A nice visit with some morons from the past

About three-ish years ago, I watched Around the Horn and PTI almost every day. It's true. I won't say what I was doing with my life at that time that enabled me to do so; it's mildly embarrassing and unimportant. I will say that after a few months of watching I got used to the buffoonery I absorbed on a daily basis. Sure, I knew I was watching a bunch of morons. But I didn't take the time to really process any of the specific instances of moron-ness I saw. It was just one big loud 60 minute shout.

That brings me to yesterday. I had a spare hour in the late afternoon/early evening and decided to take a trip down memory lane. Hoooooooooooo DOGGIE did it hurt. I didn't DVR the shows so I will relate to you only the worst bit I remember from each.

From ATH, I'll go with the panelists' responses to a (very reasonable- and I say that with no sarcasm) question: on Monday night, the Nuggets traveled to New Jersey for the first time since the Melo-to-the-Nets rumors died. Melo scored 35 but the Nets won. Who feels better about the night: Melo or Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov? Lots of interesting angles one could take here. Melo feels better because he got to stick his talent in Prokhorov's face even though it was Melo's refusal to sign an extension with the Nets that killed the deal. Or maybe Prokhorov gets to feel better because his team got to show Melo they don't give a shit about him. I dunno, be creative. Come up with something that is 1) responsive to the question and 2) not boring. Unfortunately the entire panel failed on both counts by each goin with some variation on

Well, Prokhorov has more money. So he's got to feel better about the game.

Fail.

The PTI bit I remember most vividly was much more infuriating because it was dumb analysis on a dumb topic (instead of just dumb analysis). The utterly irrelevant subject matter: Wilbon interviewed Ben Roethlisberger and asked Roethlisberger whether or not he feels like he's turned his life around. WELL BY JOVE, ROETHLISBERGER SAYS HE HAS! NOW THAT'S NEWS! A pro athlete that was skewered by the press and the public recently for being a total asshole is asked if he's still a total asshole. His shocking answer: no!

Anyways, Kornheiser of all people had to play the voice of reason once Wilbon brought this up and say that he (Kornheiser) was still pretty skeptical about Roethlisberger and that Roethlisberger still has some work to do to repair his off field image. Wilbon's indignant, snarky, wiseass response:

Well I'll tell you where he doesn't have any work to do: on the field. He's doing just fine out there.

Great. What were we talking about again? Thanks for the shiny, beautiful red herring.

Mike Wilbon in 2005: Barry Bonds tells me he's gotten past his animosity towards the general public and will no longer be an asshole to anyone, ever. I gotta say I'm buying it. He seemed sincere when he said that into my tape recorder during our interview that was scheduled well in advance and set up on friendly terms.
Me: Geez, I don't know, he's got a pretty long track record of being a complete douche. I think he's probably going to have to do more to-
Wilbon: WELL HE STILL HITS LOTS OF HOME RUNS MAYBE YOU FORGOT TO CONSIDER THAT.

Have you ever noticed how I always pick on Bonds when I do analogies like this? Wonder why that is.

In conclusion, ATH is still full of idiots (although some of them are new idiots), and more importantly Mike Wilbon is still a total piece of shit. Kornheiser gets a pass from me. This time.

Mike Tirico: Awful in the MNF Booth, Awful Everywhere Else

Mike, what say you re: mercurial Denver Nuggets shooting guard J.R. Smith?

He can really provide a boost of your bench, but he can also take some misguided shots. He can shoot you into a game, from both directions!

So he can shoot you into a game, and shoot you out of it. See how that works so much better? I mean, what you said makes sense too. As long as you're either trying to sound vaguely sexual, or describe how to fully marinate a roast. Tirico is terrible; why he is allowed to announce live sports in any capacity is beyond me. Might as well put Kornheiser and Rush Limbaugh in the NBA booth with him. I think they'd all compliment each other very nicely.

Full Simmons post coming tomorrow morning.

Famous Pitcher Retires; Columnist Makes Ass of Self

Mariotti recently blogged about Curt Schilling's retirement and HOF worthiness. One loudmouthed fuckhead writing about another- you can imagine how that ended up.

This is where I have the chance to be a bigger man than Curt Schilling.

You are "bigger," in this sense of the word, than very few people. And you don't usually (or ever) take an opportunity to establish yourself as such.

This is where I ignore his jerk quotient -- clubhouse politician, Capitol Hill steroids waffler, attention moth, blogging fool --

Two sentences in, the irony is already pouring in furiously.

and state unequivocally that he belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Some writers hold grudges when confronted with voting decisions about prickly players, forgetting that our responsibility is to history and not our tattered feelings.

Hold on, read that again several times.

Some writers hold grudges Some writers hold grudges Some writers hold grudges Some writers hold grudges Some writers hold grudges

Yes indeedy, Jay. Some writers most definitely do hold grudges. (Of course, Jay's situation with the "Blizzard" has nothing to do with voting, so maybe he would say that his above statement about Schilling is really not that ironic. I just really like the idea of Jay trying to take the high ground when it comes to holding a grudge of any kind.)

Me? I see through the blowhard and look inside the heart.

If only this blog's writers could do the same!

Seems the annoyances that made him such a drama queen also were the traits that made him such a dominant S.O.B. when it most mattered on the mound.

If only being a complete and total idiot similarly made one a great writer.

The leper aspect of Schilling only grew worse in his championship years. He began hearing criticism that he was too self-absorbed and pompous, and he lashed back by ripping media. He has called me names. Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe is the "Curly-Haired Boyfriend." But anyone who disliked Schilling was forced to acknowledge his brilliance.

This is what I like to call "laying it on thick." Although, at the same time, Jay's praise here makes me wonder if maybe he is actually a little aware of the similarities between himself and Schilling.

No pitcher was more dominant at the start of this decade.

This is the part of the post where I actually make some sports arguments- Schilling was pretty much amazing in 2001 and 2002, but during that time he wasn't even the most dominant pitcher on his own team. That honor would go to the man CHart once called "the ugliest man in professional sports" to that man's hideous face.

No pitcher has had better control since 1900, demonstrated by his best-ever strikeout/walk ratio of 4.38 among those with 1,500 innings or more.

Again, he had phenomenal control. But that's not really the right stat to evaluate it- that's speaks to a combination of great control and the ability to strike dudes out. I'm pretty sure BB/9 is a better evaluator of pure control. And while Schilling was pretty great, there are many modern era pitchers, some of them awesome (Christy Matthewson, Greg Maddux), some of them shitty (Bob Tewksbury, Carlos Silva [who once threw 188 innings in a season and issued 9 fucking walks!]) who were better.

"The Red Sox were perfect for him, because he likes the big stage, the history of the game," Epstein said. "He likes to be the center of attention."

Sometimes, we loathed him for it. Why did he use baseball as a platform to endorse political candidates?

Why do you use your job as a national sports columnist to consistently level embarrassingly inept personal attacks at a guy most people outside of Chicago don't really care about? Life is full of mysteries.

And then Jay, showing all the effort of a high school student who's desperately trying to make his English paper get to the teacher's page length assignment, quotes a full two paragraphs straight from Schilling's blog. No commentary, just straight copy and paste. And then the article ends. And so does my post. I've heard some complaints recently that my posts aren't as good as they used to be. If that's the case, which it probably isn't because my posts have always sucked, it's probably due to me trying too hard to be really mean and over-the-top angry about the crap I'm writing about. So I'm going to try to dial it down a couple notches for a little while. Instead of ending this with something like "Jay Mariotti is worse than [thing that is a really bad]," I'll just say "I did not enjoy reading this article very much!" Here's to turning over a new leaf.

Gene Wojciechowski is Braindead

Thirty-three games this week (hey, the opening round counts), so 33 reasons we love the NCAA tournament:

Thirty three pieces of evidence that Gene is a mental (and comedic) midget.

1. The leader of the free world hates the BCS but loves the playoff format of March Madness. President Barack Obama even filled out a bracket for us. (I'll give him this much: He's no homer. The prez didn't pick Washington, D.C.'s, very own American University of the Patriot League over Villanova.)

He has no connection to American. He never went there. Why is Patriot italicized? I'm hoping it isn't a Patriot Act reference. I'll assume it's not.

Watch -- he'll win the White House office pool but have to give all the cash to AIG.

TOPICAL!

2. Verne Lundquist. I could listen to Lundquist do play-by-play of U.S. tax code. He understands the game is the star, not he.

3. Screamin' Gus Johnson. The exception to the rule.

So what Gene is probably saying is that he's friends with both these guys, so the fact that their styles are so different is OK. He loves them both. Because he knows them.

4. Redemption. Banished eight long years by the NCAA for money-whipping a recruit's family, former California Bears coach Todd Bozeman is back on the sideline and back in the Big Dance. Weird how it works out.

Ain't sports beautiful? How Reillyesque. Looks like Rick is rubbing off on his ESPN colleagues. Although this is not really an uplifting story. Bozeman was definitely a grade A asshole. In addition to paying at least one player, he was also the subject of a sexual harassment complaint (filed by a student) shortly before leaving Cal.

5. Kobe and KG have won NBA championships, but they'll never know what it was like to do what MJ did -- play in (and win) an NCAA tournament.

Some current NBA stars never played in the NCAA tournament, but others from the past did. Therefore Gene is excited to watch the 2009 tournament. QED.

6. The 10 members of the selection committee probably will never admit it, but here's guessing they're sweating bullets over No. 12 seed Arizona's first-round game against No. 5 seed Utah. The committee invited the Wildcats but stiffed Saint Mary's, which on Tuesday beat Washington State by 11 points in the NIT -- the same Washington State team that beat Arizona by 16 points on Feb. 26.

Gene is very excited to see if Arizona doesn't embarrass itself. Now THAT'S a reason to watch. Also, if team A beats team B, and team B beats team C, then team C should not be in the tournament over team A. Gene will imply this to you as sublty as possible.

Patrick Mills, who would have looked good on CBS air, scored 27 points for the Gaels.

He's a sexy man! Arizona doesn't have any such players, certainly not future NBA first rounders like Jordan Hill or Chase Budinger.

8. Bruce Pearl's orange sport coat. (Because it's the Big Dance, it'd be nice to see Pearl unveil an orange tux.)

9. Rick Pitino's salute-to-the-Bee Gees white suit.

Although idiotic, at least these are literally reasons why someone might be excited about the tournament. As opposed to, say, the fact that Michael Jordan once played in one.

10. Sleeper picks.

11. Boss buttons.

You are a lazy journalist.

12. Planting yourself and your school flag in a Vegas sports book Thursday through Sunday of opening week -- just to hear the groans.

And suddenly, without warning, we've entered a Dane Cook routine.

13. Bill Raftery. "And the kissssss."

No one likes Raftery. No one.

14. The satisfying feeling that comes with knowing that Kentucky is an NCAA tournament no-show, but the coach it all but forced out -- Minnesota's Tubby Smith -- is in.

Apparently Gene and I have something in common- we both enjoy schadenfreude. Still, I'm not sure you can cite the fact that a team didn't qualify for the tournament at all as a reason you're excited to watch it. Unless that team is Duke. Take that, team everyone loves to hate! I hate you too!

15. The microscopic odds of a No. 16 seed's beating a No. 1 seed. It has never happened, which means the newest 16s -- Morehead State, Chattanooga, Radford and East Tennessee State -- are on the clock.

Lazy. So- something crazy could happen. This logic can be used to watch pretty much anything. Hey, you never know when Larry King might keel over and die while doing a broadcast. I think that's reason enough to watch his drivel.

16. Picking Kansas to advance, yet rooting for first-time Big Dance entry North Dakota State to upset the Rock Chalks.

Personally, I picked Gonzaga to get to the sweet 16, but I am FUCKING PUMPED to watch Akron take them on tonight. Totally stoked. (Insert similar logic for any of the other 20-some possible big upsets in the first round.)

17. Figuring out the over/under on how many times UNC coach Roy Williams will cry.

I bet Simmons and House could nail that line before Vegas releases it.

18. Always persuade your ball and chain to fill out a bracket. Mention how many "units" are at stake. She'll become instantly interested in the tournament (even though she doesn't know Robert Morris from Van Morrison) and, in a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon, actually encourage you to watch more sports on TV.

So Gene is excited to watch the tournament because he might get permission from his "ball and chain" to do so. Oh, the thrills of marriage!

19. Pep bands, good … male cheerleaders, bad.

Because Gene is a dude, and he likes chicks! Why would he watch dudes... when he could be watching chicks? Or bands? He's totally not gay. And likes bands.

20. Picking the annual 12 versus 5 upset.

But only if his ball and chain lets him!

21. Sixty-four games of hoops heaven.

22. Crammed into a combined 11 days.

Easily the laziest, stupidest items on the list yet. Hey, you know why I enjoy watching the World Series? Between four and seven games of baseball euphoria.

23. There's the 'Cuse, as in Syracuse. But during the Madness, there's the ex-cuse, as in, "What kind of excuse am I going to use to call in sick so I can watch the tournament?"

First the ball and chain, now the boss. It never ends! Also, some words sound like other words.

Some time-honored favorites: grandmother died …

You're a bad person.

stomach virus … caught my neck in the car door.

I LEFT MY DESIRE TO DO WORK IN MY OTHER PANTS! MY DOG ATE IT!

24. It helps the economy: Snack foods, pizza and HDTV sales spike.

TOPICAL!

25. The mascot box. See how creative mascots can be in their NCAA-designated areas.

This is a great reason to watch sports- to check out things unrelated to sports.

26. To all those BCS honks who insist fans can't make travel arrangements on short notice, I'd like to remind them of the Sunday regional final, followed by the national semifinal the next Saturday. Always seems as though plenty of fans make the trip and fill up those huge indoor stadiums.

Much as I support the idea, 1) short travel arrangements for a football playoff would take place during the holidays as opposed to March and 2) putting 17,000 people in a basketball arena for the regional final is a whole lot different than putting 85,000 people in a football stadium. (His point about the national semifinals and capacity crowds is legitimate. I guess.)

27. It's a bargain: At the regional in Minneapolis, your $180 ticket is good for six games.

So as long as you have the money and time and means to travel to one of the sites, you're in great shape! Gene does (as long as his "old lady" lets him)- so why shouldn't you?

28. Here's what the tournament does to you: Before it's over, there will be a team you've never watched, coached by a guy you've never heard of, played by kids you'll never see in the NBA -- yet you'll be on your knees in front of your plasma rooting … begging like an alumnus for it to pull off the upset.

Alright, you know what, I will non-sarcastically give him this. I went pretty apeshit for George Mason back in 2006, as well as Davidson last year. So I guess this list's retardery only extends to 32 items rather than 33.

29. It's the tournament of guards.

But if it were the tournament of power forwards, no way would Gene be watching. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

30. Other than maybe when the NFL plays its two conference championships on the same day, there isn't a better sports day than the first Thursday and Friday of the tournament. Check that: Semifinal Saturday is the best day in sports.

I can't make up my mind! Help! Or what if it's the first weekend, when the sweet 16 gets finalized? Also, note the logic here: Gene is excited to watch this tournament because it has some pretty great days. And those great days are probably why he's so excited to watch it. Etc., etc.

31. Legends are made. You think Bryce Drew will ever have to buy a meal in the greater Valparaiso, Ind., area again after his buzzer-beater gave 13th-seeded Valpo the improbable win against No. 4 seed Ole Miss in 1998?

Yeah. I bet he does. BECAUSE THE ECONOMY IS BAD, REMEMBER? No, but seriously, I really don't think hitting one first round buzzer beater for an unremarkable school is a ticket for free food for life in that school's town.

Christian Laettner probably won't pay for as much as a parking meter when he visits Durham.

Slightly more plausible given that Duke is actually a basketball school and that happened late in the tournament. Still probably not happening.

32. Disturbing body painting.

What?

33. A tradition like no other? It isn't the Masters,

Turned that one around on you, didn't he? You'll think twice before coming up with your next slogan, Masters people. "I'm lovin' it?" Fuck you, McDonalds. The only thing I'm lovin' right now is the NCAA basketball tournament.

it's net cutting and "One Shining Moment." Gets me every time.

This sums up Gene's interest in the tournament: he really likes the montage they play at the end.

Please, ESPN, I'm asking nicely. Tell this asshole to hit the bricks. Use the money you save on his salary to get Kenny Mayne (or someone else who has a sense of humor) to do more stuff.

Michael Wilbon sounds like an idiot

On Wednesday, Kornheiser and Wilbon were discussing some of the Pro Bowl snubs. Some of this is word for word, other is paraphrasing.

Kornheiser: I like Brett Favre, but I think Pennington probably deserved to go over him.

Wilbon: Forget Pennington; I want to talk about two other guys: Kerry Collins and Matt Cassel. I don't want to hear about QB Rating or TD/INT ratio. They've led their teams. The best record in the league still belongs to Tennessee. Kerry Collins and Matt Cassel belong in the Pro Bowl ahead of Brett Favre.

Surprisingly, Michael Wilbon didn't cry at all last year about Adrain Peterson making the Pro Bowl, despite the Vikings going 8-8 and not making the playoffs.

Kornheiser: By the way, Matt Cassel's record is the same as Brett Favre's this year.

Wilbon: I don't care; he's had a better season than Favre this year.

So apparently stats do matter after you get facialed by Tony Kornheiser.

Korneiser: You see I'd put in Pennington over Favre because Pennington has a +8 TD/INT ratio to Favre's +4.

Wilbon: Would you put in Collins and Cassel?

Kornheiser: Collins: no. Cassel: Maybe.

Wilbon: How?

I know it's hard to believe, Mike, but it seems as if Kornheiser has (perhaps mistakenly) locked onto a rational thought process. Seriously though, what does it say about you when you're getting schooled in logic by Tony Kornheiser.

Kornheiser: You know who I would put in? PHILLIP RIVERS WHO HAS 28 TOUCHDOWN PASSES TO 11 INTERCEPTIONS!

Wilbon: STOP! Stop with the stats. Don't turn yourself into a stat geek. Phillip Rivers' team stinks and he is the leader of the offense. I don't care if he has 100 touchdown passes, he has failed in the clutch.

Whereas Kerry Collins has been decidedly awesome with his 78.7 QB Rating, sandwiching him in between Neckbeard and Tyler the Skeleton Fucker on the QB Rating list. The only thing that matters is the win/loss record, which in no way effected by variables such as the other 52 guys on the team, coaching, officiating, weather, dumb luck.

Yes, lets just throw out all the stats when deciding who goes to the Pro Bowl and just base it off win/loss record (which may or may not be a stat). If only there was some sort of Bowl game that was just the best team from the NFC vs. the best team from the AFC. Man, that'd be Super.

UPDATE:

For those who don't know why I referred to Tyler Thigpen as "Tyler the Skeleton Fucker."

TMTMQR: Gregg Easterbrook Has Apparently Been Huffing Spray Paint Again

You get the feeling that he lived under power lines as a kid or something. He's kind of like an unfunny version of Tommy Boy who writes instead of selling auto parts for a living.

I don't think it would be an efficient use of time for me to cover the dumbest part of this week's TMQ line-by-line. It's about the viability of a college football playoff system. I'll summarize it instead- the distastefully named Gregg spends about 1,000 words breaking down why it would be a bad idea. His thesis is that there are only three possible ways to make it happen, and none of them work for logisitical reasons. If you hold the playoffs before the bowls start (and why the fuck would you do this... the national champion would be crowned before the season ended) then you have to shorten the regular season to get the playoffs underway in November. If you hold them instead of the bowls (seriously, I'm not making this up, he considered this to be one of only three possible scenarios under which a playoff system could exist... eliminating every single bowl) then you just knocked out the postseason opportunities of about 60 teams. And if you do it after the bowls, the season would extend too far into January. Not only are all three of these reasons poorly conceptualized in and of themselves, but he has also failed to consider the possibility that YOU COULD MAYBE HAVE AN EIGHT TEAM PLAYOFF RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF OTHER TEAMS PLAYING BOWLS. THEY'RE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. YOU COULD DO BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY, IT WOULDN'T BE THAT HARD.

The only tough part would be deciding what to do with the bowls which traditionally pit conference champs against each other, like the Rose Bowl. There are two options- first, you can just call one of the first round playoff games the Rose Bowl and hold it in Los Angeles. This messes pretty heavily with tradition and means you can't have the national title game until two weeks after New Years, so I don't think it's ideal. The better choice would be to tell the Rose/Orange/Sugar bowls, "Hey, it's too bad that we have to do this, but it's in the name of having a playoff. You're still going to exist, but you're no longer going to have conference champs. You'll have second and third place teams from your traditional conferences. Sorry, this is the way it has to be." This option messes with tradition too, but to a lesser extent. So that's what I'd do if I were in charge. McWorrrrrrrrld!

Why am I wasting all this time with my bullshit ideas for how to have a college playoff? Now I just sound like a less retarded version of Gregg. The point is, he is a zilch for thinking that "eliminating every single bowl" is one of only three ways a playoff system could exist. Let's just get to the rest of the article in actual cut-and-paste format.

In 2003, NFL teams averaged a combined 42 points per game; this year they're averaging 45. One additional field goal per contest just does not seem like a monumental change. (Excuse me -- the average is 44.7 points per game this year. Everybody's using the pseudo-precise decimal place.)

There is no pseudo-precision involved in decimal points. In fact, that couldn't be more false. Decimal points are all about actual precision. You want an example of pseudo-precision? Well, you could just say that NFL teams are combining for 45 points a game when that isn't actually true. That would be pseudo-precision. Why are you so afraid of any number that's not an integer, Gregg? What dark secrets from your past could explain why tenths of a second and tenths of a point twist your panties so much? What are you not telling us? Did your father run away with a decimal point when you were a small child, leaving your mother to raise you and your 1.5 siblings all by herself?

Re: Minnesota's 99 yard touchdown play on Sunday night against the Bears, which happened because Chicago CB Charles Tillman incorrectly thought he had safety help with Vikings WR Bernard Berrian:

Tillman made a killer mental error about the coverage scheme. Usually mental errors result in short gains; this one resulted in a 99-yard gain. Reader Mario Salazar of Monterrey, Mexico, suggests Tillman's boneheaded play was an example of TMQ's Law of the Other Shoe: When something bad just happened (Chicago getting stuffed on fourth-and-goal), beware that something even worse will happen on the next down.

Gregg has outdone himself in his relentless pursuit of anecdotal bullshit. The Law of the Other Shoe. Wow. You know, that law definitely makes a lot of sense. Except when it doesn't, like when a team forces a turnover but then subsequently turns the ball right back over. Or when a team gives up a touchdown, but then takes the ensuing kickoff back for a touchdown. Or when... or when... or when..., etc.

In this year's NFL draft, three Arkansas running backs were chosen: Darren McFadden and Felix Jones in the first round, Hillis in the seventh. Hillis has outgained Jones this season, 285 yards to 266; he is on pace to outgain McFadden, who has 405 yards.

It's well known that Gregg loves... nay, is fucking obsessed with players that were drafted late or not drafted at all. So this little stat is the kind of thing that gives him (at bare minimum) a partial erection. Only problem with it: if Denver hadn't lost five other running backs to injuries leading into week 12, Hillis would probably have less than 100 yards. And if McFadden or Jones played for the Broncos, they would probably have somewhere in the 500 to 800 yard range. But hey, why get bogged down in thinking or using your brain when you can just be really excited that a relatively untalented guy is benefiting from other players' injuries and getting a lot of reps in a good offense.

Also- did you know that there are some players in the NFL who are really good, but have been cut at one point or another for various reasons? The horror, the horror.

More college football baloney-

If Boise State gets no FedEx envelope from the BCS, a fantastic matchup would be Boise State versus Ball State in the Humanitarian (although as the likely MAC champ, Ball State is committed to the Motor City Bowl). Both are currently undefeated, and to the football purist, such a game might be more attractive than several possible BCS pairings.

Why would a purist rather watch this game than, say, Penn State/USC or even Utah/Texas? Why? And what does being a purist have to do with it? Because both these teams are undefeated, that makes the game better than the BCS games? If you want to say some fans (not purists... again, what the fuck does being a purist have to do with anything other than style of play) would find this game equally attractive as some of the BCS games, that's fine. Where does the "more attractive" label come into play? Here's a brief list I've assembled of how to get into Gregg's heart (and pants, if you're into that kind of thing):

1) Be an NFL player who was undrafted or got cut at some point, even if the cut was purely for salary cap reasons
2) Be a college team that isn't that well-known or heralded for a variety of reasons, including (and especially) if you play in a weak conference
3) DO NOT BE PASS WACKY. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT BE PASS WACKY. THAT SHIT IS WORSE THAN MURDERING KITTENS. ONLY TRADITIONAL, BALANCED OFFENSES THAT ARE NOT IN ANY WAY "WACKY" ARE ACCEPTABLE.
4) Oh, and the same "worse than murdering kittens" standard applies for punting. At any time, in any game situation. Do not punt. Ever.
5) And if you're losing by more than three, you're not allowed to kick field goals. Down 7-0 with ten minutes left in the first quarter, facing a 4th and 15 from the 30? And you're running out the field goal unit? Wow, you might as well forfeit right now. Clearly you're not trying to win. You're just trying to avoid the shutout. Pussy.

Absurd Specificity Watch: In the Chicago at Minnesota collision, it wasn't clear if Minnesota tight end Jim Kleinsasser got the ball across the plane of the goal line. Referee Bill Leavy huddled with the replay assistant and announced, "The ball will be spotted at the quarter-yard line." A quarter of a yard is 9 inches.

Let's play a game called "Fill in the blank to complete the popular cliche that is for the most part true and valid." Are you ready? Here goes:

Football is a game of _______.

Do you need it again?

Football... (pause)... is a game of _______.

Think about it. Is there really actually any space between the one yard line and the goal line? If you stare at a field long enough, Gregg thinks you will conclude that there is not. There is the one, the goal line, and an untouchable void between them which cannot be understood or discussed for any practical purposes.

Why, Gregg? Why are you so terrified of small measurements? Can you imagine him trying to follow a receipe for baking a cake? "Two and a half teaspoons of baking powder- that's ridiculous. What a bunch of pseduo-accuracy. I'm just going to dump a couple scoops in and see what happens. Three quarters of a cup of oil? What are you, fucking nuts? Does anyone actually think there is an amount of oil that can exist which is greater than zero cups but less than one?"

Seriously, fuck this guy with a parking meter.

Buck-Buck-Brawckkkkkkk No. 2: With Baltimore leading 13-0 on the final play of the first half, Cincinnati kicked a field goal from the Ravens' 4, rather than use the final snap to try for a touchdown. The Bengals went on to be clobbered 34-3. Cincinnati entered the game 1-9-1. What do you have to lose? Go all-out to try to win! It was obvious bumbling coach Marvin Lewis was more concerned about keeping a shutout off his résumé than trying to win.

No. That is not obvious at all. You just made this up, because you hate punts and field goals. There are literally hundreds of coaches at all levels of football that would have done the same thing, for a wide variety of reasons. Maybe a handful of them would do so because they wanted to avoid a shutout. I would contend, however, than a much larger number of them would do it BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT GAVE THEM A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE GAME IN THE SECOND HALF.

When the Cincinnati players saw their coach quit on the game, they quit too.

I don't think the problem was whether or not Lewis quit. I think the problem was that the Bengals are really, really bad and are depending on the worst QB in the league.

Sportsmanship Watch: Taking possession in New Orleans territory with a 23-20 lead, 1:30 remaining and the Saints out of timeouts, the Buccaneers simply knelt to end the game. Taking possession at the Bills' 14 with a 10-3 lead, 1:30 remaining and Buffalo out of timeouts, the Niners simply knelt to end the game.

Apparently we're now equating "being ahead by one score or less, and then doing that which guarantees you will win the game with little to no risk" with sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is kneeling out the clock when you're winning by 30, you clod. Not when you're winning by 3.

Weasel Coach Watch: When Auburn was "only" 4-2, Tommy Tuberville fired offensive coordinator Tony Franklin; the boosters were in an uproar because Auburn was not winning by huge margins. Auburn went 1-5 for the remainder of the season, its sole win over cupcake Tennessee-Martin. TMQ predicted the Weasel Coaches of 2007, Bobby Petrino and Rich Rodriguez -- acquired by their schools at substantial cost in money and lost prestige -- would not combine to go .500. They didn't come close; Arkansas and Michigan combined to finish 8-16. Considering the incredible advantages in recruiting power and gimmick schedules possessed by these programs, a couple of orangutans could have coached Arkansas and Michigan to a combined 8-16 record.

Much as I hate weasel coaches, especially Rodriguez, I think it's worth noting that these coaches were not hired to win a national championship in 2008. They were hired to build successful programs, something they have both done before. Maybe we should wait and see where they are after more than 12 games before being sure that they're both total and abject failures.

On an extremely closely related note, I don't hear TMQ shitting on "Little Nicky Saban" at all this year. Strange. I wonder why not? About a year ago, he was saying the same thing about Saban that he is about Rodriguez and Petrino here. Again, I hate weasels like Saban, but Alabama didn't hire him to win a national championship in 2007. They hired him because he is good at what he does, and is relatively likely to lead them to a national championship at some point during his tenure. Like maybe even as soon as a month from now.

Hey, speaking of being good at what you do, you know who isn't? Gregg Easterbrook!

Peter King: Fat, Stupid, and an Embarrassment to Journalism

Is there any way he could ask dumber questions? I understand that not every question a reporter gives to a star is going to be hard-hitting and thought-provoking. But this asshole takes the idea of tossing softballs to ridiculous levels. Check out his interviews with three NFL quarterbacks from this week's MMQB. After each section, I'll write what I think he probably asked each in order to get the answer. When you're done, ask yourself if King has helped you learn anything substantive about these players.

First, Ben Roethlisberger and his risky decision to dive for a touchdown on a scramble towards the goal line in spite of having a hurt shoulder:

"Heck no,'' he said after I asked if he had thought twice about exposing his shoulder to that risk. "I will never ... Casey Hampton said to me on the sidelines, 'What are you doing scoring? Why didn't you just go down at the one?' I said, 'Hamp, don't you know by now? That's my heart.' I'm a competitor. I want to get in the end zone. And I want to win. Period. I don't think about running the clock out. I don't think about saving myself. It'll take someone to bring me down. It's the competitive side. [Coach Mike Tomlin] tells me, 'Don't take a hit. Get down, slide.' You have to pick your battles. You have to know when to do it. In that situation, it's competition.''

King's question: "So, Ben, do you like to win? Are you the kind of guy who wants to give it all for his team, play like a champion, and be an inspiration all of America? Or would you rather play it safe, and not play like a champion and not try to win?"

Next, a certain Jets QB who Peter would be happy to butt-tongue if given the chance, regarding (surprise, sur-fucking-prise) his future:

"And it's been great. It hasn't been all smooth, but I've enjoyed it. I'm having fun. Now, if we were 3-8 instead of 8-3, I know I'd be back on the farm next year and it'd be over. But I'm just going to play as hard as I can every week the rest of the way and we'll see how it goes.''

No promises about next year. He just doesn't know yet, and he's not allowing himself to think ahead. He did think ahead about one thing Sunday, though.

King's question: "Brett, are you pretty much done thinking about this season? Have you pretty much decided that it's time to stop worrying about anything that happens between now and February, and just start thinking about whether you will grace us with your presence for one more year? Or are you still kind of thinking about how your team is 8-3 and rapidly becoming a playoff contender? And if so, what is your strategy for the rest of this season- are you actually going to try, or are you just kind of going to half-ass it?

Also, can I drink some of your urine?"

Similar idea for New England's Matt Cassel:

The easiest way to get put off by the polite Cassel is to mention he's about to be a free-agent, and he's about to make a jillion dollars somewhere in 2009. He knows. He's not stupid. He just doesn't want to hear about it now.

"We'll see,'' he said. "I honestly don't think about it. I just want to keep playing, and let that take care of itself when the end of the year comes.'' Smart man.

King's Question: "Matt, are you at all thinking about this season anymore? Granted, your team is still in the thick of the wild card and division title hunt. But have you decided not to worry about that, and just pretty much mentally check out? Do you spend all your time obsessing over getting a big contract from a new team next summer?"

Seriously, fuck this guy. What a zilch. Oh, and a nice little hypocritical complaint from PK at the end of his predictably awful 10 things he thinks he thinks:

If I read one more story about where LeBron James might play two years from now, I'm going to puke.

Yeah, you've never run a story into the ground or anything. Never happened. No way you would ever strongly contribute to the media's infatuation with a story that gets incredibly fucking old.

Hmmm. Our Traffic is Down.

You know what that means- time to make fun of Bill Simmons. Savor his recent piece about Greg Oden. Although he arrives at what may be a semi-fair conclusion (Oden is at risk of being a bust), the way he gets there is fucking preposterous. His first few paragraphs are so bad, I have to break part of them down phrase by phrase. Even going sentence by sentence would prove too logistically difficult in terms of addressing all the dumb shit he says.

First impressions matter more in basketball than in any other sport,

Anecdotal, untrue, with no conceivable reason why it would or could be true.

and they can be savored only in person.

Possibly true due to his use of "savored" as opposed to "observed" or "processed", but still dumb.

Players can't hide behind pads or helmets,

1. Baseball? Boxing? Tennis? Golf? Most Olympic sports?
2. Who "hides" behind pads? How does a football or hockey player wearing pads conceal any important information about them?

so we can stare at them,

You can stare at anything which exists in three dimensional space, whether or not it's wearing a heltmet.

evaluate every move they make: running, jumping, walking,

When I see a football player (wearing PADS!) run, jump, or walk, I just have no idea what to think about him. What is he doing? How is he doing it? If only he weren't wearing those pesky pads, maybe I could find out! Oh, I wish this was a basketball game. Then I'd really have access to all the information I need.

even ogling the cheerleaders.

Babes! Awesome! Bill and Gregg Easterbrook have more in common than either would like to admit.

We can see every ripple and tattoo.

Things you can learn about athletes from their "ripples": nothing. Things you can learn from their tattoos: almost nothing.

If they're lazy, we can tell.

Lazy football and baseball players, on the other hand, are almost impossible to spot. Sure, Chad Ocho Cinco will stop running his routes if he doesn't get thrown to early in a game. And Gary Sheffield barely breaks into a slight jog when he hits a routine grounder to shortstop. But because they're wearing helmets (and in Ocho Cinco's case, PADS!), we just can't tell whether or not they're lazy.

If they have a lousy attitude, we can tell.

Copy and paste logic from above.

If their teammates dislike them, we can tell.

PADS sure hide that though.

It's the most naked sport,

Yes, among major sports, it is the one in which the players wear the least clothing/equipment. No, that does not matter at all when it comes to evaluating players on a first imporession.

if that makes sense.

It doesn't.

And if we happen to be watching a potential franchise center, we can tell right away.

Not only is this hilariously anecdotal, Bill is about to directly contradict it. This is one of those cool "double wrong" situations I sometimes talk about.

I remember watching young David Robinson stroll out of the tunnel at the Boston Garden as everyone made the same sound: "Whoa." Young Hakeem possessed so much raw athletic ability, he could barely harness it; watching him play hoops was like watching a 15-year-old driving a Formula One race car.

Fair enough.

Young Dikembe altered every shot within 12 feet, and eight blocks per game seemed realistic.

Somewhat of a stretch as a "franchise" center, given the number of teams he has played for and his relatively weak career offensive numbers. But Bill got a warm tingly feeling when he saw Dikembe play, and that's good enough for Bill.

Young Shaq had the highest ceiling of all: I specifically recall leaving the Garden thinking, It's all over; nobody has a chance against that guy.

Cutting-edge observations like this are clearly the reason you're a highly-paid sports columnist.

Yes, you always remember the underwhelming and overwhelming moments of first impressions, especially with franchise bigs. The "merely whelming" moments, though, fade away.

Such as?

I remember seeing the aforementioned four newbies for the first time, but I caught Ewing as a rookie and remember nothing. He whelmed me.

OK. Remember the "double wrong" thing? Patrick Ewing, by any reasonable measure, was ten times the player Mutombo was. At least. He was 90% as good on the defensive end, and infinitely better on the offensive end. Mutombo's HOF probability score on basketball-reference.com is .007. As in, he's definitely not going. Ewing's? .999. As in, he's definitely going. So what was it Bill said he could tell about basketball players on first impressions? Boy, that Patrick Ewing sure was "whelming," wasn't he. Just "whelming" enough to be one of the best centers of all time.

Same for Yao, Sampson and Zo.

Yao- if he can stop getting hurt, will have career numbers that approach Ewing's.
Sampson- stunk.
Zo- b-r.com's HOF probability: .885. As in, about a hundred times more likely than Mutombo to end up in the hall.

On the other hand, young Shawn Bradley left me more than underwhelmed. Actually, I thought, Oh no, Philly is screwed!

You were the only person who saw that one coming, genius. Bill Simmons: professional scout, who can tell everything about a young center just by looking at how he walks. Bill knew that Shaq was going to be good and that Shawn Bradley was going to suck. He also didn't think Patrick Ewing was going to be anything special.

And as always, he's also a fucking embarrassment.

WMTMQR Part 2: Please Make the Dumb Man Stop

There is no intro I could possibly write that would do this justice. Let's begin.

This recent New York Times story about the work habits of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and Florida offensive coordinator Dan Mullen is both unintentionally hilarious, and disquieting.

Irony. So much delicious irony in that sentence.

The hilarious part: "The hours Mullen and Tebow spend together are geared around 1.3 seconds, the amount of time Tebow has to make a decision after the snap." This is another instance of the sports world's nutty obsession with claiming to be able to sense tenths of seconds.

Yeah, everyone knows that defensive linemen and blitzing linebackers and safties only move towards the QB in full second increments. Why bother practicing for a 1.3 second release when the defenders will only arrive after either exactly 1 second or exactly 2 seconds? How silly is that? I mean, come on, Tebow. Why bother with precision? Like, for example, say you need to throw a precisely timed pass to a receiver who's running an out route. Shouldn't it be good enough to say "Hey, I'll throw it about 3 seconds after the snap?" I think so. I mean, how much more precise could you get.

While we're on the subject, I think it's worth pointing out that a player who runs the 40 yard dash in 4.6 seconds is clearly no faster than one who runs it in 5.4 seconds. Why bother measuring the tenths? What a waste.

Gregg Easterbrook is so fucking stupid that I can't even creatively express my rage.

The NBA season has started, so it won't be long until an official somberly instructs a timekeeper to put a tenth of a second back on the clock.

Hopefully, because then he will write about it and then I will get to write a blog entry that looks exactly like this one in response.

There is no chance Tebow or any quarterback under game conditions can tell the difference between 1.2 seconds, 1.3 seconds or 1.4 seconds.

Very true. However, idiot, that's not the point of whatever these drills are. It's to give Tebow an innate sense of how long is too long to hold onto the ball. Say he runs drill X 100 times. He releases the ball after 1.2 seconds 25 times, after 1.3 seconds 50 times, and after 1.4 seconds 25 times. You think he couldn't pick out at least a few of the times he held the ball that fraction of a second too long? I'm reasonably sure he could. And while he may be incapable of doing that kind of thinking during a game, the point of a drill is to make it so you don't have to think when the game rolls around. You just act.

Probably a good quarterback can tell the difference between one second and two seconds under game conditions, which is impressive enough.

I can tell the difference bewteen 1 second and 2 seconds when I'm playing a pickup game with my friends. I am not a good quarterback. Anyone with a working brain should be able to make that distinction.

But, "Tim, make your read in 1.3 seconds" is a meaningless instruction.

You're a fucking idiot.

Coaches, officials and others in football and basketball talk about tenths of seconds because it makes them seem super-skilled -- obviously only an incredible genius could plan events down to the tenths of seconds!

Actually, they do it because tenths of seconds are often the difference between sacks and touchdown passes, or buzzer beaters (hence the name!) and waived-off non-shots.

No human being accurately senses the passage of tenths of seconds.

It doesn't take ESP or some kind of supernatural "sense." It takes an awareness of what it feels like to do something a certain way. This is what drills are for.

Sadly, Easterbrook is exactly right about what he considers the "disquieting" part of the NYT article (college athletes who devote excessive amounts of time to sport at the likely peril of their studies), so I won't rip it apart here. Moving on.

TMQ Accuracy Improves by 0.14 Percent: Over the weekend, Mike Pereira, the NFL's chief of officials, said officiating accuracy, which was 97.78 percent in 2007, was down this season to 97.64 percent. That's a difference of 0.14 percent! About 14,500 plays had been run in the NFL this season to the point of Pereira's statement; the difference breaks down to 20 more officiating mistakes leaguewide this season compared to last season. TMQ has always believed that most officiating decisions are correct, in college and high school as well as the pros. But 97.64 percent accuracy seems like runaway pseudo-precision.

So apparently, we can't trust division anymore. sure, my calculator says 25/4 is 6.25. But doesn't that seem a little too precise? Very suspicious. This is what astounds me about Gregg- his inability to follow a chain of logic that arrives at a sensible conclusion. If you told me "NFL officials were 97.64% accurate last year," I might be a little intrigued. I might say "oh yeah, how do you know?" And then, if you showed me this study, which shows that there were X blown calls on Y plays, and that (Y-X)/Y = 97.64, I'd say "Oh. Cool." Gregg's inability to do the same is mind boggling.

Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! Minnesota leading Houston 14-7 and facing third-and-3; seven-man blitz; long touchdown to Bernard Berrian.

See below for the Chiefs being hung out to dry by TMQ for not blitzing on a two point conversion, which, as you know, is roughly the equivalent of a third and three. (I admit that the compressed field a defense faces on a potential 2PC mitigates the "long TD" problem and makes a blitz seem slightly more logical. Still... shut up, Easterbrook.)

Arizona leading St. Louis 17-7; six-man blitz; long touchdown to undrafted Division III player Jerheme Urban.

If you'd seen this highlight, you would know that the defensive back who got "burned" for the TD literally had an interception in his hands on this play which he then miraculously flipped/tossed to Urban. This extremely unlikely occurrence is not the fault of the defensive coordinator who called for a blitz.

OK, time to wrap up with an angry and critical one-liner. Uhhhh.... Gregg Easterbrook is ugly.

WMTMQR Part 1: Wouldn't it be Cool if Gregg Easterbrook Went Away and Never Came Back

Here's your political joke: I'd like to "vote" (see what I did there?) that Gregg be deported to Siberia.

In this spread-offense empty-backfield era -- I don't wish to alarm you, but pass-wacky Arizona leads the NFL in scoring --

Why is that supposed to alarm me? Because Arizona is never good? Because passing teams don't usually lead the league in scoring? Because Gregg is just being polite?

Tuesday Morning Quarterback longs for some old-fashioned ground-based football. On Saturday night, Texas and Texas Tech combined for 768 yards through the air and 185 yards on the ground. Will all of football turn into the Arena League? What a relief Sunday was, with old-fashioned rushing and good offensive line play dominating many games.

This never happens in the NCAA. Certainly not, for example, last weekend when Florida clowned Georgia while rushing and passing for essentially equal yardage. Or when Utah won a potential trap game at New Mexico while doing the same. Or when Georgia Tech upset Florida State by rushing for 288 yards while passing for a whole whopping 55. (These are just three random examples from top 25 games last week. Feel free to look up a few more of your own.)

Here's my prediction: The next big innovation in football will be the rediscovery of the power run. Consider:

Here's a prediction: the next big new thing will be something that already exists. Think about it. So crazy it just might work.

Tennessee remained the NFL's sole undefeated team by rushing for 178 yards against Green Bay.

Difference between the Titans and, for example, the "pass wacky" Cardinals: the former has Kerry Collins and a bunch of WRs no one has ever heard of. The latter has Kurt Warner, Anquan Boldin, and Larry Fitzgerald. Hmmm, perhaps the Titans are adjusting their game plan to fit their personnel, no?

The defending champion Giants humbled the ship-taking-on-water Cowboys on the strength of 200 rushing yards, culminating with Derrick Ward's run for 17 yards untouched on a draw for the score that iced the contest.

True, but be careful. The Giants are averaging almost 50 yards per game more through the air than on the ground. That's approaching wackiness.

Atlanta rushed for 252 yards behind some tremendous offensive line performances; see more below.

They were playing the Raiders. You can't prove anything by citing the stats of a team that played the Raiders. Plus, they were up 14-0 after a quarter and 24-0 at the half. I'm not going to look up how many passes they threw in the second half, but I bet it wasn't very many.

Detroit was leading -- that's not a misprint -- Chicago 23-20 in the fourth quarter when Bears tailback Matt Forte had old-fashioned off-tackle runs for 13 and 19 yards on a drive that set up Chicago's game-winning touchdown.

The Bears had 2 good run plays in the 4th quarter- therefore, power running is back! Fun hidden fact: the Lions were a few plays away from winning the game, in spite of passing for 280 yards and rushing for 53.

With Miami leading Denver 19-17 and facing first-and-goal on the Broncos' 2-yard line in the fourth quarter, Ronnie Brown went into the end zone standing up for the icing points.

Someone ran for a 2 yard touchdown- therefore, power running is back!

Stat of the Week No. 1: The Oakland Raiders, at 2-6, are two games out of first place in the AFC West.

A 4-4 division leader. Lunacy. What is the world coming to? Oh yeah- three other divisions have a 5-3 leader.

Stat of the Week No. 5: From the fourth quarter of their previous game through this week's game against the Jets, Buffalo had these possession results: interception, fumble, safety, fumble, muffed punt, touchdown, fumble, interception, turnover on downs, punt, field goal, missed field goal, interception.

Since July 2, 2006...

Stat of the Week No. 6: Jacksonville has lost in consecutive weeks to teams that are a combined 4-13; next week, Jacksonville plays 0-8 Detroit.

Not a stat.

Stat of the Week No. 7: Of the NFL's top four sack-producing defenses, two are from Pennsylvania (the Steelers and Eagles) and the other two are from New Jersey (the Giants and Jets).

Based on stats, but also not a stat.

Stat of the Week No. 9: Pittsburgh is the sole team whose defense has not surrendered a play of 40 or more yards.

Also not a stat.

From Cheerleader of the Week:

NFL franchises are rolling in money -- around $200 million in revenue per club per year -- and glamorous cheer-babes are part of the entertainment appeal. Why isn't there a movement to organize pro sports cheerleaders and pay them fairly?

Parading your body around in front of the ugly, unwashed masses and hoping it's a good enough resume booster to get yourself a job in a Vegas show is its own reward.

Sweet Team of the Week: In Michael Vick's happier days, the Falcons led the NFL in rushing; this stat was dismissed by the sports-yak world as a mere byproduct of Vick's runs, as if quarterback rushes somehow did not count. Be that as it may, the No. 1 rushing team in the NFL right now is the Atlanta Falcons, averaging a sparkling 163 yards per game and 4.7 yards per rush. Obviously Atlanta's running backs are playing well, but rushing success begins with the offensive line -- can you name a single Falcons blocker?

Yeah, you selfish reader- can't you name anyone who starts on the Atlanta Falcons' offensive line? (I'm a huge NFL fan, and I don't think I could name more than 20 linemen league-wide who don't play for my favorite team or in their division.)

Sour Teams of the Week: Two weeks ago, Jacksonville was entering perhaps the softest schedule stretch any NFL team has ever enjoyed: 2-4 Cleveland, followed by 0-8 Cincinnati (citing their records at that point), followed by 0-8 Detroit. The Jags have managed to lose the first two of these three gimme games. Yes, this shows nothing is easy in the NFL. And yes, Jax has injuries. But in football, everybody always has injuries. The Jaguars seemed overconfident and "played down" to their opponents;

Based on what? Based... on... what? If there's one thing I hate about Easterbrook (which, surprisingly, there are several), it's his "Team A lost because of this anecdotal reason and I don't need to prove it because you can't disprove it" bullshit. I should make this his fourth Pillar of Idiocy. That's a reference to something dumb I wrote a few weeks ago- if you don't get it, don't worry about it.

Sunday they didn't wake up until the fourth quarter, when they outscored Cincinnati 16-0, but missed the decisive two-point conversion try at the end. And why wasn't the deuce try a power rush, by this team that specializes in power rushing? Instead it was a rinky-dinky pass attempt that fell incomplete.

Remember this. It will be important later.

And what of coach Dick "Cheerio, Chaps" Jauron? Two weeks ago, when Buffalo was 5-1, the Bills' management gave Jauron a lavish contract extension -- despite Jauron having a career record of 55-68 on the day the extension was agreed to. Now he's 55-70. Has Jauron been paying more attention to his purse than his team? Since the contract extension, the Bills have played two stinker games, and in both seemed poorly prepared.

So they have had turnover problems, and allowed some sacks. That's a better explanation than nothing... but not by much.

Sour Play of the Week: Kansas City led City of Tampa 24-3 in the first half. But at the end of regulation, the Bucs scored to cut the lead to 27-25 and lined up for a deuce try. In very sour fashion, Kansas City rushed only three, dropping enormous defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey into coverage, where he did nothing but stand around. Pass complete, and Kansas City lost in overtime.

Remember that bit about Jacksonville I told you to remember? Well, the Jags are actually only the 17th best team in the league this year in rushing yards per game. How dare they not attempt a run on a 2 point conversion! Oh, but the Bucs, who are 9th best in rushing yards per game? No complaints when they throw when they go for two. Gregg Easterbrook: letting the ends justify the means and relentlessly contradicting his own logic since 2003. Also, if the pass had been knocked down and KC had won, please believe this call by the Chiefs would have been mentioned positively in a "Stop Me Before I Blitz Again!" segment.

Time for me to pass out. More to come tomorrow, including (here's your teaser) Gregg still not understanding how time works! The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Quick, Let's Anecdotally Make a Distinction that Doesn't Even Exist

Jon "I'm Terrified of Things that are New" Heyman, re: Phillies GM Pat Gillick-

Gillick's success in Philly is another point in favor of scouts over stats in the debate about the value of the two strategies.

I like the use of "another" in this sentence, as if everyone paying attention to this debate should know full well that those in the "scouts" camp are clearly miles ahead. This is like saying "My friend Angelo's ice cream preference is another point for chocolate over vanilla in the debate about which flavor is better."

Gillick puts a lot of faith in his scouts,

There are dozens, nay, hundreds of MLB teams that put no faith whatsoever in their scouts. There's a joke amongst these teams' general managers that when scouting reports arrive, they are immediately placed in "the special circular file." (The special circular file is actually a trash can!)

employs a stable of experienced scouts

The Cubs, Giants, and Twins have recently folded their scouting programs altogether. The money saved by this measure will be put towards buying more supercomputers that know where to find talented young baseball players.

and relies on their eyes rather than a bunch of numbers anyone can read.

If computers are so great, why can't they tell who's going to be an All-Star based just on how 18 year old kids look when they put on their uniforms? Why can't they find good pitchers based solely on how mean the pitchers look when they stare into the batter's eyes?

Also: saying baseball stats are just a bunch of numbers anyone can read is like saying Tolstoy is just a bunch of words anyone can read.

Also, and most importantly: pretending like any team in baseball today, let alone one capable of winning a pennant and maybe a World Series, is not depending a lot on both scouting and statistical analysis is mind-numbingly retarded.

I Watched the First Six Innings of the Game Last Night

And in doing so, I picked up the following eight pieces of garbage which Tim McCarver's mouth littered out of my TV set. (Despite my lack of DVR, all are printed here verbatim or very close.) Chris W and I had a discussion about Timmy- we agree that unlike, say, Joseph Q. McBrainless Morgansheffield, McCarver actually has a pretty decent head/brain on his shoulders. His problem is that the connection between said head/brain and his mouth is tenuous at best. He's got a lot to contribute... but he's unable to do so because he's inarticulate. He's like a less excitable version of Shannon Sharpe.

So why is this a big deal? Isn't it a little nitpicky to go after him when his crime (usually) is not stupidity, but rather struggling to put his thoughts into words? Well, I'm glad you asked. My stance is this: due to the fact that he's employed as a television broadcaster, i.e., he is paid to talk into a microphone and explain things to viewers, we're holding him to a perfectly reasonable standard by criticizing each and every dumb thing he says. So let's get to the head-scratchers.

1. During the pregame scouting report (that term being used loosely here, thanks, FOX) about Andy Sonnanstine:

[He]... might be the best thing a teammate could say about him... is that he's just a winner.

First of all, that sentence is either missing several words or is simply poorly spoken. Second, Sonnanstine's career regular season record: 19-19. Record in last night's game: 0-1. This "He's just a winner!" bullshit is the kind of half-hearted attempt at praise broadcasters give to players who don't actually have much talent, but play for successful teams. See: Young, Vince.

2. After Jimmy Rollins leads off the game with a double and moves to third on a Jayson Werth flyout:

The Phillies once again with a chance to score a cheap run here early.

I don't disagree with Tim that there are such things as "cheap" runs. However, I strongly disagree that a guy who leads off with a double and then comes around on two sac flies/groundouts scored "cheaply." A cheap run is like a HBP, a failed pickoff attempt that goes up the 1st base line and lets the runner get to third, and an error that allows the guy to score. Runs that score because of extra base hits are almost always very, very expensive.

3. Referring to Philadelphia's poor performance in the series thus far in terms of getting hits when runners are on base:

It's almost as if the Phillies can't score a run unless they drive in themselves! With a teammate... uh... (trails off)

Good point in the first sentence there. In the first three games of the series, they'd hit six solo home runs and only scored ten runs total. However, Tim, once you've made that point, maybe it's time to quit while you're ahead, shut up, and let Joe Buck fill up the airwaves with more of his smarmy drivel.

4. After Jimmy Rollins reaches on an Akinora Iwamura error to open the bottom of the 4th-

When Rollins gets on, he prevents the Phillies from becoming a station-to-station team.

Could you possibly do a worse job of phrasing that idea? It would be tough. I might go with "When Rollins gets on, the Phillies can't not be a team that doesn't go station-to-station." But I'm not sure that stacks up to what Tim said. Also: Rollins ended up scoring when Ryan Howard hit the proverbial three-run homer everyone except the Angels seems to be waiting around for these days.

5. With runners on 1st and 2nd, Iwamura snares a Carlos Ruiz ground ball but doesn't have a play on any of the runners. Tim gets excited.

Think about the wisdom of that play! With 2 outs and a runner on second, infielders are taught to dive for a ball even if they don't have a play!

Whereas, if there isn't a runner on second who could potentially score if the ball gets to the outfield, most infielders will just kind of watch a grounder trickle past them and shrug their shoulders. Also- I'm pretty sure the use of "wisdom" there is a little heavy-handed.

6. Noting that Sonnanstine was not exactly pounding the strike zone:

I wouldn't say the layoff (14 days had passed since his last start) has affected his effectiveness, but it has affected his control.

Sonnanstine's fastball tops out at about 89 mph, and one of his biggest strengths is limiting walks (63 in 324 career innings). I'm pretty sure effectiveness and control are one and the same for him. His biggest problem last night was not doing a good enough job controlling his control.

7. Comparing Tropicana Field to Citizens Bank Park:

The dimensions are not as big here.

Again, we have a problematic disconnect between a thought (good, relevant) and a sentence (sounds like it was orinigally written in Japanese, translated to English, then translated back and forth a couple more times).

8. After a Joe Blanton solo shot makes it 6-2 Phils in the bottom of the 5th:

Normally they only score in one or two big innings. They do not have an offense with those tack on runs, but they do tonight.

Re: the first sentence- Wrong. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Re: the second sentence- What? What, what, and what?

Given the way Cole Hamels has been pitching this month, there may be but a scant one game left in the 2008 MLB season. Gosh, seems like just yesterday I was waking up at 5:30 in the morning to watch the A's and Red Sox square off in Tokyo. Good thing the NBA is about to start up! And I mean that non-sarcastically. Check the comments section for Chris W's obligatory complaints thereof.

FMTMQR: Easterbrook Is Actually Much Lamer Than Jack Gives Him Credit For

Looking back on Jack's post from a couple days ago, I realized something. Although he has correctly identified TMQ as a pretentious moron, I feel his post didn't quite do enough to also identify him (TMQ) as a clueless jackass. So here I am, with my longest post in a while, to rant and rave about that. As usual it is unfunny, because I am unfunny. Read at your own peril.

Since I started subjecting myself to his drivel last fall, I've identified what I call Gregg's "Three Pillars of Dumbassery." He constantly bitches and moans about these topics despite being (almost always) completely wrong in his analysis relating to them. If you've been reading the blog for a while, you'll recognize them. They are:

1) His "I Don't Understand Technology" pillar- In which he (embarrassingly) insists that clocks in sports which are accurate to hundreds or tenths of a second are totally pointless. This pillar has finally stopped appearing in his columns this season; I'd like to think that maybe someone sent him this video about Olympic timing doohickeys and it got him to realize how fucking dumb he was being.

2) His "Tragic Oversimplification by Insisting that Changing One Event in the Distant Past Will Automatically Change a Final Outcome" pillar- (catchy name, I know) In which he insists that when team A loses to to team B on a last second field goal, team A should have run up the middle for no gain instead of throwing an incomplete pass at some point ten minutes earlier in the fourth quarter. This would have kept the clock running at that time and subsequently it would have run out before team B could later kick the deciding field goal. Although this claim is pure lunacy 99% of the time he brings it up, I don't ever expect it to disappear because unlike pillar #1 it cannot be proven objectively wrong. Too bad. It's like trying to convince Jemele Hill that the Feds are not picking on Barry Bonds because he is black. I mean, it should be fucking obvious. But since you can't show her a cool internet video that 100% disproves it, she's going to cling to it. (While also claiming that she doesn't defend Bonds just because he's black.)

And that leads us to the topic at hand...

3) His "Coaches Don't Care About Winning or Losing, and Fans and Players Don't Care About Getting Shut Out" pillar. (I'm on fire with these names, aren't I.) This is perhaps the most patently wrong of the three. The basic idea is expressed in one of two ways- either A) pretty much anytime a coach calls for a punt when his team is trailing in the second half, he's a total pussy who has no idea how to win a game, or B) anytime a coach kicks a field goal when his team is being shut out and trailing by a huge margin in the 4th quarter it's a selfish move that he made purely to keep said shutout off his record. Rather than expand upon the ways in which these claims are usually fucking stupid, I'll just provide you with a pile of examples (only from subpoint B because Jack already covered A) from this week's column.

In other football news, over the years, Tuesday Morning Quarterback has grown accustomed to timid coaching decisions.

This is the underlying premise of pillar #3- coaches, who remain employed by making their team look as good as possible (sometimes by trying to win, other times by reducing a margin of defeat when a win is unattainable) don't actually make decisions they think will make their team look as good as possible. No. They make decisions for some... other... selfish reason. Yeah! Selfish. That's a good word to accuse people with. And these accusations make sense when you think about them, as long as shortly before doing so you spent a good ten minutes huffing model airplane glue.

Trailing Chicago 48-31 with nine minutes remaining, Minnesota faced fourth-and-3 on the Bears' 5, and kicked a field goal.

So they were losing by three scores before the field goal... considered the likelihood of a relatively difficult conversion (getting three yards against a scrunched up goal line defense)... and instead did something with a high probability of success that reduced their deficit to two scores. What a bunch of pussies. Brad Childress, you should be embarrassed.

Needless to say, the Vikings went on to lose.

Needless to say, a team trailing by 14 with nine minutes left in a game almost always loses no matter what they do.

Forget the 17-point margin;

Actually, no. Look at the 17 point margin. Then consider the potential benefit of doing something easy that will reduce the margin to 14. Then consider the potential cost of going for the first down and failing to convert.

the hour was late and the Vikings were within view of paydirt. To have hope of winning, they needed a touchdown.

To have hope of winning, they needed to get the margin to two scores. To have better hope of winning, they needed to get the margin to ten. Weigh the costs and benefits. (Now, I'm also not saying the situation is totally obvious. I'm not saying I'm 100% sure the Vikings made the right decision. I'm saying you can't even come close to telling me they made the wrong one. I'm not hearing it.)

Trailing Houston 21-0, Detroit kicked a field goal.

Less defensible, as this keeps the margin at three scores. However, it happened in the 2nd quarter. It was probably a little early to worry about that kind of thing. It was also a 54 yard field goal, attempted on 4th and 10. The odds of converting a 4th and 10, and finishing the drive with a TD (rather than just ending up with a closer field goal that took longer to attain) are, NEEDLESS TO SAY, low.

Needless to say, the Lions went on to lose.

Needless to say, most teams that are bad enough to fall behind by 21 in a little more than a quarter are probably going to lose a lot of their games regardless of how many 4th and 10s they attempt.

Trailing Texas 35-0, Missouri kicked a field goal.

For what it's worth, that got their deficit from five scores to four. It also happened on the last play of the 2nd quarter, when Missouri was 16 yards away from the end zone. This is an even less likely conversion than Detriot's 4th and 10. Additionally, at some point when you're getting run up and down the field and have no points, you just kind of want to get on the board. I would be more critical of this if Missouri kicked a field goal when losing 56-21. Slightly.

Needless to say, the Tigers went on to lose.

Needless to say, a team trailing by 35 late in the first half is probably going to lose.

Fraidy-cat coaching decisions like these are intended to deflect criticism away from the coach.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and..... wrong.

In the first example, the decision was intended to bring the margin from three scores to two. If you can't understand that, you should definitely not be paid to write an NFL column for the largest sports website in America. It worked, and in fact, Minnesota ended up scoring again and getting the ball deep in their own territory trailing by 7 with a minute left. A touchdown there was very unlikely, but it would have sent the game to overtime. Granted, a field goal was less unlikely, and would have sent the game to OT had they successfully converted the 4th and 3. However, if they blew the 4th and 3, the game would have been over right then and there. Again, it's not an obvious decision.

The second and third examples also have nothing to do with deflecting blame. They have to do with taking a decent shot at 3 points instead of taking a very long shot at 7. Gregg's brainlessness in these cases is also manifested in his inability to think about the psychological impact of a huge shutout on people other than the coach. Do you think players like being shut out? Do you think fans like seeing their team get shut out? It's unquantifiable, of course. But I would bet good money that Missouri's players went into the locker room feeling a reasonable amount better about themselves just for the sake of not having a "0" next to their name on the scoreboard. Perhaps this was even the spark that led them to score 28 points in the second half and make the blowout slightly less horrific. (Oh, and they didn't lose 35-31. That would ruin my point if it were the case. Texas scored an extra three TDs themselves in the second half, making the final score 56-31.) Thinking that coaches will do anything other than what is most likely to enable them to keep their jobs (either by winning, or making their institution look less bad in losing) is fucking dumb.

Maybe they make a modicum of sense in college, where margin of victory counts in the polls -- as Missouri's ridiculous field goal boomed, coach Gary Pinkel seemed to fear being blanked and his team dropping out of the Top 25 altogether.

That's not what he was thinking, and they would not have completely dropped from the polls even if the final score had been 56-0. I promise on both counts.

(It was irrelevant that it was the last play of the first half; Missouri was on the Texas 16 and should have tried for a touchdown.)

Wrong, as already explained.

But margin of victory is meaningless in the NFL. When NFL coaches make decisions intended to keep the final score respectable,

Or in Childress and the Vikings' case, to get their team within two scores with 9 minutes left...

or avoid a shutout, while giving up any hope however small of victory,

Contrary to what Gregg thinks, kicking a field goal with 8 minutes left in the 2nd quarter when you're down 21 does not automatically cause you to forfeit the game.

it isn't just bad tactics.

Here's when it would be bad tactics: if the Vikings had been losing by 21 when they kicked that field goal with 9 minutes left. THAT'S bad tactics.

It is unprofessional -- the coach is placing his own résumé and career prospects ahead of the team.

Yes, I'm sure the team would rather take unnecessary risks (example #1) or attempt crazy 4th down conversions when points are available (examples 2 and 3). That selfish coach! Always thinking of only himself!

That's why Herm "I Honor My Contract When I'm in the Mood" Edwards' decision against Tennessee on Sunday ranks among the worst in the annals of sports.

Easy on the hyperbole, Joe Buck.

Undefeated Tennessee led 27-0 with five minutes remaining; Kansas City had fourth-and-goal on the Titans' 8; rather than try for a touchdown and maintain some tiny hope of a comeback, or at least salvage the Chiefs' dignity, Edwards sent in the field goal unit.

Let's see... 27 points = 4 scores... 24 points = 3 scores... 4th and 8 from the 8 is a very unlikely conversion, especially against a defense like Tennessee's... yeah, this seems familiar. I'm getting dumbass deja vu.

Herm wasn't even trying to protect his team's interest; instead he was protecting his own by keeping a shutout off his résumé.

There are two angles to take here, I'm not sure which is more apporpriate.

1) HE WAS REDUCING THE MARGIN FROM 4 SCORES TO 3, YOU DUMB TWAT
2) MAYBE THE FANS AND PLAYERS ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO GET SHUT OUT

I think I'll go with "both."

Moving on to a handful of other stupid jackass nuggets from the column:

Stat of the Week No. 4: Stretching back to last season, Dallas, picked by many touts including the consensus of ESPN.com experts to win the Super Bowl, has lost five of its past nine games.

How dare those pundits pick them to win this year's Super Bowl after they lost their last two games in 2007! What a bunch of lummoxes.

And I Don't Even Drink Gin: Several British readers including Holly Abbington of Whetstone, England, noted that a week ago, Tuesday Morning Quarterback was No. 2 on the list of "favorite things" -- excuse me, "favourite things" -- being perused on the Web by readers of London's Guardian newspaper.

A joke about how both British people (stereotypically) as well as TMQ are pretentious goes here.

The Real Way Many Kids Reach College: Here's a spoiler that matters to public policy -- a subplot of the current season of "Friday Night Lights" has Brian "Smash" Williams, graduated from Dillon High but without an athletic scholarship owing to an injury, rehabbing his knee and trying to get an offer from a college. Reader Robert Matranga of Orange, Calif., writes, "The show is giving the implication that a football scholarship is his only ticket to college -- that without it, college is unreachable. Smash's family cannot afford the tuition to Texas A&M, where he hopes to go -- but what about an academic or need-based scholarship? The show's implication that athletic scholarship is the only way Brian can attain college feeds the already poor awareness of federal aid in the form of Pell grants and subsidized loans, plus the need-based aid offered by many colleges directly."

This is an important point. The deck is stacked against African-American males in many respects; one of the few places where the deck is stacked in favor of African-American males is college admission. Most colleges and universities want to increase the black male population in their student bodies, and are generous with financial aid for African-American males who earned good grades. Black teens in fiction are often depicted as seeking athletic scholarships rather than regular need-based and academic scholarship opportunities -- though far more kids of all races attend college on regular need-based aid than on NCAA letters.

Not to say that all of this isn't correct... but boy, doesn't that sound like a thrilling storyline for a prime time drama? Smash Williams desperately wants to earn a football scholarship to Texas A&M! But, you know, if he doesn't get it, he can always just get an academic one too. BUT WHICH WILL IT BE? Tune in to find out.

Scouts Notes: Going into the Oakland game, Brett Favre -- who TMQ contends at this point should legally change his name to "Brett Favre Brett Favre Brett Favre"

TMQ is so unfunny he managed to screw up a joke about Brett Favre's self promotion and overexposure. This is like screwing up a Monica Lewinsky joke in early 1998.

-- had thrown eight of his 13 touchdown passes while already in the red zone. Since Jersey/B's coaches were criticized early in the season for not letting Favre throw near the goal line, they are having him throw near the goal line constantly now. Sunday, with the Jets and Raiders tied 3-3, Favre threw from the Oakland 8-yard line and the hosts were ready, intercepting the pass.

Conveniently omitted from this anecdote is the fact that the interception was thrown on 3rd and goal from the 8. Wow, you mean the Packers didn't call a run from that down and distance? Oh, and the Jets had also just called running plays on 1st and goal from the 6 and 2nd and goal from the 3. So basically... this proves ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING about the tendencies of the Jets' coaching staff.

Opponents: Expect Favre to throw near the goal line, because Jersey/B's coaches want to avoid further criticism for not letting him throw there.

Also: be ready for most quarterbacks on most teams to throw near the goal line on 3rd and 8, because running on that play would probably be a fucking stupid idea unless it was a well-designed draw or something.

Did Lions Tip the Cowboys? Dallas traded first-, third- and sixth-round draft selections to Detroit for Roy Williams and a seventh-round pick. The seventh-round throw-in is so trivial, it seems like a gratuity: "Here you are my good man, here's your highly paid perpetually complaining wide receiver, and I've thrown in a little something extra for your trouble."

OK, I have to toe a very fine line here. Don't get me wrong- Detroit ripped off Dallas. That's a huge price to pay for any non-QB. That said- Williams is pretty talented. He may be overpaid (Dallas can afford it) and a complainer (likely to subside if he's playing for a winner), but it's not like he sucks or something.

And just a thought: Dallas is foundering, so the solution is to raid the roster of the Detroit Lions?

What? You mean bad teams sometimes have good players? What are you, fucking nuts? Here's a thought for you from last July, Milwaukee Brewers- you're foundering, and the solution is to raid the roster of the Cleveland Indians? Ha! Like that will get you to the playoffs.

The Real Reason for Pass-Wacky High School Offenses -- Summer Practice Rules: Here is last week's New York Times front-page take on the A-11 offense (Page 2 had the story earlier this year. Describing the basic A-11 trick of making all 11 players appear eligible just before the snap, the Times continued, "The difficult task for a team defending against the A-11 is to quickly and accurately figure out who those five eligible receivers are." Wait -- this should be easy, it's whoever goes downfield!

You don't... really... uh... understand how football works, do you? (Note: there's a chance this was a joke and I'm the one that looks like an idiot by trying to make fun of it. If you read it in the full context of the item, you can't really tell. But since we're dealing with TMQ, I decided to not give him the benefit of the doubt. Probably works better this way. And if reader Erik wants to email me and argue that my assessment is incorrect, I hope he sends it to the correct address.)

Happy Hour in Hell's Sports Bar: Hell's sports bar has 28 wide-screen plasma TVs, and now gets DirecTV! But certain blackout rules may apply. On Sunday in the early slot, the TVs in Hell's Sports Bar showed nothing but Ravens at Dolphins and Cowboys at Rams, and the far more attractive Chargers at Bills pairing was not offered. (Wait -- this is what actually happened in the Washington, D.C., television viewing area.)

Well, Chargers/Bills is an all-AFC pairing. That means CBS has the rights and the fact that Rams/Cowboys was on FOX is irrelevant. Ravens/Dolphins is an all AFC pairing too. And Baltimore is 50 miles from DC, meaning there are probably a lot of Baltimore fans in the DC area. This shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

For the highlight program, all 28 screens in Hell's Sports Bar showed nothing but, over and over, winless Detroit kicking a field goal when down 21-0.

On 4th and 10 from their own 37 with 8 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, you fucking... useless... what's the noun I'm looking for... oh yeah. Zilcheroo. Man, if Gregg Easterbrook were here right now, I would FWAP him right across the face. Are we important enough to be self-referential like that? I hope so. I mean, not because I want us to be important. Just because I want to make that reference and have most of our readers get it. And possibly crack a little tiny smile. Or who knows, maybe even get a smidgen of a chuckle out of it. Heh. Heh.

OK, I'm done.

Ironically, This Comment Was Made During a College Football Game (Emphasis on "College")

Miami (Ohio) vs. Michigan. Televised on ESPN2. About 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. Miami faces a 4th and 2 from the Michigan 15. Michigan leads 10-3. (That is to say, they're ahead by 7 points.) Dave Pasch and Andre Ware are your commentators.

Pasch: Well, what do you do here on 4th down? It's a tough call.
Ware: I think it's an easy call. You kick, take the points, and that puts you within a field goal.

Andre, come on. You can do better than that. Break out a calculator, or a slide rule, or maybe an abacus. Count it on your fingers if you have to. Ten minus three, buddy. Ten minus three.

EDIT: Maybe it would be more accurate to say ten minus three... minus three. But you know what I mean.

Pardon the Idiocy, Part III

I LOOOOOOOOVE the "Odds" segment on Pardon the Interruption. It exposes Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon's total lack of understanding of the concept of "probability". Oh, and there was a very dumb Tony quote in the process. Quote as close as possible.

The question was: What are the odds the Minnesota Twins take first place in the AL Central tonight? Tony?

The Minnesota Twins are remarkable in that they lost Johan Santana and are still only a half game out this season, and they're one of the best teams in baseball in that regard. They've won the last two, they're playing at home, they've got the momentum, I'm going....one-hundred percent.

1) The Minnesota Twins are one of the best teams in baseball at performing well after specifically losing Johan Santana. It's fair to say, because other teams have really tanked it after losing Johan Santana. Just ask the 1999 Quad City River Bandits, or the 2000 Michigan Battle Cats.
2) The White Sox should not even take the field tonight, because there is a zero percent chance they will win.

Searching for a voice of reason, we turn to Mike Wilbon, who says....

I like the White Sox tonight, I'm going with zero percent.

This is like the most highly regarded late afternoon sports program in the world.

ESPN, what kind of idiots do you have working here?

"The finest in New York."

Eh?