Easterbrook Again Makes Meaningless, Incorrect Assertion

Check out this post for a comment from last week's TMQ regarding Drew Brees potentially breaking Dan Marino's single season passing yards record.

Below is an excerpt from this week's TMQ:

• The football gods did not want Drew Brees to break Dan Marino's single-season passing yards record -- because that record was set in a Miami playoff year when the yards were needed, whereas Brees' breaking the record for the eliminated Saints would have been a stunt.

It’s an odd little swipe at Brees, attempting to discredit the yards he threw for this year as less important than the yards that Marino threw for in a 14-2 Dolphins season, when they cruised into the playoffs. By Easterbrook’s rationale, all of Tom Brady’s yards last year were needed, as the Patriots were in a playoff year. Gregg would never say that, right?

Also, this football gods thing….is tired.

Mike Freeman Demands Immediate Satisfaction

Remember the Olympics? Yeah, the Olympics…the collection of athletic contests that ended Sunday. Remember Usain Bolt, that fast guy? Mike Freeman thinks it’s the biggest joke in sports that he’s not in talks with an NFL team as of Wednesday. 3 days after the Olympics ended. Biggest joke in sports. By the way, I'm going to be lazy and assume that Bolt has not played much football. If that's wrong, well Freeman should have brought it up.

Yeah, so there’s a lot of hyperbole on the way.

Why is NFL so slow to go after lightning-fast Bolt?

I know right, it’s been 3 fucking days! Why isn’t Bolt lining up in practice right NOW! Also, matching lightning with “Bolt”? Friggin’ brilliant.

The National Football League is run by smart and hyper-successful people. Well, except for the Cincinnati Bengals. Other than the team that re-signs misdemeanor generator Chris Henry, the league is brilliantly engineered -- which is why it's so puzzling no team has made a strong play for Olympic speed demon Usain Bolt.

Has he ever played a down of organized football? Has he ever run in pads? Has he ever been tackled? Do Sprinters automatically have great hands? Do Sprinters have to memorize inch-thick playbooks? Could he be great? Sure. Is he such a sure thing that NFL teams should have made a move 3 days after the Olympics ended?

Bolt would instantly be the fastest person in the sport, yet teams are signing retread jerks at wide receiver like Henry, whose buffoonery has embarrassed an entire city.

I’m dizzy trying to connect these dots. I bet Mike Freeman every penny I have that Chris Henry is a more valuable wide receiver than Usain Bolt right now. Also, I suspect that Cincinattionians or whatever are not personally embarrassed by Chris Henry.

Maybe Bolt will say he's not interested. Well, make him interested. Make him an offer he can't refuse. Throw millions of dollars and some Black Uhuru CDs at him.

Yeah! Fuck the salary cap! Give millions of dollars to a guy who we don’t know has ever actually caught a football! This is smart business.

At the very least try to get him into the NFL. That's my problem; I've spoke to NFL team officials over the past few days and there is no indication a team is even trying to convince Bolt to play football.

I know right, and the Olympics have been over for days! Don’t these teams want to win?

The fact no one has attempted is one of the biggest jokes in all of sports.

Can I nominate this for Hyperbole of the Year?

When Bolt runs, time moves backward. His 40-yard dash time is in milliseconds. Bolt is the only thing in the known universe that can escape the gravitational pull of a black hole.

"I'm not so sure I can beat him," says a speeding bullet.

He’s fast, we get it. This is intentional hyperbole, so this doesn’t count.

If someone could teach Bolt to catch the football and absorb punishment, he would instantly become one of the top three most dangerous weapons in the NFL. Put him with the right quarterback and he'd possibly be the most lethal.

Instantly top 3? Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts?

A guy who is 22 years old, 6-foot-5 and 190 pounds, and might run a sub-4.2 40-yard dash? You tell me what his potential would be.

This “guy”, he’s never played organized football right?

Please read carefully. This isn't to say Bolt is guaranteed NFL success. But why aren't some of the wealthier owners known to take chances, like Jerry Jones, throwing cash at this guy?

Salary caps? They are busy paying attention to guys who actually play football, perhaps?

History might indeed be against Bolt succeeding on the NFL level. Track stars don't have a long NFL pedigree. So what? That doesn't mean Bolt can't do it.

Yeah – so what? Throw millions at him! That’ll fix that little bit of history!

It might not work.

Then why is the non-pursuit “the biggest joke in all of sports”??????????

But these five reasons explain why and how it could:

1. Bob Hayes. Bolt and Hayes have almost identical backgrounds. Hayes set world records at the 1964 Olympics and then was signed by the Cowboys with limited football experience. (Hayes should be in the Hall of Fame, but anti-Cowboys sentiment among voters has kept him out.)

Good point. Plus, professional football has hardly changed since the 1960’s!

Actually, wait, there’s another small difference….Bob Hayes played college football. Relevant, right? Also, there’s been a bunch of sprinters who failed.

This is from the SI Vault:

Hayes differed from the sprinters who would follow him into and out of the NFL, because he was not merely a sprinter who happened to play football. He was, as he liked to put it, "a football player first, then a runner." There were lots of fast guys on Jake Gaither's Florida A&M squad, and he'd shuffle them in and out, align them in different formations. Hayes was listed as a halfback, but he'd line up all over the place—on the wing, in the slot, wherever he was needed.

People have said that his college career was only so-so, but he was a starter at wide receiver in the 1965 College All-Star Game, and the quarterback who started that game for his team, Roger Staubach, would, in the years that followed, go on to launch many deep strikes to Hayesfor the Cowboys.

So that’s a pretty shitty example.

2. The biggest reason why Bolt wouldn't work is the NFL might not be able to afford him. Bolt will make a ridiculous amount of endorsement money in the coming months. (Bolt endorses Porsche, Bolt endorses Nike, Bolt makes a commercial for a speedy pregnancy test.)

Yeah, because track stars make way more than NFL players.

No, really….here’s SI’s “Fortunate 50” – please count the track stars and football players. Something tells me they could make that the “fortunate 500” before we see a track star on there. Admittedly, it's just US athletes, and maybe track stars make a ton of money overseas. But still, I would bet that the NFL brings more riches.

What a team says to Bolt is this: How much more money do you think you'd make if you were a two-sport star?

But what they should say first is….. "have you ever caught a football?”

Then they'd educate Bolt about Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson. Sanders played a nine-year, part-time MLB career while playing football. Why can't Bolt do something similar?

Ahhh Deion and Bo…..these are two athletes who were freakishly fast, but also had the athletic ability to hit a 95 MPH baseball and agility to maneuver through huge, fast athletes, in full pads, with ease.

So far we know that Bolt can run straight, on a track. Do you think it’s safe to assume Bolt has the variety of athletic skills that Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson had? I’d say not.

Play to his ego -- and if you don't think he has a fat ego, rewind the end of that gold medal race when he taunted fellow runners after activating the second stage of his Saturn V rocket boosters.

Bolt could race around the world, make his money, and then play in NFL games. They have these things called airplanes. Some have props, some have jets. He can hop on one.

That’s true, since the NFL is soooo easy. Plus he wouldn't be at all tired from sprinting against world class athletes. He wouldn’t need to practice or anything. Those off-season workouts that Jerry Rice put himself through? Waste of time.

3. His size. Remember, Bolt is a sturdy 6-5 and 190 pounds. This doesn't mean he's ready to take a hit from Bob Sanders (who the hell is?) but a team can slowly get Bolt accustomed to physical contact the way Dallas did with Hayes.

Also, the way Hayes got accustomed to physical contact when he was playing football in college.

4. Jerry Rice. Hire Rice as a consultant to work with Bolt. Or Michael Irvin or even Deion Sanders to teach him about the chess game defensive backs play with wideouts. Just make sure Rice doesn't teach Bolt how to dance or Irvin doesn't teach him about drug paraphernalia.

Ahar har har.

So after you dump millions and millions of dollars on Bolt, go hire some high price consultants so that he can learn a playbook.

WHY HASN’T THIS HAPPENED YET? IT’S BEEN 3 DAYS….THIS IS THE BIGGEST JOKE EVER!

5. This quote from Scouts Inc.'s Jeremy Green to ESPN says it all: "We all go to the combine every year to look at receivers who are 5-11 and run a 4.7 40. Why not this kid? I could see it."

It's definitely a long shot and tough sell to Bolt and it's likely Bolt might state he's not interested. He grew up in Jamaica and might care less about professional football.

He might be more focused on, I don’t know…sprinting?

You won't know until you give it a chance. If he says no way, ask again. If he says no after that, ask once more. Do what it takes to get him on a football field.

Okay, fine….you want to see Bolt play football. Me too….sort of. By why all the hyperbole? Why should anyone take Mike Freeman seriously when he writes garbage like this?

Jemele Hill Creates another Argument to Refute

Way back when I wrote this piece on Jemele Hill’s insane Jordan vs. Bryant comparison, I noted the following:

I HATE when writers make arguments for themselves to counter like this. Jemele is the queen of that.

Jemele has since done this a couple other times, most recently in her column explaining why it’s okay that Randy Moss quit on the Raiders. You’ll see a couple of allusions to “many people” and “some” who’ve criticized the situation because Moss was supposed to be on the receiving end of bad karma. I read a fair amount of national sports writing. Honestly, this is not being played up. This is not an issue. Jemele is framing it as an issue so that she can dispel it, with a crazy conclusion that it’s okay to give up and collect huge paychecks for little effort. Vince Carter, you’re in the clear.

GLENDALE, Ariz. -- Normally, I don't condone athletes giving up. But in Randy Moss' case, he was right to quit on the Oakland Raiders.

So you don’t condone athletes giving up, but in a really high profile case of an athlete giving up, you’re not just okay with it…you think it was the right thing to do.

I bring this up because what happened with the Raiders continues to dog Moss' legacy, just as Kobe Bryant's seemingly self-imposed no-show against Phoenix in a deciding playoff game continues to indict him as a selfish player. Moss should be the No. 2 story of Super Bowl XLII. (Tom Brady is No. 1, of course.) But despite an impressive display of sincerity at Tuesday's media day, some people are still having trouble buying the new, wiser Randy Moss.

Are people really talking about this? I suppose, a little. But my question is; why wouldn’t it part of his legacy? Should we just ignore negatives and only remember positives? Can we forget this holocaust business and just remember how orderly and efficient Hitler was as a leader? Who says Moss should be the number 2 story of the Super Bowl? These are a few stories that should be bigger than Moss.

1.) A chance at 19-0.

2.) Patriots w/ a chance to win their 4th SB in 7 years. Same for Brady and Belichick, which is how QB’s and coaches are measured and puts them further into historically significant company.

3.) Eli Manning’s improbable late season performance and maturity. Manning making the Super Bowl a year after his brother.

4.) The Giants making the Super Bowl despite having to win 3 straight tough road playoff games. The Giants overall resurgence that seems to have started with the great Pats game in week 17.

In the eyes of fans and more than a few sportswriters, Moss playing for a Super Bowl ring upsets the balance of the sports universe.

“More than a few sportswriters”…..who? Name a few.

To many people, Moss is proof that sports karma doesn't always work. Despite giving a lackluster effort for much of his two years in Oakland, the stars aligned to send Moss to the best franchise of the millennium, which has put him one victory away from unprecedented history.

“Many people”. Name one. Who are you arguing with? The stars didn’t “align”; the Patriots took a chance that many other teams decided would not have taken. It's also not really putting "him" into history, but "the team", of which he is a part. Not wrong, but sort of different.

"I had to stay positive, but in the back of my mind, I didn't know if I would get here or not," Moss said.

I understand why Moss makes sports purists feel nauseated. He'd have probably stayed in the MVP conversation a bit longer had his Oakland days been further behind him. Fans will accept contract disputes, unproductive superstars, even lengthy championship droughts. But quitting on your team? That's always deemed unacceptable.

No no no. Moss isn’t in the MVP conversation because Tom Brady just quarterbacked a 16-0 team with arguably the best statistical passing season in history. That sort of defaults the MVP to him. I didn’t read one “the MVP is Moss, but I’m not voting for him because of the Oakland days” column. Who tolerates superstars being unproductive? Fans hate that!

Yet, on rare occasions, there are exceptions. And Moss' situation with Oakland is one of them. Because the Raiders quit on Moss just as much as he quit on them.

No they didn’t, because they kept paying him. Let’s make this real clear.

Randy Moss’ obligation: Play football hard, up to his potential. Earn his compensation.

Raiders’ obligation: Pay Randy Moss his compensation, per his contract.

One of these things happened, and one didn’t.

Moss always has been emotional, and it's no secret he has struggled with handling losing with dignity, as evidenced by his tantrums over the years. "I approached the game, when I was young, very angry," Moss said. "Not at anyone in particular, just the game of football."

When Moss fled to Oakland from Minnesota, there were high expectations, since the Raiders were only two seasons removed from playing in the Super Bowl and Moss was considered a great talent. But frustrating injuries limited Moss' effectiveness. And bad coaching, questionable play-calling, working alongside fellow malcontents such as Warren Sapp and Jerry Porter, and failures at quarterback -- all this amounted to a Molotov cocktail for Moss, which resulted in the perennial All-Pro becoming disinterested and loathed.

Some teams are not very good. Some teams almost always suck. There are players, sometimes star players, on those teams. It is their job to perform, even if the team sucks. This is not hard. Michael Jordan never quit on the ’85 Bulls because they were a bunch of druggy unprofessionals. Magic Johnson disliked Paul Westhead, but he still played hard for him.

"I'm a football player," Moss said. "That's what I do. Things really weren't going like I expected them to go. Not as an individual, but as a team. We had Derrick Burgess, Warren Sapp, a lot of guys that have names throughout this league. Expectations were high. Football wasn't a main priority around there."

Warren Sapp didn’t make Randy Moss drop those passes.

How Moss handled things certainly was immature. But can anyone honestly blame him for feeling the way he did? People who hate their jobs don't give their all -- that's a simple reality. And usually the biggest reason people hate their jobs is because they aren't being inspired or developed.

I can’t blame Moss for feeling the way he did, but I can blame him for playing the way he did. Moss has a bunch of excuses for not performing well in Oakland, but one of them is not that it was okay to stop trying. That’s a terrible message.

Let’s do a little play:

Jemele Hill: “Jemele Jr. can I see your report card?”

Jemele Jr.: “Here you go Mom, I got 4 A’s and 1 F”

Jemele Hill: “An F! Why? What happened?”

Jemele Jr: “Well, there are some popular kids in the class, but they are not good students, so I stopped thinking that was important. Also, the teacher didn’t really inspire me that much. Mostly, I just wasn’t happy with how everyone around me was performing, so I stopped trying. Our class, as a whole, wasn’t succeeding, so why should I try? I knew the material, I could have gotten A’s, but I didn’t want to try."

Jemele Hill: “Sounds good to me, here’s your allowance!”

Looking at the debacle the Raiders franchise has become -- and the wheels were in motion before Moss arrived -- is it unreasonable Moss wouldn't put it all on the line for that dysfunctional franchise? Just look at the problems the Raiders are having now with head coach Lane Kiffin, who seems to be lashing out the same way Moss did.

Put it all on the line = play football hard? Yes. Yes it’s perfectly reasonable to think he would do that. You act like they were asking him to secure Taliban occupied caves in Afghanistan with a bunch of 10 year old cub scouts. They were asking him to play football, and they were paying him to play football.

A gross amount of money and an excess of athletic ability doesn't prohibit athletes from feeling the same frustrations regular people feel. Moss was no different than the 9-to-5 guy who can't stand his idiotic boss.

But that guy still tries! I’ve been that guy! I still tried! I wasn’t making millions of dollars a year either.

Years ago, when Barry Sanders retired from the Detroit Lions via fax machine, a large number of Lions fans were angry at what they perceived to be a betrayal. Sanders never shorted his effort on the field, though he did pout at times. But he left the Lions soon after receiving an $11 million signing bonus and the biggest contract of his career. Many fans felt he should have stuck it out. But Sanders later admitted he retired as a healthy 30-year-old because he felt the Lions would never win. And to think, Sanders thought that way about the Lions before the Matt Millen era was in full swing.

But, see, that’s okay (assuming he refunded the portion of his signing bonus that hadn’t vested) because Sanders, as you note, CONTINUED TO TRY, DESPITE HIS TEAM SUCKING. This is evidence for the exact opposite point you are making. All the excuses that Moss has, Sanders had, but he never let it excuse him from putting in the effort. So thank you for…proving…you...wrong.

Sanders knew he was too good to play for an organization that bad. He might have handled his situation more maturely than Moss, but ultimately they both realized their talent was far too great to be controlled by people who didn't know how to win.

But….he handled it…..the opposite way?!?!?! So that’s not good for your argument, right?

That's why, when Moss said Tuesday he wanted to retire as a Patriot, I believed him. Call Moss a front-runner, but he essentially wants what all great players want: to play for an organization dedicated not only to winning, but to fostering his ability. Just ask Archie Manning if he would rather be known for nobly sticking it out with the struggling New Orleans Saints, or finishing as a champion.

Ask Archie Manning if he wishes he could go back in time and quit on his football team, because he was unhappy. I think he’ll say no. Nowhere is it written that each excellent professional athelte deserves to get, or will ever get, a shot at a team championship.

Of course, Moss should be held accountable for his actions in Oakland (and Minnesota). But it shouldn't define his career, or be the reason people root against him in Sunday's Super Bowl. Moss has atoned for his behavior in Oakland, and it's obvious the Raiders had bigger problems than him.

Again, this is a defense of an argument that is not being made.

Now, if you want to root against Moss because of his recent alleged domestic violence incident, or his other brushes with the law, that's fine. But getting indignant about Moss quitting on Oakland, given the reputation of that franchise, is like being upset if someone is unfaithful to Britney Spears.

Britney Spears, really? Really? Fucking really Jemele? I hate the sportswriter mindset that if I just throw an analogy to Britney Spears or Paris Hilton…then the point is made. Can’t you use something more fresh, like Hitler? That guy is on fire on TMZ.

Besides, Moss has made far more careers than he has destroyed. What was Daunte Culpepper without Moss? What about Brian Billick, who built a reputation for being an offensive genius because he coached Moss in Minnesota? Pre-Moss, people still had their doubts about whether Tom Brady was a great quarterback or just the product of a great system. No one says that anymore. With Moss, Brady became an MVP, and is in line to be regarded as the best quarterback of all time.

I'd say sports karma is working just fine.

This paragraph is in defense of Randy Moss’ abilities as a football player and his performance in Minnesota and New England. Something that no one is criticizing! No one is really talking all the much about how he played in Oakland either, but if they were, then pointing out how great he was in Minnesota and New England would only support their claim that he was dogging it and that’s not “right”. Again, this hurts, not helps, your point.

This does explain a lot of Jemele’s output though.

Add Sal Paolantonio To The List

Add Sal Paolantonio to the list of sportswriters who have no understanding of the phrase “small sample size”. I read over at The Big Lead today about Sal’s assertion that Barry Sanders is among the most over-rated players in NFL history. Now the NFL isn’t exactly my expertise, so I’ll leave Sal’s conclusion alone. Although I’ll say Sanders is one of the 10 most exciting athletes I’ve ever seen. The focus of this post is the way Sal gets to his conclusion. I’ve cut and pasted excerpts from his book that were excerpted on ESPN.com here.

He first focuses on Sanders’ touchdowns in his playoff games. Yes, 6 playoff games. The crazy thing is, Barry Sanders is known for sort of falling off in the playoffs, but having an unreal career over the regular season. As far as I can see, he is “rated” just fine. But here’s where it gets nutty:

Sanders' postseason performance supports the notion that he was a product of the cozy, climate-controlled Silverdome. Nice carpet for easy, stop-on-a-dime maneuvering. Seventy-two degrees. Detroit faithful keeping the defensive line off balance with high decibel support.

In four career outdoor postseason games, Sanders averaged a paltry 2.8 yards per carry. He never scored a touchdown. And he never ran for more than 65 yards in a single game. With Sanders, the Lions went 0-4 in outdoor playoff games, losing by an average of 17 points.

But this picture of perfection has a nasty blemish. Once Sanders got to the big stage, and got out of the Silverdome, he was a bust.

Holy shit. Four games! He then talks about how Barry had more help than you realize (really, did he have Emmitt Smith’s help? What about Terrell Davis?) and how the way that Sanders left was abrupt and mysterious. Who gives a shit? That shouldn’t impact how we view his performance on the field. Also, if you take out one horrific game (-1 yards) versus a very good Green Bay team, his average in the other three games was 3.8 YPC. Not Barry Sanders good, but not 2.8 either.

Now, let’s get back to this Silverdome thing. See, I think that when a running back plays for 10 years, then perhaps you can’t conclude that they were over-rated and benefited from their home stadium just because of how they performed on the road….in the playoffs….in 4 games. I was unable to find home/road splits for Sanders so I compiled them myself (took about 20 minutes, Sal) from this site.

These are numbers I compiled, and have not been subject to review. If someone is really anal out there, e-mail me and I’ll e-mail you my data. There’s probably a site out there with this but I couldn’t find it.

These are regular season only:

Career at Home: 78 Games – 1,619 Carries – 8,053 yards – 5.0 YPC
Career on Road: 75 Games – 1,443 Carries – 7,216 yards – 5.0 YPC

Now, since he also implied that the temperature controlled Dome played a role, I’ve bifurcated the road numbers into Indoor/Outdoor games:

Indoor Road Games – 18 Games – 316 Carries – 1,528 yards – 4.84 YPC
Outdoor Road Games – 57 Games – 1,127 Carries – 5,688 yards – 5.05 YPC

I did this split myself, as the site didn't indicate the type of stadium. Note that I counted 1 game in Dallas as outdoors because the field is at least open to the elements.

Now, this is simplistic of course – the dome games may have been against inferior defenses over all. But the fact is simply that it’s a wash. I do not buy the; it was the “big stage” of the playoffs coupled with the non-climate controlled stadium with the crowd noise. I think he looked at 4 games, and I think that is stupid.

At least this was published in an innocuous little post on ESPN.com…..oh wait, yeah …..it’s in his book.

I’ll also point to this post on armchair GM which has a different view on some of the playoff numbers.

Gregg Easterbrook Is Still Very Wordy

In this week's TMQ, Gregg Easterbrook spends 1,800 words on the Patriots being evil. This isn’t written in the guise of comedy or to be witty or something. Since GGAS recently moved our offices to New England, I’ll put this out there in the interest of full disclosure; I root for New England teams. Now I’ll balance that out with this: I’m not really an NFL fan. I enjoy watching the Patriots because they are good, not because they are “my team”, because they are not. Now, much of TMQ is essentially calling Bill Belichick and Tom Brady classless assholes who were running up the score against the Dolphins on Sunday and have been the NFL embodiment (on the field and off) of evil, while the Colts (specifically Dungy and Manning) represent all that is good. I have nothing against Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning, but I just think Easterbrook's entire premise and arguments against the Patriots is silly.

To address the accusation of running up the score in yesterdays win against the Dolphins, he spends a lot of time on the logistics of the plays that were called to support his claims. Personally, I don’t give a shit if they were, but is it really a big issue today? It’s not like it was 63-0 and they continued to try to score. It just seems like a non-issue when you consider it was 42-7 at halftime and the final was 49-28. I mean, I got to think they’d be a little better about running up the score than to be outscored 21-7 in the second half.

It also makes little sense when you consider one of his “stats of the week:”

Stat of the Week No. 2: At one point, Tennessee led Houston 32-7 and held a 311-34 advantage in offensive yards, yet the Titans ended up needing a field goal on the final snap to win.

Look, the Patriots had a massive lead at halftime, and the odds of the Dolphins coming back were slim, but come-backs do happen. I think if Matt Cassel didn't get picked and the Dolphins weren't putting points on the board he would have finished off the game. Get over it. Oh no wait, write 1,800 words about it. Yeah, that makes more sense.

I’ll try to parse out some specific items that I thought were a little over the top/unfair.

Their coach, Tony Dungy, smiles in public and answers honestly whatever he is asked: He never yells at players or grimaces at bad plays and, when defeated, doesn't act as though it's the end of the world.

Okay, so that’s the mark of a “good” coach. So Red Auerbach, who yelled at his players on the court…he’s evil? Bobby Knight? That guy must be the devil. Doesn’t Peyton Manning yell at people from time to time and even (gasp) grimace after a bad play? Is this worth our time? Did Vince Lombardi, the man credited with “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing” act like it was the end of the world when he lost (sounds like it)? These are rhetorical questions that I realize don’t directly address his point, that Tony Dungy is the embodiment of “good”, but is the antithesis of these acts really the embodiment of “evil”. That’s stupid.

The team has three Super Bowl triumphs, yet its players regularly whine about not being revered enough.

I honestly have to disagree. Other than the standard locker room fare that teams use to search for motivation (‘the other team is favored to win’ kind of stuff), I have never heard the mainstays on these Patriots teams (or the new players, since they joined the Patriots) whining about not being revered enough. If there are examples, then I’ll admit I’m wrong, because I’m not soaking up a ton of NFL media. But don’t say “regularly” without giving me one example.

The team's star, Tom Brady, is a smirking sybarite who dates actresses and supermodels but whose public charity appearances are infrequent. That constant smirk on Brady's face reminds one of Dick Cheney; people who smirk are fairly broadcasting the message, "I'm hiding something."

This is a very petty attack on Tom Brady. Let’s review:

Smirking sybarite:

Okay, I had to look up the word sybarite because I’m not as smart as Gregg Easterbrook, but dictionary.com defines it as the following: a person devoted to luxury and pleasure.

So we’re making an attack on Tom Brady for smirking - which implies that he’s going out of his way to put on a negative vibe - and apparently liking luxury and pleasure. What-fucking-ever man. I recommend you not study Tom Brady’s face so much.

Dates actresses and supermodels

So? Is that evil? What if he dated cheerleaders like the ones you pretend to like and post all over TMQ, to compensate for the fact that you are kind of a dork? Check it out! I like chicks too!

..but whose public charity appearances are infrequent.

True, Brady’s ratio of supermodels dated to charitable donations is pretty low. Evil!

That constant smirk on Brady's face reminds one of Dick Cheney; people who smirk are fairly broadcasting the message, "I'm hiding something."

What the fuck are you talking about? This is very irresponsible ad-hominem attacks in the name of being righteous. You can’t say “he smirks” and then leap to “he’s dishonest”. Gregg, your writing REAKS of pomposity and arrogance. That tells me that you’re an asshole. Is that fair?

The TMQ loves rhetorical questions. Let’s answer a few.

The New England players still might suffer some long-term harm from the cheating, though: Given the image New England is projecting, would you want Patriots' players endorsing your product?

I don’t think Tom Brady will have any trouble getting endorsements because of Belichick’s taping scandal. I see Patriots players advertising all sorts of shit in New England, and there really aren’t that many NFL stars involved in national ads, but Brady is one of them. So that’s bunk.

But if the Patriots are unfairly maligned, why the whole screw-you act they are staging?

If you were unfairly maligned, wouldn’t your mentality be of the “screw-you” variety? Mine would be. I peg you as saying:

Gregg: "I'm being unfairly maligned, but please please see that my heart is pure, and look at the ass on that one!"
Me: Gregg that's a man
Gregg: I like naked women!
Me: Sure.

If the Patriots were unfairly maligned, they'd be trying hard to convince us their hearts are pure, and that distinctly is not what they are doing.

Woah woah woah. Hearts are pure? Man I was kidding about that shit (okay I cheated). No, if a team is accused of cheating, they don’t then go out and play and try to barely win, but in a “our hearts are pure” kind of way. No. They try to win in a way that says, “do you see any cheating now, while I’m kicking your ass?” This is pretty simple.

But if the Patriots are so awesome they don't need to cheat, then why were they cheating in Week 1? The whole situation remains creepy. Should New England continue on and win the Super Bowl without a major attitude shift toward nice-guy behavior -- and should the year end without the NFL's ever explaining what New England evidence it destroyed or why -- there could be a huge amount of cynicism about this NFL season. Cynicism doesn't sell a sports product, nor is it what the NFL should be marketing to the young.

This is a great example of how Easterbrook can, in a passive way, make incredible leaps in logic that just make little sense. It’s a pretty innocent little set of sentences, but the statement that he’s making is pretty grandiose. I’ll just chime in and say that there won’t be a huge amount of cynicism if things play out with the Patriots winning the Super Bowl, for precisely the reason why you are wrote those 1,800 words. They are kicking everyone’s ass, and letting it be known that they are the better team, regardless of what your opinions of them and the taping scandal are. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

This entire post is less than 1,400 words - he wrote 1,800 about the Patriots being evil. That's a little obsessive.

Reggie Bush = Tony Mandarich Level Draft Bust?

Mike Freeman of CBS Sportsline has decided (here) we need to be talking about Reggie Bush being among the most overrated athletes ever and a huge draft bust in the vein of Tony Mandarich (so, historically big). Me? I think it’s a little too soon, and that’s a little extreme. But Mike segued his Bush column into a list of the top 10 most overrated athletes ever and a quick list of his top 10 underrated. The lists seem to have been compiled sort of off-the-cuff, but I’m going to make fun of them anyway.

10. Vince Carter –- His terrible shooting makes him one dimensional.

Okay – then what’s his one dimension? Passing? Vince Carter is overrated because he doesn’t, you know, TRY all the time, and he settles for jump shots way too much and is not close to being the defender he should be with this athleticism. He’s overrated because, despite his unbelievable talent, he fails to dominate games consistently the way an elite player should. But he’s not a bad shooter, never mind being terrible.

Career FG-3PFG %’s

Carter –.477 / .377
Kobe Bryant - .453/.337
Ray Allen - .446/.397
Tracy McGrady - .439/.332

Those are literally the first 3 guys I looked up. Measuring shooting ablity is obviously more complex than this (glancing at %’s), but c’mon, THAT’s the reason Carter makes your list?

9. Chris Webber –- Average NBA career but grand name recognition.

Overrated? Yes. But “average NBA career?” is ridiculous. One of the top 10 power forwards ever? Maybe. One of the best passing PF’s? Yes. Average NBA career? Huh? He was on an all-NBA team 5 times.

8. Jose Canseco -– Has had more of an impact on baseball post-career with his mouth than he ever did with his bat.

In fairness to Jose, he had more of an impact on baseball post-career with his mouth than most other sluggers did with their bats. Not many people put Jose’s playing career on a pedestal, so I’m not sure why it’s overrated. He was awesome for a couple of years though. I think even most moderate baseball fans have his career pretty well pegged.

7. John Daly –- Could easily be top three.

Golf schmolf.

6. Bo Jackson –- Both overrated and underrated. Overrated because his career was so short; underrated because he is one of the best athletes sports has ever witnessed.

Then don’t those two things offset each other, leaving him correctly “rated”. But very clever having him on both lists!

5. Reggie Bush –- This from former Denver offensive lineman and current analyst Mark Schlereth: "You look at Reggie Bush. Reggie Bush doesn't know how to run between the tackles right now. He's a guy that's an edge runner. He's a guy that right now is not fulfilling his part of this offense."

Bush was the subject of his column, but can we give this a little more time please? Number 5 ALL-TIME…out of every sport!

4. Joe Namath –- 220 interceptions, one championship and a lot of horrible seasons.

Ok. He’s a classic pick.

3. Michael Vick –- Good player but career shortened due to stupidity.

Number 3 most overrated athlete ever, because he was stupid? What if his career was cut short due to a freak injury, like Bo Jackson, then does he make both lists too?

2. Mike Tyson -- Devastating puncher and one trick fighter.

I suppose a good argument for Tyson being this high exists, but I really don’t think most sports fans rank him that high on their all-time heavyweight list. Like, because he lost to Holyfield twice, most people aren’t putting him ahead of Holyfield. ANYWAY. He was never the same after he fired Kevin Rooney and subsequently caught a crazy uppercut from Buster Douglas in Tokyo. He was probably overrated until about February of 1990 (based on how he panned out), when people were calling him the best boxer ever. In 2007, he’s considered a crazy flash in the pan who had some freakish good years against sub-par competition. And that’s about right.

1. David Beckham –- No one, but no one, comes even close.

Soccer, schmoccer.

(A quick top 10 most underrated ever: Marion Motley, Artis Gilmore, Justine Henin, Bo Jackson, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Olympic star Rafer Johnson, Donovan McNabb (maybe the most under-appreciated player in NFL history), Don Hutson, Jim Rice, and Lenny Moore.)

I have no energy for this so I’ll just bullet out some observations:

- Bo Jackson is on both lists. That’s retarded.

- You have McNabb as the most underrated QB in history. I’m not an NFL guy but that strikes me as probably not being true and McNabb is possibly benefiting from a great game he played like 4 days ago.

- You have Jim Rice as the most underrated baseball player ever (ignoring Bo Jackson here). I have no idea where that is going, but given the healthy debate he’s involved in every year over his Hall of Fame candidacy, and the fact that he probably shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame, I disagree.

- Track and Field stars not named Carl Lewis are pretty much all underrated, because no one cares about Track and Field.

Gilmore is a pretty solid pick.

Gregg Easterbrook Writes a Long-Ass Column

So I'm really tired and this post may be very sloppy and non-sensical.... but what the hell, right?
Gregg Easterbrook writes an incredibly long-winded column on ESPN page 2 called “Tuesday Morning Quarterback” where he explains why he’s so much smarter than you and everyone else. I just finished reading this week's edition and I’m too tired to type a better intro. For the record I don't hate the guy or think he's unintelligent. He often has many good points, particularly about NFL strategy. But he can get a little too righteous for my liking.

On the NBA point below, I’m not really saying he’s wrong, just responding. I don’t know. I’m really tired, just read it. I’m not even going to address his hyperbole when talking about the impact of the camera issue on the NFL - but feel free to check out his column for his (long) take on it (hint: it's catastrophic). Also, if you want a lot of comparisons of Bill Belichick and Richard Nixon, that link will suit you well.

Think the NFL can't decline? Fifteen years ago, the National Basketball Association was going up, up, up by every measure and was widely considered the gold-plated can't-miss "sport of the next century." Since then, NBA popularity and ratings have plummeted while NBA-based teams have floundered in international competition.

No, actually NBA popularity and ratings plummeted when Michael Jordan retired, which coincided with a lockout. There are dozens of other reasons, but I’d point to those two first. Also, losing in international competition is largely the result of much improved international competition.

I believe it was 1994 when Sports Illustrated had a cover story called something like “Why the NHL is hot, and the NBA is not”. Just saying.

Fifteen years ago, sports-marketing types would have said "impossible!" to the notion that only 11 percent of American households would watch the NBA Finals, which is what happened this June.

Look at the chart midway down on the left of this page. Notice anything? The ratings were high with Jordan or Los Angeles in the Finals, and pretty much lower any time the Spurs were involved. Also, this is a long time to be reviewing ratings. I think if you told the sports-marketing types about the rise in video games, and explained to them “the Internet”, TIVO/DVR, and cable packages with hundreds of channels and then told them the finals would be played between San Antonio and Cleveland, they would have thought of that notion as being very possible.

I also couldn’t quite follow Easterbrook’s train of thought when talking about the possibility of the Patriots cheating on Sunday night against the Chargers. Namely if they had used illegally obtained video from the January AFC playoff game (which he acknowledges had different coaching) to their advantage on Sunday night.

Was New England cheating again Sunday night, when the Patriots advanced the ball with such ease it seemed they knew what defense San Diego would be in?

He's asking that question for real. It's at the tail end of a paragraph where he explains exactly how the Patriots could have been cheating. Now let’s read some snippets of his analysis of the game from a different section of his column.

What in blazes was the story with the Chargers? Rarely has a quality team seemed so ill-prepared for a monster game, and rarely has a quality team seemed to give up the moment the going got tough.

He then goes through several plays where the Chargers should have known what was coming, but were ill-prepared. Based on AccuScore and (he seems to imply) common sense, the Chargers were not playing smart.

He concludes just by saying, “That's awful defense” after both long-winded detailed paragraphs explaining how the Chargers sucked.

But what was really awful about San Diego's performance was the coaching timidity.

He then goes into detail about how San Diego should have gone for it fourth-and-1 near midfield in the second quarter when they were already down 17 points and later in the quarter they punted again on 4th and 2.

When the coach quits on the game in the second quarter, it should come as no surprise that the players quit.

So first he questions if they were cheating because they advanced the ball easily and seemed to know what defense was coming.

Then we get:
- “ill-prepared”
- “awful defense”
- “awful defense”
- “coaching timidity”
- “coach quits”
- “players quit”
…to describe the Chargers.

Hmm, well….. I realize that those statements and the Patriots cheating aren’t mutually exclusive, but why would anyone who watched the game waste time putting a lot of thought into crediting their offensive output to the Patriots cheating, especially when that person has such disdain for the Chargers’ defensive execution, strategy, and effort?

Bill Simmons Would Like You to Focus On Important Stuff!

It is hugely ironic to me that Bill Simmons is so outraged at the level of coverage given to the Bill Belichick issue that he has decided to preach to us and the networks about how our news prioritization is fucked up. This is a guy who has written thousands of words about old, socially irrelevant television shows and running diaries on completely useless shit. I’ll let him take it away:

We live in a world in which global-warming activists charter private jets to take them from speech to speech, then tell people not to use so much toilet paper. We live in a world in which American kids are getting killed every day in the Middle East and nobody will mobilize a valid protest until the President finally decides, "We're having a draft lottery." We live in a world in which you can Google the female star of the most popular Disney TV movie ever and see her naked, and NBC runs a popular show in which they trap potential child predators and film the confrontations on TV. We live in a world in which high school kids can decide they don't like another high school kid, so they can build an anonymous slam page and libel the hell out of him, and even though this happens and keeps happening, we still don't have any set-in-stone Internet laws to prevent this. We live in a world in which Perez Hilton and TMZ.com get their own TV shows, but "Friday Night Lights" is two months away from getting canceled. We live in a world in which every home run record from the past 10 years has to be taken not just with a grain of salt, but an entire salt shaker.

So save me the moral indignation about CameraGate. The whole world is screwed up. We watch football every week because the games are entertaining, because it's something to do, because it gives us something to discuss with our friends, co-workers and family members. If you're searching for a football-related moral cause with some meat, watch this month's feature about Earl Campbell on "Costas Now." He's the Texas hero who got chewed up and spit out by professional football; now he suffers from crippling back and knee problems and needs a cane or a wheelchair to get around. The NFL makes roughly a kajillion dollars a year, only its player's union doesn't give two craps about a deteriorating ex-star like Campbell, one of the watershed stars of the '70s and someone who helped push the league to its current heights. They have a lame pension program and no disability benefits, and they have a union head (Gene Upshaw) who openly admits he's paid to worry about current players and not former ones ... even though he's a former player himself. Of course, that story isn't nearly as controversial as the current Patriots scandal because we can't slap a "Gate" behind it. Too bad.

We live in a world where Bill Simmons gets paid to write running diaries of the Scripps National Spelling Bee and Comedy Roasts; where he gets paid to write about his favorite YouTube clips; where he gets paid to write about Las Vegas once a month, name drop his buddies, reference archaic, meaningless shows like Beverly Hills 90210 and talk incessantly about TV and Movies in a sports column. He should be licking is chops to write about an actual news story involving the NFL…on the field.

Simmons’ point is mind-bogglingly stupid but his self-righteousness is in his way of seeing that. Bill, Iraq has been going on for YEARS, so has just about all the things you noted (or other similar things), which is why during the Patriots game, the first game since “Camera-gate”, THAT was the big story. Who cares if, in the grand scale of immoralities, it ranks below other highly questionable circumstances? On Sunday, during the only NFL game on at night, and with the Patriots playing, it WAS STILL the story. You can’t get mad because one commentator didn’t interrupt the other to say, “Can we talk about Earl Campbell’s knees for one sweet minute?” It's not like they didn't cover the game and just rambled about the issue for 3 hours.

Nothing in your rant changes what should have been the story in the specific context of the Patriots game. During the first game after the incident, the incident IS the story (even if racism and war exist in the world). If Tony Dungy was accused of what Belichick is accused of, then you would be talking about it 10 times as much and with 10 times the disdain. You would be demanding that the Patriots be allowed to play the Bears to re-do the Super Bowl without the cheatin’ Colts.

I understand that Bill’s point was not that Global Warming or the Iraq war should have been front and center stories on Sunday night NFL. I guess his point was the world is so screwed up, we should just focus on the product on the field and minimize off-the field news. Did he actually talk about steroids there? Now THAT is a story that has received more than its share of attention. We should ignore the camera story and talk about it even more, because it's had a greater impact on sports? For a sportswriter to be so dismissive of a sports issue because it is minor in a global context (or even a global sporting context) is laughable. Especially when that sportswriter is the king of writing about inconsequential bullshit that is trivial even to the professional sports “world”.

The crazy thing is that Bill had a lot of good observations about the actual game. It’s too bad he couldn’t do what he was asking of the commentators and stop harping on “camera-gate”. The column is more effective and a lot less maddening without the two paragraphs I cited above.

Garnett and Culpepper Are Just NAMES

Ray Ratto was a scrub wrestler from the 1980’s. I remember him submitting in the Billy Jack Haynes full nelson in about 4 seconds. Okay just kidding, he’s a columnist at CBS sportsline.com, where I have never read a single decent column but feel the need to keep going back because it’s so terrible. Ray Ratto just sounds like a scrub wrestler name. His latest work, "K.G.? Daunte? NAMES will always fool us", is about how we shouldn’t get all riled up about NAMES. Because NAMES don’t mean anything and are over-rated.

Daunte Culpepper isn't likely to save the Oakland Raiders from another hard year.

Well, duh, he’s sucked or has been injured the last couple of years. He’s a huge question mark and is effectively a place holder for JaMarcus Russell. Plus, it’s football, and one guy doesn’t mean that much to a teams success, unlike basketball.

And Kevin Garnett won't make the Boston Celtics a title contender in the Eastern Conference.

Oh.

Well, not alone. But he and Ray Allen combined with Paul Pierce immediately creates a pretty formidable line-up that everyone besides you thinks will challenge for the Eastern Conference. But I’m sure you have some good, sound, reasoned support for this logic.

But they are NAMES, and we love NAMES. NAMES have done great things in the past, or looked like they were going to. They make their new teams intriguing because their NAMES are attached to them.

Good god, this is unreadable.

We ask too much of them, though. We always do.

I see.

Garnett's trade to Boston in exchange for several itinerant Celtics and a four-year extension on his elephantine contract made the Celtics an Eastern Conference power again, after the lost 15 years of the post-Bird Era. That is, if you believed the drooly hysteria you read and heard over the last week.

Or if you have a passing knowledge of Kevin Garnett’s current ability and the relative competition in the Eastern Conference. Also, itinerant means nomadic. So they are…nomadic players? Like Al Jefferson, Gerald Green and draft picks?

But there is a lot more drool than truth here, because Garnett comes to a team with two other $20 million/per players (Paul Pierce, Ray Allen) around him, and a glorified D-League cornucopia after that. The Celtics were the worst team in the East last year, yet nobody asked to show how Garnett is suddenly worth 40 wins, except to say, "It's the East."

No one with a brain is saying he’s worth 40 wins. The biggest improvement ever was a Spurs team that added Tim Duncan and David Robinson coming back from injury (played 6 games the year before). You just made this up to refute it as stupid. I fucking hate that.

Paul Pierce only played in 47 games last year. Had he played 82 games, and the Celtics won the same % of games that they won in the games he played, they would have won like 35 games. Not good, but much better than 24 wins. I think, in effect, that many people are saying that Garnett and Ray Allen will result in about a 15-20 win improvement (on the 35 wins). But anything can happen in the playoffs.

Neither Paul Pierce or Ray Allen made $20 million last year. I don’t know their upcoming salaries but they’d need pretty good size raises to reach $20 million.

And nobody tries to explain how the Celtics are suddenly the equal of the Pistons, Heat, Bulls or Wizards, because they can't. Not with a straight face, anyway. They are, at best, scrambling to get to that second rung on the Eastern stepstool, the kind of team that wins 39 games and is in the hunt for a playoff berth until the end.

No one is delusional and thinks that three guys who have not played together will instantly gel into a 65 win team. But, if healthy, they seem to have the type of game and personality that would mesh pretty well together. Remember how well the Timberwolves did with Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell? Well, that’s what people are thinking, but in a weaker conference and with better stars than Cassell and Sprewell. You think they are a 39 win team, not nearly as good as the Wizards. I see. How many games did the Wizards win last year? 41. Makes sense, let’s move on!

But Garnett is a NAME, surrounded by two other NAMES in Allen and Pierce, and so those who don't say they can win the conference say that they are "relevant" again, which is a keen word that in this context means "OK, I'll watch 'em if I don't have anything better to do."

That’s not what relevant means. That’s what relative indifference means. Relevant means I’ll try to watch them, frequently. Also, you’re using keen like a word that means the exact opposite. Like nebulous. But you’re the writer and I’m internet columnist reader guy.

You see, while Garnett was and is a sensational player, he is once again surrounded by substandard support (and no, we are not speaking of Pierce and Allen as support, but the other nine players, if they can afford that many), plus he is working for a general manager and coach (Danny Ainge and Doc Rivers) who are probably holding their jobs by their teeth. This actually looks worse the longer you look at it, but we love stars, and Kevin Garnett is a star. Better, he is a NAME, and we think NAMES can solve any problem, even this one.

Why can’t we speak of Pierce and Allen as support? You need, like 2-3 stars, 3-4 functional players and a couple of serviceable guys who aren’t total fuckups to have a good basketball team. Are they deep? No, of course not. But most teams really aren’t either.

If Ainge and Rivers are barely holding onto their jobs, won’t that increase the pressure to win, now? How is that fact, in and of itself, bad for the Celtics performance in ’07-08? I say “in and of itself” because you do still have Doc Rivers coaching the team, and that’s not good.

So good luck on that one.

As for Culpepper, he has signed a one-year deal to rent in Oakland, who have been the Celtics of football for the last few years. Culpepper is a NAME, too, even though he was hurt all of 2005 and had a terrible experience with Nick Saban in Miami in '06. He is coming to a team that doesn't have equivalents for Paul Pierce or Ray Allen, one which managed last year to perform the extraordinary feat of finishing 12 games behind its division leader in a 16-game schedule. If anything, the Raiders of '06 were worse at what they did than the '07 Celtics were at what they did.

Right, I agree, these are two situations that are totally incomparable and it would be a waste of everyone’s time to compare them.

And unlike the Celtics, who are now married to Garnett for years to come, Culpepper goes to the Raiders as a layover until a better destination comes along next year.

Also, basketball is played on hardwood, and football is played on a big field. In addition, if you tried playing basketball with a football you would be very frustrated when dribbling, but outlet passes would rock.

He has superficial comparison points to unsigned draft choice JaMarcus Russell, and he could serve as a starter and mentor (or backup and mentor, if the Raiders want to irritate the hell out of him), but our interest is strictly based on Culpepper being a NAME.

What do you want fans to do? They are simply tracking the news. Big name players, and players who were once really good, is generally news. No one thinks this means that the Raiders will be winning the Super Bowl.

He once led the Vikings to a 15-1 record, then without Randy Moss (who preceded him in Oakland and essentially removed himself from the Hall of Fame as a result) faded, was catastrophically injured, and served as his own agent to get a flexible deal that would put him back on the market next year.

So more on why the situations are incomparable, then you drop the comparison on us. NAME! Wham! Brilliant!

This, then, doesn't sound like anything other than two sides in a jam who happened to have what the other side wanted, and much less a matter of the Raiders wanting another NAME from that mythical Viking team nobody remembers anyway.

Um, yeah. Insightful! Let’s just look at your picture instead of parsing this mess.





New GGAS policy, no pictures of Ray Ratto.

Still, it has our interest because Culpepper is, in fact, still a NAME, and everyone is still a sucker for a NAME.

Culpepper really doesn’t have our interest, or at least mine. The Garnett situation does, because he’s been an awesome player for a long time and him going to the Celtics with Pierce and Allen is interesting to basketball fans. What, you goofy looking bastard, is so bad about that?

In fact, you know who else is a NAME? Michael Vick. But that's another story, or stories, for other times.

So, what are we as fans supposed to do? Not care about the NAMES? I don’t get the point? Write a fucking story about Jeff Suppan or Udonis Haslem if you don’t care about NAMES.

And STOP CAPITALIZING "NAMES"!