The Important Part is that Andy Reid Looks Like a Bloated Walrus

Picking on things said by ESPN.com commenters is kind of like picking on things said by devout racists, the mentally ill, or Joe Morgan. I mean, it's kind of like the definition of low-hanging fruit. However I'm about to do exactly that. I think I'm justified in doing so because this particular comment was the "featured comment" on the website's front page last night. That is to say, out of every comment the site received on Sunday afternoon/evening, some clod at ESPN's offices thought this was the best/smartest/most relevant/most poignant/some combination of all of these. So I guess I'm more picking on that clod than the commenter himself, which I think is valid. Let's face it- how hard is that task? You go through a couple hundred comments and pick one that isn't stupid. And yet apparently it's not as easy as it sounds. How do I know that? Well, the NFL playoffs are down to four teams. Commenter 808forlife, what say you about their respective quarterbacks?
Donovan, Big Ben, and Warner are all Super Bowl QB's with plenty of big game experience. Flacco? Out of his league.

First of all, sir, I like your angle here. You have taken a controversial and not at all widely-held viewpoint and expressed it in a thought provoking way. Bully on you for that. But I digress; let's talk about why this is a "featured comment" worth blogging about. Here's what I'll give Mr. 808; Warner and Roethlisberger are legit. You won't find many people criticizing their big game credentials. Also, Flacco has never played in a conference championship game. (Although, to be fair, before last Saturday he had never played in a divisional playoff game and he didn't do too badly there. But let me get to the point.) So that's all well and good. Let's move past it and get to the retardery.

Take 100 reasonably passionate and well-informed sports fans. Ask them to do an association with you: say "Donovan McNabb," then say "big game," and ask them what's the next thing that comes to their mind. I am pretty sure that about 95 of them are going to say "Throwing up during the final drive of Super Bowl XXXIX." I mean, fair or not, that's just the first thing that comes to mind. Although the guy has had a moderate amount of playoff success, he's only made it to one Super Bowl and then allegedly lost his shit when the chips were down during that game. So I'm not entirely sure I'd rather have him over Joe "hey did you know rookies don't usually play well during the playoffs?" Flacco for the remainder of the NFL season. I'm not saying he's not good, but touting his big game credentials along with two guys who have actually won Super Bowls (without vomiting) is dumb. Thus, 808forlife/ESPN comment chooser, you've picked a real stinker here. You're both fucking morons, but one of you is just some asshole who comments on a sports website while the other is truly and completely terrible at his incredibly simple job. I guess I'd rather be the former than the latter.

Oh, and what about the other five fans who didn't associate McNabb and "big game" with throwing up during the Super Bowl? Four of them will say "Campbell's Chunky Soup" for some reason. And assuming the fifth is Jack M, he will say "Andy Reid is fat," which doesn't make a lot of sense in this context but is definitely true. That Jack is such a hater.

WMTMQR: Gregg Easterbrook Is Still Very Wrong About Clock Management

I haven't done a WMTMQR in a while because Easterbrook has somewhat cleaned up his act recently. This has probably happened because he reads my scathing commentary and takes it to heart. But he tried to sneak a couple giant slices of crap pie into this week's column, so I might as well complain about them.

In other football news, would New England actually be better off losing Sunday against Jersey/B? If the Patriots beat the Jets, they lock in the No. 1 seed and home-field advantage throughout the postseason. Then, with two meaningless regular-season outings and a bye week, a full month will pass until Jan. 12, the earliest date the Flying Elvii could appear in another game that counts. Consider New England's last three regular-season opponents: the 3-10 Jets, the 0-13 Dolphins and a Giants squad that might be resting starters. Even the mad-at-the-world Pats could have trouble maintaining focus for an entire meaningless month. Meanwhile, Dallas is in almost the same situation as New England. With effectively a two-game lead over Green Bay -- owing to beating the Pack head-to-head -- through the final three weeks, the Cowboys need only a combination of Dallas wins and Green Bay losses that adds up to two to lock up home-field advantage in the NFC. Thus, Boys faithful actually might root for Green Bay to beat St. Louis on Sunday -- otherwise it's possible the Boys could lock up the top seed this weekend, and face a meaningless month of their own.

Oh yeah, definitely. I think think both of these teams should intentionally lose their next two games and hope Indy and Green Bay win both of theirs. That way, the Cowboys and Pats will have something at stake during week 17. That's a great strategy. No way that could possibly blow up in their faces. Or maybe Gregg is saying they should just lose this weekend, and then win to wrap up home field in week 16. Because, you know, a three week layoff from "meaningful" games is totally different than a 4 week layoff. Someone get this man a head coaching position.

It's been mentioned by commenters here before: do the "stats of the week" really add to anyone's enjoyment or understanding of football? Below, I have added a made up stat about my own life that I consider to be equally as interesting as what Gregg offers.

Stat of the Week No. 3: Since taking the field for their final playoff appearances last season, a combined 28-6 at that point, the Bears and Ravens are a combined 9-19.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 1: Since choosing the fastest checkout lane at the supermarket twelve out of a possible fifteen times during a stretch that ended last January, Larry has chosen the fastest lane only two out of thirteen times.

Stat of the Week No. 6: Kansas City was outrushed by 199 yards.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 2: Larry parallel parked his car four times.

Stat of the Week No. 8: In high school, college and now the pros, Derek Anderson is 3-1 as a starter against Kellen Clemens.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 3: Including high school, college, and now post-college, Larry is 23-18 in pickup football games against Chris Hart.

Stat of the Week No. 9: At the end of the Cleveland-Jersey/B game, the Jets attempted three onside kicks in less than three minutes.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 4: On Friday, Larry attempted to complete five transactions at the bank during their last seven minutes of business.

Tell me mine aren't better.

Sweet Special-Teams Plays of the Week: Trailing 17-3 with 10 minutes remaining, San Diego punted on fourth-and-29 at the Tennessee 40. Chargers special-teamers downed the ball at the Titans' 1, then the defense forced a three-and-out. Quick San Diego touchdown, and suddenly it's a game.

Although I will concede that converting a 4th and 29 is next to impossible, I can't count the number of times Gregg has bitched about teams punting from their opponent's territory while trailing in the 4th quarter. Now it's suddenly a good thing, as long as the team that does it subsequently forces a 3 and out. Had the Titans somehow put together a game icing field goal drive after this punt, I'm reasonably confident Easterbrook would have made some dumb point about how no matter the distance, punting in the 4th when you're trailing and in your opponent's territory is always bad.

Yes, I'm nitpicking. It's what we do here.

Dallas has reached the Detroit 16 with 22 seconds showing on the clock. To that point in the game, Boys tight end Jason Witten had 14 receptions for 122 yards. This is what is called "a clue."

What does that even mean? As if the Cowboys didn't have anyone else to throw to on that play. Assuming Marion Barber was in the game, he had 10 catches for 61 yards including an 8 yard touchdown at the end of the 1st half. Maybe that was "a clue." T.O. also has 74 catches for 1270 yards and 14 TDs on the season. That could have been "a clue" as well. Yeah, Witten was getting thrown to a lot during that particular game. That still doesn't guarantee shit on any one given play.

As the Cowboys broke the huddle, TMQ said aloud, "Maybe it's to Witten."

Easy there, Nostradamus. You had a one in five chance. And you didn't even say you knew for sure; you went with "maybe."

Moving on, I hadn't seen this particular demonstration of idiocy out of Gregg in a couple of months. But apparently old habits die hard.

TMQ's Law of the Obvious holds: Sometimes, all a team needs to do is run up the middle for no gain and things will be fine. Leading San Diego 17-10, host Tennessee faced third-and-4 on the Chargers' 46 with 2:37 remaining and San Diego down to one timeout. Run, grind the clock! Instead, incompletion, and San Diego scores to force overtime with nine seconds remaining. Had the Flaming Thumbtacks simply rushed up the middle for no gain, keeping the clock moving, the Chargers would have run out of time.

No. That is wrong. You can't say that with any certainty at all. You have no idea what would have happened if the Titans ran there. None. You have no idea how San Diego's play calling would have changed on their possession if they had 37 fewer seconds to work with. BOOOOOOO.

When Roger Goodell fined the Patriots a first-round choice in the Beli-Cheat scandal, it was New England's first-rounder, not the San Francisco choice acquired in trade, that Goodell voided. Belichick obtained San Francisco's first choice fair and square, and his decision to bank that choice reflects the wise husbandry New England has shown consistently under current management. Still, if the Patriots win the Super Bowl, then go second in the 2008 draft after Goodell publicly imposed what sounded like a harsh draft penalty, the situation will seem rigged, even if it isn't.

I hate the Patriots as much as anyone, but what the hell is the point of this? That's the item's conclusion: The Patriots have lost their own 1st rounder this April, but still possess another team's 1st rounder, which will probably be a top 5 pick. Even though there is nothing shady about this, it seems shady. What?

At the endgame, Washington led 24-13 and Chicago faced fourth-and-goal on the Redskins' 4 with 34 seconds remaining, holding a timeout. The Bears' faint hope was a touchdown and a two-point play and a field goal, wrapped around a recovered onside kick. Sure, that hope is faint, but to have any chance at all, Chicago needed to try for the touchdown first. Assume the onside kick will be recovered and the deuce will work. At the 34-second mark, the Bears were just 4 yards from a touchdown. If they go for the touchdown here, they need to gain 4 yards and -- after the deuce and the recovered onside, likely to be recovered just on their side of midfield -- will need to gain about 25 yards to attempt the field goal that forces overtime. Thus, Chicago needs about 30 offensive yards, plus success with the deuce and the onside, of course. If, on the other hand, the Bears take the field goal here, they must score a touchdown after the onside and will need to gain about 55 offensive yards to do so. So to keep the faint hope of victory aflame, the team should go for the touchdown first in this situation because it already is close to the goal line and, if successful with the onside, can launch the field goal try for long distance. Yet Lovie Smith ordered the field goal first. When this happens, it is fairly obvious the coach is not going all out to try to win but rather is taking the easy three points to make the final score more respectable and deflect criticism. (Washington got the onside.)

I agree that kicking there was probably bad strategy. I would have elected to go for the TD in that situation. But it's not like Smith's decision is completely indefensible. To accuse him of not really trying to win is laughable. I mean, let me play devil's advocate. Easterbrook's claim about the yards the Bears needed in each hypothetical situation was correct, but didn't factor in the number of plays the team would get in order to gain said yards. Had they recovered the onside after kicking the field goal, they would have had probably about three or four plays (maybe five) to get the 55 yards needed for the tying TD. That's pretty unlikely but not impossible. Sure, had they instead gone for it on 4th and gotten the touchdown, they would have had three or four plays to get a mere 25/30 yards needed for the tying field goal. But that opportunity only arrives after putting the entire game on the line for four yards on one play against a compressed defense. Failure, obviously, would have ended everything before an onside attempt even becomes part of the equation. So although I disagree with the decision, I can definitely see why Smith chose to kick. TMQ just loves implying that coaches care more about the margin of victory than their won-loss record; he's done it many times before this. It's pretty comical. When he's being evaluated by his owner/GM at the end of a failed season, what coach actually gets points for saying "Well, I went 5-11 this year, but nine of those losses were by single digits!" That's ridiculous and does not happen. Coaches are judged first and foremost on Ws and Ls. To imply anything else is WRONG. There is absolutely a 0% chance that Smith sent in his field goal team with any thought in mind other than "I think this gives us the best chance to win." Zero.

Speaking of WRONG, I think I'll wrap this up and attach the labels. And speaking of labels, don't you all love the kooky and zany labels we sometimes use here at FireJay? They're soooooooo silly! We can't quite match up with the juggernauts of the absurd label world like Kissing Suzy Kolber, but I think we do alright for ourselves. I think for this post I'll re-use a couple of the wackiest ones we've already got, just for the hell of it. Get ready to laugh at something that's not really overly funny!

Five sportswriters most likely to not write some stupid shit

I like John Clayton... I'm not really sure why, but I think it has something to do with how he looks. He's like a caricature artist's rendition of Steven Hawkings come to life. Plus I just love how despite the fact that he has obviously never touched a football, or likely a woman for that matter, and was probably bullied by football players for much of his childhood and adolesence, he covers the NFL for the largest sports media company in the world.

He's always got the inside "scoop" on draft/injury/trade rumors, and it really cracks me up when they do phone interviews with him on NFL Primetime. The quality of the call is always exactly the same as a World Nightly News reporter entrenched in Fallujia; it's like he's hidden under the conference table at the Green Bay Packers' super-secret underground management facility as they discuss how much of an flip-flopping asshole Favre is being this offseason.

I can't confirm this, but I'm nearly 100 percent sure his article this week about 5 Possible Surprise NFL teams is exactly the same as the one he wrote last year. Honestly, haven't sportswriters been picking the same shitty teams every year and saying "OKAY GUYS THIS YEAR THEY'LL BE GOOD I PROMISE" ?? Like we won't notice? Assholes

Anyways, I guess the point of that little introduction is that while I like Clayton for some reason, this artice is a piece of shit

So which are the five teams to watch this year?

1. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: No one is jumping on the Bucs' bandwagon after their disappointing 4-12 season. The pressure is on Jon Gruden to win, but the schedule suggests there should be a three-game improvement.

WOW WHAT A SURPRISE! Man if the Buccaneers win 7 games this year instead of 4 like they did last season I sure will be surprised!

The Bucs played a .535 schedule with a rookie quarterback, Bruce Gradkowski, who will be forgotten as fast as Kyle Orton was after the 2005 season. They play a .473 schedule this season, based on last year's records, and Gruden didn't want to take any chances. He signed Jeff Garcia to be the quarterback.

Neat. Jeff Garcia, a career mediocre quarterback, with a still shitty offensive line and recieving corps. I smell some wins baby.

Another sign of hope for the Bucs to be a sleeper team is what Garcia should do to help the running game. He usually has worked well with balanced offenses. In Garcia's fourplus seasons as a starter in San Francisco, his lead back averaged more than 1,000 yards and 49.6 receptions. With Cadillac Williams struggling last year, the Bucs finished 28th. Coaches know the easiest way to get to eight or nine wins is to run the ball. A big jump in the running game along with strong play from Garcia could make the Bucs one of the main sleeper teams in 2007.

I figured that Clayton would at least mention one other player that would make the Buccaneers a surprise team. Instead, he's like: "Hey Cadillac Williams still sucks, but don't worry, they have Jeff 'I Don't Have sex with men. seriously, have you seen my wife?' Garcia."

In all honestly, I'm not trying to shit all over Garcia, but he cannot singlehandedly change a team. Look at his offensive stats. He was good in San Francisco, back when they had TO and a pretty decent offensive line, but then he sucked in Cleveland and Detroit, two bad teams. He did well on a good Eagles team last season. But now Clayton thinks that Garcia and no other notable additions will surprisingly improve a shitty team? Come on.

2. Arizona Cardinals: This one is pretty easy.

Yeah it's easy because you can copy-paste the exact same paragraph you've written about the Cardinals the last two seasons

Coming off a 5-11 season, the Cardinals play the league's easiest schedule at .461. Matt Leinart enters his first full season as a starting quarterback, and he gained a lot of experience as a rookie running Dennis Green's offense. Ken Whisenhunt brought in Russ Grimm to handle the Cardinals' running game. Even with the talent of Edgerrin James, the Cardinals were the third-worst running team in 2006.

I wonder when sportswriters (and shitty NFL owners for that matter) will realize that the success of a team's running game is more dependant on the O-Line and coaching than the RB himself.

The Cardinals' 2006 schedule wasn't exactly impossible. Their opponents totaled a .500 record. The switch to a 3-4 defense should help the Cardinals' run defense. Leinart will be working with one of the league's most talented three-receiver sets. It sets up one of the most anticipated Cardinals seasons in years.

Oh you mean more anticipated than the 2006 Cardinals with the introduction of Leinart? Or more anticipated than the 2005 Cardinals when Fitzgerald came into town? Hmmm. I'm not saying the Cardinals won't surprise anybody, but these idiots have been writing the same shit about the same team year after year. I think that's just because they know that one season, they will be right, and they can say "Nahhh Nahh I told you they would be good all along."

3. San Francisco 49ers: This might have more to do with the 49ers' offseason than the schedule, but the 49ers have to be one of the sleeper teams to watch.

The 2007 San Francisco 49ers? Who are these guys? I'm not sure, but maybe I saw one or two mentions of their last season. I think they might have this guy who ran the ball for a bunch of yards, and like some young athletic guys on defense, and a young and improving quarterback. I think I may have heard of them. Yeah if they win a bunch of games in the super competitive NFC West, they'll totally be a sleeper team that surprised me.

I was gonna copy the rest of Clayton's paragraph, but decided against it. Partially because my "crtl" key broke, but mainly because the mention of the 49ers in this column is absurd. They were a bit of a surprising team last year, but this season? Give me a break. they were easily one of the most improved teams last season, and they had a great offseason. No NFL fan should be surprised if they win the NFC west.

4. Miami Dolphins

5. Detroit Lions

Fuck this. I'm done with this shit. Just because a team sucked cock last year, had an exciting win or two, and then added a wide reciever or some shit in the offseason, you don't have to pick them for most likely to improve. These 2 teams have made these fucking lists every year. i'm not sure why, as they have consistantly shown top to bottom incompetance in ownership, coaching, and management. Don't worry though because this season Calvin Johnson is going to play QB and throw passes to himself, return kickoffs, kick extra points, punt, write up a whole new playbook, and negotiate new player contracts for the Lions.

A Peter King Two-fer!!!!

It MUST be Tuesday! So Peter King, like all lazy sports journalists, decided to rank the top whatever of whatever just to get people pissed off and increase traffic. Ho hum. However, he's now written an article expressing his surprise that many people called him on being a moron. Very...um...meta.

ANYway, let's take a crack at this:

Readers, readers. Here's my question after seeing your e-mails on Monday night: Did you read my column? Or did you only look at my ratings of the starting NFL quarterbacks and say, "He's nuts! Kitna ahead of McNabb! Schaub ahead of Vick! Vince Young ahead of Roethlisberger! Loco!''

Well, those are some fucking ridiculous claims, so let's do King the favor of looking back at his initial column and see if there's something we're missing.

The rankings are in the order of who will have the best seasons in 2007 and 2007 only.

That's really all I see by way of clarification. But I felt like it was better than not to give ol' Petey the benefit of the doubt. So keep in mind that his rankings (which seem completely out of whack to nearly everyone with a brain) aren't about who's had the better career but who King thinks will be better next year. Got it?

K.

Remember what I said: These are my ratings for 2007. Of course Jon Kitna's has a high rating; he's playing for the Lions and pass-game guru Mike Martz, and if he doesn't have a big year, he should pack up and go home to Washington and pick apples for a living. Of course I'm going to question Donovan McNabb's ability to play a full season, after missing 13 games over the last two seasons.

Okee dokee. Let's see here. Where do we start. How about: Mike Martz was the OC of the Lions last year. So LAST YEAR will probably serve as a good barometer for how these QB's will perform THIS YEAR (with some consideration over whether McNabb might get hurt)

In 2006 McNabb had a QB rating of 95.5, only SLIGHTLY better than Kitna's Mike Martz enhanced 79.9. Even though McNabb only played 10 games to Kitna's 16, he only passed for 3 less TD's (McNabb had 18, Kitna had 21) and McNabb's 18/6 TD/INT ratio was significantly better than Kitna's 21/22. Furthermore, though I don't have any numbers on the issue, McNabb most likely won more than the Lions's THREE GAMES as starting QB

So basically, even HURT FOR SIX GAMES, McNabb was a more valuable member of his team than Kitna. Despite the fact that Mike Martz will STILL BE THERE, and despite the fact that many sportswriters popped a huge chubby over Calvin Johnson's great build and explosiveness, it's highly unlikely Kitna will have a more successful 07 campaign than McNabb. Possible? Perhaps. Plausible? No chance.

Some other claims King makes that has his readers hopping mad and rightly so:

--Vince Young ahead of Roethlisberger

The fact is, for whatever reason, Roethlisberger has been inconsistent for much of the past two years. That's not something I invented. It is fact. As I wrote, his completion percentage has sagged 3.7 and 3 percent in the past two years, not risen. Maybe last year it was a result of the accident; what was 2005 all about? And though I still like Roethlisberger and his potential, my column was about the order in which I liked quarterbacks in 2007. And right now, until he proves he can put another good season on the board, Roethlisberger's a middle-of-the-pack quarterback to me

All very cogent, and generally well-researched analysis. But did you notice anything about the defense of this favoritism towards Young? Hint: HE DOESN'T MENTION YOUNG. Despite the media love-affair with Young, his numbers were pretty mediocre in 2007. Yes, he "wins games," and "gets the job done"---or at least, he did in 06---but his 66.7 QB rating was a lot worse than Big Ben's rookie-year rating of 98.1. If we assume Young will get better (something King DOES NOT assume about, for instance, Rex Grossman) then, yes, it seems likely that Young will have a better year than Roethlisberger. But guess what: he didn't last year. And he's not likely to this year.

Another one:
--Drew Brees over Carson Palmer

Frankly I don't have a problem with that in theory, but look at king moron's justification:

I put Brees ahead of Palmer for a simple reason -- Brees did more with less last year.

Yes, Palmer has a great WR corps, but BREES DID MORE WITH LESS? Let's think about The Saints offense: Bush, McCallister, and Colstom all put up huge numbers. Chad Johnson might have had his worst year of his career. Seriously....King's almost certainly right with his pick of Brees over Palmer, but somehow he still manages to be completely wrong!

Oh and he has Romo over McNabb. Oh God--this shit is too much. Just read the damned article or something.