QUOTE (dirtynine @ Oct 1 2009, 06:24 PM)
index.php?act=findpost&pid=2601041
Serious question - what are the things you guys (who like him) think Easterbrook does well at this point? I seriously get nothing from his columns. It's a stew of over-written prose, slightly embarrassing retread comedy, repetitive insight, and often dubious non-football socio-political tangents. Even Peter King, as bad as he can be, gives you a morsel now and then. Simmons, too, is hard to slog through sometimes but there is gold to be panned for. What good, unique, insightful nuggets is TMQ consistently offering each week? That somebody made a bad call on fourth and short? That Detroit (the industry, not the team) is a real mess? That it's wacky how Jersey has two football teams? I've tried a few times to get to the good stuff - and I am willing to put up with crap to do so - but I'm missing it completely.
There's a number of things I enjoy about his writing:
1) He does a deeper breakdown of plays and what is working for teams than almost any writer out there. Bob Davie used to do a great, great job of this but he has been writing less and less over the last few years. Not many people get as deeply into the Xs and Os, and also the strategic thinking and tendencies of each team. I read about 20-30 football columnists each week from around the country and he goes to a deeper level than any.
2) He is very intelligent. Football columnists all too often fall on tired formulas - rah rah for the home team (Chicago, Green Bay, New England, Baltimore), boo the home team (Philadelphia, Cleveland, Oakland) or cliche-column (Shaughnessy et al). Easterbrook writes what he sees and nothing more, nothing less.
3) He is willing to say what he thinks. Yes, Spygate still sticks in the craw of many here, but he basically said:
- The league did not do a thorough investigation
- Belichick was cheating and he knew it
- There were more allegations to come
and all of these things were true. He believes that you shouldn't put on 4th down except in difficult circumstances. He thinks that you should run when you have 1st and goal from the 5 or less. He thinks that the offensive line is the key to success. He thinks that Dick Jauron is a horrible coach. You know where he stands and he is willing to back up his statements with his rationale
4) I kind of like his tangents. I may not agree with all of them, but they make you think.
5) He uses humor well. It is self-deprecating, goofy guy humor. I enjoy it. But whatever.