Yeah, Brady somehow playing 36 home games in 2 years IS pretty incredible.You know it is a pretty incredible stat and if TMQ didn't spend the last 4 years pounding on the Patriots, him observing its existence would be less infuriating.
Yeah, Brady somehow playing 36 home games in 2 years IS pretty incredible.You know it is a pretty incredible stat and if TMQ didn't spend the last 4 years pounding on the Patriots, him observing its existence would be less infuriating.
The stat is such a goofy eric van cherry picking stat. It starts in the 6th home game of the 2006 regular season (they started 2-3 at home that season including losses in the fourth and fifth home games that season) but it includes the KC game in 2008 where he got hurt. It also fails to note they had a a 3-0 home playoff record in the 06-07 stats.Yeah, Brady somehow playing 36 home games in 2 years IS pretty incredible.
According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, "punk" as an adjective means "very poor or inferior," related to the meaning of punk as a noun of "wood so decayed as to be dry, crumbly, and useful for tinder." Punk as a noun also means "nonsense, foolishness."I hardly know where to begin with this column, but this is from the department of "I do not think that word means what you think it means":
Perhaps he just misspelled "punt", repeatedly, and his spellchecker didn't catch it.
I tried this week (not that easy, ESPN.com barely reacts when a new TMQ column goes up, I had to find Easterbrook's name on a list and just assumed, "Hey, it's Tuesday, I bet the Tuesday Morning Quarterback wrote something") until I read this:Why do you people continue to read TMZQ
A bad offense put up yards and scored on a statistically good (albeit banged up) defense, thus, the children of the spread offense have taken over. Please ignore all the games where Denver's bad offense didn't do those things while nodding your head to this point. Easterbrook didn't write about this phenomenon those weeks.The league's No. 1 defense, the Pittsburgh Steelers, is already out of the playoffs, torched by Denver. In this year of offensive stat-a-rama, even a sputtering offense trumped the best defense!
Not Denver, specifically, but the whole concept of how the offensive game in the NFL has evolved to where it's at now, and how that evolution has its roots in what has been done over the last decade at the HS and college levels; this is something he has brought up for awhile. And that is his point here, too -- hence why he talks about how this cohort of NFL players is fully steeped in this, by what they played in college, by 7on7 tournaments, etc. Would you disagree with the idea that the children of the spread have taken over the league? That Cam Newton, a child of the spread, isn't an effective NFL player who is a symbol for his cohort? That there has been not just a real evolution of the offense of the NFL, but also an evolution of the NFL towards offense? These are some of the points he is making and supporting with evidence and examples; these are not ludicrous points.I tried this week (not that easy, ESPN.com barely reacts when a new TMQ column goes up, I had to find Easterbrook's name on a list and just assumed, "Hey, it's Tuesday, I bet the Tuesday Morning Quarterback wrote something") until I read this:
A bad offense put up yards and scored on a statistically good (albeit banged up) defense, thus, the children of the spread offense have taken over. Please ignore all the games where Denver's bad offense didn't do those things while nodding your head to this point. Easterbrook didn't write about this phenomenon those weeks.
I absolutely agree offense is taking over the NFL, I just don't see how Denver scoring on Pittsburgh reinforces that point.Not Denver, specifically, but the whole concept of how the offensive game in the NFL has evolved to where it's at now, and how that evolution has its roots in what has been done over the last decade at the HS and college levels; this is something he has brought up for awhile. And that is his point here, too -- hence why he talks about how this cohort of NFL players is fully steeped in this, by what they played in college, by 7on7 tournaments, etc. Would you disagree with the idea that the children of the spread have taken over the league? That Cam Newton, a child of the spread, isn't an effective NFL player who is a symbol for his cohort? That there has been not just a real evolution of the offense of the NFL, but also an evolution of the NFL towards offense? These are some of the points he is making and supporting with evidence and examples; these are not ludicrous points.
People love to nitpick TMQ (and chastize him for crap like creating strawmen arguments as if that isn't a staple of writing a column or as if every other writer doesn't employ the same rhetorical trick(s)). But he's an order of magnitude more thoughtful about football than all but a select few of analysts and reporters. And he is even thoughtful and accountable enough to point out when he is wrong or when he has made mistakes; his column features a section each week where has emails from readers correcting where he was wrong. I get it, people think he was unfair about Spygate. But, seriously? Still? It's been more than four years. Get over it already, you provincial nitpicks.
What's really funny is he points in the same article that Denver scoring was in a large part due to the the Steelers defensive approach of loading up against the run.I absolutely agree offense is taking over the NFL, I just don't see how Denver scoring on Pittsburgh reinforces that point.
No, he's not. He just pretends to be. And that's why he's a pompous, hypocritical ass, and why this thread pointing out instances of that should live forever.But he's an order of magnitude more thoughtful about football than all but a select few of analysts and reporters.
Exactly. He doesn't come up with smart ideas; he just dresses up the same banal ideas with long words and forceful argumentation.No, he's not. He just pretends to be. And that's why he's a pompous, hypocritical ass, and why this thread pointing out instances of that should live forever.
0-3 in their last playoff games against teams with winning records after the game.Stat of the week
The Patriots are on a 1-0 streak at home during the playoffs
/tmq
yep. And this gem, replacing the Pats' post season home streak:And, finally, football dominates television because:
• Only men can understand flat-screen HD TV remotes.
Stats of the Divisional Playoffs No. 10: The Packers have followed a 13-0 postseason streak at Lambeau Field with a 2-4 streak.
Baltimore at New England: The Ravens finished 9-0 at home and are 4-4 on the road. The Bill Belichick-Tom Brady combo has followed a 10-0 postseason streak with a 5-5 streak. New England has not beaten any team that finished the season with a winning record. The Ravens are a league-best 7-0 versus teams that finished with a winning record.
Or why the 49ers won after they gave into Michael Crabtree last season.I'm not sure why the Packers lost if they have all those TEs on their roster.
This is the same dickhead who criticizes the Gillette crowd for booing during the season with the adage "What have you done for me lately?" The Packers are defending SB champs, so where's the finger-wagging towards the crowd?By the fourth quarter the Packers home crowd was booing, and should have been.
That last sentence is about as close to a mea culpa as he's ever going to write concerning the Patriots.TMQ has been harping on "the most puzzling statistic in sports," that Brady is on a 35-1 home streak in the regular season and an 0-2 streak in the postseason at home. Now the home streak is 1-2. Reader Eric Moore of Kingston, N.H., writes, "Even before the Patriots' win, that was not the most puzzling statistic in sports. This is: Peyton Manning is 138-54 in the regular season and 9-10 in the postseason. That is a truly puzzling statistic. Two early playoff exits in a row for Brady? Coincidence." Brady's regular-season won-loss numbers are about the same as Peyton's, while his postseason number is 15-5.
A poster in the comments section points out that the Ravens lost to the 9-7 Tennessee Titans.The Ravens are a league-best 7-0 versus teams that finished with a winning record.
Good Lord he is a douche.TMQ readers know your columnist believes "The Dark Knight" was the worst motion picture ever made. But there's no denying it was incredibly popular. The sequel arrives this summer -- the title is "The Dark Knight & The Deathly Hallows," or something like that. Many readers, including Debbie Eckhart of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., note the "Dark Knight" sequel opening has already sold out, which she sees as a sign of the Unified Field Theory of Creep, and I see as a sign of the decline of Western civilization.
The new flick features Batman pitting his electronically altered voice against a supervillain played by Tom Hardy, who was the supervillain in "Star Trek Nemesis." Third billing goes to Anne Hathaway as a presumably flighty, ditzy, gosh-ain't-she-cute Catwoman. Perhaps Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle will go ice skating together. Federal law requires that any date with Anne Hathaway include ice skating.
Yup.Referring that way to Tom hardy is like referring to ron wood as "the guitar player from The Faces", or Oliver Stone as "the guy who co wrote "scarface"". Typically disingenuous shit.
The movie poster would feature Bill Belichick as an ultimate super-villain, turning the dials in the master control room of his headquarters in a hollowed-out mountain, while Victor Cruz rappels down from a helicopter dressed like Tom Cruise. "Victor Cruz" even sounds like a spy movie character! The cast would include two classic Hollywood leading men, Tom Brady and Eli Manning. Gisele Bundchen would play the damsel in distress, while Danny Woodhead would be the comic relief.
His taste in movies may be worse than mine. But seriously, the only way they could have made the Die Hard franchise better after the first 2 was to add a Samuel L. Jackson as an incredulous, outraged copilot to Bruce Willis. That movie was fucking awesome."The Matrix Reloaded," "Superman IV," "Red, White and Blonde," "Oceans Twelve," "Die Hard with a Vengeance," Oh man, there are some bad sequels out there.
On his best days Diehl is not the NFL's best left tackle, or even as good, athletically, as Matt Light, who will start at left tackle for the Patriots.
Did he just make this up or am I forgetting the serveral times where Welker was a deep threat this year off of play action?Also, New England has adjusted for its lack of a Randy Moss-style deep threat by throwing deep to Wes Welker. If six offensive linemen come in for New England when it's second down and 5 to 7 yards to go -- traditional rushing down -- look for a play-fake and deep pass to Welker. That action worked for New England several times this season.
He's caught a few deep balls off play action, the Philly game comes to mind.Did he just make this up or am I forgetting the serveral times where Welker was a deep threat this year off of play action?
He's out on a limb with Diehl. Diehl was only a LT for the second half of the season, he was one of the worst linemen in the league according to to PFF( he was both 64th out of 76 tackles and 76th out of 77 guards: he was so bad per play at both that he was close to the worst in the league in both categories despite splitting time). According to pro football weekly he gave up 6.5 sacks which isn't good. The game film types like the NFL game day crew also think he sucked.TMQ Non QB, Non WR MVP runner up is Gronk.
MVP is David Diehl, LT NYG.
He then follows up with this glowing praise:
I can't believe that Easterbrook is shitting on someone for donating $3 million to charity. I'd love to see his IRS return to see how much he gave in comparison to his income...But according to his IRS returns, after taxes and charitable donations, in 2010 Romney was left with $15 million in disposable income. That means Romney gave away $3 million while keeping $15 million for himself. Judged by the numbers, Romney thought his own luxury was five times more important than helping the poor, the arts, schools and churches.
I like the fact that he mentions Matt Light won in 2007(and then got owned in the SB ). Hopefully the same thing happens here.He's out on a limb with Diehl. Diehl was only a LT for the second half of the season, he was one of the worst linemen in the league according to to PFF( he was both 64th out of 76 tackles and 76th out of 77 guards: he was so bad per play at both that he was close to the worst in the league in both categories despite splitting time). According to pro football weekly he gave up 6.5 sacks which isn't good. The game film types like the NFL game day crew also think he sucked.
He did it against Revis and the Jets too didn't he?He's caught a few deep balls off play action, the Philly game comes to mind.
Here ya go: http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-england-patriots/09000d5d82485095/QB-Brady-to-WR-Welker-41-yd-pass-TD
But he's a Brooking's Scholar!! He must be smart!I suspected before, but today is the day that proves that Gregg Easterbrook knows nothing about football.
Yes, the Giants offense against the Patriot defense is certainly the leading question. Unless...The leading question of the upcoming Super Bowl is whether the Patriots' defense can stop the Giants' offense.
The leading question could be the Giants defense against the Patriot offense! Either/or.When these teams met in the Super Bowl four years ago, Jersey/A got five sacks, all without blitzing; key to the contest was that the Giants' defensive line outperformed the Patriots' offensive line. That could be what to watch for again.
You know how much Gregggg despises those skill position glory boy-types, which is why he dedicated this week's column to handing out his annual Random Non-QB I Picked To Win MVP Award. You disgusting people in the media, who only pick up on major economic stories two weeks after TMQ unearths them, are clearly unfit to judge this award.
Most who analyze football for a living don't try to figure out what is happening in line play or coverages. TMQ keeps his eyes off the ball. Try it sometime!
I know! TMQ is the ONLY person who possesses the learnitude and mental discipline needed to look away from the ball, except for pretty much every other game analyst who will point out good blocks and other away-from-the-ball action using the Telestrator once the play is over. The rest of you are SHEEP.
/punches newborn calf
Now the 2011 Tuesday Morning Quarterback Non-Quarterback Non-Running Back NFL MVP — David Diehl, left tackle of the Jersey/A Giants… On his best days Diehl is not the NFL's best left tackle.
Everything about that passage makes me hate the universe. The pretentious award name. The fucking dipshit nickname he uses for the Giants. And then the admission that his MVP isn't even the best player at his position. But wait! Reader Dubs breaks it down even further:
"Let's put aside the subjective (not really subjective, but either way) and look at one instance where Gregg gets a basic fact wrong to prove a point that is utter bullshit."
When New England and Jersey/A met in the regular season, David Diehl played guard partly so he could match up against Wilfork.
"Um, no. Until Will Beatty was placed on IR at the end of November, he was our starting left tackle. David Diehl was our left guard—a slot he was moved to this year because he just doesn't cut it as an OLT anymore. So during the early November game against the Pats, Diehl was at guard the whole time, and only moved back to left tackle after Beatty's injury weeks later. In Greggggggggggg's effort to boost Diehl's candidacy for his made up award, he tried to make it seem like he sacrificed his spot at left tackle to undertake the valiant responsibility of blocking Vince Wilfork. No, not true. He did not move in "partly" to guard against Wilfork. That was his position the entire game, and throughout the season to that point."
But wait! It gets worse. A number of readers happily pointed out that Pro Football Focus said that Diehl gave up more QB pressures per snap than any other OT. I guess someone wasn't watching the action away from the ball. I guess someone was trying to pick a random OL to give this award to just so he could make himself look super smart and attain a bit of, dare I say, GLORY?!
This year's NFC Pro Bowl choices at offensive tackle are Jerome Bushrod, Jason Peters and Joe Staley. They're all top performers but consider their starts — Peters has started 98 games, Staley has started 68 games, Bushrod has started 49 games. Diehl has performed at a high level significantly longer than any of them.
Oh, so he played LONGER. Well then, let's give him the 2011 MVP based on longevity. This is the exact kind of thinking that nabbed Michael Caine an Oscar for Cider House Rules.
Listen, I'm a dirty librul hippie who would never vote for Mitt Romney, but are you shitting me? This man gave THREE MILLION to charity. That's a lot. If he gives the poor $3 million and happens to have an extra $15 million leftover to spend on jet skis and shit, MORE POWER TO HIM. It's his money, and therefore his personal choice to give away how much of it he sees fit. It doesn't make him a bad person if he gives away less than you think he ought to. It makes YOU a judgmental shitbox. This isn't like calculating a tip. You shouldn't have to give away X percent of your money just to make Gregggggg Easterbrook happy. How much money did YOU give away last year, you dick? I bet it wasn't $3 million.
(Mitt) Romney gave away $3 million while keeping $15 million for himself. Judged by the numbers, Romney thought his own luxury was five times more important than helping the poor, the arts, schools and churches.
Nevermind, he follows that withChange a couple bounces of the ball and the best team of the 21st century could be anything from 5-0 to 0-5 in the Super Bowl.
I prefer the luck theory, vs the gods theory.If not Lady Luck, did the football gods determine Sunday's outcome? Over recent seasons, Tuesday Morning Quarterback has proposed on several occasions that the football gods will punish Bill Belichick until he admits Spygate was cheating, as opposed to maintaining his actions merely were a misunderstanding of league rules. Before Spygate, Belichick's Patriots were 10-0 in the playoffs and 3-0 in the Super Bowl. Since the illegal taping scheme was revealed, they are 6-6 in the postseason and 0-2 in the Super Bowl.
In mythology, the gods punished a mortal by allowing him to come within view of his goal, then denying him. What has happened in the past two New England Super Bowls since Belichick's illegal taping was revealed? Belichick was denied a perfect season with 35 seconds remaining. Belichick was denied a record-tying fourth ring on the final snap.
I thought his analysis of procedural TV shows was pretty funny. The whole column, actually, was pretty good. I haven't read much of TMQ this year but I'm glad I read today's, it was worth it.Holy shit.
Out of the 10490 words in the Super Bowl article, 4239 are about the lack of realism in procedural tv shows (11 pages in Word in Times New Roman, 12pt). That makes sense. 1091 for the SB analysis section.
Can't this idiot check any of his facts? Pats were 12-2 before Spygate and 4-4 since. So now Spygate happened during that one week period between their first and second playoff games in 2005?Before Spygate, Belichick's Patriots were 10-0 in the playoffs and 3-0 in the Super Bowl. Since the illegal taping scheme was revealed, they are 6-6 in the postseason and 0-2 in the Super Bowl.