More Dan

Dan has the Plaxico Burress comment and the Patriots' reaction.

An Insightful and Original Column

Reading back that headline makes me laugh.

A google news search of "media day" and "super bowl" returns over 1,400 hits, a lot of which highlight the bizarre going ons. Dan mentioned Media Day as a circus twice yesterday. What does the bravest columnist write about today? The craziness that is Media Day.

Dan slips in a cute little comment about the weather, also. Fans despise hearing sports media members bitch about their situation while getting to cover the Super Bowl. Dan knows that and slips in a few sly references to the cold weather ("I wonder if he/she is cold"). Cute, Dan. You could be up here covering the Bruins.

Chat Wrap (or A Look Back at Dan Doing the Least Amount of Work in Order to Justify His Week in Arizona)

pesky4prez__Guest_
Hey Dan! Enough about Brady's foot. Enough about Moss's legal issues. Enough about girlfriends in the crowd. What is the biggest "football" issue nobody is talking about? I think the Giant's secondary -or lack thereof - is what will decide the game. Agreed?

Dan_Shaughnessy
you may be right. we don't know what the biggest football issue will be -- could be the giants running game vs. the pats old cagey linebackers. but there will be a lot of nonsense in the two weeks in between games -- none more than today at media day

Those are the words of Boston's Bravest Columnist. Basically, "I don't know." He's a columnist, he is paid to have opinions and that is what he comes up with.


I have said this before, but I don't understand how people are smart enough to find their way into a boston.com chat and ask halfway decent football questions and yet cannot realize the futility of asking Dan anything other than what Tom Brady had for breakfast or what Belichick said at a press conference attending by scores of other media members.

You can post your favorite answers in the comments below.

Dan on Belichick

Dan comments on the "different" Belichick that is on display in Arizona.

It's a look at Belichick's press conferences this week in which he seems to be revealing a more playful attitude.

The highlight of the article, though, is Dan's mention of a NYT article from yesterday. A good read about Belichick's memories of his time working for the New York Giants.

Dan Writes About His Crush

Dan loves talking about Tom Brady. Dan plays it cute, though. He mocks the New York media coverage of Brady, but it shows through that Dan really is interested in knowing what Brady ate during his stay in New York. Dan, what did you tell us about holding up athletes as heroes?

Another History Lesson

Today, Dan writes about Belichick and Coughlin's time together on the staff of Bill Parcells' New York Giants. Parcells provides a few quotes, nothing very revealing. Both are serious minded and don't talk much.

If you look at it more closely, the relationship reveals itself to be less interesting. Belichick was the defensive coordinator and spent over ten years either working with or for Parcells. Coughlin was a wide receivers coach and spent three years with Parcells. I am sure much more will be made out of these three seasons in two men's 30+ year careers.

All He Needed Was A Litttle Time

Dan has a full day to write a story and it shows. This little piece comes with a point. Dan gives us the history of the Giants-Patriots rivalry, making an interesting connection between it and the Harvard-Yale rivalry.

The piece includes an interesting story about the opening night of Schaefer Stadium and the history of the Giants in New England.

Dan Has Got Something to Tell You

People accuse Dan of being lazy, holding grudges, and displaying faulty logic. But most recognize that Dan can write well, regardless of the underlying sentiment or point. Today's column made me rethink that belief.

The Globe Sports' featured columnist (I cannot believe it either) begins the column with a series of one-, two-, or three-sentence paragraphs. Dan uses the word "history" six times in the first half of his column. A terrible, boring read, repeating the same thought over and over. The Patriots are close to perfection and making history, we all know that Dan. One of the most momentous occasions in Boston sports' history is celebrated with this bland recap. Why does the Globe do this to us?

Picked up useless pieces of trivia

Dan's "Picked Up Pieces" are not typically founts of knowledge, but today's example of lazy journalism is particularly empty. When the third item is that the Fenway Coke Bottles will be moved before next season, there isn't a whole lot of meat on those bones.

Dan leads by stating that Pats fans should have rooted for the Colts to win last Sunday, stating "Wouldn't that be like beating Derek Jeter and Friends en route to the 2004 World Series win?" A lamer argument has never been made. You play the teams you play. All that matters is winning the Super Bowl.

After an item revealing Shank's subconscious xenophobia ("Those foreigners with their hard to pronounce names. How wacky!"), an item about two things nobody cares about (Boston Magazine and Charlie Jacobs), Dan states he found out why he is not going to Beijing to cover the Olympics. Is it because CHB shows no interest in any other sport than basketball and has no interest in learning about or appreciating any other sport? Of course not! That would mean Shank is much more self aware than he has ever shown himself to be. Rather its because Dan is too critical for the sensibilities of the Chinese government. Funny joke, Dan.

Dan goes on to finish up with his typical flotsam: a dig at sabermetrics; a lot of items about people you don't know or care about; and dated references.

I made it to the end of the piece because that's my job, that's what I do, but I challenge any of you to get past the fourth item. Good luck!!

Multiple Recaps

The Globe sent its press corps in full force to Foxboro last night...Dan writes what appears to be one of two game recaps...there is one by Gasper and there is Shank's. I think the editors got bored with Shaughnessy's because they go with his recount up through the first drive of the second half and then the article is mysteriously truncated with a classic Shank ending, "Bring on the [insert team name here]" I doubt they intended Shank to write a game recap and maybe once they realized what he was doing, they cut him off and decided to end it peacefully.

Nevertheless, we are treated to Shaughnessy classics...the aforementioned "Bring on the X"; a reference to the Red Sox; the use of "History Boys"; a use of "Mssrs", and a description of how the hoodie was worn.

Jim Rice, again

It has been an extra special Christmas season for Dan. He can repeatedly blather on about two topics, Roger and Roids; and Rice and the Hall of Fame.

Today it is a combination of the two.

I don't think Rice belongs in the HoF. Too many mediocre or stinker seasons ('80-'81; '87-'89), too short of a career, and an unimpressive defensive reputation. But Dan will say anything and throw out any stat to support Rice's campaign.

He was the dominant slugger of his time, a man capable of inducing an intentional walk when the bases were loaded. He amassed more than 400 total bases when he was MVP in 1978. He hit 35 homers with 200 hits in three straight seasons. He was more feared that Tony Perez, who is in the Hall of Fame.

That statement says it all. He was feared, he had three very good seasons. But that is it. Jim Rice may have been the dominant slugger of the late '70s, but when do players get into the Hall based on three seasons? Mike Schmidt was the dominant slugger over Rice's career.

Dan tops it all off by stating that Rice "knows he was a better hitter than former teammates Perez and Wade Boggs."

Two things:
1) If Dan thinks that Rice was a better hitter than Boggs, he has lost all credibility regarding baseball analysis.
2) The argument "If player A is in the Hall, than Player B should be" is tremendously weak and would lead to absurd results. Every player needs to be considered individually and not against the worst selections in the Hall.

Dan ends with more Roger bashing. Yawn.

Roger Clemens, Take 3

With the publication of the Mitchell Report, Dan supported Roger. A few days later, Dan was disbelieving.

After last night's "60 Minutes" interview, Dan thinks Roger "looks dirty." Well, if he says so!

I didn't see it. And I don't get the overall criticism of his performance. He is doing what sportswriters always clamor for, an athlete stepping up and facing his accusers without hiding behind lawyers or written statements. Now that Roger does it, he looks guilty. You can spin it any way. If you believe Roger is guilty of the accusations, then you think he sounded or looked guilty.

TV Watching

Dan explores how a few of the Patriots will spend the weekend watching NFL playoff games.
Even by the low standards Dan has previously established, today's column is particularly bad.

This is one of these columns where you have got to wonder if Globe management and senior editors ask themselves, "Is this really the guy we give top billing to?" As a reader, I find myself constantly asking "How is it possible that a person be paid so handsomely for producing such mindless and condescending drivel?" Heck, I imagine that even Objective Bruce is sitting back thinking, "Not even I can defend this piece of garbage".

Shaughnessy criticizes Belichick for being evasive about his plans for watching this weekend's games after Belichick says yeah "I'll definitely watch it..." How is that evasive? Just because Coach Bill can't/won't describe where he is going to watch the game, Shaughnessy rips him. Shank, while it may be the case that you have loads of time to plan your game watching, does it occur to you that Belichick has a few more higher priorities than you and hasnt given much though to where he will watch the game? Can you blame Belichick for being a smart ass?

Shaughnessy concludes with one of his typical condescending, insult the reader lines when he says:

So there. This weekend you are just the same as Richard Seymour. You are glued to the TV, watching football. Your heroes are doing the same thing as you. If you are a Patriots fan, this should make you feel warm all over.

If you have read Shaughnessy long enough, you know he despises when adults worship professional athletes (his constant criticism of 40 year olds who wear Schilling jerseys). In this context, Shaughnessy's last line is just another in a long line of sarcastic jabs at his readers
--By the way, Dan, I am a Patriots fan and it does not make me feel warm all over when you tell me that professional football players watch professional football games on TV--is this some great revelation on your part?

What is really ironic is that once again Dan makes a jab at his readers for their hero worship and yet he writes a column that perpetuates a characterization of athletes as being a different breed -doesnt the fact that he feels compelled to describe the TV watching habits of pro athletes feed this hero worship fire?

Tomorrow's News Today

Dan trying his best to be funny.

You can be the judge.

Before you read it, try to think of all the Dan cliches that will be present. I don't think you will be disappointed