So, after nine months of passive-aggressive shots at Bill Belichick, Dan goes back to Foxboro for a press conference and to tell us how great Belichick is.
It's a bunch of quotations interspersed with Dan's comments about how Belichick isn't telling us what he is really thinking. Of course, none of these quotations have anything to do with the play on the field, just the general tripe that lazy sportswriters love to dwell on when they don't know what they are talking about.
And Dan sure proves that last point by dwelling on the height of the Patriots' defensive backfield. Note to Dan: Most every DB in the NFL, especially CB's, are short.
8 comments:
Dan harps on "a defensive backfield of smurfs and never-weres." Apparantly like Felger he thinks flanker positions trump the trenches in terms of winning football games - sooree (to use a Felgerism) Dan, the trenches always trump the flanks, on both sides of the ball.
and you thought Shank was ignorant when it came to baseball?....He's twice as ignorant when it comes to football.....just a horrible sportswriter
So, what's the problem with this column?
It's hard to tell what the complaint is, other than "we don't like 'shank,'", "'shank' is bad," and "'shank' wrote it, therefore it is bad. Now let me plug-in one of my many worn-out arguments so I can make myself feel really, really important."
You people complain about Shaughnessy being lazy and then post a pathetic, cliche-riddled, knee-jerk, name-calling, rant such as this?
It's a good column, about what is fast becoming a major NFL story this year, how the Patsies continue to win while being hit with injuries that strike to the core of the team. The column looks to the obvious reason the team continues to win, the coaching and the "system," and provides some insight in to the coach's thinking as he deals with major injury problems.
Look at the team, people. They may not win it all this year, but this has the potential to be Belechick's best coaching job, and Shaughnessy is providing insight into the thinking that may very well elevate a team decimated by injury to something of a Cindarella story by the team the season is over.
And you morons want discussins of Xs and Os.
If you want to act as a critic, then act as a critic, raise points about the column and the manner in which it is written that are grounded in something other than pure hatred (or is it jealousy?).
But even the most ardent Shaughnessy-hater must find this spit-back juvenile exercise rather tiresome as it is clearly the product of the very same sort of intellectual laziness it seeks to condemn.
I'm with OB here; this is an excellent and much-needed column.
Bruce, the problem was it didn't tell us anything worth reading. Shank provided no insight into anything - insight means some examination of Matt Cassel's game, of how Randy Moss is working with Cassel for the betterment of his and the team's game, of how the defense has stepped up after the twin debacles of Miami and San Diego and how they purged the Denver demon - hey, The Denver Demon; Shank, it's a cliche! Run with it! - and so forth.
This is something of which Shaughnessy has no capability because it requires a talent level beyond what he has.
Stop lecturing us about insight when Shank offers none.
OB,
1) It's ignorant. The Patriot DB's are not particularly small. The best Patriot corners over the last decade were listed at 5-10 and 5-11. Calling the current players "smurfs" is way off base.
2) It is all speculation about what Dan wants to hear and believe.
3) It is hypocritical of Dan to rip Belichick in a passive-aggressive manner then one day write a glowing profile.
Check out these recent statements:
"Just because Francona doesn't intimidate people or try to portray himself as a genius, is that any reason to diminish what the man has done?"
That was two sentences after mentioning Belichick.
"It's been well-documented that Belichick's genius seemed to start around the same time Brady became his quarterback."
Yet in this piece, Dan writes:
"The boss himself wasn't having any part of an attempt to underscore his real acts of genius."
4) It is no great insight that Belichick takes each season, each game as a unique challenge. It's what he does. As I read somewhere else, last year would be forgotten no matter what happened. BB doesn't dwell.
5) So with really nothing to add, Dan strings together a bunch of quotations and never really adds anything. Stuff that takes place on the field and in preparation for it, and not obvious generalities, is what would be interesting.
Shaughnessy isn't given private time with anyone from any team; he has burned too many bridges. His appearances at team press events are rather infrequent, and then only under cover of 'friendlies' from the media. He really is the Boston version of Chicago's Jay Marriotti; both of them are so despised within their supposed sphere of influence, coverage, and geography that they paint a very, very sad picture of loneliness.
ahhhhh yes, ObjectiveDouche. Don't let anybody tell you that you don't have a FIRM GRASP OF THE OBVIOUS. We don't like Shank around here.
Post a Comment