Shaugnessy: Sorry, the Pats will lose

[AQPE]

So it's because of CBS Scene? And does he really vacation with them? I'm honestly asking why it's said he has so much pull at CBS. I truly don't know and am wondering.

If you even buy the premise that Kraft has some special amount of "pull" with CBS - and I don't see clear-cut evidence of that, i.e., actual facts supporting this premise and not some general baseless speculation - then I think the answer is simple: he is the chairman of the NFL owner's television committee, and has been on the negotiating team (with Jerry Jones and Pat Bowlen - the Denver owner) of the last two television contracts between the league and the networks. Previously he was chairman for something like 5 years of the NFL owner's finance committee. All in all, I think it is rather clear that he is held in a great deal of esteem by his fellow owners. He is "more then equal" I would venture to guess than, say, the Bidwells or Tom Benson or the truck stop guy in Cleveland. All together I think that would likely have some influence with the CBS people or anyone else that is doing business with the league, but again I see no actual evidence of bias towards him or the Pats, especially when it comes to BSPN.

=====

As for Shank, it is really simple, the act hasn't changed in decades, he is a punk who gets off on irritating people. Yes it is also about the "I told you so," which is the stock in trade for all of the phony contrarians writing their pieces or blowing their gas on the air, but it seems to go deeper for the CHB. All of it is a pretty evident defense mechanism for a spectacularly insecure, lazy, low-information douche. Best to be ignored.

 

[the Patriot]

NFL games are about matchups. Just because DEN set records on offense doesn't mean they should waltz through any team. NE fans should know this better than any other.

I hate arguing against my team, so I won't. I hope you guys are right and we stomp the Donks. This would be one of the greatest Patriots seasons of all time (it arguably already is). I just think that if you approach this game from a non-fan perspective, the Broncos are the clear choice to win, so I can't really blame a sportswriter for stating the odds.

 

[Koma]

Kiszla: Broncos' John Fox vs. Pats' Bill Belichick is really battle of players - The Denver Post

Here is a must read

Here's what I don't get: If cyclist Lance Armstrong has been exiled as a shameless cheater and home run king Barry Bonds feels the wrath from 65 percent of indignant Hall of Fame voters, why is Belichick celebrated despite Spygate, which accused his Patriots of stealing defensive signals from the New York Jets?

I'm not going to read that Kiszla article, but I'm going to guess that next sentence in that paragraph isn't "And why are Pat Bowlen and John Elway celebrated when the only way they could win a Super Bowl was to cheat the salary cap?"

 

[Koma]

Shaugnessy is full of crap. Everything the guy says it garbage that's wrong. No Boston sports team is to good for him and every team we play is always better. It's people like him who really get me mad your aviation sports writer support the team don't go against them. Yes we know all that stats but that not every thing and that's what Shaugnessy bases every thing off of.

Unless, of course, the opponent is a "tomato can." Any time the Patriots might win, it's because the opponent is some collection of weaklings. That way, if NE wins, it's because the opposition was so weak. And if they lose to a tomato can, then that failure can be referenced in perpetuity.

The amazing thing is that, in Shank's world, the Patriots are the only ones lucky enough to play these lucky significantly weaker teams. I'm sure he thought very highly of the 9-7 Chargers.

 

[Patstopia]

Dan Who?????

 

[jmt57]

Kiszla: Broncos' John Fox vs. Pats' Bill Belichick is really battle of players - The Denver Post

Here is a must read

It never ceases to amaze me how much Denver columnists will get on their soapbox and preach about ***gate, when their own team (a) cheated the salary cap en route to two Super Bowl victories, and (b) was caught filming another team's practice.

The author also offers opinions as facts, with nothing to support those viewpoints; apparently because he says so that's enough. For example, "the myth goes ... (Belichick's) also not Don Shula", implying that he is receiving too much credit and is overrated. Something, anything, to go along with that statement? Maybe because there's nothing there, other than the fact that the guy who coached for 33 years (surprise!) has more career regular season wins then the coach who has been around for less than twenty years?

Then of course there is the overused 'arrogance' line (again, with no supporting evidence) in the midst of even more mock indignation over ***gate and Belichick's decision to place Brandon Spikes on IR leaving him "hurt and feeling abandoned in the Patriots' run to the Super Bowl".


Yeesh, cry me a river and break out the violins and tissues. Is the Denver Post run by the Lifetime Movie Network? I thought the people in that area were considered to be of above average intelligence; do the folks there actually buy the crap this guy is selling?

I should be used to it by now, but I am always amazed at how over the top homers the writers are in Denver - especially when the Broncos are playing the Patriots. I don't expect them to be as harsh as most of the New England writers, but so much for the theory of no cheering from the press box, and impartial reporting.

 

[pats4life12]

Unless, of course, the opponent is a "tomato can." Any time the Patriots might win, it's because the opponent is some collection of weaklings. That way, if NE wins, it's because the opposition was so weak. And if they lose to a tomato can, then that failure can be referenced in perpetuity.

The amazing thing is that, in Shank's world, the Patriots are the only ones lucky enough to play these lucky significantly weaker teams. I'm sure he thought very highly of the 9-7 Chargers.

Thats very true with him its all about the tomato cans, he is like a headache that wont go away

 

[Uncle Rico]

I know it's proper form to link to a story or column when we start a thread on it.

But can we have a special rule for this particular writer, so we just summarize his idiocy and skip the link part? That way we get to be amused by his idiocy without sending readers to his ramblings.

 

[SVN]

Kiszla: Broncos' John Fox vs. Pats' Bill Belichick is really battle of players - The Denver Post

Here is a must read

wow...wtf....

 

[jmt57]

Back to Shaughnessy's piece...

1. I am not rooting for the Broncos
- Yes you are, don't lie.


2. There might even be a footy-pajama fanboy or two...
- Just couldn't resist getting that old tired dig at those who root for the Patriots in, could you Dan? But hey, you showed restraint by not trotting it out until the fourth paragraph.


3. So I am a doubter.
- And the pope is catholic; thanks for stating the obvious.


4. and Bob Kraft’s control of CBS and all NFL committees
- What exactly are you implying? That Kraft somehow fixes games? Last time you mentioned this it had to do with the NFL schedule, which you had no clue as to how it was set in terms of rotating divisions teams met; maybe you're still hung up on that?


5. This is where the better team actually wins.
- Another passive-aggressive jab. Is the implication that the better team did not win last week?


6. This is where somebody pulls the plug on the endless loop of “The Waltz of the Tomato Cans.”
- CHB has been using this line for three years now. Quick question: if the 11-5 Colts were soft pushovers, what were the 9-7 Chargers? Whic of those tomato cans came closer to winning last week?


7. This is where the Patriots have to go on the road for a playoff game for the first time in seven years and play Big Boy Football in another guy’s stadium.
- So the Patriots should be chastised for having the audacity to perform well enough in the regular season to earn a home playoff game? Dan, this isn't baseball where you play home and away, back and forth.


8. Sorry. You don’t automatically get to go to the Super Bowl because you think you’re smarter than everybody else.
- Who said anything about being smarter than everybody else? Strawman argument?


9. Brady said in his contractually obligated radio gig this week
- Another subtle jab, implying that he wouldn't be there if he didn't have to (but of course implying that those wonderful Red Sox players and coaches would ALWAYS be available to the public, contract or no contract); why else include that line?


10. John Fox, a man who looks alarmingly like Grady Little
- Oh surprise, a baseball reference.


11. But we all know they are not that good. And they have no familiarity with road games in the playoffs.
- How about some context, comparing how successful the other remaining teams are on the road in the playoffs, or how all teams over the years have been in away games in the post-season? Too much work I suppose? Or did the results not agree with the agenda?


12. The 2013 Patriots were a pedestrian 4-4 on the road.
- Implication: other teams were much better. Reality: that was the 7th-best road record in the NFL.


13. They have not played a road playoff game in seven years.
- If you're the Buffalo Bills, perhaps that's a valid criticism. When you are an NFL team, getting to play home playoff games as opposed to road playoff games is a positive, not a negative.

News flash Dan: the Ravens (hint: they won the Super Bowl a year ago while you were prepping for Spring Training) won on the road twice last year, and two other teams did as well. The 2011 SB winner won two road playoff games as well. In 2010 road teams won more playoff games (6) than home teams did (4). Playing on the road is not the automatic death sentence that you so much want it to be.

 

[Kdo5]

Back to Shaughnessy's piece...

1. I am not rooting for the Broncos
- Yes you are, don't lie.


2. There might even be a footy-pajama fanboy or two...
- Just couldn't resist getting that old tired dig at those who root for the Patriots in, could you Dan? But hey, you showed restraint by not trotting it out until the fourth paragraph.


3. So I am a doubter.
- And the pope is catholic; thanks for stating the obvious.


4. and Bob Kraft’s control of CBS and all NFL committees
- What exactly are you implying? That Kraft somehow fixes games? Last time you mentioned this it had to do with the NFL schedule, which you had no clue as to how it was set in terms of rotating divisions teams met; maybe you're still hung up on that?


5. This is where the better team actually wins.
- Another passive-aggressive jab. Is the implication that the better team did not win last week?


6. This is where somebody pulls the plug on the endless loop of “The Waltz of the Tomato Cans.”
- CHB has been using this line for three years now. Quick question: if the 11-5 Colts were soft pushovers, what were the 9-7 Chargers? Whic of those tomato cans came closer to winning last week?


7. This is where the Patriots have to go on the road for a playoff game for the first time in seven years and play Big Boy Football in another guy’s stadium.
- So the Patriots should be chastised for having the audacity to perform well enough in the regular season to earn a home playoff game? Dan, this isn't baseball where you play home and away, back and forth.


8. Sorry. You don’t automatically get to go to the Super Bowl because you think you’re smarter than everybody else.
- Who said anything about being smarter than everybody else? Strawman argument?


9. Brady said in his contractually obligated radio gig this week
- Another subtle jab, implying that he wouldn't be there if he didn't have to (but of course implying that those wonderful Red Sox players and coaches would ALWAYS be available to the public, contract or no contract); why else include that line?


10. John Fox, a man who looks alarmingly like Grady Little
- Oh surprise, a baseball reference.


11. But we all know they are not that good. And they have no familiarity with road games in the playoffs.
- How about some context, comparing how successful the other remaining teams are on the road in the playoffs, or how all teams over the years have been in away games in the post-season? Too much work I suppose? Or did the results not agree with the agenda?


12. The 2013 Patriots were a pedestrian 4-4 on the road.
- Implication: other teams were much better. Reality: that was the 7th-best road record in the NFL.


13. They have not played a road playoff game in seven years.
- If you're the Buffalo Bills, perhaps that's a valid criticism. When you are an NFL team, getting to play home playoff games as opposed to road playoff games is a positive, not a negative.

News flash Dan: the Ravens (hint: they won the Super Bowl a year ago while you were prepping for Spring Training) won on the road twice last year, and two other teams did as well. The 2011 SB winner won two road playoff games as well. In 2010 road teams won more playoff games (6) than home teams did (4). Playing on the road is not the automatic death sentence that you so much want it to be.

Don't allow yourself to get riled up by him, it's not worth it. He has his opinion and contrarian shtick even if I think it is a load of garbage.

If anything these kind of proclamations of imminent defeat only increase my confidence. The Pats will have an extra chip on their shoulder and we know that the 2013 Patriots ARE very good regardless of Shaugnessy's opinion which seems to lack actual analysis other than pointing to past history, our regular season road record. Using those arguments are sort of weak as I don't believe being on the road will be our downfall. It is about execution first and foremost and we have a smart, tough, excellently coached, and balanced team. Denver can't say the same about balance or even the mental toughness that the Pats have showed.

 

[Zeus]

It never ceases to amaze me how much Denver columnists will get on their soapbox and preach about ***gate, when their own team (a) cheated the salary cap en route to two Super Bowl victories, and (b) was caught filming another team's practice.

The author also offers opinions as facts, with nothing to support those viewpoints; apparently because he says so that's enough. For example, "the myth goes ... (Belichick's) also not Don Shula", implying that he is receiving too much credit and is overrated. Something, anything, to go along with that statement? Maybe because there's nothing there, other than the fact that the guy who coached for 33 years (surprise!) has more career regular season wins then the coach who has been around for less than twenty years?

Then of course there is the overused 'arrogance' line (again, with no supporting evidence) in the midst of even more mock indignation over ***gate and Belichick's decision to place Brandon Spikes on IR leaving him "hurt and feeling abandoned in the Patriots' run to the Super Bowl".


Yeesh, cry me a river and break out the violins and tissues. Is the Denver Post run by the Lifetime Movie Network? I thought the people in that area were considered to be of above average intelligence; do the folks there actually buy the crap this guy is selling?

I should be used to it by now, but I am always amazed at how over the top homers the writers are in Denver - especially when the Broncos are playing the Patriots. I don't expect them to be as harsh as most of the New England writers, but so much for the theory of no cheering from the press box, and impartial reporting.

So I didn't read the article but this is pretty standard fare for the lazy, dimwitted members of The Sporting Press. Belichick is a complicated guy who has devoted himself to and excelled at his chosen profession for a very long time. To actually try to research and understand the reasons for his success would take thought and work. It's so much easier to regurgitate the superficial reputation created by an endless parade of lazy, dimwitted sportswriters who think the coach's relationship with the press is the only thing that really matters.

One other thing - sportswriters (and fans who post on the internet) would do well to drop the word "arrogant" from the conversation. It's just another lazy characterization that doesn't add anything to the discussion.

 

[shmessy]

STOP GIVING THIS CLOWN AD REVENUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EVERY DAY HE WRITES SOME GARBAGE, EVERY DAY EVERYONE HERE CALLS HIM AN IDIOT.

that was all shift key by the way, straight up rage.

Come on people stop feeding him clicks thats the only way to get him to stop.

Dude - google "click farm" and you'll see why the only measurement that means anything today is paid subscriptions.

 

[shmessy]

Repeat after me:
HE'S A COUMNIST ...A COLUMNEST.

Looks like you're 0-2 there, Merriam-Webster.

 

[Michael]

The Broncos are going to beat the Patriots Sunday.

Sorry, that’s just the way I see it. I am not rooting for the Broncos. I am not into Satanic worship. Please do not kill my whole family. I am often wrong (remember the 2013 Red Sox, destined for last place?) and hopefully for New England fans, I will be wrong again.

The Patriots have proven folks wrong time and again. Overcoming doubters is the foundation of the Patriot franchise.

Doubting the Patriots this weekend is hardly a daring position. They are significant underdogs in Vegas. Most of the national TV panel guys will pick against New England. Some of the handicapping local car dealers will pick the Broncos. There might even be a footy-pajama fanboy or two with doubts about the Patriots’ ability to beat Peyton Manning.

MOD EDIT By Ian (shortening due to copyright):

Read More:
Sorry, the Patriots are going to lose to the Broncos - Sports - The Boston Globe

"I am often wrong"

Yes you are. Stick to basketball.

 

[Spiral]

Well played Dan.

Unlike most people, I can appreciate the article for what it is. He's taking an angle and making it satirical.

If you want to get really upset you should read the article in the Denver Post today. I would post it but the board might explode.

EDIT: Oh, forgot mention. He had been right on about the march of the tomato cans.

If this is his attempt at sarcasm, then it went completely over my head. He's in a dead-end job at a moribund media outlet. I guess the cynicism is to be expected.

 

[KamikazeKnight]

I don't usually read sports articles, but what's the deal with this moron? Why is our teams' sports media throwing in the towel like that? It just makes no sense to me. :bricks:

 

[Rob0729]

Why would anyone even red the Redheaded Stepchild? The guy has nothing left once he lost money making franchise of writing book after book of the Curse of the Bambino. He doesn't know football. He is a contrarian. Case closed.

 

[Ring 6]

It never ceases to amaze me how much Denver columnists will get on their soapbox and preach about ***gate, when their own team (a) cheated the salary cap en route to two Super Bowl victories, and (b) was caught filming another team's practice.

.

Because they don't understand the cap so don't understand how they cheated. (Just like they dont understand spygate by the way)

And because it wasnt the Brocnocs who got caught filming practice is was Belichicks boy, so that is BBs fault, not the Broncos.

See how easy it is to act like an ostrich.

 

[SVN]

the sad part is that the local boston media wont ever point out the salary cap infractions or duis etc in response such garbage but instead just agree with such bs