This week's TMQ: not one mention of Spy-Gate

[Fixit]

And not one instance of Belichick-bashing, but a couple of praise.

The phrase "licking his wounds" comes to mind.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071016&sportCat=nfl

 

[shmessy]

He was taken to the woodshed and "Schreiberized".

Way to go Lee Anne!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mykl]

I swear he gets stupider by the week. While there is no mention of spygate, his main thesis makes no sense at all...

First he says...
"Tuesday Morning Quarterback asks: Why do NFL teams ever punt to any returner, rather than deliberately punt out of bounds?"

And then finishes...
"So constantly punting out of bounds would surrender approximately the same field position, but the chance of a touchdown return would be eliminated."

But it also eliminates the possibility of a fumble or other turnover on the punt. TMQ says that there were 15 punts returned for TDs during last year's regular season, but while I haven't researched this, I would venture to guess that there were at least a similar number of turnovers on punts. Turnovers that give the recovering team excellent field position. It is a risk/reward thing. You take the risk of a return for the potential reward of a turnover.

Plus, maybe teams should just get better at covering punts and staying in their lanes etc.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Amazed at his "Cosmic thoughts" section. It was out of the blue that spurred my interest in knowing more.

Never thought last week that I might be impressed with his writings.

 

[Oswlek]

I swear he gets stupider by the week. While there is no mention of spygate, his main thesis makes no sense at all...

First he says...
"Tuesday Morning Quarterback asks: Why do NFL teams ever punt to any returner, rather than deliberately punt out of bounds?"

And then finishes...
"So constantly punting out of bounds would surrender approximately the same field position, but the chance of a touchdown return would be eliminated."

But it also eliminates the possibility of a fumble or other turnover on the punt. TMQ says that there were 15 punts returned for TDs during last year's regular season, but while I haven't researched this, I would venture to guess that there were at least a similar number of turnovers on punts. Turnovers that give the recovering team excellent field position. It is a risk/reward thing. You take the risk of a return for the potential reward of a turnover.

Plus, maybe teams should just get better at covering punts and staying in their lanes etc.

Anecdotally, Green Bay used two PR TOs to generate 10 of their 13 points against Philly on week 1 to win 13-10. Let's see how important that win was at the end of the year.

 

[mykl]

Anecdotally, Green Bay used two PR TOs to generate 10 of their 13 points against Philly on week 1 to win 13-10. Let's see how important that win was at the end of the year.

It will be huge I'm sure. These PR turnovers almost always result in points since usually the recovery is pretty deep in the opposition territory.

 

[marty]

Thanks for posting the relevant parts as I continue to boycott his stuff. Putz!!