The Return of TMQ

Chiefnj2 · 08-29-2007, 10:20 AM

Chiefnj2's favorite sportswriter has returned. Caution - it is a very, very lengthy article. Nice analysis of college football schedules, the Vick situation and an NFC round-up.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...t&lid=tab2pos1

crazycoffey · 08-29-2007, 10:41 AM

I'm in the middle of it now, I missed his articles too. I like how in depth a topic he can get. He always makes great points. The Vick topic, and legalized animal killings for food, the NFL endorsing crossbow hunting "Hypocrisy note: Look who's advertising on a Web page extolling the cruel crossbow killing of animals for sport -- the NFL. Oh, that Michael Vick, he's evil, he's bad. But buy NFL Shop items to wear when you shoot deer with arrows so they slowly bleed to death!"

a bit dramatic, but poignant and true. Vick deserves to be punished, but someway and somehow it will be overkill, setting a tone and making an example....

crazycoffey · 08-29-2007, 12:47 PM

I just noticed, this is his third article back. his second one has the AFC review and I just read his actual first one, and it has a great few paragraphs on the whole retired/pension angle for the NFLPA compared to other leagues.

Interesting....
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...7&sportCat=nfl

**Reaper16** · 08-29-2007, 01:07 PM

Easterbrook is a jackass.

crazycoffey · 08-29-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Easterbrook is a jackass.

and he's also more consistant and accurate than ANY SI writer.

Did you read what he put together on the NFLPA and the ongoing pension debate? Good information and puts things into perspective.

**Reaper16** · 08-29-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

and he's also more consistant and accurate than ANY SI writer.

Did you read what he put together on the NFLPA and the ongoing pension debate? Good information and puts things into perspective.

Meh. I started ignoring him when he proved time and time again to be ignorant and off-putting about small school football. I'm not even a Pitt State fan, but I respect that team and he has a vendetta against them.

htismaqe · 08-29-2007, 02:24 PM

His criticism of the top D-1 schools is misplaced - he needs to be pointing the finger at the system. The schools are doing what they have to. It's VERY difficult to get anybody other than cupcakes on the schedule, because the system doesn't reward risk-taking.

pikesome · 08-29-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

I'm in the middle of it now, I missed his articles too. I like how in depth a topic he can get. He always makes great points. The Vick topic, and legalized animal killings for food, the NFL endorsing crossbow hunting "Hypocrisy note: Look who's advertising on a Web page extolling the cruel crossbow killing of animals for sport -- the NFL. Oh, that Michael Vick, he's evil, he's bad. But buy NFL Shop items to wear when you shoot deer with arrows so they slowly bleed to death!"

a bit dramatic, but poignant and true. Vick deserves to be punished, but someway and somehow it will be overkill, setting a tone and making an example....

The problem with his animal arguments is they're wrong. I don't see anyone taking enjoyment from the suffering of animals in all of the examples he sites. Yes animals die, by that same logic we should ban automobiles and airplanes. Even the shitty, only-in-it-for-the-kill, hunters don't inflict pain on their prey for fun, the small percent who might enjoy animals bloody and hurt (soon to be serial killers and the like) are consistently despised.

His points about the "unfair" punishment of Vick "losing" money neglects the fact that the money was paid to him for a service and he didn't deliver. The NFL contracts and, I'm sure, his endorsement deals included language that says "I won't do stuff like this". He did it anyway. His conduct is one of the things those deals are based on, if he wasn't going to live up to the personal conduct parts he shouldn't have taken the money in the first place.

crazycoffey · 08-29-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikesome

The problem with his animal arguments is they're wrong. I don't see anyone taking enjoyment from the suffering of animals in all of the examples he sites. Yes animals die, by that same logic we should ban automobiles and airplanes. Even the shitty, only-in-it-for-the-kill, hunters don't inflict pain on their prey for fun, the small percent who might enjoy animals bloody and hurt (soon to be serial killers and the like) are consistently despised.

His points about the "unfair" punishment of Vick "losing" money neglects the fact that the money was paid to him for a service and he didn't deliver. The NFL contracts and, I'm sure, his endorsement deals included language that says "I won't do stuff like this". He did it anyway. His conduct is one of the things those deals are based on, if he wasn't going to live up to the personal conduct parts he shouldn't have taken the money in the first place.

I liked the article, and I like how his articles read, they are pretty damn researched. I didn't read that part the way you did. I understood it to be less of "Vick's horrible" and more of "get a grip, people" stance. I don't think he meant Vick gets a pass by any means.

He said Vick didn't deserve the endorsement deals because they paid for positive attention and these actions have brought negative attention. What GE said of the contracts I don't wholly agree with either, BTW. Paid to play football and his actions have taken that away from him, I'm not crying for Vick losing money at all.

Did you read the second one about the NFLPA and the pension debates? That was more interesting to me anyway. I've been on this site before clammering for the NFL to take care of it's retired players and from the information GE was sharing (if it's all true, of course) it sounds like the NFL is doing a pretty damn good job of doing it already.

**DaKCMan AP** · 08-29-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

His criticism of the top D-1 schools is misplaced - he needs to be pointing the finger at the system. The schools are doing what they have to. It's VERY difficult to get anybody other than cupcakes on the schedule, because the system doesn't reward risk-taking.

Yep, especially when his main arguments are the number of home and away games and the 2 or 3 games that make up less than 25% of the schedule. He rips Arkansas about playing some cupcakes but neglects to mention they face #15, #14 and #2 in the Coaches Poll (18, 15, 2 in AP) as well as solid teams in Alabama, Kentucky and South Carolina.

crazycoffey · 08-29-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

His criticism of the top D-1 schools is misplaced - he needs to be pointing the finger at the system. The schools are doing what they have to. It's VERY difficult to get anybody other than cupcakes on the schedule, because the system doesn't reward risk-taking.

I don't know enough about this system to make any comments on that(other than the obvious, it could be better)

sportsman1 · 08-29-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

Yep, especially when his main arguments are the number of home and away games and the 2 or 3 games that make up less than 25% of the schedule. He rips Arkansas about playing some cupcakes but neglects to mention they face #15, #14 and #2 in the Coaches Poll (18, 15, 2 in AP) as well as solid teams in Alabama, Kentucky and South Carolina.

Right on the money, now dont get me wrong Im not happy about us (arkansas) playing UT Chatanooga, but teams like troy and North Texas are teams that you kinda have to play when you are in the SEC. The Sec is awesome top to bottom if you look to succeed, you cant be losing out of conference games. Ill be at the Kentucky game, and its a conference game in septemeber for heavens sakes. Its not a completly patsy schedule right off the bat.

**Baby Lee** · 08-29-2007, 04:56 PM

He's way off base on almost every point of the Vick argument. I'm not angry at his stances, but they're uniformly misplaced.

Hunters overwhelming kill for food.
Bow Hunters us bows to handicap the situation. Their aim is to get a kill shot, not to make the animal suffer. And again, they're collecting food.
The whole thing about the suffering of food is irrelevant for me. I see a gulf of difference between accepting 'cruelty' towards a food source, in accepting a level of suffering for cheap and expeditious delivery of the foodstuffs, and accepting cruelty towards a sport animal simply because they don't amuse you any more. That seems integral to accepting that living things are our foodstufs.
And on the 'loss of wealth should be considered in sentencing' is just elitist. It's stating that because Vick can make lots of money with his freedom, the time he spends incarcerated is worth more than the time served by some poor bastard. John Gotti could make $$ as a free man. A doctor who kills his wife could make more $$ with his freedom than Joe Trailerpark who killed Jolene Trailerpark. Paris Hilton could make more $$ with her freedom than Susy Lush who drive drunk with a suspended license.

jidar · 08-29-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

He's way off base on almost every point of the Vick argument. I'm not angry at his stances, but they're uniformly misplaced.

Hunters overwhelming kill for food.
Bow Hunters us bows to handicap the situation. Their aim is to get a kill shot, not to make the animal suffer. And again, they're collecting food.

Okay well, ignore those then. His statement still stands that there are hunters can and do kill animals solely for sport and they aren't going to prison for it.

pikesome · 08-29-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jidar

Okay well, ignore those then. His statement still stands that there are hunters can and do kill animals solely for sport and they aren't going to prison for it.

People have sex and don't go to jail, why do we jail rapists?

Ignoring the fact that dogfighting is illegal and hunting isn't, they aren't even in the same zip code morally. Dogfighting hinges on pain and suffering, the dogs kill their opponents. They don't KO them, they don't win by decision, they kill by inflicting trauma to the other dog. All for the pleasure of the spectators. There is no strategy or cunning like in professional boxing (at least sometimes boxing has those things). Hunters strive to drop an animal dead, one shot. They aren't looking to cause suffering and they definitely don't pit two against each other for their own sick pleasure.

08-29-2007, 10:20 AM
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $7813688	The Return of TMQ Chiefnj2's favorite sportswriter has returned. Caution - it is a very, very lengthy article. Nice analysis of college football schedules, the Vick situation and an NFC round-up. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...t&lid=tab2pos1
Posts: 22,396

08-29-2007, 12:47 PM	#3
crazycoffey .......... Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $5107901	I just noticed, this is his third article back. his second one has the AFC review and I just read his actual first one, and it has a great few paragraphs on the whole retired/pension angle for the NFLPA compared to other leagues. Interesting.... http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...7&sportCat=nfl
Posts: 28,332

08-29-2007, 02:24 PM	#7
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $10269900	His criticism of the top D-1 schools is misplaced - he needs to be pointing the finger at the system. The schools are doing what they have to. It's VERY difficult to get anybody other than cupcakes on the schedule, because the system doesn't reward risk-taking.
Posts: 100,022

08-29-2007, 04:56 PM	#13
Baby Lee Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $6838598	He's way off base on almost every point of the Vick argument. I'm not angry at his stances, but they're uniformly misplaced. Hunters overwhelming kill for food. Bow Hunters us bows to handicap the situation. Their aim is to get a kill shot, not to make the animal suffer. And again, they're collecting food. The whole thing about the suffering of food is irrelevant for me. I see a gulf of difference between accepting 'cruelty' towards a food source, in accepting a level of suffering for cheap and expeditious delivery of the foodstuffs, and accepting cruelty towards a sport animal simply because they don't amuse you any more. That seems integral to accepting that living things are our foodstufs. And on the 'loss of wealth should be considered in sentencing' is just elitist. It's stating that because Vick can make lots of money with his freedom, the time he spends incarcerated is worth more than the time served by some poor bastard. John Gotti could make $$ as a free man. A doctor who kills his wife could make more $$ with his freedom than Joe Trailerpark who killed Jolene Trailerpark. Paris Hilton could make more $$ with her freedom than Susy Lush who drive drunk with a suspended license. __________________ We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics - E.W.
Posts: 95,642

08-29-2007, 10:41 AM	#2
crazycoffey .......... Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $5107901	I'm in the middle of it now, I missed his articles too. I like how in depth a topic he can get. He always makes great points. The Vick topic, and legalized animal killings for food, the NFL endorsing crossbow hunting "Hypocrisy note: Look who's advertising on a Web page extolling the cruel crossbow killing of animals for sport -- the NFL. Oh, that Michael Vick, he's evil, he's bad. But buy NFL Shop items to wear when you shoot deer with arrows so they slowly bleed to death!" a bit dramatic, but poignant and true. Vick deserves to be punished, but someway and somehow it will be overkill, setting a tone and making an example....
Posts: 28,332