Thursday, October 28, 2010

Dan, Dan, Bandwagon Man

Shank continues to ride the wave of good Patriots tidings, at least until their next loss. Shank picks up on the PR ineptness of Minnesota Vikings coach Brad Childress:

He tugs on Super Coach’s cape, reminding the world that the Patriots were cheaters back in the days when they thrashed the Vikings (31-7) on “Monday Night Football’’ four years ago.

Brilliant, Brad. Why not give Bill Belichick a little more incentive before a game that could effectively end your season on Halloween?

Strange. So strange. Must be the season of the witch.

This is what Childress said Monday:

“I’m mindful of the last time we faced them here, on ‘Monday Night Football.’ It was like a surgical procedure. These were some of the all-time great signal stealers. In fact, that’s what was going on. They were holding, holding, holding. We were signaling from the sideline. They were good at it. It’s like stealing signals from the catcher.’’
Jim Croce and Donovan quote lameness aside, does anyone else find it amusing that Shank, with all his dumping on coach Bill Belichick, now reveres him? This guy's hypocrisy knows no bounds. Of course, that will change in short order.

But wait - there's more! Check out the false bravado (Shank is such a mush):

Still, I had to give it a shot. I had to demonstrate some false hustle and do the fool’s errand. Knowing it was like building a sand castle before high tide, I drove to Foxborough.

Near the end of Belichick’s always-wacky media session, I asked, “What’s your reaction when you hear an opposing coach talking about games in 2006 and stealing signals?’’

“I’m not really too worried about 2006,’’ deadpanned Bill. “I’m worried about this Sunday against Minnesota. I’m not worried about next Sunday, last Sunday, ’06, ’02, ’89. Really, it’s just Sunday.’’

OK, that’s not exactly the same as saying, “I hate the guy with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns,’’ but I sensed a little something between the lines of his non-answer. So I went back with, “What would motivate a coach to do that?’’

“I don’t know,’’ he said patiently. “Really, I’m just trying to coach this team and get ready for the Vikings. You’ll have to talk to other coaches. I don’t know.’’

(Tom Landry, George Halas, and Amos Alonzo Stagg did not return my calls.)

Giving it one more try, I offered, “As a policy for yourself, do you ever go back and talk about past games?’’

“We’ve talked about some other games before,’’ he said (he was grinning a little now). “But really, my focus is the Minnesota Vikings on Sunday afternoon. That’s what I’m here for.’’

Then he smiled, exited stage right, and said, “Is that what you were looking for?’’

Enough with the foolish questions about the desperate coach. It was time for the serious man to go to work.
My only surprise - Belichick not beating Shank with an axe handle. Finish the column off with yet another Brady Gaga reference (You're so lame, I can't believe this column's about you), and it's another fish wrap with Bruce M's favourite boring broadsheet.


Anonymous said...

Da Shank Talking ‘Bout Hiss elf:

If you read many of his articles The Shank always has some Freudian lip in there about himself. In this article he states that he is:

- "false hustle and do the fool’s errand"

- "Enough with (my) the foolish questions"

Here are what others are saying on other sites:

litprof wrote:
Actually, Shaughnessy's column is misleading. Childress also said, ""It’s something that we do as well. It’s good for one; it’s good for the other."

Get that? He just admitted it was common practice, and that his team did it too.

bedwards1216 wrote:
Shaughnessy you hack! You stole this angle from me right out of the comments section from a couple of days ago. Only you did it with far more unnecessary verbiage (link below... mine is the first comment on the article).

"Cripes, at least give me credit!"

So Shank is not that original.


Monkeesfan said...

So Tom Landry et al didn't return Shank's calls - did he call Jerry Glanville?

Monkeesfan said...

DAMN! How could I have missed the Carly Simon reference at the end of this piece? It's funnier than when Shank tries to shoehorn such references into his piece.