Sunday, March 01, 2009

Enough of this Crap

Shaughnessy is apparently in Florida covering the Red Sox but the Globe sports department felt the Cassel trade was a big enough story that we just absolutely needed to hear from the CHB on this one.  The result is an utter piece of meandering crap.  What the hell is Shaughnessy talking about?

He starts off with some notion that there is blind allegiance to Bill Belichick.  What?  The coach has won three Super Bowls and his decisions have turned out to be on target more often than not.  So is it really that absurd to conclude that "His Hoodiness" has built up some immunity and good will?  Even Shaughnessy admits that he was calling for Cassel to be cut at the end of preseason...Belichick turned out to make a pretty good decision by sticking with him, didn't he?  Belichick has certainly earned some benefit of the of the doubt over the years although that should not be confused with "blind allegiance" and the insipid attack at the beginning of today's column.

That being said, Shaughnessy has every right to examine and question the merits of this trade as (unfortunately for us) that is his job.   But he can't seem to make a coherent, consistent point.  He starts off with this blind allegiance b.s. but then drifts to this statement "Intellectually and strategically, this deals makes sense"  But then in the very next paragraph, he goes back on the trade and says it could be the football equivalent of Varitek and Lowe for Slocumb.  Yet, then he goes back to the idea that the Patriots have always been ruled by what makes sense on the field--no place for emotion.  (Isn't that the way a good business is supposed to be run?)  Yet, later he says "saying goodbye to Cassel is particularly risky."  Wait, what?  I guess no matter how this turns out for the Patriots, Shaughnessy can look back to this little gem of a column and say "I told you so."

Shaughnessy concludes with the biggest head scratcher of them all by suggesting that Bill Parcells is somehow behind the scenes on this one by virtue of the fact that he is the father in law of Pioli?  ("There is a smell of tuna in the air.") Shaughnessy, what the hell are you talking about?  Parcells has been Pioli's father in law for years...are you suggesting that Pioli has been working to undermine the Patriots for all these years? Or now that he is free of the clutches of Belichick that he is going to suddenly conspire with Parcells to screw the Patriots?  And exactly how are they going to conspire to do this?  It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  There is a smell of crap in the air and it's emanating from our self-plagiarizing, lazy, incoherent front page columnist.


Roger Bournival said...

I guess no matter how this turns out for the Patriots, Shaughnessy can look back to this little gem of a column and say "I told you so."

When he's on both sides of the fence, he's bound to be right, isn't he? As noted in previous postings, this is also accomplished by the nauseating deployment of the regal 'we' (emphasis mine):

Still, saying goodbye to Cassel is particularly risky because he's young (26) and he has what 'we' call "big upside." (Hubie Brown, call your lawyer! - ed.) A lot of 'us' wondered if Cassel belonged on the team at the end of the 2008 exhibition season, but when called to duty he completed 63.4 percent of his passes and threw for 3,693 yards and 21 touchdowns.

Oh, and he won 11 games, which almost always gets a team into the playoffs.

Cassel was so good, so much better than 'we' thought he would be, there was actually some notion that the Patriots should trade Brady and keep Cassel. True lunacy, right?

In this manner, he can take credit if things turn out as 'predicted'. If he's wrong, then "'we' were wrong".

Anonymous said...

I think he's gone insane.

Monkeesfan said...

"Information vacuum?" Shank, Brady's knee surgery was covered "head to toe;" the only thing missing was constant updating from the Patriots themselves, and no Shank, they have no responsibility to give you or Ron Borges or Felgie et al that kind of information until it's the right time to talk.

Shank clearly is trying to mock the "In Bill We Trust" cliche, but looking at his term with the Patriots it is impossible to find a decision Belichick made that was wrong --

Lawyer Milloy - Belichick lost the locker room for about one week, then they grew up (in part thanks to Rodney Harrison), realized Belichick was right, and won the next two Superbowls.

Adam Vinatieri - His mediocre production in Indianapolis shows he had no productive future in New England.

Deion Branch - Overrated as a receiver; he was the Superbowl two-shot wonder who averaged 684 yards of receptions per Patriots seasons, was unreliable in the playoffs once he arrived in Seattle (people still crucify Reche Caldwell for two drops against Indianapolis; Branch had at least three against the Cowboys that same playoffs), and may get cut.

Charlie Weis - No, Charlie Weis was not going to beat the Giants' pass rush, guys.

Romeo Crennell - See Weis.

Why are people supposed to be outraged that the Patriots only got one draft pick for Cassel and Vrabel? The Patriots know high draft picks are too much money invested in players who haven't yet taken an NFL snap.

And the "Bill Parcells is lurking behind the curtain" inference is pure Shankism.

Anonymous said...

I figured I would give Shank a chance today.....I made it for about 3 sentences, when I saw "blind allegiance" that was enough for me. This assclown can't write about the Patriots without taking diggs at Patriot fans....he just can't do it. I don't think he's ever written about the Pats without taking shots at the fans (or BB or Bob Kraft for that matter)....

Chris said...

My fortune cookie for CHB would simply read: "Rocky Mountain News.' Shaughnessy is particularly at risk because while he's a media hack, he's completely impotent in the 'other' media campe of TV and radio. There's no 'soft landing spot' for someone with Shaughnessy's annoyances. His only hope is to become a professor at some college. Thankfully.

Anonymous said...

Gratuitous shot at fans? Check.
Gratuitous shot at Belichick? Check.
Disingenuous, vague support for Belichick later in the column to cover ass? Check
Not a drop of insight, analysis, or wit? Check?
Dipshit, arcane reference to ancient Red Sox history? Check.

Vintage Dan.

Your pal,


Anonymous said...


You nailed it succinctly


Jerry Gutlon said...

I find it extremely telling that the Globe editorialists debunk (like that term, OB?) Dan's conspiracy theory in their editorial "Machiavelli of Foxborough."

Click on my name above to read the editorial!

mike_b1 said...

Jerry, you actually just nailed a big problem with the local sportswriting scene in general. They write for each other, not for the sports fans.