The above statement is the refuge of the weak-minded, it is usually stated in a condescending, exasperated tone.

I’ve heard this statement from a number of media members and supposed “fans,” usually when someone attempts to put a stop to the endless negativity and point out that, you know, the team is actually pretty good, and has as good a chance as anyone in the AFC to go to the Super Bowl.

Is there reason to be critical of the Patriots?

Lets get this straight: YES.

The team has definite flaws on defense, and their decision-making personnel-wise can certainly be questioned. Have they made the best use of the prime years of Tom Brady’s career?

All of those things are valid criticisms, yet how come it is ALL we hear on radio and television? Well for one thing, it is easy. Sports radio hosts are always going to take the easy position. For another thing, they know it will piss people off. Only in media is pissing off your customers considered good business.

I’m excluding the beat writers from this discussion. With rare exceptions, they are a hard-working, objective group, who do a fine job. The Patriots beat is filled with people I enjoy reading – even when they’re critical of the team. Mike Reiss, Tom E Curran, Chris Price, Ian Rapoport, Karen Guregian, Greg Bedard, Rich Garven, Glen Farley, Jeff Howe – they all do a very good job at covering the team, and all of them have been critical of the team from time to time. They’re not the ones I’m talking about here.

Things reached something of a tipping point yesterday, when someone I thought I was friendly with, referred to me as “Psychotic” on their radio program. The argument was the usual, tired, hyperbolic-ridden one – “Bruce attacks anyone who dares to criticize the local teams. He wants the media to be positive all the time.” If the Patriots were 3-11 instead of 11-3, you wouldn’t hear me complaining about the negativity. It would be warranted.

I’ve said it million times, and apparently haven’t been clear enough for some people. I don’t want to hear only positive things about the team any more than I want to hear hour-after-hour, day-after-day about how this defense SUCKS, this player SUCKS, this coach SUCKS at drafting, hour-after-hour, day-after-day.

The weird thing to me is that there are those who do exactly what I just described, yet when I throw my hands up in the air and say Enough! I get the “psychotic” label slapped on me. Makes sense.

It’s called balance, people. Balance. Try it sometime.

Links? Not a ton this morning.

Belichick talks in-game machinations – Curran has Belichick talking about adjustments on the sidelines.

Teams have hit ground running – Julian Benbow has the Patriots understanding that they need to play the run better right out of the gate this week.

Celtics will go as far as J.O. takes them – Peter May says that Jermaine O’Neal is the key to the Celtics title hopes. Wait, what?

Doc Rivers C’s through fog – Mark Murphy says that Doc Rivers is the best choice to coach this team both short and long term.

Where the Red Sox stand in the starting pitching market – Alex Speier with a Red Sox update.

Valentine’s coaching staff near completion – Peter Abraham has the coaching staff taking shape.


59 thoughts on ““I Guess You’re Not Allowed To Criticize The Patriots.”

  1. Spot on as usual Bruce. It really comes down the Felgers, Mazzs and Shanks of the world who only know how to generate reader/viewer/listener interest by being negative. They don't know (or probably care enough) to do the proper research like a Reiss, Curran or Rappaport (who I believe watch game tape, study, etc.). They know the best way to get a reaction is to get a rise out of people. It's lazy journalism, and unfortunately their higher ups reward them for it. I'm glad there is a guy like you to call them out. If they can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. The ironic thing is if there was an coach/athlete who complained about the negativity of Boston, they'd say the same thing…yet these guys can't handle it themselves and revert to that lazy, "I guess we can't be negative" BS. You can be negative, just be realistic for once in your lives and admit that an 11-3 team doesn't completely SUCK.

    FYI, I was in DC for the Pats-Skins game…you should see/hear/listen to the media there. It was like night and day. The 7 pt loss to the Pats was treated as if they won a Superbowl, no one said anything negative. Funny what expectations can do. Not saying I would prefer overly positive, just a completely different situation.

  2. To me, that's how I know a lot of Felger's contrarian shtick is just that. When you hold his feet to the fire, he's usually one of the first to say that the Pats are an elite team, even if "elite" doesn't quite mean what it used to these days. For a few weeks now, he's been saying how the Pats have as good a chance as anyone to at least get to the Superbowl. Even though the ominous dread known only as "Team X" is out there, his final point is always that the Pats are definitely in the mix.

  3. It's also so irritating when a lot of the criticism is factually inaccurate – this just shreds some of the media's credibility.

  4. Great post, Bruce. I'm not sure how these "entertainers" on radio want us to react as fans. Should we feel guilty that a flawed Patriots team won another AFC East title?

  5. Lou Merloni, whom I somewhat liked at one time, has become unlistenable to me. Criticsm of the Patriots is certainly warranted at times, but Lulu has learned that the easiest and quickest way to generate attention is to don the Mazz/Borges hat. He's not at their level yet when it comes to the Pats, but he's getting there.

    1. This was addressed earlier by George Cain and I think I had commented on it. I feel the same way where if it's not baseball, he just picks up whatever ESPN/other networks say and reiterates the point just using his own words–not adding anything new. Maybe that's all that is asked of him, but presenting this as "analysis" is misleading.

  6. Spot on, Bruce…along with BALANCE I would also throw in, ACTING LIKE A MATURE RATIONAL HUMAN BEING. I know some in the media have labled Mike Reiss a "pom-pom waver" (the old media on media crime) but those of us who read Mike's blog and watch his ESPN stuff know this is completely UNTRUE. There are plenty of time when Reiss is critical of the Pats. The big difference is he backs it up with a RATIONAL argument and HE DOESN'T ACT LIKE AN A-HOLE when he does it. SEE: Borges,Felger,Shank, Tony Mazz etc..etc..

    you are again spot on when you say, "Only in media is pissing off your customers considered good business"…..Alot of people still get wrapped up in the BS. I used to do it myself. In THE OLD DAYS, I can remember waking up and saying, "I got go get my Herald, gotta see what that S.O.B. Ron Borges wrote today!"… but now that I'm older plus that fact that it's gotten worse (in my opinion) There are certain writers I just won't read (or watch) at all anymore. What was once a drawing card for me now turns me off completely. I admit I'm not too bright, but I finally realized the "piss em' off crowd" was just playin' me.

  7. Paul Perillo, of the team's official newspaper, Patriots Football Weekly, on the PFW In Progress radio show. Which shows you how f'ed up the whole thing is. A guy that works for the house organ is complaining because a media blogger thinks the media's criticism of the the team lacks balance and perspective, which it so obviously does. So the guy from the house organ calls Bruce psychotic. I give up.

  8. Perillo clearly is trying to kick the label that Felger put on him. But rather than standing up to Felger, calling his bull pucky, bull pucky, instead shows he is a tough guy by taking a shot at the only guy in town consistently calling the Pats coverage ridiculously slanted in certain circles. The Bruins are 19-2 in their last 21 games…where are the stories about the other shoe about to drop? How about the sports talk about how Team Y could beat them if they were willing to play a patient controlled trapping game and out mucking the Bruins while out skating them or some such nonsense. Perillo is another in a long list of mediots who evidently are more interested in being liked/part of the media in crowd than he is in doing his job! He should not care what people think of him (his adverse reaction every time he is on 98.5 to the Bright Shiney Day song shows his thin Skin), instead he should be a man, stick to his reasoned analysis, thoughtful arguments and insightful reporting. I wonder if he is just angling for a job at the Globe or a more permanent gig on 98.5? Inquiring minds want to know.

  9. I'd say 98% of the negativity stems from the last two playoff losses. If they had beaten the Jets last year and then lost a tough battle to Pitt in the AFC champ, I just feel like the negativity would be toned down (which is ridiculous, but that's the way it is). The media jumps all over two home playoff losses in consecutive years. Obviously they were disappointing losses, but that has no bearing on future playoff success.

    I hate when the media tells me how I should act as a Patriot's fan. But I also dislike when you bring up some flaws of the team, and a "diehard" fan will go tell you to root for another team because you are being so negative. The objectivity is somewhere in the middle. If I say the Pats have three championships, I'm a footy pajama fan who is too positive about the past. If i say they haven't won a playoff game since 2007, I'm a negative prick.

    I truly hope this is the year the recent playoff funk is put to rest, and with the way the rest of the AFC is shaping up, I really like their chances to make a 5th Super Bowl under Brady/Belichick.

  10. Very disappointed in Perillo. He is a very good writer for PFW and that comment is so beneath him. I don't know the real personalities in the media group but I suspect there are the hard workers and the ones who sit in the back of the class. I guess Felger's posse parties harder and smokes a better brand of cigar than the Reiss group. That's got to be the only reason why any "journalist" would want to part of that group.

  11. Bruce,

    Why not try not stop listening and watching and/or write your own stories?

    I think this site has worn itself out to some extent. What would you do if you couldn't complain about some media nitwit? Move on if it's that tiring.

    1. I've got an idea. If you do not like the site or feel it has worn itself out then how about not visiting it. We will all get along just fine without you.

    2. Collis, you may want to check the name of the site that you are on. Don't you think it would be just a tad bit odd for something called the Boston Sports Media Watch to not read, listen or watch the local media?

    3. I think part of the site is to comment on the overall vibe/media musings, no? So, part of that is addressing the themes and topics/events that go on with the local outlets in their various mediums. So, in addition to commenting on the news, part of it is to comment on the folks who make and post the stories.

      Maybe Bruce can address this better.

  12. I agree with a few posters. On this site the same people complain and bitch about the same people.. .felger, mazz, borges… and on and on. If they rile you up so much, why read them or listen to them? Despite everyone saying they 'never listen to so and so anymore', they all do. Angry Old Bastard posts the same stuff day after day and week after week. If you're that upset, just don't watch or read or listen to ANY Boston media. Only read Reiss.

    I also agree with patrick. I get called an arogant prick every time I talk about recent playoff losses. What's wrong with having high standards? the steelers shoot for a superbowl EVERY year.

    And how is Felger such an arrogant, negative, contrarian, douche despite the fact that he thinks the Pats, despite their suspect defense, will be in the superbowl this year?

    1. I assume you're missing the irony of you defending your complaints about the team you profess to love, but telling others that if they don't like something they should just stop watching, reading or listening to people talk about it.

      Lemme guess, you just want them to be better, right? But really you're talking about how much you hate everything they choose to do that doesn't result in a Super Bowl you can run around and say "we won" with your goodtime buddies. "High standards" is what you want to call it, but that's not really what it is. If we're being honest.

      In any event, it doesn't occur to people like you that there is a market out there that is looking for actual insight, information and analysis from the media in place of the 24/7 nonsense we actually get. We don't want to see and hear everyone in the media making a healthy living on the backs of these teams and then complaining when feedback from their customers tells them we don't like what they're doing. Is there any other industry where customer feedback is so arrogantly dismissed and derided? Comments like they can't criticize the team, or how did it work out last year, or this team has to prove something to them, or the coach is arrogant and won't listen to any dissenting voices or the de facto defensive coordinator is in over his head, yada yada. We don't need to rehash them all. We all know them.

      You can wring your hands in fury over Belichick daring to make mistakes like Duane Starks or Taylor Price. The list of media whose very existence as a wage earning member of society is unwarranted dwarfs any list of annoyances you can draw up about your allegedly beloved Patriots. Bruce and others hold them to that standard because suffering fools is a waste of time and we're overrun with it in these parts. Let's call that having "high standards" too just for the hell of it.

    2. Youre not an arrogant prick – that's unfair. You're just a dink. If all you care about is the playoffs, then why discuss the sport until the regular season is over? What a depressing attitude. I find it's typical of people who have never accomplished anything in their lives – they hold sports team to standards they don't have for themselves, and think they're doing something clever.

  13. They (PFW guys) are analysing the team as they see it. And as long as that analysis is based on sound reasoning then I don't have a problem with it, regardless of the win loss record of the team.

  14. The guy on the Sports Hub at night plays the 'can't I criticize Belichick?' card regularly. I rarely tune in, but I've still heard it multiple times. It's all about context, dude. If you put the criticism into context, few would complain.

    Belichick's personel decisions on defense have a lot to answer for. There is absolutely no evidence for the 'defensive genius' reputation in the last 2-3 years. On the other hand, they just keep on winning. A rational person will not expect their hometown team to win every game and every championship. Belichick deserves the benefit of the doubt every time, but that doesn't shield him from INTELLIGENT criticism.

    1. Exactly. "I rarely tune in, but I've still heard it multiple times". Everyone says they don't listen to or read so and so anymore… but clearly there's evidence to the contrary.

      I would just love to see BB and Brady get that 4th superbowl. Going 14-2 is great, but it doesn't automatically mean you're going to the superbowl. The last few playoff losses have been ugly .. and BB IMO hasn't done enough to fix the defense or bring more balance to the team or get the team ready for playoff games… whatever it is. It's just my perspective. It doesn't mean you like the Pats more than I do. It doesn't make me any more or less of a fan. Just a different perspective. Apparently people find that threatening or arrogant.

      1. I feel that all of us commenters have reached the point of semantics. We all agree that going 14-2 doesn't mean you will win the Superbowl, but it doesn't mean they won't either. Going 9-7 and sneaking into the playoffs doesn't mean your bounced right away (see NYJ) but it doesn't mean your going to win.

        This brings me to my main point and what everyone here is stressing: Can't we just watch the games, be happy when they win while discuss what looks troubling without the death sentence. Can't we temper expectations without being miserable (Tony Mazz) at every little nuance that bodes failure? Can't we for once, watch a team that is doing well in a league where no1 stands out head and shoulders above them, and just enjoy the ride? I don't really know if the DEF will be able to be mediocre in and AFC title game or Superbowl, but am I allowed to wonder or hope for the best?

  15. I give more credibility to the jaded set who tell me it means nothing til they get back to the SB or at leas the AFC championship than I do demoted hosts from Maine whose answer to any criticism is the crutch-tastic – "The coaching staff sees these guys every day and you don't" when somebdoy has the audacity to ask why Matt Slater is arm tackling and then chasing ball carriers.

  16. First of all, I'm wondering what was the reason for Perillo to make his statement. Second, it is ironic that Perillo would make such a callous statement because I think he is one of the media members who actually measures what he says. His criticisms are usually backed up with facts and his praise is done likewise. I agree with commentors like Latetodinner and Lance who feel that Perillo is intimidated by Felger and his taunts. Perillo needs to get a backbone and not worry about pleasing others in the media business.

  17. Okay Late To Dinner,
    What should the writers be writing about for the Pats v. Miami game in tomorrow's editions? What should the sports yakkers be talking about on WEEI and the Sports Hub?
    What game/player storylines do you want discussed and analyzed going into the game?
    Educate us, please. Make the sports media world a better place for us.

    1. Okay Apps…because I need to their job as well as think for you here is a list of things I think the sports talkers and writers should be discussing.

      1) The addition of another new safety to this team. Why BB although he will not say it publicly is still tinkering with the DB's. Let them speculate on the amount of time and how the already hurt Vincent Fuller will be utilized. In can be done in a non sarcastic, intelligent way, yet critical way. I think it is a very legitimate thing to second guess. Fuller might be a good steadying influence in the secondary. But if he is what does that say about the other personnel decisions back there they have made.

      2) Look at how Miami has played over the last 7 games (5-2). What are they doing differently since the last time they played the Pats? What was the effect of getting rid of Sparano? Look at the weeding out of all the Parcell's regime in Miami and the legacy or lack there of from his time there.

      3) Look at and discuss the Patriots move to a 3-4 in the middle of the Denver game and how that might be, now that Carter is hurt, the look they will play the rest of the year. If they do that is it Daederick or Ellis who plays End in place of Carter. Does Anderson play more stand up as a hybrid OLB? Could he?

      4) Spend a little time talking about the 18 plays Marcus Cannon played at tackle last game. At this time of year, that story is even more special.

      5) Talk about the role Matt Patricia has played coaching the secondary for the first time this year. I think after 14 games there is enough material to legitimately discuss this in the wake of Miami coming to town. McCourty has taken a step backwards, they evaluated the safety position wrong either preseason or during camp leaving themselves thin, other than Arrington no one has performed above expectations. Is this a coaching issue?

      6) Can Miami come into NE in late Dec, even if it will be 40 degrees and run a track meet with NE? Even with NE's porous defense between the 20's can Miami convert in the Red Zone against NE? I don't see it.

      7) How will Miami attempt to stop the Pats offense and defend the middle of the field against the TE's and Welker?

      8) With Tom Brady poised to pass 5000 yards perhaps this week…what does that mean for his legacy.

      9) Can the Pats establish a running game using 4 back's or should they start featuring BJGE and using Woodhead on 3rd and passing situations. Riddley has been a nice story but I think some discussion about how to make the running game more dominant (even though statistically it is almost identical to last year, just spread out over more backs). This will allow them to control the clock more and keep their defense off the field more.

      Given another 1/2 hour I am sure I could come up with many more topics. My point as it has been week in and week out is that the press is lazy, looking at the easy story…"they can't win in the playoffs because of the defense" rather than looking at the why's. They complain about access to gossip, when if they ask actual football questions they will get the Pats brass talking and they will learn interesting things. This is the third week in a row you have called me out and each week I keep saying the same thing…the media just needs to do its job, stay neutral and discuss things intelligently. The rest will come.

      1. Late to Dinner:
        Those are all great points… and I AGREE with you. But this has been going on forever…and it's probably not going to change. The sports media is going to frustrate you. They're going to throw stuff out there just to get reaction. They're going to talk about the easy stuff.. the defense… the playoff losses. You're ideas are good, but they're going to bore the crap out of the average fan. The average fan out there is not going to be interested in Marcus Cannon's tackle count or the move to the 3-4. You can keep on complaining… but the media/radio/print ain't changing.
        Oh … and thanks for "thinking" for me. I couldn't have come up with any of those on my own. None of us could have.

        1. How do you know those topics would bore the crap out of the average listener? How many shows have actually tried to speak intelligently about sports? We have now reached the holiday season which means guest hosts on the regular shows. Mike Flynn, Ryan Johnson, Rob Bradford, Hardy. Jerry Trupiano, and Sean McAdam all are better than what you hear on a daily basis. Yesterday, the Big Show had Dale Arnold and Jack Edwards hosting. It was terrific. Cedric Maxwell was third man in and he sounded so much better then usual. Planet Mikey was hosted by John Ryder and Lenny Megliola. I loved it. It was so much better then Adams because they talked about the Celtics intelligently. We heard about the free agents still available and just why it will be difficult for the Celtics to make a run. In all fairness, the reason why they were hosting is because Mike Adams father is not feeling well. As much as I dislike Adams as a host, I do not wish ill will on the man and his family and hope the best for them.

          All we ask is for some balance and intelligence when sports is talked about. There is no excuse for locals not being able to do this and be entertaining at the same time. Dan Patrick does it everyday.

        2. Apps…It only won't change if we say nothing and sit back passively. The more we complain and if it gets so bad stop listening then the better chance something will happen. As for whether my ideas will bore the crap out of the average fan…it all depends on the presentation. If you thought the 4 hours that Dale Arnold and Bob Ryan were together was boring…then you are probably not going to like to listen to things I outlined. If you thought they raised thought provoking points and the show flew by, then you would probably not be bored by a discussion of Marcus Canon or the return to the 3-4.

          Lastly, you are welcome. I figured it was the holidays and the least I could do was think for you. Call it my holiday gift to you as I am sure a few other could have come up with my list if they tried…don't sell your fellow posters short…most of them are pretty bright. I know it is easy to bitch about what you perceive as people bitching about the coverage. Most of us suggest solutions which is far better than just throwing your hands up in the air and saying I have no voice, no control so I have to accept being spoon fed bleck. There has been quality on the Boston Air Waves and in print before and there will be again. We just have to keep demanding it.

        1. I meant to add one more thing….I came up with my list with absolutely no access to the team, players, Pats PR department, other NFL team sources and other NFL league sources. I don't mean to pile on Johnny Apps… but imagine if I had the same access the writers and talkers have…I could come up with an unlimited stream of different topics to explore and write about. Being a media person in Boston covering the Pats, if you are willing to work like Karen G, Tom E Curran, Mike Reiss, or Ian Rappaport, you can find interesting topics every day/week.

  18. I'll give a few examples of why a lot people on this site get frustrated with the BSM.

    1) A month ago, when the Patriots beat the Jets, Rob Ninkovich intercepted a pass from Mark Sanchez for a touchdown. Ninkovich did a beautiful job staying home in the middle of the field and reading Sanchez. He then has a great break on the pass and takes the ball away from the receiver. The score put the game away for the Patriots. Did you hear that from the majority of sports radio or TV personalities? Not a chance, Mark Sanchez playing lousy is the reason why the play was made. Ninkovich was just lucky

    2) In the game against Washington, Jerod Mayo made a diving interception on a bobbled pass by Santana Moss. Mayo had to quickly react to the ball on the Moss deflection and get his hands underneath. It was a great play and prevented Washington from having a chance to tie. What did we hear from the majority of local media? Moss should have made catch, and the arrogance of Tom Brady.

    3) In the game against Denver, the Broncos had three turnovers in the second quarter and two of them were forced. Mark Anderson completely blew up an option play and then made a fumble recovery. Earlier Ron Brace forced a Lance Ball fumble by punching it out of his hands. What did we hear though? Denver was careless with the ball and Tim Tebow still played a good game.

    In all of these examples most of the local media refused to give credit to the Patriots for making plays that had a major impact in the game. It was the either the other teams fault or they will ignore the topic and find something else that is "controversial" to talk about. Besides actually being good plays, the other thing that these three example have in common is that they are all turnovers. The media are all on the same mantra of yards being the key indicator for defensive success. Turnover margin or average points allowed are never mentioned because many of the media would then have to say something positive, which hurts their contrived negative on-air persona.

    1. My ignorance if someone did write about this in the local media but 2 out of 3 on your points (all great, btw) were mentioned and highlighted on ESPN (first take or one of the NFL shows. Instead of saying "blah blah did it wrong" it was "so and so did a great job at doing it right". Usually a Reiss or Rap will be the one to pick something like this up either on the day after or one of the articles they write during the week.

      1. Boston, I was talking about the local blabbers on sports talk or Comcast who will refuse to give any credit to the defense at all. Even when it is right before their very eyes. People like Reiss and Rapoport, who are very much in the minority, always will look at the Patriots objectively. It is why both get a great amount of praise on this site.

        1. Reiss and Rapoport get a great amount of praise on this site because they rarely criticize the Pats or BB. That's why it was so shocking when Reiss was critical of BB after the Giants game. That's when it became okay for all of you to question BB. Because Reiss finally did.

          1. That's baloney and you know it. I suggest you read Reiss' mailbag. He is critical of the Patriots. He just refuses to go into the histrionics that many on TV and radio do. He actually uses reason and logic in his disagreement. He won't scream and holler about how the team sucks because he realizes they are actually 11-3. If the Patriots suck at 11-3 then the Steelers, Jets, Texans, Ravens, Broncos and Charges must be the absolute worst teams in NFL history. After all, their records are worse then the Patriots. Rapoport is similar to Reiss in that he uses reason as well.

    2. EXCELLENT points, mandb97. Heard several of the "experts" after the Broncos game saying, "well, if not for the turnovers the Patriots would have been in trouble" ….WTF?!?…once again giving no credit to the Pats for creating the turnovers but beyond that, turnovers are part of the game aren't they?…you could go back say, "well, if not for the turnovers'….in about 95% of NFL games. In other news I'm sure Mrs.Lincoln would have enjoyed the play a little more if not for that little shooting incident

  19. I have seen a few posts praising Michael Felger for saying the Patriots will get to the Super Bowl. I suggest you listen a little closer and you will easily figure out that he is one of the great double-talkers around. Felger has been mentioning a "team X" that can beat the Patriots. I have figured out that "team X" is basically any team that makes the playoffs. He will mention all the strengths of potential opponents and why they can beat the Patriots. You will never hear what the Patriots can do to beat "team X".

    Another issue sports radio likes to throw in the face of listeners is that fans are taking a team too lightly. Mike Mutnansky and Tony Masserotti used this old ploy today. They say it as:

    1) fact – What rational fans are taking a team that is 5-2 in their last seven games lightly? It is the old contrived point your finger at the fan garbage.

    2) it has a bearing on the game – Both Mutnansky and Maz are equating a contrived notion of fans taking a team lightly like it will effect the play on the field. Since fans are taking the game lightly then of course the players are. It's stupid. My guess is that Belichick surely has let the team know that this is not the opening night Dolphins and has also informed them that the Patriots control their playoff status. Does that mean they will be guaranteed a win? Of course not, but it certainly does not mean we need to panic like it's defcon 1 either.

    1. I talked with Paul off the air. There's a possibility I might come on the show in the future sometime, in the studio to talk about this stuff.

      (and no, as you can see your comments weren't deleted. All comments from unregistered commenters go through a filter first. No offense, there are a lot of trolls out there.)

  20. Did anyone see the article by Chad Finn today?

    What’s less obvious is the successor to Santos, who is expected to be more resistant than Cappelletti when it’s time to turn off the microphone. Industry sources believe Gary Tanguay is in line for the job, which would explain why he departed without rancor when he was replaced by Andy Gresh alongside Zolak on The Sports Hub’s midday show in April 2010. Like Santos, Tanguay, who hosts the pre- and postgame shows, has the classic pipes, but he comes up shy of a first down when compared with Santos in his heyday. This transition would not be akin to the instantly excellent Sean McDonough arriving to replace Ned Martin on Red Sox broadcast in the late ’80s.
    Mike Thomas/CBS

    I know GearBear did play-by-play when CSNNE did the Mass Superbowl stuff a few weeks back. Did they stop drug testing recently there and think he's going to make a good p-b-p? Seriously…

  21. Limiting it to the Boston Media re: comments on other teams making mistakes, not the Patriots making plays is incorrect. Check, ESPN etc. They're all the same.

    I am fan of the PFW guys and listen to their Radio Show which is hilarious. I'm in the UK and I get their newspaper delivered as it is well written and informative.

    I've also met them and Mike Reiss and they were talkative and happy to be in London.

  22. What I don't understand is why do Shaughnessy and Borges still have jobs. So many people despise them and isn't it reflected by people not clicking on their stories. Before computers, editors just had to guess what writers got read but now they can track daily numbers just like TV ratings, so why are they still employed?

    1. It's like Bruce said, only in sports media is pissing off your cutomers good business….there are still alot of people out there who are DRAWN to Borges and Shank BECAUSE they despise them. (I know it sounds crazy but it's true) that's why they have jobs. As I mentioned in a previous post, that's why I used to read/watch those guys myself. Personaly, I finally got sick of it but for every person who quits reading these guys there are 3 more who replace them. (Plus, as hard to believe as it is, these guys do have their own "fanboys')

      1. I assume that the Globe/Herald, etc track clicks on an article like ESPN does. I don't work in the industry so I can't speak to how they do it specificly, but if you listen to any former ('dot com' as they call it) columnist and how they track how good/bad you're doing in regards to a brand if you're public facing (meaning on TV or something you consume). So, I've got to assume that people do read it and they must be some of the higher linked/read columnists on their respective sections.

    2. The CHB is actually the assistant sports editor or some other such title. So he has a bigger role at the Slobe than he lets on.

      Although if I were him, I'd go hide out on a Malibu Beach myself. What a prick.

  23. Being the most popular sports personality in Boston is kind of like being the prettiest girl on The Biggest Loser. It's a relative thing.

  24. Yes, Felger's straw man earlier in the week was the Patriots won the division again, NOT because they are a great team with great coaching, it's because the other 3 teams terrible. He rattled off the different coaches and QB's have started for the others. And who is this YOU PEOPLE he keeps talking about?

  25. With all the discussion of what sucks and what cannot be overcome, myself, the interested but not avid bystander, learns to tune it all out. If Tebow sucks but wins 6 in a row, maybe sucking isn’t the problem. I am aware of binomial sampling and perhaps he is more likely to lose 10 in a row now than ever win again but still, w/ that much declaration of everything sucking, I am open to the idea that none of the declarations matter.

Comments are closed.