In a refreshing twist, Shank comes as
close to an apology that we've seen in ages:
Whoops.
OK, maybe I jumped the gun a little. I got caught up in the moment. On the eve of the Super Bowl, I wrote that Peyton Manning was better than Tom Brady. I was positively Peytonized. And as Rick Pitino once said, “that’s how I felt at the time.’’
Fortunately, this is sports and opinions change every day. Now that Manning lost the Super Bowl with his Favre-like pick six, he’s a mere .500 quarterback (9-9) in postseason play. He’s still two rings shy of Brady, who is 14-4 in NFL tournament play.
Reader feedback was constructive:
■“Dan - You are like a TV weatherman in New England. How much of the time are you really seriously right? Would you like some seasoning with your order of crow? Better luck next time.’’
■“I understand you got an assignment to write some usual BS for the Super Bowl. That’s how you get paid. But, you have to get into people’s nerves and create some controversy in order for some people to read your stuff; know that I am being polite with the word ‘stuff.’ ’’
You have to give Shank some credit here, right?
4 comments:
Roger - I give him marginal credit
His pom pom comment is smeared in condescension
He doesnt get it - he thinks this all reveals something less than desireable of his readers when in fact, its own shallow analysis and his penchant for jumping on the bandwagon that drives people insane
How you been man? Great work keeping this site going
Dave M
Not credit ... another lazy column form him. Instead of saying he was wrong or analyzing the game, he filled several paragraphs with responses to his poor prediction. I took the whole thing as a "look at what i have to put up with" column.
I give Shank some credit; I just wish the Mainstream Sports Media would face the fact that Brady, Steve McNair, Jake Delhommne, Ben Roethlisberger, Kurt Warner, and even Drew Bledsoe were/are better playoff quarterbacks than either Manning.
credit?...the lazy hack basicly had e-mailers write the column for him....and I agree with some of the others, it was sarcastic and reeked of condescension
Post a Comment