PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Ron Borges Picks the PATS!!! (merged: Borges explains pick to BSM)


Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Ron Borges Picks the PATS!!!

I disagree that he is knowledgeable. Remember it was Bogus who said the Pats should pick David Terrell instead of Richard Seymour. But that's beside the point. Since Bogus has managed to turn Jackie MacMullen (someone who I formerly had a great deal of respect for) and Brian McGrory against the Pats he can afford to back down a little.

I don't think Borges is especially knowledgeable about football. He covers multiple sports, and he made his name originally with his boxing coverage, and even there he has been found lacking. He has a melodramatic, operatic style, which can be effective occasionally, depending on the subject matter and the mood of the reader, but more often is affected and cloying.

I don't find him particularly profound. He tends to play the same rhythms on the same old drum repeatedly.
 
Borges explains his MSNBC pick to BSM

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/

I just received the following email:

"[email protected]"

to [email protected]

date Jan 19, 2007 1:17 PM

subject your incorrect blog entry

Dear Bruce,
It has come to my attention that you have erroneously claimed todfay that Ipicked the Patriots to defeat the Colts on MSNBC's website. I have received several e-mails asking about this and informed them, as I am you, that no such pick was ever made. My pick in both the Globe and in several other public forums was, and remains, the Colts in what I believe will be a close
game.
I was asked to write a column on the Patriots' take on this game and to answer the question of whether or not they were good enough to return to the Super Bowl this year, which they are. So are (or in some cases were) several other teams now on the sidelines as well as the four still playing.
I did as requested and certainly anyone like yourself could make a strong case for New England winning Sunday and advancing to Super Bowl XLI. However, I just re-read the article on MSNBC to see where I might have "picked the Patriots,'' as you have written. No where did I do any such thing. That was not a prediction column, as any media analyst like yourself would surely know. Iit was a column in which I was asked to answer how, and if, they could advance and how the two sides felt about it.
While I would agree that the headline was misleading and has since been changed after I spoke with editors out there, for you, a self-proclaimed media watchdog, not to know the writer has nothing to do with the headline on a story calls into question in the simplest way your fitness to criticize the media. Worse, to have read that article and then to claim a prediction was made was beyond misleading. It was false and, as you often do, misread what was written and mislead your constituencyHow does "may make them good enough'' become a prediction of their winning the game? how does, "that does not mean it's a given they can do it again'' become a prediction they will win the game? How does "unless they (the Colts) lost to them'' become a prediction that they will lose the game? how does, "there are 53 guys in New England (which as I'm sure you know is their roster) who believe'' become Ron Borges' believes?
I assume, as the fair-minded man you purport yourself to be, you will immediately write a retraction of your earlier remarks so that your readers are not mislead by you.
Ron Borges

The MSNBC piece headline for the article below has been changed to reflect the fact that the article is not a prediction, but instead analysis, with no actual prediction being made within the article.

However, the slant of the article is clearly in the favor of the Patriots. The average reader would come away from this piece with the conclusion that the author is picking the Patriots. The original headline reflected that, and while the writer doesn't compose the headlines, they're based on the feel of the article. In this case, Borges certainly fooled the headline writer and many others into thinking he was picking the Patriots Sunday. Read the MSNBC article again and see what you think.

However, I'll retract the statement that Ron Borges picked both sides this week. I was wrong. That's the bottom line. My bad.

I'm also glad to see that Borges is very concerned about misleading readers.

Actually, my intern was wrong. Yeah.
 
Re: Borges explains his MSNBC pick to BSM

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/


Good thing Ronnie cleared that up! For a second there, Patriots Nation was wondering WTF was going on. Now that we know all is right in the world again, I'm feeling much better about this game.
 
Re: Borges explains his MSNBC pick to BSM

Phew..I am sure glad Wrong Borges cleared all of that up.
If Wrong wasn't always wrong then he would be right and we all know how wrong that would be. Wrong Borges picked up his his nickname the hard way - he earned it.

Luckily - Wrong will be wrong once again....

He'll nevah be a contendah...
 
Just announced on WEEI

:eek: Now I'm nervous! :singing:

Borges is a fencesitter. Reminds me of John Kerry......"I voted for it before I voted against it"..........On Felger's joke of a show (4 downs)....He, Banks and Felger all took the dolts......Borges said...I'm going to have to go with Don (banks).....He's been pretty dead on this year......F'ing fencesitter.....I hate that beady eyed scumbag!!! GO PATS!!!!
 
2001: Seymour sucks -- has few sacks in the SEC; Pats should have taken David Terrell or Koren Robinson. (ho-ho!)
2006: Seymour is great. Sacks don't matter because he draws extra blockers.

2004: Wilfork and Warren drafted -- says it was a tacit admission that Warren and Graham were flops.

2001: Bledsoe goes down; says that Pats have little talent and now we will see how important Drew was. (Of course he was good with pro bowl and HoF talent all around him)
Jan 2002: says all Brady does is throw sideways
Feb 2002: Pats should start Drew. Pats will lose 77-0. Oops, Pats win.
2006: Says that actually, it's Brady who has made Belichek what he is.

It's not about the coaches (Xs and Os) but the players (Jimmys and Joes)
2005: Pats will suffer from loss of Crennel and Weis.
And what about the little talent there was in 2001 (except Drew, of course)

Jan 2007: Colts will win 24-21.
Jan 2007: Pats will beat Colts.
Jan 2007: BB and Dungy "even"

You'd think I was making this stuff up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


New Patriots WR Javon Baker: ‘You ain’t gonna outwork me’
Friday Patriots Notebook 5/3: News and Notes
Thursday Patriots Notebook 5/2: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 5/1: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Jerod Mayo’s Appearance on WEEI On Monday
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/30: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Drake Maye’s Interview on WEEI on Jones & Mego with Arcand
MORSE: Rookie Camp Invitees and Draft Notes
Patriots Get Extension Done with Barmore
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/29: News and Notes
Back
Top