Winners & Losers on the NFL Schedule, Week 1

This is a preview of a new feature I'll be doing as the season goes on. It's the good and bad game (or games, possibly) from each week of the NFL season.

Week 1 is absolutely stacked, so this should be one of the tougher weeks. We kick off the NFL regular season September 8th on NBC with Packers-Saints in Green Bay. The two latest Super Bowl winners. Even though they had a quick exit in the playoffs, the Saints did not drop off that much in 2010 from their championship season of '09. This game is my overall winner for Week 1, but since there are games on Sunday and Monday, we can't leave those out.

Honorable mention goes to CBS's marquee Sunday afternoon matchup of Ravens-Steelers. It's the Steelers and the Ravens. Need I say more?

My loser for the week is the Monday Night Football doubleheader of Patriots-Dolphins and Broncos-Raiders. I just can't get too excited about either of these games.

Honorable mention loser goes to FOX's "Game of the Week" or whatever the hell it's called. Giants-Redskins. I'm sorry, I know it's the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and all and the connections between New York and Washington D.C. that come with it, but still, is that the best you can do, FOX? Rant ends here. Have a good one.

NFL on FOX 2011 Announcing Teams Announced

Wow, where have I been? Well, I am still alive and with football season approaching (thankfully), we can now look forward to broadcast schedules and the like. FOX has recently announced their announcer pairings and slots (as I like affectionately call batting order) for the 2011 season. And, unfortunately for viewers, the results are not spectacular.

1.) Joe Buck, Troy Aikman - No change from last year. Or the year before that and the year before that and the year before that, I think you get the picture.

2.) Kenny Albert, Daryl Johnston - No change from last year for FOX's "B" crew, either. And they will still have the (dis)pleasure of Tony Siragusa, who offers nothing in the way of insightful analysis. Oh well.

3.) Thom Brennaman, Brian Billick - Same team, different slot. They've moved up a slot from last year, which is probably no matter. Brennaman will spell Buck during the baseball playoffs. Whee!

4.) Dick Stockton, John Lynch. Stockton was the "C" team announcer last year, who was paired with Charles Davis, who has slipped to 8th in the FOX batting order (and probably for the better). Lynch has moved up 2 slots from last year.

5.) Chris Myers, Tim Ryan - Ryan was the 5th slot analyst last year, but was paired with Sam Rosen, who unfortunately has slipped to 7th. Myers was the 7th slot announcer last year. This and FOX's 8th team (read below) may be the bottom of the barrel of NFL announcing teams for 2011 just because of Myers.

6.) Ron Pitts, Jim Mora Jr. - Pitts was the 6th team announcer last year, but Mora Jr. is a new addition. I see potential in this team.

7.) Sam Rosen, Chad Pennington - Whoo boy, gotta feel sorry for this team, as I feel they should be slotted much higher, but it's not up to me. The recently retired Pennington has always struck observers as one of the smartest and more cerebral quarterbacks, so he will potentially become a welcome new face to the NFL on Sunday.

8.) Gus Johnson, Charles Davis, Tim Brewster - Last and least is this crew, and (probably) thankfully they won't even work every NFL week (FOX rarely airs 8 games a Sunday).

So are the announcing pairs really that bad? Or are we lowering our standards for them and we'll get blown away by their performance this year. Who knows. NFL on FOX has a doubleheader Week 1 (September 11) with Falcons-Bears and Giants-Redskins the marquee matchups. (Does it surprise you that two NFC East teams that did not make the playoffs last year will be worked by the "A" crew?)

YouTube Finds: Jon Gruden Post -"Snow Bowl" Press Confrence & Al Davis' Post-Gruden Trade Press Confrence

Yes, I'm still alive, believe it or not. There's just not much going on that I feel like talking about, with most of the NFL talk surrounding the frickin' lockout. The only "good" news is Marv Albert has joined the NFL on CBS crew, filling Gus Johnson's vacancy. This is good news providing a.) He does more prominent games than Johnson ever did, perhaps challenging Jim Nantz's A-crew spot (that's wishful thinking). Or b.) He does NOT challenge Greg Gumbel's B-crew spot with Dan Dierdorf. So where does that leave the YES! man? Well, actually, not too many places, unless he indeed becomes the fifth-tier announcer, but I could see them bumping his TNT partner Kevin Harlan down a spot and Albert becoming the 4th tier-announcer. We will see, providing there is football, of course.

Now, onto why I really decided to come out of hiding and post. It's regarding a couple of interesting NFL-related YouTube finds.

The first series of videos is then-Raiders coach Jon Gruden post "Snow Bowl" press conference regarding the call, the game, his relationship with the organization, and his future with the team.

The second is Al Davis' press conference the morning after Gruden's trade with the Buccaneers (I can't exactly find the exact date the trade took place, but from the sounds of things, it was after the Super Bowl).

Now for a little reaction from me. I really think this was a sudden situation, I don't think there was some grand conspiracy behind it. The Bucs fired Tony Dungy, and were in need of a head coach, especially after their primary candidate, Bill Parcells, turned the job down and Steve Mariucci decided to stay in San Francisco. Bucs management appealed to Gruden heart and appealed to Davis' wallet, essentially, and I guess Davis thought that his team could have long-term success without Gruden.

For better or for worse, it the press conferences paint Gruden as a mercenary. Despite two division titles and an improving offense, Gruden wanted to coach with a team his family had connections with and wanted to be near family (his brother Jay was the quarterback of the Arena League Orlando Predators) .

And regarding the conversations between Gruden and Bucs management after the loss in Foxboro, Gruden was best to keep them secret from the media, because at first, even Al Davis was in total disagreement, but they were able to make a deal at the last minute and the rest is history.

Now, for the draft picks the Raiders got as compensation. They got first and second round picks in 2002, which turned into Phillip Buchanon and Langston Walker, who weren't exactly busts (Buchanon was still in the league as of 2010), a first round pick in 2003 (Tyler Brayton, who also was still in the league as of 2010 and also not exactly a bust), and finally, a second-round pick in 2004 (Jake Grove, a lineman, who has been a backup with both the Raiders and the Dolphins. He is still a free agent and did not play with a team in 2010).

So while the draft picks the Raiders got as compensation did not turn out to be jackpot players, they were hardly busts, either.

Some speculate that another reason why Davis was willing to let Gruden go was because Davis did not agree with Gruden "West Coast" style of offense. If that were the truth, then why did Davis say he allowed Gruden to pick his own coordinators? You would think with Davis' influence, if he did not agree with a coordinator's hire, that he would intervene and handpick somebody instead.

Another speculation is that Davis was willing to let Gruden go because he would have been in the last year of his contract in 2002 and that Davis was thinking about not signing Gruden to an extension. That may hold water, but to me that fact is nominal in whatever compelled Davis to let Gruden go.

I think it was the lure of draft picks and money that wooed Davis to allow Gruden to essentially be traded. And it was the beginning of the end of Davis to be able to make rational decisions about hiring and firing coaches.

Gus Johnson To FOX...I Care Why?

I am not a Gus Johnson fan in the least. I don't like his style, I don't like his calls. I don't like that his calls become part of the game. I don't like him, and apparently CBS doesn't, either. Gus, who worked at the eye network for 13 years for their NCAA basketball and NFL telecasts, was a favorite with younger fans a the blogosphere for reasons I'll never comprehend, but that's neither here nor there. What I hate the most his the blogosphere's love-affair for what I see as a sub-par announcer, that's the biggest problem I have.

He was never a top-tier announcer, obviously. In 1998, when football returned to CBS, Johnson and Steve Tasker were paired in the #4 spot on the CBS totem pole. In 1999 and 2000, Johnson was paired with Brent Jones in the #4 spot, where he would stay until 2006, when he and Steve Tasker dropped to the #5 slot (Jones left part-way into the 2005 season). Then the next season, Johnson and Tasker dropped to the #7 slot, where they remained until last season.

It has already been confirmed that Johnson will be lead announcer for FOX's college football telecasts for Pac 12 coverage and the Big 10 Championship Game (so we'll have to be exposed to his screaming every week, it looks like). Now, I'll be the first to admit that FOX's performances in college football have been pretty poor (except for last year's Cotton Bowl, which was handled very well by Kenny Albert and Daryl Johnston).

Alright, now I'll digest and prognosticate Awful Announcing's piece about Johnson moving to FOX. It's not pretty:

He is heading to Fox and appears to be in line to be their #1 college sports announcer. With the Big 10 Championship Game and Pac 12 coverage coming to the network, Gus is a big coup to immediately lift Fox's coverage of college sports. Which, as you may remember, has a checkered history at best... ok, it was awful.

Yes it was a disaster but I think the jury is still out on whether or not Johnson will help FOX's college football coverage (I think FOX was desperate and CBS was desperate to cut ties with Johnson, as they probably should have been).


It appears that Gus' talents will also be used for Fox's NFL coverage, where he would be a welcome addition. Look at the stable of NFL on Fox play by play men - Joe Buck, Kenny Albert, Thom Brennaman, Dick Stockton, Sam Rosen, Ron Pitts, Chris Rose, Chris Myers... it's below average, especially compared to CBS. Gus Johnson should be #2 at worst. Let's not get our hopes up that he will replace Joe Buck anytime soon, but we can at least dream of Gus calling the Super Bowl if there's now no chance at the Final Four.

Actually the only one of those announcers that are really bad are Chris Rose and Chris Myers (Joe Buck isn't terrible but he is nowhere near great). FOX needs analysts, bad. They used to have great analysts (Bentley, Baldinger, Madden, Millen when he was sane), but now, not so good. At best I would put Johnson with Billick at #3 (or #4. It's unclear to me if Stockton and Davis are #3 or #4. Your guess is as good as mine).

Just for shits and giggles, here is my mock NFL on FOX batting order including Gus Johnson:

1 - Albert or Stockton, Aikman
2 - Albert or Stockton, Johnston
3 - Rosen, Ryan
4 - Pitts, Billick
5 - Johnson, Davis
6 - Buck, Lynch
7 - Brennaman, Holt/Mora


A CBS source who wanted Johnson back said not only money, but politics was an issue. The source said some of CBS Sports' college hoops voices were not thrilled with Johnson's rise to March Madness' most popular voice.

As they should have been. CBS had some great, and I mean great announcers for their NCAA Tornament coverage (Lundquist, Albert, Harlan, Brando). Apparently Johnson's co-workers and bosses did like his style and his gradual rise up the CBS totem pole.

Viewers will now tune into Fox's college football and basketball and NFL broadcasts because of Gus Johnson.

I agree with this statement, and this is one of the reasons I don't like Johnson, because as a result of his calls, he becomes bigger than the game, which is something an announcer should not become.

Not being a huge Gus Johnson fan, I don't really care what happens to him...but it seems as though he'll be doing some prominent college games for FOX, but it is unclear where he'll be put in FOX's batting order.

Lastly, here is a mock ordering of CBS commentators:

1 - Nantz, Simms
2 - Gumbel, Dierdorf
3 - Eagle or Criqui, Fouts
4 - Harlan, Wilcots
5/6 - Macatee or Criqui, Gannon or Beuerlien
7 - Dedes or Brando, Cross

I'd like to see either Brando come back to football telecasts and for Criqui to move up (he's still just as sharp as he was 30 years ago). Of course my dream CBS pairing would be for Gumbel and Simms to team up again for the top spot (this was their top team when I started watching football heavily).

Perhaps you're wondering why I don't like Gus Johnson very much? It has to do with a few different things. 1.) He's become bigger than the game. 2.) It worries me that so many people are attracted to him when he doesn't get his stuff right. He is just not a very accurate announcer and relies on the emotion of the moment to help the flow of his calls.

I feel like I'm going into "beating a dead horse" territory so I think I'll stop now.

TMQ Is Back, And It's Still Just As Bad As Ever

TMQ has returned to mock the mock draft as he does, annoyingly, every year. However he devotes the first third of this column to the NFL labor dispute, only in the way TMQ can, basically saying both sides should have respectfully negotiated somewhere not taxpayer funded and that all these rich fucking crybaby assholes are in it for their own personal gain. Like I said, the only way TMQ can.

The NFL players and owners can't possibly be foolish enough to kill a goose that lays $10 billion worth of golden eggs each year, can they?

You would think not but somehow I think it will.

Don't answer that!

I just did.

As the historian Barbara Tuchman wrote, human history reflects a "march of folly" -- people and institutions go out of their way to do that which sabotages their own interests.

Yes, TMQ is a "march of folly". It is a person and an institution who goes out of its way to sabotage their own interests.

The previous agreement had room for improvement, of course. Health benefits for former players were poor. Bonuses for first-round draft choices were getting out of hand. But a routine negotiation could have handled such matters. There was no need for the owners and players to engage in a public meltdown that may damage both their interests.

I actually agree with this statement. Wholeheartedly, too. The problem is both sides wanted to get the fans involved and start lobbying their platform to them. What's worse is that at the onset of this the fans did not care, but both the players and the owners wanted to get them involved.

Are players and owners a bunch of spoiled crybabies, millionaires arguing with billionaires about who pays for the champagne? The simplest explanation is often correct, and this is the simplest explanation. But there is a crazed dynamic at work -- one that must end, so American taxpayers with a median household income of $53,000 can stop subsidizing federal courtroom time for wealthy crybabies to shout at each other. Here's what is happening:

This is a very cryptic way of saying, well, nothing.

That left the bossypants cohort of NFL owners smarting, wanting revenge on someone. Vying for revenge against your own players -- who are the product; not many people come to stadiums to watch the owners -- doesn't make a great deal of sense. But human history is a march of folly.

I seriously don't they wanted revenge. Perhaps they wanted to win, sure, but revenge? Sounds kind of crazy.

Believing they had "lost" the 2006 bargaining round, some NFL owners said words to the effect of, "Let's hire this [expletive] Batterman and crush the NFLPA."

Oh, hyperbole. I doubt this quote was every actually said.

Nevertheless, in 2008 the owners hired Batterman as labor counsel. He laid out a plan to create a lockout, and that's what happened. What does he care if an NFL season is canceled, and the league's popularity declines? He gets the same fee regardless.

Do you really think that the owners are that greedy that they will jeopardize their income (the team playing games, fans filling seats, selling beer, merchandise, etc) just to "win" the labor dispute. I actually don't think so but I'm sure some (Easterbrook included) do. However an outside counsel probably does not care since he'll get paid as Easterbrook said.

On the labor side: Upshaw, a former NFL player, was a gifted negotiator -- he won free agency for NFL athletes, steadily rising pay for them, and benefits for retired players. Because he'd been an NFL star, he was secure in his manhood. Because he'd played in the league, in all things he put the interests of the players first.

After Upshaw's death, DeMaurice Smith was elected head of the union. He is the second supervillain in this story. Smith never played pro sports -- for that matter, had no background in labor law or sports economics. He worked in the Justice Department, then became a litigator for Patton Boggs, a leading legal firm. The first impulse of litigators is to create conflicts; the second, to sustain them. The longer and nastier a conflict is, the more a litigator benefits, in fees and in personal importance.

I actually agree with this statement. It makes sense that the man representing the players should have, well, been a player. He gets paid regardless of what which side wins.

Actually the more and more I read in to this the more I side with the owners and not the players. According to TMQ, Smith and a few players (that were said to represent all players) filed a lawsuit that if it success would spell the end of the draft, free agency, and salary cap - scary thought.

Basically it stipulates that high salary players will continue to get paid their high salary, if not more (double their salary, perhaps), while less well-off players' salaries will decline.

I actually agree with TMQ's "The path to the solution" paragraph, but I think it's wishful thinking. I don't think the litigation will escape the courtroom.

What TMQ finds worrisome about Newton is … he played for a BCS title team. That's a major negative; see below. But first, TMQ's annual mock of mock drafts.

Only TMQ would not equate success with success. We'll see. If Newton is a bust, he's a bust. I don't see why it matters that he was a one-hit wonder or if his integrity is questioned (only by moralists like TMQ).

His next segment is what worries me about TMQ. Deadspin hit it on their rant about TMQ's rant about President Obama filling out a bracket. "This is the worst kind of sports column: irrelevant, pedantic, and completely in love with its own righteousness." That, my friends, is TMQ each week.

And then we get TMQ's short-sighted observations and pronouncements about Cam Newton.

Is there more to his recruiting scandal? It's easy to believe a starry-eyed teenager would not grasp that NCAA rules forbid cash in return for signing a college letter of intent. It's hard to believe Newton's father did not grasp this, and it's really hard to believe the full truth of the matter has come out. Any team that drafts Newton runs a risk the NCAA will at some point void Auburn's 2010 season, and Newton will return his Heisman. If this happens, a wave of negativity would wash over a franchise that's just given Newton a check for a staggering amount of money.

Only TMQ would continue to pound this into the ground because for some reason he has an axe to grind with Newton's character. There really is nothing else to say here other than TMQ I'm sure is the only person who still thinks this is an issue.

Why did he leave Florida? Newton was at three colleges in three autumns -- University of Florida, then Blinn, then Auburn. The situation at Florida seemed ideal for Newton: backing up Tim Tebow, learning from a master in Urban Meyer, with the likelihood that as a junior, he would become the face of one of college football's best-run programs. Why did he leave, and suddenly? Not for the challenge of leading Blinn to the NJCAA playoffs. Reports say Newton was about to be expelled from Florida for cheating, which the school will neither confirm nor deny. There's something not right about the whole Florida business.

Maybe because he wanted to play, perhaps? Just maybe? He knew that while Tebow was still there he wouldn't have a chance at starting. And maybe perhaps he knew that if he wanted a chance in the NFL he had to get out of Meyer stupid whatever you call it offense and get into a pro-style offense. Again, I don't know why TMQ has such an axe to grind with Newton.

He played for a BCS title team. In his one year at Auburn, Newton was surrounded by premium athletes. Newton had stars to hand off to and stars to throw to. The blocking was exceptional. Oh mighty football gods, if I am reincarnated as a quarterback, put me on a stacked team.

Of the 11 BCS title-winning quarterbacks to enter the NFL, all were hot stuff in college; nine did little in the pros: Tee Martin, Chris Weinke, Josh Heupel, Ken Dorsey, Craig Krenzel, Matt Mauck, Matt Leinart, Chris Leak, Matt Flynn. The 10th, Tebow, has been in the NFL only one season; the sole (albeit current free agent) NFL quarterback with both a BCS title and a solid pro career is Vince Young. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Philip Rivers, Joe Flacco -- none started on college title teams. They learned the hard way.

Newton sure looked great in 2010, but he looked great in a situation that would have made any quarterback look great. That's the big red flag.

Most of those quaterbacks mentioned above played at football factories or something close to it, they didnt' exactly have it the hard way. If teams were smarted, they would draft Newton to a team with either a veteran quarterback or a coach who can help and further coach Newton to NFL standards. And I wouldn't exactly say Vince Young's career is solid.

2011 NFL TV Schedules Are Out...

...providing there is a 2011 NFL schedule, of course, but one can hope, right?

Let's start with the network that stunk it up in the regular season but shone in the playoffs capped off with great Super Bowl coverage - Fox

Week 1 they have a doubleheader, as always. Of the four games in the 4:15 spot the only one I forsee Buck and Aikman doing (if they are still the top team, which I assume they will be) is N.Y. Giants @ Washington.

Week 2 they have the singleheader capped off with Chicago @ New Orleans.

Week 3 is a doubleheader weekend - Green Bay @ Chicago. Good chunk of the country should see Atlanta @ Tampa.

Week 4 doesn't have great games for Fox on this singleheader weekend. Suppose Joebaby and Co. will do New Orleans @ Jacksonville. Could see them doing San Francisco @ Philadelphia, too.

Week 5, another singleheader weekend. I predict Joebaby and Co. at the Meadowlands for Seattle-N.Y. Giants.

Week 6 is a huge doubleheader weekend for Fox, as they're hosting the Patriots going up against the Cowboys.

They have another doubleheader weekend for Week 7. They're two games are St. Louis @ Dallas and Green Bay @ Minnesota. Chicago-Tampa Bay will be in London that Sunday as well (in the early slot) so Joebaby and Co. possibly will be there.

Week 8 is a fairly mediocre-looking singleheader Sunday. New Orleans @ St. Louis

For Week 9 the Giants will be facing the Patriots at 4:15, however, Green Bay is also at San Diego late.

(From this point on, games fall under flex scheduling)

For Week 10 they have a crappy doubleheader game (N.Y. Giants @ San Francisco). New Orleans @ Atlanta early, though.

Since Fox loves the NFC East they will probably do Dallas @ Washington for Week 11, but they could also do Tampa @ Green Bay.

Week 12 (other than being Thanksgiving) looks pretty crappy:

1:00 PM Minnesota @ Atlanta Arizona @ St. Louis Carolina @ Indianapolis Tampa Bay @ Tennessee

4:05 PM Washington @ Seattle Chicago @ Oakland

It's a toss-up, anyone's guess.

Week 13 looks to be a good doubleheader weekend with Green Bay at the Giants. Depending on what SNF has this game could be flexed though.

I stared at Week 14 for awhile and got nothing:

1:00 PM Minnesota @ Detroit Atlanta @ Carolina Philadelphia @ Miami Tampa Bay @ Jacksonville New Orleans @ Tennessee

4:05 PM San Francisco @ Arizona Chicago @ Denver

Week 15, Joebaby and Co. visit the Meadowlands (again) to for Redskins and Giants. (Any NFC East showdown is a good bet to be visited by Joebaby and Co.)

Week 16 (Christmas Eve), Philly-Dallas for the doubleheader.

Week 17 (New Year's Day) has Seattle @ Arizona as the sole doubleheader game (both networks usually get crappy games due to flex scheduling). Depending on how the Cowboys are this year Joebaby and Co. may do Dallas-N.Y. Giants early.

Now for CBS. It has been announced that Jim Nantz and Phil Simms will continue as the lead announcing team for the eye network. Now to the games.

Due to their coverage of the U.S. Open, CBS has not had a doubleheader since 2000, and this year is no different. It's been officially announced in the press release I saw that Pittsburgh-Baltimore will be their lead game.

Their first doubleheader game on Week 2 is San Diego-New England.

Week 3 is a singleheader weekend. My crystal ball says Nantz and Co. will do Jets @ Raiders.

They have a doubleheader Week 4. Your choices are Denver @ Green Bay, New England @ Oakland, and Miami @ San Diego. They could do the GB game to get the Super Bowl champs on.

They have another doubleheader Week 5 with Jets @ Patriots.

Singleheader for Week 6 (and only five games, oddly). I'd say either Bills-Giants or Jags-Steelers.

Week 7 is another singleheader Sunday capped off with San Diego-N.Y. Jets.

Week 8 is a bigtime doubleheader - New England @ Pittsburgh.

Week 9 is a pretty mediocre singleheader Sunday. I suppose they'll do Jets @ Bills.

Week 10 is another singleheader Sunday. Usually Nantz and Co. do Cowboys games when they're on CBS. In which case they'll do Bills-Cowboys, but for fear of doing two straight Bills games (and if the Jags are any good), they could do Colts vs. Jags.

Week 11 - San Diego-Chicago. That was easy.

Week 12. Your choices are New England-Philadelphia or Denver @ San Diego at 4:15.

There are three games involving NFC teams for Week 13: N.Y Jets @ Washington, Kansas City @ Chicago, and Denver @ Minnesota. Nantz and Co. will probably do KC-Chicago.

Even though Week 14 is a doubleheader Sunday, I could see Nantz and Co. doing Indy @ Baltimore early.

Week 15 is also a doubleheader capped off with the Jets at Philadelphia.

Week 16 (still Christmas Eve). It's a crap shoot:

Denver @ Buffalo 1:00

Miami @ New England 1:00

Cleveland @ Baltimore 1:00

Jacksonville @ Tennessee 1:00

Oakland @ Kansas City 1:00

San Diego @ Detroit 4:05

I have no idea why Jax-Ten is all boldface and huge.

And for Week 17 they have the doubleheader offerings of KC @ Denver or San Diego @ Oakland.

Here is the SNF schedule (pending, of course):

NFL Kickoff: New Orleans Saints at Green Bay Packers
Week 1: Dallas Cowboys at New York Jets
Week 2: Philadelphia Eagles at Atlanta Falcons
Week 3: Pittsburgh Steelers at Indianapolis Colts
Week 4: New York Jets at Baltimore Ravens
Week 5: Green Bay Packers at Atlanta Falcons
Week 6: Minnesota Vikings at Chicago Bears
Week 7: Indianapolis Colts at New Orleans Saints
Week 8: Dallas Cowboys at Philadelphia Eagles
Week 9: Baltimore Ravens at Pittsburgh Steelers
Week 10: New England Patriots at New York Jets
*Week 11: Philadelphia Eagles at New York Giants
*Week 12: Pittsburgh Steelers at Kansas City Chiefs
*Week 13: Indianapolis Colts at New England Patriots
*Week 14: New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys
*Week 15: Baltimore Ravens at San Diego Chargers
Week 16: Chicago Bears at Green Bay Packers (Christmas)
*Week 17: TBA

This schedule is absolutely stacked, even Week 6 Vikings @ Chicago.

Here is the MNF schedule, certainly not as strong as the SNF one.

Week 1: New England @ Miami, Oakland @ Denver
Week 2: St. Louis @ New York Giants
Week 3: Washington @ Dallas
Week 4: Indianapolis @ Tampa Bay
Week 5: Chicago @ Detroit
Week 6: Miami @ New York Jets
Week 7: Baltimore @ Jacksonville
Week 8: San Diego @ Kansas City
Week 9: Chicago @ Philadelphia
Week 10: Minnesota @ Green Bay
Week 11: Kansas City @ New England
Week 12: New York Giants @ New Orleans
Week 13: San Diego @ Jacksonville
Week 14: St. Louis @ Seattle
Week 15: Pittsburgh @ San Francisco
Week 16: Atlanta @ New Orleans

Tim Brown Ensenuates That Bill Callahan Changed Raiders' Super Bowl XXXVII Gameplan Out Of Respect For Jon Gruden

It has been known for some time (probably since the game was played) that Bill Callahan changed the Raiders gameplan for their Super Bowl XXXVII bout against the Bucs, as this reveals.

The cliffnotes version of Brown's speech is that the Raiders went into the game with a running gameplan, and that the team had practiced that up to the Friday before the game. On that Friday, he totally switched the gameplan. Now, the Raiders are going to throw it 60 times against a defense that is primed for stopping the pass? And you know what? I believe Brown when he said that Callahan changed the Raiders' gameplan out of respect for Jon Gruden, and that it was one of the contributing factors for Barret Robbins' disappearance.

One would have to wonder, with the Raiders offense that dominant throughout the season and for putting up such a stinker performance in the Super Bowl...

My Thoughts About The Super Bowl (And The Pro Bowl, Too)

Hey, what's up. I haven't posted in awhile. I figured now would be as good a time as any to share my thoughts about the Super Bowl. Yeah, Chrisitina Aguilera botched the national anthem and perhaps the halftime show was a bit lack-luster (I actually didn't think it was too bad, but I seem to be in the minority). I think they're finally moving in the right direction with the halftime show. I think they've finally shaken off the memory of the Wardrobe Malfunction from seven years ago so they went with a newer act (and you can't please everybody).

While I don't think this Super Bowl was one of the all-time greats, I don't see why this year's game won't top last year's in the ratings department, especially with the impending lock-out (this could quite possibly be the last NFL game we see in a while). Fox's broadcast was top notch. Buck and Aikman were at the top of their games. In fact, I think Fox topped CBS in throughout the playoffs, despite suffering in the regular season. I felt that Simms had too many miscalls and Nantz's inner Joe Buck was coming out. Unfortunately I missed the Ravens-Steelers game that Gumbel and Dierdorf called, but if their past work is any indication, the broadcast was probably solid. Over of Fox, Buck was not so boring and monotonous as he was in the regular season. And never once was the ghost of Brett Favre mentioned throughout the game, which I was glad for.

And yes, I watched something called the Pro Bowl last week...and the broadcast was a disaster. Contrastly, last year's Pro Bowl on ESPN was great even if interest in the game was low. But Fox's, uh-uh. I was hoping to get one last game from Albert and Johnston, but no, who do we get? Brennaman and Billick and Bradshaw - yuck!

So another NFL season is in the books. The ratings were phenomonal this season for nearly every game, and it's a shame that all indications point to a lock-out for next season. CBS rightly so topped Fox in the ratings and clearly their on-screen talent shows it. Football or no football next season, hopefully Fox's success in the playoffs can spear-head efforts to make refinements in their telecasts whenever football may return.

What The Hell Is Colin Cowherd Talking About?

Colin Cowherd, to me, is a very polarizing ESPN figure. People either love him to death or hate his guts. Many used to be fans of his but now are not (I fall into this category). Now, before going on, if I were to run into him somewhere, I wouldn't call him an asshole or try to fight him or anything. In fact, there was a time he did his show from Columbus and I thought about going down except the weather was horrid that day, so I didn't.

He started off today's show basically by saying that fans hold onto their team's losses for too long and that players don't really care about losses at all because, besides, it's their job. I don't know if I've ever heard a more bullshit statement in my life than that. The hell they do! Players lament about losses, especially in big games, alot, especially in the correct setting. When they can't sleep I am willing to bet they will go back and think about that interception or that missed tackle that cost them the game. I bet they do, and if they don't, I will be the first to admit that I am wrong, but still, Cowherd's statement smells of bullshit to me.

He then went on to say that the reason the Jay Cutler might have quit on the Bears storyline caught on was because players and fans were making their opinions as such on Twitter, but that their arguments don't hold water to people over 40, because people over 40 have perspective and young people don't and that people over 40 don't know how to use or don't understand Twitter. OK. Fine. I agree with the first part of the argument. People were reading too much into Cutler's demeanor and it also didn't help that anybody from the Bears or Fox provided us with the real info. (By the way, I just threw out 40 as a blanket age. 'Herd said something like "a 45-year-old guy with perspective, a 54, 64-year old business owner") What I have a problem with is his multiple generalizations and stereotypes about...everything. I don't have a Twitter account and I'm 19. Perhaps I'm an outlier but none of my friends who are around the same age as me have Twitter accounts, either. Again, we may be outliers but so-be it.

Getting back to Cowherd, here are my main beefs with him:
1.) Making fun of his listeners, emailers, and callers for calling in and emailing for so much as caring about sports - sort of kills the point of having sports talk in the first place.
3.) His cutsie cultural references and motifs to cover up no real analysis whatsoever.
4.) His claims that's he's progressive only to use stereotypes and generalizations to get his point across ("Overweight people have low self-worth, that's why they're overweight." -- referring to Mark Mangino)
5.) His asinine opinions on the NBA and market size (listen to his show now that football is winding down and you'll figure out what I'm referring to).

I realize this whole post is sort of like letting the terrorists win or letting the playground bully get the best of me, but 'Herd's open today pushed me over the limit, and I just had to write about it. 'Herd used to be cool. He introduced compelling arguments and opinions, but that was several years ago when he was not as prominent. I mean, yeah, he told a caller to shoot themselves and said that all southern white males agree with each other, but, I don't know, it was less annoying. That all changed when he got a TV show. Then I think it all went to his head and he just sort of enjoyed listening to himself talk too much, and wants to take stances just to create controversy and hoopla (perhaps management is making him do this to garner more ratings, but I don't think so).

OK. I think I've decompressed now. Thanks as always for reading.

Jim Cornelison Sings "The Star-Spangled Banner"

As you've probably heard already, Jim Cornelison sang two of the best renditions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" ever heard at both the NFC Divisional Playoff in Chicago and the NFC Championship Game. Well, in case you haven't seen it, or want to see it again and again and again, here it is from the Divisional Playoff Game:

Commentator Awards 2010 Follow-Up Post

I have a couple of follow-up thoughts about my awards. Overall, I'm pretty happy with them. Although I feel I should have switched Fouts and Eagle and Simms and Nantz. Throughout the postseason, I have not been overly-impressed with Nantz and Simms, while I actually think Buck is honing in more on his skills and not being so monotonous. Unfortunately I missed the Ravens-Steelers game that Gumbel and Dierdorf did. And obviously I did not do a review of the second NBC team that did the Saints-Seahawks Wild Card game or one for the NFL Network team of Bob Papa, Matt Millen and Joe Thiesmann, but I'll take a wild guess and say they're pretty bad because of Millen and Theismann. I'll close with this, if you tune out Siragusa, Albert and Johnston are a good team, trust me. Just mute your set when "Goose" speaks. And is Dick Stockton really that terrible?

Looking Back On My Pre-Season Predictions

Sorry about all the typos and mssing words and shit from my last post. That wasn't one of my better days. Anyway, I'd like to take a look back at my pre-season predictions from this NFL season and see just how good I was at picking the records of all 32 teams.

Bengals (10-6) - Actual: (4-12)

Man, was I wrong! But really, who forsaw the Bengals being one of the worst teams in the league this year?

Ravens (11-5) - Actual: (12-4)

Only one game off. Not too bad.

Steelers (6-10) - Actual: (12-4)

I guess I read too much into Ben Roethlisberger being suspended and his off-the-field issues last offeseason and that it would hamper their record or I forgot that Mike Tomlin is one of league's best, perhaps underrated, coaches.

Browns (4-12) - Actual: (5-11)

Surprisingly the Browns did better than what I actually predicted. While we were all expecting a big year from Jerome Harrison, he was cut and Peyton Hillis ran well for them instead. In the end though, sloppy and inconsistent quarterback play led to another lost season and another coach.

Colts (13-3) - Actual: (10-6)

Never before has Peyton Manning had to do so much in a season for the Colts. It seems as though they're always banged up but missing Clark and the Jaguars having a good season shook them up a bit. I figured, hey, with all this talent, how bad would they be?

Texans (11-5) - Actual: (6-10)

It seems like year after year under Gary Kubiak we think this will be their year...and it wasn't...again. Even with the NFL's leading rusher they could not garner a winning season. They do have players who play under the title of "defense", right? Perhaps a coaching aquisition in the offseason will change this.

Titans (6-10) - Actual: (6-10)

I'm right for once! The Titans shortcomings were terribly obvious before the season and during it too. I can't this was a great prediction on my part, just because what was there was blatantly obvious, but perhaps I'm being too modest.

Jaguars (9-7) - Actual: (8-8)

One game off here. Evidently the loss of Holt was not a big deal because Lewis, Walker and Thomas did so well for them, and of course there's Jones-Drew.

Patriots (12-4) - Actual: (14-2)

In the games where I said they might have issues they won. (raises right hand) "I, state your name, will never underestimate a Bill Belichick defense again." (puts hand down)

Jets (11-5) - Actual: (11-5)

Let's see, they blitzed the Colts in last year's championship game and lost. In this year's Wild Card game against the Colts, they played coverage, and won (granted on a miracle last-second field goal). I'm not trying to sound like Gregg Easterbrook here, but I am seeing a pattern. "Let's go eat a goddamn snack."

I know Rex Ryan said it's personal against Peyton Manning, and while I'm not a huge fan of his trash talk, I can't imagine the feeling as a defense winning a playoff game against the league's best quarterback, especially when Revis covered Reggie Wayne like a blanket, holding him to one reception for one yard.

Dolphins (9-7) - Actual: (7-9)

What happened (to the Dolphins)? That's all I have to say.

Bills (3-13) - Actual: (4-12)

I guess I underestimated their badness? Although Ryan Fitzpatrick did not have a bad year at quarterback. That is about the only postive about this team.

Chargers (13-3) - Actual: (9-7)

The AFC West wound up being one of the more competative divisions in the league this year. A slow start by the Chargers was anticipated, however that Week 16 loss to the Bengals really hurt their playoff chances. I stll think its hilarious that everybody thinks that Norv Turner is a lame duck coach despite the fact that he is an offensive genius and has a 41-23 record with The Bolts.

Raiders (7-9) - Actual: (8-8)

I give myself a pat on the back for this one. It was bound to happen though, as over the past season or so the Raiders have looked improved (and naturally, it's all over). I guess it wasn't an earth-shattering prediction to have the Raiders win more than three or four games. I mean, yeah, they lost to Tennessee and Arizona and San Francisco, but still, it was nice when it lasted (undefeated within the division). And once again Al Davis has screwed the team by firing Tom Cable, but that's Davis. The Raiders as a franchise will go nowhere with him as the head honcho.

Broncos (6-10) - Actual: (4-12)

Perhaps I gave them too many wins with six, considering I basically said their players suck and they have a hard schedule. About the only bright spot was Tim Tebow starting, but other than that, a lost season.

Chiefs (7-9) - Actual: (10-6)

They had a really easy schedule in 2010, as they played the NFC West in their intra-conference games. They have good coaches though, although they'll lose one - Charlie Weis - to the college ranks.

Vikings (10-6) - Actual: (6-10)

Tough call on this one. I honestly thought Brett Favre was smarter than he actually is and that he would not play because he was old and still not 100% but he played anyway, which lead to alot of ugly throws, picks, and more injuries and pain. When I said this is Adrian Peterson's team, I meant to say this should be Adrian Peterson's team. Really, it should. About the only positive of this season is through Childress' firing they seem to have found their next coach.

Packers (12-4) - Actual: (10-6)

Well their offensive line still gave up way too many sacks but their defense has come together and they're still a Super Bowl contender.

Bears (8-8) - Actual: (11-5)

I said the Bears could go either way. They could be good or they could be bad, so I picked 8-8 just to be safe. Obviously they were good and they are in a mostly win-win situation with Mike Martz at coordinator.

Lions (2-14) - Actual: (6-10)

Did anybody notice they won their last four games? Perhaps they'll ride this streak into next season?

Saints (11-5) - Actual: (11-5)

I'M RIGHT! OK, they couldn't run the ball but they still played good defense. Somehow it seems fitting that they lost their playoff game even though Drew Bress threw 60 passes for over 400 yards and did not throw any interceptions.

Falcons (10-6) - Actual: (13-3)

They are mysterious, but basically what I said about them in my pre-season post still rings true, which is just plain scary.

Panthers (8-8) - Actual: (2-14)

Fail pick here. I really thought Matt Moore would build on the success of 2009, have a average to decent season, and help Jimmy Clausen develop...however that was not the case. Steve Smith, you still here?

Buccaneers (1-15) - Actual: (10-6)

I'll be a man and admit I was wrong. Clearly I vastly underestimated thier coaching staff in developing Josh Freeman and their defense played solidly.

Cowboys (13-3) - Actual: (6-10)

Me being wrong is really starting to get old. There is a complex series of reasons why the Cowboys sucked this year and basically all of them lead back to Jerry Jones. Although it seems, for awhile at least, that he's come to his senses and hired a coach that can get his players in line. However in three or four years he'll probably fire Jason Garrett for being too mean and hire another peachpuff coach. Tony Romo actually being healthy would probably win them a game or two, too, so there's that.

Giants (9-7) - Actual: (10-6)

One game off ain't so bad. As long as Eli Manning is the quarterback and Tom Coughlin is the head coach, the Giants should be okay. Their defense is nothing to scoff at either.

Eagles (7-9) - Actual: (10-6)

Well I'm a dumbass thinking them losing Donovan McNabb would hurt them, however I'm still not convinced Vick is a franchise quarterback they can hang their hat on, so they should keep Kolb around as a happy backup. You know what is one constant for the Eagles though? That Andy Reid guy. He might, just might have something to do with it.

Redskins (8-8) - Actual (6-10)

Actually I didn't miss on the Redskins too much. They did have a tough schedule and they do have a good coach but I don't think him and McNabb get along too well. And with Dan Snyder being the owner I don't see this franchise going anywhere, so there's that.

49ers (10-6) - Actual (6-10)

Another fail pick here. They need a quarterback. They have a coach, they just need a quarterback.

Cardinals (6-10) - Actual (5-11)

This time last year we had just come off of one of the wildest playoff games in NFL history where the Cardinals beat the Packers 51-45. They just simply lost too many of their quality players. Somehow (and very quietly) Larry Fitzgerald amassed 90 receptions for 1,137 yards, which are more yards than last year...but they still had Anquan Boldin then, too...and Kurt Warner. That seems like so long ago.

Seahawks (9-7) - Actual (7-9)

Well what I said about them wasn't entirely bullshit. Pete Carroll has a winning record as an NFL head coach even though everybody seems to hate him and hated him when he was in the NFL in the 90s. Their talent still is not bad if you ask me. See, I'm not entirely crazy when I make this stuff up. Oh, wait, I'm not supposed to say that...

I realize that for some reason I did not do a preseason pick for the Rams. Perhaps I thought they would be so bad that they deserved to not be in the NFL. They wound up being 7-9 and led the NFC West down to wire. Just to throw something out there - 3-13 for a pre-season pick.

My Reaction To TYT Calling Phil Simms Worst NFL Announcer

The Young Turks is an Internet political talk show, who now I guess have branched off into sports a bit, as I discovered this YouTube video of them proclaiming Phil Simms as surpassing Randy Cross as worst NFL announcer. Technically, Phil Simms is not a announcer but an analyst, nor is Randy Cross. Jim Nantz is an announcer. Dick Stockton is an announcer. Simms and Cross are analysts, but anyway, their reasoning for naming Simms the worst "announcer" was laughable. It was during the waning moments of the Steelers-Ravens game from Week 4. Phil deduced that the Ravens should go for it on 4th & 2 but that they should run. (In actuality they passed and converted). There are a ton of reasons why that is not an outlandish prediction, which I won't go into here, but it all boils down to why is that such a bad prediction? And because he was wrong, he's the worst announcer? Have you not watch football for about, oh, about the past 15 years? He does that all the time! And most of the time, he's right (that's what being a cerebral quarterback for 16 seasons in the NFL does to you!)

Another bullshit reason of there's about why Simms is the worst announcer is because he said "nice hold" on a penalty. Again, was this their first game with Simms that they've watched? I doubt it. I am 99% sure he was joking. Again, I don't see why this is such a big deal if they know how Simms is as an analyst. The evidence tells me they don't.

Now I'm not a viewer or listener of The Young Turks, so I don't know know why they branched off into sports talk anyway, and it seems to me by reading the comments on their videos that their viewers don't like it either.

There are probably 15 or 20 announcers worse than Phil Simms, perhaps more. Trust me, he's one of the best. You want a bad announcer? I'll even give you an analyst to be along the lines with Simms - John Lynch. Steve Tasker. Rich Gannon (this kills me because I loved him as a quarterback). There.

Last Night's Cotton Bowl Broascast Not A Disaster

I watched last night's Cotton Bowl until the final minutes waiting to nit-pick on how Fox fails at covered college football bowl games, and frankly, I found very little. Granted, the game was a game until the last few minutes. That probably dictated a lot of it and the kept John Lynch and Charles Davis' spiels to a minimum, but it felt like Kenny Albert and Daryl Johnston were quite comfortable during the broadcast and knew the differences in rules between college and NFL football and they hinted at how they wished that they did more college game. (Note: This will change because Fox won the contract to televise the Pac-12 Championship game, and Fox Sports Network has televised Pac-10 games in past seasons).

Now, it will probably be awhile before the rating are posted, and whether or not they are good or not, the game itself was good and Fox's coverage of it was solid from the broadcasting side of things. I'm not sold with Chris Rose as studio host, but if that's the worst Fox does, I can live with that.

I'm glad that Pat Summerall did not do the play-by-play for this game, but it would have been a crime to leave him out of the telecast given his history with the game. He still has quite a voice, and he can still hold a conversation, despite the fact he's looking quite frail, so I'm glad he provided the voice-over for the open and the interviews he did with Jim Brown, etc.

My Commentator Awards For 2010

I've finally decided to give this a try. I've tried my hardest to view games from every commentator team for both Sunday afternoon networks.

I wish it were possible to list some people individually (I suppose I could), because there is a difference between the skill levels of some teams. Dick Stockton and Ron Pitts I bet would be tiered higher if they had better analysts, as would Brian Billick if he were paired with a better announcer. Conversely, I think Jim Nantz would be doing worse if he were not with Phil Simms.

It seems stupid, but I applaud analysts and announcers to actually do what they're supposed to do (talk about the blocks, the coverage, who made the tackle, etc), because too few do. Some teams get too caught up in talking about the prominent players on the team or the dreaded storyline.

Play-by-play men are listed first, then analysts, with their network in parenthesis.

*****Five Stars*****

Sam Rosen, Tim Ryan (Fox) - Never heard of them? Chances are you haven't. They're fifth in the batting order according to the network, but they're money on Sunday afternoons. Rosen handles the game well, quick to identify substitutions, yardage, penalties, etc. I love that in football play-by-play, and not enough p-b-p guys do it. And Ryan, a former defensive end, obviously focuses more on what's going on in the trenches, but to my liking, he'll identify changes in the starting line-ups from what the network shows in their graphic (say, if the offense comes out three-wide and/or the defense counters with a nickel or dime). Rosen does this throughout the game, too.

Greg Gumbel, Dan Dierdorf (CBS) - Gumbel could very well become the football play-by-play voice of a generation. CBS, when they came back to football, made Gumbel their lead play-by-play man in an effort to attract more African-American viewers to their telecasts. The network had him take a two-year hiatus to host CBS's Mickey Mouse pre-game show (more on that later), and since '06, he's been the #2 play-by-play man at the eye network.

Gumbel is usually very quick to identify yardage and penalties and will often get into a little analysis with his partner (in what little time there is allowed between plays). Example from this past week in fact: The Colts are out-rushing the Raiders. Reason why, Gumbel identifies the Raiders are keeping a safety or two more than 15-yards off the line of scrimmage and Peyton Manning keeps audibling to runs and Dierdorf is letting us know exactly what kind of defense it is play-in, play-out for a series. Sweet. Could use who actually made the tackle more, but I won't nit-pick, because nobody does it anyway. Will also let us know who of the skill position players are in on a given play, even if they are well known (perhaps this is their spotter).

I've gotten used to Dierdorf's pronouncements over the years, they don't bother me ("If this linebacker, quarterback, running back doesn't get into the Hall of Fame, it'll be the biggest travesty since...") because he can really get into some good analysis, and not just within the trenches or just with the quarterback, but everywhere on the field and is probably the best at telling the viewers just how a play developed.

Jim Nantz, Phil Simms (CBS) - Simms is hands-down the best analyst, and just based on that I'm giving this team a five-star rating. He'll point out and identify things that seem so mundane that one would think would not manner in the realm of football when in fact they do. However when I hear this I think he's either a genius or he's making it up. Another thing I absolutely enjoy is that his analysis goes beyond the X's and O's and will get into the emotion of the game and how if affects players and how they perform. Speaking of X's and O's, I would say on a healthy third of the plays of the game, Simms will correctly guess what the offense will do on a given play based up how the defense is lined up. It all goes back to his quarterbacking days. About the extent of the conversation between Nantz and Simms about the action would be Nantz asking a question and Simms answering. Nantz is good, and he deserves to be at the top of the batting order. He's smooth, and to my liking, identifies the subs well.

****Four Stars****

Mike Tirico, Ron Jaworksi, Jon Gruden (ESPN) - Second-year for Gruden, and it's going well so far. I actually knocked them off a star because a.) I want Gruden to go back into coaching and get the hell out of the broadcasting booth, and b.) I'm not fond of three-man broadcasting teams for football. Tirico is a top-notch p-b-p guy. He gets into it and will identify yardage and tacklers often, but because he is in a three-man booth with two other analysts, he rarely gets in on the between-the-play action (for some reason, I enjoy it when the play-by-play guy can carry on an intelligent conversation with their analyst. It means they actually have a "feel" for the game, even if they never played it.) Their slight downfall is when they get wrapped up in the storyline, whether its the Brett Favre lovefest or Mark Sanchez or whatever. Stuff about the quarterback seems to get Jaworski on a roll. I would say this team has Favreitis. I'm sure you know what that is, and working for ESPN, by default, you have it.

Don Criqui, Steve Beuerlein (CBS) - This team is probably the biggest disparity between the two individuals of the broadcast team that I can tell. You call tell Criqui is from the old-school because he is deadly accurate with his calls (meaning he called games before all the scrolls and on-screen graphics and such). He'll even call-out passing patterns on some plays and identify blockers, which is nearly unheard of from p-b-p. And while Beuerlein is not terribly insightful, this team is not terrible, and should probably being moved up the CBS totem pole. They are clearly better than a #7 team. Just for good measure I watch Houston-Denver, which was Tebow's second start. Not a whole lot about the ol' storyline or Tebow, other than stuff that is actually helpful toward his development. Beurlein, I think you can do more. Criqui play-in, play-out sets you up with stuff to digest for us on the replay, about the blocking and such. Criqui will say something like "Good blocking and he picks up 11." Beurlein, you should have the capacity to tell us why the blocking was good, not just about the athleticism of the quarterback and the receiver. Why am I spending so many words on a #7 team? Because I want them to do better and move up in the batting order. I think Beurlein can become a better analyst. There are flashes of how he can be an elite analyst, just do it play-in, play-out, OK? Oh, and please, CBS, you've got a good gig going, just be sure to move this team up in 2011, OK? Thanks.

Al Micheals, Cris Collinsworth (NBC) - Micheals is the gold-standard for football play-by-play. Collinsworth is an excellent analyst, but can, annoyingly, be a smart-ass, and will shower the telecast with I-told-you-sos when a rip is called for. Case and point, the finale of the San Francisco-Philadelphia game. Read an earlier post of mine for the details.

Kenny Albert, Daryl Johnston (Fox) - First things first. Dump Siragusa. Most consider him a second analyst when he is basically a sideline guy who wants to talk about the dumbest, randomest stuff, and doesn't appear to put much effort into his spiels. If he's gone, then this team would almost be perfect, at least tie for best on Fox. Albert, unlike some play-by-play people above him on the Fox totem pole, actually has a "feel" for the game (that's the only way I can describe it). Albert does the stuff a play-by-play guy is supposed to do and does it well; identifying tacklers and the yardage on a given play. He probably got tips from his dad. It also seems this team has done their share of NFC West games, but never once have I heard them exhaustively yacking about how crappy the NFC West is and this and that. In a word, they show up, do their game, talk about the action on the field, and that's about it. They don't get caught up in the storyline or Favreitis. Johnston is one of the more articulate analysts out there (he doesn't sound like some half-wit ex-jock) and he does a solid job at analysing all aspects of the game.

Ian Eagle, Dan Fouts (CBS) - Fouts was an excellent college analyst, and unfortunately was just a sidenote for ABC's Monday Night Football with Dennis Miller as "the third guy," so we never really got to see his true colors as an NFL analyst. He quietly signed on as an analyst on CBS and was assigned the #3 spot with the now-retired Dick Enberg. Obviously being an-ex quarterback, that is where his expertese lies. Eagle is kind of lazy on his yardage, but again, that really doesn't bother me, but he is excellent at identifying tacklers and those who assisted on the stop. Lovely.

***Three Stars***

ESPN No. 2 Team Of Brad Nessler and Trent Dilfer (ESPN) - I was semi-surprised to not see the trio of Mike Greenburg, Golic, and Ditka this year, as it seems ESPN is promoting Mike & Mike so much lately. ESPN put in Nessler and Dilfer for the second game of their opening Monday doubleheader (Kansas City-San Diego). Nessler, who mostly does college football play-by-play, has a silk smooth delivery, but sort of lacks on accuracy; not indicating yardage alot of the time and only IDing tacklers some of the time. Dilfer is obviously good at describing the pass-catch side of the action, but other than that, not so good. He's not terrible, but I wanted more. Perhaps if they did more games then it might be better.

Dick Stockton, Charles Davis (Fox) - Stockton has always been a top-notch play-by-play guy. He is smooth despite his strong New York accent and does everything a solid play-by-play guy should do well. He would fare better in my ratings if he were paired with a better analyst (he has in the past).

Ron Pitts, John Lynch (Fox) - Pitts has done almost everything in the realm of football on TV. He's been a sideline reporter, an analyst, and now, a play-by-play man, and he's done a fantastic job at all three. The problem lies in his partner who I think still has not grown accustom to an NFL broadcasting booth. He's also not very smooth, either, and I always think he's trying to rap.

Kevin Harlan, Soloman Wilcots (CBS) - This team would be tiered lower if not for Wilcots, who is a fantastic, smooth, and low-key analyst, and has been for years. Like breakdown of the coverage? You'll get it here. Wilcots is an ex-defensive back. Yeah, Harlan IDs the subs, and of the certain offensive sets, but we'll get such obviousness like "The defense is in a 4-3" or "Four in the secondary." Both of those happen on the majority of defensive snaps, just sayin'.

**Two Stars**

Joe Buck, Troy Aikman (Fox) - This is really the highest I could go with this team. Aikman is solid analyst, maybe a little shakey on line play, but it really doesn't bother me. Aikman seems to also be able to describe the development of a play really well, which is good. The bad: Favreitis. New England-Minnesota, Favre love abounds, even after he was removed from the game and Tavarus Jackson was doing well for the Vikes and trying to bring them back, moreso from Aikman than Brennaman. Now for Joebaby, he just doesn't have it. He doesn't have it in his heart or in his head to do football play-by-play. Only points out the obvious stuff, does not concern himself with accuracy; who made the stop, yardage, penalties, etc. I know he speaks during a play, but they're just words. I don't know if he's lazy, he doesn't care, or if he really has no idea what's going on out there, but better should come from a #1 team.

Thom Brennaman, Brian Billick (Fox) - This team likes to plug the stars and talk about the old storyline a bit too much. We're all aware of the implications of the NFC West, we get it. They seem to have forgotton the fact that there is a game going on down on the field and instead talk about the quarterback or the star linebacker. I'm not saying that all time should be spent in the trenches, but at least give a majority of your attention to the action on the field. I have a feeling, though, that this team is going to move up the Fox totem pole for all the wrong reasons (to me). This season Brennman spelled Buck during the baseball playoffs when in the past it had been either Stockton or Albert (and honestly, it was a nice restbit from Buck). Brennaman is a Buck clone, very monotonus in his delivery and not terribly accurate on his calls, either.

Sometimes Billick will get on a roll and actually get to talking about what's actually going on in front of them. That I enjoy. Obviously he will talk about the coaching side of it and team chemistry, which is cool because that, typically, is a side of football that not covered enough in telecasts. He'll also do a pretty good job at explaining why a certain play was called on a certain down and distance. What I'm getting at is Billick is a solid analyst who, if paired with a better partner, may be higher rated.

Bill Macatee, Rich Gannon (CBS) - Just average all around. I saw them in several Cleveland games this season and the show was just very boring. A little love for Peyton Hillis sprinkled in from Gannon, but other than that very boring. But how much should we expect from a #6 team?

*One Star*

Gus Johnson, Steve Tasker (CBS) - The Denver-Oakland game where Tim Tebow started was by far the worst game from a broadcasting standpoint. It was just one big Tim Tebow plug, which a.) I've had my fill of, and b.) Tebow and the Broncos did not do well. So whatever the director or producer had lined up for Johnson and Tasker to talk about just blew up in his face, and they had nothing else to fall back on, which tells me that Johnson and Tasker just decided to keep talking about it, ignoring the play on the field. Tasker has always been a plugger for the stars, whether they're doing well or not. And Johnson, don't get me started. Even though he's done play-by-play for years I still don't think he has the feel of the game. Not accurate in his calls whatsoever, never has been. He's relied on being into the emotion of the game and being an annoying yeller, whether or not it's a big play. We CAN hear you, you know that, right?

Zero Stars

Chris Rose, Torry Holt (Week 13, Fox) - Fox had a musical chairs of commentators in their seventh and eighth spots. It was either Chris Myers and Kurt Warner or Chris Rose and somebody. Well for the Week 13 Cleveland-Carolina game, Rose was paired with newcomer to the booth Torry Holt and it was a disaster. Holt offered nothing in the way of analysis and had trouble on really simple things like finishing sentences and using the proper verb tense when he speaks. I'm not kidding. It was cover-your-ears awful.

This is a work in progress. I have one game with Chris Rose and Kurt Warner and from the NFL Netowork that was actually meaningful so I can sit though it (thank god for NFL Game Rewind).

Now for pre-game shows. They're all useless noise. I don't watch them, or I try my best not to. But I guess if I had a choice, I'd watch Fox NFL Sunday. Football Night in America is a complete and utter joke. Dan Patrick is making inhuman noises during highlights and Tony Dungy and Rodney Harrison are just sort of there. Bring back Olbermann. Even though both Olbermann and Patrick have past experience as spors broadcasters, I don't know, I guess Olbermann made the show tolerable, even after they wanted to make it a spin-off of his regular MSNBC show, and gave it a bloated cast.

And since ESPN is just one big case of Farveitis, I never bothered to watch Sunday NFL Countdown or Monday Night Countdown. Same goes with NFL Live. Whether its Mark Schlereth or Trent Dilfer or Herman Edwards dick-riding Favre or Marcellus Wiley blabbering about god knows what - just stop!

Now let's move onto one final thing: why Fox sucks. Or, why their coverage this year has been so down. For whatever reason, Fox totally abandoned the Saints, or the whole NFC South for that matter in its national coverage, instead opting for whoever was playing in the NFC East, including three-straight Giants games or the Vikings. Here are their games below:

Week 1: Green Bay-Philly
Week 2: Chicago-Dallas
Week 3: Dallas-Houston
Week 4: Washington-Philly
Week 5: Green Bay-Washington
Week 6: Dallas-Minnesota
Week 7: Washington-Chicago
Week 8: Minnesota-New England
Week 9: N.Y. Giants-Seattle
Week 10: Dallas-N.Y. Giants
Week 11: Green Bay-Minnesota
Week 12: New Orleans-Dallas (Thanksgiving); Philly-Chicago (Sunday, #2 team)
Week 13: Dallas-Indianapolis
Week 14: N.Y. Giants-Minnesota
Week 15: Philly-N.Y. Giants
Week 16: N.Y. Giants-Green Bay
Week 17: Green Bay-Chicago

The games where Jim Nantz and Phil Simms of CBS were sent to were a little more varied:

Week 1: Cincinnati-New England
Week 2: New England-N.Y. Jets
Week 3: Indianapolis-Denver
Week 4: Baltimore-Pittsburgh
Week 5: Tennessee-Dallas
Week 6: Baltimore-New England
Week 7: New England-San Diego
Week 8: Jacksonville-Dallas
Week 9: Indianapolis-Philly
Week 10: N.Y. Jets-Cleveland
Week 11: Indianapolis-New England
Week 12: New England-Detroit (Thanksgiving); Jacksonville-N.Y. Giants (Sunday, #2 team)
Week 13: Oakland-San Diego
Week 14: New England-Chicago
Week 15: N.Y. Jets-Pittsburgh
Week 16: N.Y. Jets-Chicago
Week 17: Indianapolis-Tenneessee

I Can Finally Put Into Words Why I Hate Fox!

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2010-articles/december/eric-shanks-is-an-idiotits-called-a-focus-group.html

Somebody else has put into words the way I feel about Fox, and I'm not going to take credit for the thought, either.

In case you haven't heard (and you very well may not have), Fox has decided to put in music during random parts of their NFL games at the direction of Fox Sports' new president, Eric Shanks, the guy behind the glowing puck in their hockey coverage. Worse yet, Shanks has proclaimed that the music will be used during the Super Bowl -- when hundreds of millions of people around the world will be watching.

Am I looking forward to Super Bowl? Hell no. You know why? Because Fox is covering it. It's going to suck no matter what teams play, because we'll have to listen to Joe Buck and random dramatic music that will probably be played during the most tense moments of the game, ruining the moment.

A commenter in the post I linked above basically gave the reasons I've been trying to explain why I don't like Fox Sports right now (I don't hate Fox the network or News Corp. It has nothing to do with that. I just don't like Fox Sports.)

Yes, Fox used to be cool. They were the pioneers of the scoring bug and the electronic first down line. But now they are just living on their past innovations and now just being arrogant and proposing outlandish ideas to try and enhance the sports on TV experience, which, for now, high definition does it enough.

I don't watch NASCAR, hell I don't even watch that much baseball, but I'm sure they suck because Fox is failing. Joe Buck simply cannot do play-by-play whether its baseball or football. Yes, he's boring, but actually that does not bother me. Pat Summerall (before he went senile) was dry and boring too, but he's one of the best announcers ever. Buck just doesn't have the "feel" for the game that so many announcers have. In football, he almost never bothers to announce yardage or who made the tackle. And Buck has said that he does not like doing baseball play-by-play, so why should he be kept? But if Buck likes football play-by-play then he should continue to do that, but do the obscure games like he used to (fourth in the batting order from 1994-98. Usually working with Tim Green).

Eagles-Vikings Game Postponed To Tuesday

Due to the snowstorm blanketing much of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, the Eagles-Vikings game scheduled for tonight has been moved to a Tuesday, 8:00 PM kickoff. Since the game was supposed to be a nationally televised game, I'm assuming Tuesday night's make-up game will be the same, unlike the Giants-Vikings game from two weeks ago that was only shown regionally.

And, to be honest, it would be silly to restrict this game from national coverage, which they did for the aforementioned Vikings-Giants game from Week 14 (although it was free to attend the game. That was the only consolation.)

The only problem with that is a.) I have nothing to do tonight. I guess I'll have to watch Top Gear, which the American version is nowhere near as good as the British version. And b.) access to NFL Game Rewind is blocked because there is normally a game during this time, so I can't watch the games from this afternoon that weren't shown in my area (read: the good ones)

I'm Sorry But This Weekend's Slate Of Games Suck

I am seeing Browns-Ravens for my single game on CBS, Redskins-Jaguars for the first game of the doubleheader, and Giants-Packers for the second game. For the third straight week the Fox team of Sam Rosen and Tim Ryan will be in my living room. I think they both are underrated for how obscure games they frequently do, and I enjoy watching their games. One good thing about Ravens-Browns is that Ian Eagle and Dan Fouts are doing the game. I have yet to see a full game of theirs this season.

The Raiders game, called by Greg Gumbel and Dan Dierdorf, is blacked out in the San Francisco market, so Chargers-Bengals (Johnson and Tasker) is being shown instead. Phil Simms and Jim Nantz will call the action of N.Y. Jets-Chicago.

I sort of wish San Francisco-St. Louis were being shown here. A.) I have yet to see a Rams game. B.) It's their "A" game in the early slot. Just because it's a west coast game doesn't mean it should not be shown here. It hasn't stopped WTTE before. Fox all season has clearly been behind CBS, particularly in their games and the selection of games picked by local affiliates week-in-week-out. I guess scheduling the Vikings and Cowboys for nearly every nationally televised game would do that, but it goes beyond that.

The problem is I don't where the blame lies. Is in the NFL? The network? Or the local affiliate's program director? Clearly there is a cog in the system that is distorting something from preventing the best action from being shown on Sunday afternoons, instead opting for the so-called "regional" matchup. Or, being a college town, showing a game of a team with prominent ex-Buckeyes (Troy Smith, A.J. Hawk, etc). I just realized something. Troy Smith is supposed to start this Sunday's 49er game, so maybe WTTE will switch!

The Tebow Love-Fest Has To End

I'm blogging while watching Sunday's Broncos-Raiders game on NFL Game Rewind and my god, is the Tebow love rampid. So much so, it's sickening. And not just from one announcer, but from both. CBS was tracking Tebow like Fox or ESPN would do with Favre, with Gus Johnson giving us the play-by-play along the way ("There is Tebow talking with his quarterback coach about that last series." -- one that was a three and out). Hype. Hype. Hype. Storylines abound. Talk this about Tebow. Talk that. Talk about the awards. Talk about Tebow's college accomplishments and all the fluff that go with ("the most accomplished college player of his generation.") It was sick I tell you! Sick! I hate to sound like Paul Zimmerman here, but when a storyline gets in the way of the game action - especially when the player who all the talk is about is not doing well - it's just asinine!

I get it. He's a great athlete and a great person and an emotional leader and a Christian. Please end it there! I still don't think he's even a very good quarterback, which is not the same thing as being a good athlete. Where is all the love come from? It can't be one thing or another. Plenty of athletes are Christians. Plenty of athletes are capable and emotional leaders. But ever in NFL history has a single player been so hyped out of college and then hyped in the NFL before he has done a damn thing?! And even though the Rams are currently 1st place in the NFC West, it has been barely talked about how well Sam Bradford has played. What's been covered, annoyingly more, is how terrible the NFC West is and how the NFL should have a seeding system based on record. Everybody should have seen that the NFC West was going to be bad this year. Why is it such a surprise now?

Please, folks, let's stop the Tebow love - here and now.

In other NFL news, I don't know if you heard or not, but Brett Favre started against the Bears on Monday Night in a game that was played outdoors in the cold and snow in Minnesota, seperated shoulder and all. Favre knows how to grab the media's attention. He'll tell Ed Werner that he has no plans on starting and then seemingly majestically, he'll start. Is it too much to think that Favre intended on starting all along, but just kept telling the media that he won't for his own sick and twisted reason? I guess it's nice to be in a position to be able to hold the media hostage, with them biting their nails, wating on what you're going to say and do next. I don't think anybody, even the Vikings, would think that they would lose two quarterbacks to injury in the consecutive games, so I wouldn't have blamed them for starting a rookie, or getting a scab through free agency (in this case, Patrick Ramsey).

This was a wasted season for the Vikings and Favre a.) should not have came back, and b.) been benched early in the season. After the New England game at the latest. And it's a shame that Brad Chidress was sacrificed for his team's failure.

Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention this. In last week's TMQ, Gregg included an email from a reader where the reader basically told TMQ he was wrong and that his comparison was stupid and wrong.

I noted many big colleges have more staff in the athletic department than in the English department. Matt Howland of Penn State replies, "I think your comparison of ratios with employees serving the football team and the English department serving the entire student body is flawed. The proportionate amount of time needed to teach one student in one English class is tiny compared to the amount of time football players and other athletes spend time preparing to compete. I think a more fair comparison is relating the English staff to English majors, rather than to the entire student body."

One thing I have always thought about Gregg Easterbrook is that he has a relatively small ego - compared to, say, Colin Cowherd. I'm glad that TMQ was man enough to include this comment in his column.

I Rip Gregg Easterbrook Because His Column Has Turned To Shit

Yeah. TMQ used to be cool. It used to be somewhat funny and had some insightful analysis, but now, uh-uh. Twice this season Gregg Easterbrook has made the focus of his TMQ not about sports and earlier this year wrote a dedicated column scathing "24". That was probably the beginning of the end for my interest in his column and usually I read it on The Bottom of the Barrel as well as their prognostication. One thing TMQ has going for it is that Gregg Easterbrook is the last ESPN personality that isn't dick-riding Brett Favre and the array of storylines that come with. And for that, I'm surprised he wasn't fired (yes I am being cynical).

For the first time in a while, Gregg offers up some real analysis for the focus of his TMQ before branching off into something only the Football Gods knows.

Sunday's snowstorms -- the Metrodome collapsed, blizzard conditions at Soldier Field -- remind us that alone in team athletics, football is a sport performed in the elements. Football begins in the sweltering heat and humidity of summer, proceeds through the rain and wind of autumn, and advances to snow and freezing cold. Most team sports are indoors most or all the time. Baseball clubs retire to Florida and Arizona in winter to train in ideal conditions, then call their games -- racing for shelter -- over anything more than a sprinkle. Football performs in heat, cold, wind, sleet, snow and rain.

What sucks is that right off the bat I agree with what Gregg is saying here. At one point or another during an NFL season a team is going to have to play a game in the elements; whether it's rain, snow or strong winds. About the only thing the NFL will stop for his lighting or wild fires.

Perhaps the collapse of the Metrodome was the football gods telling Brett Favre it's time to bronze his cleats.

(Rimshot)

This tells us you shouldn't be afraid to throw in snow: Bring a passing game plan, as Belichick brought to Chicago. Tom Brady threw 40 times for 27 completions and 369 yards, as if the game had been played on a flawless California blue-sky day. By halftime, New England held a 193-14 passing-yards lead, and the second half should have been canceled to let the crowd go home. In snow, when footing is bad, it's difficult to change direction -- so throw down the middle. Don't throw sideways patterns like outs, and forget sweeps and tosses. Guess what the Patriots did, and guess what the Bears did.

Anyone remember the Snow Bowl? The Patriots threw all over the Raiders in that one, and it was played during a steady snowfall. There is a basic defensive gameplan that a defense could use to stop the Patriots, where the defense plays tight coverage on the receivers, but doesn't pressure the quarterback or play really deep coverage.

And then, surprisingly, we get some actual analysis from Gregg that aren't outlandish or crazy.

All the above make New England the NFL's best team of the moment -- the only on-field criticism I can think of is they may be peaking too soon. But this being the Patriots, there's a dark side. In 2007, Belichick admitted to years of what seemed to everyone except him as cheating. If New England returns to the Super Bowl, the sports world might have to relive Spygate -- including the unresolved questions of why Belichick wouldn't come clean until forced, and why he never really apologized. If the Patriots win this year's Super Bowl, people might wonder if they are cheating still. Probably not, but considering the elaborate, systematic nature of their previous clandestine efforts, this can't be ruled out. Many football enthusiasts, including in the league front office, might not mind if the Patriots are knocked off early in the playoffs, and Spygate: The Sequel doesn't happen.

I knew the spygate bug would return, especially with Gregg, who ripped the shit out of Belichick back in '07 (just look through Gregg Easterbrook's archives on his ESPN Page 2 site), calling him something to the effect of "The NFL's best coach, but the NFL's worst sport."

The actual analysis and down-to-earth statements end here, and the Gregg Easterbrook of 2010 rears its ugly head again.

In college football news, the Heisman went to Cam Newton. Considering the trophy is supposedly presented to the player who "best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity," it is another sign of the decline of standards that for the second time in six years -- Reggie Bush in 2005, Newton in 2010 -- an award for "excellence with integrity" went to a player with ethical question marks. The "integrity" part seems to have become a big joke to the Heisman voters.

I'm pretty sure Newton's integrity has never been questioned and it's been damn near proven it was his father and agents who were at fault. So why should Cam Newton be blamed for this? Deep down Gregg is just pissed that a quarterback won the award and not an obscure lineman. Because by Vince Lombardi, that's where football happens.

TMQ continues to maintain this award should be renamed the Heisman Trophy for the Quarterback or Running Back Who Receives Most Publicity. Awarded 76 times, the trophy has gone to 71 quarterbacks or running backs. No linebacker or offensive lineman has won, only one defensive back has won, and the two winners sometimes described as linemen -- Larry Kelley of Yale in 1936 and Leon Hart of Notre Dame in 1949 -- made their marks as receivers on offense, though also played defensive end, as in their eras many players went both ways. If John Heisman, who was a center and tackle for Brown and Penn before going into coaching, were alive and playing today, there's no chance he could win the award that bears his name.

Thank the Football Gods for AutoText.

TMQ thinks the best college football player of 2010 was left tackle Gabe Carimi of Wisconsin, recipient of the Outland Trophy. There were many tremendous performers at Oregon, Auburn, Stanford and other schools; Carimi was best from my perspective. Wisconsin piled up amazing rushing yardage with simple tactics, often "50" or "70" runs behind the left tackle. Carimi was never involved in recruiting monkey business. Unlike Newton, who may have cheated when at Florida, there are no questions about Carimi as a genuine student. Carimi made the 2010 Academic Big Ten team, which means at least a 3.0 GPA.

He was never recruited? So that means he was a crappy player in high school? Probably not (I don't know) Just sayin'. There are many football players who are recruited. So because a player is recruited means that they're an asshole in Gregg's "perspective".

Proof of solid classroom performance should be part of the Heisman search for collegiate "excellence." Instead, to the Heisman voters, integrity and academic performance have become irrelevant. All that matters is hype and ratings. This is a distressing message for the Heisman Trust to send about college football. If John Heisman were around, he might take his name off his own award.

The award has always, to a degree, been about hype. Even the players who won the award back in the days of "real football" created some buzz or hype. Seriously, this statement sounds like it came from a message board weasel in his mom's basement, bitching about the Heisman's "bias".

Another threat to Western civilization is the NFC West, in which no team has a winning record. At 4-9, the Arizona Cardinals are still in contention. The NFC West could have a division winner at 7-9, hosting a home playoff game, while a 10-6 team doesn't even make the postseason. Should the NFC West be an automatic qualifier for the BCS? Could any NFC West club make the New Mexico Bowl, which on Saturday will pair two schools that don't have winning records? A looming NFL playoff fiasco -- losing teams in, winning teams out -- is another argument for a seeded tournament.

Wow, there's a lofty pronouncement! Sound the cannons. Release the pigeons. Has this topic not been beaten to death already? A seeding system in the NFL is not going to, and should not, happen. There were cries about this years ago when the NFC had an overwhelming advantage over the AFC in the Super Bowl. And who says a 10-6 team won't make it to the postseason this year? Seriously, if the Packers stink up their last three games, they're out of contention. And it's very possible because their next three opponents are the Pats, Giants and Bears, probably the best the NFL has to offer.

Leading 7-0 in the second quarter at Tennessee, Indianapolis faced third-and-14 on its 37. Flaming Thumbtacks corner Cortland Finnegan, who's a lot better at starting fights than playing football, had man coverage on Reggie Wayne, who ran a simple "go." Rather than keep his eyes on the receiver -- proper technique for man coverage -- Finnegan made the high school mistake of looking into the backfield trying to guess the play. As Wayne was blowing past him, Finnegan was looking backward at Peyton Manning: 50-yard reception by Wayne, and soon the Colts led 14-0. Looking into the backfield not only is fundamentally poor, it shows Finnegan is lazy. He was hoping to see that the Colts' call was a draw or something short, which would allow him to quit on the play.

How sure are you it was man? And even if it was, could it possibly have been a breakdown of coverage? Maybe there was another safety who was supposed to be helping Finnegan if he got beat. Screams zone to me, and Wayne blazed through it. And if Finnegan were to abandon his zone, he would get chewed out by his coaches for not being disciplined. Of course I take offense to Gregg making generalizations when I made one myself, but nobody's perfect.

"Was by Leslie Frazier, when he turned in a lineup card with Brett Favre scratched. See the league's official Game Book here, under "Not Active."

It was sour because Favre's iron-man streak -- his first start came when the elder George Bush was president, when Charles and Diana were still married -- concluded. It was sweet because no quarterback ever started 297 straight NFL games before, and no one ever will again."

Now Blogger has decided to take a shit and make everything bold. I'm anticipating Gregg is going to get fired for speaking ill about Favre and positively about his benching. I usually agree with Gregg on Favre stuff.

"'Voyage of the Dawn Treader' -- TMQ's favorite of the seven Narnia books -- opened in big-budget special-effects format Friday. I shudder to think of attending after hearing the director say he altered the story to "improve" it."

So Gregg Easterbrook is an Narnia nerd (sort of like a trekie)? This amuses me because aren't the Chronicles of Narnia books for kids? Of course, last year, Gregg said his favorite movie of 2009 was Wall-E. And later on Gregg says Voyage of the Dawn Treader is his favorite because it has a Christian theme, and then proceeds to say that the filmakers should take Christian elements out of the story, only to say to keep them. Easterbrook's double-talk is what always gets under my skin.

"Instead, Mike Shanahan sent out the kicking team for a singleton to force overtime. This is fraidy-cat thinking: If Shanahan goes for two and the play fails he is blamed; if he does the expected and kicks, the players are blamed for any loss. Beyond that, it was plain dumb given the game situation. Struggling Redskins place-kicker Graham Gano already had missed a 24-yard field goal attempt and barely made his sole PAT kick. The odds of a blown PAT here -- what happened, of course -- were much higher than usual. But Shanahan wanted to shift the blame from himself onto the players. The players "made mistakes," Shanahan said in his postgame news conference. The Redskins are the team of the nation's capital, and the one thing Washington is good at is blame-shifting! "Snapper, Holder Shoulder Blame for Loss," read the headline of a Monday Washington Post story, which blamed the players and said almost nothing about the fact that 5-8 Washington might have gone for the win. Gano will be waived soon, if he hasn't been already, and Shanahan will blame him for the loss. Shanahan should blame his own poor decision."

I'm sure if the Redskins went for the deuce and didn't convert, then Gregg would have ripped them for that and said they should have gone for a singleton instead.

"Coaches have good and bad performances just like players. Shanahan's performance Sunday was cover-your-eyes awful."

Even Bill Belichick has a bad weekend. Week 9 of this year ring any bells?

"Trailing 27-21 with 4:14 remaining, their season sinking slowly into the west, the Tennessee Titans faced fourth-and-1 on their own 34 against the Indianapolis Colts. You need only a yard, are playing at home, and averaged 5.7 yards per offensive snap on the game -- go for it! You've lost four straight and need to reverse this losing psychology -- go for it! Boom was the sound of the punt, and now the Flaming Thumbtacks have lost five straight."

Their own 34? That's not what I would call great field position. That's still about five yards from the no-man's land where going for it would make sense. And to say that just because they punted means an automatic loss is lunacy -- just like Gregg Easterbrook.

"Often, defenses relax when an offensive star jogs off."

Oh yeah? Says who? Is this another made-up theory by Gregg Easterbrook to make himself sound smarter than all the players and analysts out there.

"Reaching first-and-goal at the Dallas 1, game scoreless, the Philadelphia Eagles came out in a shotgun spread while the Cowboys lined up in a dime. Perhaps it is just as well that Vince Lombardi did not live to see a dime defense versus a shotgun spread on first-and-goal at the 1. Noticing the Boys had no middle linebacker on the field, Michael Vick simply ran up the middle for the touchdown, with six blockers versus five defenders."

This play was pretty cool. And I'm glad Vince Lombardi isn't around today. He was an overrated coach to begin with, and besides, football has evolved alot since Lombardi. And even during his time he was seen as a bit of a simpleton with his coaching on both sides of the ball.

"No one has ever been a better "all-around" college football player than Marecic."

Is this a fact or just another outlandish statement? And he's a running back (okay, a two-way player, but still, a running back), so he should automatically be disqualified, damn it. And why aren't small schools considered in Heisman voting? Because there are enough players in D-1 to begin with and alot of D-II and D-III schools play teams that really, really suck and win huge and have exasperated stats. That's why.

The Single Worst Play of the Season So Far...until next week. I swear there have been like six of these this season. This TMQ started out well but then burst into flames.

And I promise I'll do announcer reviews. I have NFL Game Rewind now so I can now watch games with announcers I haven't heard for free.