11 comments Jay Mariotti Reacts to Tom Brady's Reaction to His Upheld Four Game Suspension in Typical Jay Mariotti Fashion, With Terrible Sportswriting

I've probably mentioned on various social media platforms (fine, only Twitter) that I'm tired of the story about the Patriots deflating footballs. I won't call it DeflateGate, even though that's much easier to type than typing "the Patriots deflating footballs." I believe Brady probably knew something about it and I believe the NFL has really screwed the whole investigation up. Even though I'm an A-Rod apologist, I don't condone cheating, but from everything I've read I'm not entirely sure how much cheating deflating the football really ends up being. I'm not sure the NFL knows either. So in a judgment-free zone on whether Brady is guilty, innocent, or framed, I prefer to focus on the terrible sportswriting that comes from reactions to the four game suspension Brady received for deflating the footballs. Jay Mariotti wrote back-to-back columns eviscerating Brady and Jay is at his red-faced, terrible writing best (worst) in them.

I'll start with his July 28 column where he compares Tom Brady to Richard Nixon.

Well, so much for the 2024 presidential bid. Unless you are Nixonian in your political bent,

Unless you love corruption, you should hate Tom Brady. Why? He's no G.I. Joe, because he's not an American hero.

you’ll understand why Tom Brady has lost all credibility not only as an American hero but as someone who deserves not even a saliva spit of support in the Deflategate scandal.

I literally have never thought of Tom Brady as an American hero.

It’s one thing to argue that Brady, in the AFC championship game, performed better with footballs that were properly inflated in the second half than with purposely underdeflated balls in the first half.

By "one thing" Jay means, "This could go to the effect the underinflated balls had on the game and therefore could potentially go to the merit and severity of a punishment." It's still cheating if a team doesn't gain an advantage, but it doesn't seem the Patriots gained an advantage in this specific situation.

it means “The Man Every Other Male Aspires To Be” and “The Greatest Quarterback Of All Time” has committed these sins:

1. He knowingly participated in a scam with team equipment managers to deflate footballs, which gave him a competitive advantage while violating league rules. That makes him a cheater.

2. He denied participating in the scam. That makes him a liar.

3. He had an associate destroy the smoking phone and, by extension, the probable incriminating evidence on that phone, meaning he refused to cooperate. That makes him a cover-up artist.

4. On the way to his associate's house in order to make sure his associate was there, he texted this person. This means he was texting and driving.

5. Brady was clocked by at least one police radar as going 5 miles over the speed limit while on his way to the associate's house. This makes him a speeder and law breaker.

6. He tried to steer out of the way of a squirrel on his way to the associate's house, but ran over the squirrel instead. This means Brady was guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

7. After walking back in his house, he threw his recyclable water bottle into a regular trash can. This is just him flagrantly showing the city's recycling rules do not apply to him. What other rules does Tom Brady think don't apply to him? No need to answer that question, because it's obvious now.

Is it possible four games aren’t enough, then, that Brady should have been banned for the entire season?

At the very least, he should be decapitated. At the most, one of his children should be sold into slavery. So any punishment in between seems appropriate, though a real American hero would just go ahead and sell his child into slavery now instead of waiting for this punishment to be handed down.

Given New England’s status as a dynasty, with four Super Bowl titles in the 21st century, Brady’s continuing defiance is raising the same doubts about the Patriots that the Steroids Era did about Major League Baseball.

Yes Jay, these two events are completely similar. Tom Brady deflated footballs in one playoff game by a certain amount of PSI and this is similar to what happened over a 6-8 year span where multiple baseball players used PED's to gain an edge over a multiple game span and destroy current records in the MLB record book. One is the same as the other.

I'm surprised Jay didn't hit us with a "In the Steroid Era, the players got pumped up to gain an edge, while Brady deflated in order to gain his edge."

How much of their success is real,

79.6541%.

how much is deceitful?

20.3459%. 

“He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone,” Goodell said in his appeals decision. “During the four months that the cellphone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device.”

The world may never know what pet names he and Gisele have for each other. For this, someone must pay, and that person is Tom Brady.

But for once, in a tenure tarnished by his irresponsible handling of the Ray Rice case and an erratic record of off-field punishments in general, Goodell seems to be spot-on.

If anyone was ever wondering who that person is that feels Goodell was "spot-on" with his handling of the situation where Brady allegedly deflated footballs, then you can rest easy knowing that person is Jay Mariotti. No one should be shocked by this. Jay would side with Westboro Baptist Church if it helped him write a column that bashes an athlete or coach.

He could have waffled and given weight to his all-but-dead friendship with Kraft, who defended Goodell publicly and in ownership circles as he was attacked amid the Rice fallout. But this time, he stood firm in front of the league’s so-called shield and avoided all wishy-washiness. 

There is a clear difference in standing firm for solid factual and evidentiary reasons and standing firm because the decision has been made and that's the decision. I don't think Goodell should have necessarily waffled, but not changing his mind doesn't mean his decision was correct in the very first place.

Harmful as the Rice, Greg Hardy and Adrian Peterson abuse cases have been to the league’s image and reputation, maintaining the game’s competitive integrity is vitally important, too, particularly when it involves the league’s most visible and acclaimed player.

The game's integrity is very important, but I would argue that making sure the athletes involved with the sport don't abuse children or women is more important to ensuring fans aren't alienated than ensuring a football is at the proper PSI level would be.

What we have now is Brady, in frantic image-restoration mode, legally challenging the ruling and seeking an injunction allowing him to play.

Remember back when Jay Mariotti started at Sports Talk Florida and the "Examiner," back when he talked about how the legal system is corrupt (against rich white men!) and he understands this because of all he had gone through? Welp, now he's describing Brady exercising his legal rights as his being in "frantic image-restoration mode." As expected, when Jay talked about how he understood the American legal system and how it swallowed people up, he only meant he understood this from his perspective. Everyone else deserves whatever they get. The legal system is against Jay Mariotti, while everyone else is getting treated fairly.

If Brady was smart, he’d accept his four games and go away. It’s hard to believe even the most venomous Goodell critic would side with Brady now. He will argue the Wells report is flawed and the ball-deflation rules were unfairly applied. Um, why would an innocent man destroy a phone that could help him if wronged?

What a bad counterargument to the idea the ball-deflation rules were unfairly applied. Brady destroying his phone is circumstantial evidence that can go to support the belief he was attempting to destroy evidence, but the destruction of the phone isn't a counterargument to the Wells report being flawed or whether the ball-deflation rules were fairly applied or not. Again, for someone who claims to understand the legal system, Jay is very clueless about how the veracity of legal challenges can be determined. If the ball-deflation rules weren't unfairly applied, then this could mean Brady will win his legal case. Just like if evidence is mishandled in a criminal case, it doesn't matter if the suspect acted very suspiciously to where it seemed like he was covering up a crime. I can't let Jay take me down this rabbit hole. He's ignorant, we know that.

“Especially in light of the new evidence introduced at the hearing — evidence demonstrating that he arranged for the destruction of potentially relevant evidence that had been specifically requested by the investigators — my findings and conclusions have not changed in a matter that would benefit Mr. Brady,” Goodell said.

Team Brady’s response? “Neither Tom nor the Patriots did anything wrong,” agent Don Yee said. “And the NFL has no evidence that anything inappropriate occurred. The appeal process was a sham.”

For the record, there was no denial that the smoking phone was destroyed.

For the record, Brady admits the phone was destroyed. Why did he do this? Who the fuck knows? I can take a guess, but it's just a guess. Regardless, I just enjoy reading Jay's terrible writing about this topic. Considering I find ball deflation to be boring, I need to get my enjoyment on this topic where it can be found.

Now for the July 29 article that Jay compares Brady to Lance Armstrong, Pete Rose, and Tiger Woods. Yeah, Tiger Woods. Tiger cheated on his spouse, which apparently is now the same thing as using PED's and betting on baseball.

Tom Brady is 37 years old. He looks 27 years old. And now, he’s acting 17 years old,

Real strong hot take to start the column off. If only Brady's son were 7 years old then Jay could have thrown that in there too.

using his Facebook account — gee, what’s his relationship status? —

This isn't really funny or clever. Brady is married, Jay. He's married to a supermodel. That's his status.

If he was a mature, reasonable person, he’d call a news conference, invite the world, look every reporter in the eye, stare every camera in the lens and say, for posterity, “I’ll take your questions for the next two hours.”

I always love the sportswriter challenge to determine true honesty which can only be determined by that athlete calling a press conference and answering the media's questions. Because answering questions from sportswriters is always the best way to determine honesty. Sportswriters like Jay have such a high opinion of themselves that they believe they should be the final arbiter on whether an athlete is lying or not. Sure, if Tom Brady called a press conference then it would give Jay something more interesting to write about, but mostly it's Jay's ego which causes him to believe he's not merely a member of the press, but the person who should stand in final judgment regarding Brady's honesty.

You know, if Jay Mariotti were a reasonable, mature person then he would call a press conference and talk about exactly what happened on that day when he was accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Jay would NEVER do that, because he considers it a private affair. I mean, Jay Mariotti had a chance to clear his name and totally chose not to do that. He pled no-contest, but he wants Tom Brady to stand up and defend himself in a press conference where he can take questions for two hours. Few things anger me more than the hypocrisy of the media. Jay doesn't believe he has an obligation to explain himself, but of course when it's not Jay in the firing line then only a mature, reasonable person would call a press conference to explain himself.

Instead, Brady logged onto Facebook, where he doesn’t have to answer questions but can continue to twist his obvious wrongdoing into an increasingly absurd drama that is becoming a national headache.

I will agree with the "national headache" part. 

“To suggest that I destroyed a phone to avoid giving the NFL information it requested is completely wrong,” he wrote. “There is no ‘smoking gun’ and this controversy is manufactured to distract from the fact they have zero evidence of wrongdoing.”

Zero evidence? The NFL has 11 underinflated footballs from the first half of January’s AFC championship game.

I think the issue is that Brady and the Patriots are not convinced these footballs were underinflated. That's the source of their disagreement, that the Patriots and Brady dispute the notion these balls weren't inflated properly. 

The NFL knows that both equipment managers were fired by the New England Patriots. And when the NFL asked Brady to provide a cellphone that might help prove his innocence, he chose to get rid of the phone just before his meeting with investigator Ted Wells.

I'm not defending Brady, but his statement is that he was under the impression that the investigators didn't need his phone. Also, Brady wasn't going to just let them search his phone. By the way, this is a stance I guess the majority of Americans would take if their employer (or another entity that isn't a law enforcement entity) requested their cell phone. I don't give my cell phone number out to but a select few at my work, so I certainly am not going to allow my employer or anyone else search my cell phone. Destroying the phone does seem a bit extreme without having some more context. 

Now, we’ve lost respect for him as a human being.

This statement coming from Jay Mariotti is hilarious. I haven't lost respect for Tom Brady as a human being, even if is totally guilty. It's sports, guys. Let's keep a little perspective. Brady didn't kill anyone or commit a violent crime against humanity. 

Would he please accept his four-game suspension like a man rather than pouting like Bart Simpson?

Even a decade ago this reference wouldn't be relevant. Bill Simmons is embarrassed for Jay Mariotti that he used such a dated pop culture reference. 

“I also disagree with yesterdays [sic] narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells’ investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.”

That's Brady's story. It could all be lies. Plus, it's a smart move as a member of the union to not a set a precedent for your phone to be searched. 

Hey, while he’s sitting in September, at least Tom can bank his check from Apple for the iPhone 6 plug. 

Yes, because Apple needs Tom Brady to name drop the iPhone in order to sell the product. 

As for the broken Samsung phone, we’ll just assume the dog ate it.

Again, there is no need to assume anything because Brady admits he destroyed the phone. This is the second time that Jay has indicated Brady is hiding the phone or not admitting what he did with his cell phone. One very clear thing that has occurred through this entire mad legal battle between the NFL and Brady, and that clear thing is that Brady destroyed his cell phone. 

There may be no smoking gun, but there is a smoking cellphone, wherever it went.

Maybe Jay should go check landfills or check at the bottom of rivers, as if Brady's phone is a murder weapon and not a cell phone that got destroyed in order to cover up evidence of DEFLATED FUCKING FOOTBALLS. 

And I can’t wait for a judge, assuming Brady’s legal challenge actually advanced that far, to subpoena Samsung for his cellphone records. Does Brady really want to go there? Doesn’t he realize how the lies are piling up and digging him a deeper grave?

Why does this matter so much to Jay? If the records are subpoenaed and Brady is seen as a liar, then it only strengthens Jay's assertion that Brady is a deceitful little shit and the commissioner should throw the book at him. Why worry about Brady lying if you think he'll be caught? 

The operative word is entitlement. Every time a cheating athlete is caught red-handed — for performance-enhancing drugs, for gambling, for bimbo sex, for corked bats, for lubed baseballs and, now, for doctored footballs — he feels enabled to deny the charge rather then fess up. 

I don't mean to dismiss the importance of footballs that are inflated slightly below the limit allowed, but to compare it to using PED's, gambling, and cheating on your wife is a little bit of an overreaction from Jay. 

While Brady’s sin doesn’t rise to the same level, he joins Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, Pete Rose and all the baseball juicers on Rebuttal Row. Ultimately, all were proven wrong and forced to acknowledge guilt. Brady will have to do the same, but not anytime soon.

I don't even know what to write in response to this. I think the absurdity of comparing these players to Tom Brady is fairly apparent. There really aren't levels of cheating, and I have no idea how Tiger cheating on his wife relates to cheating in sports, but it seems extreme to compare Brady deflating footballs in one playoff game to Lance Armstrong cheating through multiple Tour de France victories, Rose gambling on baseball, and every MLB player who has ever used PED's. It seems like a rather broad comparison as well. 

By that, Kraft was acknowledging that he’d agreed to accept the NFL’s penalty for the Patriots — a $1 million fine and forfeiture of two draft picks — during the May league meetings in San Francisco. In other words, he thought he was playing a wink-wink game with Goodell: The Patriots would take the hit if Brady’s ban eventually was reduced or eliminated. Shame on Kraft for thinking a commissioner should work in such a wishy-washy manner.

The terms of punishment for a cheating scandal should not be negotiable.

Despite the fact the NFL reportedly did try to negotiate with Brady to decrease his punishment if he just admitted to wrongdoing.

Again, I find it interesting that Jay doesn't think terms of punishment for cheating in sports shouldn't be negotiable, but he was glad to plead no-contest to stalking and assaulting his girlfriend in order to avoid jail time and/or a trial. Apparently Jay feels that deflating footballs is a much more serious offense than allegedly abusing your girlfriend, to where deflating footballs should have no negotiable punishment, but allegedly abusing your girlfriend can be pled out to no-contest because it's not quite a serious enough accusation for the punishment to be non-negotiable.

The New England sleaze is a reminder of how fortunate we are, in the Bay Area, to enjoy two championship teams that aren’t scandalized.

I'm sure Jay wrote this with a straight face while ignoring the column he wrote about Barry Bonds, who played in the Bay Area, and was part of a scandal Jay discussed a few paragraphs ago. He wrote here about Bonds. I'm sure Jay doesn't remember this though. He would NEVER knowingly contradict himself or be a hypocrite.

He is firing a missile at the commissioner in a declaration of war, and that the owner who helped Goodell get his job — one that pays him as much as $44 million annually — now can be considered a mortal enemy. In the end, the powerful owners run this league, and while Kraft and Brady won’t win in court, Kraft can exact his revenge by trying to rub Goodell out of office.

And that's the right Kraft has as one of Goodell's 32 bosses. Goodell serves at the pleasure of the owners. 

Kraft sounds silly in claiming ESPN is in cahoots with the NFL to get the Patriots, ignoring that the media behemoth has been one of Goodell’s biggest critics in his mishandling of the Ray Rice case and other issues. “The decision by commissioner Goodell was released … under an erroneous headline that read, ‘Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.’ This headline was designed to capture headlines across the country and obscure evidence regarding the tampering of air pressure in footballs,” 

Not exactly, Kraft was merely claiming that ESPN uses headlines designed to get readers/viewers and that's not a false statement. ESPN does do this, as does many other sports sites or networks.

And yes, the idea ESPN would be in bed with the NFL sounds crazy as long as you ignore the specific instances where ESPN has protected NFL interests by suspending Bill Simmons after he criticized Roger Goodell, canceled "Playmakers" because the NFL didn't like it, and got their contribution to the PBS documentary on concussions removed. Oh, and ESPN has the rights to certain NFL games. You know, other than their financial interest in supporting the NFL and the previous attempts to protect the league, ESPN has no history of being in cahoots with the league.

Training camps have started, gentlemen. The football season is here. Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone. Innocent men don’t destroy their cellphones.

I have destroyed a cell phone before. My cell phone display cracked when I stepped on it one time and rather than have a cracked cell phone hanging around I smashed it with a hammer (for fun) and threw it out. I had no special numbers on there, I just didn't want anyone to get my personal information when I threw it out. Maybe innocent men don't destroy their cellphones, but most innocent/guilty men aren't Tom Brady and have the phone number of many celebrities, athletes, models, and family members on their phone. I think someone would want to steal Brady's phone when/if it got thrown away in order to have these numbers. 

I need two aspirin.

So Jay's terrible writing gives him a headache too. At least we have that in common. 

7 comments MMQB Review: The Pros v. Cons List for Suspending Tom Brady Edition

Peter King described depression and possibly being bi-polar as "character issues" in last week's MMQB. He later apologized, but the fact he continues to write inconsiderate things such as this in MMQB when he should know better is alarming to me. Apparently to anyone else that matters, it's just something that happens to everyone. How could Peter mistakenly have called depression a "character issue" and then changed it once everyone pointed out how wrong it was? It's obviously something he believes. He's like Roger Goodell in that way, he wants to see public reaction before apologizing or making a decision, because he's incapable of understanding what the proper thing to say/do might be. Peter also talked about the Buccaneers pick of Jameis Winston in last week's MMQB and revealed the Buccaneers thoroughly investigated the incident in Tallahassee, they just didn't talk to the alleged victim because they already knew what she would say. Not that they are searching out information to support a conclusion of course. This week Peter talks about the potential Tom Brady suspension (Peter is part of the Wells Report!), Dante Fowler's injury, and chronicles the joking jokesters that U2 know how to be. They are like precocious kids out there playing pranks on the public.

Before we get to some real news—the heartbreaking loss of the first defensive player picked in the draft, by a team that desperately needs him—I want to tell you what a lousy cheater (he said tongue-in-cheek) Tom Brady apparently is.

Well, Peter gets out of the way real quick which side he believes on this very, very important "deflating footballs" issue. Everyone has to have a side. If you don't have a side, then that's a character issue. Of course none of what Peter thinks matters now that Lord Goodell has handed down his punishment.

So, if a home-team ballboy was doctoring the footballs in any way before the game, that’s not something that could happen on the road. Brady, of course, is suspected of having the balls doctored for him in the AFC title game, and it’d be naïve to think that this was the first game in which two longtime club employees messed with the footballs for Brady.

But if John Jastremski or Jim McNally have done any funny business with the balls over the past few years, the results sure don’t show it. Some telling numbers for Brady in the nine regular seasons between 2006 and 2014:

	Home Games	Road Games
Passer Rating	100.2	99.7
Passing Yards per Game	271.8	274.3
TD-to-Interception Differential	Plus-96	Plus-96

Wouldn’t you figure that if Brady was getting such an edge by having footballs doctored before home games—and by the simple factor of home-field advantage—that, more probable than not, he’d be markedly better at home?

Perhaps Brady would be better at home if the Patriots had been doctoring footballs all this time. That makes sense. But, the issue at-hand isn't whether the Patriots benefited from doctoring the balls at home or not, but the accused act of doctoring the footballs. It's irrelevant really whether the Patriots benefited from the act when it's the act itself that is a violation of NFL rules. Man, talking about deflated footballs is so boring and pointless.

That’s what you’d figure. And you’d be wrong. I’ll get to more of the confusion on Page 2, after the stunning story of the weekend.

Okay, let's calm the drama down a bit. A rookie getting hurt and being ruled out for the season in his first mini-camp is a sad, unfortunate story. "Stunning" though? Eh, probably not. A mini-camp is basically practice and players get hurt in practice often. Unfortunate? Yes. Stunning? Not unless there isn't much else to talk about so Peter wants to ramp up the drama in MMQB.

Thirty minutes into his first practice as a pro football player Friday afternoon, Jacksonville pass-rusher Dante Fowler tried to speed-rush right tackle Watts Dantzler. As Fowler juked to the outside, Dantzler nudged him—it was little more than a soft block, but caught Fowler a little off-balance—and Fowler went down in a heap.

Stunning. Unfathomable. An NFL player hurt his knee in practice. I'm sure Peter would characterize Fowler's ACL injury as a "character issue."

On Saturday, I asked Jacksonville coach Gus Bradley how he has handled his team, his star rookie

I'm not trying to be cruel here, but why the hell would Peter write "star rookie" in reference to Dante Fowler? Fowler has not played a down in the NFL. He's not a star and I think he would tell Peter that he isn't a star yet. He's a rookie who may or may not be any good. Given Jacksonville's recent draft history, the odds seem pretty good that Fowler would not be very good. It's okay to acknowledge the injury without calling Fowler names like "star rookie" that he hasn't even come close to earning yet. Let's back off the drama, which I know is a difficult thing for Peter King to do.

Bradley’s always been an optimistic sort and now has to be the all-is-well conscience of his team and his fan base. I thought he’d be bummed. Short with me, clipped, snippy. He was none of that.

Peter thought that Bradley would cancel the Jaguars season. Much to this surprise, Bradley did not.

“The concern at that time is, ‘How is he?’ I can only imagine what was going through his mind. This kid, his spirit, just unbelievable. He felt bad—but he felt bad for us. He is a pleaser, and his attitude was, Gus, I don’t want to let you down. We were at the hospital and he basically said to me, ‘Whatever we find out, don’t worry about me, I’m good. I’ll come back stronger.’ 

“The doctor told him. And this is what he said: ‘Okay, I am going to come back bigger, stronger, faster. This is gonna make me better in the long run.’ Who says that, as a 20-year-old? An unbelievable mentality.

This star rookie is going to be a star person as well.

The book on him when we studied him was that he was young, maybe a little immature.

Oh, so Fowler is a typical 20 year old? Immaturity, yet another character issue for Fowler in Peter's opinion.

“Maybe the fans, the media, felt Dante was the savior. That is not the way our team looked at it. The draft picks were great additions, but we didn’t look at him, or any rookies, as saviors.

Apparently Peter looked at Fowler as the team's savior, because he just called him a "star rookie" and said the news of Fowler tearing his ACL was "stunning." My favorite team did not have an injury of this magnitude, but both their 1st and 2nd round draft picks had minor injuries in their first training camp. These things can happen when these college guys haven't been on the field since early January at the very latest.

“I’m not one to just say, ‘Next man up.’ I say, ‘Hold on.’ It’s the same thing when [defensive tackle] Sen’Derrick Marks got hurt. I am not gonna downplay it. Paul Posluzny, Roy Miller, they had big impacts and were hurt. And I want those guys to know how valuable they are to us. But there will be a story somewhere on the roster. 

(Peter King perks up) "A story? Like, a narrative that I can drive home in MMQB? Can I take your story, write something that is slightly over-dramatic and then make an insensitive comment in that story, but later apologize for it? If so, I'm all-in on the Jaguars this year. Do you have a gritty, white quarterback I can write about?"

“We all feel bad for Dante, really bad. He was so excited. He couldn’t wait to go out there. And damn, this happens. That is a tough deal for him. Your heart pours out for him.
“But look what we have—Julius Thomas and Clay Harbor and Bernard Pierce new, Denard Robinson and Blake Bortles and so many other enthusiastic young guys. So many good things happening here. I’m not going to lose vision on the good things.”

Yes, the Jaguars may not have the pass rusher they were counting on, but they have two new tight ends, an average running back, a QB-turned-WR and Blake Bortles. What could go wrong? Who needs a pass rush anyway?

I asked Bradley: You had to have a couple of down moments, like, “How can this be happening to us?”

Peter King with the probing questions that no one outside of Jacksonville is really wondering about. 
“Maybe on the way to the hospital,” he said. “But after meeting with him and seeing how he’s handling this, I’m more at peace because I know he’ll be fine. We’ll be fine.”

It's hard to lose a Pro Bowl pass rusher like Fowler. Hopefully, he will make it back to his All-Pro level in time for next season.

And now for the toughest decision of Roger Goodell’s nine years in office.

I feel like Peter writes this sentence every single time Goodell has to make a decision. If the Ray Rice incident wasn't his toughest decision, then how to handle other NFL players accused of domestic violence was his hardest decision. Every decision Roger has to make is tough in some way, but every decision isn't his toughest one.

That’s what this is—tougher than anything Goodell had to officiate during Spygate (Patriots were caught in the act) or the CBA deal (a fairly normal hard negotiation) or Bountygate (Gregg Williams spilled the beans) or cleaning up the Ray Rice mess with new domestic violence strictures.

Like I just wrote, Peter writes that Goodell is making his toughest decision quite frequently whenever a new scandal breaks.

This is why Goodell should spare the rod:

1. Brady’s one of the greatest players of all time, an NFL golden child and ambassador for the game. There is no definitive proof in the Wells report that he ordered footballs to be doctored to his advantage.

The second sentence is absolutely a reason, while the first sentence should be irrelevant. If it were true, golden children should be punished for breaking NFL rules too. It's clear that the NFL didn't factor Kraft or Brady's favored status into the punishment at all.

2. Robert Kraft is a favored-nation owner, and he’s helped make the league a juggernaut.

Son of a bitch. Peter King is terrible at making "Pro versus Con" lists, isn't he? If Goodell spared the rod for this reason then he would be showing favoritism, which he obviously shouldn't do.

4. The league knows Brady will appeal any punishment that would take him off the field. Given the NFL’s recent record in appeals that happen outside Park Avenue (Ray Rice won, Adrian Peterson won), and given that there’s no smoking gun, I wouldn’t put much money on Brady having to miss any games. A suspension keeps the story in the headlines. The NFL always says it wants people to pay attention to the action on the field. Well, a suspension for Brady would put the attention, for multiple months, on a likely Brady appeal.

This is another terrible reason to not punish Tom Brady. There are valid reasons to not suspend Tom Brady, but the fact the NFL may be embarrassed a little upon appeal is not a reason to not punish Brady or the Patriots if Goodell thinks they did something wrong.

The other three reasons that Peter gives are valid reasons to not suspend Brady or punish the Patriots. Why would Peter put three reasons in here on why Goodell should spare the rod that basically fall under the category of "The NFL shouldn't punish Brady in order to avoid bad publicity and show favoritism"? Granted, those are reasons that Goodell probably would want to use, but Peter doesn't have to suggest these as valid reasons to not punish Brady and the Patriots.

This is why Goodell should come down hard:

1. As commissioner, he can’t treat the best player in the league any differently from the 53rd man on the roster if there’s been a rules violation.

2. It doesn’t matter that Kraft is a cornerstone owner.

Neither of these reasons should be a part of the discussion at all. I think the fact Goodell should treat the Patriots and Brady just like he would any other NFL franchise and player goes without saying.

3. Brady should have handed over his phone, with a Brady/Patriots lawyer on hand to figure which texts/emails/calls are applicable to this case.

Hand over his phone?

As Mike Florio of Pro Football Talkreported Sunday, 

Apparently Peter's editor is on vacation. "Pro Football Talkreported." I love how Florio and Peter King lean on each other so strongly. "PFT" takes tidbits (nuggets, if you will) from MMQB every Monday and reports on them, while Peter will quote Florio if given the chance. It's some strong NBC synergy right there.

high-level staffers in the NFL office—and presumably Goodell—handed over cell phones to be forensically examined during the Robert Mueller investigation into whether anyone in the league office saw the Ray Rice domestic violence video before it aired on TMZ.

Yeah, well "presumably" Goodell doesn't mean this really happened. Also, Goodell has a private line in the NFL office where the Ray Rice issue was probably discussed. I doubt Goodell had the Ray Rice video texted to him on his private phone, as opposed to it being emailed to him or discussed on the private line in his office. It's a different situation for Tom Brady in that he doesn't have an office where he can make phone calls. His private line is his cell phone. Therefore, it's his private property, while Goodell could have used league property (office phone or computer) to view the Ray Rice video or have it emailed to him. I doubt Goodell handed over his cell phone. "Presumably" doesn't convince me.

5. The other 31 teams are watching to see if Goodell treats the Patriots with most-favored-nation status, or like any other one of the NFL franchises.

I guess I'm stupid, because I don't get why Goodell would treat the Patriots differently from another NFL team. Is this a real thing that was being discussed?

But I keep coming back to the fact that there’s just too much gray area here, and too much doubt. I’d slap the Patriots with something, but not a potential season-altering suspension for the franchise quarterback.

But if Goodell/the NFL think the Patriots did something wrong and wanted to punish them, wouldn't a season-altering suspension be the way to go? Why would the NFL punish the Patriots/Brady, but make sure the punishment didn't really hurt them? That sort of ruins the point of punishing them doesn't it? I think the loss of the draft picks was exceptionally harsh, but it's clear the NFL wanted to send the message that they weren't entirely sure how to punish the Patriots or how severe the deflating of footballs really was. Go big or go home, that's what the Patriots did.

Peter King must have been an awesome father: "I'm going to punish you for your actions. You should not have stolen a car and then try to run over a policeman. There are a lot of people I had to pay in order to get this to go away. But, I want you to learn a lesson, but not have it affect your life in a negative way. I understand you have a really great beach trip coming up that you were looking forward to, so you can still go to it. I'll slap you with something, but not a temporarily life-affecting punishment of course."

My call: I’d give Brady one game, two tops, for failing to turn over his cell phone and the evidence within. This is too important to rely on half-truths and maybes.

I don't care if Brady gets suspended, but if Brady had evidence on his phone that proved he was a part of the plan to deflate the footballs and willingly participated then wouldn't this punishment send the message that obstruction of the investigation will get you a lesser penalty? The next time a player has evidence he did something wrong in his possession, he can just refuse to provide it when requested and then he gets 1-2 games instead of a heavier suspension. I just think the NFL should have come to a decision on whether they think Brady was part of it or not and punish him accordingly. It seems they think they did that. None of this bullshit "Well, we are going to suspend you based on information you didn't provide that we have no idea means anything or not because it was your personal property."

The Ravens safety, who always had a knack for being in the right place at the perfect time—and who could knock your block off too—retired Thursday. He didn’t play in 2014, and his 2013 season (with the Jets and Texans) showed he stayed a year too long. But that’s not what you should remember about Reed. What I’ll remember is one of the most instinctive players I’ve ever seen. Rarely was he out of position; most often he was in a better position because he could feel what the quarterback was aiming to do at the snap of the ball.

After all the teeth-gnashing from Peter several weeks ago about the Pro Football Hall of Fame letting a pure safety in the Hall of Fame when Troy Polamalu retired, now a real pure safety has retired.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, when Troy Polamalu retired, the voters for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, which has moved glacially in admitting safeties, are going to have a touch time over the next five years, with Brian Dawkins, Reed and Polamalu joining a cadre of good safety candidates.

Oh, "good" safety candidates. Are these "good" safety candidates that happen to be the best players at their position in NFL history? Hopefully if Peter votes for any of them to be in the Hall of Fame he thinks they are better than "good."

Imagine my surprise …

…when, footnoted on page 34 of the Ted Wells Report was a story I’d written nine years ago about Tom Brady and Peyton Manning successfully petitioning the competition committee to allow every team to condition the footballs it would use on offense the way that team wanted—instead of being subject to the ways the home team wanted to prepare football. Before 2006, the road team had no say in what kind of football its quarterback would be using. It’s in the report to show how concerned Brady was about getting the footballs to be prepared just so … and the lengths to which he and Manning went to get the job done.

It's shocking to Peter that he actually managed to write about the NFL long enough in MMQB that he would be quoted in a report about deflated footballs. If Peter had known nine years ago that an article he wrote would be used as evidence against Tom Brady then he never would have written about it in MMQB. He would have just done what most sportswriters do when they sit on information they don't care to report, which is write "Heard about this issue with Brady wanting footballs more deflated a few years ago" on Twitter and then go about their lives. I think that's my favorite sportswriting move, where a sportswriter claims after the fact to have known something but never reported on it for whatever reason.

This was just one more brick in the wall in the case Wells and his crew built against Brady—about how he was so driven to get the footballs exactly the way he wanted them. Not sure I take it very seriously, but it does provide a glimpse into Brady’s state of mind about how important grip on the football is to him.

Peter doesn't take his own reporting that Brady was concerned about the right ball pressure seriously? Here is what Peter wrote,

“Imagine if Derek Jeter were handed a brand-new glove just before the start of every game,” says Brady. “Baseball players break in their gloves until they feel perfect to them. It’s ridiculous to [be forced to] play with new footballs. I can tell you there’ve been nights before road games when I have had trouble sleeping because I’m thinking about what kind of footballs I’ll be throwing the next day.”

So last February, while having dinner together in Miami Beach, Brady and Manning decided to approach their fellow quarterbacks about petitioning the NFL competition committee to change the rule. Brady proposed that the visiting team have access to a certain number of the allotted game balls—the number turned out to be 12—so it could prepare them the way it wanted.

This isn't proof one way or another about whether Brady knew footballs were being doctored against the Colts in the playoffs, but I think it does give a glimpse about how important this issue of footballs being the way he wanted them was to Brady. He couldn't sleep thinking about a football that wasn't in the manner he liked it. Not shockingly, Peter doesn't believe his own reporting.

“For the balls to have been deflated—that doesn’t happen unless the quarterback wants that to happen. I can assure you of that. Now the question becomes, Well, did Bill Belichick know about it? This whole comment by Roger Goodell based on the Saints when Sean Payton got suspended for the year, and he said, ‘Hey, ignorance is no excuse.’ That’s gonna come back and haunt [Goodell] again. It haunted him during the whole Ray Rice situation. And now it’s going to haunt Roger Goodell in terms of what the punishment is for the New England Patriots and Bill Belichick. If ignorance is no excuse, and it wasn’t for Sean Payton, and I think it’s going to be severe. Now twice under Bill Belichick—and possibly a third time—they’ve cheated and given themselves an advantage. And to me, the punishment for the Patriots and/or Bill Belichick has to be more severe than what the punishment was for the New Orleans Saints.”
—Troy Aikman, on radio station KTCK The Ticket in Dallas, on what he thinks the sanction in the Patriots’ case should be.

I'm not entirely sure that Troy Aikman is getting the point here. The suspension for each individual as handed out by Roger Goodell shouldn't be based on ignorance, but the "crime" that the individual is guilty of. Personally, I consider intentionally hurting another athlete and receiving money in return is a bigger danger to the NFL than some deflated footballs. Obviously Troy Aikman doesn't share my perspective, but regardless of how/if Belichick cheated, he's not tied into the deflating of footballs at all. Ignorance may be no excuse, but in terms of severity I think it's more egregious that Sean Payton wouldn't know what his own defensive coordinator (and half of the Saints team) was doing, as opposed to Belichick not knowing what one player and a few equipment managers were doing. Payton's ignorance required not knowing what one of his employees and the Saints defensive players were doing, while Belichick's ignorance was not knowing what Brady was (allegedly) doing. Plus, intentionally hurting another football player is worse than deflating footballs if you ask me.

Why The Dante Fowler Loss Hurts So Bad Dept.:

In the past eight years, the leading sacker for the Jaguars has had 7.5, 4.5, 3, 5, 8, 3.5, 7.5 and 8.5 sacks.

Uh, 3?!

Peter, there is no guarantee of what Fowler would have produced this year in terms of sacks. He could have 2 sacks or he could have had 15 sacks. Either way, there's no telling. Don't act like Fowler was good for double-digit sacks because that's just pure speculation. Fowler could be a bust as a pass rusher. He may be an All-Pro. The point isn't that the Jaguars are missing out on his guaranteed sack production, but that the Jaguars have to wait another season to see what his sack production will be.

Peter calls Fowler a "star" and then acts like the loss hurt so badly because Fowler was guaranteed a certain amount of sack production.

Then Peter calls out Walt Anderson for losing track of the footballs during the Colts-Patriots playoff game.

The day before the game, Colts GM Ryan Grigson emailed league officials with a warning for the following day. He said he wanted the officials to watch for the Patriots to possibly be using balls that were deflated below the 12.5 psi minimum limit. The next day, the number two man in the NFL officiating department, Alberto Riveron, met with game referee Walt Anderson and told him, according to the Wells Report, that “concerns had been raised about the game balls, and Anderson should be sure to follow proper pre-game procedures.”

So, for eight or nine minutes, from 6:30 until at least 6:38, Anderson and his officiating crew lost track of the footballs. Hours after being warned that “concerns had been raised about the game balls,” for the first time in his 19 years as an official—according to Anderson—he couldn’t find the game balls for a period. And even with properly checked backup game balls on hand, Anderson didn’t use them. He used the footballs that had gone missing for eight or nine minutes.

This is pretty shoddy work by Anderson. One would think since he was even warned to follow the procedures that he would have done that and used the backup game balls.

There’s no guarantee that McNally deflated 13 footballs in the 100 seconds he was inside the bathroom. But it’s clearly the most likely scenario raised by the report. And if Anderson had used the alternates, there’s a good chance none of this ever would have happened.

While I agree that "this" would never have happened, one important fact that Peter is missing out here is the Patriots would still potentially be using deflated footballs (allegedly) during games. So if Walt Anderson used the backup footballs then the Patriots would not have gotten caught, but "this" still happened. The problem isn't the Patriots got caught deflating footballs (again, allegedly), it's that they were (allegedly) deflating footballs in the first place. The act, not getting caught in the act is the issue. If the Patriots weren't caught, that which they are accused of doing would still have happened and could have happened again in the future. Say Walt Anderson does use the backup footballs, reports back to his superior why he used the backup footballs and the NFL starts an investigation based on Walt Anderson claiming the footballs went missing and Ryan Grigson's concern. Guess what? Welp, the story goes right back to where it is now.

If Tom Brady is suspended for four games—Vegas oddsmaker Bovada.com lists the over-under on a possible Brady suspension at 3.5 games—there might be a little something extra motivating Brady upon his return, courtesy of the team that turned him in to the league before the AFC Championship Game.
This would be his first game back: at Indianapolis, Sunday night, Oct. 18.

Great, just what we need. More hype for a Patriots-Colts matchup. Unless Brady wins an appeal, this is what the public will be stuck with. I bet the Colts are thrilled a pissed-off Brady and Belichick are coming to Indianapolis this year and it's the very first game which Brady will be eligible to play.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think it’s all well and good to get your draft picks on the field and have them run around and get into the swing of what you’re doing on offense and defense. But the more you ask your players to go 80 to 90 percent, with or without pads, the better chance there is of injury. Everyone knows that, of course. But, in the wake of season-ending injuries to the first-round pick of the Jags, Dante Fowler, and third-round pick of the Broncos, Jeff Heuerman, just hours into their professional careers, it might be time for teams to re-think exactly why they’re having players cut hard and try hard on May 8 and May 9. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I am saying if I ran a team, I’d ask the coaches whether we wanted to hold off on any real football activities until training camp—and if they said no, I’d want a good reason why.

Because I can imagine Peter having the intestinal fortitude to stand up to his coaches like this in his hypothetical job as an NFL head coach. I think the reason why that would be given by this coaches would be, "We want to see our rookies at full speed as soon as possible and it's hard to figure out which tryout players we want to make an offer to if they are playing at half-speed."

2. I think it’s fine to have strong opinions about the Ted Wells-Tom Brady case, and it seems most of America does. But keep in mind the following points:

b. Tom Brady may be innocent. But in this case, he certainly should have offered to have either a neutral party or his agent or attorney present when the relevant Patriot-related emails and text messages were examined. I know Wells does not have subpoena power. And I know the precedent of having Brady, a named plaintiff in the 2011 case that was the precursor to the new CBA, hand over his cell phone is not something the union or Brady would ever have wanted to establish. But if there was nothing in the phone other than the texts and calls to John Jastremski, and it could have helped exonerate Brady, I’d have surrendered it if I were him.

"I mean, sure Tom Brady doesn't want to help set the precedent that NFL players will turn over their personal cell phone anytime the NFL requests that they do so. He could have exonerated himself if there were texts that didn't apply to the investigation and if there were texts that implicated him then he would be honest and I'm sure Roger Goodell would appreciate that."

So either Brady is screwing over other players by giving his personal cell phone over, and setting a precedent for doing so, or not handing over the phone and potentially implicating himself further. Peter King would have certainly handed his phone over. Sure he would. I believe that.

c. You honestly think Roger Goodell wants to put the screws to Tom Brady? Are you crazy? He wants another scandal for his scandal-plagued league? Sheesh. Where does this stuff come from?

Plus, why would Goodell want to have to make the toughest decision he's ever made since the last time he had to make a tough decision?

6. I think Jon Stewart (man, will he be missed) had a great riff on Deflategate the other night on “The Daily Show.” Stewart, a Giants fan, said what the fans of most teams would say when it came to their feelings about Tom Brady: “If you think I would not chastise you if you had committed these acts while in my team, the New York Giants, uniform, that would be correct.”

Maybe something is wrong with me because I probably would chastise my favorite team as much as I have chastised the Patriots. Either way, I'm totally ready to move on and talk about other NFL topics.

8. I think the outcry over Frank Clark isn’t over, Seahawks. It’s going to have to be addressed how the investigation before drafting him left out so many of the people who claim to have been there the night he allegedly struck a girlfriend last fall.

This coming from the sportswriter who interviewed Jason Licht in last week's MMQB and accepted, "We had all the information we needed from her deposition" as to why the alleged victim of Jameis Winston wasn't interviewed by the team when doing research on Winston. I guess Peter could have pushed a little harder there, but he prefers to point out how the Seahawks need to address how the investigation into Frank Clark left out so many people who claim to be there the night he allegedly struck this woman. It's easier to be tough when he isn't presently interviewing the person he wants to be tough with.

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

b. Another great story, from Kate Fagan of ESPN.com, about the suicide of a depressed college student-athlete from New Jersey. Let me say it really hits me, and deservedly so, for wrongly calling the mental-health issues of Randy Gregory, the ones that helped push him down to late in the second round of the draft, “character flaws” in this column last week. 

Peter didn't "wrongly" call the mental health issues of Randy Gregory a "character flaw." Well, he did wrongly state it, but he wasn't being wrong when he said it. He seems to have truly believed it or else he wouldn't have written it. Only after he was criticized did he realize, "Oh yeah, depression ISN'T a character flaw," which is a realization only the most tone-deaf, logic incompetent person could come to. At a certain point, some of the shit that Peter King has said of late (comparing Ivan Maisel's situation to losing his daughter in the grocery store for five minutes, depression being a character issue, asking a soldier how many people he has killed) has to accumulate to where a simple "I was wrong and made a mistake" isn't sufficient and his ability to understand what other logical people understand as appropriate comments to make should be questioned.

Depression is no character flaw. It’s a serious health issue.

And just last week you wrote it was a character issue. It is obviously something Peter believed that needed to be corrected. Doesn't this reflect on him as a person negatively in some way that an apology won't easily correct?

Fagan does a tremendous job of fleshing that out, and teaching people like me about the reality of depression.

WHY DOES PETER KING NEED TO BE TAUGHT THE REALITY OF DEPRESSION? He's almost 60 years old. Shouldn't he know the reality of depression and that it isn't a "character issue" already? This isn't a situation of "Boy, that isn't something I knew" like a gap in knowledge is acceptable, but is a situation of "You obviously have something wrong with you to believe depression is a character issue."

If I wrote, "College Athlete X suffered bulimia issues in college, so that's an instance of where he couldn't control himself. One has to wonder if this lack of self-control will show up in the NFL," then that is not an example of me making a mistake. That would be an example of my lack of knowledge and sensitivity about the topic I'm discussing.

It becomes more of an issue of sensitivity and simply being stupid when talking about a topic that no gap in knowledge can magically fix. Now Peter has done this sort of thing three times in the past two months, while those who normally criticize these types of comments say, "Well, he apologized" as if there isn't a deeper problem present.

d. One of the best “Tonight Show” scenes I have seen happened the other night. Jimmy Fallon took U2, all in disguise, into the Grand Central subway station, and these disguised four guys started playing “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For,” like they were some subway band playing for quarters, and most bystanders just walked on by.

They were awful diguises. I'd like to think I could have figured out it was them, because it looked U2 in disguises.

That U2, such jokesters.

Then they took off their disguises and started playing like real U2, playing “Desire,” and it was one of those New York moments that if you’re a New Yorker who loves U2 (such as this writer), you ask yourself, Why don’t you have any pull to find out when U2 is going to be in a subway station you’re in once or twice a week?

It was one of those New York moments where it's like, as a New Yorker, you wonder why don't other bands secretly play gigs in other cities like U2 did in New York? One would think that other bands would pull a "New York" and have bands play secret gigs, but only in New York does this type of thing happen. Also, I thank God that Peter King wasn't there to witness this. It's bad enough he talks about U2 all the time, but for him to be at their subway station surprise gig would have caused this entire MMQB to be scrapped for a discussion on the finer points of U2.

f. What, you didn’t know my team was the Montclair Pedroias? Even though my second sacker is Kolten Wong?

No, your readers knew because you have mentioned this at least two other times.

h. Bryce Harper, six home runs in three games. David Ortiz, four home runs in 26 games.

Age difference, 17 years. Sample size, small. Means, very little.

l. Coffeenerdness: New Starbucks in the neighborhood, on the East Side of Manhattan. Been open about 10 days. Walked in for the first time Friday. Big place. Totally mobbed. I counted 78 people in there, at 3 in the afternoon. Either New York is large, or people drink coffee voraciously in the middle of the afternoon, or both.

Only in New York does a Starbucks open and people choose to purchase coffee from them. What a New York moment.

n. For those keeping score at home, I ran five miles in Central Park on Saturday (the 6.2-mile loop, minus the hill at the top of the park) in 45:55. And only a few old ladies passed me.

I wonder if Peter found any women running in Central Park that he could stalk while listening to their conversation?
 
The Adieu Haiku

Kraft love for Goodell  
overblown, quite honestly.
Partners, not big pals.

But financial partners can be even more important to each other than two people who are pals. The love of making money binds a lot of people together and there are people who aren't necessarily best friends, but very loyal to each other as business partners. So even if Goodell and Kraft aren't close, it doesn't mean very much if they have a financial stake in each other. The haiku was pointless, but the content was naive. I bet "naivety" is Peter King's character flaw.

10 comments Gregg Easterbrook Says Special Teams Aren't as Important as Offense or Defense Unless Special Teams Becomes as Important as Offense and Defense

It's almost time for Gregg Easterbrook and TMQ (because they are two separate entities in Gregg's mind) to go into hibernation for the winter, or at least until draft time. So I will enjoy berating Gregg for his weekly contradictions and attempts to mislead his readers while he is still around for me to berate him. Gregg tells us this week that whichever team has a pick-six will win the Super Bowl, unless that team loses the coin toss. One would think the Authentic Games metric would allow Gregg to tell us NOW who will win the Super Bowl, but apparently the metric that predicts the Super Bowl pairing can't predict which team will actually win the Super Bowl. Gregg also takes issues with bottomless pits (irony alert!) and names his non-QB non-RB NFL MVP. I'm kidding of course. He has his readers name the winner of this award and nominates two undrafted players, a 5th round pick and a 2nd round pick in an effort to make sure the winner is undrafted or lowly drafted so he can crow about how undrafted players are the best. It's fun how Gregg skips over highly-drafted offensive and defensive players as the non-QB non-RB NFL MVP. He could include guys like Jamie Collins, Darrelle Revis, Vince Wilfork, Rob Gronkowski, Bruce Irvin, and Earl Thomas, but he wants to nominate two undrafted players and a 5th round pick as his non-QB non-RB NFL MVP. Not that Gregg would ever have an agenda of course.

There's data, there's big data, and then there is slam-dunk data. In the latter category: Teams that return an interception for a touchdown are 12-0 in the Super Bowl. Get a pick-six, win the Super Bowl. It's pretty much that simple.

So both the Patriots and Seahawks need to ignore whatever game plan they have and just try to get a pick-six. Once they do that, they can rest easy knowing they have won the game. It's slam-dunk data.

Teams that run back a fumble for a touchdown in the Super Bowl are 2-2. Teams that run a kick back for a touchdown are 4-6, that winning total diluted by two Super Bowl victors who had both kickoff and interception return touchdowns.

The pick-six rules the Super Bowl.

Again, each team's secondary should jump all routes and do whatever it takes, even if the opposing team gets a touchdown as a result, to get a pick-six.

Why do interception return touchdowns link so tightly with Super Bowl victory when other kinds of return touchdowns don't?

I'm not a smart man, but I'm guessing this is probably a coincidence and not any type of data that is indicative of a trend that actually means something. A pick-six is a big swing in a football game, but there is no reason a team that has a pick-six has won every Super Bowl. I'm not sure there is a causation here.

One answer may be sample size. There have been only 48 -- excuse me, XLVIII -- Super Bowls. Maybe that's not enough to wash out the role of luck in the XII-0 record for pick-six teams.

Right, it's a smaller sample size. I don't know of a way to find this information, but I would bet that teams over the history of the NFL (INCLUDING THE TRIASSIC PERIOD!) who have a pick-six in a game are more likely to win that game. So what we have is a smaller sample size, along with a pick-six making it more likely the team that gets the pick-six will win the game, leading to Super Bowl teams with a pick-six are now 12-0. It's an indicator a team will win a game, but not to the extent the 12-0 record in the Super Bowl shows.

Perhaps this is because high-level quarterback play is needed for Super Bowl success, and an interception returned for a touchdown causes the quarterback to lose confidence in himself -- or his teammates to lose confidence in him.

Or maybe because it's six points scored against a team while they are on offense is a large swing of points and it doesn't have a ton to do with reading the quarterback's mind and knowing if he has lost confidence or not.

Fumble return touchdowns are great, but all players know that being in the right place at the right time for a scoop-and-score is almost entirely chance.

A pick-six is partly chance too. There is skill in causing a fumble, like there is skill in making an interception, but to return it for a touchdown requires a certain amount of luck that there aren't five offensive players directly around the defender who made the interception to where he has a chance to run it back for a touchdown.

Kick return touchdowns are nice, too, but they involve special teams on both sides -- and while special-teams play is important, offense and defense are more important.

Oh. Well then, I guess it's official. Someone should tell Tony Romo or Scott Norwood that special teams aren't that important. I'm sure they probably would think otherwise. I bet the Patriots and their fans think special teams are as important in the Super Bowl as offense and defense, considering they have won two Super Bowls on game-winning kicks. As a Panthers fan, I'm liable to disagree that special teams aren't as important as offense and defense considering John Kasay kicking the ball out of bounds in the Super Bowl undid all the good work that the Panthers' offense did in the fourth quarter. But yeah, special teams isn't as important as offense and defense until it is.

Gregg kills me. Special teams isn't as important as offense or defense until a team screws up on special teams. Then it suddenly becomes as important.

When the quarterback throws an interception run back for touchdown, this may mean the quarterback, the team's leader, just made a huge mistake, or that the opponent's defense is really good. Both are unsettling. Peyton Manning won his first Super Bowl, versus Chicago, then lost his next two, versus New Orleans with Indianapolis and versus Seattle with Denver. In both losses Manning threw an interception returned for a touchdown. Both times as the intercepting player scampered down the field, one could feel the air drain from Manning's team.

There was even a measurement on the scoreboard showing how much air was in each team and after Manning threw both interceptions for a touchdown the Air Drain Percentage for the Colts and Broncos increased dramatically. Everyone in the stadium saw the Air Drain Percentage go from 4.32% to 74.3% both times Manning threw a pick-six in the Super Bowl.

While I won't doubt there is a psychological component to a pick-six, part of the reason the pick-six thrown by Manning against the Saints hurt so much is it put the Saints up ahead by more than a touchdown late in the fourth quarter. So it wasn't a matter of air being drained, but a matter of the Colts then being down by more than a touchdown late in the fourth quarter. In the Super Bowl against the Seahawks, the safety on the first play of the game set the tone for the game more than anything else did, at least in my opinion.

Super Bowl XXXV was close until early in the third quarter, when Baltimore's Duane Starks intercepted a Kerry Collins pass and ran it back for a touchdown; the Giants went on to lose 34-7. There are many examples of the interception return touchdown breaking a team's psychology.

It was close, but it was also 10-0 in favor of the Ravens prior to Collins throwing this interception. Then Ron Dixon ran a kick back for a touchdown on the ensuring kickoff, putting the Giants right back in the game where it was "close" again. Then know what happened? Jermaine Lewis of the Ravens ran a kick back for a touchdown, putting the Ravens up 24-7, which really put the game out of reach for the Giants against the Ravens' defense.

Notice how Gregg points out the pick-six broke the Giants in this Super Bowl, but fails to mention the Giants special teams unit that isn't as important as offense or defense put the Giants right back in the game to where it was (in Gregg's own words) a "close" 10 point deficit for the Giants. Then the Ravens ran a kick back for a touchdown, which put the Giants right back down by 17 points. So Gregg points to the pick-six as the psychologically damaging play, but it was really the Jermaine Lewis touchdown on the kickoff that did it, because it put the Giants down by 17 points in the third quarter. The special teams unit that wasn't as important as offense or defense suddenly became as important as offense or defense in the very example Gregg uses to show the damage to a team's psyche that a pick-six can do.

Come Sunday, should Seattle or New England take an interception back for a touchdown, turn to your friends and confidently predict victory for that team. Act like you have access to some incredible Vegas insider service. And if the pick-six team doesn't win, remember this column's ironclad guarantee: All Predictions Wrong or Your Money Back.

"If I'm right, tell everyone how smart I am and know that the pick-six is a definite indicator of whether a team will win the Super Bowl or not, but if I'm wrong, then it's all a joke anyway and I have no idea what I'm talking about. When I'm right, it's because my conclusion is based on fact, when I'm wrong, it was all a joke anyway so don't take me seriously."

This is the same shit Gregg did with the Authentic Games metric. He wants it both ways. He wants credit for his accurate metric when it's right, but when it's wrong, the metric was only a joke anyway so don't take it so seriously.

In column news, it's time to name the recipient of the coveted "longest award in sports" -- Entertainment and Sports Programming Network's Tuesday Morning Quarterback Non-Quarterback Non-Running Back National Football League Most Valuable Player.

As with last year, I nominate, then readers decide. Before you jump to a conclusion spelled "J.J. Watt," remember only players from teams that reach the Super Bowl are eligible -- my logic being if one is to wear the mantle of Most Valuable, one must have created value.

And of course, how could a defensive player who had one of the best individual performances ever by a defensive player have created value for his team? According to Gregg Easterbrook, the answer is that he did not.

The idea a player doesn't create value if his team doesn't make the Super Bowl is ridiculous. Just dumb. It's the same line of thinking that MVP voters in MLB use.

Stats To Ponder No. 1: This season, when New England and Seattle win the coin flip that starts a game, they are 18-2; when losing the flip, they are 10-6. 

Clearly whichever team wins the coin flip will win the game, but what if the team that wins the coin flip gets a pick-six? What if both teams get a pick-six?

Last week, I asked readers for their favorite bottomless pits.

And if there is ever an expert on a bottomless pit, then it's Gregg. Every week TMQ is a bottomless pit of misleading information and facts withheld in order to help prove the point Gregg wants to prove that week.

Mike Turschmann of White Plains, New York, noted that in "300," Leonidas has a bottomless pit in Sparta that he uses to dispose of Persians. If Sparta could build bottomless pits 2,500 years ago, why did Persia rule the ancient world?

Because it's a fictional movie.

Ryan Ottele of Renton, Washington, notes that in "Return of the Jedi," the evil emperor ends up hurled into a bottomless pit that conveniently is about 10 feet from his throne. I know if I ruled the galaxy, I'd want a bottomless pit in my office.

Ryan Ottele of Renton, Washington should probably know that it wasn't a bottomless pit that Emperor Palpatine was thrown into, but the reactor shaft of the Death Star. So he didn't have a bottomless pit hanging around his throne, but he had a reactor shaft for the Death Star near his throne. And the reactor shaft wasn't even bottomless, as can be seen in that video where there is an explosion when Palpatine hits the bottom. So this is just a big fail by Ryan, though it would help if Gregg wouldn't print something as bottomless when it was not indeed bottomless. It would require research to find out if the "bottomless pit" was in fact a bottomless pit and Gregg has no time for silly things like research.

Spencer Ferrero of Los Angeles notes that in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," Indy has to leap across a bottomless pit, then is pulled out of an abyss -- the secret temple had one of each! -- by his father.

The secret temple didn't haven abyss, but an abyss was created when the temple started pulling apart, sort of like what happens during an earthquake when the ground separates to create an abyss.

John Yaeger of Minneapolis ‏notes there is an actual bottomless pit in Minnesota.

If Minnesota has a bottomless pit, then why don't they rule the world?

The physics of bottomless pits are never spelled out. How is one built?

I don't know, ask the people in Minnesota.

Where does the stuff go?

Well Gregg, since it's bottomless I think that question sort of answers itself doesn't it?

Why don't bottomless pits have guard rails?

Darth Vader did have to raise the Emperor over a rail before dumping him down the reactor shaft. So...maybe watch the movie or something.

Since the MVP award almost always goes to a quarterback or running back, Tuesday Morning Quarterback confers an MVP for which quarterbacks and running backs are not eligible. Given pass-wacky trends, soon the award may be the Non-QB Non-WR MVP.

Because wide receivers are winning the MVP award all the time now and all. The last time a wide receiver won the MVP award was....it was....oh yeah, never. Anyway, I think I'll worry about it becoming the non-QB non-WR MVP as soon as a wide receiver actually wins the MVP for the first time ever.

Only players from teams that reached the Super Bowl are eligible.

Which is dumb.

Cast your vote nearby. Next week's column will announce the winner.

And of course Gregg has to provide the nominations for his readers to ensure that no highly-drafted glory boy would be named non-QB non-RB MVP or anything like that. So Gregg nominates as many undrafted and lowly drafted players as possible so he can lead his readers in the direction of voting an undrafted player as non-QB non-RB MVP. This achieves the purpose of allowing Gregg to crow about how an undrafted player was voted as the winner, as if he didn't provide nominations that led the voting in that direction in the first place.

New England, offense: Dan Connolly, guard. Undrafted out of lower-division Southeast Missouri State, Connolly is the man who replaced perennial Pro Bowler Logan Mankins. For five seasons, Connolly has started almost every Patriots game. Against Indianapolis, most of the Patriots' rushing yards came up the middle between the guards. Connolly helped open holes a runner could have gone through holding a medicine ball.

You mean the guy who was rated by Pro Football Focus as the Patriots' worst offensive linemen? That guy? I'm sure those numbers don't mean anything though and Gregg's visual observation that Connolly was undrafted and plays for a team in the Super Bowl means PFF is wrong.

New England, defense: Rob Ninkovich, linebacker. Kyle Arrington, Darrelle Revis and Jamie Collins have had fine years for the Flying Elvii defense,

But two of them are highly-drafted players, so Gregg can't count them as part of this discussion for fear he won't get to go on a "Undrafted players are so valuable and here's proof" rant.

He has great instincts whether dropping into coverage or rushing the passer, and must be accounted for. Bonus: Ninkovich was let go by New Orleans (twice!) and by Miami.

That is a bonus! Obviously knowing Ninkovich was let go years ago by two NFL teams means his performance on the field in 2014 should be judged in a more positive light. Ninkovich may be a 5th round pick but he's also considered "unwanted" by Gregg.

Seattle, defense: Bobby Wagner, linebacker. On a team of defensive standouts, Wagner is the man who gets it done. Who's most "valuable" is usually hard to measure, but not in this case. Wagner missed a few games because of injury: Seattle was 3-2 without him, 11-2 with him. Offensive coordinators find Kam Chancellor, Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman annoying; Wagner makes them tear their hair out.

Wagner was a second round pick, so he's the only hope to win this award and prevent Gregg talking about how valuable undrafted players are compared to highly-drafted glory boys. You know highly drafted guys like Earl Thomas, who is the catalyst for the Seahawks' defense. Notice that Wagner's draft position is not included in the discussion of how valuable he is.

The Super Bowl may be over at the coin flip, since Pete Carroll and Bill Belichick both like to defer and their teams perform better when deferring.

Deferring is thought to confer a slight tactical advantage since the team that gets the second-half kickoff knows what happened in the first half, what tactics were used and what the scoreboard situation is. Deferring also creates the chance of the back-to-back score -- scoring to end the first half, then scoring again to begin the second half. This can be demoralizing for the opponent.

Unless that opponent then gets a pick-six, in which case they have then demoralized their opponent that got back-to-back scores. The nature of demoralization is very complicated.

New England's performance has been reasonably uniform, a 292-194 margin in the first half then a 265-157 margin after intermission. The Patriots' best quarter is the second. They've outscored opponents by 79 points in the second quarter, which has fourth-quarter tactical dynamics but lacks the drama of the fourth quarter.

I think there are certain times in TMQ that Gregg just starts rambling without totally thinking about what he's rambling about. This may be one of those times.

Since about the middle of 2013, the Seahawks have disdained the blitz -- they brought pressure on five of 65 Green Bay snaps in the NFC Championship Game, much lower than the league average of 20 percent blitzing.

But as I always say, it's not just a matter of the Seahawks deciding they aren't blitzing, it's also a matter of the fact they can get pressure with four pass rushers. Not every team can get pressure with just four rushers, so teams that are able to do this don't have to blitz as much.

Given extra time to prepare, Seattle may try to surprise Brady by offering coverages it hasn't shown on film this season.

Or they may not offer coverages not shown on film this season. It may or may not happen.

When Seattle has the ball, expect a traditionalist approach of run-run-run then play-fake and throw long. In a pass-wacky era, the Seahawks' offense is a throwback. Early three-and-outs that might frustrate other teams don't seem to frustrate the Seattle offense, 

Partially because the Seahawks' offense knows their defense is good enough to not allow points that would put the Seahawks behind by a lot in the game. It's easy to not get frustrated with a three-and-out when you know that your defense won't allow the other team to score a ton of points and the three-and-out won't cause your offense to change the game plan drastically.

New England has been using press corners this season, playing a similar style to Seattle's. Adding Revis made press corners possible for the Patriots. 

Adding Revis allowed the Patriots to change their entire defensive strategy, but he's not in the running for non-QB non-RB MVP because he's a first round pick.

Statistically, by yards, Seattle is superior to New England on offense as well as on defense. Football Outsiders finds the Patriots' special teams better,

Yeah, but special teams aren't as important as offense and defense, so I'm not even sure why Gregg is choosing to discuss special teams at all.

and three of the past five Super Bowls included important special-teams plays by the victors.

Gregg Easterbrook from earlier in the column:

Kick return touchdowns are nice, too, but they involve special teams on both sides -- and while special-teams play is important, offense and defense are more important.

Gregg Easterbrook now:

"One thing that may make a difference in the Super Bowl is special teams. Three of the last five teams to win the Super Bowls had important special teams plays by the team that won. So special teams aren't as important as offense and defense, unless it is as important as offense or defense. It depends on what point needs to be proven at that moment."

The latest New England ethical lapse -- how many times do the Patriots have to let the whole country down? -- means Bill Belichick henceforth will be Bill Belichick* to this column.

Oh God, please don't let this become a "thing" in TMQ. Please.

A Nissan commercial showing a car driving through a pack of evil living snowmen says "do not attempt." If you encounter evil living snowmen, don't drive through them!

I think what the disclaimer means is don't drive your car through a lot of snow because it could damage the car in some way. It's more fun though to be intentionally ignorant and think the disclaimer is about evil snowmen.

The last time Bill Belichick's*

Crap, it's a "thing" that Gregg is going to be doing.

Patriots reached the final contest and also were in hot water was Super Bowl XLII, versus the Giants, the season of Spygate. As punishment for cheating, the football gods denied New England the first 19-0 record in NFL history. Now the Patriots once again have reached the final contest while being in hot water. Will the football gods once again exact vengeance?

They very well could. The football gods have been punishing the Patriots for Spygate so far by only allowing them to reach two Super Bowls since Spygate was uncovered, as well as allowing them to be one of the best teams in the NFL since 2007. It's been a harsh punishment, so I don't see why it would end in this upcoming Super Bowl.

When astronomers are puzzled by unknown high-energy events in the cosmos, TMQ asks: Why assume what we are seeing is natural? Perhaps astronomers are seeing the muzzle flashes of doomsday weapons. 

This from the guy who has a real issue with the use of bottomless pits in a fictional movie. Gregg has no issue with high-energy events in the cosmos possibly being muzzle flashes of doomsday weapons. Of course if a movie tried to set up a scenario where these were muzzle flashes of doomsday weapons then Gregg would make a great effort to point out how unrealistic this and then point out the scientific fallacies which the writers of the movie ignored and should not have.

Belichick* told the packed house. Shocked, shocked! In the famous scene from "Casablanca," the moment after Captain Renault shuts down Rick's cafe because he is shocked, shocked to find out gambling was going on, the croupier walks up, hands the captain cash and says, "Your winnings, sir." Captain Renault takes the cash and says, "Thank you very much." So when Belichick* declared himself shocked about Patriots cheating, a team assistant should have walked up to the podium and said, "Your Super Bowl plane ticket, sir."

I realize Gregg is attempting to be funny, but his example isn't the same as the scenario presented in the movie. In "Casablanca," Captain Renault was handed the very object which proved he should not have been shocked by the gambling. In Gregg's scenario, a Super Bowl ticket isn't the very object which proved Belichick should not have been shocked by the deflating of footballs. If the team assistant had walked up to the podium and said, "Here is the deflated football you ordered" then Gregg's scenario would make sense. Even when making a joke, Gregg just sort of mails it in without worrying about whether the joke makes sense in the context of the real life event he's commenting on.

Newspaper front pages, the lead story of network evening newscasts, 24-7 cable news coverage -- if the Patriots doctored game balls, that's wrong, but why the four-alarm level of coverage?

One reason is simply that football is the king of sports. America is obsessed with this game, down to its minutiae. The NFL has an outsized role in society, and never hesitates to use that outsized role for money and ratings. When the NFL screws up, it's an outsized screwup.

That's the long and short of it. The NFL is very, very popular and any news that happens involving the NFL is big news. It's the main reason the deflating of footballs has led news coverage.

Initially mulling this, I was tempted to say another factor in the reaction is that so many people viscerally dislike Belichick*. But the Saints' bounty scandal and the Ray Rice imbroglio got four-alarm treatment, and neither involved Belichick*.

The fact the Patriots were involved with Spygate a few years ago had something to do with the coverage, but before mulling it too long, just know the reason the deflating of footballs story is so big is because the NFL is so big.

But on reflection I don't think the reaction to PSIcheated is about Belichick*. It's about the assumption that people reach positions of power and privilege -- in sports, business, government, school, Wall Street -- by cheating, and most are never caught.

I'm just glad Gregg is finally getting to the bottom of what this football deflating scandal is really about. Because it certainly can't be about a Hall of Fame-caliber coach and quarterback suspected of cheating for a second time. It can't be that simple. It has to be about society and the idea people in power cheat to get there. There has to be some sort of macro-level to the Patriots deflating footballs, so it can't simply be about how some people believe Belichick and Brady are found to have cheated for the second time and they are about to appear in the Super Bowl (some claim) as a direct result of cheating. That can't be it.

But if there's a fair, open competition and one person ends up with a powerful, highly remunerative position while another ends up with little or nothing, we may prefer to believe the whole thing was fixed. Seeing a powerful, wealthy person caught cheating reinforces this.

Or many people just don't like the idea one team is cheating in order to win games. Or many people don't like the Patriots and can't wait to eviscerate them for getting caught violating NFL rules for a second time.

Postscript No. 3: TMQ regularly reminds -- including in this 2007 column as Spygate started

I find it interesting that Gregg links a column from 2007 and refers to it as when "Spygate started" considering a few years ago he tried to justify his whole "The Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl or had postseason success because of football gods punished them" stance based on Spygate not really having started until AFTER the Patriots lost the Super Bowl to the Giants. Gregg wanted to push the start of Spygate to the end of the season to justify his insistence the Patriots had not had postseason success since Spygate occurred. I can't find the exact TMQ, but that was Gregg's position. When called out on this being incorrect, I recall Gregg mealy-mouthed his way around it by saying Spygate didn't start until the Patriots were punished for it. So basically, I find it interesting he acknowledges Spygate started before the 2007 season started, because that wasn't always his position when he had a point he wanted to prove.

Postscript No. 4: Andrew Luck's hand size (pinkie to thumb with fingers spread) is 10 inches, Brady's is 9.4 inches. That's a bigger distinction than it may seem.

This is an excellent example of how Gregg's position on an issue will change depending on what he wants to prove. After most NFL seasons, Gregg writes in TMQ about "hyper specificity" and how there is no difference in a player running a 4.41 40-yard dash and a 4.48 40-yard dash because both should be rounded to 4.4 or 4.5. All of a sudden, Brady's hand size isn't 9 inches or 10 inches wide. Not at all. Now Gregg embraces hyper specificity and says Brady's hand size is 9.4 inches long. In fact, here is Gregg mocking those who do exactly what he's doing here.

Football is wild for absurd precision. Here, a combine 40-yard dash time is touted as "4.27" seconds, trailing only a record of "4.24" seconds. A player who runs a "4.24" is half of 1 percent faster than a player who runs a "4.27," and would finish a 40-yard dash three inches ahead.

Maryland just raised its state income tax rate to 8.95 percent. It's certainly not 9 percent!

Medicare taxes are rising this year by 0.9 percent for many filers to help finance ObamaCare. It's certainly not a 1 percent increase!

When Gregg has a point to prove, he is allowed to use hyper specificity, but it's outrageous when anyone else dares to say Medicare taxes are rising 0.9 percent rather than 1.0 percent. Gregg's own rules need not apply to himself.

In the aftermath of Green Bay facing four fourth-and-1s in the NFC Championship Game and kicking four times, many readers, including Rebecca Wayne of Bellingham, Washington, noted that as the decisions happened, Fox's on-air announcers seemed to agree. She wrote, "So in hindsight Mike McCarthy was wrong but it wasn't obvious in real time."

In most fourth-and-short situations, on-air personnel for CBS, ESPN, Fox and NBC (CBS provides the booth crew for NFL Network broadcasts) express approval when the coach sends out the kicking unit. Announcers tend to assume that if coaches who do nothing all year but study football think kicking on fourth-and-short is the right move, they must be right.

This could be true. What is also true is that most play-by-play guys are older and the analysts tend to be older ex-football players as well. I view going for it on fourth down as a more progressive and more recent trend. Those people, like on-air personnel, that don't have to make the decision and have traditionally favored taking points over going for it on fourth down will think the head coach did the right thing by taking the points. It's why Twitter blows up with negativity when a coach like Mike McCarthy kicks a field goal so close to the end zone. Twitter trends younger and younger people tend to favor the more aggressive and progressive tactics, while the tactic of "take the points" isn't as entrenched in them as it is the older play-by-play guys and analysts. It's my small little theory about why on-air personnel tend to seem more conservative.

It's obvious when athletes make errors -- interceptions are not supposed to happen -- but not obvious when coaches err, thus they receive the benefit of the doubt. Announcers even use the "have to" construction. As in, "It's fourth-and-1, the Screaming Lemurs have to punt."

Again, they favor less aggressive tactics because going for it on fourth down being supported by data stating this is the right strategy is a relatively new thing. It's why baseball announcers also tend to be more conservative and less accepting of newer Sabermetric principles. They call the game based on how they played/grew up around the game, which may be slightly different from how the current game is played in terms of strategy.

Blame-shifting is essential to understanding why so many football coaches opt for the "safe" tactic even if it reduces the odds of winning. Of course every coach wants to win, but that is not necessarily the No. 1 objective in the coach's mind. Avoiding criticism, and thus prolonging job security, may be objective No. 1.

Mike McCarthy just signed a new contract extension that takes him through 2018 and it's probably worth more than the $5 million per year he got in his last contract extension. So why would McCarthy give a shit about job security? If he gets fired, the Packers will be paying him for four seasons that he doesn't even coach the team. Job security isn't objective No. 1. Maybe this blanket criticism is correct for other head coaches, but Gregg can't explain away why McCarthy was conservative against Seattle with this "job security" explanation. It doesn't pass the bullshit test.

Usually coaches are criticized for fourth-down tries -- Belichick* was hammered for going for it in Patriots territory at Indianapolis. McCarthy's situation is a rare case of a coach criticized for doing the "safe" thing.

Probably because it was so egregious. Gregg explains job security is the concern of a coach when he decides not to go for it on fourth down. I don't think that pertains to McCarthy, so I would love to know if Gregg thinks McCarthy is that concerned about avoiding criticism. I can't believe McCarthy would have that thin of skin.

Football aside: Yours truly watched the tape of the fourth-and-1 decisions and was struck by this: All four times Aaron Rodgers trotted off passively, not arguing to go for it. Can anyone believe Brett Favre in this situation would have trotted off passively? This may be emblematic of the difference between the modern analytics-based, emotionally cool approach to sports and old-fashioned passion for athletic battle.

For the love of God, running off the field and throwing a tantrum like a child or questioning the head coach while yelling at him IS NOT LEADERSHIP! It is not. I wish Gregg would get this out of his head. Maybe Favre would trot off passively, maybe he wouldn't. Rodgers was probably thinking about how the Packers left opportunities to score on the field instead of thinking about showing "leadership" by acting like a child and stomping off the field.

Trotting off passively has nothing to do with an analytics-based approach to sports. It has to do with real leaders not questioning their coach publicly or acting like a spoiled brat in cases where that quarterback doesn't agree with the decision of his coach. Is leadership showing fellow teammates that it's okay to question the coach? Is leadership showing fellow teammates that it's okay to act like a spoiled brat? This is not leadership.

Political aside: Hillary Clinton is so far ahead in the early polls that the very size of the lead ought to make her nervous. The Packers thought a 16-0 lead was insurmountable, too.

I'm sure Hillary Clinton knows that being far ahead in an early poll isn't the same thing as the Packers having a 16-0 lead in a football playoff game. If only Gregg knew it.

Next Week: That Super Bowl thing you might have heard about.

Actually the Super Bowl takes place this week. Is this an example of Reverse-Creep where Gregg talks about an event occurring next week when it really takes place this week?