Gregg Easterbrook on Felger's show

[kolbitr]

1) Easterbrook has not written anti-semitic pieces. Unlike so many posting here, I have read his work consistently for years. What's so ironic about the knee jerk comdemnations ( both unfounded and, even more sadly, unobserved) is many of these same posters regularly complain about politically correct writing/speaking etc. TMQ challenged the status quo, asked hard (read: politically incorrect) questions of a movie industry that so many of these same kind of posters/pundits scorn for their un-American attitudes! Thus these charges of anti-semitism become even more ironic and sad...

2) Easterbrook is not a Patriots hater. This idea is just more junk spread by the uniformed. But hey, why bother finding out what someone really has to say when they can easily be crammed into a conveniently negative pigeonhole?

3) I think the NFL over did on the penalty - a first round draft pick seems an insanely painful penalty even if the Pats did film dozens of games. Losing such a pick could affect a franchise for a decade or more. Goodell obviously is aware of the dire consequences of losing such a pick, thus it's logical to assume he found a crime commensurate with the penalty. Easterbrook (TMQ) wants more details on why the NFL would levy the most severe punishment they ever have - don't you? He proceeded on the basis that the NFL front offices can be trusted, this was based on personal experience as well as reputation. So when the NFL came down so hard on the Pats but wouldn't show the evidence he became suspicious more damaging facts were being hidden. Hardly the thought process of an idiot, or worse, that he's been called here.

4) The dude loves football and is possibly the most widely read football column in the WORLD. He didn't crawl back to ESPN, they called him back and showed him the money. And possibly the most pathetic criticism I've read here of TMQ regards his regular recognition of the NFL (or pro and college football in general) cheerleaders. Why would owners spend a dime on cheer squads unless the response by fans has been positive? Our very own Pats have a cheer squad full of beautiful women (ah, how many knew the TMQ actually takes the time to note the personal and intellectual accomplishments of the cheer babes he mentions) that are so popular the team foots the bill for a yearly photo shoot for a hot selling calendar.

5) Easterbrook is so patently self-effacing that anyone calling him self-important has managed to miss his obvious and constant playful skewering of the bombastic NFL culture including everyone from players, owners, coaches, writers, pundits, and yes, even fans.

We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes about Easterbrook. I have been one of the most ardent critics of his recent pieces, and I have to say that nothing has yet changed my mind. That doesn't matter, though. What matters to me is that you seem to be focusing on the extremes of the criticisms--the most uninformed, the most reactionary--and also seem to be misunderstanding arguably valid criticisms as comical foolhardiness.

You may call my mention of his "cheerbabe" reviews pathetic if you wish, but the entire purpose of such was to highlight what you yourself have just argued--that Easterbrook enjoys the less-serious, lighthearted side of the game. Not sure that I'd call him or any other fellow of a certain DC thinktank self-effacing, but he has a sense of humor.

There are many possible assumptions and arguments about the actions of the trusted NFL head offices. Easterbrook's have struck me as the most extreme, and the most inflaming. The questions are fair--the tone is extraordinarily unfair. His performance on Felger's show this week, bringing up impossible to prove gossip and slander concerning the contents of the tapes, was, in my opinion, reprehensible. His call for asterisks on the Super Bowls is criminal.

He is a very smart man who writes and speaks very well, but he has also shown a tendency toward the hyperbolic and even the conspiratorial. I'm sorry you have found some of this criticism offensive. I have been a reader of his for years--not all of us are as uninformed as you would think--but I have been appalled by tone he has adopted for his recent crusade.

 

[PatsFan37]

Concerning his intellectual integrity, in his column entitled TMQ Nation Fires Back, he publishes emails disputing his statements on the difficulty of firing a rocket at the sun, but no dissenting emails on the down-to-earth business of the tapes.

Is he being cute, that hiding the dissenting opinions implies that they are there, or does he shy away from printing a sample of the volley of emails he no doubt received?

Easterbrook is alone in space, slowing down for his rendezvous with the sun, while the rest of the NFL moves on.

 

[Fixit]

2) Easterbrook is not a Patriots hater. This idea is just more junk spread by the uniformed. But hey, why bother finding out what someone really has to say when they can easily be crammed into a conveniently negative pigeonhole?

I don't think I've missed a column in like six years. One of the first things I noticed is that, if there was an opportunity to demean or lessen a Pats victory, Easterbrook would write it down, whereas he would gloss over the same instances for other teams, especially if they were playing the Pats. When he does give them a little love, you can practically see a neon sign flashing "BEGRUDGINGLY."

Here's a good example, from his column following the AFC Championship:

Resisting the urge to panic helped the Colts' comeback. Taking the second half kickoff and trailing 21-6, Indianapolis coaches called eight rushing plays on the 76-yard touchdown drive that turned the game into a tense, close contest. Then on the next possession came the play that Colts players, coaches and front office people, especially Bill Polian, have been waiting for since the 2004 AFC Championship. In that game, New England was never called for defensive pass interference, despite numerous obvious muggings of Colts' receivers. Bill Belichick, knowing officials tend to call defensive pass interference and offensive holding (the two most damaging penalties) less as the postseason progresses, had instructed his defensive backs to interfere with Colts receivers mercilessly until such time as a flag was thrown -- and a flag was never thrown. Polian complained bitterly after that game, and should have; the league changed its officiating procedures, instructing zebras to end the traditional practice of switching to "let the boys play" in the postseason. Then in 2005, New England beat Indianapolis again in the playoffs, and again was never flagged for defensive pass interference. Now it's the third quarter of the 2007 AFC Championship, and once again New England has not been flagged for defensive interference. Eleven consecutive postseason quarters between the Pats and Colts and we're supposed to believe New England has never once interfered with an Indianapolis receiver? Finally the yellow flies -- Ellis Hobbs called for pass interference in the end zone. Polian must have yelled, "Finally, FINALLY!" Ball spotted on the 1, and on the next play, Peyton Manning threw a touchdown pass to defensive tackle Dan Klecko, lined up as a blocking back. Putting a big defender in as a blocking back at the goal line, then throwing to him, is one of Bill Belichick's favorite tricks. How the football gods must have chortled to see Belichick's own trick used against him.

Note the general tone; also note that there are several key points missing.

There are dozens of other examples that spring to mind; unfortunately, NFL.com doesn't keep an archive.

 

[atomdomb]

I heard him and Felger both..both are major a**holes..why give them even a plug....I think GE is more like the guy who thought Kennedy wasn't dead..but brain damaged and living in a house in Maine...so it's NOT even conspiracy but way way out....extreme..and out there...

correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't the correct terminology be "butt plugs"?

 

[PatsFan-NH]

FYI: Now not only will he not publish or comment on emails that are critical of his column, but his email is apparently turned off.

I wrote him a response, and it came back with a permanent technical failure (the address is correct).

One of the most egregious sins in his column, and one that forever removes any claim to having integrity, being a journalist, or a professional writer is his smarmy underhanded use of quoting an email from a reader who equates the NBA ref scandal with the Pats infraction. It is a back-stabbing way of introducing the idea that the 2 events are the same, and planting that in the mind of the reader, with no evidence, no proof, and no discussion. It allows him to do it, and keep his hands clean, because it wasn't his idea, he was just quoting a reader. But the source has no credibility, and no new information. It is yellow journalism of the worst sort because someone says it, it can now be repeated in print, and given standing that on its own, it would never achieve.

And While GE has a right to quote a reader, the fact that none of his column was used to point out that the 2 events were not the same, shows he in fact has an agenda, and seeking the truth is not it.

He also never mentions the leak from the NFL office and the fact that the Commissioner's wife works at Fox. Yet he is all hot and bothered and perplexed about why the office rushed to destroy the evidence. The fact that they are unable to provide security within their organization is a plausible reason, but he doesn't even mention it. No its a big conspiracy theory, and the Pats are guilty.

My next email will be to the ESPN Ombudsman.


I think the NFL has smacked GE upside the head as well. There is a new ad running on NFLN. It shows TB from his press conference after the Chargers game. He is very feisty and he talks about how people always say things and there isn't enough time in the day to answer it all and how the team provides their answers on the field. There are no other voices, or music. And it fades to a blurb, all in silence, white lettering on a black screen. I have yet to read the blurb, but it has been on 2 or 3 times, and it seems very much in support of the Pats, and dissing those who are mongering for more scandal.

 

[Denzera]

I can't argue that TMQ is being crusading and conspiratorial about all of this. It's the plain fact, easily observed by those who've read his last two columns. I have nothing but love for the guy's columns, and even I have to admit that.

All I'm trying to say is:

1) He's a damn good writer about football, probably (imho) the best, and he actually knows enough about the game to break down plays and point things out that actually qualify as "analysis". No other football columnist does this for me.

2) He does NOT have a history of hating on the Pats. The passage quoted above is, from my reading of it, fair and balanced. And I'm a Pats fan. Every statement he made there is correct, it was a decisive drive, and he gives the Colts deserving praise for their drive. The notes about defensive PI give context to the game-changing moment when all the momentum turned, and he doesn't CRITICIZE Belichick for his strategy, merely notes it. He understands that it's part of the game.

also, I think "I live with two people who are [insert race]" is a fairly good defense against being called biased against that race. It's a little different than "some of my best friends are [race]". There's a lot of guys I might hang out with from time to time who i'd never considering rooming with.

-D