Super Bowl 2006

[Bruce Ciskie]

I then post lead sports articles from 20 other cities -- all of them far from New England, and most of them home to NFL competitors -- the vast majority of which make this very same assertion. All people who get paid handily to be sports analysts, and not a Patriots fan among them.

Amazingly, many of these same newspapers published front-page articles hailing the achievements of Peyton Manning. That coverage was labeled by many Patriots fans, including some on this board, as worthless hype, or words along those lines...especially after the Patriots absolutely annihilated the Colts in the playoff game.

Why is it that the media is only right when you say they are?

The same newspapers/commentators have been ripped by you guys for not talking enough about the Patriots in the past. Why are they, all of a sudden, right?

You can't have it both ways...unless you're a Patriots fan, I guess. (;))

Luckily for you and your team, the media isn't always right in who they hype and how they hype. After all, just about all of them picked the Colts to beat the Patriots in the playoffs. Imagine if the league had just assumed the media was right and decided there was no need to play the game because of the overwhelming opinion that Indy was going to win.

(For the record, and you can go back and look, I picked and cheered for New England in two of their three playoff games. The only reason I rooted for Pittsburgh is because I have always liked Cowher and yearned for him to prove he's a better coach than his playoff record indicates. I picked Pittsburgh to win because <strike>I am an idiot</strike> I thought the matchup was closer than it really was.)

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Bruce don't forget that a lot of those papers might also be using the same sources (Associated Press/Knight Ridder) for their national stories as well.

I too find it amusing that some of these Pats fans are taking a reporter or another media member's word as Gospel and thumping their chest about it.

[shrader]

Bruce don't forget that a lot of those papers might also be using the same sources (Associated Press/Knight Ridder) for their national stories as well.

I too find it amusing that some of these Pats fans are taking a reporter or another media member's word as Gospel and thumping their chest about it.

And then there's the fact that a lot of those headlines from that post just say that they won the Superbowl. I don't know about you, but I don't see any dynasty talk in a headline that says "Patriot Act III" or "Brady cool, calm as he collects 3rd ring".

[HowBoutThemDawgs]

And then there's the fact that a lot of those headlines from that post just say that they won the Superbowl. I don't know about you, but I don't see any dynasty talk in a headline that says "Patriot Act III" or "Brady cool, calm as he collects 3rd ring".


I was thinking the same thing. By my count, I saw seven that included the D word, maybe four more that made passing reference "team for the ages" and the rest didn't really address the D word at all.

[shrader]

I was thinking the same thing. By my count, I saw seven that included the D word, maybe four more that made passing reference "team for the ages" and the rest didn't really address the D word at all.

I think he was going with the "they'll read the first 2 lines and then quit" approach.

[pucksntape]

Dear pucksntape,


You're trying too hard now, we can tell.


Sincerely,
The Rest of USCHO

Good comeback, Eugene. :rolleyes:

[pucksntape]

Amazingly, many of these same newspapers published front-page articles hailing the achievements of Peyton Manning. That coverage was labeled by many Patriots fans, including some on this board, as worthless hype, or words along those lines...especially after the Patriots absolutely annihilated the Colts in the playoff game.

Why is it that the media is only right when you say they are?


Well, even this week's issue of Sports Illustrated reports the NE Pats are a dynasty. :cool: I guess SI is wrong now. :rolleyes:

Oh, Manning, is worthless hype. Manning never got to the Big Dance in College, nor in the NFL darn shame. Lots of nice individual awards, always a bridesmaid, never the bride. The Patriots clearly have Manning's number. Indy had a year of great offense, but mild and weak defense. This was Manning's year to get the monkey off of his back - let's hope that salary cap does not force Indy to make some cut-n-release decision. :D

[pucksntape]

(For the record, and you can go back and look, I picked and cheered for New England in two of their three playoff games. The only reason I rooted for Pittsburgh is because I have always liked Cowher and yearned for him to prove he's a better coach than his playoff record indicates. I picked Pittsburgh to win because <strike>I am an idiot</strike> I thought the matchup was closer than it really was.)

Hogwash! Only a few fans cry foul when it comes to coverage. I personally enjoy it when the Howie Long's, James Brown's,a nd terry Bradshaw's pick the Pats opponent - dang, in the last 4 years it has worked out rather well.

I was a little shocked to see Rodney Harrison, after the AFC Championship, get emotional like a leftist liberal protesting at a RNC function. Belichick usually has the players in check.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Bruce don't forget that a lot of those papers might also be using the same sources (Associated Press/Knight Ridder) for their national stories as well.

I too find it amusing that some of these Pats fans are taking a reporter or another media member's word as Gospel and thumping their chest about it.

Correct. Only the major newspapers (NY Times, NY Daily News, LA Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Washington Post, etc.) send their own reporters to events like the Super Bowl if a home market team isn't involved. Most rely on wire reports for their news copy on the event.

(As an example, do a Google search on the NHL lockout and count how many articles you find that are alike almost word for word. They're all from different newspapers, but they all say the same things and have the same quotes. Only a few select newspapers will generate their own original copy for a story like that.)

What's also not being taken into account here is that the person who wrote the story didn't write the headline. Sportswriters write columns and reports on games, but they don't decide what the headline above their article will read.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Hogwash! Only a few fans cry foul when it comes to coverage. I personally enjoy it when the Howie Long's, James Brown's, and terry Bradshaw's pick the Pats opponent - dang, in the last 4 years it has worked out rather well.

But when those same talking heads use the "d" word, they're suddenly right?

Got it.

[snively]

Bruce don't forget that a lot of those papers might also be using the same sources (Associated Press/Knight Ridder) for their national stories as well.Nice hypothesis but wrong, as none is based on wire reporting. Thanks for the uninformed feedback, though.

You could have discovered this yourself either by reading my own post more carefully (which noted that they were all written by "people who get paid handily to be sports analysts"), or by taking the trouble to actually skim the pieces themselves. Go to the actual hyperlinks (see Feb 7 links at http://redsox.bostonherald.com/blogs/, further below).

Shock #2: if you're assessing content, you might want to read the text of the pieces themselves, rather than just scan the headlines to see if the dreaded "D" word is included.

For example, Jerry Isenberg -- the dean of all NFL Championship reporters, whose writing goes back to the Paul Brown era and who saw and covered all of Lombardi's victories -- has a piece in the Star Ledger titled simply: "Belichick Becomes King". So on that basis you clonclude that it's irrelevant to the D hypothesis? Had you taken the trouble to actually read the article, you would have seen that his concluding sentence is simply Bill Belichick has a dynasty.

Similarly, Bob Kravitz's piece in the Indianapolis Star is titled simply "Stoic Belichick transforms ordinary guys into legends". Had you bothered to actually read it (rather than opine about the irrelevance of its title), you would have found that it begins as follows:

"They are not just champions anymore. Now, the New England Patriots are legends.

On Sunday, they did something nobody thought possible in this day and age, showing us that no matter how much you try to legislate sameness, special players and special coaches can still find ways to set themselves apart.

Where do they stand in the pantheon of all-time great teams? They stand at the top. The very top. Unquestioned.

Better than the dynastic Pittsburgh Steelers.

Better than the dynastic Dallas Cowboys.

Better than the dynastic San Francisco 49ers.

Head to head, talent for talent, those other teams clearly had the edge, but again -- and this can't be stressed nearly enough -- those teams were not constrained by the salary cap. The rules of engagement have changed completely, forcing parity on the best-run league in Sports America."

Are you starting to get the drift of the coverage cited here :confused: Are you willing to accept the fact that maybe a few reasonably informed folks outside NE might take this view as well?

[Bruce Ciskie]

Are you starting to get the drift of the coverage cited here? Are you willing to accept the fact that maybe a few reasonably informed folks outside NE might take this view as well?

No one said this wasn't true.

But there isn't a single "reasonably-informed" person outside NE on this board who is making this argument nearly as vehemently as the people inside NE.

For a Patriots fan to claim that someone who holds a dissenting viewpoint is simply "biased" is ironic beyond words...that's all I was saying.

I'm well aware that some perfectly intelligent people outside NE think the Patriots are a dynasty. There is also at least one prominent sportswriter inside NE who happens to be one of the most respected sportswriters living, breathing, and writing today, and he doesn't think the Patriots are a dynasty. It's funny that his viewpoint was simply forgotten about, even though it was quoted in here at least twice, and mine was attacked.

I meant no disrespect to the Patriots in anything I said. But I'm entitled to my own opinion of what a dynasty is without having to have my credibility attacked.

[snively]

But when those same talking heads use the "d" word, they're suddenly right? Got it.Bruce -- (since you're taking down fellow print and electronic analysts).

No offense (I'm sure you're very good at what you do), but you're at least three decades worth of insight and aclaim short of the stature achieved by Jerry Izenberg. And he disagrees with you viscerally on this very point.

Guess whose viewpoint I'm going with here? ;)

Your view is constitutionally protected -- you can also vote for the Socialist Labor Party if you choose to do so. Is this a great country or what? Now carry on... :D

[shrader]

I meant no disrespect to the Patriots in anything I said. But I'm entitled to my own opinion of what a dynasty is without having to have my credibility attacked.

That's the thing Bruce, you're not a Patriots fan. You are not entitled to your own opinion. They've made that point very clear throughout the year.

[Bruce Ciskie]

No offense (I'm sure you're very good at what you do), but you're at least three decades worth of insight and aclaim short of the stature achieved by Jerry Izenberg. And he disagrees with you viscerally on this very point.

I was talking about the talking heads that pucksntape referred to in the post I quoted.

I have a ton of respect for Izenberg, Peter King, and about 20 other broadcasters/writers that I've read or heard call the Patriots a dynasty.

My mileage varies, which I think I've explained here, and it's got nothing to do with some sort of anti-Patriots bias. To suggest such is borderline offensive, since most of you know absolutely nothing of what I am about.

PS--I wouldn't say we disagree "viscerally". I think that's too strong of a word. We have different definitions of what a dynasty is. I think "viscerally" would better describe the difference in opinion between Izenberg and Bob Ryan. Who do you like in that dispute? Please keep in mind that I will fight any attempt to beschmirch Bob Ryan. :D

[pucksntape]

But when those same talking heads use the "d" word, they're suddenly right?

Got it.

Dang Bruce, you are the one who wants it both ways. :eek:

Why don't you come out and just say, "...the N E Patriots are over-rated, and not any good? The Pats did not even win those 3 superbowls!" LOL. :D Why don't you tell us all how you really feel? We all know your dead-as-a-doornail Pack have done nothing in the 10 years since beating the Pats. Of course I can see how this frustrates a quasi-knowledgeable "sports authority" like you!

Your frustration in this day and age of salary cap, free agency and parity, along with the Pats getting to the bowl 4 times in 10 seasons. Dang, you must angry Brucie. You realize Brady is better than Favre, and that ole drunkard Brett Starr. Belichick is beyond Lombardi for wins and percentage in the modern era. Dang, Bruce, you are probably rocking back and forth just thinking about the 21 game win streak, or Brady's 10-0 post season. LOL. Get some therapy Bruce, or some material for tonight's "radio show" :cool: :D :p

-Steve

PS what ever you do Bruce, DO NOT read the current issue of Soprts Illustrated! Bwhaa ha ha ha ha ha

[Bruce Ciskie]

what ever you do Bruce, DO NOT read the current issue of Soprts Illustrated!

Why? I'm not afraid to read opinions from those who might not share the same thoughts as myself.

That's you that's afraid of dissenting opinions. You should move to Syria. You'd fit in well there.

[snively]

I was talking about the talking heads that pucksntape referred to in the post I quoted.

I have a ton of respect for Izenberg, Peter King, and about 20 other broadcasters/writers that I've read or heard call the Patriots a dynasty.

My mileage varies, which I think I've explained here, and it's got nothing to do with some sort of anti-Patriots bias. To suggest such is borderline offensive, since most of you know absolutely nothing of what I am about.

PS--I wouldn't say we disagree "viscerally". I think that's too strong of a word. We have different definitions of what a dynasty is. I think "viscerally" would better describe the difference in opinion between Izenberg and Bob Ryan. Who do you like in that dispute? Please keep in mind that I will fight any attempt to beschmirch Bob Ryan. :DFair enough on all counts -- and I seriously do enjoy reading your posts.

I'd have to go with JI on that final bout though -- just because his prose is so terrific. BR is no slouch, but JI's the Man.

[pucksntape]

Why? I'm not afraid to read opinions from those who might not share the same thoughts as myself.

That's you that's afraid of dissenting opinions. You should move to Syria. You'd fit in well there.

Syria is a safe haven for anti-American Islamosfacists who are an integral part of the Axis of Evil that our wonderful, glorious, and yes handsome President George W. Bush has vowed to take arms against. Brucifer, are you with us or against us? I am a loyal American Patriot, are you? Or will go back to Radio Free Minnesota Bruce, your ~ 20 listeners await the ionosphere to cool down so they hear your 100 watt station. :eek:

I always felt that sport radio guys were fast talkers, who just bombard their listeners with their agenda. Bruce, I think you're sad. I am glad the Pats won just to tiss people off across America. LOL.

[IanAtKDR]

Syria is a safe haven for anti-American Islamosfacists who are an integral part of the Axis of Evil that our wonderful, glorious, and yes handsome President George W. Bush has vowed to take arms against. Brucifer, are you with us or against us? I am a loyal American Patriot, are you? Or will go back to Radio Free Minnesota Bruce, your ~ 20 listeners await the ionosphere to cool down so they hear your 100 watt station. :eek:

So how does it feel to celebrate the Patriots superbowl with all of those treasonous Bostonians who voted for John Francois Kerry? :p


BOOM-SHAK-A-LAK!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: