Easterbrook, further down the spiral of insanity

If New England wins, the Patriots will not be the greatest team ever -- at least conditionally, until such time as the NFL reveals what was in the Patriots' cheating videos and documents that the league destroyed in September.

If the Patriots go undefeated (not losing a single freaking game) they will be the best team ever. The only other argument would be for the ’72 Dolphins and they only played 17 games and like three of those were against good teams.

Most of the sports media have rolled over and played dead on the New England destroyed-tapes story; TMQ reminds you of the specifics here.

How about talking about Harrison’s HGH suspension? Oh that’s right, he served his suspension. And the Patriots were fined half a million and a first rounder.

Let’s take a look at your conspiracy theory laden rant.

My favorite line: And if you're tempted to say, "Gregg, at worst this is just cheating in some dumb football games," here's why the affair matters: If a big American institution such as the NFL is not being honest with the public about a subject as minor, in the scheme of things, as the Super Bowl, how can we expect American government and business to be honest with the public about what really matters?

This theory, to recap: NFL “lies” about Patriots “cheating” = US Government lying about anything.

That is unbelievably insane. And frankly, I am a little worried about Gregg. The NFL, as far as I know, is in no way affiliated with the US Government. I doubt they meet over lunch and talk about “lying to the public techniques” or something.

This is similar to saying if Billy cheats on his elementary school spelling test, than the government is putting mind control nano-bug technology in our food.

Until we know what was on the videotapes and in the documents the NFL destroyed, there will always be a cloud of suspicion over the Patriots.

I am pretty positive that the Patriots were punished, harshly, and could not have cheated for the past 17 games. And honestly, I doubt that stealing signals had much to do with the ass-whooping the Jets got in week one, but that’s just me.

Do you know why everyone has “rolled over and played dead” on this? Because it’s done with. They were fined, draft pick taken from them and columns like yours were written for weeks questioning the entire history of the team.

How much of an advantage did they gain by cheating? Did they really hand over everything to the league?

No, they kept the super-secret pen-sized spy cameras, shoe phones, dental floss that’s actually piano wire and fake moustaches, just in case.

Are they still cheating now?

Ever since the end of week one all eyes were on the Patriots in the wake of this scandal. There is no way they are dumb enough to keep cheating with a thousand times as many people looking on.

Most important by far, have they cheated in the Super Bowl?

I don’t know, watch the tapes and look for Lee Harvey Oswald on the sidelines. Goodell probably edited him out though.

No matter how well New England plays Sunday, every victory the team earned this season -- and perhaps victories in previous seasons, too -- is tainted until such time when we learn what was in the material the league destroyed.

Remember when they went to the Super Bowl in ’85? Asterisk. They cheated, stole signs from the Bears. Flutie’s dropkick? Stole that signal. Three Super Bowls, where media coverage reaches Britney Spears-like intensity and it would be nigh-impossible to have spy cameras all over the place? Rescinded.

And all you sportscasters and sportswriters

Assholes.

who will spend this week gushing over the Super Bowl, it would be nice if a few of you mentioned that, a mere four months ago, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell found the Patriots guilty of "a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition."

How about I mention that you, Gregg Easterbrook, were scolded by ESPN ombudsman Le Anne Scheiber for your crazy, off-base rantings?

“In manufacturing extended false analogies between Richard Nixon's Watergate and Bill Belichick's tapegate, as if stonewalling to the press is the same as stonewalling to congressional investigators, as if violating a league rule is the same as violating federal law…”

Oops.

Two billion people will watch the Super Bowl; almost all of America's children and teens will watch the Super Bowl. If the bottom line of the event is "It's fine to cheat, you'll get away with it," what message does that send?

Think of the children, NFL! Forget the beer ads and commercials with suggestive themes and large-chested women (many of whom are prominently featured in your TMQ column). Those damn filthy, cheating Patriots are playing. Children may grow up to steal signals on sidelines in pee-wee football and be fined half a million cookies and first pick of the swings at recess!

I understand that you, Gregg Easterbrook, are a bastion of truth and honesty, but this is a little over the top, even for you.

And let’s never forget:

“Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.”

Vampire Weekend debut lives up to hype

Gone are the days of touring endless bars half-full of drunk college kids for $50 and free beer until your band scrapes up enough money to record a demo and hope some label takes a chance. Even then, your band would need to make a hit music video or get on a magazine cover before becoming “big.”

In the age of MySpace, YouTube, FaceBook and thousands of music blogs, it is possible for a band to go from “total unknown” to “next big thing” in the blink of an eye. Vampire Weekend is one of these bands.

Hailing from New York, Vampire Weekend consists of four regular (although probably smart) guys who met at Columbia University. They look like how one would think four white kids from New York who go to Columbia look like – sweater-clad, skinny, maybe a little smarmy and simply adorable. These are rock stars that your parents would be delighted with if you brought one of them home for dinner.

A few of the band’s songs have been circulating the Internet since late 2007. The subsequent hype and “you got to check this out!” groundswell reached epic proportions – cresting with the release of the band’s self titled LP on January 29, 2008.

The song most are familiar with is “A-Punk,” a clip of which is shown after a number of MTV shows. Featuring the band’s signature surf-rock guitars and a healthy dose of sing-along-able “ohs” and “heys,” it’s easy to see why this song was chosen to represent the band’s style.

Indeed, Vampire Weekend’s music conjures images of Hawaiian shirts and sandy beaches. Keeping in theme, the band’s lyrics reference Cape Cod, New Mexico and California, along with college, and of course, girls. This isn’t deep stuff lyrically, but this is pop. It’s supposed to be fun, lighthearted and simple – and it is.

Album standout, “Walcott” is an upbeat, piano-filled story about the trappings of Cape Cod. Vampire Weekend shows their music savvy on this track, using the perfect amount of strings – which seem to pleasantly fade in and out throughout the record.

Off of “Walcott”: “Walcott/Mystic seaport/Is that that way/Don't you know/That your life could be lost?/Out of Cape Cod tonight.”

Vampire Weekend’s influences are clear on “Cape Cod Kwassa Kwassa.” Lyrically referring to Peter Gabriel and stylistically sounding a lot like Paul Simon. There’s bongo, maraca, simple, short guitar and kitschy lyrics. “Is your bed made?/Is your sweater on?/Do you want to/Like you know I do.”

“Cape Cod Kwassa Kwassa” represents what Vampire Weekend are about. They’re fun, a little immature, simple musically and pretty damn good song writers.

Vampire Weekend is an interesting record. It may seem unappealing – too happy, sunny or goofy, to some listeners. But after one listen, you just want to hear that one song again. Soon, one song turns into two. And then three. Suddenly, you’ll have listened to the whole thing three times.

Try as one might, it is very difficult to resist the charms of these four Columbia-schooled New Yorkers with their argyle sweaters and button-down shirts. Their two and a half minute pop vignettes will be playing in your head the minute you turn the record off – if you can, that is.

Vampire Weekend, "A-Punk."

'Video games as art' debate ends

Before reading any further I highly recommend going here and just going along with what will happen, it should take about 10 minutes at the most. The following will mean much more if you take the 10 minutes.

I would also like to thank Destructoid.com for bringing this to my attention and indirectly causing me to write this.

As video games, the fastest growing and evolving form entertainment, become more and more legitimate in the eyes of the general public, many questions about their merit will arise. Do they have any effect on people’s behavior? How should the government (if at all) legislate them? Are they simply a fad?

Those questions will get answered – indeed some of them already have been. But one will always remain: are video games art?

Video games undoubtedly have the capacity to move a player emotionally. The advances in storytelling, graphics and writing in the industry have elevated many games to almost Hollywood film-like levels. Many a gamer has confessed to crying during Aeris’ unexpected death in the classic Final Fantasy VII or being deeply afraid and disturbed in Silent Hill 2. The question “can video games affect the player?” is not a debate – it is a fact.

But art is a difficult term to define. For a very long time film was not considered art and in some circles, is still not on par with literature and the craft arts (painting, sculpture, etc.). Video games have the stigma of being the new kid on the block. Being barely 30 years old and targeted mostly to the 18-35 male demographic are two major factors that have kept video games from becoming art.

Up until very recently I was inclined to agree with the sentiment that games weren’t art. They have a learning curve, appeal to a somewhat narrow sub-division of people and require significant time/money investments.

All that changed with a game called Passage.

Passage is an extremely minimalist game. Its visuals are no better than any Atari game. The controls are nothing more than the four arrow keys on your computer. Its story – non-existent. In fact it’s difficult to call Passage a “game” at all as there are no goals and it isn’t really “fun.” But if that is true, what is it?

My first play through the game started like any other. I moved my on-screen character from left to right, like thousands of other two-dimensional games, towards some unknown goal. Upon seeing a female character (known as Sally from here on) that looked like mine, I walked up to her, and we were suddenly joined. Upon grabbing some treasure and seeing my presumed score (the number in the top right hand corner) rise, I thought I had the game figured out.

As I progressed it became obvious that I could not access certain areas with Sally. Soon the pixilated characters started to change, subtly at first, only eye and “clothing” color changed. Then my characters began to visibly age, graying hair and a slower walk. Suddenly, Sally died - became a tombstone almost instantly. My avatar became hunched and the soundtrack slowed, with the never ending right side of the screen becoming more and more blurry. My character’s death was almost foreseeable. There was no goal in this “game,” no princess waiting to be rescued, no bosses to be defeated.

What Passage does that is so unique is that it manages to ask philosophical questions within its core “game-play.” While story-driven games like Killer7 and the Metal Gear Solid series have asked questions about politics, among other things, they have done so in narrative, not game-play. The decisions you make while playing Passage can be interpreted as decisions in life. Would you be better off without Sally? Should you go hunting for treasure? Explore laterally or always move forward? Try to beat the inevitable or accept it? Grieve over Sally’s death or move on? Although it is doubtful the way you play Passage is the way you live your life, what if, on some subconscious level, it was?

I read on a message board that a player simply stood over the grave of Sally, unable to move on. Whether true, exaggeration or sarcasm it did not shock me that a player had that reaction. Upon her death I kept trudging forward, although with a moment of surprise and shock.

How could the death of a character with no voice, no personality and no real relationship to me or my character whatsoever have any effect on me or anyone else? In many ways this death meant more than that of Aeris, Old Yeller, or any other character in any form of entertainment, because it felt real. I chose to be with this girl, I spent time with her, I grew old with her and I watched her die suddenly.

One can play through the game without Sally. While she does double your “score,” she doesn’t offer any abilities like a super jump or fireballs. That decision also allows the player to explore more freely and possibly make up for that score differential with treasure. But traveling alone, especially after playing the game with Sally, is a lonely experience. Sure, you can acquire more treasure - but some chests contain flies. And, as I assume is true in life, growing old and dying alone is a depressing ordeal. The game allows players to choose to travel alone or with Sally and the only reward/penalty one receives for either choice, is purely self-imposed.

My personal moment of intrigue during the game came during exploration. I admit that I like to explore during games, so it was not a surprise that I did the same during Passage. What was different was that I wasn’t allowed to go to certain places with Sally alongside me. I kept try and trying to squeeze into areas obviously made for one character, hoping that it was a glitch. But through it all I don’t recall thinking that I wish I didn’t have her along.

After playing Passage it is almost impossible to come away without a reaction. Some cried. Others felt an overwhelming sense of emptiness. Some didn’t get it. Others laughed. I don’t care if this is game, “interactive art” or something that defies definition. I do know that it is one of the most interesting philosophical pieces of media I have ever experienced. I urge anyone with even a fleeting interest in gaming (or philosophy, or art) to take five minutes and play this game. Even if you feel nothing or don’t understand it, that probably says something about you - that’s more than anyone can say about Super Mario Brothers or Halo.

Update: Creator, Jason Rohrer talks about what he wanted to say making the game

American Gladiator power rankings

Rankings are scored on six individual events. Therefore these do not include Gauntlet and Powerball, due to their difficulty/impossibility to keep score of. But in Hit and Run’s case, I just think it sucks. Stats like knock outs, points allowed, times knocked out and holds, among others, are used where appropriate. And yes, this may be the dorkiest thing ever.

Note: This does not include tonight’s (1/28) episode.

Update: Big thanks to Deadspin for linking this article. They're easily one of my favorite five or six satirical sports blogs around. Thanks again!

With five full episodes in the books, American Gladiators has made me remember why I loved the original show in the first place and watched a ton of it on ESPN Classic recently. It’s everything we love about sports: big hits, probable steroid use, ridiculous personalities, underdog stories and of course, jousting.

But who is the best Gladiator? Is it the unbridled manliness of Ted Nugent look-alike Wolf? What about the Hitler’s dreamboat, Titan? In honor of the cornball glory that is the new American Gladiators, here is the first installment of the American Gladiator Power Rankings.

1. Justice

While performing well in Pyramid (one for one with no points allowed), it is Justice’s insane Assault numbers that got him the number one ranking. He has three kills in four appearances - but even better is that miniscule seven points allowed, which is good for 1.75 points/appearance. Justice may be a one hit wonder right now, but his dominance has to be recognized.

2. Crush

Similar to Justice, Crush dominates one event – Joust, like none other. Arguably one of the more even events in terms of Gladiator/Human relations, Crush has obliterated opponents to the tune of three KOs and one tie in four appearances. Recording two ties in Earthquake probably cost Crush the number one spot, but it is still within striking distance.

3. Fury

While the previous two Gladiators dominate one event, Fury excels at many. Her Assault numbers are nuts (two KOs, three points allowed in two appearances) and her Earthquake numbers are tops (one KO, one tie in two APP). She also has a hold in one Pyramid appearance. What brought her down to three were her shortcomings in Hang Tough – 15 points allowed in two appearances, highest total among Gladiators. Also, only Venom has as many appearances as Fury’s seven.

4. Wolf

A combination of strong and quick, Wolf is the male version of Fury. He’s perfect in Pyramid (two for two, no points) and leads AG with two kills on Hang Tough - only one other Gladiator has even one. His big slip-up was allowing the full 10 on his lone Wall appearance. His 3.33 points/APP in Hang Tough is comfortably first in AG.

5. Venom

This one surprised me, as Venom is one of the less popular Gladiators. Her seven appearances tie her with Fury for first. Venom, like Fury, also doesn’t appear in any event more than twice. Her best event has been the Wall, with one KO and five PA in two appearances. Venom is also the only other AG with a knockout on Hang Tough. Her Joust numbers aren’t great (one KO, one time knocked out in two APP) but they’re serviceable.

6. Toa

Not making much of a splash in the individual events, Toa still managed to stay in the top half. He is skilled in the Wall, with one KO and only five points allowed in two appearances. His five points allowed in one Pyramid APP is nothing to write home about though.

7. Titan

This was my biggest shocker. Titan has the perfect AG persona, carrying the torch of Nitro as the face of the show. But he may be too big for his own good, only able to compete effectively in strength events. He dominated his one Pyramid APP, allowing no points. His Joust numbers are uninspiring for a person his size (one KO, one TKO in two APP). Since I doubt we’ll see him in Hang Tough or Wall, he has to dominate the events he does partake in.

8. Siren

When I first started this I didn’t have the most recent episode entered in yet. Siren had zero individual event appearances at that time and was ranked, I think seventh. She got her shots this week, and what a week it was. Knocked out in Assault and allowing an AG high 13 points. Not even the sole AG spotless Wall performance (one KO, with no points) can cover up that atrocious Assault game.

9. Hellga

Hellga is an even more limited Titan. She has zero speed to speak of and I can’t see her on Hang Tough, Pyramid or Wall. She’d probably be a monster in Joust or Earthquake, but she hasn’t had the chance yet. The one individual event she has done, Assault, was pretty bad. She got knocked out (one of three AGs so far) and allowed 11 points, good for second to last.

10. Mayhem

Mayhem has the dubious distinction of not one, but two disqualifications on Joust for stepping on his opponent’s platform. When I have to keep track of DQs just because of you, you know you’re going to be ranked low. Not to be outdone, he also is one of three AGs to get burned for the full 10 on Wall. His one Pyramid hold keeps him out of the bottom two.

11. Militia

Militia hasn’t done much of anything well, but not for lack of trying. While AGs like Siren and Hellga have been bad, at least they can hang their hats on not having a lot of appearances. No such luck for Militia. His six APP ties him with a host of others for second. He lost in his sole Hang Tough APP after an injury and has a TKO, one tie and one wedgie in two Earthquake stops. His hold on Pyramid is fine, but that Assault line (two APP, 11 points, one KO and one TKO) is ugly.

12. Stealth

Without a doubt the worst AG name ever and the worst Gladiator so far – Stealth has been pretty much invisible in these events. She is the only AG to allow her opponent to reach the top of the Pyramid, an event I feel heavily favors the Gladiators. I would be surprised if any competent Gladiator allows any more than one or two to reach the top this entire season. Stealth is also one of the three to allow the full 10 on Wall. Terrible start so far.

Dr. Girl Talk or: How I learned to stop worrying and love pop music

Girl Talk (Gregg Gillis) made me do something I never thought I would again: enjoy pop music.

I would classify myself as a music geek, although not of the highest order. I don’t have 15,000+ songs on my iTunes or the biggest iPod on the market. But I do read music Web sites, write record reviews and listen to music that casual music fans would probably consider weird. I often have headphones on and probably spend too much of my money on concerts.

I don’t personally remember hating pop music but I can (and probably still do) recall feeling better about myself because I had “taste” in music. When people I knew weren’t serious music fans ask me my favorite band, I would often say “you probably haven’t heard of them.” What kind of jerk answer is that?

By definition music nerds have to hate popular music. In fact, your music nerdiness can often be directly correlated with just how much you hate pop music. It’s targeted at the unwashed masses and lacks substance, intelligence and gravitas. Peddlers of pop music are mostly concerned about image and sales numbers – something indie musicians clearly will never care about. Their records sell at Wal-Mart and their videos are on MTV. They are sexy, do Pepsi ads and sing the national anthem at baseball games.

One DJ from Pennsylvania has turned the notion that it’s un-cool for hipsters to like pop music on its head. Girl Talk’s third album, 2006’s Night Ripper, re-defines what pop music is - and what it can be, by destroying, warping, twisting, chopping, smashing and generally mutilating it beyond recognition. Labeled a “mash-up” DJ, Girl Talk takes a number of short samples, rearranges, loops and scrambles them together to create a pop music Frankenstein’s monster.

It’s not like Gillis is breaking any musical barriers here. Old-school rappers have been using samples for decades. Unlike many rappers though, Gillis has avoided legal trouble from the artists he samples. It’s probably because he has always stood firm that his music “recontextualizes” the original source material. Basically, he isn’t stealing the hook from Billy Squier’s “The Stroke,” he is weaving it into a quilt of many other samples to form an entirely new product. Unlike other unlicensed sampling, Gillis isn’t profiting off another’s work. In fact, he is probably exposing them to a new audience.

For example, album opener “Once Again” takes the intro from Boston’s “Foreplay/Long Time” and blends it with Ludacris’ “Pimpin All Over the World” and Ciara’s thumping “my/my/my” vocals from “Goodies.” From there, the song warps into a collision of the Ying Yang Twins “The Whisper Song” and The Verve’s “Bittersweet Symphony.” It would have taken me years to think of that one minute span of glorious musical alchemy and even longer to deftly and seamlessly overlap the many components. The resultant is not only a great song, but a newfound respect for the catchiness of Luda’s rapping, Boston’s guitar work and the Ying Yang Twins nasty lines. I have never listened to Ludacris seriously, but maybe now I will. To think, hipsters like me listening to mainstream hip-hop. Even if I don’t, I at least respect him more than I used to.

Revelations like this are everywhere on Night Ripper. I find myself singing the chorus to D4L’s “Laffy Taffy” sample on “Hold Up” and not having an ounce of irony in my voice. Who’s D4L? I have no idea. But at least now I know there exists a band named D4L who rap about shaking dat laffy taffy.

Songs are given new life from this pop music Dr. Frankenstein. The drums and guitar from Nirvana’s “Scentless Apprentice” are as brutal on “Smash Your Head” as they were in 1993 on In Utero – maybe more so when featured alongside Young Jeezy. The Emotions “Best of My Love” makes a great backbeat for Purple Ribbon All-Stars “Kryptonite (I’m on It).” Genres, timelines and popularity are of no consequence to Girl Talk. Britney Spears and the Pointer Sisters? Do it. The Breeders and Stevie Wonder? Bring it on. It’s like Gillis threw your music library into a blender, set it to puree, and created a 42 minute milk shake of pure pop pleasure.

In addition to making an amazing party album, Gillis has done something far more profound – revived pop music for a lot of jaded music fans.

Going to any “indie” show is a lesson in pretension and assumed coolness. Most fans (myself included, most of the time) just stand around, arms folded, quietly enjoying the band. Dancing is simply not cool. It is something teenage girls do.

The thing is, roughly the exact same crowd can be found at Girl Talk shows (because he is “cool”) dancing like teenage girls. Gillis has pulled the ultimate rope-a-dope on hipsters. By peppering pop songs with “indie” samples like Neutral Milk Hotel, The Pixies and Weezer, he has allowed them to simply love music again.

If one kid goes to a Girl Talk show and then steals their parents’ Genesis, Chicago or Aerosmith albums or their younger brother’s Young Jeezy or 50 Cent records, I’ve got to think that’s a good thing.

I have listened to Night Ripper roughly twenty times through in a month span. That’s more than I can say for a host of critically acclaimed, “important” albums that came out this year. Does this mean Girl Talk is more important or better than Of Montreal or Radiohead? I don’t think so. But in a way, yeah, it does. I’ve listened to “Once Again” off of Night Ripper about once a day since I’ve acquired it – and it’s probably more than that, between my car and iPod. That is ridiculous. And although that number will probably level out eventually, it says something about the power a pop-minded mash-up DJ can have over a music geek like me.

Often dismissed as somewhat of a fad – something that loses relevance the longer it exists, I think that’s the way Night Ripper and Girl Talk’s music in general, should be. It’s the Voltron of pop music, taking choruses and hooks from a host of sources and turning them into something more, something bigger. Best of, the source material is not only used, but revived as well. Am I going to come back every so often to listen to it as much as say Arcade Fire’s Funeral? I doubt it. I don’t think the record will have as much resonance when I am say, 32 instead of 22. But every single time (so far) I’ve heard B.I.G’s “Juicy” mixed with Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer,” I think Gregg Gillis is a goddamn genius. Who thinks ten years down the road anyway?

I used to keep bands like Styx and Electric Light Orchestra out of my iTunes library (despite liking many of their songs) for fear someone cooler than me would see it and scoff. Although that never happened, I do recall doing it to people on more than one occasion. No longer will I laugh when the first artist in someone’s iTunes is 2Pac. Girl Talk has made it more than just ironic to like bands like Heart, Cat Stevens and Puff Daddy – he’s made it cool. He’s shown me (and probably others) that there can be just as much musical value in a mainstream, MTV rap song as there is in an Icelandic minimalist techno song – sometimes even more.

We shouldn’t hate pop music simply because of what it is. We should love it for what it isn’t. It’s not pretentious or deep or complicated. It’s just pop. And despite how goofy the lyrics for “My Humps” are, it’s undeniably…pop-y. And that has to be good for something.

Now, James Taylor is nestled right next to Jens Lekman in my library. Styx right next to the Strokes. Lily Allen next to Lightning Bolt. And that’s the way it should be.

Playoff teams don't need studly WRs

I will make it no secret that I love what the guys at firejoemorgan.com do. I think their methodical ripping of all things false and unintelligent in the world of sports journalism is wonderful and has made me a better/smarter sports fan. This entry is blatantly inspired by the guys there. I encourage anyone reading this to check FJM out for a good laugh.

Reuben Frank over at SI.com has claimed that NFL playoff teams "rarely" feature stud wide receivers. With guys like Moss, Welker, Burress, Driver and Jennings classifiable as "studs" I somehow doubt he's right.

Reggie Wayne's mighty Colts lost at home. So did Terrell Owens' top-seeded Cowboys.

Totally their fault. Owens had a TD on four catches for 49 yards (not great, but certainly fine) and Wayne had a TD on seven catches for 76 yards, a solid game for a WR. Come on guys, can't you catch 2 TDs? Or have like 150 yards?

Chad Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Brandon Marshall and Braylon Edwards didn't even get to the playoffs. Neither did Roddy White, Marques Colston or Torry Holt.

Again, totally their fault. These teams (Bengals, Saints, Browns, Rams, Broncos, Falcons and Cardinals) were 27th, 26th, 30th, 21st, 19th, 29th and 17th in the NFL, respectively, in yards allowed on defense. They all also ranked 21st or higher (worse) in terms of points allowed per game. Their defenses stunk. That's probably why they didn't make the playoffs, not because their WRs were too good or something.

Only one of the top 10 wide receivers in yardage this year played for a team that won a playoff game, and that's nothing new in the NFL.

The key word here is "yardage" and the arbitrary benchmark Frank has attached to it to evaluate WRs. Yardage for WRs is much less relevant than it's made out to be. If a WR catches 20 TDs for 1 yard each, he sucks in Frank's eyes. It's like saying of the top ten MLB hitters in AVG, only 2 made the playoffs. Arbitrary.

Of the WRs that were in the top 10 in TD catches, three of those are still in the playoffs and three more (four including Reggie Williams, tied for 9th place with three others) were in the playoffs a week ago. Remember, WRs get paid to catch TDs.

Oh and Frank forgot to mention that of those top ten in yardage Johnson (8), Marshall (7), White (6) and Holt (7) had less than 10 TD catches. Two others, Wayne and Fitzgerald, had exactly 10. Not exactly eye-popping seasons.

Everybody wants T.O. Everybody wants Ocho Cinco. Everybody wants game breakers who put up huge numbers.

Maybe because they increase the goodness of football teams?

But historically, teams without those guys have just as good a chance to get to the Super Bowl and win as do teams with average wideouts.

This goes beyond "misuse of statistics to write a story during a time when nothing is going on" and into the realm of falsity. Of the top 10 teams in receiving yards/game, five made the playoffs (two of them being New England and Green Bay, number one and two in rYPG and first round bye teams) and had a combined 102-58 record. Of the bottom 10 teams in receiving yards, two made the playoffs and had a combined 62-98 record.

Teams "without those guys" ("those guys" being good receivers) don't have a chance to make the Super Bowl because they have a much worse chance of making the playoffs.

Owens is 1-6 in his last seven playoff games, with games of 26, 35, 40, 49 and 73 yards along the way.

Something is fishy here. I count seven playoff games and only five results chosen by Frank. Oh wait, that's because one was 9/177/2 TDs in 2002 against the Giants and the other was 9/122/0 in '04 on a probably broken leg versus the Patriots in the freakin' Super Bowl.

Can you say cherry-picking?

Aside: attributing wins/losses to a single football player is the single DUMBEST thing anyone can do. Even QBs, who arguably affect the outcome of a game the most, should not be credited with wins. Taking into consideration offensive line play, defense, special teams and about a thousand other things that can happen over the course of a football game, saying "player X is 10-5 when such and such happens" is utterly moronic.

This year, Moss is the only big-time receiver left.

Not true, but continue.

Burress had just three 100-yard games this year and Driver two.

Burress was nuts this year, almost never practicing due to an injury and still putting up insane games. Those three 100 yard games: 20/404/5 TDs. He also had 86, 97, 93 and 84 yard games (all with TDs), which is like one catch away from 100.

Driver had a much worse season, with only 2 TD catches. But by barely getting 1000 yards (1048), he's a stud to Frank. Green Bay teammate Greg Jennings had a lowly 920 yards, eliminating him from stud status. Those 12 TDs he caught, forget 'em.

But while everybody is conceding the Patriots the Super Bowl, Moss' postseason record is hardly a stellar one. He's surpassed 75 yards in only three of nine career playoff games,

What a scrub. How did he even get in the NFL?

Those three:
5/127/1
9/188/2
2/121/2 (!)

Moss also had exactly 75 yards once and paired that with a TD. Oh and a game with 70 yards but only two stinkin' TDs. Moss has nine TDs in nine playoff games and 737 yards. That's pretty damn good.

is averaging 38 yards in his last four, and has a 5-4 career postseason record.

Again with the record. Let's fight fire with fire on this one. Those last four, the one's where Moss is averaging 38 yards per? His teams are 2-2 in those games. Including a 14 yard game last week where Jacksonville said, "there is no way we're letting Moss go 10/150/2 on our ass" and lost. Conclusion = zero correlation between amount of Moss yards and his teams victory chances.

But if you want to reach a Super Bowl, you can do it with Deion Branch or Hines Ward.

I would argue that Ward was/is a star receiver. He's been the best WR on the Steelers forever.

He has put up 67/896/8 in his 11 playoff games, but Frank has relegated him to "non-stud" status so he's out.

Branch has played in 11 playoff games and put up 49/725/3 in those. Pretty bad, worse than Moss and Ward for sure.

You can do it with Qadry Ismail or Bobby Engram.

Engram's nine playoff games: 35/476/2
Ismail's nine playoff games: 18/287/0

Both were terrible and probably had nothing/very little to do with their teams making the Super Bowl. In fact, those teams made it in spite of their crappy WRs - especially in Baltimore's case. That was one of the best defensive teams ever too, by the way. But it was mostly Ismail's team.

You can do it with David Givens or Bernard Berrian.

Givens' seven games: 35/324/7
Berrian's four games: 19/296/2

One did awesome, one terrible. Again, there is seriously ZERO correlation between having good/bad receivers and making it to the Super Bowl. The NFL playoffs are 3-4 games long during which a million crazy things can happen. Moss can go 8/125/2 and his team can lose. Berrian can go 0/0/0 and his team can win.

You can also "do it" with guys like Rice, Moss, Bruce/Holt and a ton of other awesome receivers with rings.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think the overall strength of said teams may just have something to do with them making the Super Bowl.

Boring. But effective.

Just like your article. Oh wait, only half of that is true...

Colts Sanders somehow wins defensive player of the year

Indianapolis Colts safety Bob Sanders has won the NFL's Defensive Player of the Year award. After hearing announcers extol his virtues almost every game, including non-Colts games this season, I thought to myself "alright, he probably deserved it." The article is curiously number light and after looking at his stats, it's pretty clear why.

Games - 15
Tackles/Solo - 97/72
PD - 6
Sack - 3.5
FF - 0
INT - 2

Those numbers weren't even good in just the AFC. Tied for 17th in tackles, 41st in sacks and tied for 35th in INTs. Sanders didn't even lead his own team in any defensive statistic. Pretty odd for a DPoY. In the article, Ed Reed's 2004 season was brought up. Reed was the last safety to win. His numbers were nuts, by the way.

Games - 16
Tackles/Solo - 78/67
PD - 17
Sack - 2
FF - 4
INT - 9

Reed also ran back those picks for 358 yards and a touchdown. There's no comparison there, but that's apples and oranges. How about others who deserved it more than Sanders? What about NFL tackle leader and rookie Patrick Willis of San Francisco with his 174 tackles, 4 sacks and 5 passes defended? Or sack leader Jared Allen of Kansas City with 15.5 sacks, 65 tackles and 3 forced fumbles. Haynesworth in Tennessee and Kerney in Seattle also deserve it more than Sanders.

Unlike (?) the MVP award, I didn't think there was any debate about "valuable" in the DPoY - just the guy with the best defensive numbers. Even so, if you take Sanders off the Colts, I am pretty sure an average safety would fill in his numbers. Maybe he wouldn't be as "smash mouth" or have as many "highlight film" plays. But I bet he would get 60-80 tackles and 1-2 INTs.

I guess awarding the "best" player on the team with the best defense is what the award is about. Change the name to Defensive MVP not Defensive Player of the Year. Or they could just give it to people who deserve it. That could work too.