- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 35,695
- Reaction score
- 7,798
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.In other words, he's WAY over his head on the national stage.Perhaps he just put the Pats on there b/c he's from around here, worked around here, and knows those teams better/knows less about other weak SB teams in the past.
I love how Tom Curran lists the 1985, 1996, and 2001 Patriots among the worst teams to ever go to a Super Bowl, yet leaves out the Ravens (2000?) that had ZERO offense and NONE of the Buffalo teams that lost 4 Super Bowls in a row. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
I know I'm biased, but I'd say it was a pretty crappy article:
The worst teams in Super Bowl history
He's really endearing himself to Patriot fans. Perhaps he's lobbying for a job at ESPN.
If I recall correctly, the two teams played again the following year, when Dawson was healthy, Flutie was QBing, and McMahon was knocked out of the game. The Pats won that one going away.
Oct 30 1988 - "Flutie, Patriots Top Bears, 30-7... McMahon Injures Knee, Expected Out 4 to 10 Weeks"
He's really endearing himself to Patriot fans. Perhaps he's lobbying for a job at ESPN.
In other words, he's WAY over his head on the national stage.
More that he has a local bias on a national stage, like most of the national writers. Think about SportsGuy, and how Boston centric he used to be. Or how NY centric a lot of ESPN guys are. I don't think its a big deal.
Seriously. He'd do well there too; they're apparently equally informed about the Pats:singing:
It is when it results in piss-poor work.
Tom Curran said:But the Patriots defense got hot down the stretch. New England stunned the Steelers in the fog at Foxboro 28-3 while the Broncos were knocking Denver from the playoffs.