PDA

View Full Version : No TMQB

henry296
10-21-2003, 11:56 AM
Tuesday Morning QB is no longer on Page 2 at ESPN. Anyone know where I can find it.

Todd
Franklinnoble
10-21-2003, 12:00 PM
Easterbrook got canned. It is unlikely that TMQ has found a new home already. You'll have to find your haiku and cheerleader pictures elsewhere.
Tasan
10-21-2003, 01:10 PM
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! The one reason I went to the site much anymore, and they can the guy. I know he recently made some racist remarks, but geez, they weren't even with ESPN, and if someone on this forum wouldn't have pointed out the fact that it was the TMQB guy, I wouldn't have even known.
Ksyrup
10-21-2003, 01:14 PM
I never liked TMMQ. It wasn't all that interesting, and it was waaaaaaay too long. Haiku jumped the shark as an internet activity a couple of years ago, and that was this guy's biggest feature.
vtbub
10-21-2003, 01:15 PM
Ragging on Eisner isn't going to win you a lot of sympathy at ESPN.
Butter
10-21-2003, 01:23 PM
I found the column humorous, but the sheer number of in-jokes was a bit much at times. I'll miss it.
Radii
10-21-2003, 01:32 PM
I found his football insights to be very fresh and thoughtful and I always enjoyed reading his football commentary. I would skim the rest of the stuff, and sometimes found it entertaining, but sometimes did not. TMQ was definitely the highlight of my Tuesday at-work web browsing. I am disappointed :(
cthomer5000
10-21-2003, 01:37 PM
When he actually talked football, he was worth reading. His "football gods" thoughts were usually right on. And his "cold coach=victory" theory is terrific.

His biggest failing was all the stupid nicknames he would assign every team (literally) in the NFL, the haikus, cheerleaders, and every other non-football thought. He'd try to pack so much witty crap into one article that it was obscenely boring to read.
henry296
10-21-2003, 01:55 PM
It was better last year for me, when it seemed fresh. Now many of the jokes are long in the tooth so to speak. I did enjoy reading it over lunch still, but skimmed some of the topics.

Todd
Samdari
10-21-2003, 01:58 PM
I thoroughly enjoyed TMQ. Did not read many of the Haiku's but it was easy to skip over those (they are short) and get to the witty stuff. It was my favorite read of the week during football season, despite his inaccurate reporting of DirecTV's availability and SU's basketball graduation rates.

For those interested, his apology and explanation can be found here:
http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml

I have previously posted here that I considered his transgression to be similar to Rush's, for the why did he bring that up factor. But, after reading this, I am forced to rethink that. For Easterbrook to bring up religion is NOT out of place, in fact, it is very much what he regularly does. It sounds like the basic idea he was trying to put across was how can a person of faith live with themselves making money off of such violent crap.

EDIT: I am terribly disappointed not to find any mention of the separation from either ESPN or Easterbrook. I really would like to hear someone at least acknowledge it.
cthomer5000
10-21-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Samdari
EDIT: I am terribly disappointed not to find any mention of the separation from either ESPN or Easterbrook. I really would like to hear someone at least acknowledge it.

It's right on the front of ESPN Page 2. That is certainly a mention.
cuervo72
10-21-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by cthomer5000
It's right on the front of ESPN Page 2. That is certainly a mention.

But no mention as to why, just:

To our readers: Tuesday Morning Quarterback will no longer be available on ESPN.com.

That's really explaining things...
astralhaze
10-21-2003, 02:19 PM
Do you need an explanation? He said some very stupid things about jews, including his boss.
Samdari
10-21-2003, 02:26 PM
Oops missed that.
cuervo72
10-21-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by astralhaze
Do you need an explanation? He said some very stupid things about jews, including his boss.

I don't, but I'm guessing there are plenty of readers out there who hadn't been made aware of his comments.
TroyF
10-21-2003, 02:31 PM
I'll write a TMQ without the haiku if you guys want. :) :)

If you like the Green Bay Packers defense or don't like Steve McNair it'll probably be a pretty frustrating read though.

TroyF
ice4277
10-21-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by TroyF
I'll write a TMQ without the haiku if you guys want. :) :)


Could we at least get something in iambic pentameter?
TroyF
10-21-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by ice4277
Could we at least get something in iambic pentameter?

No.

TroyF
bamcgee
10-21-2003, 02:41 PM
it is a shame. At least TMQ's commentary was somewhat original and interesting, even if his personal crusades (like stop me before I blitz again!) were misguided or flat out erroneous. I would much rather read his article than Len Pasquarelli or Don Banks. Those guys don't have any personality and are rarely insightful beyond the obvious. Plus the cheesecake photos were nice.

Anyone recommend any other internet sportswriters of quality? Besides the Sports Guy.
Fidatelo
10-21-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Samdari
It sounds like the basic idea he was trying to put across was how can a person of faith live with themselves making money off of such violent crap.

If this was indeed his point then it is still off base. Jewish is both a religion and a race. You can be a Jewish person without being a person of faith. So to assume that they are people of faith, and therefore should adhear to it's moral code, simply because of a Jewish ancestry is incorrect at best and ignorant at worst.

That all said, I'm not so sure that was even his angle. I think he was more saying that how can someone from a group of peoples who have been persecuted for centuries promote a film about violence. But then he essentially said that they were doing it for money... and he said that it would be ok if Christian's overlooked principal for money... and uh, that's about the point where I stopped getting his point.
Franklinnoble
10-21-2003, 02:49 PM
Could we at least get some gratuitous "cheesecake" photos?
Maple Leafs
10-21-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Fidatelo
... and he said that it would be ok if Christian's overlooked principal for money... No, unless I misread him he said the opposite: that it was just as enexcusable for Christians as it was for Jews.
Fidatelo
10-21-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Maple Leafs
No, unless I misread him he said the opposite: that it was just as enexcusable for Christians as it was for Jews.

These are his exact words:

"Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?"

It just seems to me like he's saying that Christian's doing it, while bad, isn't as noteworthy (and therefore implicitly as bad) as when Jewish people do it.
ice4277
10-21-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by TroyF
No.

TroyF

damn :(
Maple Leafs
10-21-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Fidatelo
It just seems to me like he's saying that Christian's doing it, while bad, isn't as noteworthy (and therefore implicitly as bad) as when Jewish people do it. To my eye, he's only saying that Christians doing it isn't noteworthy in the context (i.e. the people he's talking about happen to be Jewish).

In other words, both groups are wrong, including the group I'm talking about now.

I guess we just read it differently.