The column started out innocently enough, looking like Shank did his usual column preparation of 'sampling' local sports opinion and passing it off as his own. In this column, however, Shank writes something so phenomenally ignorant, wrong and flat-out stupid, it should settle for all time any argument about Shank having any editorial oversight whatsoever (emphasis mine):
The Patriots were cuffed around by the Giants and Bills and needed miracles to come up with two victories to get to 10-0. This is not a workable formula for success. Ordinarily, winning football games comes down to talent and execution, not the time-tested Patriot way of waiting for the other guy to fall down.Barely acknowledging the rash of Patriot injuries, it is truly incredible that any 'professional' sports writer can pen such drivel about a team who a) are arguably the best team in football, b) just happens to be the defending Super Bowl champions and 3) who have won 25 of their previous 33 games and assert that this team is bereft of talent and cannot execute plays. Coach Belichick has been preaching 'Do Your Job' for years and we're supposed to take the word of a Boston Globe sports columnist that they're not doing this?
If they want to advance to the Super Bowl, the wounded Patriots can’t simply rely on the brilliance of Bill Belichick, the clutch play of Brady, and the abject mediocrity of the AFC. You actually have to be a good team.
Then again, maybe Shank's just trolling us again?
Not to go all Trent Dilfer on you, but how good are the Patriots right now? They have no running game and no deep threats. Their offensive line has been awful. The defense looked strong in midseason, but lately they can’t stop the run (certainly not without Dont’a Hightower) and they have little pass rush.Funny how these things were never mentioned by Shank until they lost two games, isn't it?
That's enough idiocy for this blogger in this column; you masochists can read on...
9 comments:
its been a long time since i have posted. glad to see you are still going strong roger.
i cant believe the hall of fame saw fit to vote for Shaughnessy for inclusion. That is pathetic.
Congratulations to Dan Shauaghnessy on winning the writer's award to be presented at the Hall of Fame induction ceremony in July. It is certainly an appropriate milestone in a long career, well-regarded by people of discernment.
As for the slobbering boys in mom's basement who want sportswriters to plant a warm wet one on the backside of the athletes they so passionately idolize: Maybe you should show some objectivity (you clearly don't want it from writers and broadcasters) and say congratulations.
ObjectiveBruce
Since you mentioned slobbering: The Spink Award is writers giving each other awards under the guise of real accomplishment. I didn't see the press release: Did Shank win for being the drunkest racist at last year's banquet?
As for "objectivity," folks like you shouldn't use words you don't understand.
ObjectiveBruce, glad to see that you are still in your island cave fighting WWII.
dbvader
Bill Conlin is now the 2nd most reprehensible recipient of the Spink award.
Objective Bruce - Dan was voted in by his peers - who are all equally as lazy as him. It's a big week for the Shank's - 4th Anniversary of the 3.2 bac Kid getting lugged in Brookline for a and b on a Brookline cop.
Bruce M***, a former Globie who now writes for this place, deigns to lecture us unwashed plebes and basement-dwelling blogger boys on the importance of this most recent event:
Congratulations to Dan Shauaghnessy (whoops! - ed.) on winning the writer's award to be presented at the Hall of Fame induction ceremony in July. It is certainly an appropriate milestone in a long career, well-regarded by people of discernment.
Copy desk - get me rewrite!
You meant millstone, didn't you?
You are aware, Bruce, that such awards seem to many as nothing more than a self-congratulatory group issuing a lifetime achievement award, which is already being mocked and criticized?
As for the slobbering boys in mom's basement who want sportswriters to plant a warm wet one on the backside of the athletes they so passionately idolize: Maybe you should show some objectivity (you clearly don't want it from writers and broadcasters) and say congratulations.
Congratulations for calling David Ortiz 'a sad sack of you-know-what'?
Congratulations for mocking Jeff Stone?
Congratulations on the infamous Dirty Laundry column?
I could go on and one, but we'll just have to do a post on all of it and mock & criticize it ourselves, won't we? Yeehaw!
P.S. - I have a new client on Warren Street in your town, just off the Parkway. You're just a few blocks away - want to do lunch sometime and get better acquainted?
Why would I mean millstone?
Bruce who? You're afraid to say who you claim I am.
Did you notice that nowhere in The Globe's coverage of Shaughnessy's award does it claim he has been chosen to be "inducted" into the Hall of Fame but you eagerly link to those refer to it thus, again proving your ignorance.
But funniest of all of your desperate, but failed, attempts to remain relevant is to trot out alleged 13 year old quotes and an 11 year old column that was, and remains, an exceptional piece of reporting.
You also link to some incoherent nonsense from some site that says the Shaugnnessy watch is still "going strong." Actually, it has slipped into obscurity, receiving attention when, and only when, I deign to call you on your smarmy nonsense.
Bruce who? You. Don't. Have. The. Guts.
Love,
ObjectiveBruce
So, no lunch then?
Post a Comment