He's got 27 rushing attempts all season - he's clearly a special teams guy. Semantics.
TMQ Thread
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
When I saw the Seahawks choice, I laughed. Burt is right; he's not even their best linebacker, let alone their best player (best LB is David Hawthorne by a mile). And I'd put Clemons, Thomas, Red Bryant, and even Milloy ahead of him on defense. On offense, I'd add Williams and Spencer to Okung.
Attributing Sunday to his 'Football Gods'
"Since taking the field with a 18-0 record in Super Bowl XLII, just 60 minutes from perfection, the New England Patriots have not won a playoff game. In their latest postseason collapse, versus the new York Jets, New England's offense, averaging a league-best 32 points, was held to 14 points at home until a garbage-time touchdown with seconds remaining.
There are many reasons for New England's postseason woes: some specific to the Patriots, others generic to all football, one particular to a great performance by the Jets' defense. But Tuesday Morning Quarterback thinks this is the core reason: The football gods are not yet finished punishing Bill Belichick for Spygate."
I have neither the energy nor the inclination to be one of the thousands of Patriots fans who will write to him today to say some sort of variation of 'fuck you' to Easterbrook.
However, I did want to login here and say this: Fuck you, Easterbrook
"Since taking the field with a 18-0 record in Super Bowl XLII, just 60 minutes from perfection, the New England Patriots have not won a playoff game. In their latest postseason collapse, versus the new York Jets, New England's offense, averaging a league-best 32 points, was held to 14 points at home until a garbage-time touchdown with seconds remaining.
There are many reasons for New England's postseason woes: some specific to the Patriots, others generic to all football, one particular to a great performance by the Jets' defense. But Tuesday Morning Quarterback thinks this is the core reason: The football gods are not yet finished punishing Bill Belichick for Spygate."
I have neither the energy nor the inclination to be one of the thousands of Patriots fans who will write to him today to say some sort of variation of 'fuck you' to Easterbrook.
However, I did want to login here and say this: Fuck you, Easterbrook
I assume that's tongue-in-cheek from TMQ, since he spent most of this year sucking off BB and the Pats. Of course as soon as misfortune hits he's right up front making sure he can piss all over them. Not a huge surprise, really.
Well, presumably, the football gods would've known about Spygate from the start. And if it was so bad, why didn't they stop the Pats from winning ANY Super Bowls?
Oh, wait, Easterbrook is just being an idiot.
Oh, wait, Easterbrook is just being an idiot.
Apparently, the "football gods" are more put off by a head coach that orders an assistant to tape the other team's defensive signals but who admits to it when caught than a head coach who is a toe-sucking, wife-swapping fat pervert who orders an assistant to create a wall to impede the progress of another team's special teams player and then sells the assistant out when caught.
They also seem to be pretty cool with date rapists.
Them football gods have an odd sense of justice.
The only argument that can be made for the existence of the "football gods" will be if the Bears win it all, because by going all out in their last "meaningless" game of the regular season, they did something that most people would claim would be pleasing to the 'football gods".
They also seem to be pretty cool with date rapists.
Them football gods have an odd sense of justice.
The only argument that can be made for the existence of the "football gods" will be if the Bears win it all, because by going all out in their last "meaningless" game of the regular season, they did something that most people would claim would be pleasing to the 'football gods".
I take it you're not over the loss?
The bottom line is Easterbrook is interested in writing goofy entertainment with a dash of football analysis; he has a bunch of routines in the can about blitzing, going for it on fourth and short, the Pats' bad manners, how good undrafted free agents and castoffs are, etc. that he works in there because, well, he needs to use those routines to complete his prolix column by Tuesday AM.
TMQ is the biggest assclown in the world. In his festival of douchebaggery today, he made fun of preseason predictions that turned out inaccurately. In addition to being a ridiculous exercise generally, he includes this gem:
What a bunch of idiots!!!! They thought the Ravens or Chargers would be in the Super Bowl and they weren't!!! Amazing insight!!1111!!!
Unfortunately for Gregggg, he links to their actual predictions... in which 5 of those 8 predictions correctly forecast the Packers winning the Super Bowl.
Screw you, TMQ.
What a bunch of idiots!!!! They thought the Ravens or Chargers would be in the Super Bowl and they weren't!!! Amazing insight!!1111!!!
Unfortunately for Gregggg, he links to their actual predictions... in which 5 of those 8 predictions correctly forecast the Packers winning the Super Bowl.
Screw you, TMQ.
He mocks Chris Carter for saying Dwayne Bowe would be breakout player of the year because Bowe has no receptions in the playoff game. Of course Bowe had a 72 reception 1162 years 15 touchdown regular season, which counts as a breakout year to me.
Yeah, this predictions column was worse than usual. There's no humor, really, or fun. It's just a list of how wrong people were. What's the point?
And it's so nit-picky as to not even prove a point. I thought the worst one was his item on Dwayne Bowe:
Not to mention, he rips on Peter King for all of his wrong predictions and can't even be bothered to mention that he, well, predicted the two teams in the Super Bowl? Again, what's the point here exactly?
And it's so nit-picky as to not even prove a point. I thought the worst one was his item on Dwayne Bowe:
Really? Dwayne Bowe pretty much was the breakout player of the year. In one stretch, he had 11 touchdowns in 7 games. He put up 15 TDs (never more than 7 in any other season) and 1162 yards. He averaged 16.1 Yards per Catch. Then his quarterback got eaten alive by a defense that outclassed him horribly. What was Bowe supposed to do? He's a deep-threat outside receiver and Cassel had about half a second to throw the ball at any point. That's just stupid.
Not to mention, he rips on Peter King for all of his wrong predictions and can't even be bothered to mention that he, well, predicted the two teams in the Super Bowl? Again, what's the point here exactly?
Deadspin tears Easterbrook a new poo poo hole, FJM-style (with monocole'd photo to boot), for his nauseatingly pontificatory column chastising Obama for filling out his bracket this year. Even if you dislike Obama, Easterbrook is a blowhard who deserves to be mocked.
Took out most of the text. We don't quote full articles here. Just provide a link and some text, thanks.
Agreed. The only grossly stupid thing is the sniping at the the NFL and Players for using taxpayer subsidized courts to resolve their disputes. A fairly reliable court system for resolving civil disputes is a pretty important part of a modern economy and civilization.
Sorry about that. It was actually only about 1/4 of the full TMQ article, so I figured it was kosher.
Draft review time! From the department of don't let conflicting facts get in the way of a good rant:
Fucking horribly lazy analysis. (Yeah yeah, I know it is his schtick, and that's fine. But for someone who prides himself on his ability to see things and put 2 and 2 together, this is painfully obtuse).
So which is it, Greggggg, have they used up the bounty, or have they just traded it all to the future?
Fucking horribly lazy analysis. (Yeah yeah, I know it is his schtick, and that's fine. But for someone who prides himself on his ability to see things and put 2 and 2 together, this is painfully obtuse).
My favorite part is this...
Mr. Undrafted Free Agents, Workmen nobody knows, Blue collar players win games and spoiled big name draftees like Michael Crabtree ruin them is criticizing the Browns for not drafting Big Name Players early in the draft.
Mr. Undrafted Free Agents, Workmen nobody knows, Blue collar players win games and spoiled big name draftees like Michael Crabtree ruin them is criticizing the Browns for not drafting Big Name Players early in the draft.
Plus, are there football fans (at least big enough fans to read TMQ) out there who couldn't name Joe Thomas, Colt McCoy, or Josh Cribbs?
I mean, their defense's biggest name is probably Shaun Rogers (now a Saint) or Chris Gocong (if you know Eagles fans), so he has a point there, but I don't even follow college football and I know who Colt Fucking McCoy is.
I mean, their defense's biggest name is probably Shaun Rogers (now a Saint) or Chris Gocong (if you know Eagles fans), so he has a point there, but I don't even follow college football and I know who Colt Fucking McCoy is.
He also rips them for how they've drafted because of the first and second round picks they used in 2009 and 2011 only Gronk and Vollmer "are the only clear successes at starters."
How about DMC?
On that point he was talking only about second rounders.
It is misleading though, implying they've gone 2 for 9 with second round draft picks when of course it's premature to draw any conclusions from last year's picks (and absurdly so on the guys they drafted last week). The worst you can say is that right now, it looks like Butler and Brace might not work out.
DOH. Reading is fundamental.
But yes even if you grant him Butler and Brace, an argument that says Cunningham, Spikes, Dowling, Vereen and Chung are bad picks has some serious problems.
I seriously do not understand why this is so complicated for these writers. Every year there is opportunity to trade a first round pick for a next years first and a second round pick ( or an early third). Therefore a single first round pick can be traded for a lifetime of extra second or third round picks, if you maintain self-control and never use the extra number one to draft a player. Is it really possible that nobody but BB is that disciplined?
I don't hate TMQ like many here. I enjoy a lot of his writing, and I brush off the Pats comments without much of a thought. However, I thought his extended Chronicles of Narnia metaphor for Peyton Manning's injury was one of the strangest things I've ever read. I'm not sure what he was going for (poetic? Whimsical?) but I think he missed his intended tone by a few furlongs. If he was going for a bit of humor, that'd be one thing, but a few jokes aside I think he's making a genuine comparison.
At the risk of dipping my toes into tin-hat territory, my first thought after the first paragraph was this:
Easterbrook wrote: So begins the final book of "The Chronicles of Narnia" -- a volume that's unlikely to become a big-budget Hollywood movie"
---Narnia is widely seen as serious Christian allegory;
---Easterbrook gained some notoriety for his 'Hollywood Jews worship money above all else' commentary when 'Kill Bill' came out;
so....
"Hollywood (read: Jews) wont make a movie about Christianity"
I think that's what he was going for.
Or he's just saying this is the final chapter of Peyton's career and it won't have all the glamor and success of his earlier performances.
I didn't like the analogy because it was awkward and strange and actually (nerd alert!) not at all accurate to the Narnia books anyway. For example, this:
Is not actually what happens.
But I don't think he was saying the Jews aren't going to allow The Last Battle to be made because it's a Christian Allegory. He's saying any movie where the main characters enter the afterlife because of their real-world deaths (the Pevensie children die in a train crash in England, in the book, thus entering Aslan's country) has no marketing appeal whatsoever.
I doubt very much where this was where he was going. Have you read the final book? Unlike the other books, it's not exactly one with a cheerful ending where all becomes well with the world. It was really instead an attempt by C.S. Lewis to close out the Narnia series with an ending that is high in symbolism. While it's a good read (IMHO), it's hardly mass market movie material like the other stories.
A far more accurate statement is that he is likely hinting that we may very well be seeing, or have already seen, the conclusion of Manning's career. Narnia itself doesn't really go out with a big bang, but instead more of a whimper (whimper's not really the best word, but I'm struggling to come up with something better). If Manning has indeed played his last game, there does seem to be some merit to the analogy.
OTOH, claiming racism or bigotry in a sentence where none exists or is even implied is ridiculous.
My real issue with TMQ tis week is his Randy Moss bit. I think there might be a legit argument both for and against Moss' inclusion for the HoF, and TMQ addresses both sides of the issue, so that doesn't bother me. But the sloppy and incoherent reasoning he uses at the end is just terrible:
A) 112-96 is a .538 winning percentage. Going 6-6 over 12 games isn't an undue aberration at all for a .538 team, particularly against the better opposition that the playoffs provide. Small sample size issues at work here, nothing more. There's nothing to see in this point. Hell, Peyton Manning is 9-10 in the postseason despite being 141-67 in the regular season. He must've taken the game off when the pressure was on!
B) So somehow TMQ assumes Moss is to blame for both Gary Anderson missing a FG that would have put the Vikings into the Super Bowl AND for David Tyree's helmet catch. In the 1998 NFCCG Moss had 6 catches for 75 yards and a TD. On Black Sunday he had 5 catches for 62 yards and the go ahead TD with 95 seconds to go. Saying Moss played on both of those teams as a knock against his Hall chances is ponderous.
C) Finally, the mention of the infamous 41-0 game, certainly the game considered to be the nadir of Moss' career. Always to be held against him, always to be mentioned at once. There's no defending his lack of effort in that game, but the Vikings weren't winning that game no matter what he did AND he rebounded to have a fantastic career after that. It's a low point to be considered, not some sort of overarching summary of his career. It might bear noting that Peyton Manning also lost a playoff game 41-0 and Joe Montana lost a playoff game 49-3, in the midst of a four year span where he didn't win any playoff games.
You want to make an argument against Moss for the HoF? Be my guest. Point out not bothering to play hard in Oakland, or the pathetic way he ended his career last year. Hell, I think TMQ unduly minimized the legal issues Moss has had over the years; he hit a cop with his car for crissakes. But the specious reasoning TMQ offers in this bit above is below his standards and not worthy of serious merit.
Three rejoinders:
A) 112-96 is a .538 winning percentage. Going 6-6 over 12 games isn't an undue aberration at all for a .538 team, particularly against the better opposition that the playoffs provide. Small sample size issues at work here, nothing more. There's nothing to see in this point. Hell, Peyton Manning is 9-10 in the postseason despite being 141-67 in the regular season. He must've taken the game off when the pressure was on!
B) So somehow TMQ assumes Moss is to blame for both Gary Anderson missing a FG that would have put the Vikings into the Super Bowl AND for David Tyree's helmet catch. In the 1998 NFCCG Moss had 6 catches for 75 yards and a TD. On Black Sunday he had 5 catches for 62 yards and the go ahead TD with 95 seconds to go. Saying Moss played on both of those teams as a knock against his Hall chances is ponderous.
C) Finally, the mention of the infamous 41-0 game, certainly the game considered to be the nadir of Moss' career. Always to be held against him, always to be mentioned at once. There's no defending his lack of effort in that game, but the Vikings weren't winning that game no matter what he did AND he rebounded to have a fantastic career after that. It's a low point to be considered, not some sort of overarching summary of his career. It might bear noting that Peyton Manning also lost a playoff game 41-0 and Joe Montana lost a playoff game 49-3, in the midst of a four year span where he didn't win any playoff games.
You want to make an argument against Moss for the HoF? Be my guest. Point out not bothering to play hard in Oakland, or the pathetic way he ended his career last year. Hell, I think TMQ unduly minimized the legal issues Moss has had over the years; he hit a cop with his car for crissakes. But the specious reasoning TMQ offers in this bit above is below his standards and not worthy of serious merit.
In fairness, I think we should acknowledge that Easterbrook seemingly got a little bit off his high horse regarding the Pats this week. His Pats excerpt:
Maybe, just maybe... he is done with Spygate?
Bolded emphasis mine. These are mostly extremely positive comments. Even the "You know Belichick will try this, just to show off!" comment seemed completely tongue in cheek. And his last sentence, in prior columns he would have mentioned Spygate and all that nonsense, but he didn't here. He also missed that the Pats are actually on an 0-3 streak in the playoffs (although he is correct that in the time they are 52-13 in the regular season, they are 2-3 in the playoffs - so he didn't actually manipulate the data to his advantage).
Maybe, just maybe... he is done with Spygate?
TMQ has often been laudatory of the Pats in his weekly articles. This is no surprise; when the Pats innovate he's often all over them mentioning it. He tends to play the game recaps straight; it's the silly moral stuff that he gets all worked up about.
He'll never, ever be done with Spygate. Put your mind to rest on that issue at once. Never.
His last sentence tells me he's not done with Spygate. His point remains, the team is cursed in the playoffs because of the videotaping, excellence in the regular season be damned.
I've read none of the books. But I'm aware of the discussion re Christianity. And I've read Easterbrook's Kill Bill analysis. I dont think my implication is without basis, but YMMV. And whether he likes it or not, anytime that Easterbrook uses the phrase "Hollywood would never . . . " he does so with his prior baggage in tow. For me the "implication" comes from Easterbrook's own prior work.
IOW....there's no money in it.
Easterbrook has had occasional insights into foootball that I have found valuable. But he's a putz.
I don't have a hate boner for TMQ like a lot of other Pats fans do, but man, the opening of this week's column about the rise of women in higher ed vs. the rise of youth football is *awful*.
Firstly, it's the worst kind of fallacious using a correlation to imply a causation, there are almost no numbers cited to even try and back up his assertion, and then he tacks on a little weasel paragraph at the end about how this is just "one of many factors" that proves even he doesn't buy the bullshit he's selling.
I like the football parts of things, but even for his general issue of questionable Gladwell/Freakonomics type writing, that opener was miserable.
Firstly, it's the worst kind of fallacious using a correlation to imply a causation, there are almost no numbers cited to even try and back up his assertion, and then he tacks on a little weasel paragraph at the end about how this is just "one of many factors" that proves even he doesn't buy the bullshit he's selling.
I like the football parts of things, but even for his general issue of questionable Gladwell/Freakonomics type writing, that opener was miserable.
Damn, that was awful, awful writing.
He's obviously never heard of "coincidence vs. causation."
In next week's TMQ he's going to write seven paragraphs about car accident rates being higher at night. It will be called "The Moon Causes Cars to Crash!"
He's obviously never heard of "coincidence vs. causation."
In next week's TMQ he's going to write seven paragraphs about car accident rates being higher at night. It will be called "The Moon Causes Cars to Crash!"
Well, haven't you gotten distracted by the fact you can't drive past it like you can with the trees????
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Hey now, don't you dare lump a great academic who actually knows the scientific method, like Steven Levitt, in with journalistic hacks like Gladwell and Easterbrook.
(I agree with your larger point, I'm a huge TMQ fan and even I was skimming by the 4th paragraph of that rant)
(for those who share an annoyance with Gladwell, click here)
Fair enough, I'm mainly familiar with the whole Freakonomics thing via their blog rather than the books, and the blog is probably more flip/less sourced/researched because that's the nature of the beast.
I'm actually surprised nobody caught this.
So, on 4th down, up 3, with 5 seconds left, he says intentional grounding wouldn't matter. He imagines that even if the defense accepted the penalty, the offense would just have 4th down once again, with no time on the clock, minus 10 yards. I think he ignores the whole Loss of Down. So, fourth and long at midfield, intentionally grounding the ball should penalize them 10 yards, putting the ball back at the 40, and then giving a change of possession with one untimed play left (possibility of a booming field goal or hail mary) for the trailing team. It's funny that he's lecturing that that is how you should have done it, but, you know, got the rule painfully, obviously wrong.
I think he means more of blowing the play dead b/c he voluntarily stopped his own forward momentum, not a penalty, but play is over.