TMQ Thread
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
This is just absolutely ridiculous:
Hell, all of the following could be true as well:
Many football enthusiasts, including in the league front office, might not mind if you kick them square in their ballbags. Some of them might enjoy it.
Many football enthusiasts, including in the league front office, might not mind being cornholed with a traffic cone.
Many football enthusiasts, including in the league front office, might not mind having soup for breakfast.
I'm really starting to hate TMQ.
Writing like this drives me crazy.
Hell, all of the following could be true as well:
Many football enthusiasts, including in the league front office, might not mind if you kick them square in their ballbags. Some of them might enjoy it.
Many football enthusiasts, including in the league front office, might not mind being cornholed with a traffic cone.
Many football enthusiasts, including in the league front office, might not mind having soup for breakfast.
I'm really starting to hate TMQ.
The paragraph is amazing; it contains just about every dubious trick a journalists use to inject their personal opinions into an article under the guise of objectivity.
- "Admitted" obviously implies guilt, but Belichick "stated" that he had videotaped for years doesn't have the same ring;
- It "seemed to everyone" is just the author saying the world shares the author's subjective understanding of an event. It didn't seem to everyone that they were cheating-Jimmy Johnson for one seems to think that it was acceptable gamesmanship.
- The "sporting world" that might relive Spygate-who is the sporting world and would they really have to "relive" a three year old dispute?
- Why would people have to relieve Spygate? Because TMQ and his ilk would bring it up, but is there any other reason it would be discussed?
- Really, why BB didn't disclose that he was videotaping signals is an "unresolved question"? He kept the practice covert to maintain a competitive advantage.
- Why BB "never really apologized" is an unresolved question? Well first it is TMQ's opinion that he didn't "really apologize" --http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/02/18/belichick_and_pioli_speak_out/
-- there was an apology. But if you think that's not a real apology, it's not too hard to figure out why he didn't issue a fuller apology. The top two reasons: (1) Belichick is kind of a dick and (2) BB honestly didn't think he did something for which he need to profusely apologize.
- "People might wonder" if the Pats are currently cheating. Which people and why should we care what they think-if they're misinformed or don't have a credible basis for their belief why should I care?
- It "can't be ruled out" that the Pats are currently cheating. Well it can't be ruled out that they are using gamma radiation to help BJGE and Woodhead get strong like the hulk, can it? Is there a credible reason to think the Pats are cheating?
- "Many" football enthusaists, including the league office, "might" want the Pats to get knocked out early. Then again, "many" people "might not" want that-it's an empirical question. Who (other than presumably TMQ) wants the Pats knocked out early because of the spectre of Spygate 2? Frankly, I'll bet the league office is psyched to see the Pats and their telegenic star doing so well-the Pats, spygate and all, get a shitload of fans watching.
Easterbrook is amazing. He seems to be a reasonably smart guy, although he seems to form a shallow first impression and then never, ever change his opinion. I still can't believe that after 3 years he hasn't realized that what the patriots did was the equivilent of a parking violation. It's incredible.
Of course, he also though a particle collier could create a black hole and destroy the earth.
He also seems to write his columns well ahead of time. His "special teams player" was Jay Feeley, rather than Miami's Most Valuable Punter.
Of course, he also though a particle collier could create a black hole and destroy the earth.
He also seems to write his columns well ahead of time. His "special teams player" was Jay Feeley, rather than Miami's Most Valuable Punter.
Or he's very smart but he doesn't write what he thinks and instead makes over the top statements to get page views.
Or he's the epitome of the smart guy who knows that he's smart and therefore has to try and inject his cleverness into every fucking thing he writes. By interjecting ridiculous scientific theories and discussions into his football articles, he can help create the image to all the cretins who rely on ESPN.com for all their sporting news that he is somehow more insightful than he is.
Also, his brother is a fucking ponce.
It's also amazing that Easterbrook constantly rags on Belichick for doing something wrong yet Easterbrook gets a pass for being an anti-semite.
I just hate his constant moralizing (Heisman in this case). It's fucking sports guy, relax. It doesn't make you morally superior because the best football player in the country plays in the academically-adverse SEC.
Edit: And I generally value (and agree with )most of Easterbrook's thoughts on the game of football; he's a must read for me, even though I don't really like his 'voice.'
Edit: And I generally value (and agree with )most of Easterbrook's thoughts on the game of football; he's a must read for me, even though I don't really like his 'voice.'
Despite the strengths of his writing, there is a dark side. He admitted to writing a post that seemed to everyone but him to be virulently anti-semitic. And there are serious unresolved questions about his anti-semitism. Was the column that got him fired the only anti-semitic thought he had or was it the tip of a Nazi iceberg, and why did he never really apologize for his anti-semitism? People might wonder if he is covert Nazi who throws a birthday party for Hitler every year. Probably not, but it can't rule out given the anti-semitic things he has published in national news sources in the past. Many people, include Jewish civil rights leaders, might not mind if he was frogmarched to an international court of justice and sentenced to death for his hate speech.
Well done! You should send that in to him. I'm sure he won't have the balls the publish it under his reader comments, but it can't be ruled out.
I thought it was very good, forwarded it since he's responded to my emails previously, gave "Shelterdog" credit (hope you don't mind, I should have asked first, I apologize). He responded very quickly with "point taken".
He's usually pretty good about responding to emails if you give him a chance.
I love how he said if John Heisman were alive today's he'd want his name taken off the award due to all the bad sportsmanship and lack of integrity in today's college football. Heisman was the coach of Georgia Tech when they beat Cumberland 222-0.
Once Cumberland punted on their first possession, TMQ wrote in his notebook "game over"
Good news today; Danny Woodhead won the Tuesday Morning Quarterback All-Unwanted Players of the Year.
Dan Connolly was 2nd team, special teams. As a returner :rolling:
And LawFirm is the starting FB, Welker a starting WR and Guyton a starting LB on the first team offense/defense. Wright, Arrington are 2nd team defense, Woodhead is 2nd team offense, despite being the All-Unwanted Player of the Year.
Dan Connolly was 2nd team, special teams. As a returner :rolling:
Guess Gregg didn't know that the outcome of the game had zero meaning on the playoff picture - win or lose against Oakland, the Colts still have to win next week to win the division.
-Here's my take on TMQ and Belichick: When the Spygate incident occurred with the Jets, TMQ had a source that got him in on the Super Bowl XXXVI practice taping very early. He sat on it for three months because he couldn't get independent confirmation. His continued attacks on Belichick that season were born of frustration that this additional, bigger story was out there and it wasn't being reported. Then he has to watch someone else break it with no more confirmation than he had ever had.
I would like it as much as everyone if he would drop the blind BB hate and just move on, but if you put yourself in his shoes in 2007, it's not hard to see how an otherwise reasonable/smart guy could have developed such an irrational blind spot where the Pats are concerned.
-Tip of the cap to him for not mentioning the Rex Ryan Feetgate. One thing about TMQ is that if he thinks a story is irrelevant, he won't get on a box and self-importantly declare that he has too much integrity to discuss it - he just won't mention it. For a guy who infuses just about everything else with his massive ego, that's a habit I appreciate.
I would like it as much as everyone if he would drop the blind BB hate and just move on, but if you put yourself in his shoes in 2007, it's not hard to see how an otherwise reasonable/smart guy could have developed such an irrational blind spot where the Pats are concerned.
-Tip of the cap to him for not mentioning the Rex Ryan Feetgate. One thing about TMQ is that if he thinks a story is irrelevant, he won't get on a box and self-importantly declare that he has too much integrity to discuss it - he just won't mention it. For a guy who infuses just about everything else with his massive ego, that's a habit I appreciate.
The gimmick with the all-unwanted all-pro awards is cute and all, but some of the reasoning behind it has serious classist flaws. To wit:
Cameron Wake is a great example. He went to a great prep school. He went to Penn State. He's the right size. He just wasn't drafted because talent evaluators didn't think he was that good. Then he went to the CFL and got better, and talent evaluators decided he was better, signed him and now he's good. Why is that any more impressive than, say, a player who was so amazing at a small college or an ivy league school that he defied the odds and actually got drafted?
It's not. But for Easterbrook, a classist who believes that having any sort of advantage is a negative against a person's character, it somehow is.
He loves to refer to glory boys and denounce players who receive big paydays, but why? If I'm Michael Crabtree and I have the chance to get a $15 million bonus, I go for it. The owner's a billionaire and doesn't do a god damn thing to win a game. Why should the players play for anything less than the most they can get? And why does how much money a person negotiates for their salary say anything about their work ethic?
Why doesn't someone who sticks to his guns and gets the money he's owed set a good example? Should we all just work for minimum wage for the benefit of the team?
Why is it that if a player works his ass off, destroys all comers in college football, and becomes the number one overall pick he somehow doesn't evince qualities of hard work and determination. What does it mean to be "born into success?" Does Easterbrook seriously think that just because you're tall you get a free pass to the NFL? There is not a single player in the NFL that didn't work his ass off at some point in his life. Have some of them become entitled and lost some focus? I'm sure. But to act like just because you were undrafted and succeeded you must therefore be a harder worker than someone who was drafted is absurd.
Cameron Wake is a great example. He went to a great prep school. He went to Penn State. He's the right size. He just wasn't drafted because talent evaluators didn't think he was that good. Then he went to the CFL and got better, and talent evaluators decided he was better, signed him and now he's good. Why is that any more impressive than, say, a player who was so amazing at a small college or an ivy league school that he defied the odds and actually got drafted?
It's not. But for Easterbrook, a classist who believes that having any sort of advantage is a negative against a person's character, it somehow is.
He loves to refer to glory boys and denounce players who receive big paydays, but why? If I'm Michael Crabtree and I have the chance to get a $15 million bonus, I go for it. The owner's a billionaire and doesn't do a god damn thing to win a game. Why should the players play for anything less than the most they can get? And why does how much money a person negotiates for their salary say anything about their work ethic?
Why doesn't someone who sticks to his guns and gets the money he's owed set a good example? Should we all just work for minimum wage for the benefit of the team?
Jesus Christ, thanks for the laugh. So, if Belichick were the one involved with "feetgate" (as you refer to it). Gregg wouldn't have mentioned it? Holy shit, sport, you're starting to drink much too early in the day. What a load of officious crap.
Didn't it turn out here was no such tape for the Super Bowl? If Easterbrook was relying on Matt Walsh, he deserved the slamming he received from ESPN's ombudsman.
I initially had the same theory you describe (he had info and suspicions early on and that fueled his anger) but I concluded in the end that the complete lack of anything to back them up, and the response of ESPN itself to it, made most likely he had no reliable evidence at all in the end.
I am back to reading him, and generally enjoy the football commentary, but his performance during Spygate remains a real scar on his rep...as do (of course) his Hollywood comments.
I'm 100% sure that TMQ would have mentioned it if Belichick was involved. That's where the whole "irrational blind spot" comes in.
If you're a Pats fan and you want to read Easterbrook, you just need to learn to have thick skin when it comes to his BB rants. They're dumb and they're stupid and they're dumb, but they're also not going away and it's a fairly small bit in an otherwise usually-good column.
Agreed on all counts. I may have overstated things if I implied that he had "hard" evidence - what he had was Walsh and no independent confirmation. What really pissed him off was that when the story was broken (I forget by who), all they had was Walsh too, no more than he had.
Regarding the bolded, I think the theory is correct. Moving away from solid hypothesis and into cheap psychology: When the Walsh story turned out to be a bust due to lack of evidence, Easterbrook (a man pretty well convinced of his own mental superiority) was unable to really cope with the fact that this story he's been obsessing over for months has no substance behind it, so he adopted the attitude that "the story is true but we just couldn't find enough evidence". Easier to accept that there are undiscovered facts that would prove you're right than accept that you're wrong. There's a little excessively-trite Cognitive Dissonance theory for you this morning (sorry, too much coffee).
I had a good buddy from college who was a Page 2 editor during 2007, so although I couldn't talk about it at the time (dude was more paranoid than Deep Throat), it was very interesting watching Spygate and TMQ develop from his perspective at that time.
Makes great sense; while we obviously don't know what was going on in his head (at least, I don't!) how you describe fits together very well.
Another theory. Easterbrook thing is to have a suposedly smart, contrarian view point on every subject. What's the smart contrarian viewpoint on Belichick? "He's a chearting dirtbag" is as good as anything you're going to come up with. That dovetails nicely with Easterbrook's moral philosophy (which was apparently developed by repeated forced viewings of Father Knows Best and Leave it to Beaver reruns) and it's much more sustainable than trying to say something like "Belichick can't coach/can't GM/has let the game pass him by/is overextended"-all of which have been discredited.
Does anyone actually read the whole column anymore?
I remember I used to read every word and love it, but now, while I still enjoy the column, it's a total skim for me. I think I've pretty much absorbed his main points, so now I just care less about him beating them to death when it's not a game I was interested in, when previously I found it all kind of fascinating.
Then there are the ancillary points which I found delightful at first, but as time passes there's just nothing new to say about Christmas decorations.
I remember I used to read every word and love it, but now, while I still enjoy the column, it's a total skim for me. I think I've pretty much absorbed his main points, so now I just care less about him beating them to death when it's not a game I was interested in, when previously I found it all kind of fascinating.
Then there are the ancillary points which I found delightful at first, but as time passes there's just nothing new to say about Christmas decorations.
I only read his columns to fuel my hate. He's the worst - he's a giant blowhard who tends to go on at length regarding terrible theories and things he thinks make him sound smart, while missing many very obvious things right in front of his face. He's like Bill Simmons, only if you replaced Simmons' tiring aging-frat-boy-everyfan conceit with a severe level of faux-intellectualism and snobbery. They're so similar, down to the hackneyed jokes (CHRISTMAS COMES EARLIER EVERY YEAR!!!1) and un-funny attempts at humor (Jersey/A and Jersey/B instead of the New York Giants and New York Jets? Oh, because the both play in New Jersey! GENIUS.) and attempt to shoehorn in their own theories (for Easterbrook it's this whole "unsigned/lower drafted players work harder and are better" crap, while with Simmons...take your pick.)
I read his columns and I get angry for doing so, because it only validates his pathetic writings in the form of more page views. I hope somebody tampers with his brakes.
The thing is, outside of spygate-related stuff, he's a huge fan of Belichick and compliments him inordinately often. So while I agree he is contrarian by nature, it's applied in an odd way in this case.
I think he is like Simmons in that, at least in this case..he has extremely thin skin. He LOVED the Patriots and all that they did. They played "as a team", "the right way", BB took chances on 4th down...they were his unicorn in the sky...and then spygate happened and I truly believe that he took all of that on a personal level and felt 100% jilted.
I used to read his columns religiously. Then I got tired of him so I only read this thread. Then someone here pointed the way to "Bottom of the Barrel" http://bottom-of-the-barrel.blogspot.com/ Now I read his blog-decimation of TMQ every week.
He compliments him frequently, but it's always as a coach / innovator. He seems to genuinely think that BB is a egomaniac and a Bad Person. Here's a quote from a recent TMQ:
I get that Spygate was bad, and cheating, but other than that, how is he "indifferen[t] to ethics," "setting ... a bad example," and not "admirable as a person"? It's personal for Easterbrook, like BB ran over his dog or something. Or maybe Spygate was such a grievous offense that Belichick is permanently branded as a black hat.
His moral philosophy certainly wasn't developed by repeated viewings of "The Diary of Anne Frank"...
I have the opposite reaction. Easterbrook originally said that sideline taping was no big deal. Quote from his Feb 3rd 2008 column (not a TMQ column, he just covered SpyGate):
"Taping from the sidelines during games, although forbidden, is regarded as a minor violation of the rules."
Later, when the Walkthrough Taping Rumor was debunked, and the in-game taping was all there was, he changed his mind. In his May 17th 2008 column, he suggested that Belichick should be suspended for a year for what he previously felt was a minor violation.
I emailed him this back in 2008, he responded, but I don't have the email anymore, and I don't recall his explanation other than I didn't buy it.
Quote
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. 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.
So, I've read this like ten times, and while I might not say it, I can't figure out anything antisemitic about it. Easterbrook may make an assumption about Jews that's incorrect (Jews should be more sensitive towards media violence because of the holocaust) but there is nothing racist or anti-jewish to it.
I'm with you. You have to be on safari for offense to read that paragraph and go "Aha! Anti-semitism!" Is it a little crude? Sure. But he doesn't let christians or others off the hook. He points out the different recent history of jews. That's not anti-semitism.
It's certainly idiotic. Eisner and Weinstein, while powerful and prominent, are not a proxy for all Jewish executives. And equating making movies that feature violence with "worshiping" money strikes me as playing on anti-Jewish themes. Would he have gone to "worship" if the executives in question were not Jewish? Does everyone chasing wealth "worship" money?
I learned from Easterbrook's myriad comments on SpyGate that he's intellectually inconsistent and prone to hysteria. This money worship line tells me that he might also be anti-semitic and, at minimum, is OK with perpetuating anti-semitic themes.
I emailed him too and asked him about comments that jimmy johnson made about the prevalence of tapping and the old stories of Vince Lombardi having an assistant dress up like a security guard so he could stand outside the opponents locker room and eavesdrop. I dont think he ever responded to me. he did address these emails in a column in which he said in effect "yeah I said that but that was before we knew he was doing this for years". this is his mission.
Belichick cheated on his wife. I find judging people by what goes on in their marriages boring, but it's there. Easterbrook is probably offended by it.
It holds Jews to a standard that gentiles are not. Because of the Holocaust, a Jewish person has to walk a tighter rope when it comes to what they do, create, finance or endorse? And this standard is applied by a non-Jew, no less? That's fucking insane.
TMQ's NFL Non-Quarterback Non-Running Back MVP this year is...Dan Koppen.
Yammer's letters must've finally had an effect. :lol:
Yammer's letters must've finally had an effect. :lol:
Holy fuck, does this idiot even watch football? His list of finalists for the non-QB/RB MVP included Seattle's Aaron Curry. I like Aaron Curry, and as a Seattle fan I think he's had his moments. But he wasn't even the most impactful player on Seattle's defense (that'd probably be Chris Clemons, who gave them at least some semblance of a pass rush, or Earl Thomas, who had 75 tackles and 5 INTs), or even their best LB. Here's what John Morgan, who scouts Curry for Field Gulls, wrote about him last week:
Fuck Gregg Easterbrook.
For that matter, why the hell would you pick someone from Seattle's absolutely atrocious defense? If you had to pick someone from Seattle, why not Leon Washington, who breathed some life into the team via his excellent kick-return game. I mean, shit, they won the San Diego game pretty much because of Washington alone. Or hell, pick Okung! Even on two injured ankles he was able to deftly protect the blind side.
Fuck Gregg Easterbrook.