TMQ Thread

ForKeeps

lurker
Oct 13, 2011
463
I'm pretty sure the thought process was more like, "I'm gonna troll a whole bunch of people right now, it's incredibly easy..."
 

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
15,328
South Jersey
*sigh*
 
I don't expect him to know everything, but some of us have been talking about this for weeks and he has access to more resources than we do:
 
For much of the contest, Richard Sherman was defending Eric Decker one-on-one, as if it were a basketball game. Seattle seemed to decide to take Decker out of the game, which it did. The Seahawks knew this would open up opportunities for Demaryius Thomas, who made 13 receptions. But Seattle also knew the rap on Thomas is that he's mistake-prone. Causing Denver to throw to Thomas worked beautifully -- he lost a fumble, and twice pulled up and quit running when he might have caught slightly overthrown deep balls. Decker had one reception for 6 yards. Sherman ended the Super Bowl invisible statistically, but had a great night shutting down Decker.
 
 
Um, that's because Denver chose to sacrifice Decker to the Sherman god at LCB so they could get balls to Welker and the Thomases.  Sherman almost never covers a specific receiver.  He just shuts down a side.
 

johnmd20

literally like ebola
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
37,772
New York City
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
He drives me crazy with assertions like "Andre Reed had to wait to get into the HoF because he threw a helmet in the SB." I mean, that's like your opinion man.
 
Plus he establishes a great recency bias with the "DEFENSE NOW WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS, TODAY AND FOREVER!!!11!!!" assertion. Yeah, Seattle's D was amazing but it's one year. It's the same thing as saying, "Seattle is young and set for years, dynasty to follow. Book it."
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,648
Returning to the hotel, I clicked on ESPN coverage -- and the first thing I beheld was a Peyton Manning endorsement commercial. Manning is accessible to the media, and of course does endless endorsements. How much time in the week before the Super Bowl was he doing interviews rather than watching film of the Hawks?
 
 
Whatever you want to say about Manning, even his most vehement and ignorant detractors have never suggested that he doesn't put the time in, or that he didn't put the time in before this SB.
Peyton Manning doesn't need me to defend him, but in context, that's practically libelous. (small 'l'; not really; i know manning would never win a lawsuit; i just can't come up with the right word for such gross irresponsibility.)
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,437
Deep inside Muppet Labs
johnmd20 said:
 
Plus he establishes a great recency bias with the "DEFENSE NOW WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS, TODAY AND FOREVER!!!11!!!" assertion. Yeah, Seattle's D was amazing but it's one year. It's the same thing as saying, "Seattle is young and set for years, dynasty to follow. Book it."
 
Just last year, the team with the better defense lost the SB.
 
johnmd20 said:
 
Plus he establishes a great recency bias with the "DEFENSE NOW WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS, TODAY AND FOREVER!!!11!!!" assertion. Yeah, Seattle's D was amazing but it's one year. It's the same thing as saying, "Seattle is young and set for years, dynasty to follow. Book it."
 
Aikman said this very thing in the waning moments of the game about Seattle. 
 

Silverdude2167

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
2,077
NYC
I can't believed I clicked on his article after avoiding them for years but he is still full of crap.
 
I like hating on Denver as much as anyone but this stat is ridiculous. 
 
 
 
Stats Of The Week No. 1: In two trips to New England in less than a year, Denver jumped to a combined 28 point lead then was outscored by a combined 53 points.
 
That was a massive 4 point lead they blew in the first quarter on Sunday.
 
Also he and Simmons should get together and compare their notes on "Authentic Games".
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,648
Putz on Putz violence:
 
Backup quarterback Drew Stanton heave-ho'd deep and John Brown of Division II Pittsburg of Kansas, whom TMQ has been touting all season, made a leaping catch for a 48-yard touchdown
 
 
OK King, your move.
 

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
15,328
South Jersey
He's gone even further off the rails with this one:
 
So TMQ proposes a new "passer stance" rule: a player in a passer stance cannot be hit in any manner and is down with two-hand touch.
 
 
Yeah, okay.  Words fail me right now.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
I might be the only one who still reads TMQ, but his holiday edition is up, and there are some discuss-able bits.
 


In other football news, a factor in the Eagles' upset defeat by the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons, bouncing Philadelphia from postseason contention, was a roughing the passer flag that advanced the Persons to first-and-goal. The call was marginal -- nothing vicious, no helmet-to-helmet hit, just contact an instant after Robert Griffin III released the ball.
 
 
Rule tweaks in recent years have expanded protection for those in a "passer stance." The NFL is trying to make football less violent, and to safeguard its substantial economic investment in quarterbacks. Fair enough. But the pendulum has swung too far, especially considering it is unrealistic for a defender who is charging hard toward the quarterback to come to a complete halt the instant the ball is released.
 
So TMQ proposes a new "passer stance" rule: a player in a passer stance cannot be hit in any manner and is down with two-hand touch.
 
I'm in earnest about this. A two-hand touch rule for the quarterback would not sissify football, anymore more than banning grabbing the facemask (once that was legal) sissified football. A two-hand touch rule for the quarterback would end the current confusion caused by normal, routine-looking hits that lead to flags and free first downs. It would lower the number of quarterbacks injured -- Arizona, Houston, St. Louis and Tennessee have lost quarterbacks to injuries this season -- and bumbling backups just aren't as interesting to watch as starters. No more endless debates about what part of a quarterback can be hit in what manner. Make the rule that a "passer stance" player simply cannot be hit, but is down by two-hand touch.
 
At times such a standard would work against the offense. Quarterbacks may wriggle out of sacks, then scramble to make big plays. There would be no wriggling out of a two-hand touch. The down would end.
 
Then there's a little Patriots ballwashing:
 


Stats Of The Week No. 2: New England has gone five straight games without allowing a second-half touchdown.
 
 
Some Bills-bashing (schadenfreude preview for this weekend):


Sour Plays Of The Week: Trailing 19-17 at Oakland, the Bills took possession early in the fourth quarter. The situation was must-win for Buffalo: defeat meant elimination and extension of the team's league-worst playoff drought. Throughout the contest Buffalo had been using hyper-conservative short passes, including a super-short pass on third-and-10, the receiver not even attempting to run his route to the line-to-gain: a punt followed. This time the Bills go short pass, short pass, short pass, short pass, rush for 3 yards, short pass, short pass. Now it's third-and-1 at midfield. No high school coach -- no middle-school coach -- would call yet another short pass. Short pass to a receiver who was behind the line of scrimmage, swatted down by a linebacker.
 
That makes it fourth-and-1 at midfield, 8:22 remaining, Bills facing elimination. That cannot be the kicking unit! Boom goes the punt. Not only did Bills coach Doug Marrone passively surrender the ball on fourth-and-1 with the playoffs on the line, by his decision he communicated to his team that he was playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Oakland went the other way for a touchdown, and Buffalo's goose was cooked. A cooked goose stuffed with sour Warheads.
 
Some analysis of last night's debacle:
 


Broncos No Longer Stat-a-Matic: Everyone's talking about how the Broncos faltered at Cincinnati on "Monday Night Football," rather than talking about how the Bengals triumphed. Cincinnati fans: Breathe. Find your center. Your moment will come. You must win a playoff game in this century before the sports media will consider your team on par with the Broncos.
 
What went wrong for Denver? The game was played in a downpour, and Peyton Manning has a longstanding preference for ideal conditions: the dome at Indianapolis, the Colorado sky that's always sparkling blue and low humidity. For weeks Bill Belichick has seemed to have a clear understanding that the AFC title may come down to where the Broncos and Patriots meet in January. Now any Denver-New England postseason meeting will occur in winter conditions in Massachusetts, opening the door to a Flying Elvii return to the Super Bowl.
 
Since the start of the 2012 season Denver is 39-12, so the Broncos must be doing something right. But there are warning signs. Including playoffs, Manning has thrown seven pick-sixes in that span, versus two for Tom Brady in the same period. Through the 2013 regular season, Denver scored at a record 37.9 points per game pace. Then the playoffs began and since then -- three postseason contests, 15 regular-season dates this year -- Denver scoring is down to 27.4 points per game. That's good, but over the same span Seattle, viewed as a low-scoring team, has averaged 25.9 points per game. Declining Denver scoring is partly caused by the Broncos' 2014 experiment with clock-control rushing. But mainly the cause is that in last season's playoffs, opponents began jamming Denver receivers, frustrating the team's designed-for-ideal-conditions passing attack.
 
On Monday night, Manning often saw the press coverages he's seen since last season's playoffs, yet responded by trying to throw super-short. Manning likes to throw super-short but this just doesn't work when receivers are jammed, as the Seahawks demonstrated in the Super Bowl. At Cincinnati, Manning didn't look down the field until the final minute of the first half. He looked down the field often in the third quarter, resulting in three Denver touchdowns. Then in the fourth quarter he went back to super-short passing and heave-hoed three interceptions.
 
Cincinnati leading 30-28, Denver took possession on its 20 with 4 minutes remaining. Manning threw super-short twice, setting up third-and-1. On the night the Broncos rushed for an average of 4.5 yards per carry, why not run for the first down? An audible to a deep pass also was attractive. Pre-snap, Manning saw seven Bengals on the line of scrimmage and 10 close to the line, a Cover 1 look that fairly screams, "Throw deep!" Instead the call was another super-short pass. Manning retreated 9 yards -- to gain 1 yard! -- then lobbed the ball short into double coverage for the pick-six that iced the contest. Ouch.
 
Manning was too fixated on super-short passes in the Super Bowl, too. It's the super-short pass that gets run back for a touchdown, when a defender cuts in front. If Denver snags a first-round bye, it needs to focus on rediscovering the deep pass.
 
The Denver offensive line played poorly, allowing a key sack on third-and-18 midway through the fourth quarter. A November offensive line shakeup seemed to be going well but at Cincinnati, Pro Bowl guard Louis Vasquez looked like a fish out of water at right tackle. In Denver's offense, tackles rarely have an in-line tight end next to them. That leaves tackles "on an island," so footwork -- the ability to change direction quickly -- matters a lot more than it does to a guard, who's in a sea of bodies, to complete the jaunty nautical analogy. Vasquez seems to lack the footwork necessary to play tackle. This will be obvious to defensive coordinators on film.
 
And a good point about pre-snap gesticulations and false starts:
 


Adventures in Officiating: On the down that became the 39-yard pass to Luke Willson, Russell Wilson wanted to quick-snap before Arizona might change fronts. The Hawks were using a silent snap based on Wilson lifting his leg. When he lifted his leg and the center didn't deliver the ball, Wilson began jumping up and down to signal for the snap. He appeared to be rehearsing for an Irish step-dancing competition.
 
Why wasn't this illegal motion? TMQ often has asked how Peyton Manning can do his presnap chicken dance without drawing a flag. Wilson's jumping around without a flag took this even farther.
 
The illegal motion rule: "When the ball is snapped, one player who is lined up in the backfield may be in motion, provided that he is moving parallel to or away from the line of scrimmage. No player is permitted to be moving toward the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped. All other players must be stationary in their positions." Wilson was not even similar to stationary. Here's the rule cited to excuse Manning's chicken dance: illegal motion "does not apply to an offensive player under the center who turns his head or shoulders, unless the movement is an obvious attempt to draw an opponent offside." Wilson wasn't turning his head or shoulders, he was jumping. Here's a rule that suggests Wilson should have been flagged for false start: "Any obvious attempt by the quarterback or other player in position to receive the snap to draw an opponent offside is a false start." Had Wilson's Irish step dancing caused an Arizona player to jump offside, the Cardinals surely would have been flagged.
 
I've often thought that a lot of pre-snap moving around, particularly by linemen who are in their stance, is pretty deceptive and ought to be flagged more often.  Guards turning their head and shoulders around, or smacking the center to signal a snap.  Linemen jumping up and shifting a body width or two and settling down again.  To say nothing of the Peyton chicken dance.  To my eyes, they've all gotten a lot more ridiculous these last few years.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,412
02130
The two-hand touch thing would be really tough to officiate. Lots of things to watch:
-When he was touched by two hands
-When he switched away from a "passer stance" to a "running stance" (or, non-passer stance -- I assume he is still allowing QBs to scramble in this scenario)
-Can he then throw from a "running stance" if he hasn't crossed the line of scrimmage? Can he shovel pass?
-QBs would still get knocked down a lot given that you are running at them full-speed with a huge guy trying to stop you from doing so (who you're trying to manhandle). QBs could also dive to draw a call.
 
Plus, the downsides:
-Wiggling out of tackles and making big plays is really exciting to watch, and if a player can do that why not allow him to?
-Many of the injuries are when guys scramble or try to dodge hits in the pocket and I don't think this rule addresses that at all. Of the guys he names, Palmer's injury was a weird grab of his shoulder that bent his knee the wrong way, Fitzpatrick was not in a "passer stance" and was tripped and Bradford tore his knee on a scramble, so that's three that HE MENTIONS that wouldn't have been prevented by his dumb rule.
 
Just put a little thought into it, please.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
9,369
South Boston
Toe Nash said:
The two-hand touch thing would be really tough to officiate. Lots of things to watch:
-When he was touched by two hands
-When he switched away from a "passer stance" to a "running stance" (or, non-passer stance -- I assume he is still allowing QBs to scramble in this scenario)
-Can he then throw from a "running stance" if he hasn't crossed the line of scrimmage? Can he shovel pass?
-QBs would still get knocked down a lot given that you are running at them full-speed with a huge guy trying to stop you from doing so (who you're trying to manhandle). QBs could also dive to draw a call.
 
Plus, the downsides:
-Wiggling out of tackles and making big plays is really exciting to watch, and if a player can do that why not allow him to?
-Many of the injuries are when guys scramble or try to dodge hits in the pocket and I don't think this rule addresses that at all. Of the guys he names, Palmer's injury was a weird grab of his shoulder that bent his knee the wrong way, Fitzpatrick was not in a "passer stance" and was tripped and Bradford tore his knee on a scramble, so that's three that HE MENTIONS that wouldn't have been prevented by his dumb rule.
 
Just put a little thought into it, please.
Not to mention, you are helping to negate some of the leagues most players, like Rogers, Wilson etc.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
This week, we have a self-important blowhard section that actually kinda makes an insightful point, and another crazy suggestion.  The bit of insight:
 


One of the founding insights of Tuesday Morning Quarterback was that football coverage spends too much time on stars, owners and coaches, not enough on what actually happens during games. (This may be true of coverage of other sports as well, football is the only sport I follow closely enough to feel sure.) There are 100 words written or spoken about what might happen in any given football game for each one word regarding what did happen.
 
For a while, I thought this was because the news cycle is based on anticipation: TV and media culture are obsessed with what might occur next. Eventually I became convinced -- and don't take this too hard, writers and broadcasters whose whole lives are tied up in commenting on football -- that some football writers and on-air football personnel don't spend much time watching games. What they spend time on are highlights and news conferences. Both may be interesting, but football outcomes are as much determined by tactics on plays that don't make highlight reels as by the occasional spectacular run or catch. And the structure of big-media sports coverage is that some writers and on-air personnel choose (or are assigned) one particular game to pay attention to per week, ignoring the rest except for highlights.
 
And the crazy idea from wacky Uncle Gregg:
 


Merge NFL, "American Idol": Reader Konrad Miller of Austin, Texas, writes, "NFL officials mainly do a good job, but there are so many high-profile botched calls that perhaps crowd-sourcing is the solution.
 
"When a call is challenged, put the decision in the hands of viewers at home. They'd see two views of the replay -- that's all a referee should ever see since if you need to watch more than two times, the outcome is not indisputable -- then be given numbers to text for their votes. Sitting in the comfort and relative peace of our living room, with large HD televisions, fans are probably getting a superior view of the game anyway. We don't have the added pressures of the crowd or head coaches demanding attention.
 
"As for team bias, if generally equal numbers of opposing fans are watching each game, their bias would cancel out in the voting. Technology could be employed to prevent fans at the game from voting, since they'd always side with the home team. Having thousands if not millions of people vote on a challenge would make the NFL more engaging to viewers -- and by calling on the wisdom of crowds, lead to better rulings. Plus it couldn't take any longer than the current system."
 
But of course, if we did that, then the officials would get mad.  And we'd have nobody specific to blame when a crowdsourced call happened that we didn't like.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,412
02130
I know this is a reader suggestion, but he has to get smarter letters than this.
 
People would just vote for their team and the amount of fans watching rooting for each side is nowhere near equal. I'm not sure how one could even suggest that. The Cowboys, Patriots, Giants, whoever would get all the close calls.
 
Also, this is kind of just tossed in there:
"that's all a referee should ever see since if you need to watch more than two times, the outcome is not indisputable"
 
What?!
 

LeftyTG

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,248
Austin
MentalDisabldLst said:
This week, we have a self-important blowhard section that actually kinda makes an insightful point, and another crazy suggestion.  The bit of insight:
 
 
 
 
And the crazy idea from wacky Uncle Gregg:
 
 
 
 
But of course, if we did that, then the officials would get mad.  And we'd have nobody specific to blame when a crowdsourced call happened that we didn't like.
I'm good friends with Konrad, the reader who wrote in with the suggestion.  I congratulated him for making it into an article, but said it was a shame it was over such a dumb idea.
 

johnmd20

literally like ebola
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
37,772
New York City
LeftyTG said:
I'm good friends with Konrad, the reader who wrote in with the suggestion.  I congratulated him for making it into an article, but said it was a shame it was over such a dumb idea.
 
It's a terrible idea. You'd have tons of votes from gamblers and fantasy players, just picking the choice that helps them no matter what the replay shows. That idea is as bad as the two hand touch idea. But there is nothing wrong with bad ideas, in my opinion, because sometimes the best ideas come out of them.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
3,972
He obviously wasn't serious about the two hand touch rule. He's making fun of how the existing rules already protect and favor quarterbacks too much.
 

Bellhorn

Lumiere
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2006
2,283
Brighton, MA
NoXInNixon said:
He obviously wasn't serious about the two hand touch rule. He's making fun of how the existing rules already protect and favor quarterbacks too much.
Go back and read it again - he was dead serious.  
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,648
When it rains, baseball players trot to the clubhouse. Basketball is staged indoors. Volleyball, indoors or on sun-drenched beaches. Soccer, a summer sport, usually doesn't play in winter.
 
 
Don't the Premier League & Serie A, for example, run from September to May?  it's not like those places are like January in Bangor, but the weather for  the Conf. Championship games wasn't anything that the Brit or Italian Leagues dont see.
 
Several Oscar nominations went to "The Grand Budapest Hotel," a pleasantly quirky diversion. Although a comedy about a resort in the 1930s, it contains a scene in which the three lead characters hang by their fingertips above a deep chasm, certain to die at the slightest slip. But then it's a modern Hollywood release. In today's Hollywood, everybody who is anybody hangs by the fingertips.
 
this was about 90 freakin' years ago.

 
 
 
 

loshjott

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
7,814
Silver Spring, MD
TMQ is back! At The Weekly Standard.

High praise for BB and the Pats for the comeback, along with some usual snark. No mention of Spygate or other pseudo gates that I could find.
 

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
12,708
He's got his flaws, but I have always generally enjoyed his work, and I'm glad he's back. I especially enjoyed this:

Sometime this season, Tuesday Morning Quarterback will spell out Belichick’s formula for the exceptional results he gets. These days nothing is covert—well, save what Ernie Adams is up to. Belichick could write the column himself, revealing all, and it wouldn’t matter, since the rest of the league is either too vain or too foolish simply to do exactly what the NFL’s best coach does.
 

Soxy Brown

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
4,268
He's got his flaws, but I have always generally enjoyed his work, and I'm glad he's back. I especially enjoyed this:
You'll never believe this but he made a factual error. In fact, he made quite a few.

The holding penalty at 3:50 of the 4th Quarter was not committed against Trey Flowers (which he puts forth as part of an argument as to why Flowers should have been MVP, so kind of important to his thesis) but was committed against Chris Long.

Then he says that the only reason Belichick traded their 1st rd pick for Brandin Cooks is because Christian McCaffrey wouldn't be available at that pick. No cite, no evidence, just casually throws it out there as if it's true (I doubt it).

He also blames Arthur Blank coming down to the sideline during the Super Bowl as "the worst hidden play of the Super Bowl." Okay, guy.

He compares Sam Bradford to Drew Bledsoe, saying they're both "athletic." The fuck? Drew Bledsoe was many things as a QB. Athletic was never one of them. But Easterbrook has never let facts get in the way of whatever narrative he wants to push.

He's clearly a smart man but he can't help himself from exaggerating and creating made up "facts" out of thin air to support his arguments. That's what makes him so frustrating to read. He's like a talented player who can't reach their full potential because they're their own worst enemy and refuse to admit it. All too often he starts with a claim and then reverse engineers from there to find "facts" to support it. He's been like that for so long that I doubt he'll ever change.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
You'll never believe this but he made a factual error. In fact, he made quite a few.

The holding penalty at 3:50 of the 4th Quarter was not committed against Trey Flowers (which he puts forth as part of an argument as to why Flowers should have been MVP, so kind of important to his thesis) but was committed against Chris Long.

Then he says that the only reason Belichick traded their 1st rd pick for Brandin Cooks is because Christian McCaffrey wouldn't be available at that pick. No cite, no evidence, just casually throws it out there as if it's true (I doubt it).

He also blames Arthur Blank coming down to the sideline during the Super Bowl as "the worst hidden play of the Super Bowl." Okay, guy.

He compares Sam Bradford to Drew Bledsoe, saying they're both "athletic." The fuck? Drew Bledsoe was many things as a QB. Athletic was never one of them. But Easterbrook has never let facts get in the way of whatever narrative he wants to push.

He's clearly a smart man but he can't help himself from exaggerating and creating made up "facts" out of thin air to support his arguments. That's what makes him so frustrating to read. He's like a talented player who can't reach their full potential because they're their own worst enemy and refuse to admit it. All too often he starts with a claim and then reverse engineers from there to find "facts" to support it. He's been like that for so long that I doubt he'll ever change.
Gregg Easterbook? Made up "facts"? Logical leaps unsupported by actual evidence?

Say it ain't so?
 

Bergs

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
12,708
You'll never believe this but he made a factual error. In fact, he made quite a few.

The holding penalty at 3:50 of the 4th Quarter was not committed against Trey Flowers (which he puts forth as part of an argument as to why Flowers should have been MVP, so kind of important to his thesis) but was committed against Chris Long.

Then he says that the only reason Belichick traded their 1st rd pick for Brandin Cooks is because Christian McCaffrey wouldn't be available at that pick. No cite, no evidence, just casually throws it out there as if it's true (I doubt it).

He also blames Arthur Blank coming down to the sideline during the Super Bowl as "the worst hidden play of the Super Bowl." Okay, guy.

He compares Sam Bradford to Drew Bledsoe, saying they're both "athletic." The fuck? Drew Bledsoe was many things as a QB. Athletic was never one of them. But Easterbrook has never let facts get in the way of whatever narrative he wants to push.

He's clearly a smart man but he can't help himself from exaggerating and creating made up "facts" out of thin air to support his arguments. That's what makes him so frustrating to read. He's like a talented player who can't reach their full potential because they're their own worst enemy and refuse to admit it. All too often he starts with a claim and then reverse engineers from there to find "facts" to support it. He's been like that for so long that I doubt he'll ever change.
You spent way more mental energy reading that than I did! I generally gloss over the specifics, as I don't read him for "knowledge" but entertainment. You should start up a "firegreggeasterbrook.com", I'd certainly read it. Maybe Ken Tremendous could guest author on occasion.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,590
The best line in there was the strained argument that Atlanta should have gone for two on its second touchdown, with this analysis:

A failed deuce in this situation still would have left Atlanta up 13-0; a successful deuce, for a 15-0 lead, might have demoralized even the hard-as-nails Patriots.
Is there anyone, anywhere, who believes that Patriots team was going to be demoralized by being down 15-0 instead of 14-0 (or 28-3)? C'mon...
 

johnmd20

literally like ebola
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
37,772
New York City
The best line in there was the strained argument that Atlanta should have gone for two on its second touchdown, with this analysis:



Is there anyone, anywhere, who believes that Patriots team was going to be demoralized by being down 15-0 instead of 14-0 (or 28-3)? C'mon...
I generally enjoy TMQ's columns and I am also glad he's back, but this assertion was pretty weak. No team would try to go up 15-0, because failing the conversion is an extremely bad result and succeeding wouldn't demoralize anyone.

His columns are also really lengthy, so there will always be a few things to nitpick. But he is a very entertaining football writer and he does make some very solid points every week, too. And he was right about Blank. He was on the sideline yukking it up with the players and the cameras and the game wasn't over. Sure, it didn't cause the comeback, but if the players are watching the owner on the sideline joking around, they will ease up. If nothing else, it was a bad choice by Blank and he paid the iron price.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
9,369
South Boston
He also glosses over the double facemask non-call, when the Falcons guy did it first, more egregiously and sort of forced the Patriot to grab the mask. He basically says this missed call won the game for NE.


What COULD have been called there? There were obviously 2 facemask penalties there...but can you say one penalty forced the other player to commit a penalty and therefore, it isn't a penalty?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,590
I used to really like TMQ. I do not approve of some of his non-football comments, and I think as I've become more knowledgeable about football tactics over the last 15 years I've come to realize that he has not evolved all that much over time. And, lots of great football writing has developed outside of his column.

He also has a bit of the problem that some of the baseball prospectus guys (most notably Joe Sheehan) had, which is they get so committed to being contrarian that they start working too hard to find things to criticize (like the facemask non-call and the idiotic two-points-to-go-up-15-0 comments).

So...guess it is good he's back, and I'll read at least a few columns this year but his 'Value over replacement football writer" is hugely reduced in my view from when he started TMQ
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
18,624
Washington DC
At the Weekly Standard? I'm trying to remember, but he did something really stupid to make him fit in there, race baitting? anti semitism?
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I used to really like TMQ. I do not approve of some of his non-football comments, and I think as I've become more knowledgeable about football tactics over the last 15 years I've come to realize that he has not evolved all that much over time. And, lots of great football writing has developed outside of his column.

He also has a bit of the problem that some of the baseball prospectus guys (most notably Joe Sheehan) had, which is they get so committed to being contrarian that they start working too hard to find things to criticize (like the facemask non-call and the idiotic two-points-to-go-up-15-0 comments).

So...guess it is good he's back, and I'll read at least a few columns this year but his 'Value over replacement football writer" is hugely reduced in my view from when he started TMQ
I could have written this post, almost word-for-word. The one thing I would add is that his schtick of "Santa Clara 49ers" and "Caution: May contain football-like substance" and all his other cutesy things has become very tired.