Actually, as far as agenda goes, he's now on a "How does BB not know his CB playing style isn't modern enough" kick. However, it could well just be stubbornness, as I pointed out. When Bedard gets an opinion, he is done. We've seen this before. That's fine in some arenas, but it's a problem for him given that he's supposed to be neutrally analyzing.
Again, Bedard was the leading crusader of "If McCourty has reverted back to his rookie form, I haven't seen any sign of it" brigade during the preseason. If he is that stubborn, he would have joined Tom Curran, Ty Law, and a lot of other media people in the "McCourty Sucked" charge from this game.
Also, saying McCourty played well goes against his theory. If McCourty had a great game as he suggests, it tells us that talent and not scheme is the problems with breakdowns on defense for the most part.
I know what he wrote. He went CHA and then admitted to more screwups even while trying to CHA there too, by essentially blaming Gregory for McCourty's crap effort on that tackle. Frankly, I found that to be a terrible bit of writing and analysis, and I expect that he'd love to have at least some of that back.
First, he isn't the only one who feel it was mostly or all Gregory fault on that play. So it isn't like he is making this up. Gregory never makes contact with Pitta to slow his stride and it looks like McCourty's route was based on Gregory at least a little.
Second, I don't think he wants to take any of it back. He went toe to toe with Dennis and Callahan on this issue. If he regretted writing it, he wouldn't have argued as passionately. He said that when he analyzes a player in the game he doesn't put any more weight on the end of the game vs. the beginning of the game and that most of McCourty's critics are putting way too much weight on the final drive and not the rest of the game.
Third, I didn't have any problem with the writing. The difference is that I agree with him and you don't. I wonder if he wrote McCourty sucked and say "yeah, he had a few good plays, but mostly sucked" whether one or both of us would have a different view of the quality of his analysis.