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.

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...

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.