In classic Shaughnessy "contradiction speak", he says,
It's always a mistake to read too much into an early playoff series.
and yet the whole column itself is Shaughnessy reading too much into an early playoff series. Idiot.
And my favorite line is this
Now we have the New Three and a championship-caliber team that has yet to
win a playoff series or a road playoff game.
Well, seeing how this is the first series that the "New Three" has played, of
course they have yet to win a playoff series.
Idiot.
Now we have the New Three and a championship-caliber team that has yet to win a playoff series or a road playoff game.
ReplyDeleteWell, seeing how this is the first series that the "New Three" has played, of course they have yet to win a playoff series.
IDIOT.
Right on - why let facts get in the way of a good SHANK?
After all these years, I still can't believe CHB has kept his job, who's the bigger idiot SHANK or his employer?
ReplyDeleteDid ObtuseBruce take a Globe buyout, or has he just finally realized that we were right about Shaughnessy all along?
ReplyDeleteShaughnessy is the Rev. Wright of Boston sports media...minus the $10m mansion in a gated, white community in Chicago.
Shaghnessy's must be in Weston instead.
He wrote the same column three times in a row. Real bleeping interesting.
ReplyDeleteIt won't be long....with his hair, all Shank has to do is buy a pair of Big Floppy Shoes and he can join the circus...
ReplyDeleteHe's a douche....He goes on about the Celtics deficiencies saying it's fashionable to say they are old and not athletic. When, as a writer, that's a perfect time to cut those theories down. Isn't everyone the same age in Boston as they are in Atlanta? Can you jump as high and run as fast in Atlanta as you can in Boston? Then why did the Celtics win every game by an average of over 20 in Boston? What? Hawks can jump in Atlanta but not in Boston? They get older when they go north? If anything, the criticism should be the Celtics can't win on the road, which isn't really that valid, because this team has had a grand total of 2 road games to its resume. But he's so in a hurry to write something, anything, that he misses the true story (invalid criticisms). Because he's a douche.
ReplyDeleteShaughnessy was dead-on right and that's not based on rhetoric, it's based on fact.
ReplyDeleteChampionship basketball teams shouldn't be taken to a game seven against the worst seed. Ever. Yeah, yeah, yeah, someone is right now running to the archives to try to find one that was. Who cares if there was? The series has been a disappointment even if it ends in victory.
Shaughnessy spoke truths that the jock-sniffers don't want to hear.
He was dead-on right.
What we have here are the mom's basement fanboys all upset because Shaughnessy dared to raise questions about how their faves have been playing. He's not on the program. Why he should be rooting for Our Heroes and to fail to root for Our Heroes makes him a bad person, makes the Globe a real newspaper and means newspapers won't survive. All because he isn't rooting for Our Heroes.
I've heard it all before (except without the particular moronic and infantile description of the columnist as "douche." Whatever that means.)
Idiots.
OB
ReplyDeleteYou truly are a moron arent you? Gosh, it is good to have you back! Where have you been? How are Sam and Kate doing?
Face it, the two lines I pulled from Shaughnessy's column were completely idiotic. So the big three have not won a playoff series and not won a road game. Then again, they haven't lost a series and they are perfect at home aren't they. What the hell is the point in a statement like that? Really, it's is a stupid space filler and has not a damn thing to do with whether he is criticizing the team or praising because I could give a rat's ass if he cheers the home team or not. I really could not care less. What I despise are the moronic statements he spews and is still somehow recognized as an award winning journalist. It is a joke
Oh yeah the other line..."it's always a mistake to read too much into a first round playoff series." Who said that you twit? Your boy Shaughnessy did in a column in which he does exactly what he says is a mistake to do. I did not say it. He did. It is LAZINESS; it is STUPIDITY; it is "mail it in journalism so I can get to the TV studio in time to do my other job."
I could write a better column in a half hour and still work 60 to 70 hours a week in my regular job than this hack of a sportswriter
Dave M
1. Saying that it's a mistake to read too much into an early playoff series is a caveat. It is to say, a bad early playoff series (and this most assuredly is one) doesn't mean disaster, but there are signs here that are disturbing.
ReplyDelete2. The New Three have raised expectations to the level where people are dreaming about a new banner. His point is, and I think he makes it well, these three still have something to prove before being considered the latter day equivalent of Bird, McHale and Parish, or of Havlicek, Silas and Cowens, or of even Russell, Howell and Sanders (look them up.) It's a rather common observation that a player/team "hasn't won" even when they have a great record but haven't nailed down the ultimate prize.
Didn't you learn anything from the Patsies' historic choke just three short months ago? They were being proclaimed perhaps the greatest ever, even before the Superbowl was played. By your absurd logic, anyone cautioning that it was too early to make such pronouncements was an "idiot" because the game hadn't been played when the caution flag was raised that the team hadn't won anything yet.
OB,
ReplyDeleteDo you read what you write?
"Championship basketball teams shouldn't be taken to a game seven against the worst seed. Ever.
"Saying that it's a mistake to read too much into an early playoff series is a caveat. It is to say, a bad early playoff series (and this most assuredly is one) doesn't mean disaster, but there are signs here that are disturbing."
So what is it? Is it a disaster or is it disturbing? Two very different conclusions.
"The New Three have raised expectations to the level where people are dreaming about a new banner. His point is, and I think he makes it well, these three still have something to prove before being considered the latter day equivalent of Bird, McHale and Parish, or of Havlicek, Silas and Cowens, or of even Russell, Howell and Sanders (look them up.)
He spends two paragraphs at the very end of this column on this topic. It is hardly germane to the rest of the BS column. I am so glad we have you here to tell us what Shank really means when his columns are such crap.
isn't it obvious?...."objectivebruce" IS SHANK...god, how pathetic....
ReplyDeleteLMAO at Bruce....he talks about "Jock-Sniffers"...jeeze, HIS HEAD is so far up Shanks azz it ain't funny...I think that's Bruce's problem, he's a frustrated wannabe sportswriter....Shank must be his hero
ReplyDelete