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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The zebras need a refresher course in this standard.

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

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

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

Stricter enforcement of the pick play by the offense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it's a stupid rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Packers and Broncos
Saints and Dolphins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Crabtree Curse strikes again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do this to your readers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fortune favors the bold!

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

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

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

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

5 comments MMQB Review: Peter King Isn't Sure Giancarlo Stanton Can Earn His Contract Like Derek Jeter Did Edition

Peter King interviewed Chris Simms in last week's MMQB and Simms informed King that he wasn't no "bitch boy." That was good to know. Simms also alerted MMQB readers to a guy named "Khalil Mack" as a guy that "we" should really know, but don't know yet, but will know in the future. Oh, and the Seahawks are going to be fine. Maybe. They did lose this weekend, so it may be time to panic again. This week Peter talks about the perfect Patriot (not George Washington, much to my surprise), reports exclusively that Marshawn Lynch may or may not be fined by the NFL (it could happen!...or not), at the request of Marvin Demoff gets out in front of criticism that Jeff Fisher may be indecisive (may or may not be indecisive!), and thinks Derek Jeter earned his contract but thinks Giancarlo Stanton will not.

On Sunday morning, none of the eight divisions was tied at the top. On Sunday evening, four were.

Has the NFL ever been this crazy before? This may be the craziest NFL season since the 2013 NFL season.

But the story of Week 11 happened in Indianapolis, and it involved a player on the Patriots’ practice squad for the first six weeks of the season, a player any team in the NFL could have claimed and signed, for free, until the middle of October.

And obviously considering running backs are being devalued and Jonas Gray was undrafted out of college, it's a shock that no NFL team picked him up off the Patriots' practice squad and placed him on their 53-man roster.

The Patriots are doing what they always do—owning October and November—only this time looking like an old-fashioned power-running team. Using a sixth offensive lineman regularly, and at times using both a fullback and a blocking tight end on the same play,

Which is funny, because I recall last year the Patriots winning a game or two running the football and Peter (along with other sportswriters) were like, "I can't believe the Patriots are winning by running the football!" Everything is a circle and sportswriters have a short memory. The Patriots won games last year by being a power running team, but this year is totally different. At some point, sportswriters may realize, "Hey didn't I write something similar last year?," but that day has not come yet.

Gray, undrafted, unloved

Let's drop the dramatics, Peter. Jesus. Fucking "unloved"? Who the hell writes a running back was "unloved"? Maybe the same guy who refers to grown men as "precocious."

Two things I found amazing: Gray never seemed to be winded, or tired, or showing the strain of what in today’s football is an amazing workload, especially for someone who in college or pro football had never carried this many times.

It's called conditioning and the Patriots seem to have gotten Jonas Gray in good condition. By the way, remember when the Patriots' dynasty was over? That was what, Week 2 or 3?

One more note about Gray, from Alex Flanagan, who covered Notre Dame as the sideline reporter for NBC for several years. It’s a humorous one—I think. Gray’s an amateur comedian. He once opened for Dustin Diamond—Screech, on “Saved By The Bell”—at a comedy club. If I were Gray, I’d probably keep that to myself around Bill Belichick.

Get it? It's a "humorous" note and Gray was a comedian?! Get it? Also, you just spilled the beans about Gray opening for Dustin Diamond, Peter. You ol' scallywag.

No Senior Bowl. No Scouting Combine. No draft. Gray got signed by Miami in May 2012 and spent the year rehabbing the knee. In August 2013, Miami cut him. Baltimore signed him to the practice squad on Labor Day weekend 2013, and there he spent all season before being cut loose at the end of the year.

I CAN'T BELIEVE HE WAS JUST SITTING ON THE PATRIOTS' PRACTICE SQUAD UNCLAIMED! WHAT WAS THE REST OF THE NFL THINKING?

Up came Gray. Belichick and offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels obviously felt the Colts were susceptible to the power-running game Sunday night.

Yes, obviously. Boy, it's hard to get much by Peter when he's on top of his game. The Patriots used a sixth offensive lineman and a fullback for a lot of the game against the Colts, so yes, I would say the Patriots may have believed the Colts could be run against.

That’s how New England played the whole game. Belichick and McDaniels are chameleons in designing game strategy. Some weeks it’s going to be bombs away; some weeks, Belichick channels his inner Marion Motley and plays power. 

The Patriots tend to change strategy from week-to-week, but this time the Patriots used a power running game was totally different. Sure, they change strategies every week, but who knew they would use a strategy like a power running game?

New England did that, for four quarters, with a back no one ever heard of. They have now. 

I had heard of Jonas Gray, but "we" didn't know who he was. I guess I knew who Gray was, but didn't know who he was. After all, if Peter says "no one" had heard of Gray then I must have been mistaken in believing I had.

Again: It’s amazing that Gray never tired.

It's amazing you have written this twice now.

You don’t want to make too much of one game.

Which means Peter is probably going to make a just a little bit too much of one game in the very next sentence.

But this game showed New England can be more than Brady-to-Gronk-or-Edelman.

I thought it was understood prior to this game that the Patriots were more than Gronk or Edelman, but again, Peter doesn't want to make too much of one game. It's just this one game proves what wasn't proven before, though Peter doesn't want to make too much of this game. Jonas Gray proven to be among the Patriots' weapons is like the one game where the Patriots got blown out by the Chiefs proved that the Patriots' dynasty was in it's death throes.

Seven things you need to know about this weekend.

Thank God that Peter is here to tell us what we need to know. I know I am a mindless piece of shit who can't tell his ass from his head, so I need someone else to feed me information because I'm not smart enough to acquire information on my own.

Jay Cutler stood and delivered Sunday. Say what you will about the Chicago quarterback. (What? Has he been in the news?) But after two horrendous Bears losses, Cutler made a Brett Favre-like 44-yard touchdown throw to Brandon Marshall against Minnesota at Soldier Field Sunday and played well enough to get a sloppy, 21-13 win over Minnesota.

Peter has to find a way to shoehorn a Brett Favre mention into MMQB, especially when Favre's replacement is playing better than Favre ever did. Maybe I'll get lucky and in 15 years sportswriters will be writing things like, "Could the Packers have won another Super Bowl if they had benched Favre for Rodgers prior to Favre retiring, unretiring and then holding the team hostage?" articles. That won't happen. I'm not that lucky.

Marshawn Lynch might get fined $100,000 by the league, or he might not.

IT MAY OR MAY NOT RAIN TODAY. CHECK THE SKY FOR DETAILS!

He refused to talk to the media Sunday after Seattle’s loss in Kansas City—but when he left the building, he called two media members, former Seattle fullback Michael Robinson and Mike Silver of NFL Network. Lynch thinks that level of media cooperation should suffice. The league will decide if it does. It shouldn’t, of course.

So Lynch may or may not get fined today. The NFL probably will fine him, but they may not. I don't have an issue with Peter's report, because he doesn't know, but I like how he is basically reporting nothing and shading it as news "we" need to know.

Kansas City is dangerous, and I mean that in a good way.

Like in a Michael Jackson "dangerous" good way?

There is depth along the front. Recently, 2011 third-round defensive end Allen Bailey has become a force. That’s why the Chiefs were glad to reward him with a four-year, $25-million contract Saturday—but more about that in a moment.

That's not fair to make us wait with baited breath for your thoughts on Allen Bailey's contract extension. You are such a tease, Peter!

The Chiefs are not going to win many shootouts; Alex Smith hasn’t thrown a touchdown pass to a wide receiver yet this year.

Alex Smith everyone!

“Our saying is, ‘Deny it to the end,’ ” Bailey said from Kansas City after beating the defending Super Bowl champs.

The New Orleans Saints are like, "Hold on, that's OUR saying too!"

Then Roger Goodell is like, "You too? We joke about that being the NFL motto around the league office! We have more in common with the Saints than I originally thought."

Bailey was a great signing for GM John Dorsey. He inherited Poe, Houston and Bailey from the 2011 and ’12 drafts of fired GM Scott Pioli, and Dorsey wants to keep the group intact, obviously.

That's quick reminder from Peter King that his buddy Scott Pioli didn't do everything wrong while he was in Kansas City.

I asked Bailey: Why didn’t you wait for free agency?

“I saw the Carson Palmer incident,” he said. “That was an eye-opener. Anything can happen, on any play. I decided to do it now. Plus, this is a great place for me. I love the family atmosphere we have here. We all buy in, and we all work hard. It’s a great bunch of guys.”

Plus, it's only a four year contract and it makes Allen Bailey an even more comfortable millionaire. It's not like Bailey signed a lifetime contract. He'll be a free agent when he is 29 years old at the latest.

Three Questions With…

Larry Foote, Arizona’s veteran linebacker, in the wake of the Cardinals’ suffocating 14-6 win over Detroit on Sunday. Arizona, 9-1, has a two-game lead over four 7-3 teams (Detroit, Green Bay, Dallas, Philadelphia) for home-field advantage in the NFC playoffs.

The MMQB: Your team is 9-1. Admit it—you’re a little bit surprised to have the best record in football, aren’t you?

Whoa Peter, don't go so hard on Foote with the first question.

"So your team is playing well this year---does this make you happy, sad or not surprised at all about how happy you are?"

The MMQB: You guys said all the right things about believing in Drew Stanton coming into this game, but losing Carson Palmer is pretty big. How did you think Stanton would play?

Shitty. He's going to say, "We thought Stanton would play shitty and I wish he would die." That's exactly what Foote will say.

Foote: We had faith in him. I’ll tell you why. This summer in training camp, B.A. [coach Bruce Arians] put the ball down at the 20-yard line, and Drew went under center against us, against the No. 1 defense. He went 80 yards on us. That’s the only time that happened all camp. Once that happened, we saw what we had in him.

Again, I'll ask the same question I asked last week. If the Cardinals and Bruce Arians were so confident that Drew Stanton could be a Super Bowl quality starter then why did they give Carson Palmer a contract extension at the age of 34? I think it's a relevant question.

Five fun facts about those lovable Raiders

1. They won their last game one year ago today.

2. They’re on a 16-game losing streak, they’re 0-10 in 2014, and only one game in their final six is against a team with a losing record.

3. Since Nov. 1, 2012, they’re 5-30.

4. Defensive lineman Antonio Smith was on Houston last year and lost his last 14 games there. So Antonio Smith is on a 24-game losing streak.

Gregg Easterbrook is pissed that Peter King stole part of TMQ for this week.

Sure must be a tough call, to make a coach this confused.
Since Sam Bradford tore his ACL on Aug. 23, Rams coach Jeff Fisher has had quite a time figuring who will play quarterback for him as this succession of statements shows:

Marvin Demoff wants Peter to make it quite clear that these statements don't mean that Jeff Fisher is indecisive. It's just part of the rebuilding process for the Rams. Once Fisher gets that contract extension, upward is the direction for this Rams team.

Aug. 25: Fisher says Shaun Hill will be his quarterback “for the season.” Says Fisher: “I think it’s important once you make a change for whatever reason, you stick with it. And we’re sticking with this. There’s no doubt about that. That allows everybody to get comfortable and have confidence in who is under center as opposed to ‘Well, what are we going to do this week?’ There’s no doubt that he’s our guy.”

Sept. 14: A Tweet from the Rams’ official account: “Fisher confirms when Shaun Hill returns, he will remain the ‪#Rams starting quarterback. ‪#STLvsTB“

Oct. 1: The Rams return from their bye, and Fisher announces Davis will be the starting quarterback for the rest of the season. Says Fisher: “I did say that Shaun was our quarterback. My job is to make the right decisions, and I felt that I was going to go this way pretty much after the Tampa Bay game based on what I saw, and then the Dallas game was just what really convinced us as a staff and myself. And he [Davis] deserves it.”

Nov. 10: Fisher, asked he is considering benching the slumping Davis after a poor performance at Arizona: “No. He [Davis] didn’t have his best half. He missed some opportunities. He made a couple bad decisions and he had trouble seeing at times. The last couple of weeks he’s thrown four interceptions, but we’re going to hang in there.”

Nov. 12: Fisher announces he is benching Davis and will start Hill. “I just felt that the best thing to do, at this point moving forward, was to lean on the experienced quarterback. [Austin] is much better now than he was when he started, but we made the decision to go ahead and play with Shaun. It’s all out in the open. There’s no controversy.”

I won't even fault Fisher too much for going back on his word (the second time) about who his QB "for the season" was going to be. These are the things that happen when a team's season is banked on a notoriously injured and unreliable QB coming off major surgery being the Rams' starter for 16 games. That in itself is the decision that has ruined the Rams' 2014 season. It was an inexplicable decision in my opinion. So of course Fisher can't figure out a starter, because he's got two relatively not good options to choose from.

Unsolicited advice for a 19-year head coach:

Who has last had a winning season in 2008, last won a playoff game in 2003 and has had more seasons below .500 (eight of them) than he has had above (six of them) .500. Sorry, I know I harp, but it's hard not to do.

I will say this in defense of Fisher: It’s hard to have faith in either of these quarterbacks after watching 10 games of them. Whether the Rams have Sam Bradford back next season, they’ve got to invest in a second quarterback they can trust to win games.

Let's not act like Jeff Fisher is a first year head coach or anything. This is his third season with the Rams. The fact the Rams had no quality backup quarterback lined up isn't a defense of Jeff Fisher and Les Snead, but is an indictment of the job they have done in trying to put a winning team on the field for St. Louis. The Rams have talent, but Snead and Fisher have continuously played roulette with the most important position on the field. There is no defense for them, Bradford's injuries are simply an indictment of the lack of urgency felt by Snead and Fisher to put up wins or risk being fired.

There aren’t many of those around, obviously.

No, there aren't. There also aren't a lot of seasons where Sam Bradford has played a full 16 games in one of the NFL's toughest divisions. So, there is no defense for Fisher in my opinion. He was hired by the Rams because he supposedly knew what he was doing and could put a winning product on the field. So far, he has neglected the most important position on the Rams' roster. And yet, his job security seems pretty good and Peter King is using Snead and Fisher's own lack of forethought as a defense of the job they have done.

But if Bradford returns, his fragility shows backup quarterback is one of the most important 10 players on the St. Louis roster.

This could have been written two years ago and it would have been true. Therein lies the problem.

The Fine Fifteen

4. Denver (7-3). Last week it was Jets beat Steelers. This week, Rams beat Broncos. The reason you can’t overreact about this loss, decisive though it was, is because Julius Thomas (sprained ankle) was gone early in the game, and Emmanuel Sanders (concussion) was lost 90 seconds into the second half. If those two are back Sunday at home against Miami, all will be right with Denver.

You mean Peyton Manning can't win games without his two Pro Bowl receivers (well, one is going to the Pro Bowl this year most likely but hasn't made a Pro Bowl yet...you get my point hopefully)? Now he knows how Tom Brady feels. Welcome to the pain of not having a loaded receiving group. Not so fun and easy, is it?

8. Philadelphia (7-3). Hard to know what to do with a team that got smashed into a million tiny pieces at The Tundra. I guess I’m passing it off as the Packers will score 50 on anybody these days. Move on, nothing to see here.

Fair enough. The Mark Sanchez era continues...

12. Miami (6-4). Still in show-me mode about Ryan Tannehill, particularly in completing throws downfield to a good trio—neither Mike Wallace, Jarvis Landry nor Brian Hartline has a 60-yard receiving game in the last five weeks—but at least Tannehill’s not making the big mistake. Two picks in those last five games.

I bet if Tannehill had Emmanuel Sanders, Demaryius Thomas, Julius Thomas, and Wes Welker then he wouldn't be in show-me mode for Peter.

13. Cincinnati (6-3-1). Freud would have had fun with Andy Dalton. “I cannot figure this man out!’’ Sigmund would say after five sessions with him.

He's inconsistent. There, I figured it out.

Defensive Players of the Week
Alec Ogletree, linebacker, St. Louis. Roll this around in your head: The St. Louis Rams, who had allowed more than 30 points in six of nine games before Sunday, held Peyton Manning and the explosive Broncos to seven at the Edward Jones Dome. In the 22-7 victory, Ogletree was the leader of the pack: 13 tackles, an interception and two passes defensed. Chosen with the Rams’ second first-round pick in 2013, Ogletree is rapidly becoming the kind of pass-rusher and pass-defender every quarterback has to fear. This was his second straight game with a pick.

He's a great player. If only the Rams had a quarterback. Welp, nothing can be done about that. It's not like Fisher and the Rams have had three offseasons to improve the QB situation or anything.

“After today’s performance? Nobody has proved that they deserve to start anywhere after today’s performance … I believe this was a total team effort, this horrific game.”
—Washington coach Jay Gruden, after the embarrassing 27-7 loss to Tampa Bay at home.

So the guy who got credit for the quarterback in Cincinnati that people think sucks now is struggling with his new team as the head coach? I still wonder if Daniel Snyder thought he was hiring Jon Gruden? I still claim that if Jay Gruden had the last name "Bennett" then he wouldn't have gotten a head coaching job with the Redskins.

“The Cardinals are no longer a Super Bowl contender. They are out of the picture.”
—ESPN’s Ron Jaworski, on the 9-1 Arizonans, before Sunday’s game against Detroit.

I tend to agree, but wouldn't say something so definitively and am open to the idea that I could be wrong until proven to be correct. What else would anyone expect from an ESPN talking head though? Jaworski is the one who said Colin Kaepernick could end up being the greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL. ESPN talking heads exist to say outrageous shit and get their name in the news or the echo chamber that is ESPN.

My apartment in Manhattan is 1,480 square feet in area. We have two televisions.
The NFL replay command center on the fifth floor of the league offices in Manhattan is 1,512 square feet in area. It has 82 televisions.

And are they both used for the same purpose Peter?

In the 2007 NFL draft, Detroit general manager Matt Millen, with his first two selections, chose wide receiver Calvin Johnson with the second overall pick and quarterback Drew Stanton with the 43^rd overall pick. Johnson and Stanton were key cogs in a game with teams that had won 15 of 18 entering the meeting of Johnson’s Lions and Stanton’s Cards in Arizona.
Who says Matt Millen didn’t leave anything good behind when he got dumped by the Lions in 2008?

I would really like to pump the brakes on the whole "Drew Stanton is a quality NFL starter" thing for a bit. He's been bad previous to this year and was drafted in the 2nd round to boot. I would prefer coronation of Stanton as "a key cog" be postponed for another week or so. I'm open to the idea I'm wrong about Stanton, but I really don't think I am. Let's just leave Stanton out of the same sentence as Calvin Johnson, that's my point.

Then Peter throws in some Chip Kelly wisdom about there not being 16 games in a season, but each week is a 16 game season. It's just another way of saying to take each game one at a time, but Kelly frames it in a different fashion.

Ten Things I Think I Think

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

f. ESPN’s Adam Schefter with the story of the NFL investigating the Saints stashing a player they’d just waived, linebacker Todd Davis, in their building for a day, and not giving him access to communications, delaying his agreement to a deal with Denver. Schefter said New Orleans intended to keep him off-limits so the team could re-sign him to its practice squad. Davis finally got word that Denver had claimed him and reported to the Broncos in St. Louis on Saturday.

I don't believe the Saints would do this. They always follow the rules as laid out and also their fans wouldn't steal a football intended for a lady and then act like an asshole by refusing to give that football back to said lady. They are a gracious, rule-abiding people.

g. The specter of the last two Scott Pioli drafts—which left the Chiefs with three crucial pieces on the front seven, one of whom signed a big deal Saturday. Dontari Poe (round one, 2012), Justin Houston (round three, 2011) and newly signed Allen Bailey (round three, 2011), who got a four-year, $25 millon deal.

Keep pushing for your friend, Peter. Keep up the good fight to help your buddy land another job in the NFL as a GM. It's not unprofessional in any way. Greg Schiano would agree.

s. Drew Stanton, playing well enough—particularly early in the game—to win.

"Playing well enough to win" usually is a polite way of saying "He didn't turn the ball over and the defense didn't give up points to where he had to play from behind or get the offense off-schedule."

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

b. The Bills have played 21 straight drives, covering 107 minutes, without scoring a touchdown.

I probably should throw myself off the Kyle Orton train soon. Someone remind me to do this.

3. I think there is one thing you probably didn’t know about Jordy Nelson (other than the fact that he is a Kansas City Royals fan, and his son is named Royal but was not named after the baseball team) and that is: He spends a month every year working on the family farm in Kansas. “When we get the opportunity to go back—it’s a little bit less now than when it was earlier in my career—in the summer after minicamp, it times up perfect with the wheat harvest. So I’m able to go back and help my brother and my dad get that taken care of. It’s a very busy time of year; you need a lot of hands on deck to get that done. So I’m fortunate to be able to help them get through that and spend the rest of the month there doing whatever. Working with cattle, working the ground, building a fence, whatever it is. I like being outside. The great thing about farming is that for the most part it’s something different every day. 

We all know Peter King is a sucker for a football player who works the land during the offseason. Jordy Nelson won't ever take the place of Brett Favre in Peter's heart though.

5. I think that was a pretty short Mark Sanchez honeymoon, Philadelphia.

It's a bit presumptuous to say that the Mark Sanchez honeymoon is over, but Mark Sanchez is still Mark Sanchez. Nothing has changed in that regard. I wouldn't expect a sudden increase in performance is where I'm going with my thoughts.

7. I think if I were an NFL owner in the market for a head coach—or a general manager with hiring authority—I would place a phone call to Nick Saban, very much on the QT, and ask if he has even a smidgeon of interest in a second chance at head-coaching in the big league. I doubt he does. But you don’t know for sure until you ask, do you?

No, but his first stint in the NFL seemed to make it pretty damn clear that Saban wanted to be a college football coach. I think the risk that someone gets wind of a phone call going out to Saban isn't worth the reward if Saban by chance chooses to state that he wouldn't mind being an NFL head coach again. Who is to say when Saban would want to come back to the NFL? He may have interest, but isn't ready to make the move. Maybe calling Saban is not a risk, but I don't have fond memories of Saban as an NFL head coach. I think contacting him to gauge his interest in an NFL head coaching job is a bad idea.

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

d. Re Mississippi State: That was the number one college football team in the country on Saturday morning?

This is a non-football thought? Sounds like it deals directly with college football.

e. Urban Meyer is 33-3 at Ohio State. Pretty good.

This is also a football thought.

f. Notre Dame’s Brian Kelly made one of the all-time bonehead coaching decisions, going for two with an 11-point lead with 10 minutes to play. Notre Dame failed. Northwestern scored a touchdown with a two-point conversion, then a field goal, to tie it and send the game to overtime. A Northwestern field goal in overtime won the game. “Our chart in that situation tells us to go for one,” Kelly said at his post-game press conference. “But we were up, I think, 11 at the time. And we felt like, given the circumstances, our kicking game situation, that we were going to try to extend it with a two-point play.”

This is a third football-related thought in a section for non-football thoughts.

g. There is no justification for that, unless your holder has two broken hands.

This is the fourth football thought.

h. Stopping the clock after first downs in college football is crazy.

Fifth football-related thought in a section reserved for non-football thoughts.

i. Making defensive pass interference a 15-yard penalty in college football is brilliant.

Sixth.

k. Rutgers is in the Big Ten. Rutgers is bowl-eligible in the Big Ten. Two sentences I never thought I’d write during the 24 years I lived in Jersey.

Seventh. At least stick to the format, Peter. You decide the format of MMQB and these are supposed to be non-football thoughts, yet there are seven football thoughts here.

l. My three big problems with giving Giancarlo Stanton a 13-year, $325 million contract:
m. The 13 years.
n. The $325 million.

o. The fact that the last time Stanton was on a baseball field he took a fastball in the face.

Good point. If Stanton can't dodge a fastball and prevent it from hitting him in the face, how can he hit a fastball with a bat?

How can the Marlins be sure that Stanton, who suffered multiple facial fractures and some dental damage and had to sit the last two-and-a-half weeks of the season, will be totally unaffected by one of the most frightening things that can happen to an athlete in any sport? Hope the Marlins have done their research—including studying the Tony Conigliaro story.

It always comes back to the Red Sox in some way.

p. Let’s say Stanton hits 40 homers a year for the next five years. That will mean he will be earning his money. He will still have eight more years, at that point, starting at age 30, that he will need to produce like that to earn the contract.

q. Insane. What 10-year baseball pacts have been truly earned? Derek Jeter’s maybe. Beyond that … none.

How many 10 year baseball contracts have been handed out prior to this one? I come up with nine. Todd Helton, Miguel Cabrera, Robinson Cano, Joey Votto, Albert Pujols, Troy Tulowitzki, A-Rod (twice), and The Jeter. It's too early to say for Cano, Cabrera, and Votto. I would argue Todd Helton earned his contract, as did A-Rod the first time he signed a 10 year deal. Pujols and A-Rod (the second time) did not earn their contract. If Derek Jeter earned his contract, then Troy Tulowitzki is certainly in the middle of earning what he's been paid by the Rockies.

How many of these players got a double-digit contract (in terms of years) when he was 25 years old? Stanton is only 25 years old. Peter has to remember that marketing and other factors are a part of a player's value to a team. Derek Jeter didn't earn his contract on the field, he earned it in marketing and being the name that the Yankees brand was associated with. So in terms of that, other players have earned their 10+ year contract from the team they signed this contract with. I think it's hilarious that Peter King chooses Derek Jeter as the guy who earned his 10 year contract. Jeter's last two seasons weren't very good at all (including one year because he was injured) and Jeter really played above league average for one of the five seasons on the back end of his 10 year contract. But yeah, he is the only guy who earned his 10+ year contract. Peter King consistently overrates Derek Jeter. You would think he is a Yankees fan.

r. I understand the position of the Marlins, who basically have to sign the only true marquee player they have. But 13 years is just … not smart.

Stanton will be 38 years old when the contract runs out and it's not that crazy of a contract for when the Marlins try to trade Stanton (and they will) to a team with a higher payroll who can absorb a big contract for a player who doesn't turn 30 years old until November 2019. A contract that averages $25 million per year will be nothing in three or more years. Stanton could easily be a bargain at that point. And yes, the Marlins are going to trade him eventually, but it's not that crazy of a deal I don't believe. It's long (that's what she said), but Stanton hasn't shown any signs of having a declining performance, even if he did get hit in the face with a baseball the last time he was on the field.

Then Peter requests readers send in 200 words on the best Thanksgiving day rivalries in high school football. I guess he's trying to infringe on Gregg Easterbrook's territory as revenge for Easterbrook nicking the name TMQ from MMQB.

(Just change the day around, Gregg! No one will notice!)

The Adieu Haiku
Is it possible?
Six wins wins NFC South?
Wake up, New Orleans!

They are too busy stealing a football from nice ladies in the crowd. Anyone in the NFC South, wake up! Forget New Orleans waking up, someone, anyone, be respectable in that division. 

4 comments Steve Dilbeck Uses His Column To Make Fun of Stat Geeks And Embraces His Ignorance

Steve Dilbeck, fresh off wanting the Dodgers to bench Yasiel Puig, has decided he is going to make fun of stats geeks and anyone else who wants to use numbers to help evaluate baseball players. I struggle to think of another industry where ignorance is embraced so wholly as it is in the sportswriting industry. Sportswriters like Steve Dilbeck wear their ignorance like a badge of pride. They will NOT be a person who uses new methods to evaluate baseball players, and in fact, will mock and bully those who do use statistics to evaluate baseball players. It's funny, because if someone in my office tried to use a typewriter instead of a computer that little charade wouldn't last long. In fact, we only are allowed to keep our computers for three years and then we have to upgrade to a newer, faster computer that has (gasp!) new technologies one must learn to use on it. For sportswriters who cover a sport, refusal to learn new methods teams use to evaluate players is a badge of pride. Ignorance is cool and progress is to be avoided. I can't imagine why the newspaper industry is struggling.

So Steve Dilbeck mocks Andrew Friedman and the string of new front office hires the Dodgers have made. Really, he calls them names and essentially bullies them for evaluating baseball players as they do. Interestingly, since Steve Dilbeck was obviously a journalism major in college I'm guessing he wasn't dating the head cheerleader and wasn't part of the cool crowd that he so desperately seems to want to place himself among in this column. Hey, maybe he was. I'm sure journalism majors are among the jocks and cool kids at some colleges and universities.

And of course the most geeked out picture they could find of Andrew Friedman is the picture that ran with this column. I'm pretty much criticizing the entire column, because (a) it's short and (b) it's really fucking terrible writing.

The nerds have officially taken over the world. Just give into it.

A lot of people have given into it. The people who aren't giving in to it are those who write angry columns about how they are not learning anything about advanced statistics no way, no how. Not going to do it. Those people are you, Steve Dilbeck. Also, nerds haven't taken over the world, they are just more prevalent in the world. Clearly new ideas (not even "new" at this point, but more alternative ideas) are a disturbing trend that must be stopped immediately. Stats geeks haven't taken over baseball, it's just some of the ideas that are statistics-based are more prevalently being used to evaluate baseball players. 

All those guys who used to sit in the back of the classroom with their black horn-rimmed glasses, pocket calculators and clothes their mommies picked out?

It seems that Steve Dilbeck still has fantasies of being a high school jock and giving wedgies to the smaller kids after gym class. Not that it's pathetic or anything like that.

I always thought it was the jocks who sat in the back of the class because they wanted to be as far away from the learning as possible. Wouldn't it make more sense for "those guys" with the glasses and calculators to sit up front since they are so interested in learning? More importantly, whoever Dilbeck's editor is should be embarrassed. There's really no excuse for allowing writing like this to appear in any newspaper or online. Is this the type of writing that the "LA Times" wants to be associated with? Any idiot can bully and mock others using boring stereotypes about high school losers who love math and science. What the "LA Times" should be looking for is a nuanced and fair criticism of Andrew Friedman and his hires. If there is no one on the "LA Times" sports staff capable of doing this then that says a lot about their choice in employees doesn't it?

They run things now. They’re making the decisions and signing the paychecks. All those years spent cozying up to the jocks and the popular kids just wasted.

Not really wasted since the jocks and popular kids are actually playing the game of baseball. For all of the criticism that stats geeks forget that the actual players play the game of baseball, it's interesting that Dilbeck seems to forget the stats geeks run things for the Dodgers, but the jocks and popular kids are the ones playing the game of baseball. 

The Dodgers have been undergoing an amazing transformation the past few weeks, going from a mostly old-school front office to one brimming with guys who know “analytics” and “sabermetrics,” which I think are the same thing, but I’m not taking any chances.

Yes, rather than actually understand the sport you are paid to cover, it's best to simply make assumptions and run away from any new knowledge you might gain. Seems like the safe bet.

I'll say it again...it's amazing to me how new knowledge or progressing one's knowledge is frowned upon by so many sportswriters. In any other industry, the refusal to gain new knowledge or adapt is a sure way to no longer be an active member of that industry and be searching for a new job. As a baseball sportswriter, it's encouraged. There's no way this article should be printed by the "LA Times" because it has absolutely zero useful information or informative data contained in it. It's simply an ignorant mocking of a large group of people because the author refuses to adapt to a changing world. Yet, the "LA Times" allows it to be printed. It's not shocking, but very disappointing. They prefer an ignorant mocking of stat geeks rather than a nuanced retort to why the new direction for the Dodgers isn't the right direction. Of course a nuanced retort would require Dilbeck to gain knowledge he is vehemently opposed to gaining.

They moved Ned Colletti out of the general manager spot and brought in the Rays’ GM and lover of all things numbers, Andrew Friedman, as president of baseball operations.

By the way, Andrew Friedman has been hugely successful as a GM. This is a very important part that Steve Dilbeck leaves out on purpose.  

Now he has reportedly hired Farhan Zaidi from the A’s, where he was Billy Beane’s latest king of statistics, 

That's not a job title. At least show enough respect to use the proper title that Zaidi had.

to be the new GM and is poised to add Josh Byrnes, a two-time fired GM who prizes statistical analysis. And Gabe Kapler, a former major leaguer who has become a big booster of all the new numbers, may be coming.

At this point, I'm not sure the numbers are even "new" anymore. They are newer than older statistics like RBI's and ERA, but advanced statistics have been around the game for over a decade now. 

The Dodgers have formed their very own Geek Squad. 

HILARIOUS! Just like Best Buy has a Geek Squad!

I mean really, this is an article that is worth posting on the "LA Times" site? What redeeming value does name-calling and celebrated ignorance have? If you ask me, it has none, but apparently Steve Dilbeck is so proud of how he can call other people names he wanted to make sure everyone who read the "LA Times" sports page could read the steaming pile of crap he's produced.

Not exactly sure how much baseball wherewithal they actually have, but I know where I’m taking my laptop the next time it has a virus.

Jokes aside, you don't know how much baseball wherewithal they have? Josh Byrnes has been a GM for two MLB teams, Farhan Zaidi has worked with a successful A's team, Gabe Kapler PLAYED THE GAME (isn't that what these old school writers want?...players who have played the game calling the shots?) so he probably knows a little bit about baseball, and Andrew Friedman's record in Tampa Bay speaks for itself. He's been competing against Wal-Mart with the budget of a regional retail store.

You remember the last time the Dodgers committed to the sabermetric approach? Over 10 years ago McCourt hired Paul DePodesta, then Beane’s numbers specialist, from the A’s. 

Again, that's not a job title in the same way "Crotchety man who hates things he doesn't care to understand" is not a job title. 

Jonah Hill was apparently unavailable.

It's a "Moneyball" reference! No article about advanced statistics is complete without a reference to "Moneyball." Why the constant references to "Moneyball" you may wonder? Because that's the only thing (outside of WAR, which is easy to spell for sportswriters, so that's the advanced statistic of choice) writers like Steve Dilbeck know about Sabermetrics. You know, other than they don't like Sabermetrics because it's an idea they don't understand and threatens their standing as perceived baseball experts. That's the real reason Steve Dilbeck is so immature about the hiring of Andrew Friedman. He's afraid of ideas he doesn't understand. 

DePodesta – pleasant, well-meaning and overmatched -- lasted 20 months before McCourt fired him and hired Colletti.

And obviously no non-Sabermetrics GM has ever been fired and every GM who utilizes Sabermetrics is due to suffer the same fate as DePodesta. 

And Beane liked to say he was more concerned about losing Zaidi to Google than another team. That connection doesn’t make you nervous?

It probably wouldn't make me nervous. He's a smart guy and his job is to look at the Dodgers roster from the perspective of someone who just worries about the information he collects without making an emotional decision. Anecdotal story...I tend to do very well in fantasy hockey leagues because I know very little about the individual players as compared to my knowledge of other sports. My bias is gone, so I won't hold on to Kyle Singler too long or draft Devonta Freeman because I think he is the guy to watch on the Falcons depth chart at running back. I pay attention to the numbers the players put up. Now obviously, fantasy and real sports are totally different and there is no comparison. My comparison only comes in that PART of the decision-making process has to be a neutral, bias-free evaluation of the Dodgers' roster. That seems to be what Zaidi does.

Let's also clear up one other thing that Dilbeck leaves out. Andrew Friedman is not firing every scout in the Dodgers' organization. He is no longer choosing to pay zero attention to what scouts say and the opinion of someone who has followed and evaluated a college or high school pitcher for a long time. It's just that Friedman makes an effort to include statistical analysis in his evaluation of a player. Much to the contrary of what gets written, the entire decision-making process is not based on statistical analysis. PART of the decision-making process will be numbers-focused. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but in order to further their "Numbers are killing the sport of baseball" narrative sportswriters like Steve Dilbeck have to pretend the ENTIRE decision-making process will be stats-based and every current Dodgers scout will be fired. Dilbeck wants his readers to believe scouting will now consist of a line of computers spitting numbers out when this isn't at all the truth. 

Zaidi has a bachelor's from MIT and a doctorate (corrected) from Cal, both in economics. Forget my laptop, I’m wondering if he does tax returns.

Well, Dilbeck probably needs to wonder first how a person who has an economics degree should be qualified to do tax returns. It can happen, but generally accounting or finance majors are considered those inclined to go into the field of doing tax returns. It's a fallacy to assume a person who deals with economics does tax returns as well. But typically, Steve Dilbeck is proud to show off his lack of knowledge for the world to see. Look at me! I'm ignorant! I lack knowledge and prefer to base my information on any assumptions I might make!

Zaidi said he liked to chart player tendencies for the A’s during games, which I don’t believe is a serious selling point on your typical GM resume.

Really? Charting player tendencies isn't a selling point for a GM? Charting player tendencies is very basic scouting shit. It's not even "stats-based" really. MLB teams have been trying to figure out the tendencies of the opposing team and their own team for decades. It's called "scouting" and Zaidi just does it a different way. So yes, charting player tendencies is a crucial part of scouting and a serious selling point for a GM's resume if he is successful at charting these tendencies. 

Oh, come on, who are we kidding? Friedman’s the GM with a fancy title and Zaidi is his chief of numbers.

Yes, who is Steve Dilbeck kidding? Absolutely no one. That is true. 

Zaidi spent 10 years with Beane and the A’s and last season told The Times’ Kevin Baxter:

“One of the things that I grew to learn is nobody has this game figured out. There’s no one vantage point whether you’re an analyst or whether you’re a player-development instructor or whether you’re a coach on the big league staff. There’s no one vantage point that will lead you to every answer. So I think it comes back to the fact that it’s a collaborative process.”

Collaborative suggests different points of view, which I’m not certain you’re going to get from this group unless the debate is over the best PC processors.

Knowing the best PC processors, doing taxes, and fixing laptops. It sounds like the new stats geeks really actually are pretty useful to have around. Of course, none of that deals with baseball which is why the Dodgers will be a failure much in the same way Zaidi helped the A's fail and Friedman was an utter failure in Tampa Bay as their GM...well, maybe both teams were a failure in Dilbeck's mind. That's what he would prefer his readers believe.

Unfortunately for him, the reality is that both Zaidi and Friedman seemed to have done good work for successful teams working on a limited budget. Dilbeck would still prefer to paint both Zaidi and Friedman as inexperienced working in a front office setting and doomed for failure because they lack baseball pedigree to run a successful team. Dilbeck wants to talk so much about a typical GM resume, but Zaidi and Friedman's success at their previous stops show that their resumes speak for themselves. No matter how much Dilbeck wants to paint them as being too numbers-focused, Zaidi and especially Friedman, have shown their methods can work the major league level. Does this guarantee they will be a success with the Dodgers? Of course not, but they aren't computer geeks who don't understand baseball as Dilbeck so desperately tries to paint them as being.

Not sure how much fun all of this is going to be, but it will be different.

And of course doing the same thing the Dodgers have done with the payroll they have was a lot of fun and had the benefit of not being different. Ned Colletti was by no means a failure as the Dodgers' GM, but going in a different route with a GM that has a proven track record of building a farm system (which seems to be the intent) isn't exactly the worst idea. I find interesting that giving a baseball player $35 million for five years doesn't seem like a big deal, but giving a proven team-builder like Friedman that amount of money to build the Dodgers' team is seen as a huge risk. There is a difference because the change of direction could hurt the franchise for years to come, but when choosing to make a change in direction, there are worse choices than Andrew Friedman to be the man leading that change. 

All they inherit is the largest payroll in American sports history, which if nothing else, is a lot of numbers.

And all they understand is numbers, so this should work out fine.

What a terrible piece of sportswriting. This is embarrassing for the "LA Times" that they allowed this to be printed. It lacks perspective, nuance, and any semblance of analysis as to why this direction the Dodgers have chosen to go in should be questioned. It's just a mean, name-calling, bullying, lack-of-think piece that would be better off going in the garbage. Of course, Dilbeck used a computer, a PC processor and a laptop to write the column so obviously he doesn't hate technology as much as he takes pride in his lack of ability to glean new knowledge about his chosen profession.

2 comments Baseball Is Still Still Dying a Death So Hard and the Future is Bleak; Except This Isn't True

As I wrote a few weeks ago, it's almost a cliche to say that baseball is dying. I think it's becoming a running joke among baseball fans that dozens of "Baseball is dying" columns get written around the time of the World Series. This is due to the ratings that the World Series receives which aren't comparable to ratings that the World Series has gotten in the past. As I have written many times before, there is an easy explanation. No top-rated shows, outside of NFL games, receive the ratings that they used to receive 20-30 years ago. The top-rated show on television get lower ratings than the top-rated show from 20-30 years ago. There are more options available to consumers. It's a simple explanation. Baseball is becoming a regional sport and still does well regionally. Still, writers like Phil Sullivan can't seem to figure it out and want to churn out a lazy "Baseball and the World Series are dying" column. Hey, maybe there is just nothing else he knows to write about.

You can't judge a World Series by its ratings, but it's apparent many fans don't exactly consider the Royals-Giants matchup must-see TV.

The quality of the World Series can't be judged by the ratings that World Series receives. This is just like the quality of a television show can't be judged by the ratings that television show receives.

The annual storyline of the national pastime losing viewership during its premier event once again cropped up this week, despite a back-and-forth Series that was pushed to seven games Tuesday night with the Royals' 10-0 victory.

Yes, despite the fact viewers should be able to predict the future to know that the World Series would be a back-and-forth affair, every game of the World Series was only in the Top 20 of the Nielson ratings for the week that the game aired. There are network television shows that would kill to have "bleeding" ratings like the World Series receives. If only...

Is this just something baseball has to live with from now on, or are there things the sport can to do to recapture October from football?

Yes, this is just a fact of life now. Baseball has become an increasingly more regional sport and every World Series game will no longer be the #1 rated program on the night they air. The NFL is currently more popular. The sooner the baseball-loving media deals with this, the happier they are, and the sooner I won't read "baseball is dying" articles anymore. It will be a glorious day.

"There's a lot going on at this time of year," Giants general manager Brian Sabean said. 

Plus, baseball just isn't as popular to watch on television as it used to be. 

"Baseball is not the American sport. Football is, and especially pro football, which is followed by some family member in everybody's family. But that has evolved over time. It really has nothing to do with the World Series."

But no, Brian Sabean, it DOES have something to do with the World Series. That's the premise of this article and so that is the conclusion that must be reached, reality about whether the relative lack of interest is a baseball-specific issue or is a World Series-related issue be damned.

True, baseball no longer is "the American sport" and hasn't been for years. It's not likely to overtake football in popularity for the foreseeable future.

Copy and paste onto a piece of paper that can go on the computer of writers like Paul Sullivan, so the answer is right there when the question of "Why doesn't baseball have great ratings like it used to?" pops into their mind.

There are many theories to choose from for lackluster World Series ratings, though the late starting times and the long games are the reasons most cite.

Football games start late and are actually longer than most baseball games, so those are two logical, but probably not entirely accurate reasons for the decline in baseball's popularity. The fact baseball isn't perceived as a "fast" sport combined with the perceived amount of standing around done could also be part of the reason the sport has suffered a decline in popularity. It's nearly impossible to pinpoint one reason, but the fact the playoff games feel like they move at a slow pace probably doesn't help. Whatever tension the sport has feels broken by the pauses between pitches. Baseball isn't a sport to actively watch like football. Baseball can be actively watched, but viewers watch a baseball game in a different manner than they watch a football game.

This particular Series also is lacking in star power, outside of Fox reporter Erin Andrews.

This doesn't make sense. Last year's World Series did not lack star power and it didn't get ratings reminiscent of the 1980's World Series games. Not that Paul Sullivan would draw a conclusion that baseball is dying because one World Series didn't get great ratings or anything like that when he refers to "this particular Series" lacking star power.

Madison Bumgarner, the probable MVP if the Giants win, isn't as well-known as half the starting quarterbacks in the NFL.

I mean, okay, if that comparison is attempting to prove baseball's popularity compared to the NFL's popularity it feels like a fail to me. LeBron James is more well-known than half of the starting quarterbacks in the NFL. Does that mean the NBA is more popular than the NFL? David Ortiz was popular and well-known and his presence didn't catapult the 2013 World Series to 30+ million viewers.

The Royals' key players, their three late inning relievers, are more anonymous than many NFL backup quarterbacks.

Everybody is anonymous until they make a name for themselves. I don't know if the World Series would bring in fantastic ratings even if the Royals had Papelbon, Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman in the bullpen. Again, Sullivan is assuming it is the lack of star power that is pushing the 2014 World Series ratings to being below those ratings of World Series games 20-30 years ago. It's not entirely true. 

The numbers are frightening. Heading into Game 6, the Series was averaging 12.1 million viewers per game. Game 1 in Kansas City was the lowest-rated World Series opener of all time with an average of 12.2 million viewers, while Game 4 in San Francisco only drew an average of 10.7 million.

And yet, these numbers were still in the Top 20 of television shows in primetime during that week. World Series ratings aren't as high as they used to be, but they are really aren't terrible considering they are still among the Top 20 shows during a given week.

Sunday's Game 5 rose to a 12.6 million average, but still lost out to Sunday Night Football, where the Saints trounced the Packers.

Football is more popular than baseball. Stop pointing out how World Series ratings can't match Sunday Night Football ratings. The World Series games will not match the ratings of Sunday Night Football games. It's just how it is now and there's no reason to say, "Derrrrrrrrrr....why is it the World Series can't match football in ratings? Is the sport dying? What's going on?"

Football ratings > Baseball ratings. Accept it, move on, and make no further comparisons of baseball to football.

Is FX dying? All shows on FX can't match the ratings that World Series games receive. Does this mean FX shows aren't popular and the network should fold? What about HBO? They rely on paid subscribers, but their shows can't keep up with baseball's ratings. Is HBO dying?

According to Variety, Sunday Night Football's ratings beat Game 5 by a 39 percent margin, the biggest difference since World Series games began competing against the Sunday night games on NBC in 2010.

Welp, some World Series game has to have the largest difference in ratings as compared to Sunday Night Football. I guess Game 5 of the 2014 World Series is that game.

While this year's Series has been captivating to most avid baseball fans, the rest of the country seemingly is not enamored.

Because baseball is becoming more and more of a regional sport. That is why. Local ratings for baseball are pretty good and MLB teams are securing lucrative regional contracts as well. The sport is simply becoming less and less national.

You can believe it has crossed the minds of incoming commissioner Rob Manfred, who is taking over the ship at a critical juncture, and Tony Clark, executive director of the MLB Players Association.

Yes, I could believe the commissioner wants baseball ratings to be as high as possible. As commissioner, this does seem like it would be one of Rob Manfred's concerns. Even if ratings were great, one of Manfred's concerns would still be to make sure fans all around the United States continue to enjoy watching the World Series.

Baseball's gross revenues reached a record $8 billion last year, according to Forbes, so the sport isn't exactly dying.

But yet, articles like this wondering why the World Series is bleeding ratings and sounding a death knell for the sport of baseball still get written. For a sport that doesn't get great ratings nationally, revenue records are still being set. Gee, what could that mean? Somebody somewhere must be enjoying watching the sport of baseball.

But if the millennials are tuning the game out, why would the following generation suddenly start tuning in?

That's a great question. If World Series ratings are decreasing and there is less perceived interest in the World Series and baseball in general, why would baseball have record gross revenues?

Of course, closer games would have helped this World Series, but four of the first five games were decided by five or more runs. Game 6 was highly anticipated because of the possibility of a Giants' clincher, but once the Royals scored those seven second-inning runs you almost could hear America brushing its teeth and getting ready for bed.

Specifically because it is not 1985 and there are quite a few options other than the World Series on television on a Tuesday evening. So a World Series game that lacks tension won't be viewed by those who don't have a rooting interest in either the Giants or the Royals. It's just how it is in 2014. There are more than five options in television shows.

There should be a surge in viewers for Game 7, whose main competition will be the Bulls-Knicks season opener on ESPN.

Game 7's traditionally get really, really good ratings. That's because there is tension and the stakes are higher than in Games 1-5 where a loss by one team would not have resulted in the opposing team winning the World Series. Viewers of sports like tension.

Derrick Rose vs. Carmelo Anthony, or Tim Hudson vs. Jeremy Guthrie?

See, unfortunately Paul Sullivan is still missing the point. It's not Derrick Rose v. Carmelo Anthony, or Tim Hudson vs. Jeremy Guthrie. It's Tim Hudson vs. Jeremy Guthrie, or shows on the DVR, or shows on basic cable, or a movie on a movie pay channel, or a television show on a cable network, or Derrick Rose vs. Carmelo Anthony. It's not the NBA versus MLB head-to-head, but is MLB versus every other program that's on television, which could be 200 other programs that are being shown at the same time as the World Series.

You make the call.

Well, since baseball is dying there was no need to watch the World Series was there? By the way, the ratings for Game 7 of the 2014 World Series were pretty good. 23.5 million people watched Game 7.