TMQ is like a drug. I could never fully understand it at first, but once I gained a better understanding of what the hell was being said, I realized Gregg Easterbrook has no clue about football strategy and I could not stay away. This makes me want to make fun of him, so I do. Gregg has a different angle on the Super Bowl.
You will hear a million times before kickoff of Super Bowl XLIII -- just XII days away, at VI:XX Eastern on Feb. 1 -- that the game will be a battle of Arizona's offense versus Pittsburgh's defense.
I believe that is the premise of the Super Bowl, there is a coin flip, one team chooses either offense/defense and then the other team chooses the side of the field and has to take either offense/defense, and then they do this for 60 minutes with only one defense and offense squaring off.
Of course the game is expected to be a battle between the teams two dominant units, that seems to make sense, but I am sure no one is overlooking Arizona's defense and Pittsburgh's offense.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback suspects the game will be a battle of Pittsburgh's offense versus Arizona's defense.
Bold prediction my friend. I am not sure anyone in the world thinks Pittsburgh's offense or Arizona's defense will have anything to do with this game. TMQ colors outside the lines regularly with exemplary sentences like this.
the great offense and great defense roughly neutralized each other, leaving the trophy to be decided by the lesser offense against the lesser defense. Last year, New England's record-setting offense faced Jersey/A's lockdown defense, and the Patriots led when their offense left the field with four minutes remaining --
Because New England had a high scoring offense and the Giants did not let New England score many points, I think it would be fair to say the Giants defense was not "neutralized" but actually won the matchup. This is bad analysis. If the Patriots had scored 45 points, then the Giants defense would have lost the matchup, but because the Patriots did not score that many points, the defense won the game. They did not neutralize each other. The Giants won that matchup. I Hate repeating myself but really feel the need to.
but the so-so New England defense could not prevent the so-so Giants offense from scoring in the final minute.
This was not a trend but one drive in the game...a very crucial drive but just one drive nonetheless. I would say the New England defense did a decent job against the Giants offense overall.
More often than not when a great offense meets a great defense, neither decides the contest.
I see. So we are not counting any of the Super Bowls the Cowboys, Giants, and Redskins played against the high powered Bill offense (they got shut down), the 49ers-Chargers Super Bowl where the high powered San Fran offense ran all over the Chargers, the Titans-Rams Super Bowl where the Titans defense held the Rams in check for most of the game, nor the Buccaneers-Raiders game where it was over after the 1st quarter because the Raiders offense could not score on the Bucs defense?
If a high powered team is held to lower than their normal points per game, then the defense hasd won, it's actually pretty simple, yet so complicated for Gregg to understand.
Neither the Arizona defense nor the Pittsburgh offense inspire confidence. Whichever one bests the other may determine who drinks champagne in Tampa while confetti falls.
So if it is a 20-17 game, then Gregg will think the Pittsburgh defense/Arizona offense neutralized each other and the Pittsburgh offense/Arizona defense decided the game. Not to be confused with the idea if it is 45-38, the Arizona offense won the game, despite the fact Pittsburgh put up 38 points. Gregg's thoughts hurts my head.
More corners and safeties have rushed in this postseason than in any chunk of games in NFL annals,
Need proof of this? Screw your proof of this, it's in Gregg's head, along with the 1001 reasons to always go for it on fourth down.
I wish I could write for a major sports web site and just write random shit that has no proof. It would make my job so much easier.
Among TMQ's off-price generic Super Bowl predictions is that the game will be won by the team that has the gumption not to do what it is expected to do -- Indianapolis' featuring the run rather than the pass against the Bears, for example.
Considering Peyton Manning was suffering through a bad postseason and the Bears were making sure to shut down Wayne and Harrison, this tactic was not completely unforseen.
TMQ forecasts: If either the Cardinals or Steelers do not use lots of cornerback and safety blitzes, that team will emerge victorious.
Reading the weekly TMQ is like reading a message board, where you wonder where some of these morons wandered in from, except in this case we know Gregg wandered in from ESPN.com.
The playoffs so far have been all about radical defensive schemes; that means a conventional defensive scheme would come as a surprise.
Need proof of this. Screw you and your proof says TMQ/Gregg. No proof for you. Numbers that support statements are silly.
Now it's fourth-and-1 on the 34 and Baltimore decides to go for the first down -- a reasonable decision, though note Baltimore won the coin toss and chose the wind, so a field-goal attempt would have been with the wind. The unbalanced line and extra lineman remained on the field; a slotback went in motion right as a diversion; Joe Flacco tried the quarterback sneak; Pittsburgh nose tackle Casey Hampton hit him low and safety Troy Polamalu leapt high -- Steelers' ball.
But hey, at least the Ravens players knew that Jim Harbaugh was serious about winning the game!
Three snaps later, Pittsburgh led 13-0.
Sure, the Ravens are losing by 13 on the road to one of the NFL's toughest defenses, but now the Ravens have shown they are interested in winning the game by going for it on fourth down. That is the important part.
This was named the "Sweet Play" by Easterbrook, yet no mention that going for it on fourth down did not work for the Ravens and completely turned the momentum of the game to the Steelers. Nope, that would be proving him wrong that going for it on fourth down is always a great idea.
My 2008 middle school team had a trick play called Varsity Special, so named because all the boys hope to make varsity. On the play a running back takes a counter pitch right; the quarterback stands watching as if out of the play; the left receiver stops and watches as if out of the play; the running back laterals to the quarterback, throwing the ball backward so it is not a forward pass; the left receiver blows down the field, the target of the play all along. With the hosts leading 7-3, the Arizona (Contains Powerful Football Substance) Cardinals had first-and-10 on their 38. Tailback J.J. Arrington took a counter pitch right, then stopped and looked back toward Kurt Warner. As Arrington looked back toward the quarterback I said to Spenser, my 13-year-old, "It's Varsity Special!" So it was, 62 yards for the touchdown to Larry Fitzgerald. The Miami Dolphins this season were raiding high school playbooks; the Super Bowl-bound Cardinals raided the middle school playbook!
A lot of information is contained here. First, it sounds as if Gregg is in middle school because he says "his" middle school, second his son's name is Spenser with an "s" which I find to be very Easterbrook-esque, and third the Cardinals did not raid the middle school playbook because I have seen them run that play before, and fourth, your coyness is stupid. Seriously, who hired this guy at ESPN? What the hell did he do to get the gig? He is like a less informed version of Woody Paige.
In the comments, a few days ago Martin suggested Peter King, Gregg Easterbrook, and Bill Simmons had a death pact to see which one could cause seizure or death upon reading their column. I agree and it is working.
TMQ loves the tactic, in a pressure situation, of calling a play for a guy who never plays; two points, and a 32-25 Arizona lead.
Absolutely, I love this tactic as well. Get a guy who has lesser skills than anyone else currently playing on the field and have the game depend on his ability to make a play. I am sure that was exactly the Cardinals plan. The Cardinals probably searched for hours trying to find the right play to feature Ben Patrick with the game on the line and were not calling a play that was designed to offset Philly's defensive tendencies and formations on the goal line. No, that would make too much sense.
Not only did pulling within three points make a lot more sense than pulling within four, at that juncture the Cardinals were reeling and a deuce conversion would have added to the sense that the home team was falling apart. Instead Andy Reid sent out the kicker and the football gods, peeved, pushed the PAT try aside.
I am sure it was the imaginary football gods that pushed the kick aside and not David Akers who had already kicked the ball out of bounds on a kick off in the game, missed a field goal and was shaky all game. Also, if the Eagles had gotten a two point conversion this would have made ZERO difference in the game. I think the fact the Eagles had come back from 24-6 in the game and would go ahead on he next drive sufficiently gave the sense that the home team was falling apart.
For some reason Gregg thinks like Bill Simmons, that crowd momentum and mysterious fake events and happenings actually make a different in a football game. Is there a class they teach on this at ESPN?
But these were the sole snaps on which Ngata played offense; on other short-yardage Baltimore plays that failed, Ngata was not on the field. Not using Ngata more on short yardage was sour.
Since Gregg knows almost nothing about football, I will help him with this. First, you don't want the starting nose tackle in a 3-4 defense to get hurt blocking on offense so you use him sparingly and second, there are specific people on the roster called offensive lineman that can block pretty well and actually know the blocking schemes that are being used, which are schemes I am going to go ahead and say Ngata has not fully studied. It's more complicated than just throwing him out there and seeing what happens.
Arizona, the 32nd-ranked rushing team during the regular season, rushed nine times on the drive. Included was a signature sequence in which the Cards faced second-and-1 and rushed, then faced third-and-2 and rushed, then faced fourth-and-1 and rushed -- first down. The Cards picked a good time to go traditionalist.
It took them three tries to get 1 yard and Gregg is praising them for this. A good columnist who is attempting to analyze as Gregg is here would say that this was great they got the first down but this really poses a problem if they can't get one yard.
During the Philadelphia comeback, the Eagles put their regular defense out, and Arizona had trouble moving against it. With 10 minutes remaining and Arizona trailing, Philadelphia expected the Cards to go pass-wacky, and sent its dime onto the field. Against a dime, power rushes work, so Haley sent out his jumbo offense and started rushing.
It was that easy, and remember, once a team has players on the field, they can't take them off the field! At least that must be what Gregg thinks.
I like how Gregg takes complicated decisions and strategies and manages to try and simplify them when they are actually more complicated.
Double safety blitzing is as likely to backfire as to produce a turnover -- I'd leave that one out of the defensive playbook for Tampa.
Here's a good example of that. Sure, leave the double safety blitz out of the playbook for the Super Bowl, but Gregg needs to realize a double safety blitz also works when a team runs the ball, so this could be a good way to run blitz and stop the Steelers from running the ball. See, takes a simple idea that starts out as right and it no longer makes sense because a double safety blitz can also be a good tactic to stop the run, which I am assuming the Cardinals are interested in doing.
And what was the deal with Andy Reid angrily berating David Akers after he honked a kickoff out of bounds? Akers had a bad day, missing a field goal attempt and a PAT in addition to the botched kickoff. Yet just a week before, as the Eagles upset the defending champion Giants, Akers played one of the best games a placekicker has ever played -- three field goals in stiff wind and a touchdown-saving tackle.
Andy Reid berated Akers because he cost the team four points and 15 yards of field position against a high scoring offense. If he had hit the field goal and extra point, the Eagles would have only needed a field goal to tie the game up. You thought the Eagles should have gone for two earlier but now have no problem with the player who left 4 points on the board. Also, it doesn't matter if Akers had a great week last week, none of those points count for this week.
Berating any player on the sidelines during a game is poor coaching (rebukes should come in private), let alone berating a player who's normally a top performer. That Reid lost his temper when the team needed him to stay focused possibly suggests he has trouble handling pressure.
Sure, Reid should just wait the rest of the game to tell Akers he expects more from him than what he is getting, because it will make a difference after the game and all.
Also, Todd Haley lost his temper with Anquan Boldin, does that mean he has trouble handling pressure? That doesn't bode well for the Super Bowl chances of Arizona.
Because the zone-blitz approach means everyone on the front seven must be able to rush the passer, stop the run and cover the slant lanes, when you play the Steelers, essentially you are playing a defense that starts seven defensive ends. The Giants did that last year before Michael Strahan retired and Osi Umenyiora got hurt, and it was a Super Bowl-winning formula.
I don't recall the Giants running a 3-4 defense, starting seven defensive ends, or running a zone blitz scheme. What I do remember is the Giants blitzing effectively, which does not really count as the same thing that Pittsburgh does. The Giants ran a 3-4 and blitzed up the middle at Tom Brady, at least that is how I remember it, but I could be wrong. Of course I also remember a lot of talk that the Giants had a great front four and that was the reason they won the Super Bowl. Either way, this worked but is not the same as the 3-4 defense. Again, shitty analysis.
Julius Peppers is throwing at fit at Carolina right now because he wants to play for a defense designed to produce personal stats for Julius Peppers.
His agent released a statement to ESPN. Julius Peppers has not said anything, this is also known as "not throwing a fit."
Nobody on the Steelers' defensive front has particularly fantastic personal stats. That's part of the point.
Yeah, nobody except for the Defensive Player of the Year, James Harrison. Other than him, nobody else has put up great numbers, unless you want to count LaMar Woodley who had 12 sacks or Troy Polamalu who had 7 interceptions this year. Should we count them?
Even though this sometimes worked -- a 65-yard touchdown pass to Santonio Holmes off a zany scramble -- you can't count on scrambling as your game plan.
Somewhere in a prison cafeteria Mike Vick starts crying learning this news.
That cannot be the Pittsburgh Steelers in a shotgun spread on third-and-1 when trying to grind the clock! Incompletion, clock stopped, bad punt, Baltimore scored and suddenly the pressure is on at 16-14. The pass was not a gamble for a deep completion, rather a dinky-dunky 5-yard thing. No matter how good your defense is, you can't casually throw incompletions on third-and-1 in a clock-killing situation.
The pass would have been fine with Gregg if it had been in a pressure situation and was to a 3rd string tight end who rarely played.
Pizza Hut's new taste-test commercial for whole-wheat-crust pizza (quite good) prominently proclaims the customers depicted are "real people, not actors." Actors aren't people?
Gosh, you can't get anything past Gregg at all can you? I think what they mean is that they are not acting like real people, they are actually real people.
Since it's rare for a bodyguard to do more than open doors and shoo away autograph-seekers, unarmed guards are just as good as armed.
Unfortunately in non rare situations, you will be killed without an armed bodyguard.
About the upcoming book: On receiving the manuscript my literary agent called to say, "Hey, this could sell!" He's been my agent since 1983 and has, ahem, never said that before. The book is called "Sonic Boom" and has nothing to do with football, or flight for that matter. More soon.
His agent must have been happy he gets 5% commission on this book that could sell, because the commission on Gregg's last book, "What is Football?" only made him $32.54.
Now check this Boston Globe story on the hunt for Jagodzinski's replacement. DeFilippo is interested in coaches who currently have posts, but won't come to Boston College to interview. That is -- he wants them to do to their schools exactly what he just fired his own coach for doing!
Oh the horror of the hypocrisy of this! You would think Boston College would be looking for unemployed coaches who have plenty of time on their hands, because in college football there are so many quality coaches not currently coaching a team.
There is a difference in leaving BC for the NFL and for another college, which is what BC's next coach will be doing.
Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels, but stop or sustain drives. With Pittsburgh leading 16-14, the Ravens had second-and-8 with 5:13 remaining. The Steelers go with a five-man zone rush, and linebacker LaMarr Woodley gets a sack causing a third-and-13. Facing third-and-13 and clearly now worried, Joe Flacco heave-hoed a poor pass that was intercepted and returned for the game-icing touchdown. The sack that made it third-and-13 was a classic hidden play.
No one paid attention to the play that forced the Ravens from a potential first down or third and short to a 3rd and 13 play in the fourth quarter of the AFC Championship Game. I bet even LaMar Woodley forgot that he did this! How does Gregg notice things no one else notices?
We promise nothing, the rules are kept secret even from the judges, and the final decision will be completely arbitrary.
Much like the rules of football are kept secret from Gregg, and arbitrarily, which is how the Hall of Fame voters fill out their ballot.
15 comments:
I think TMQ's blanket statement about bodyguards sums up what a moron he is, and all his fallacies in one nice little sentence.
He doesn't really know what he's talking about, while making a qualifier that totally negates the point of his statement, and makes it anyway in as all-encompassing and condescending manner as he can.
I have heard at least two "football experts" talk about how it is the "dynamic" defenses that are the ones still playing this year. The teams that have been playing standard defenses, like the Panthers, Titans, and Giants, are the teams who have gone home. They particularly pointed to the Pantherrs as not coming up with something special to negate Larry Fitzgerald. Denny Green though did say that with the way Arizona uses Fitz, that it's very difficult to cover him unless you want to use the safety. Using the safety will free up the middle for the tight end and power rushing. Denny Green must read TMQ, because while I'll go with it is hard to double team unless you use the safety, if one player is killing you, make the other team use someone else! Have the Arizona tight ends been racking up huge numbers? Their power rushing game Out-Of-Control or Unstoppable? No? Then for god's sake, use the safety! Use the safety!
I don't think Gregg has ever heard of the term "run blitz". Completely foreign concept to him.
I love his criticism of the Eagles kicking a PAT at the end of the 3rd quarter. Does anyone else remember that 2 or so years ago, he would post a weekly item called something like "kick early, go for it late" which would criticize teams for going for 2 until the final 5 minutes or so? He would claim that the card that tells coaches when to go for it should only be used near the end of games. Now, he criticizes the Eagles for kicking a PAT in the 3rd quarter.
He was talking in the article about how bodyguards are now for people who just want to look important, which has nothing to do with football, but I still don't get why you would get a bodyguard that was unarmed. I can't even believe I am talking about this.
I am not trying to be a hater or anything but I don't think the Arizona front seven is good enough to handle the Steelers running game. I may be wrong but even after beating the Eagles, I still think the defense is the weak link. They seem to jump off to a good start in games and then trail off as the game progresses. I think the Steelers will use a safety or a linebacker to cover Fitzgerald and try to take him out of the game. Arizona still hasn't proven to me sufficiently they can run the ball, so the game plan should be (from a non-expert) is to double Fitzgerald and take your chances a TE will beat you and your front 7 will be able to stop the run. I think the Steelers can stop the run but I want to see what the Cards do to get the coverage off Fitzgerald as much as possible. You absolutely have to put two guys on him though and I think LeBeau will learn that from two decent defenses getting gashed by Fitzgerald. I think the Steelers will win the game.
I really don't think Gregg knows anything about football, I really don't. A double safety blitz is a risky call but you can't just completely not run blitz. I think you are right, he has no idea what a run blitz is.
Ben:
I am not trying to be a hater or anything but I don't think the Arizona front seven is good enough to handle the Steelers running game.
According to Football Outsiders, at least, the Steelers' rushing offense is the worst the Cardinals will have faced this postseason. They've done pretty well so far.
I may be wrong but even after beating the Eagles, I still think the defense is the weak link. They seem to jump off to a good start in games and then trail off as the game progresses.
Yes, the defense is the weak link. Of course, the offense is excellent, so even a good defense would be the weak link.
I also think jumping out to a fast start and early lead would be even more effective against the Steelers, who have a QB who will turn the ball over if he presses.
I think the Steelers will use a safety or a linebacker to cover Fitzgerald and try to take him out of the game.
I think if the Steelers use a LB to help cover Fitzgerald, they'll regret it. Seriously, why would a LB help against the best receiver in football? Generally, teams are happy if they can match up a tight end against a LB.
Sorry, I continually read your stuff and enjoy it, but I felt some of this comment was incorrect.
Thanks, anon, I just started reading the absolute mess that is TMQ so I don't recall that, but it does sound like something Gregg would write.
I realize the column is called Tuesday Morning Quarterback and he is supposed to be second guessing decisions made by coaches during the week, but he second guesses perfectly smart decisions. TMQ has the ability of hindsight to determine whether the move was smart or not, so he uses that to call others idiots.
Edward, I would not think the Eagles have a better running game than the Steelers but that may be so. Regardless, I still think the Steelers are going to have success running against the Cardinals and I guess it is based on nothing but a feeling I have. I am usually wrong and the Steelers offensive line doesn't seem to be the strongest they have had in a while, so I may be wrong.
Ok, that defense being the weak link part was pretty obvious, I admit that. I should have said think the Cardinals front seven is not quite as good as they have shown and teams have put up points on the defense. That being said, the Steelers showed a pretty pathetic offense the other night, other than Roethlisberger scrambling around and throwing the ball in the air there did not seem to be much to it.
Jumping out to a big lead is effective against Roethlisberger and would make him press but I don't think the Cardinals are going to be able to do that to the Steelers defense. In regard to the comment about covering Fitzgerald with a LB, that was just stupid, I was thinking about on his crossing patterns and anything short over the middle, but even then I don't think any of the Pittsburgh LB's could keep up with him. That comment was dumb.
I am going to go ahead and blame this on trying to post here everyday and also work my job. I was working and just typing out a response to Martin, did not proofread it and sounded like an idiot.
I don't know if J.S. is coming back any time soon or not, he is welcome back whenever he wants, but if anyone knows someone who would want to post examples of bad journalism on this site, feel free to email me and we can talk. I like having the blog to myself and posting whenever I want but I think a different voice is also important. If anyone is interested, please email me.
Actually I jsut assumed you meant the linebacker as the second person to help cover him, and of course it would have to be on crossing routes and such.
See you would take a day off, but your being overwhelmed by all the terrible writing...it's a slow season for sports...but fertile for bad journalism!
No worries, Ben. I actually debated if I should even nitpick your comment, considering you do this as a hobby and all.
Actually, I think the Steelers' running game has been overrated for years by people in the media believing that since the Steelers usually have a strong defense, their offense must rely on the running game. However, even Cowher believed in throwing early to get a lead, then running to maintain said lead. A good example of this strategy is the 2005 playoff upset of the Colts.
I don't mind at all when people nitpick what I say, because I spend all day nitpicking what others write. The linebacker thing I meant just over the middle of the field, not specifically to cover Fitzgerald though. It didn't make a whole lot of sense.
I am not sure if the Steelers running game has been overrated or not, but I do remember the Steelers always trying to get an early lead in a game or go ahead on the scoreboard in some fashion, then control the clock by running the ball. Either way, I still think they are going to beat the Cardinals...and yes, I realize I am being a hater and not believing in the Cards and they will probably prove me wrong.
I actually dont remember the Giants blitzing that much in last years superbowl. what I do remember, is pro bowl offensive lineman, Matt Light, getting absolutely manhandled by the bull rushes of Osi Umenoyiera (not even bothering to look up the spelling). I have to admit, I dont remember much though because my vision was blurred from the tears streaming down my face.
I don't recall the Giants blitzing a whole lot in the Super Bowl, but I do remember when they blitzed they tried to come up the middle. Fred, you are right that Light got manhandled in that game but really Osi is a good pass rusher, so it is nothing to be too upset about...of course I am not a Patriots fan, so it doesn't haunt me like it does you.
I think the Giants may have blitzed less than I remember but I do recall (I think) them coming up the middle a lot.
The Giants didn't blitz much, but when they did it was effective, so it was memorable. The other factor was that they went straight up the middle because the ends were having so many problems that the guards were looking to help out the tackles, and the running backs were lookign to chip that way too. Brady and Manning are so good at staying in the pocket, but moving that up the middle is by far the best way to go after them. Up the middle blitzes are the best thing to use against them, and it will probably be the best thing against Warner too.
Dude, you may have some insights on Easterbrook. But, try not to overextend the complaints because it waters down your main argument. A handful of your moot arguments suggest that you may have missed the sarcasm and maybe be slightly confused about Easterbrook's point. No offense, but you and Easterbrook are of the same coin; just on different sides.
Thanks anon, I think many times if I edited down by posts it would probably help out. I tend to talk/write a lot and I can see how it would make some of my points lose their force.
I can't guarantee I can do it though, once I get into an article I just starting writing about it all. Thanks though.
Bengoodfella, you are a freaking moron. TMQ regularly writes entertaining, insightful articles. A lot of the time, his tone is merely humorous, for example the Pizza Hut add. Most of your criticisms of him are either about sentences taken out of context, or because you are unfamiliar with his usual writing style, or because you simply know less about football than Easterbrook does. Dumb post on your part.
Post a Comment