TMQ Thread

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Yeah, Brady somehow playing 36 home games in 2 years IS pretty incredible.
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.

He's such a lilly gilder. An 0-2 home playoff record over a period where they've been 23-1 at home in the regular season is a striking enough stat, but he has to stretch it out to include 2007 and three games of 2006 to make the stat look better.
 

touchstone033

New Member
Oct 29, 2007
244
Erie, PA
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.
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."

It's a little old-fashioned, but I don't think he's misused the word here.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
9,757
Norwalk, CT
Why do you people continue to read TMZQ
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:
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!
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.
 

Wimmy Jilliams

internets quarterback style
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2002
3,408
Boston
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.
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.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
We'll get over it when he does. He hasn't yet and never will. He clearly admires a lot of what BB does on the football side of things, but let's keep in mind he led the charge to tear apart the Spygate case every day and laughably tried to play "real jouralist" with Matt Walsh. He deserves an immense amount of disdain for that. He's got an oddly religious view of the sport which is either naive or patronizing, take your pick.

As to the rest of your post, TMQ does have some good insignts but is often guilty of horrific cherry-picking to make some sort of point. He also conveniently fogets or doubles back on some of the things he's said when he's proven wrong; he killed the 49ers weekly for "giving in" to Crabtree and said their lousy finish was due to that; this year they've kicked the shit out of the league and...nothing. He comes across as a hypocrite.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
9,757
Norwalk, CT
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.
I absolutely agree offense is taking over the NFL, I just don't see how Denver scoring on Pittsburgh reinforces that point.
 

BucketOBalls

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
5,643
Steak of Turmoil
I absolutely agree offense is taking over the NFL, I just don't see how Denver scoring on Pittsburgh reinforces that point.
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.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,590
02130
But he's an order of magnitude more thoughtful about football than all but a select few of analysts and reporters.
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.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
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.
Exactly. He doesn't come up with smart ideas; he just dresses up the same banal ideas with long words and forceful argumentation.

EDIT: As an example follow what he says about going for it on fourth and short or goal line. He finds a way to criticize every failed play-he says use misdirection if you went staight ahead and failed, but then if you use misdirection he'll say (like he did about Atlanta this weekend) you used too much motion. Sometimes he says always run on third and fourth and short, but then if you do he says you should have passed. It's all just ex post facto analysis with no intellectual consistency.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,838
I'm not sure why the Packers lost if they have all those TEs on their roster.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
And, finally, football dominates television because:
• Only men can understand flat-screen HD TV remotes.
yep. And this gem, replacing the Pats' post season home streak:

Stats of the Divisional Playoffs No. 10: The Packers have followed a 13-0 postseason streak at Lambeau Field with a 2-4 streak.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
[quote name='Darnell's Son' timestamp='1326672692' post='3939531']
0-3 in their last playoff games against teams with winning records after the game.

/tmq correction
[/quote]

So close.

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.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I'm not sure why the Packers lost if they have all those TEs on their roster.
Or why the 49ers won after they gave into Michael Crabtree last season.

Also:
By the fourth quarter the Packers home crowd was booing, and should have been.
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?
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
To his credit, TMQ published this letter:

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.
That last sentence is about as close to a mea culpa as he's ever going to write concerning the Patriots.
 

SidelineCameras

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2011
1,813
The Ravens are a league-best 7-0 versus teams that finished with a winning record.
A poster in the comments section points out that the Ravens lost to the 9-7 Tennessee Titans.

Here's what I will never, ever understand. Posters both on SoSH and all over the internet constantly are on the lookout for mistakes in columns, as they should be. I am sure fact-checking is tedious and boring, but for crying out loud, isn't publishing the mistake at least a little embarrassing? Shouldn't this embarrassment outweigh any tedium? Shouldn't someone with pride in their writing do a little confirming before just throwing out all of these inaccuracies? People will argue opinion forever, but how hard is it to get facts right?

For goodness sakes, I even check my facts before posting here, and I'm only talking to you slobs, not to however many people are reading him on ESPN.
 

Turrable

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,670
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.
Good Lord he is a douche.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,590
02130
And he thinks we care that he's the only person who hates that movie. Not to mention, what a weird thing to get pissy about.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
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.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
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.
Yup.

And you know what? Anne Hathaway does flighty, charming and cute really well so fuck him. Sorry she's not a 15 year old in a cheerleader costume.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7494388/tmq-says-giants-patriots-rematch-better-your-typical-sequel

He made it six sentences before:

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.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
Hell, even before that:

"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.
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.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,838
To be fair, he also gives BB props (his "Sweet Play of the Week").
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
TMQ Non QB, Non WR MVP runner up is Gronk.
MVP is David Diehl, LT NYG.

He then follows up with this glowing praise:

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.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
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.
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?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
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 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
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
TMQ Non QB, Non WR MVP runner up is Gronk.
MVP is David Diehl, LT NYG.

He then follows up with this glowing praise:
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.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,181
Bleacher Report is obviously terrible, but I thought it was pretty funny this guy chose Diehl as one of the four worst starters that will take the field on Sunday. Football Outsiders calls Diehl "often overmatched." I'm very confused by this choice by Easterbrook. There are plenty of kick-ass defensive players he could have chosen, and more than a few O-line guys that would have sufficed. How does he not even seem to know Diehl started the season at guard because the Giants didn't think he was good enough anymore?
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
He mentioned that he started at guard the last time the Pats/NYG played, but mentioned that it was to stop Wilfork.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
When Wilfork wins the Super Bowl MVP on Sunday after curb-stomping David Diehl and co, I hope he dedicates his win to Gregg Easterbrook.
 

lostjumper

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 27, 2009
1,277
Concord, NH
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 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...
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
I believe my luxury (or post taxed income, considering the above comment doesn't include home expenses, food, travel etc) is worth 5x more than the arts.

Then again, food is a luxury.
 

BucketOBalls

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
5,643
Steak of Turmoil
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.
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.


The column was almost painfully bad though. The lack of games put a huge crimp in his style. He also forgot to mention how much he gives in charitable donations.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,838
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
He did it against Revis and the Jets too didn't he?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I'm glad you guys pointed out the Romney donation thing, because I skipped all his non-football crap this week. I'm no fan of Romney, but criticizing a man for donating $3 million to charity is quite fucking rich. Literally.
 

Worst Trade Evah

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2004
10,826
I enjoyed this part:

The leading question of the upcoming Super Bowl is whether the Patriots' defense can stop the Giants' offense.
Yes, the Giants offense against the Patriot defense is certainly the leading question. Unless...

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.
The leading question could be the Giants defense against the Patriot offense! Either/or.

Can't get enough of this sort of incisive analysis.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
Magary picked up on the Diehl and Romney things too

http://deadspin.com/...wing-experience

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.


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.​
/punches newborn calf

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.



(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.​
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.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
Positives, he did say this about the Patriots today:

Change 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.
Nevermind, he follows that with


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 prefer the luck theory, vs the gods theory.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
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.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
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.
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.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,537
Lynn, MA
The one show that tried to show what a real police case was like was the Killing. And it was horrible.
 

Quiddity

New Member
Oct 14, 2008
237
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.
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?