TMQ is back at it! - New England Patriots Forums

godef · 01-29-2008, 12:24 PM

Not only is this week's column laughable, it is also poorly researched...

Quote:

If New England wins, the Patriots will not be the greatest team ever -- at least conditionally, until such time as the NFL reveals what was in the Patriots' cheating videos and documents that the league destroyed in September. Maybe once we know the full truth, then a 19-0 Patriots team could be considered the greatest, depending on what the full truth turns out to be.

It gets better...

Quote:

Until we know what was on the videotapes and in the documents the NFL destroyed, there will always be a cloud of suspicion over the Patriots. How much of an advantage did they gain by cheating? Did they really hand over everything to the league? Are they still cheating now? Most important by far, have they cheated in the Super Bowl? ...
But until such time when we learn what was in those files, even at 19-0, the New England Patriots should not be considered a great team because we cannot be sure whether these wins were earned or stolen. Nor can we be sure whether New England's three Super Bowl rings were earned or stolen.

When will he understand that this occurred in the first game of the season, and could have had nothing to do with the Patriots performance this season? And by asking if they are cheating now, he challenges us to prove they are not. So, wouldn't it also be necessary to prove that neither have the remaining 31 teams in the league also cheated?

Quote:

As for the Giants, should they win, that would be an upset, but not one of historic proportions. After all, New England was fortunate to prevail by a field goal when these two teams met a month ago. That day, Jersey/A played most of the game without starters Shaun O'Hara and Kawika Mitchell, both of whom will be healthy Sunday, but the Flying Elvii personnel will be the same as in the previous meeting.

This is simply false. It's been well documented that the Pats were missing two starting offensive line men, which may have been crucial consdiering how Maroney has run in the playoffs with a fully staffed OL. You think just a modicum of research would have revealed that to TMQ?

Quote:

The most recent memorable Super Bowl upset was the Giants over the Bills in 1991, the game that ended on the infamous Scott Norwood missed field goal with four seconds remaining.

Gee, what was that thing at the end of the 2001 season? Isn't it a bid absurd to rate SB XXXVI as any less memorable than SB XXVI? 1991 certainly isn't that recent. Oh, that's right, the Pats must have cheated, so the game can't be considered a memorable upset (although if you ask me, if they really did cheat, that in itself would be very memorable!).

TMQ just gets nerdier and nerdier.

PonyExpress · 01-29-2008, 12:28 PM

I respect your effort to debunk this clown, but why bother to read him? He's a one trick pony struggling to be relevant. It's about survival in the marketplace, and he's hitched his wagon to the Pats' gravy train. Ignore him and he'll die.

primetime · 01-29-2008, 12:30 PM

Two starting offensive lineman and a TE who may as well be a starting offensive lineman, as well as two of the team's better special teamers (Eckel and Andrews). And they couldn't run well and the special teams coverage gave up a TD...

Easterbrook just sucks.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 01-29-2008, 12:30 PM

Thank you for saving me the time to read that article.

Quote:

Question by Matt (Joe's Diner): Once you're a dynasty, what comes after that?
Answer: Legacy

See you at Super Bowl XLII.

Wouldn't a better answer be "Ever!"?

Trot · 01-29-2008, 12:30 PM

TMQ is a worthless hack who does little to no research before spewing out his anti-Pats rants. His opinion means nothing to anyone except a few haters. Listening to them cry together after the SB is actually going to be fun.

MetalBleachers · 01-29-2008, 12:31 PM

Thanks for including the tidbits. There's no way I'm linking to that hump. Used to read him every week, but I haven't read him since Week 1 and I never will again.

Isn't it true that videotaping coaches wasn't against NFL rules until 2005? What an *****wipe.

Watson's IQ · 01-29-2008, 12:32 PM

When Watson's IQ saw the new TMQ posted on Page 2 and noticed the videocamera and the shot of Mangini on the right side of the bannerhead, he wrote "not reading" in his notebook.

godef · 01-29-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

Wouldn't a better answer be "Ever!"?

I would say those are synonyms.

TomBrady'sGoat · 01-29-2008, 12:40 PM

He'll never let the tapes go. When the controversy died down he insisted more was to come. When he was smacked down by the ESPN omduds(wo)man he defended himself saying that more would come out and that he would be vindicated. Even now that more has not come out, he can insist that there is more out there and IF ONLY we knew then he'd be vindicated.

He's playing to Pats haters and trying to cover his own butt. Thankfully I haven't read him since his Week 2 column.

***BradyFTW!*** · 01-29-2008, 12:40 PM

This is simply Easterbrook doing whatever he has to to get page views. Generally, when 'real' columnists decide to settle in the realm of sportswriting, it's for a reason. Either they're tired of real journalism or they suck at real journalism. In Easterbrook's case, it was the latter.