538 replies to this topic

[weeba]

http://sports.espn.g...terbrook/090929

More Favre love today:

Hidden Play of the Week No. 2: Three snaps before the winning Minnesota play, the Vikings faced third-and-10 on their own 46 with 33 seconds remaining. Favre escaped a pass-rusher, then threw backwards across his body -- exactly what quarterbacks are coached never to do -- to Percy Harvin for a first down, setting up the final heroics. Without this hidden play, Minnesota's comeback would have wheezed out.

Seems like that "hidden play" is NOT a good thing.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

When the Pats went for it on 4th and 1 from their own 29 on Sunday, I immediately thought that TMQ would love the call, since he's been pounding away at the idea that more teams should go for it on 4th down. And he did:

Note that when Bill Belichick faced fourth-and-1 on his own 24-yard line, he went for it, the Patriots converted, and they later jogged up the tunnel victorious. Dick "Cheerio, Chaps" Jauron wouldn't go for it on fourth-and-1 in his own territory when trailing by two scores in the fourth quarter; Belichick went for it on fourth-and-1 on his 24 in the third quarter, when ahead. Going for it on fourth-and-short is both sound tactics and sends the message that the coach is challenging his players to win the game. Jauron's decisions regularly send the message that the coach expects to lose and would like to go home now. Result of the differing tactics? Belichick has three Super Bowl rings while Jauron, at Buffalo, is 2-19 against teams that made the playoffs that season.

[weeba]

I almost posted this thread a couple weeks ago too when TMQ first started back up again. I wish I could remember why I wanted to post. Ugh.

[BucketOBalls]

Hidden Play of the Week No. 2: Three snaps before the winning Minnesota play, the Vikings faced third-and-10 on their own 46 with 33 seconds remaining. Favre escaped a pass-rusher, then threw backwards across his body -- exactly what quarterbacks are coached never to do -- to Percy Harvin for a first down, setting up the final heroics. Without this hidden play, Minnesota's comeback would have wheezed out.

As someone who went to grad school in wisconsin....That's Favre in a nutshell. He makes that stupid shit often enough to think he can do it all the time, and it always comes back to bite him at the end of the season. It's pretty funny actually.

[johnmd20]

TMQ is right about the fact that there really isn't that much parity scheduling in the NFL, but, my gods, he could have said it in about 43 thousand less words. It took him 8 paragraphs when 8 sentences would have sufficed.

[NoXInNixon]

He also failed to mention the important fact that there is such year-to-year variation in how good a team is. Three division winners from last year are 0-3 so far, and two more are 1-2. Therefore being forced to play two first place teams as opposed to fourht place teams isn't necessarily a handicap at all.

[Shelterdog]

TMQ is right about the fact that there really isn't that much parity scheduling in the NFL, but, my gods, he could have said it in about 43 thousand less words. It took him 8 paragraphs when 8 sentences would have sufficed.

Welcome to a world without editors and with minimal redrafting. Much like the Sportsguy or Peter King, TMQ's a reasonably smart guy and reasonably facile writer who churns out copy, so why bother with substantial rewrites when you can put out 8000 words by Tuesday?

[MarcSullivaFan]

Welcome to a world without editors and with minimal redrafting. Much like the Sportsguy or Peter King, TMQ's a reasonably smart guy and reasonably facile writer who churns out copy, so why bother with substantial rewrites when you can put out 8000 words by Tuesday?

I have my issues with TMQ, but he's a much better writer and a much smarter guy than King or Simmons. He's also writing for a niche audience (bookish football fans) -- an audience that's not adverse necessarilly to 8000 word columns with endless digressions.

Actually, I don't have a problem with Simmons' long-ass columns either. Without the free-association and endless pop-culture references he'd be a pretty boring sports writer. Other than the NBA, he has very little interesting or insightful to add in terms of substance.

[Blundatola]

Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot. I know that doesn't advance the conversation, but it cannot be said enough.

[Bellhorn]

Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot. I know that doesn't advance the conversation, but it cannot be said enough.

No he's not. There are several less-than-complimentary things to say about him, but "idiot" is not one of them.

[Mystic Merlin]

Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot. I know that doesn't advance the conversation, but it cannot be said enough.

No, no he is not.

Also, he's almost certainly not 'reasonably intelligent'. To put him in the same class as Bill Simmons and Peter King is either a gross underestimation of Easterbrook or a similar overestimation of the former. If he's reasonably intelligent, I guess I'm somewhere in the vicinity of Forrest Gump.

Of course, I suspect many people have only been exposed to his TMQ columns, which - for whatever wisdom they may or may not have - are well-written and incisive.

Edited by Mystic Merlin, 30 September 2009 - 03:58 PM.

[MarcSullivaFan]

Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot. I know that doesn't advance the conversation, but it cannot be said enough.

I think arrogant, self-aggrandizing ass is more like it. Idiot? Not really.

[Blundatola]

Idiot is exactly what I meant because Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot.

Edited by Blundatola, 30 September 2009 - 04:16 PM.

[MarcSullivaFan]

Idiot is exactly what I meant because Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot.

Fair enough. Why, exactly, do you think he's an idiot?

[Blundatola]

For many of the various reasons outlined in the search results I posted. Gregg Easterbrook is a well-known fraud within the scientific community. He is a global warming denier and his "thought experiments" would make a toddler blush. He is also one of the most intellectually dishonest columnists I've ever read.

Besides that, what football insights he may once have had have been recycled so many times I'm not even sure why he still writes a new column every week.

[JimBoSox9]

Fair enough. Why, exactly, do you think he's an idiot?

Easterbrook is an extraordinarily intelligent man, who also can write in a manner that lets his intelligence come through (not all very smart people are good writers). However, his columns are certainly not easy reads or accessible to all, so there is a large segment of people out there who were primarily introduced to Easterbrook when he became the leader of the Spygate marching band. I can see why someone in that segment would consider Easterbrook an idiot, because he was idiotic during much of that period. His "Good vs. Evil" column was so idiotic that I still somewhat suspect it was satire. For whatever reason, he clearly lost the ability to be objective about Belichick after Spygate. Loss of objectivity leads to irrationality, and irrationality can make even the most erudite writer appear to be idiotic. Unfortunately for TMQ, his period of greatest exposure to the masses was not his finest hour.

Incidentally, much of that was due to the fact that he knew about whatshisname who taped the Rams practice pre-SBXXXVI very early on, months before it was reported, and my guess would be that the inability to get two-party confirmation to put it in print frustrated him to the point of becoming irrational and idiotic.

[ChipperBo]

For many of the various reasons outlined in the search results I posted. Gregg Easterbrook is a well-known fraud within the scientific community. He is a global warming denier and his "thought experiments" would make a toddler blush. He is also one of the most intellectually dishonest columnists I've ever read.

Besides that, what football insights he may once have had have been recycled so many times I'm not even sure why he still writes a new column every week.

Um. . .

Once again last week, world leaders met to engage in duels of doomsaying and soaring rhetoric about global warming, then did nothing of substance. It's tempting to think concerns about artificial climate change aren't backed by science, or are just the latest form of power-grab by elites who want more taxes and more control over people's lives. Unfortunately, the scientific basis of global warming theory is reasonably (not completely) strong and the danger real (though exaggerated by Al Gore types). There's a self-interest aspect, to be sure. Washington, Brussels and other cities are rife with think-tank and NGO types who know that if some super-complex international greenhouse treaty is ever enforced, it will mean a lifetime of high-paid employment for them in the gigantic, stultifying bureaucracies that will be created. That's why they want a super-complex treaty, rather than simply taxing greenhouse gases and letting the market sort out details. That's the solution yours truly favors -- something must be taxed to reverse national debt trends, so tax greenhouse gases, since we want to discourage their production anyway. Taxes are a far simpler way to achieve ends than command-and-control: Taxing internalizes a cost, and then people decide for themselves how to respond to the tax. Here is that argument in detail.

This Week's TMQ

I'm by no means an Easterbrook apologist but let's at least criticize him for things he has actually said/done.

[Shelterdog]

No, no he is not.

Also, he's almost certainly not 'reasonably intelligent'. To put him in the same class as Bill Simmons and Peter King is either a gross underestimation of Easterbrook or a similar overestimation of the former. If he's reasonably intelligent, I guess I'm somewhere in the vicinity of Forrest Gump.

Of course, I suspect many people have only been exposed to his TMQ columns, which - for whatever wisdom they may or may not have - are well-written and incisive.

He knows a lot of trivia and he uses long words, but he frequently lacks clarity of thought and his work is riddled with analytic failings.

[Blundatola]

I'm sorry to derail criticism of Easterbrook's current column with my obvious grudge, but I've vowed to point out he's an idiot any time I see a comment about how smart he is - if for no other reason than to make sure people see that there are two competing views of Easterbrook out there.

I have been reading Easterbrook (and criticism of him) since before he started TMQ, so my stance does not come from ignorance. I honestly believe the man is an idiot and it would take many years of him writing thoughtful, well-researched pieces for that opinion to change. There is simply too much evidence that he does not deserve the lofty title of scholar.

I will now remove myself from the conversation, but will be happy to read any evidence posted that counters my opinion.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Besides that, what football insights he may once have had have been recycled so many times I'm not even sure why he still writes a new column every week.

This is my feeling on the matter as well. I used to read him every week back in 2002-2003 and enjoyed some of his insights (even used some to success in Madden ). Then he got the boot from ESPN for something or other. I followed him over to NFL.com for a while, but he was never appointment reading (more like browsing the ESPN front page and "oh, a new TMQ") so I often forgot to go looking.

When he came back to ESPN I got back into regular reading but more and more I was doing the scan past 4000-word paragraphs about some non-football item. Then the spygate stuff just turned me off so completely I haven't read him in two years. And I don't feel I've missed a thing.

While not an idiot, Easterbrook's TMQ stuff has long since run its course in my view.

[Blundatola]

Um. . .



This Week's TMQ

I'm by no means an Easterbrook apologist but let's at least criticize him for things he has actually said/done.

Forgive me, but I haven't read anything by Easterbrook in years. Apparently, he changed his stance in 2006. Good for him. If nothing else, it means he's not a hopeless idiot.

[johnmd20]

This is my feeling on the matter as well. I used to read him every week back in 2002-2003 and enjoyed some of his insights (even used some to success in Madden ). Then he got the boot from ESPN for something or other. I followed him over to NFL.com for a while, but he was never appointment reading (more like browsing the ESPN front page and "oh, a new TMQ") so I often forgot to go looking.

Easterbrook is not an idiot, he's very intelligent, actually. However, he's a bigot. That is why he was fired from ESPN, for calling out the Jews in Hollywood, Mel Gibson style, on his unedited blog.

[BucketOBalls]

Easterbrook is a bit like Simmons at this point. He's good with NFL stuff, but the shallow-pseudo-science he sprinkles throughout the TMQ columns serves the same role as Simmon's references to dead 80's movies. It's entertainment and nothing more. Some of it he seems to actually believe(this weeks stuff on global warming), some he hopefully doesn't(fear of giant rocks hitting the earth). He's pretty formulaic at this point.

Standard TMQ collumn schematic.

<Opening Rant - usually somewhat football related>
<Stats of the week> | <Cheerleader of the week> | <Sweet and Sour Plays> | <football stuff from the past week -usually has a bit of a theme>

<College football section>| {<Oversimplified-Sensationalized-Political-Issue-Section>|<Pseudo-Science-Section>} | <Second football section>

<Current Events/Media -short-gag-section>
<Closing Rant-different, and less serious than the oppening rant.>

Notes to self:
--Find a punt to mock, or at least something a coach did.
--When XXXXX happend, TMQ wrote in his notebook "game over".
--Have a section where we refer to teams by cute names(can be combined with other sections)
=======

He's got it down pretty well by now. The order isn't predictable, as he moves it around to make it all flow together. But the parts are pretty much always there. He's probably down to about 50% football content at this point(maybe less, depending on how you count.).

Friday Night Lights getting canceled probably improved his collumns by 5-15%.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The turns this thread has taken remind me that the thread title for the TMQ discussion last year was "Gregg Easterbrook: a smart man says stupid things."

[Paradigm]

You guys read this every week? I couldn't get through more than two paragraphs. It was insipid and everything was overwritten.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

You guys read this every week? I couldn't get through more than two paragraphs. It was insipid and everything was overwritten.

I skip everything but his football stuff. I can't be bothered to slog through his take on anything else, particularly because he's got this odd, quasi-religious/fanatical approach to a lot of topics. It's irritating to get through it, so I don't bother.

[shane88888]

Easterbrook is not an idiot, he's very intelligent, actually. However, he's a bigot. That is why he was fired from ESPN, for calling out the Jews in Hollywood, Mel Gibson style, on his unedited blog.

Or you could just post what he wrote.

Kill Bill controversy

Easterbrook also had a blog[18] at The New Republic Online, until mid-2004. In October 2003, in a column critical of what he considered to be the senseless violence in the Quentin Tarantino film Kill Bill, Easterbrook wrote the following:

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.

This caused an uproar and accusations that Easterbrook and The New Republic were anti-semitic. Easterbrook wrote that he "mangled" his own ideas by his choice of words and wrote the following to explain his thought process and to apologize:[19]

Twenty minutes after I pressed "send," the entire world had read it. When I reread my own words and beheld how I'd written things that could be misunderstood, I felt awful. To anyone who was offended I offer my apology, because offense was not my intent. But it was 20 minutes later, and already the whole world had seen it... My attempt to connect my perfectly justified horror at an ugly and corrupting movie to the religious faith and ethnic identity of certain executives was hopelessly clumsy...accusing a Christian of adoring money above all else does not engage any history of ugly stereotypes. Accuse a Jewish person of this and you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear. What I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize.

He further explained that he worships at Bradley Hills Presbyterian Church, one of the handful of joint Christian-Jewish congregations in the United States. Easterbrook had previously written in a column that "One of the shortcomings of Christianity is that most adherents downplay the faith's interweaving with Judaism" and indicated that he and his family sought out a place where Christians and Jews express their faith cooperatively. The New Republic accepted blame for the piece in an apology[20] and denied that his comments were intentionally anti-semitic. Easterbrook continued to blog for them, and still writes articles on environmentalism (especially the damage caused by sport utility vehicles), religion and other subjects.

Total Mel Gibson style.

Edited by shane88888, 30 September 2009 - 08:30 PM.

[MarcSullivaFan]

Or you could just post what he wrote.



Total Mel Gibson style.

Yeah, that's not anti-semitic. He's just innocently associating jews with worshipping money and profiting from the killing of innocents. Why would anyone think that was anti-semitic?

[weeba]

I almost posted this thread a couple weeks ago too when TMQ first started back up again. I wish I could remember why I wanted to post. Ugh.

Oh I remember. It was when my alma mater "ran" up the score. My school is Richmond, a 1-AA team and they beat Duke week 1.

[The Big Red Kahuna]

He also failed to mention the important fact that there is such year-to-year variation in how good a team is. Three division winners from last year are 0-3 so far, and two more are 1-2. Therefore being forced to play two first place teams as opposed to fourht place teams isn't necessarily a handicap at all.

Except that you are missing the important correlation that these teams might be 0-3 (not specifically the three this year, but using that as an example) BECAUSE they are playing tougher schedules... due to finishing 1st last year.

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Yeah, that's not anti-semitic. He's just innocently associating jews with worshipping money and profiting from the killing of innocents. Why would anyone think that was anti-semitic?

No, he's not. He is noting that it those studio executives are profiting from the over-glamorization of killing in movies, not profiting from the killing of innocents. He is right about that, but he did a horrible job making the connections that he did. Judaism is a faith that preaches peace (as is Christianity although - and I say this as a Presbyterian - you would not get that impression from many of its adherents), so this glamorization of extreme violence is odd for these men, but it is no more odd than it would be for a Christian to do the same, so his phrasing was truly awful.

[Hendu for Kutch]

Except that you are missing the important correlation that these teams might be 0-3 (not specifically the three this year, but using that as an example) BECAUSE they are playing tougher schedules... due to finishing 1st last year.

A team's finish only dictates 2 games in the entire season though. Unless both those games are in the first 3, it's likely to have little impact on a team being 0-3.

Edited by Hendu for Kutch, 01 October 2009 - 09:06 AM.

[NoXInNixon]

Yeah, that's not anti-semitic. He's just innocently associating jews with worshipping money and profiting from the killing of innocents. Why would anyone think that was anti-semitic?

He's associating two specific jews with worshipping money, not reinforcing a stereotype about all jews. As usual, people made a shitstorm out of nothing by purposely inserting an intent into a comment which was clearly not intended. I'm so sick of the attitude that we blame the innocent for not forseeing that their harmless statements could be intentionally misconstrued by those with an agenda. See also: The Obama lipstick comment, the John Kerry "don't be stupid and end up in Iraq" comment, etc.

Edited by NoXInNixon, 01 October 2009 - 09:07 AM.

[Shelterdog]

He's associating two specific jews with worshipping money, not reinforcing a stereotype about all jews. As usual, people made a shitstorm out of nothing by purposely inserting an intent into a comment which was clearly not intended. I'm so sick of the attitude that we blame the innocent for not forseeing that their harmless statements could be intentionally misconstrued by those with an agenda. See also: The Obama lipstick comment, the John Kerry "don't be stupid and end up in Iraq" comment, etc.

Sweet. I can now use nasty stereotypes and it's ok as long as I limit it to two people.

Douglas MacArthur and John Muir are cheap Scottish sons of bitches!*

* this is not to imply that any other Scottish or Scottish American people are cheap.

[NoXInNixon]

Sweet. I can now use nasty stereotypes and it's ok as long as I limit it to two people.

By definition, if you are only referring to two specific people, you are not using a stereotype.

There's a big difference between:

Seamus and Sean are Irish people who are drunks.
Seamus and Sean are Irish people, who are drunks.

Edited by NoXInNixon, 01 October 2009 - 09:44 AM.

[Hendu for Kutch]

By definition, if you are only referring to two specific people, you are not using a stereotype.

There's a big difference between:

Seamus and Sean are Irish people who are drunks.
Seamus and Sean are Irish people, who are drunks.

But what's the point of even mentioning they were Irish except to tie it to them being drunk? Do writers commonly reference a subject's religion in an article unless there's some reason to do so? Maybe he meant no harm, but this isn't an off the cuff remark, this is a written article. Plenty of time to reread it and he decided what to leave in there. It's either a case of pointing out how Jews love money or it's so horrendously written as to be fired for incompetency.

[BucketOBalls]

But what's the point of even mentioning they were Irish except to tie it to them being drunk? Do writers commonly reference a subject's religion in an article unless there's some reason to do so? Maybe he meant no harm, but this isn't an off the cuff remark, this is a written article. Plenty of time to reread it and he decided what to leave in there. It's either a case of pointing out how Jews love money or it's so horrendously written as to be fired for incompetency.

It's one of those things where you can make a case both ways.

He's trying to tie "profit from killing of innocents" to recent Jewish history. This sentence really seems to tie into the whole money-grubbing-jews stereotype though.

Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?

It's hard to say weather it was as innocent mistake, a subconscious prejudice or he was trying to slip something in. The paragraph works almost as well without the above sentence though.

[jimc]

I skip everything but his football stuff. I can't be bothered to slog through his take on anything else, particularly because he's got this odd, quasi-religious/fanatical approach to a lot of topics. It's irritating to get through it, so I don't bother.

Agreed, although 'quasi-religious' might be an understatement. I used to read TMQ every week, and I wish I could remember exactly which one was my last. I'm pretty sure it was something about how evolution is silly and sinful or something, and it might even have been one of the ones discussed here or here.

[Shelterdog]

But what's the point of even mentioning they were Irish except to tie it to them being drunk? Do writers commonly reference a subject's religion in an article unless there's some reason to do so? Maybe he meant no harm, but this isn't an off the cuff remark, this is a written article. Plenty of time to reread it and he decided what to leave in there. It's either a case of pointing out how Jews love money or it's so horrendously written as to be fired for incompetency.

One more argument for incompetency: Eisner and Weinstein were probably the two most important executives at his company. So he's essentially saying the CEO of his company is a bad Jew who didn't learn the lessons of the holocaust because there's a lot of fake blood in a kung fu movie. Not a great way to advance your career.

And you can use a stereotype to describe one or two people; the fact that the stereotype is true in that instance doesn't make it any less of a stereotype. This isn't that big a deal if you're saying something like "Amelie is super stylish, but of course she is, she's French!" It's a lot more hurtful if you're saying "Eisner is a money grubbing media mogul who is polluting our airwaves with filth."

[NoXInNixon]

He's trying to tie "profit from killing of innocents" to recent Jewish history. This sentence really seems to tie into the whole money-grubbing-jews stereotype though.

Precisely. Perhaps my example wasn't the best one, because there is no obvious reason to mention that Seamus and Sean are Irish. But if that sentence were part of a larger essay, perhaps there would have been.

And in the case of the TMQ comment in question, there was. As mentioned, he mentioned their Jewishness because the thought the holocaust should have made them more senstive to amoral violence. He was actually arguing the exact opposite the very stereotype people accused him of. He was saying, "They should know better than to be money grubbing, because they're Jewish." But we've become so thinskinned in this country that we don't even read anymore. We see "money grubbing" and "Jewish" in the same sentence and we immediately conclude the author is an antisemite.

[NoXInNixon]

One more argument for incompetency: Eisner and Weinstein were probably the two most important executives at his company. So he's essentially saying the CEO of his company is a bad Jew who didn't learn the lessons of the holocaust because there's a lot of fake blood in a kung fu movie. Not a great way to advance your career.

I don't think that his ESPN column is a significant part of his income.

[dirtynine]

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.

And another thing - I don't believe for a second that he really gives a damn about cheerleaders. That section is there so when he goes off on some non-NFL tangent, he can point and say "hey, I'm sorry, guess TMQ's just a renaissance thinker, guys. What, you didn't think a guy could love chicks and astronomy? Come, sit down and learn a few lessons from the ultimate modern man."

I honestly think he has a readership because, by Tuesday, ravenous NFL fans are completely starved for content, and he is the unopened package of saltines in an otherwise-bare cupboard.

[MarcSullivaFan]

No, he's not. He is noting that it those studio executives are profiting from the over-glamorization of killing in movies, not profiting from the killing of innocents. He is right about that, but he did a horrible job making the connections that he did. Judaism is a faith that preaches peace (as is Christianity although - and I say this as a Presbyterian - you would not get that impression from many of its adherents), so this glamorization of extreme violence is odd for these men, but it is no more odd than it would be for a Christian to do the same, so his phrasing was truly awful.

Yes, of course he's not literally saying that those execs profit from the killing of innocents, but he made the association between jews and (a) worshipping money and (b) profiting from the killing of innocents. Such associations have been fixtures of anti-semitic rhetoric for quite a while, no? Someone as culturally literate and adept with language as TMQ could not possibly put those sentences together without some inkling of the anti-semitic subtext. That's what makes his comment about "modern European history" so fucking ironic. He's the one who has forgotten history, or least that would be his best defense. I'm sure he regretted his words after he hit send. But did he regret them because he didn't mean them, or because he regretted the consequences surely to come?

[simonus]

If anything MarcSullivanFan was being too kind in seeing only implicit anti-semitism. I personally find the idea that somehow it is reasonable to expect Jews to be more moral than non-Jews a particularly pernicious form of stupidity, if not bigotry. I was raised Jewish and like most Jews in the western diaspora I consistently reminded of "recent European history" and it has endowed me with not a whit of superior morality compared to the non-Jews I have known (my moral superiority comes directly from my atheism). Victims of racism, sexism, or anything else have rarely displayed a superior ability to not mimic the crimes of their attackers than non-victims.

Easterbrook's comments are not so brazenly anti-semitic as Gibson's, but unlike Gibson he cannot really claim the excuse of booze addled improvisation. I have to think that Easterbrook read his piece at least once before posted it. If he didn't get a sick feeling seeing what he was saying, it shows at the very least a disturbing lack of judgment.

Edited by simonus, 02 October 2009 - 01:46 PM.

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

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.

[dirtynine]

Thanks for that. I'm going to take some more time with him. I wish the majority of his column was of the deeper X's & O's analysis as you describe.

[Rough Carrigan]

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.

I agree on all these points, though I don't know who Bob Davie is.

[Nuf Ced]

Bob Davie was a college coach for 25 years, notably as the defensive coordinator at Texas A&M and the head coach at Notre Dame. He used to write a column at ESPN.com called Football 101 that analyzed and broke down plays and formations by the successful BCS schools. Unfortunately, he stopped about 2 years ago. It was good stuff for anyone interested in the X's and O's of the game.

[Lose Remerswaal]

Grrr

Why didn't Bill Belichick order a punt rush on the final snap of regulation? With 15 seconds remaining until overtime, Denver faced a fourth-and-15 at midfield, with New England holding a timeout. Rush eight men and try to block the punt! You're not going to get a 90-yard touchdown return. Yet New England dropped its punt team back to block for a return, then knelt to accept overtime. Being toasty warm in his heavy parka kept Belichick from thinking aggressively.

Perhaps BB feared a Roughing the Kicker penalty which would have given Denver the ball on the 35, with time to kick a 52 yard FG?

[lexrageorge]

Grrr



Perhaps BB feared a Roughing the Kicker penalty which would have given Denver the ball on the 35, with time to kick a 52 yard FG?

Wasn't the worst suggestion I've heard, albeit unconventional. Is the chance of having the combination of a roughing the kicker penalty along with a 52 yard FG really that much greater than the 50% chance of losing the overtime coin toss, which is almost an automatic loss these days?