Since officially signing Crabtree, the Niners have dropped 4 straight - some decent losses, and some, ahem, not so decent losses. You tell me what this means to you, but you can't deny the crazy coincidence that this brings up if there is no correlation. Did coach completely throw away almost a year's worth of "team first" rhetorric by simultaneously promoting Crabtree to the starting lineup (thereby ignoring the drama that started this weekly post) and starring in a commercial (OK - not exactly a starring role, but it sure surprised you to find him in a mobile phone commercial, no?)?
Several years ago, I read every word of every TMQ article, agreeing with some parts, disagreeing with others, but respecting his right to form and argue his own opinion. Then a few years ago, I started skimming the non-football content, and emailing my critiques where I thought he was wrong. A couple years ago, I started skipping the non-football content completely. Last year, I started skimming the football content, and completely ignoring the non-football content. Earlier this year, I realized that if I skipped the column some weeks, I didn't really care.
ReplyDeleteNow, I'm mad at Scott for putting up that link, because I clicked on it and ESPN.com registers that as a view of the TMQ article. I am boycotting TMQ in the only way I personally can. Not clicking on it.
I too have waned on my TMQ reading as of late (primarily due to his outrage over "Cameragate"), but I glance back every now and then for his football-related coverage. I skim the rest as I read as I think he's got some decent points about our society as a whole, but I don't get all worked up over anything he writes.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, if you scaled back on your TMQ diet, you'd learn to like some of his insights and let the rest fall by the wayside without getting your panties in a bunch?
Well, the loudest way to say you are not pleased with an internet writer is to not click on their link.
ReplyDeleteThe email I sent to Gregg Easterbrook today:
I have clicked on TMQ for the last time. I thought it would be your insistence on not punting (which I don't disagree with, but I have read about it too much) OR your disconnect between trying to appeal to casual fans without turning off die-hard football fans (casual fans don't want to read that many words, while most people who understand football already know that when a wide receiver is not covered by the corner or safety, it is a mental mistake on one of their parts) but it actually came down to your closed-minded insistence that fictional live-action movies be factually accurate. The Dark Knight was a great movie BECAUSE it was a comic book movie that uses the imagination beyond real life. While Hollywood often uses explosions and breasts to sell tickets, Americans enjoy post-apocalyptic stories independent of Hollywood. Think of The Stand, by Stephen King. The Girl Who Owned a City, by O.T. Nelson is taught in elementary schools (and I still remember enjoying that book). Post-apocalyptic stories invoke similar emotions as deserted island stories, such as Lord of the Flies and the Swiss Family Robinson.
It might be interesting to have an open-minded debate or discussion with you, but your columns have become too one sided and pretentious and are no longer worth my time.
Feel free to email me back as I would probably enjoy a conversation with you.
Wow man, you hit the TMQ hard and heavy. I don't mind the repetition but after two years of reading his columns I felt I'd read the same dozen points over and over. There appeared to be hardly any new material, other than the culture stuff which wasn't as interesting to me. He sounded like a complete blowhard in his Dark Knight conversation; I'm not even sure he realizes how curmudgeonly he came off.
ReplyDeleteI'd go so far as to say that you could take his basic column - this punt was a poor decision, this team made a good 4th down play, etc. etc. - and insert the details of any given week into the formula for the TMQ column. I don't recall anything of value that I read this year by him.
So TMQ isn't in the main section of ESPN.com's main page. He is in tiny print in the 'more coverage' section below Simmons and Reilly.
ReplyDeleteAs he would say, there's no rule that says TMQ must always be popular and well-received. Like the NBA or NFL, he can't assume that readers will keep coming back.
I still didn't click on his link.