I can vouch for this, I got to the stadium gates at 12:15 and didn’t get into the game until the 10 minute mark in the first quarter. The game was essentially over before hundreds of us even got in.
TMQ Thread
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
QUOTE (Shelterdog @ Jan 12 2010, 03:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2768193
The question isn't whether the Pats deserved to be booed. That's a completely subjective question and it depends entirely on what you think of the "ethics of booing."
The question is whether anyone has ever seen anything like this before. I have not that I can recall. Have you?
EDIT: DCMissle - what message do you think this sends the Krafts? If I'm Kraft the business man I'm thinking to myself that maybe I shouldn't care about wins or losses and should focus on having a flashy team and a more media friendly coach because I'm dealing with America's most childish and spoiled sports fans fans who, unlike fans in every other city in America, will turn on the team when its down 14-0 in the first quarter of a home playoff game.
It wasn't the fact that they were down 14-0. It was the fact of HOW they got down 14-0. They came out flat and looked like shit from the get go
The question isn't whether the Pats deserved to be booed. That's a completely subjective question and it depends entirely on what you think of the "ethics of booing."
The question is whether anyone has ever seen anything like this before. I have not that I can recall. Have you?
EDIT: DCMissle - what message do you think this sends the Krafts? If I'm Kraft the business man I'm thinking to myself that maybe I shouldn't care about wins or losses and should focus on having a flashy team and a more media friendly coach because I'm dealing with America's most childish and spoiled sports fans fans who, unlike fans in every other city in America, will turn on the team when its down 14-0 in the first quarter of a home playoff game.
It wasn't the fact that they were down 14-0. It was the fact of HOW they got down 14-0. They came out flat and looked like shit from the get go
QUOTE (Shelterdog @ Jan 12 2010, 03:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2768193
EDIT: DCMissle - what message do you think this sends the Krafts? If I'm Kraft the business man I'm thinking to myself that maybe I shouldn't care about wins or losses and should focus on having a flashy team and a more media friendly coach because I'm dealing with America's most childish and spoiled sports fans fans who, unlike fans in every other city in America, will turn on the team when its down 14-0 in the first quarter of a home playoff game.
If I'm the Krafts, I'm thinking that all of the incredible rewards of the past decade -- including the financial ones -- are attributable first and foremost to having a top-notch operation. Putting aside the debate whether Boston is or is not a "football town", I'm thinking that those rewards could diminish substantially going forward if my operation ceases to be top notch. Then I'm thinking of these things in the larger context of our current recession and whether there is an economic "bubble" in professional sports.
I think this could be helpful because if nothing else Bob Kraft understands business. This may prompt him not to tinker in the football operations (thankfully, he's left this alone) but to pose some legitimate questions -- Do we need more help in there, coaching or the front office? Is there too much on your (BB's) plate? Can we afford, for example, to go to the mat with Vince this off-season as we have with others before him, running the risk of his sitting out if we franchise him, or should we try, instead, to get something worked out quickly, or go in another direction promptly if we can't?
In other words, it's time for Kraft as owner to look under the hood. I certainly would in the aftermath of this playoff game -- the obvious lack of enthusiasm before it, the reaction during it. You can tell the world to eff off , consequences be damned, when you've pulled down 3 Lombardis in 4 years. No GM/HC/master of everything should have that latitude in the present circumstances, IMO.
EDIT: DCMissle - what message do you think this sends the Krafts? If I'm Kraft the business man I'm thinking to myself that maybe I shouldn't care about wins or losses and should focus on having a flashy team and a more media friendly coach because I'm dealing with America's most childish and spoiled sports fans fans who, unlike fans in every other city in America, will turn on the team when its down 14-0 in the first quarter of a home playoff game.
If I'm the Krafts, I'm thinking that all of the incredible rewards of the past decade -- including the financial ones -- are attributable first and foremost to having a top-notch operation. Putting aside the debate whether Boston is or is not a "football town", I'm thinking that those rewards could diminish substantially going forward if my operation ceases to be top notch. Then I'm thinking of these things in the larger context of our current recession and whether there is an economic "bubble" in professional sports.
I think this could be helpful because if nothing else Bob Kraft understands business. This may prompt him not to tinker in the football operations (thankfully, he's left this alone) but to pose some legitimate questions -- Do we need more help in there, coaching or the front office? Is there too much on your (BB's) plate? Can we afford, for example, to go to the mat with Vince this off-season as we have with others before him, running the risk of his sitting out if we franchise him, or should we try, instead, to get something worked out quickly, or go in another direction promptly if we can't?
In other words, it's time for Kraft as owner to look under the hood. I certainly would in the aftermath of this playoff game -- the obvious lack of enthusiasm before it, the reaction during it. You can tell the world to eff off , consequences be damned, when you've pulled down 3 Lombardis in 4 years. No GM/HC/master of everything should have that latitude in the present circumstances, IMO.
QUOTE (dcmissle @ Jan 12 2010, 04:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2768341
If I'm the Krafts, I'm thinking that all of the incredible rewards of the past decade -- including the financial ones -- are attributable first and foremost to having a top-notch operation. Putting aside the debate whether Boston is or is not a "football town", I'm thinking that those rewards could diminish substantially going forward if my operation ceases to be top notch. Then I'm thinking of these things in the larger context of our current recession and whether there is an economic "bubble" in professional sports.
This is all nice, but is there any reason to think that Kraft doesn't already take a look under the hood on a periodic basis?
If I'm the Krafts, I'm thinking that all of the incredible rewards of the past decade -- including the financial ones -- are attributable first and foremost to having a top-notch operation. Putting aside the debate whether Boston is or is not a "football town", I'm thinking that those rewards could diminish substantially going forward if my operation ceases to be top notch. Then I'm thinking of these things in the larger context of our current recession and whether there is an economic "bubble" in professional sports.
This is all nice, but is there any reason to think that Kraft doesn't already take a look under the hood on a periodic basis?
QUOTE (Shelterdog @ Jan 12 2010, 05:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2768398
This is all nice, but is there any reason to think that Kraft doesn't already take a look under the hood on a periodic basis?
I honestly don't know. I suspect BB gets more latitude than any executive who is not also an owner in the NFL.
This is all nice, but is there any reason to think that Kraft doesn't already take a look under the hood on a periodic basis?
I honestly don't know. I suspect BB gets more latitude than any executive who is not also an owner in the NFL.
QUOTE (dwightinright @ Jan 12 2010, 03:33 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2768222
WRONG!!! The covered well on the opening kickoff.
Technically, though, there's no snap on a kickoff.
WRONG!!! The covered well on the opening kickoff.
Technically, though, there's no snap on a kickoff.
QUOTE (NoXInNixon @ Jan 12 2010, 01:31 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2768034
Just my opinion, but booing your own team, ever, is dumb. You want the team to win, right? It's one thing for a fan base to express disappointment in a bad play. But that's "Awwwwwwww!" or silence. A home crowd should help the home team play better. When David Ortiz kept coming to plate when he was completely lost last year, the fans encouraged him. They wanted him to do better, and booing him was just going to discourage him more.
The only time I'd boo is if I thought my team wasn't even trying. Colts fans were right to boo against the Jets. If you hold the opinion that Randy Moss doesn't care and isn't trying, fine, then boo him. But not the entire team.
Congratulations! I've been a member of SoSH for over 10 years and this is the dumbest post I've ever read.
Did you watch the game? They stunk up the joint from the get-go.
I dropped $380 for two tickets and by the time my girlfriend got to our seats after stopping at the ladies room and grabbing a couple of beers, they were down two fucking touchdowns. And they didn't get any better after that.
The game was a shitshow of mammoth proportions and the booing was well-deserved.
Just my opinion, but booing your own team, ever, is dumb. You want the team to win, right? It's one thing for a fan base to express disappointment in a bad play. But that's "Awwwwwwww!" or silence. A home crowd should help the home team play better. When David Ortiz kept coming to plate when he was completely lost last year, the fans encouraged him. They wanted him to do better, and booing him was just going to discourage him more.
The only time I'd boo is if I thought my team wasn't even trying. Colts fans were right to boo against the Jets. If you hold the opinion that Randy Moss doesn't care and isn't trying, fine, then boo him. But not the entire team.
Congratulations! I've been a member of SoSH for over 10 years and this is the dumbest post I've ever read.
Did you watch the game? They stunk up the joint from the get-go.
I dropped $380 for two tickets and by the time my girlfriend got to our seats after stopping at the ladies room and grabbing a couple of beers, they were down two fucking touchdowns. And they didn't get any better after that.
The game was a shitshow of mammoth proportions and the booing was well-deserved.
QUOTE (Mr Weebles @ Jan 12 2010, 07:30 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2768550
Congratulations! I've been a member of SoSH for over 10 years and this is the dumbest post I've ever read.
Did you watch the game? They stunk up the joint from the get-go.
I dropped $380 for two tickets and by the time my girlfriend got to our seats after stopping at the ladies room and grabbing a couple of beers, they were down two fucking touchdowns. And they didn't get any better after that.
The game was a shitshow of mammoth proportions and the booing was well-deserved.
You have a girlfriend?
Do you love her? Are you going to get married?
Congratulations! I've been a member of SoSH for over 10 years and this is the dumbest post I've ever read.
Did you watch the game? They stunk up the joint from the get-go.
I dropped $380 for two tickets and by the time my girlfriend got to our seats after stopping at the ladies room and grabbing a couple of beers, they were down two fucking touchdowns. And they didn't get any better after that.
The game was a shitshow of mammoth proportions and the booing was well-deserved.
You have a girlfriend?
Do you love her? Are you going to get married?
QUOTE (Reverend @ Jan 12 2010, 08:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2768581
You have a girlfriend?
Do you love her? Are you going to get married?
Not after that fucking game.
You have a girlfriend?
Do you love her? Are you going to get married?
Not after that fucking game.
QUOTE (Reverend @ Jan 12 2010, 07:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2768581
You have a girlfriend?
Do you love her? Are you going to get married?
Nice XKCD reference. :lol:
You have a girlfriend?
Do you love her? Are you going to get married?
Nice XKCD reference. :lol:
I think the "spoiled fans" charge gets thrown around far too much. Here's a kind of stupid analogy: if your neighbor occasionally mows your lawn for you as an act of generosity, then
a) you're spoiled if you get mad if he doesn't mow your lawn on some particular week (people who are pissed whenever the team doesn't end up winning the super bowl)
b) you're not spoiled if you get mad when he uses the lawnmower to run over your dog (people who booed at this year's playoff game)
c) you're not spoiled if you feel disappointed when he brings the lawnmower to your house, and instead of mowing the lawn, takes a dump all over it and then leaves (people who took longer than 15 minutes to shrug off Super Bowl XLII)
a) you're spoiled if you get mad if he doesn't mow your lawn on some particular week (people who are pissed whenever the team doesn't end up winning the super bowl)
b) you're not spoiled if you get mad when he uses the lawnmower to run over your dog (people who booed at this year's playoff game)
c) you're not spoiled if you feel disappointed when he brings the lawnmower to your house, and instead of mowing the lawn, takes a dump all over it and then leaves (people who took longer than 15 minutes to shrug off Super Bowl XLII)
Speaking as an expert in booing.......
I think there were two things that were a little striking about the Patriot booing on Sunday:
a) Fans were booing during plays. Not as they happened, but as the team was coming to the line, which was a little striking. Usually fans boo the moment the play ends or as the team is walking off the field during the game. It seemed a little harsh. It didn't happen constantly, but it happened maybe 4-5 times.
b) Fans were booing as the team walked off the field at the end of the game. That was a shame because you figure that most of the folks who stayed would be the hardcore fans. Ultimately the Pats won their division, Tom Brady was comeback player of the year, they have been wildly successful and the end of their season gets booed. The usual protocol is to either leave in silence or applaud the team when their season ends (I know this all too well......). The booing came off a touch harsh.
That, I think is the crux.
I think there were two things that were a little striking about the Patriot booing on Sunday:
a) Fans were booing during plays. Not as they happened, but as the team was coming to the line, which was a little striking. Usually fans boo the moment the play ends or as the team is walking off the field during the game. It seemed a little harsh. It didn't happen constantly, but it happened maybe 4-5 times.
b) Fans were booing as the team walked off the field at the end of the game. That was a shame because you figure that most of the folks who stayed would be the hardcore fans. Ultimately the Pats won their division, Tom Brady was comeback player of the year, they have been wildly successful and the end of their season gets booed. The usual protocol is to either leave in silence or applaud the team when their season ends (I know this all too well......). The booing came off a touch harsh.
That, I think is the crux.
QUOTE (Rick Burlesons Yam Bag @ Jan 13 2010, 10:32 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2769986
a) Fans were booing during plays. Not as they happened, but as the team was coming to the line, which was a little striking. Usually fans boo the moment the play ends or as the team is walking off the field during the game. It seemed a little harsh. It didn't happen constantly, but it happened maybe 4-5 times.
I was there and didn't hear this happen once.
a) Fans were booing during plays. Not as they happened, but as the team was coming to the line, which was a little striking. Usually fans boo the moment the play ends or as the team is walking off the field during the game. It seemed a little harsh. It didn't happen constantly, but it happened maybe 4-5 times.
I was there and didn't hear this happen once.
QUOTE (TheoShmeo @ Jan 13 2010, 10:48 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2770022
I was there and didn't hear this happen once.
I watched on TV and didn't hear it once, either.
I was there and didn't hear this happen once.
I watched on TV and didn't hear it once, either.
I was there as well - the boos started cascading mid-second quarter once it became apparent they weren't coming back. I did not, however, hear any boos during actual plays.
Now, to be clear, there was plenty of booing....and it started early enough in the game that I thought it was pretty embarrassing. No evidence on TV it occurred during plays though...maybe Yammer listened on the radio?
QUOTE (Rick Burlesons Yam Bag @ Jan 13 2010, 10:32 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2769986
a) Fans were booing during plays. Not as they happened, but as the team was coming to the line, which was a little striking. Usually fans boo the moment the play ends or as the team is walking off the field during the game. It seemed a little harsh. It didn't happen constantly, but it happened maybe 4-5 times.
The only time that I remember the crowd booing as the team came to the line was when they punted on a 4th and 2 when already down by a bunch.
Also FWIW, I stayed until the end and there was a very large group of fans that were gathered around the gate as the Patriots were leaving the field. Plenty of cheering was going on there and players were giving handshakes and the like.
a) Fans were booing during plays. Not as they happened, but as the team was coming to the line, which was a little striking. Usually fans boo the moment the play ends or as the team is walking off the field during the game. It seemed a little harsh. It didn't happen constantly, but it happened maybe 4-5 times.
The only time that I remember the crowd booing as the team came to the line was when they punted on a 4th and 2 when already down by a bunch.
Also FWIW, I stayed until the end and there was a very large group of fans that were gathered around the gate as the Patriots were leaving the field. Plenty of cheering was going on there and players were giving handshakes and the like.
OK, it definitely didn't happen. And no one is talking about it. I love how the usual suspects jump.
QUOTE (Jody Reeds Well @ Jan 13 2010, 11:37 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2770117
The only time that I remember the crowd booing as the team came to the line was when they punted on a 4th and 2 when already down by a bunch.
That wasn't the only booing, but that's the first time I remember it happening.
I missed the first two Ravens touchdowns due to being stuck at Foxboro airline security. I'm not sure if there was any during that early cluster.
The only time that I remember the crowd booing as the team came to the line was when they punted on a 4th and 2 when already down by a bunch.
That wasn't the only booing, but that's the first time I remember it happening.
I missed the first two Ravens touchdowns due to being stuck at Foxboro airline security. I'm not sure if there was any during that early cluster.
QUOTE (Vinho Tinto @ Jan 14 2010, 11:16 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2770399
That wasn't the only booing, but that's the first time I remember it happening.
I missed the first two Ravens touchdowns due to being stuck at Foxboro airline security. I'm not sure if there was any during that early cluster.
The security lines at Gillette have gotten much, much worse than I remember. Even for the Jax game I attended. Took us 45 mins to get through the line and that was with getting there early. When we got to our seats on the 300 level we looked down and saw an amazing mass of people at both security gates in our view.
That wasn't the only booing, but that's the first time I remember it happening.
I missed the first two Ravens touchdowns due to being stuck at Foxboro airline security. I'm not sure if there was any during that early cluster.
The security lines at Gillette have gotten much, much worse than I remember. Even for the Jax game I attended. Took us 45 mins to get through the line and that was with getting there early. When we got to our seats on the 300 level we looked down and saw an amazing mass of people at both security gates in our view.
QUOTE (Vinho Tinto @ Jan 14 2010, 11:16 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2770399
That wasn't the only booing, but that's the first time I remember it happening.
I missed the first two Ravens touchdowns due to being stuck at Foxboro airline security. I'm not sure if there was any during that early cluster.
This is an indication of how bad the game was, and how deserving the booing was. Pats were down 14-0 before you even found your seat
That wasn't the only booing, but that's the first time I remember it happening.
I missed the first two Ravens touchdowns due to being stuck at Foxboro airline security. I'm not sure if there was any during that early cluster.
This is an indication of how bad the game was, and how deserving the booing was. Pats were down 14-0 before you even found your seat
QUOTE (Rick Burlesons Yam Bag @ Jan 14 2010, 09:29 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2770241
OK, it definitely didn't happen. And no one is talking about it. I love how the usual suspects jump.
Heh, take it easy.
I personally couldn't care less whether it's true or not; I'm just reporting what I heard/saw. I could easily be wrong - it was cold, I had a few in me, etc.
OK, it definitely didn't happen. And no one is talking about it. I love how the usual suspects jump.
Heh, take it easy.
I personally couldn't care less whether it's true or not; I'm just reporting what I heard/saw. I could easily be wrong - it was cold, I had a few in me, etc.
QUOTE (Mystic Merlin @ Jan 14 2010, 12:23 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2770505
Heh, take it easy.
I personally couldn't care less whether it's true or not; I'm just reporting what I heard/saw. I could easily be wrong - it was cold, I had a few in me, etc.
Maybe it was just how the game was miked, but there was steady booing from the Brady strip sack on, booing that took place during many plays, after the game, and after almost every negative play for the Pats.
Heh, take it easy.
I personally couldn't care less whether it's true or not; I'm just reporting what I heard/saw. I could easily be wrong - it was cold, I had a few in me, etc.
Maybe it was just how the game was miked, but there was steady booing from the Brady strip sack on, booing that took place during many plays, after the game, and after almost every negative play for the Pats.
This wasn't a run-of-the-mill bad playoff loss but a stinker for the ages. It married the sloppiness of their 2005 playoff loss to the Broncos (in Denver, btw) to something I don't recall seeing under Belichick -- a one-armed opponent running through the defense like Panzers through Poland. Many fingers were required to count the occasions when Rice and McGahee were met at or behind the line, only to squirm or bully their way to positive yardage. The unmistakeable message was that the Pats were ill prepared or, more likely, have grown soft. The only thing standing in the way of an historic beatdown was Harbaugh's terror over Flacco letting the Pats back into the game.
$380 for this? The most I'll grant is that the booing was premature. I probably wouldn't have booed but that's not the point.
$380 for this? The most I'll grant is that the booing was premature. I probably wouldn't have booed but that's not the point.
QUOTE (Jody Reeds Well @ Jan 13 2010, 11:37 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2770117
The only time that I remember the crowd booing as the team came to the line was when they punted on a 4th and 2 when already down by a bunch.
Given that this is the TMQ thread, if that's the booing that GE is remembering, he is a master of irony.
The only time that I remember the crowd booing as the team came to the line was when they punted on a 4th and 2 when already down by a bunch.
Given that this is the TMQ thread, if that's the booing that GE is remembering, he is a master of irony.
QUOTE (Shelterdog @ Jan 14 2010, 12:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2770511
Maybe it was just how the game was miked, but there was steady booing from the Brady strip sack on, booing that took place during many plays, after the game, and after almost every negative play for the Pats.
I left after the missed FG at the end so I can't speak to that time. Prior to that time, I heard booing after certain plays (a Watson drop stands out, in particular). And it was indeed pretty loud. But I didn't hear it as persistent or something that happened during plays.
All that said, this is a tempest in a teapot. The Pats played like shit and fans who wanted to boo had reason to do so.
Maybe it was just how the game was miked, but there was steady booing from the Brady strip sack on, booing that took place during many plays, after the game, and after almost every negative play for the Pats.
I left after the missed FG at the end so I can't speak to that time. Prior to that time, I heard booing after certain plays (a Watson drop stands out, in particular). And it was indeed pretty loud. But I didn't hear it as persistent or something that happened during plays.
All that said, this is a tempest in a teapot. The Pats played like shit and fans who wanted to boo had reason to do so.
QUOTE (TheoShmeo @ Jan 14 2010, 04:01 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2771019
All that said, this is a tempest in a teapot. The Pats played like shit and fans who wanted to boo had reason to do so.
Absolutely. I was booing at my television set. If I had paid $400 to go I probably would have gotten arrested.
All that said, this is a tempest in a teapot. The Pats played like shit and fans who wanted to boo had reason to do so.
Absolutely. I was booing at my television set. If I had paid $400 to go I probably would have gotten arrested.
BTW, people saying that we should get the facts right on when things occurred does not constitute a defense of the team's performance. The Pats were absolutely atrocious; there's just no getting around that.
Personally, I can't envision booing my team in a playoff game...even with an effort like that one. But I certainly understand why people did.
Personally, I can't envision booing my team in a playoff game...even with an effort like that one. But I certainly understand why people did.
I was also quite surprised to see TMQ offer any kind of endorsement for the "sustain the game" idea as a factor for in-game strategy. It's basically a worthless argument, and if it were not, it would invalidate a lot of what he says about fourth-down decisions in general.
QUOTE
Six seasons ago, the Chargers went 12-4, won a bye, then lost at home in the divisional round to the Jets. Marty Schottenheimer was fired in the aftermath. This season they went 13-3, won a bye, then lost at home in the divisional round to the Jets. The aftermath is a contract extension for Turner.
Marty was fired after losing in the first round, alright...after the 2006 season, when the 14-2 Chargers lost to the Patriots at home 24-21.
Idiot.
Six seasons ago, the Chargers went 12-4, won a bye, then lost at home in the divisional round to the Jets. Marty Schottenheimer was fired in the aftermath. This season they went 13-3, won a bye, then lost at home in the divisional round to the Jets. The aftermath is a contract extension for Turner.
Marty was fired after losing in the first round, alright...after the 2006 season, when the 14-2 Chargers lost to the Patriots at home 24-21.
Idiot.
It's that time of year again:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=nfl
and its TMQ's mock draft!
QUOTE
22. New England Patriots. Tiger Woods, cheater. In the two years since the Patriots swore off cheating, the team's fortunes have faltered. It's harder to win when playing fair, eh, Bill? Addition of Woods revives the old spirit.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=nfl
and its TMQ's mock draft!
QUOTE
22. New England Patriots. Tiger Woods, cheater. In the two years since the Patriots swore off cheating, the team's fortunes have faltered. It's harder to win when playing fair, eh, Bill? Addition of Woods revives the old spirit.
This column is bad. Like, embarrassingly bad.
So...because Tim Tebow won lots of games and scored lots of touchdowns in college, he's a good bet for the NFL? Does TMQ not understand things like "supporting cast?" And he compares him favorably to Vince Young, noting that VY is 26-13 in the NFL? Really?
Also, this line:
QUOTE
Linemen are more likely to succeed than quarterbacks, because they're not under the microscope.
So the barometer for success/failure is the amount of scrutiny a player undergoes? Or is it more that we're more likely to notice failed QBs because they get more scrutiny? The two concepts are not the same.
I hate this idiot.
So...because Tim Tebow won lots of games and scored lots of touchdowns in college, he's a good bet for the NFL? Does TMQ not understand things like "supporting cast?" And he compares him favorably to Vince Young, noting that VY is 26-13 in the NFL? Really?
Also, this line:
QUOTE
Linemen are more likely to succeed than quarterbacks, because they're not under the microscope.
So the barometer for success/failure is the amount of scrutiny a player undergoes? Or is it more that we're more likely to notice failed QBs because they get more scrutiny? The two concepts are not the same.
I hate this idiot.
Hey, look...Easterbrook is really fucking smart, so he cannot be criticized unless you can flash some credentials. I mean, he writes really long columns!
/Yammer
/Yammer
QUOTE (Burt Reynoldz @ Apr 21 2010, 03:31 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2915486
This column is bad. Like, embarrassingly bad.
So...because Tim Tebow won lots of games and scored lots of touchdowns in college, he's a good bet for the NFL? Does TMQ not understand things like "supporting cast?" And he compares him favorably to Vince Young, noting that VY is 26-13 in the NFL? Really?
Also, this line:
So the barometer for success/failure is the amount of scrutiny a player undergoes? Or is it more that we're more likely to notice failed QBs because they get more scrutiny? The two concepts are not the same.
I hate this idiot.
Well, there was a whole thread on Tim Tebow not long ago, and TMQ is hardly alone in thinking that Tebow could become a good NFL QB.
This column is bad. Like, embarrassingly bad.
So...because Tim Tebow won lots of games and scored lots of touchdowns in college, he's a good bet for the NFL? Does TMQ not understand things like "supporting cast?" And he compares him favorably to Vince Young, noting that VY is 26-13 in the NFL? Really?
Also, this line:
So the barometer for success/failure is the amount of scrutiny a player undergoes? Or is it more that we're more likely to notice failed QBs because they get more scrutiny? The two concepts are not the same.
I hate this idiot.
Well, there was a whole thread on Tim Tebow not long ago, and TMQ is hardly alone in thinking that Tebow could become a good NFL QB.
QUOTE (lexrageorge @ Apr 22 2010, 09:05 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2917901
Well, there was a whole thread on Tim Tebow not long ago, and TMQ is hardly alone in thinking that Tebow could become a good NFL QB.
And that's fine - I actually think that Tebow is getting underrated in draft circles as well. However, my issue is with Easterbrook's reasoning behind it - basically, that Tebow won lots of games and scored lots of touchdowns in college. During Tebow's time at Florida, he had arguably the best supporting cast of any college player during that time span. How many touchdowns do you think Clausen might have scored with that offensive line and those receivers?
It's the methodology used to reach the conclusion, not the conclusion itself, that irritates me. It reminds me of people who use things like "runs" and "RBI" to evaluate baseball players.
Well, there was a whole thread on Tim Tebow not long ago, and TMQ is hardly alone in thinking that Tebow could become a good NFL QB.
And that's fine - I actually think that Tebow is getting underrated in draft circles as well. However, my issue is with Easterbrook's reasoning behind it - basically, that Tebow won lots of games and scored lots of touchdowns in college. During Tebow's time at Florida, he had arguably the best supporting cast of any college player during that time span. How many touchdowns do you think Clausen might have scored with that offensive line and those receivers?
It's the methodology used to reach the conclusion, not the conclusion itself, that irritates me. It reminds me of people who use things like "runs" and "RBI" to evaluate baseball players.
He DOES know that the Patriots commenced to go 15-0 in the remainder of the regular season after being scolded for SpyGate and nearly made the playoffs without Tom Brady the following season...right? Man, there's having a gripe with a guy and then there's being purposefully obtuse. You'd think ESPN would say...oh...wait...right...never mind.
Quick bump on this. TMQ has started writing again for the season:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100817_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100824_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100831_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl
From the AFC preview:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100817_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100824_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100831_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl
From the AFC preview:
Brian Hoyer.
Easterbrook certainly lost his fastball just through attrition a few years ago, but now it seems like half of what he posts is contradictory of other stuff he writes about. If the Pats went 13-3 last year, and the whole Brady thing played out the same way, he'd be lauding how the Patriots find diamonds-in-the-rough at the QB position (Brady, Hoyer, Cassel) while some teams overspend for measurables over performance (Russell).
Easterbrook certainly lost his fastball just through attrition a few years ago, but now it seems like half of what he posts is contradictory of other stuff he writes about. If the Pats went 13-3 last year, and the whole Brady thing played out the same way, he'd be lauding how the Patriots find diamonds-in-the-rough at the QB position (Brady, Hoyer, Cassel) while some teams overspend for measurables over performance (Russell).
As always, there's quite a bit either wrong or incomplete with Easterbrook.
A bit early for him to be labeling Chung and Butler "injured or duds," isn't it? I'll concede on the others he's listed however.
Wed Welker is presumably an offensive starter. He is 29. Vollmer is going to be a starter as well; he is 26. If the Pats start in a 3 WR set Edelman will be a starter, he is 26.
Tom Brady hasn't had the treasured parking spot for several years now. TMQ's statement that he lost it this year as part of his contract issue is demonstratively false. A story that ran in the Globe July 25, 2008 states:
A bit early for him to be labeling Chung and Butler "injured or duds," isn't it? I'll concede on the others he's listed however.
Wed Welker is presumably an offensive starter. He is 29. Vollmer is going to be a starter as well; he is 26. If the Pats start in a 3 WR set Edelman will be a starter, he is 26.
Tom Brady hasn't had the treasured parking spot for several years now. TMQ's statement that he lost it this year as part of his contract issue is demonstratively false. A story that ran in the Globe July 25, 2008 states:
A cursory bit of research would reveal that Matt Patricia is the de facto defensive coordinator this year, while QB coach Bill O'Brien will be calling the plays and act as the de facto offensive coordinator. To imply that BB has done away with coordinators in favor of calling everything himself as some sort of ego-trip is asinine.
The douchebaggery continues, this time in haiku form...
Same old ax
Same old ax
Edit: sorry, someone beat me to it.
Umm.....OK. But why hasn't he named them as coordinators? Usually the de facto defensive coordinator holds the title "Defensive Coordinator." Similarly, the guy who calls plays is the "Offensive Coordinator."
It's a really interesting, kind of weird move and it is worth putting under some scrutiny.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that he has a series of benchmarks you have to meet in order to be named coordinator--along the lines of "I don't care what other teams do, I won't name you a coordinator until I've seen you put together 15 good offensive game plans and call all the plays without my assistance for 15 games." In other words, it's a quirky management tool to motivate his staff. He did the same thing with McDaniels and maybe with Mangini.
It's not weird at all. Titles or no titles, those are the guys that will be calling the plays. TMQ is intimating that BB will be calling them on both sides of the ball as some sort of ego power trip. This is completely incorrect.
Remember, Belichick did the very same thing with McDaniels in '06, having him call all the plays while still just titled QB coach. The next year McDaniels was named OC. There's no scrutiny required because there's already precedent. Again, cursory research on the part of TMQ would have told him this as well.
I think you are trying to gloss over something that is bona fide odd. Belichick is taking two pretty unproven folks (I hate saying that about a Brown guy like O'Brien, who does have an OK college resume) who don't come in with a lot of credibility and he is not giving them the job title. Are players listening to them? Last year one of Patricia's own guys (AT) was torpedoing the locker room by all reports.
Is an NFL player going to listen to a former standout from RPI who has been nothing more than an LB coach when he doesn't even have the coordinator title AND Pepper Johnson - the guy commonly thought to be the heir apparent and popular with players - is still around??
A skeptic could look at this move as being a way of cutting Patricia and O'Brien off at the knees. I think TMQ is kind of calling a spade a spade here and you want to view the glass as being half full.
So you think Belichick is on a self-destructive power trip?
I don't see any evidence that this was an issue last season, and I still await something beyond 'it's interesting!' It's tough to argue with the conclusions when they're not really spelled out.
I don't see any evidence that this was an issue last season, and I still await something beyond 'it's interesting!' It's tough to argue with the conclusions when they're not really spelled out.
Really? The conclusions are pretty clear I would argue. The Pats are risking effective coaching through this move.
Why? Because there's no publicly apparent hierarchy? The players know who they answer to and who calls plays. If you're arguing that the coaches suck, that's one thing; but you're arguing that the mere lack of a formal title affects their ability to coach. Are you suggesting that players are not listening to O'Brien and Patricia? You seem to think these guys lack the experience and chops to coach NFL players, so I'm not sure how naming them as coordinators would affect that evaluation. Are Darius Butler and Pat Chung going to wake up tomorrow to the newly minted Matt Patricia - who, by your implication, isn't likely to command the respect of NFL players readily - and decide he's a smart guy who should be humored? Bullshit. They're given a LOT of responsibility by Belichick, and the players see that. Whether they listen to them or not has nothing to do with their title - since their positions are clear in practice - and everything to do with their personal perception of the coach's knowledge and effectiveness.
And don't use Thomas as a representative example of anything. He didn't act out because of Matt Patricia or his lack of control; he acted out because he was pissed off at Belichick. His 'torpedoing' of the locker room was in no way related to a lack of respect for the defensive staff; it was all directed at Belichick. What was Patricia going to do; would Romeo Crennel have found a way of dissuading Thomas from stamping his feet? I doubt it. This is shitty analysis, and you know it.
Anyway: are you arguing that Belichick is deliberately assembling a shitty staff - granting you this arguable premise - to serve his own vanity or out of some ignorant faith in his own abilities?
EDIT - Yammer, after reading your posts again, it's pretty clear to me that you're critical of Belichick's staff decisions generally and are using TMQ's haphazard criteria to express it. Just come out and say that you think Pepper Johnson should be the DC or that O'Brien and Patricia have meager resumes. There's no earthly way you really believe the controlling factor in the players' opinions is the title on these guys' doors. They fulfill the same duties as other coordinators, which gives them de facto authority. Honestly, if players are consciously ignoring them or distrusting their judgement, it's not going to be fixed by naming them Supreme Overlord of DCs.