pac-12 football, devoted lots of air time to the recruiting and ranking ramifications of the Kiffin and Sarkisian dismissals. Did either so much as mention graduation rates?

Again, without the context of the graduation rate for the student body as a whole, these numbers don't mean a hell of a lot. Also, ESPN and FOX broadcast Pac-12 football. They broadcast sports, so that's why they don't mention academics. Is this really such a difficult point to understand? 

And yet many big football programs exploit African-American football players for profit without giving them the level of support to get the bachelor’s degree that is most people’s ticket into the middle class, or even distract them from education by demanding all their time and effort go into football. In many cases the boosters and boards of trustees don’t care, and the sports broadcasting world, which takes a cut of the exploitation, stays silent.

Yes, that's how it works. Much like I criticize what Gregg writes in TMQ, while the company that takes a cut of the revenue TMQ brings in (haha...I can't imagine it does bring too much revenue in), stays silent on how Gregg will mislead his readers.

Throw to the Dancing Tree! This week’s favorite YouTube play is the Francis Owusu catch against U.C.L.A. The Bruins gained 505 yards on offense and lost by 21 points. Over in the Big Ten, Rutgers defeated Indiana, 55-52; the Hoosiers gained 627 yards and lost. Such stats are contemporary college football in a nutshell.

In the highlight video, check the dancing tree in the background. How come N.F.L. teams don’t have dancing trees?

Because no NFL team has a dancing tree as their mascot. That seems like the simplest and most correct answer. 

As part of the general conservatism of N.F.L. coaches, most rarely send an all-out rush against a punter. Often, only a few rushers make a halfhearted gesture. During the contested portion of the same game, New Orleans punted twice: Atlanta sent seven against one punt and five against the other. Viewers and spectators tend to yawn during N.F.L. punts. But watch the rush — it’s usually a token effort, and rarely an all-out attempt to block the kick.

NFL teams want to set up a return. That's what they want to do. When a team rushes at the punter in an attempt to block the punt then they run the risk of roughing the punter or running into the punter. Also, they can't set up a punt return if they try to block the punt, which is something a team likes to do in order to get better field position. 

On the final down of the Michigan State-Michigan game, the Spartans rushed 10. This might have made the punter, who dropped the snap, nervous. He might never have seen a 10-man rush. In standard-punt fashion, Michigan players brushed the defender in front of them, then headed downfield to cover the punt. As the kicker dropped the snap, there were three Wolverines trying to protect him from 10 Spartans.

This was a completely different situation because there was only 10 seconds left in the game and Michigan State had to block the punt in order to have a chance at winning the game. Setting up a return did not matter, because they were going to lose if they didn't block the punt. So comparing this situation to any other situation where there ISN'T 10 seconds left is to misunderstand situational strategy and why Michigan State sent 10 players to block the punt. Gregg consistently misunderstands situational strategy and how a strategy may be effective in one situation, but not in another situation. 

4th Down Bot Jumps Out of His Treads to Cheer for Michigan State. T.M.Q. feels the Spartans’ improbable last-play victory was the football gods rewarding Michigan State for going for it four times on fourth down. Though none of the tries succeeded, this was bold — and fortune favors the bold. 

Gregg is very tenuously trying to tie the Spartans going for it on fourth down four times with them winning the game. Of course, if the Spartans didn't block this punt (or cause the punter to fumble), then Gregg would have not mentioned at all how many times Michigan State went for it on fourth down because it would not have gone to prove his point. In a world where Michigan State doesn't win this game, but they went for it on fourth down four times, Gregg would simply leave out how many times they went for it on fourth down. Fortune didn't favor the bold and Gregg is full of shit by insisting this is always true. Instead, Gregg is full of shit because he insists that going for it on fourth down helped the Spartans win this football game. It was a fumbled punt that helped the Spartans win this football game.

Leading, 23-21, Michigan faced fourth-and-2 on the Michigan State 47 with 10 seconds remaining. Michigan Coach Jim Harbaugh called a timeout to weigh his options. The worst was the one Harbaugh chose, a standard punt with the blockers abandoning the punter to sprint downfield. Other options:

Michigan could have kept in 10 men to defend the punter, 

And then punted the football. Maybe Harbaugh was afraid Michigan State would get a good return and have a field goal opportunity. This was the best choice though. 

and instructed him to punt out of bounds. The Wolverines could have gone for it, and if failing to convert, defend a passing heave from midfield.

Okay, no. But even if Michigan had kept 50 guys back to defend the punter then there is a chance he still would have dropped the ball. Also, I'm not trusting a college punter to kick the ball out of bounds, nor am I going for it on fourth down and letting Michigan State have a chance for a heave from midfield. 

Michigan could have put 10 blockers around the quarterback and instructed him to hold the ball as long as possible, then hurl it high toward the Spartans’ end zone. The clock probably would have expired with the ball in the air.

Yes, but if the clock doesn't expire with the ball in the air then Michigan State is in perfect field goal range. There are so many things that could go wrong here. I'm not even sure how Michigan could have put 10 blockers around the quarterback and still snap the football. Wouldn't they need to have guys lined up on the line of scrimmage prior to the snap? So if a receiver or offensive lineman starts running back to defend the quarterback from pass rushers, there is a good chance a blitzing Michigan State linebacker or a corner could beat the Michigan player back before he got a chance to set up and defend the quarterback. 

And throwing the ball in the air with the hopes time expires while it's in the air and a Michigan State player doesn't catch it? What kind of bullshit is that? 

But the primary factor surely is that big-money coaches are conditioned to do the “safe” thing and send in the kicker. That way the players are blamed — today everyone blames the Michigan punter — rather than Harbaugh, who botched the call.

It sort of is the Michigan punter's fault. He had to catch the ball and then punt it. Somehow Gregg doesn't trust the Michigan punter to catch the ball and punt it, but he trusts the Michigan punter to kick the ball out of bounds and trusts the Michigan quarterback to run around and heave the ball up in the air as time expires. These are less "safe" things to do, so they are obviously better decisions. 

New England’s continuing offensive success — the Patriots are No. 1 in scoring, No. 2 in yards — comes despite the fact that the Patriots have no receiver drafted in the first round and, with tackle Nate Solder injured, no one on offense who was a first-round selection. If the M.V.P. vote were held today, T.M.Q.’s ballot would be cast for the Flying Elvii undrafted rookie free-agent center David Andrews.

And this would be ridiculous because David Andrews is the member of an offensive line that has five members who all work best in concert with each other, thereby making it difficult to know which of these offensive lineman is the best individually. There are ways to tell which offensive lineman is performing well, but we all know Gregg pays zero attention to these metrics. He sees Andrews is on a good offensive line and that he is undrafted, so thereby awards him the MVP. 

Manly Man Play of the Week. New Orleans leading Atlanta 17-7 in the third quarter, facing fourth-and-goal on the Falcons’ 2, the hosts go for it, touchdown, and never look back...To avoid criticism, N.F.L. coaches usually do the “safe” thing in this situation. Engaging a risk — a mild risk, considering — may have helped Sean Payton revive the Saints’ season.

Or it may not have helped Sean Payton revive the Saints' season. One thing is for sure, if the Saints season is revived then it has nothing to do with how the Saints are playing out on the football field, but has everything to do with the Saints going for it on fourth down here. Because fortune favors the bold, unless the Michigan punter doesn't drop the football against Michigan State, in which case fortune does not favor the bold. Naturally. 

Manly Man Postscript. The Colts tried everything they could to snap their losing streak versus New England — onside kick, fake punt, three fourth-down attempts. That this game was close, while other recent Indianapolis-Patriots contests have been blowouts, shows the value of aggressive tactics. New England is clearly the better team, but playing aggressive kept the Colts close.

This is how full of shit Gregg is. He claims fortune favors the bold. Fine, I like teams that take risks too, but Gregg wants his readers to believe if a team is bold then that team will win the game. This is how Gregg's mind works. BUT, because the Colts were bold and still didn't win the game and everybody who follows the NFL knows this, he makes up some bullshit about how the Colts ALMOST won the game because they were bold. So apparently this isn't really a loss for the Colts because they were bold. Fortune favored the bold and playing aggressive kept the Colts close, so it was almost like a win, thereby proving Gregg's point correct. Gregg is now so desperate he's trying to claim fortune favors the bold in simply keeping a football game close. Keep lowering that bar in order to prove your ridiculous black and white theories correct, Gregg.

By the way, a very reasonable argument can be made if the Colts had not been so bold in trying a fake punt then they could have come away having won this game.

In all N.F.L. annals, there have been 11 contests with at least 90 points scored, most recently Broncos 51, Cowboys 48 in 2013. Contrast that to Baylor, which since 2011 alone has appeared in 14 games in which at least 90 points were scored. The N.F.L.’s highest-scoring contest ever was Washington 72, Giants 41 in 1966. In the last five seasons, Baylor has played five games generating more points than that N.F.L. contest: West Virginia 70, Baylor 63 in 2012; Baylor 67, University of Washington 56 in 2011; Baylor 61, T.C.U. 58 in 2013; and Baylor 73, West Virginia 42 in 2013.

There are only so many ways of saying, "College football games have a lot of points scored in them," and I think Gregg has written some variation of them all at this point. 

Chip Kelly Skedaddle Watch. In September, T.M.Q. asked, “How long till Kelly skedaddles back to college?” With Kelly’s name raised in connection with the U.S.C. job — surely, not planted by his agent! — Kelly Skedaddle Watch becomes a running item.

Can it not become a running item? If Chip Kelly does fail in the NFL, the odds of him going back to college are very high. He has succeeded in college football before, so it's very natural he will end up back in college football at some point. Bill Walsh was very successful in the NFL before retiring and ending up back as the head coach of Stanford. So maybe Kelly fails in the NFL, or even succeeds, then he could still end up back coaching college football. Bill Walsh is a good example of this. Kelly going back to coaching college football after this time in Philadelphia is through means about as much as Gregg leaving an online sports site like ESPN.com for a newspaper like "The New York Times" would mean. I don't think Gregg considers himself to have skedaddled back to a newspaper gig. Of course, the rules Gregg has for others are not rules he has for himself.

0 comments Terence Moore Only Likes MLB's Bad Ideas

I think Terence Moore only likes the bad ideas that MLB has. He doesn't like the good ideas MLB has proposed and put into use, like expanded replay (he likes this idea now that it is proven to work), the DH, and various other rule changes. What I consider to be the bad ideas that MLB has, like the one-game wild card and a pitch clock, Terence thinks those are just brilliant ideas. Major League Baseball is looking to institute a 20 second pitch clock to games in order to increase the pace of play. I think pace of play will always be a problem given the increased pitching changes due to increased relief pitcher specialization, but I have a better idea. How about baseball doesn't add a 20 second pitch clock and just enforces the two pace of play rules on the books? Would that be too easy? Rule 8.04 states:

When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”

The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball.

The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire.

Rule 6.02(d)(1) states:

The batter shall keep at least one foot in the batter’s box throughout the batter’s time at bat, unless one of the following exceptions applies, in which case the batter may leave the batter’s box but not the dirt area surrounding home plate:

(i) The batter swings at a pitch;
(ii) The batter is forced out of the batter’s box by a pitch;
(iii) A member of either team requests and is granted “Time”;
(iv) A defensive player attempts a play on a runner at any base;
(v) The batter feints a bunt;
(vi) A wild pitch or passed ball occurs;
(vii) The pitcher leaves the dirt area of the pitching mound after receiving the ball; or
(viii)The catcher leaves the catcher’s box to give defensive signals.
 

If the batter intentionally leaves the batter’s box and delays play, and none of the exceptions listed in Rule 6.02(d)(1)(i) through (viii) applies, the umpire shall award a strike without the pitcher having to deliver the pitch. The ball is dead, and no runners may advance. The umpire shall award additional strikes, without the pitcher having to deliver the pitch, if the batter remains outside the batter’s box and further delays play.

So rather than put a whole new rule on the books for the umpires to enforce, how about having the umpires enforce the two rules that are already on the books? Why is this hard? Does there need to be a running clock for some reason or is it that the umpires are too scared to enforce Rule 8.04 and Rule 6.02(d)(1) without a buzzer going off after 20 seconds? Do your job. Instead of having a 20 second pitch clock, that's what I would tell the umpires. Do your job and enforce the rules. Terence Moore thinks it's a great idea to have a pitch clock that enforces the rules already on the books. Of course he does.

Sooner rather than later, Major League Baseball will add a 20-second pitch clock to the game, and I will be fine with that.

Of course you will. Good ideas you hate, ideas that will never come to fruition (like the six man rotation) you think will ruin the game, but bad ideas involving a running clock that only reinforces a rule that is already on the books, now that is an idea you love.

This is huge news. Not only the part about the pitch clock, but the fact that I approve of such a thing as The World's Greatest Baseball Traditionalist.

This news is mainly about Terence Moore of course. How does it affect him and what does he think about it? Everything else is unimportant.

I mean, if I don't have a problem with this, then neither will the Players Association, which has to give its nod to rule changes.

Because if Terence Moore approves of something then clearly the Players Association will fall in line. Terence's opinion represents the interests of the Players Association of course.  

The bulk of baseball fans will agree, too.

Two issues here:

1. By Terence stating that he isn't being a contrarian and is agreeing with this rule change, so the bulk of baseball fans will agree too, he is also stating that he believes himself to normally be completely out of step with what the bulk of baseball fans think. Because normally, he wouldn't support this move and the bulk of baseball fans would disagree with him.

2. Simply because Terence Moore is paid by MLB and likes an idea doesn't mean that others will similarly like this idea. It's not a logical train of thought for Terence to have.

I'm also for those other proposed changes to speed up the game that were used this year during the Arizona Fall League.

Terence is moving into the modern age. I'm not sure it's on his own accord or MLB.com is forcing him to not write like baseball peaked in 1976 and it's all downhill from there.

I hear what some of you are saying. These changes would give baseball a different feel from the days of Babe Ruth slugging, Whitey Ford throwing and Lou Brock running.

No, I'm not saying that at all because I would use much, much more modern references than that. Plus, sports have to adapt or die. If baseball is different from when Babe Ruth played the game then that is not a bad thing at all.

I once had that viewpoint. It's just that, upon further review (as in baseball's new expanded replay, which hasn't exactly caused the earth to crash into the sun),

No shit! Really? And here I thought the 3-4 posts I wrote in response to the 3-4 columns you wrote was just me being stubborn and stupidly embracing progress because I like to watch old baseball ideas die.

Here are examples of Terence's dislike for expanded replay.

maybe some of you are as wrong as I was when it comes to this whole time-of-game debate.

I'm very rarely wrong, so I really, really doubt it. There's no need for a 20 second pitch clock because the rules already point out that pitchers and batters must make haste in throwing a pitch or stepping into the batter's box, and gives the umpires a chance to penalize pitchers and batters for taking up too much time. So the umpires just need to enforce the rule on the books, even though I know they seem too scared to do this, rather than have a new rule created with a 20 second pitch clock.

Consider this: 2:31, 2:28, 2:20, 2:57, 2:40, 2:34, 2:44. That's how much time it took to play each of the seven games during the 1955 World Series between the Yankees and the Dodgers.

Yes, but back then there were fewer pitching changes and less specialization among pitchers, so the game moved quicker. Remember how you harp on how pitchers back in your day used to complete the game they started? Well, when pitchers completed the game they started, the game went faster. There are more pitching changes in the modern game of baseball, so the games last longer.

With the addition of a pitch clock (you know, among other things), maybe the average time of Major League games actually will return baseball to those days of yore.

It will not due to the reason I just explained. Pitcher specialization has caused more pitching changes during a game. What could help baseball speed up the pace of play without a 20 second pitch clock is the umpires could grow a pair of balls and just enforce the rules currently on the books and Major League Baseball could back the umpires when they enforce the rules. Would that just be too easy?

It hit a record last season of 3 hours and 8 minutes. That doesn't include the postseason. Take, for instance, Game 2 of the 2014 American League Championship Series between the Royals and the Orioles. It was a nine-inning affair that lasted 4 hours and 17 minutes. By comparison, last year's World Series was swift, when the Royals met the Giants. Most games were completed within three to 3 1/2 hours, but Game 4 went four hours.

Now go back to the length of the games from the 1955 World Series, and tell me again why baseball doesn't need at least a pitch clock.

Because there is already a rule that can and should be enforced which could help speed up the game. Because a pitch clock seems like a trite and ridiculous way to solve the length of games issue.

You can't.

I just did.

Especially since we're in the age of the Internet, social media, 24/7 cable television and Millennials who are obsessed with filling the next millisecond with something different.

People will either enjoy baseball or they don't. It's really simple. Umpires should enforce the rules which can speed up the game and perhaps an idea involving speeding up the process of changing pitchers is the solution. For example, maybe a relief pitcher should not be allowed warm up pitches or maybe umpires can be stricter about the time a manager or pitching coach spends at the mound dicking around waiting for another relief pitcher to warm up. That will increase the speed of the game and won't involve a stupid clock counting down to the next pitch.

But here's the primary reason for both of those things: Bud Selig spent his 22-plus years as Commissioner looking beyond the present toward the future.

Interleague Play. Wild Card teams. Meaningful All-Star Games by giving the winning league home-field advantage during the World Series. Replay reviews, and then extended replay reviews.

Interleague play is a good idea. One game wild card is dumb. Homefield advantage is the All-Star game is increasingly dumb. All replay is a good idea.

So it's a mixed bag.

Once, Major League officials only encouraged umpires, players, managers and coaches to speed things. Those officials went from words to actions during this year's Arizona Fall League, where they tested six possible rule changes.

In 2013, the average AFL game lasted two hours and 52 minutes. The new rules sliced 10 minutes off that time.

These rules decreased the time of a game by 10 whole minutes! So playoff games will now be only a few minutes shy of four hours long! Everything is fixed!

Everything begins and ends with that pitch clock. That's because nobody on the diamond controls the tempo of the game more than the pitcher.

The umpire and the batter also control the tempo of the game at times as well.

OK, the hitter also is a mighty contributor here, but nothing of significance happens in a game until the pitcher takes the mound.

Which is why there is a rule that states: 

When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”

I'm not sure what is supposed to happen when there are runners on base. Maybe all bets are off when there are runners on base.

Baseball games have definitely gotten faster since Andy Pettitte retired. It took him approximately three minutes to throw each pitch and at no point did an umpire step in and make him hurry it up. See, that's the part where Terence is correct. Nothing does happen until the pitcher takes the mound, which is why there is an unenforced rule stating the pitcher should not waste time making his next pitch.

Which means the pitcher actually has to be standing on the mound before he can throw. Which means a pitch clock in the Major Leagues would keep a pitcher from doing a little of this and a lot of that before he decides to take the mound.

OR telling the umpires to emphasize to pitchers that they have to speed up how long they take between pitches, tell MLB teams this is happening, and then the umpires would begin to enforce the rule. This is a better idea than having a pitch clock in the bottom right hand corner of the screen during a game distracting the viewer and distracting the fans at the game.

You've seen it. Some guys stand on the mound, shake off their catcher a slew of times and then go back to doing this and that.

I've seen it and the slower pace has become a part of baseball. I'm not going to repeat myself (yes, I am), but baseball emphasizing the rule of 12 seconds between pitches is the best move rather than take the drastic step of creating a pitch clock.

For AFL participants, the pitch-clock rule went into detail as to when the clock would begin in relation to the position of the pitcher and the batter, but this wasn't complicated stuff. A clock was placed in both dugouts, behind home plate and in the outfield. If a pitcher didn't deliver the ball within 20 seconds, the umpire called a ball.

I'm frustrated because this is a circuitous route to solving a problem that doesn't require a circuitous route. Simply use the tools that baseball currently has and see what happens from there. I'm betting if MLB emphasizes the rule and enforces it there will be no need for a pitch clock.

It didn't take many "balls" in that situation for even the traditionally slow pitchers to get the message.

If the umpires would grow some "balls" and just enforce the rule then a pitch clock is unnecessary. Are ballparks going to have a pitch clock within view so the crowd knows when a pitcher is coming close to going over the allotted time span to throw the next pitch?

As for the other time-saving rules from those AFL games, hitters were required to spend the majority of their plate appearances with one foot in the batter's box, and hitters were waved to first base on intentional walks.

So basically, MLB is enforcing Rule 6.02(d)(1) for hitters but find it necessary to create a new rule requiring pitchers to throw a pitch in 20 seconds instead of just enforcing Rule 8.04 that is already on the books. This is non-brilliant, typical MLB thinking.

There was a maximum 2:30 break between innings, and hitters had to enter the batter's box by the 2:15 mark or the umpire would call an automatic strike. If a pitching change wasn't made within two minutes and 30 seconds, the umpire called a ball.

This can be all done in regular season MLB games without a pitch clock. Requiring a pitch clock is trying to invent a complicated device that kills a fly when a simple flyswatter would do the job.

Teams only were allowed three timeouts during games to conference on the mound, and that included extra innings.

I don't like the idea of teams having timeouts, just make sure the mound conferences are speedy.

Now Major League Baseball folks just have to implement it.
And they will.

MLB has had some good ideas in the recent past, but I think this pitch clock is like trying to kill an ant with a shotgun and there has to be a more seamless way to increase the pace of play without adding a timer in which the pitcher has to throw a pitch.

6 comments Gregg Easterbrook Continues Repeating Topics From Past TMQ's

Gregg Easterbrook did his annual all-haiku NFL preview in last week's TMQ. It was as bad as I imagined it might be. Gregg alerted the world to the prevalence of newspapers saying positive things about new cars due to car companies buying advertising in these newspapers. I never knew it was such a problem. Gregg also copied his closing paragraph in this year's all-haiku preview from the closing paragraph in last year's all-haiku preview. I should never accuse Gregg of not being lazy. This week Gregg talks (yet again) about how NFL teams borrow tactics from high school and college football teams. Gregg rotates the same topics over and over in TMQ. What a waste. Oh, and Gregg criticizes "Godzilla" for lacking accuracy because he has no shame and somehow manages to think a movie about a giant dinosaur-looking monster created by radioactive waste (haven't seen the movie yet, so excuse this vague description) needs to be as realistic as possible.

Want to know what trends will dominate the NFL in five years?

Trick question. There will be no NFL in five years because of lawsuits from concussions.

Attend a high school or small-college football game. Because tactics on display during the NFL's opening weekend were high school and small college all the way.

And we all know given Gregg's propensity for creepily ogling cheerleaders who are 1/3 to 1/2 of his age that Gregg will sometimes try to lower that percentage to ogling cheerleaders close to 1/4 his age at a high school or maybe even junior high game. He's there to see the tactics. That's his story. Tactics are his concern, not the cheerleaders.

Philadelphia Eagles coach Chip Kelly's Blur Offense, which scored 34 unanswered points in its Sunday comeback, owes more to high school theory than NFL experience. The Seattle Seahawks' zone-read, which just helped them win the Super Bowl, owes more to college play than pro results.

The 3-4 defense, you know that "fad" defense Gregg talks about, originated in the NFL I believe.

The very fast pace, on the other hand, was tried by Buffalo during the 1991 and 1992 seasons, then dropped.

So it doesn't count, because the Bills dropped the fast paced offense, and Jerry Glanville certainly never ran the run-and-shoot in Houston or Atlanta. If a team stops using an offensive or defensive tactic then that team doesn't get credit for creating that trend...at least in Gregg's world.

About 15 years ago, high school coaches began to revive the idea -- especially coaches with skinny players who couldn't execute a traditional high school power-I.

Gregg Easterbrook: "Offensive linemen are getting so big and fat in high school and college compared to how big and fat they used to be!"

Gregg Easterbrook: "Some high school and college coaches don't have fat enough offensive linemen to run a power-I offense, so that's why these teams use a faster paced offense!"

Pro coaches, including Bill Belichick, the winningest active NFL coach, noticed that hurry-up football was working below the pro level -- including at Troy University, where Franklin's system converted a perennial also-ran into a conference contender. Belichick was attracted to no-huddle tactics because they usually increase the number of snaps a team gets. More snaps, more yards gained.

This is typical Gregg Easterbrook. When discussing a fast paced offense, what element does he leave out that contributes to the success of this fast paced offense? Don't worry, no hint needed. Gregg provides the answer by not providing the answer.

By 2013, the Chicago Bears, Denver Broncos, San Diego Chargers, Green Bay Packers, New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers and other NFL teams were quick-snap.

As usual, Gregg Easterbrook sort of misses the point. The point isn't these teams run a fast paced offense soohmygodwhydoesn'teveryteamdothis? The point is these teams all have a quarterback that can handle running a fast paced offense and have the ability to audible, change a play call and execute the offense at a fast pace.

These teams have Jay Cutler, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger...along with the quarterbacks on the mysterious "other NFL teams" Gregg knows about but doesn't mention. Think that has something to do with the success of this fast paced offense succeeding? It's hard to be effective without a quarterback to run the offense.

Success has many fathers: The zone-read's parentage is disputed. Just one example: Appalachian State employed the zone-read en route to an FCS title three-peat from 2005 to 2007, and perhaps you've heard about the game the Mountaineers played in 2007 at Michigan. At Florida with Tim Tebow, Urban Meyer merged zone-read rushing and multiple-receiver sets into the spread-option. NFL coaches noticed.

These sentences don't make sense together. Gregg mentions the zone-read's parentage is disputed and then mentions how Appalachian State used the zone-read to win three straight Division I-AA (not FCS at the time) titles, but then mentions a different offense that Urban Meyer ran at Florida with Tim Tebow as the quarterback. So the mention of these two offenses isn't a dispute of the zone-read's parentage. It's a mention of two different types of zone-read offenses, not a dispute over which offense came first. Gregg never elaborates on the disputed parentage of the zone-read.

The Miami Dolphins defeated the favored Patriots partly by faking a zone-read rush one way, then throwing the other way for a touchdown. (New England fears this action because the Dolphins' 2008 use of the Wildcat formation, which involves a zone-read between the tackles, led to a memorable Miami win.)

And of course the Patriots defenders, most of which did not play in the 2008 game against the Dolphins, were thinking of the Wildcat formation and that's why they fell for the zone-read fake. See, the Patriots defense was thinking of a game few of them played in six years ago and that's why they fell for the fake. In Gregg's world, NFL teams are still very concerned about the opposing team using the Wildcat formation. That tells you all you would need to know about Gregg.

The Buffalo Bills' first touchdown in its upset of the Bears came when the Bills faked a zone-read right, then their quarterback bootlegged left. Consecutive zone-read runs in the final minute of the first half had the San Francisco 49ers ahead 28-3 at the intermission in Dallas.

Hey, that reminds me! Now that Gregg is talking about the evolution of high school and college tactics to the NFL, remember the time long ago (I'm just kidding, it was less than a year ago) when Gregg declared the zone-read dead? It's over! Teams have caught on! Now less than a year later Gregg is writing TMQ around examples of teams running the zone-read to score touchdowns and win games. Gregg Easterbrook is so full of shit and so incapable of not contradicting himself it's almost funny. He can declare a tactic dead, and then without mentioning the words that would hurt his ego "I was wrong," show examples of teams using this tactic to win football games. Less than a year earlier he had written this tactic off, now it's an important part of a team's game plan.

There's so much pressure and money on the line in the NFL, coaches are reluctant to try an untested tactic. So they scan the prep and college ranks, looking for ideas that someone else has already ironed out. What new offenses are being tested at the prep level right now? If you've seen one, let me know @EasterbrookG.

Checking out Gregg's mentions on Twitter, it's shocking to me how many people like to read TMQ and think it's a good place to find NFL news. That's like relying on "E! Television" for your current events.

So my Super Bowl pick is Denver over New Orleans.

So this is Peter's Super Bowl pick. His only pick? Not at all. He makes two Super Bowl picks of course.

My alternative-jersey pick is Seattle over Indianapolis. Just remember this column's motto: All Predictions Wrong or Your Money Back.

Two Super Bowl picks from Gregg. Perhaps the motto of TMQ should be: I Will Make Predictions Until One of Them is Correct Then Want My Readers to Forget I Made Multiple Predictions so I Can Provide a Link to My Correct Prediction As Proof of How Right I Was.

It's a long motto, but very accurate.

It was dark -- and late -- in Arizona for the second game of the "Monday Night Football" doubleheader. San Diego isn't a night-life town, not like Los Angeles or San Francisco. San Diego has a huge Navy facility where people keep regular hours, and has the surf scene, which starts at dawn then shuts down at dark. Maybe that's why the Chargers cannot handle MNF.

The Arizona-San Diego game began at 7:20pm local time and ended 10:30pm local time. Those aren't regular hours, but I'm not sure they are night-life hours either. Mostly, this is a stupid theory and Gregg should be embarrassed for writing it.

A big factor was the injury to star center Nick Hardwick. Twice in the fourth quarter, his backup, Rich Ohrnberger, was guilty of bad snaps on third down: one pushing the Bolts out of field goal position, another messing up a makeable third-and-2. Why didn't San Diego coaches put Philip Rivers under center rather than ask the backup to make lots of shotgun snaps? Arizona saw the substitution and blitzed over center often in the second half. Ohrnberger was concerned about blocking the blitzers, and botched snaps. Coaches failed to provide the tactics change that was needed.

Great idea, Gregg! Rather than have Rivers taking shotgun snaps and avoiding the blitzers over the center in the second half, the Chargers should have adjusted and had Rivers taking snaps from under center with the blitzers closer to him. This not only would have given him less of an opportunity to survey the defense, but would also give him less time to react to the blitzers over the center that are in his face because he's having to spend time dropping back. Brilliant.

Arizona's college-themed winning touchdown came with 2:32 remaining and the Cactus Wrens on the Bolts' 13. The call was the "smoke" variation of the hitch screen -- wide receiver John Brown stepped backward as blockers went downfield in front of him, then took a sideways pass and skedaddled to the end zone. Nice play, but the smoke variation of the hitch screen, which is legal in the NCAA, isn't legal in the NFL. In college an offensive lineman may be downfield if the pass is caught behind the line of scrimmage; in the NFL, that's not the case. Arizona left tackle Jared Veldheer was downfield before Brown made the catch. It wasn't exactly the sequel to the Fail Mary, but once again, a "Monday Night Football" contest was decided by a late bad officiating call.

I suspect that Gregg may be incorrect about this NFL rule. I did a search for whether others thought John Brown's TD catch should have counted and didn't see any Chargers fans complaining about the illegality of the play. NFL fans love to point out how they get screwed by the officials (actually, fans of all sports love this), so I would suspect if a penalty really should have been called I could have found something about this in my search. I suspect Gregg may be incorrectly interpreting this rule.

Stats of the Week #5: In their past two outings, the St. Louis Rams have been outscored 61-15.

Gregg is stretching this statistic for two games over two separate seasons. While this isn't a misleading statistic, it's fairly meaningless due to the fact it encompasses two games that were played 8 months apart.

Seattle faked a zone-read run going right; split left, Ricardo Lockette made the traditional NFL wide receiver's half-hearted attempt to block, then Lockette shot downfield and Russell Wilson lofted him a touchdown pass. Lockette deliberately looked like a lazy blocker because that's what NFL defensive backs expect to see from prima donna receivers! Sweet.

I can't stand Gregg's interpretation of plays that happened the previous week in the NFL. Green Bay wasn't faked out by Lockette pretending to be lazy, they were faked out by the fact this looked like a typical zone-read play. Seattle completely stole this play from Auburn. Auburn used it in the National Championship Game against Florida State.

More importantly, if the Packers really were fooled by Lockette pretending to be a prima donna, then is Gregg saying that undrafted Ricardo Lockette from a non-football factory college is a prima donna receiver? After all, how could the Packers be fooled by a receiver who isn't known as a prima donna? They couldn't! Gregg just called an undrafted player from a non-football factory a "prima donna" and can't take it back.

After barely blitzing in the Super Bowl, the Bluish Men Group barely blitzed again: just once in the first half. The sack of Aaron Rodgers on fourth-and-5 and the Green Bay safety both resulted from a conventional four-man rush.

This is not an indication that not blitzing is the preferred defensive tactic. This simply means the Seahawks can get pressure on a quarterback by only rushing four players. If they couldn't get pressure by rushing four players, then they would need to blitz. It's not that the Seahawks don't blitz, it's that they don't have to blitz because they have a strong front four and a strong secondary who can cover the opposing team's receivers. As always, Gregg watches an NFL game and comes away with the incorrect conclusion as to what happened and why, but then insists on creating a rule out of his misconception about what happened in the game.

With the game tied at 17 in the fourth quarter, the Bears had third-and-1 on the Buffalo 34. Jay Cutler faked a toss left against a defense overstacked anticipating a run, then rolled right, hoping for a home run. The Bills had the intended receiver covered. Rather than try to run for the first, or simply throw the ball away, Cutler heave-hoed a crazy across-the-body pass that was intercepted by defensive tackle Kyle Williams. Very sour.

This was a terrible throw by Cutler, but I feel it is important to mention that if Cutler had thrown the ball away then Gregg would criticize Cutler for throwing the ball away on a third-and-1 rather than trying to run for the first down. So Gregg's suggestion to Cutler of throwing the ball away would only result in Gregg criticizing Cutler for doing so.

Rice, a first-time offender, bears guilt but is not a criminal in legal terms. He was placed into a pretrial diversion program by a New Jersey judge. Legal thinking has long held that first-time offenders should be treated leniently. Perhaps the judge gave Rice special treatment because he's a football star. 

Or perhaps, because Gregg states that legal thinking has long held that first-time offenders should be treated leniently, the judge was lenient because it was Rice's first-time committing a crime. This is an example of one of the many annoying things about Gregg Easterbrook's writing. He posits a reasonable theory as to why Rice was placed in a pretrial diversion program, but then randomly posits the judge gave Rice special treatment because he was a football star. I can't read the judge's mind, but if there is a long held legal thought of leniency towards first-time offenders, couldn't that be the reason Rice was treated with leniency? Maybe not, but Gregg is essentially just speculating.

If so, that is a condemnation of society, not of Rice. If pretrial diversion is a common outcome for first-time domestic offenders in New Jersey, then the legal part of the decision was appropriate.

Much like his fellow haiku writer, Peter King, Gregg has no interest in getting to the bottom of this and would like for someone else to do the research on this topic. Gregg is just here to throw out random theories without any factual backing, then call for someone else to find out the facts.

For the proof, one need only go to Canton, Ohio, where O.J. Simpson's bust is on display. Simpson currently sits in prison for armed robbery; a California civil jury found him liable in the wrongful death of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

A few weeks ago, Gregg referred to O.J. Simpson as "guilty" of wrongful death. Notice how he made this little correction without actually mentioning he used the wrong verbiage. Quick, cover up your mistakes and then point out where news outlets like the "New York Times" makes errors and corrects them publicly. Keep throwing rocks in a glass house by pretending you don't make mistakes while calling out others who have the audacity to acknowledge their mistakes.

His Hall of Fame bio says a lot about rushing yards -- doesn't get around to mentioning that the California jury deemed him a woman killer.

His Hall of Fame bio also doesn't mention he was in the "Naked Gun" movies because it's not relevant to his NFL career. The Hall of Fame isn't trying to cover up that O.J. Simpson was in these three movies, they just don't find it relevant to his playing career, much like his being liable for wrongful death isn't relevant to his playing career.

O.J.'s name also remains on the Wall of Fame at Ralph Wilson Stadium, a publicly owned facility. Will the Bills' new owner leave the name of someone everyone believes is a woman-killer on the stadium wall? Since Wilson Stadium is owned by Erie County, New York, and financed largely by New York State, where is the Erie County legislature? Where is Gov. Andrew Cuomo?

Probably in the governor's mansion?

Perhaps the whole message of the NFL's treatment of Ray Rice is that people at the top of the football establishment in fact think that character does not matter so long as the money is flowing.

I'll never accuse Gregg Easterbrook of being slow on the uptake. The NFL's message is also that they have done whatever the hell they wanted to do when it came to punishing their players in the past, so nothing will change in this situation.

Denver almost always had five receivers in the pattern. The five-receiver action is vulnerable to the blitzer who comes through unblocked, and that happened three times, including a third-and-6 sack of Manning late during the Indianapolis comeback attempt. Since Indianapolis showed this can work, Gase should be alert for "green dog" blitzing this season -- if a linebacker sees that it's a five-man pattern and there is a lane to Manning, he charges.

Yeah, Adam Gase should be careful to look out for this. You know, because he's the real offensive coordinator of the Broncos and all. The real offensive coordinator, Peyton Manning, should look out for this and realize that if there is a linebacker on the field he needs to find a favorable matchup with that linebacker or get the ball out quickly to take advantage of the space the linebacker left when he blitzed. Is this Gregg advocating blitzing? As usual in regard to blitzing, Gregg's rule about football tactics are "If it ends up working then it was the right tactic. If it didn't work, then that team shouldn't have used that tactic."

The latest "Godzilla" -- a reboot of a remake of an adaptation of a sequel -- is out on DVD this week.

It's on DVD? Wow, is it 2004 and Blu-Ray hasn't been invented yet?

You can now watch online the original Japanese version, not the Americanized variant into which Raymond Burr was spliced to create an English-speaking authority figure. Here is what struck me about the original "Godzilla":

Oh, do tell! Was there a trash can shown on a certain street corner in the movie at a spot where that street corner doesn't really have a trash can in reality?

Though it's only a decade after Japan was laid waste by World War II, Tokyo is gleaming. Everyone's well-dressed, prosperous and attending swell parties.

Yeah, Japanese citizens had no business being prosperous and attending parties. Go back to taking care of your mutated children while wearing rags you Nazi-loving assholes or else the United States will come back to kick your ass again! America, hell yeah! (high-fives a bald eagle)

The film contains hardly any references to the war or politics. No one mentions America. No one says, "Maybe if we hadn't thrown away our navy, we could deal with a sea monster." Aircraft from around the world land in Tokyo with emergency supplies. But no nation's military appears, and none is summoned.

Maybe it's because Japan was laid to waste by World War II and had not had a chance to rebuild their military?

In "Gojira," the monster is said to be 165 feet tall. In "Godzilla" 2014, the titular character is said by a military analyst to be 350 feet tall. But when Zilla stands next to the Golden Gate Bridge, his chest and head are above the bridge travel lanes. Since the bridge clearance is 220 feet and the Golden Gate Strait is about 300 feet deep, to stand in his manner, Godzilla would need to be about 700 feet tall.

Maybe he is standing on his tip-toes or maybe it's a fucking movie so just watch it and stop criticizing how tall Godzilla is, as if it matters to enjoy the film.

Ads for the flick show Godzilla twice the height of San Francisco's Transamerica Pyramid, which is 853 feet, rendering the monster at least 1,500 feet. Just how tall is this guy?

I don't know, Gregg. Maybe you should take a five year break from writing TMQ to find out exactly how tall Godzilla is.

Computer-generated special effects ought to be consistent.

Or you could just enjoy the movie. You know, either way.

At one point, a paratrooper confidently cocks a sidearm to go into battle with a 500-foot-tall radioactive freak of nature.

Or a 350-foot-tall radioactive freak of nature. Or a 1500-foot-tall radioactive freak of nature. We don't know because the special effects are so inconsistent!

Perhaps a dozen times in the flick, a character turns around to realize in horror that Godzilla or one of the MUTOs is standing right there. How does a million-ton creature sneak up on someone?

Because it's really loud due to all the explosions and weaponry and the MUTO is wearing slippers that prevent him/her from making noise. Or maybe the MUTO is on this tippy-toes in order to sneak up on these characters. Again, it's a movie. It's supposed to be enjoyable, not 100% accurate. Godzilla is a radioactive monster, so anyone going into the movie expecting any sort of realism has absurdly ridiculous expectations to begin with.

Favored Stanford lost to USC on turnovers and missed field goals. Or was the reason punting? Reader Andy Korger of Madison, Wisconsin, was among many to note the Cardinal punted from the USC 32 and USC 29. In college ball, that's the Maroon Zone -- where it's too far for a field goal but too close to punt. Each case was fourth-and-long, but what difference does that make?

It makes a difference because the chances of converting fourth-and-long are not very high. Stanford trusted their special teams to pin USC deep and give them good field position after forcing a punt. I'm in favor of going for it on fourth down, but on fourth-and-long it's a different story. It's not easy to convert fourth-and-long, so it may be easier to just trust your defense and special teams to do their job.

Better to try than passively surrender possession.

Easy to say sitting on the couch and not having to worry about giving USC decent field position if the fourth-and-long attempt fails.

In the 2013 NFC Championship Game, the Seahawks scored a touchdown on fourth-and-long from the Santa Clara 35.

Well if one team one time converted fourth-and-long then I don't see why Stanford can't convert fourth-and-long twice in a game. Hey, it happened once, so it must happen a lot, right?

During the contest Saturday, USC athletic director Pat Haden came onto the sideline to remonstrate with the referee. ESPN devoted a chunk of airtime to debating Haden's action -- an action that was odd but ultimately trivial. Why didn't they talk about USC's 53 percent football graduation rate?

As usual, Gregg misses the point. It wasn't trivial in that Pat Haden is on the playoff selection committee. That gave his arguing with the referee some sort of significance. Also, USC is 20th on ESPN Grade. They are the 20th best college at combining academics and sports, which is better than many non-football factory colleges can say. Maybe ESPN should have bragged about that, since ESPN Grade is such a great metric.

This is a great example of the bullshit metric that is ESPN Grade. Gregg has trumped up ESPN Grade, and USC is 20th in these rankings, but then Gregg talks about how bad USC's 53% graduation rate is. So if USC is so bad at graduating players then wouldn't a ranking of 20th in ESPN Grade seems a bit misleading? It seems Gregg wants it both ways. He wants to brag about the effectiveness of ESPN Grade, while criticizing USC's graduation rate and ignoring the other metrics ESPN Grade uses.

Buck-Buck-Brawkkkkkk (Pro Edition): In the Washington-at-Houston collision, sure-to-be-former R*dsk*ns coach Jay Gruden had the choice of accepting a penalty to make it Houston third-and-11 or declining to make it Houston fourth-and-1 at midfield. Gruden declined the penalty, secure in the belief that a punt would boom, as it did.

I'm being picky, but every NFL coach will at some point be a former coach of the team they are currently coaching. I don't think Bill Belichick is immortal yet, so at some point he is going to be the former coach of the Patriots. So saying Jay Gruden is the sure-to-be-former coach of the Redskins is accurate, but pretty obvious.

Still, the game came down to a hidden play. Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels but sustain or stop drives. Cats ahead 17-14 and facing third-and-9 with 1:52 remaining, Carolina emergency quarterback Derek Anderson, making his first start since Dec. 5, 2010, threw the ball directly into the hands of Bucs' safety Dashon Goldson at the Panthers' 30. Goldson dropped it.

For any Buccaneers fan, this was not a hidden play. Also, Gregg describes a hidden play as "one that never makes the highlight reel but sustain or stop drives." It's not entirely true in this case. This dropped interception didn't sustain the Panthers drive because they punted on the very next play and the dropped interception certainly didn't stop the drive. So it wasn't a hidden play and doesn't exactly meet Gregg's definition of a hidden play anyway.

Saints Gain 472 Yards, Lose: In 2012, the New Orleans defense allowed the worst yardage total in NFL annals. Last year, the Saints' defense rose to fourth overall. Maybe 2013 was a misprint! Sunday, New Orleans was torched for 568 yards by the Atlanta offense.

Of course Gregg fails to mention just a few weeks ago he was talking about how the Saints have improved under Rob Ryan, but now he thinks they are a terrible defense again. Gregg is so reactive.

Holding a lead late in the fourth quarter, the Saints did the unthinkable and shifted to a "prevent" defense, with safety Jairus Byrd so deep he looked like he expected to receive a kickoff. The only thing the "prevent" defense prevents is punts: You don't need to know anything else about the contest except that New Orleans switched to the prevent defense. 

So frustrating. If the Saints had blitzed then Gregg would talk about how Rob Ryan took too many chances and probably include any Saints blitz under a "Stop Me Before I Blitz Again" heading. If the Saints don't blitz and play a traditional defense with four pass rushers Gregg bitches they weren't aggressive enough. The rule, as always, Gregg thinks NFL teams should use tactics that end up working. If a tactic didn't work, then that team shouldn't have used that tactic. Gregg's criticisms are mostly outcome-based. Blitzing is bad, a four man pass rush is good, unless a team uses a four man pass rush in a method that Gregg doesn't like.

The Falcons put consistent pressure on Brees, seeming to rattle him. If Matt Ryan's crew returns to its winning ways in Georgia, the Falcons could be a contender.

If the Falcons win enough games, they have a good chance of advancing far in the playoffs. Yes Gregg, that's generally how it works.

Reader Bryan Mercer of Queens, New York, reports that not only did Dunkin Donuts begin selling pumpkin donuts, pumpkin muffins and pumpkin lattes on Labor Day , but on Sept. 2, he heard a Dunkin Donuts radio ad proclaiming: "Apple cider is back, get some before fall is over." Fall, Mercer notes, hasn't even started. This year's autumnal equinox is Sept. 22.

Brandon White of Ashland, Oregon, notes Subway began selling its "fall special" submarine -- turkey with cranberry sauce -- on Sept. 1, three weeks before fall.

Learn how marketing, advertising and sales work. That's all I ask. These companies want to create interest or awareness about a product so they can sell that product for a certain period of time. And guess what? It worked. See, that's how it works. Bryan Mercer of Queens, New York knows where to find a pumpkin muffin so he's more likely to go purchase one at Dunkin' Donuts if he wants a pumpkin muffin.

Chuck Todd had a busy week, what with interviewing both Obama and yours truly.

Todd also had this to say: "Nothing causes me to miss more meetings and phone calls than reading Tuesday Morning Quarterback."

How slow does Chuck Todd read? Did he graduate high school reading at a high school level? TMQ is long, but it's not long enough to miss multiple meetings and phone calls. More importantly, how does anyone like TMQ? I take that back. How does any football fan with a functioning brain who isn't too lazy to look into Gregg's assertions enjoy TMQ?

The Law Of Comebacks: TMQ's Law of Comebacks holds: Defense starts comebacks, offense stops them. 

Bengoodfella's Law of No-Shit, This is Obvious holds: Of course a defense starts a comeback since a team can't actually start coming back until they stop the other team from scoring. And yes, if the opposing offense scores points then it prevents the other team from coming back. The amount of obviousness in this "Law of Comebacks" is startling to me.

Trailing visiting Michigan State 27-18 in the third quarter, the Oregon Ducks began a defense-led comeback, holding the Spartans scoreless for the remainder of the contest. Trailing the visiting Jacksonville Jaguars 17-0 in the third quarter, the Philadelphia Eagles began a defense-led comeback, holding the Jaguars scoreless for the remainder of the contest. Since the Ducks and the Eagles are football's Blur Offense teams, watching them win using defense must have been a strange feeling for the home crowds.

These teams didn't really win because of defense, they won because their defense showed up while the offense continued/started scoring points. The Eagles and Ducks won because they scored 34 and 46 points respectively, while their defense didn't give up that many points. I would say offense still won the game for these two teams, with periodic help from the defense.

MIT and Pomona-Pitzer, two academics-oriented colleges -- actually three, since Pomona College and Pitzer College combine their NCAA programs -- completed a home-and-home. Last year, MIT went to California to play Pomona-Pitzer; this year Pomona-Pitzer brought its angry sailor bird to Massachusetts. Since all are Division III schools that don't emphasize sports, why the cross-country flying?

Because it would take two or three days to drive to California or Massachusetts. Because these student-athletes that Gregg wants so badly to brag about being student-athletes compared to football factory colleges would miss almost a week of class just for a football game. So Gregg is fine with these schools driving across country and missing more school than they have to?

See, Gregg doesn't always think before he criticizes. He's like "Why the cross-country flying?" without considering the other ways these teams could travel to play their game and how this would impact these student-athletes going to class. Flying may be more expensive, but it also helps these students miss as little class as possible.

Leading lower-division cupcake Lamar 45-3 at the start of the fourth quarter, Texas A&M shamelessly ran up the score, continuing to launch passes and going for it on fourth down with a 59-3 lead. Reaching first down with a 66-3 lead and 3:40 remaining, Texas A&M didn't kneel, rather kept calling plays to push the final to 73-3.

It was just two short years ago that Gregg would follow the weekly exploits of a high school football team who refused to punt and would often run up the score on opposing teams. Never punting is a great thing until Gregg decides he doesn't like it anymore.

Romo forced the ball to him anyway, interception, the Niners would lead 28-3 at the half.

Boys trailing 28-10 at the end of the third quarter, some dim-bulb in the Dallas organization had the team kick away rather than onside kick. (Indianapolis onside-kicked in a nearly identical situation at Denver, and it helped the Colts come within shouting distance of a dramatic comeback.)

While I'm not against an onside kick in this situation, notice that the Cowboys defense had prevented the 49ers from scoring in the third quarter. In fact, the Cowboys defense also prevented the 49ers from scoring when they kicked away in the fourth quarter in this situation rather than try an onside kick. So the fact another NFL team recovered an onside kick later in the day (because you know, the Cowboys should know that five hours from now another NFL team will try an onside kick and succeed...because everyone can predict the future like Gregg can through the use of hindsight), is irrelevant and it seems Jason Garrett had good reason to believe his defense could hold the 49ers without points. In fact, the Cowboys defense did hold the 49ers without points in this situation after kicking away.

Game tied with 20 seconds remaining in what the Browns seemed to assume was regulation, the Steelers faced first down on the Cleveland 44, out of timeouts. Cleveland needs to hold Pittsburgh to a short gain -- the Condiment Coliseum is the hardest place in the NFL to kick a long field goal.

Is Heinz Field the hardest place in the NFL to kick a long field goal? Does Gregg have facts that support this contention or is he just making shit up and misleading his readers like he routinely enjoys doing? Gregg could be right, but since I know he enjoys lying to his readers then it would help to have some proof this contention is correct.

Instead, it's a blitz! Twenty-yard completion down the middle, Ben Roethlisberger spikes the ball and soon Roethlisberger is 10-0 at home versus the Browns.

The Saints should have blitzed, the Browns shouldn't have blitzed. Whatever ends up working, THAT is what the team should have done. Gregg is fantastic at criticizing a team using hindsight.

Earlier, facing fourth-and-10 on their own 20, the Steelers ran a fake punt. Cleveland inexplicably lined up no one across from the left gunner. The slot man called an "automatic" -- an audible that's automatic if the defense does a particular thing -- and lobbed the ball to the gunner, who made the first down. Pittsburgh did not score on the possession, but the play set an upbeat tone.

And that upbeat tone is what helped the Steelers almost blow the lead they had and win the game when time expired?

Kansas City has nose-dived in a major way. Apparent season-ending injuries to two starters versus Tennessee are the Chiefs' latest problems, but TMQ traces it back to the end of Week 3 of the 2013 season. Chiefs' players dumped Gatorade on the head of coach Andy Reid -- for a routine September victory. This tempted the football gods.

And the football gods were so angered they let the Chiefs win six more games in a row and make the playoffs. Sure, makes sense.

It's only Week 1 and already there is a finalist. Green Bay offensive tackle Derek Sherrod, a 2011 first-round draft selection, has struggled in the pros -- he's never started a game, despite Green Bay's offensive line woes. 

Part of the reason he has never started a game in the NFL is that he was injured for the entire 2012 season and wasn't taken off the PUP list until November 2013.

Sherrod entered the season opener at Seattle to replace an injured Packer. Not long after coming in, he gave up a sack on fourth-and-5; on the Packers' next snap, he gave up a safety. Ye gods. In Sherrod's defense, everyone knows he has been struggling, so why didn't the Packers alter their protection to slide him some help?

This could be entirely possible for the Packers to do, but when a team "slides their protection," as Gregg states it, it takes protection away from another part of the Packers offensive line. So sliding the protection in this situation could easily have just left another part of the Packers line exposed to the Seahawks pass rush. Everything is not as black and white as Gregg wants it to be.

Next Week: Godzilla makes the Cowboys' practice squad, is told he needs to get bigger.

You are the worst.