More Dan

Dan has the Plaxico Burress comment and the Patriots' reaction.

An Insightful and Original Column

Reading back that headline makes me laugh.

A google news search of "media day" and "super bowl" returns over 1,400 hits, a lot of which highlight the bizarre going ons. Dan mentioned Media Day as a circus twice yesterday. What does the bravest columnist write about today? The craziness that is Media Day.

Dan slips in a cute little comment about the weather, also. Fans despise hearing sports media members bitch about their situation while getting to cover the Super Bowl. Dan knows that and slips in a few sly references to the cold weather ("I wonder if he/she is cold"). Cute, Dan. You could be up here covering the Bruins.

Chat Wrap (or A Look Back at Dan Doing the Least Amount of Work in Order to Justify His Week in Arizona)

pesky4prez__Guest_
Hey Dan! Enough about Brady's foot. Enough about Moss's legal issues. Enough about girlfriends in the crowd. What is the biggest "football" issue nobody is talking about? I think the Giant's secondary -or lack thereof - is what will decide the game. Agreed?

Dan_Shaughnessy
you may be right. we don't know what the biggest football issue will be -- could be the giants running game vs. the pats old cagey linebackers. but there will be a lot of nonsense in the two weeks in between games -- none more than today at media day

Those are the words of Boston's Bravest Columnist. Basically, "I don't know." He's a columnist, he is paid to have opinions and that is what he comes up with.


I have said this before, but I don't understand how people are smart enough to find their way into a boston.com chat and ask halfway decent football questions and yet cannot realize the futility of asking Dan anything other than what Tom Brady had for breakfast or what Belichick said at a press conference attending by scores of other media members.

You can post your favorite answers in the comments below.

Dan on Belichick

Dan comments on the "different" Belichick that is on display in Arizona.

It's a look at Belichick's press conferences this week in which he seems to be revealing a more playful attitude.

The highlight of the article, though, is Dan's mention of a NYT article from yesterday. A good read about Belichick's memories of his time working for the New York Giants.

Dan Writes About His Crush

Dan loves talking about Tom Brady. Dan plays it cute, though. He mocks the New York media coverage of Brady, but it shows through that Dan really is interested in knowing what Brady ate during his stay in New York. Dan, what did you tell us about holding up athletes as heroes?

Another History Lesson

Today, Dan writes about Belichick and Coughlin's time together on the staff of Bill Parcells' New York Giants. Parcells provides a few quotes, nothing very revealing. Both are serious minded and don't talk much.

If you look at it more closely, the relationship reveals itself to be less interesting. Belichick was the defensive coordinator and spent over ten years either working with or for Parcells. Coughlin was a wide receivers coach and spent three years with Parcells. I am sure much more will be made out of these three seasons in two men's 30+ year careers.

All He Needed Was A Litttle Time

Dan has a full day to write a story and it shows. This little piece comes with a point. Dan gives us the history of the Giants-Patriots rivalry, making an interesting connection between it and the Harvard-Yale rivalry.

The piece includes an interesting story about the opening night of Schaefer Stadium and the history of the Giants in New England.

Dan Has Got Something to Tell You

People accuse Dan of being lazy, holding grudges, and displaying faulty logic. But most recognize that Dan can write well, regardless of the underlying sentiment or point. Today's column made me rethink that belief.

The Globe Sports' featured columnist (I cannot believe it either) begins the column with a series of one-, two-, or three-sentence paragraphs. Dan uses the word "history" six times in the first half of his column. A terrible, boring read, repeating the same thought over and over. The Patriots are close to perfection and making history, we all know that Dan. One of the most momentous occasions in Boston sports' history is celebrated with this bland recap. Why does the Globe do this to us?

Picked up useless pieces of trivia

Dan's "Picked Up Pieces" are not typically founts of knowledge, but today's example of lazy journalism is particularly empty. When the third item is that the Fenway Coke Bottles will be moved before next season, there isn't a whole lot of meat on those bones.

Dan leads by stating that Pats fans should have rooted for the Colts to win last Sunday, stating "Wouldn't that be like beating Derek Jeter and Friends en route to the 2004 World Series win?" A lamer argument has never been made. You play the teams you play. All that matters is winning the Super Bowl.

After an item revealing Shank's subconscious xenophobia ("Those foreigners with their hard to pronounce names. How wacky!"), an item about two things nobody cares about (Boston Magazine and Charlie Jacobs), Dan states he found out why he is not going to Beijing to cover the Olympics. Is it because CHB shows no interest in any other sport than basketball and has no interest in learning about or appreciating any other sport? Of course not! That would mean Shank is much more self aware than he has ever shown himself to be. Rather its because Dan is too critical for the sensibilities of the Chinese government. Funny joke, Dan.

Dan goes on to finish up with his typical flotsam: a dig at sabermetrics; a lot of items about people you don't know or care about; and dated references.

I made it to the end of the piece because that's my job, that's what I do, but I challenge any of you to get past the fourth item. Good luck!!

Multiple Recaps

The Globe sent its press corps in full force to Foxboro last night...Dan writes what appears to be one of two game recaps...there is one by Gasper and there is Shank's. I think the editors got bored with Shaughnessy's because they go with his recount up through the first drive of the second half and then the article is mysteriously truncated with a classic Shank ending, "Bring on the [insert team name here]" I doubt they intended Shank to write a game recap and maybe once they realized what he was doing, they cut him off and decided to end it peacefully.

Nevertheless, we are treated to Shaughnessy classics...the aforementioned "Bring on the X"; a reference to the Red Sox; the use of "History Boys"; a use of "Mssrs", and a description of how the hoodie was worn.

Jim Rice, again

It has been an extra special Christmas season for Dan. He can repeatedly blather on about two topics, Roger and Roids; and Rice and the Hall of Fame.

Today it is a combination of the two.

I don't think Rice belongs in the HoF. Too many mediocre or stinker seasons ('80-'81; '87-'89), too short of a career, and an unimpressive defensive reputation. But Dan will say anything and throw out any stat to support Rice's campaign.

He was the dominant slugger of his time, a man capable of inducing an intentional walk when the bases were loaded. He amassed more than 400 total bases when he was MVP in 1978. He hit 35 homers with 200 hits in three straight seasons. He was more feared that Tony Perez, who is in the Hall of Fame.

That statement says it all. He was feared, he had three very good seasons. But that is it. Jim Rice may have been the dominant slugger of the late '70s, but when do players get into the Hall based on three seasons? Mike Schmidt was the dominant slugger over Rice's career.

Dan tops it all off by stating that Rice "knows he was a better hitter than former teammates Perez and Wade Boggs."

Two things:
1) If Dan thinks that Rice was a better hitter than Boggs, he has lost all credibility regarding baseball analysis.
2) The argument "If player A is in the Hall, than Player B should be" is tremendously weak and would lead to absurd results. Every player needs to be considered individually and not against the worst selections in the Hall.

Dan ends with more Roger bashing. Yawn.

Roger Clemens, Take 3

With the publication of the Mitchell Report, Dan supported Roger. A few days later, Dan was disbelieving.

After last night's "60 Minutes" interview, Dan thinks Roger "looks dirty." Well, if he says so!

I didn't see it. And I don't get the overall criticism of his performance. He is doing what sportswriters always clamor for, an athlete stepping up and facing his accusers without hiding behind lawyers or written statements. Now that Roger does it, he looks guilty. You can spin it any way. If you believe Roger is guilty of the accusations, then you think he sounded or looked guilty.

TV Watching

Dan explores how a few of the Patriots will spend the weekend watching NFL playoff games.
Even by the low standards Dan has previously established, today's column is particularly bad.

This is one of these columns where you have got to wonder if Globe management and senior editors ask themselves, "Is this really the guy we give top billing to?" As a reader, I find myself constantly asking "How is it possible that a person be paid so handsomely for producing such mindless and condescending drivel?" Heck, I imagine that even Objective Bruce is sitting back thinking, "Not even I can defend this piece of garbage".

Shaughnessy criticizes Belichick for being evasive about his plans for watching this weekend's games after Belichick says yeah "I'll definitely watch it..." How is that evasive? Just because Coach Bill can't/won't describe where he is going to watch the game, Shaughnessy rips him. Shank, while it may be the case that you have loads of time to plan your game watching, does it occur to you that Belichick has a few more higher priorities than you and hasnt given much though to where he will watch the game? Can you blame Belichick for being a smart ass?

Shaughnessy concludes with one of his typical condescending, insult the reader lines when he says:

So there. This weekend you are just the same as Richard Seymour. You are glued to the TV, watching football. Your heroes are doing the same thing as you. If you are a Patriots fan, this should make you feel warm all over.

If you have read Shaughnessy long enough, you know he despises when adults worship professional athletes (his constant criticism of 40 year olds who wear Schilling jerseys). In this context, Shaughnessy's last line is just another in a long line of sarcastic jabs at his readers
--By the way, Dan, I am a Patriots fan and it does not make me feel warm all over when you tell me that professional football players watch professional football games on TV--is this some great revelation on your part?

What is really ironic is that once again Dan makes a jab at his readers for their hero worship and yet he writes a column that perpetuates a characterization of athletes as being a different breed -doesnt the fact that he feels compelled to describe the TV watching habits of pro athletes feed this hero worship fire?

Tomorrow's News Today

Dan trying his best to be funny.

You can be the judge.

Before you read it, try to think of all the Dan cliches that will be present. I don't think you will be disappointed

History!

Dan provides the game story from the Patriots record-setting, history-making win over the Giants. Why Dan gets to lead the coverage is puzzling but then again, I sort of expected it.

As of 0934, the online version of the story had at least three typos/missed words...that is really more the editor's fault than it is Dan's though. Will see if they clean that up.

Shaughnessy's recap is fair enough but it is filled with the classic Shaughnessy formula.

- Calls the Patriots "Bill Belichick's History Boys"

- Bruce Springsteen reference or was it a mafia reference? (He liked that Boss scored a touchdown before half and says always "Beware of Boss in the Meadowlands")...

- Got a good rip in on Moss for the excess celebrating after the first TD. I agree with Shaughnessy to a large extent - I despise showboating but is Shaughnessy reaching by blaming the ensuing Giant's TD kickoff return on Moss's penalty?

- A reference to the Grumpy Old Men (72 Dolphins) and no champagne for them. If the Patriots are fortunate enough to win the SB, I hope that puts to end all champagne references for eternity. (Heaven forbid we hear about the Sons of Belichick sipping champagne in 2037)

Dave M

Dan and the Hall of Fame

Dan presents his votes for Cooperstown. Jim Rice's bona fides are the focus of the article.

There has already been some debate on the subject in the previous comments section and baseballthinkfactory.org has many threads on the issue. My point of view is that Jim was a great slugger for a while, but he was not the dominant offensive force over an extended period that makes a player great. Combine that with an average defensive reputation, you get a very good player, not a Hall of Famer.

Dan mentions that the presence of McGwire on the ballot will affect voters' perception of Rice. I sure hope not as it would be more proof of the stupidity of baseball writers. If Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer now, he was one back in 1994. It shouldn't have changed because of what a bunch of players have done over the last 10 years.

Grumpy Old Men

As the Dolphins prepare to visit New England this weekend and as the Patriots prepare to eclipse the regular season perfect mark of 14-0, Shaughnessy dusts off the tired old tale of the grumpy/champagne-cork popping curmudgeons of the NFL's only perfect team, the 1972 Miami Dolphins.

The only freshness in an otherwise stale piece is the perspective of some of the ex-Dolphins on the Patriots (Seau and Evans) as they discuss how the streak is viewed in Miami. Also, he does discuss how Belichick has great respect for the 72 team and that he had dinner with Shula in the off-season.

In a typical Shaughnessy closing line convention, he concludes "But Belichick and the Patriots know that it's going to take 19-0 to overtake the '72 fish." Thanks for the insight.

Dan Brings It

Get Dan interested in something and he usually writes a decent column. Today is no exception.

Although, today is another in a string of Celtics column in which Dan devotes larges chunks of them to telling stories about Red. The stories are usually interesting, but they often come across as space fillers and a chance for Dan to show off how much he knows about the dearly departed.

Sometimes he doesn't know whether he's coming or going.

It took Dan less than a week to flip flop on his opinions regarding the Mitchell Report and, specifically, Roger Clemens.

12/14/07:

"There was much gum-flapping after the release of the report, and debate will rage forever. No one will be satisfied, but here in Boston and across Baseball America, we know the biggest loser of Dec. 13, 2007, was Roger Clemens.

The Rocket's résumé was flushed down the toilet yesterday when he was dimed out by a report that relies heavily on witnesses of questionable credibility. The report holds that Clemens was a steroid guy, starting in 1998 and continuing through two years with the Yankees (2000-01). The juicy disclosure might not hold up in court...

Clemens sounds like a man ready to fight. He didn't have an ounce of Mark McGwire in him when he issued his denial last night through his attorney....

Why name names? Why sign on to such an obviously incomplete report (Mitchell did not have subpoena powers and almost 100 percent of the ballplayers told him to take a hike)? Why put so much weight on the testimony of a former bat boy and a onetime trainer who cooperated under the threat of prison time?"

12/19/07:

"The walls were closing in. Roger Clemens had to do something. Going all McGwire on us wasn't going to get him out of this one.

Fraud. Cheat. Liar. Hypocrite. Juicer. Clemens in the last week emerged as the five-tool player of the Mitchell Report.

First he was dimed out by Brian McNamee, a former trainer who had nothing to gain and much to lose (prison time) by lying to George Mitchell....

It's more than Mark McGwire ever did, but it's hardly a threat to sue the pants off Mitchell and McNamee. We are left to wonder when, precisely, comes "the appropriate time" for Clemens to answer questions. Will that be when O.J. starts looking for the real killer?"

Why the flip-flop? Dan mentions a NYT article that states that McNamee faces criminal prosecution if he lied in his statements to Mitchell. However, the Report stated clearly that "[d]uring each of the interviews, the law enforcement officials warned him [Brian McNamee] that he faced criminal jeopardy if he made any false statements." [Page SR-21]

I guess Dan missed the widely known fact that McNamee participated as part of his plea deal.

Plugging Along

Dan has to write a column and this is what we get.

He starts inauspiciously by discussing the handshake and it is all downhill from there. A Roger Clemens reference and an "Animal House" reference make this classic Shank.