Was it Super Bowl XXXVI, a upset of the heavily favored Rams? Was it the Snow Bowl, which took a dizzying combination of elements (not the least of which was 40+ years of animosity between the Raiders and the NFL) to pull off? Was it the back-to-back wins in Super Bowls XXXVIII and XXXIX?
No, claims Dan-O today. "The Patriots are going to beat the Indianapolis Colts in the playoffs Jan. 15 at the RCA Dome. Set aside the Super Bowls, Tuck Rule Games, and annual playoff conquests in Steeltown; in the long, lofty reign of His Hooded Holiness, this will be the greatest victory of them all."
I don't think I can summon the energy to point out all the things that are useless about this column. Let's just recall this column from June 26,, where Dan wrote:
It's OK to say it. Don't worry about jinxing them. The 2005 Red Sox are going to win the American League East. By a landslide. Come late September, this is going to look like Secretariat at the Belmont in 1973.
Sounds like he's a little behind on his Christmas shopping, so he just updated an old piece. Nice work.
Inane baseball reference alert: "In 1986, Red Sox lefthander Bruce Hurst missed more than a month in the middle of the season with a groin pull. The good part of the injury was that it enabled him to be strong in October when he pitched better than Roger Clemens, who was worn out after going 24-4. These Patriots in December (and January) look like Bruce Hurst in October of '86."
Inane basketball reference alert: "Remember when the 1969 old-guard Celtics finished in fourth place, then rallied in the playoffs and won Bill Russell's final championship? They beat a Lakers team that had Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, and Elgin Baylor. And they won Game 7 on the road. That's a little bit what this will be like."
Wow, talk about a cheap shot. You don't have to recall Dan's 6/26 column. He does so himself in the last paragraph (in the online edition, at least - dunno if it made the print edition).
ReplyDeleteHard to say whether that was Dan or his editor. Either way, the column was a rehashed work. Just like usual.
ReplyDelete