Quote:
|
Originally Posted by texpat
I would think there are many on this board who would qualify.
People who think because you have won 3 of 5 SB's, that you will win 3 of the next 5, without remembering the 30+ years with no success. It ain't that easy, lol.
|
right, because the team today bears a striking resemblance to the one that sucked for 30 years. therefore a truly objective individual can clearly tell that by next season, Miami will be, as Jerome Solomon put it, "easily better than the Pats."
nobody dares ask Solomon to back up that cynicism ...for fear of being called a homer....this is a very scary disease and I fear the journalists are winning the war.
the problem with taking a cynical tact on the Pats right now is that it's not a glass half-full/empty proposition...the glass is well over half-full.
in the cyberage of 24x7x365 mass media, you have to scream louder to be heard...so you invent dumb things to say that you actually start believing (i.e. Andy Hart's moronic pre-draft prediction of an 8-8 season).
"homers" are optimistic even when their team obviously sucks. if you have ANY perspective of the league outside of New England (I wonder about some of us), there's no logical way you can't be positive about the Pats this season.
For every potential negative that has guys like Borges and Felger creaming ('ooh, Caldwell dropped the ball I've got my lead story!'), relative to other teams, the Pats have an abundance of positives.
but beat-writers have their own bills to pay.
By definition, pundits are "critics" which is to say they are by nature CRITICAL. When the team they cover is actually good, they continue being critical and therefore become cynical. Don't let them make you believe you are a homer. None of us thought this team was any good under prior regimes...we're the one's being consistent -- not them.
There are ALWAYS reasons to be critical -- the bigger question which we as fans must judge (given a balanced consumption of all available outlets), is whether the overal situation is a net plus. But before a pundit ever admits things are generally good, they'll point out how bad the backup guys are (yes, that's why they are backups) before they admit the starters are pretty good. The headline then becomes "we have no depth" versus, hey our frontline guys are pretty good, and by the way, if you find a team with backups that compare to their starters let us know.
The key is to spin things in a polished way that persuades us to see our impending doom.
too bad...it's pretty damn enjoyable being a fan of this team right now...I say enjoy it...call me a homer...a kool-aid drinker...that's cool with me.