Is there anything more miserable than a sports-talk radio caller? Holy crap. I’ve actually heard yesterday’s win described as “disappointing” and that the Super Bowl rematch with the Giants in two weeks “won’t even be competitive.” (with the Giants killing the Patriots) Both of these calls came from self-described “long-time Patriots fans.

Here’s a few thoughts on this Monday after the AFC Championship. (If you’re looking for links, has them.)

  • I found it interesting that in almost two weeks away from the Boston sports radio and TV scene, I had nearly zero thoughts that the Patriots would lose to either the Broncos or Ravens. I knew the Ravens game would be what it was – a slugfest, perhaps even worthy of the sainted Ravens/Steelers battles that the media drools over, but I felt the Patriots would emerge with the win, especially at home.

That, Shalise Manza Young, is why it is better to be 13-3 and not 11-5. (And Bill Belichick would prefer it to be that way.)

  • If you’re a DirecTV subscriber, you might be nervous about being able to see the Super Bowl, given the fact that the contract dispute between DirecTV and Sunbeam Television (the owner of WDHD Channel 7) has resulted in the station being blocked out for Boston area Satellite subscribers.  FierceCable reports that Senators Kerry and Brown of Massachusetts are attempting to intercede in the matter, but also notes that Sunbeam owns a FOX station in Miami, and allowed viewers in that market to view the NFC title game yesterday.
  • Listening this morning, Gresh and Zo were so much better than Mutt and Merloni it wasn’t even close. As a long-time Mike Mutnansky booster, that hurts to write. Even Troy Brown couldn’t save Mutt and Lou.
  • Here’s how bad Tony Massarotti has gotten for me; I’d rather read a Dan Shaughnessy column on the Patriots than one written by Tony Mazz.
  • Could this be the worst two weeks of Super Bowl talk ever? In between the constant highlights from Super Bowl XLII and the insistence from the likes of Michael Felger of having to discuss all the Patriots “misses” in the draft in recent years, it might just be better for us all to go to the West coast, figuratively speaking. Or just read the beat reporters.
  • I appreciate how much Drew Bledsoe has grown into and seemingly embraced his role in the Patriots past and rise to where they are now. Given his reactions during the 2001 season (running to Ron Borges for advice, really?) and his departure from here, it’s nice to see how both sides have handled things in recent months. Having him hold the AFC trophy yesterday and hand it over was a nice moment.
  • IF the Patriots can beat the Giants – their toughest game to date – it will be a nice settling of all family business this season. Sweeping the Jets, who then implode after the season, seeing the Colts fall to the bottom of the league and Bill Polian shown the door, beating Tim Tebow and the Broncos twice (and avenging the 2005 playoff loss to Denver) beating the Ravens, avenging the 2009 playoff loss.

81 thoughts on “Pathetic Pats Back Into Super Bowl, Stand No Chance Against G-Men

  1. Bruce, you're getting obnoxious with this anti-anti-Patriots talk. Sorry, are we not allowed to be a little critical? Yes, today is a day to enjoy the win and we should. But Brady has been outplayed by the opposing quarterback in 5 of his last 6 playoff games and the pass defense WAS atrocious yesterday. Front 7 had probably its best game of the year and that saved the Pats' bacon. They could have put the game away early, but didn't. Then in the 2nd half they had to hang on for dear life. I'll take it, but does it mean we're supposed to go into Indy with supreme confidence? The Giants are the toughest matchup in the NFL for the Patriots and it should be a one score game either way. I happen to think the Patriots will find a way to win, this year has that sort of feeling to me. But that doesn't mean we can't criticize poor play, which we saw plenty of yesterday. Get off your high horse.

    1. If the pass defense was “atrocious”, then why did the Ravens score only 20 points? People like you make me sick. It was an exhilarating, old school FOOTBALL game. You belong in that group Rick Pitino called out years ago. You can never be happy, always bitching about something. The Giants maxed out and it STILL took 2 goofy special teams turnovers to hand them the win. This is going to be a great game.

      1. If you pay attention to what I wrote I just said that I actually think the Patriots will win the Super Bowl. But does that mean I need to be a blind-faithed homer and expect them to blow out the Giants and ignore obvious faults? I know that worked so well when everyone wrote off the Jets last year or the Giants in the last Super Bowl. My greater point is that it seems every week the Patriots win, according to Bruce and many others, we're supposed to simply be satisfied that they won. There were plenty of things to like yesterday (Wilfork, O-line, etc). But I don't think Belichick will sit in film session and not point out any flaws with their play. Just like when they lose, we are allowed to point out things that went well and shouldn't act like the sky is falling. Any rational, objective person should be able to look at any win or loss critically and see both positives and negatives. The Packers were a flawed 15-1 team that lost because of their glaring weaknesses. I think the Patriots will win, but to suggest that we can't point out any weakness or flaw is ignorant. Enjoy your pink hat.

        1. "My greater point is that it seems every week the Patriots win, according to Bruce and many others, we're supposed to simply be satisfied that they won."

          Yes!!!!!!!! Be happy they won despite all the flaws you say they have. This is the superbowl you putz! Go talk to the Detroit Lions and ask them how they feel. I'm sure they expect and demand perfection just like you wekk in and week out!

      2. The play in the SF yardage in the.. 3rd? Manningham gets a checkdown from Eli and 2 SF defenders come right after him. Before going down, the ball starts to come loose and he fumbles it. Ref blows whistle and immediately rules that forward yardage was going to be awarded, even with SF coming up with the ball. In reading today, this should have been reviewed and nobody knows why Jim Harbaugh didn't challenge. Makes 0 sense because the replay clearly showed it coming out. That would have had at least 3 points on the board for SF, unless they had a penalty + gain 0 yards on 3 downs.

        1. I assume you meant the play where Bradshaw fumbled. Watching it live, I thought the refs blew the whistle before he fumbled. I think that means the play can't be challenged. It seemed like a quick whistle but because it was blown I think that means it can't be challenged – like the incomplete pass in the Pitt Broncos game that was a fumble but could not be overturned because of the whistle.

    2. Sterling Moore sure wasn't "atrocious" on the last 2 plays of the game, which are the only reason the Pats are still alive today.

      Bruce's point is well-taken. Of course there's room to criticize — but goodness, this team just WON THE AFC TITLE GAME. They are going back to the Super Bowl. Instead the first thing to come out of the mouths of Felger, Mazz and some of these "lifelong fans" are talking about how horrible the team is.

      It's been the same all season long…and it's time to at least acknowledge this team did a hell of a lot of good things this year. Did they get lucky yesterday? Sure. And so what. We've been on the losing end of a lot of other games on bad bounces, bad breaks, that it balances itself out. The hell, it seems most of the callers and media pundits around here can't even take winning well, never mind losing!

    3. It doesn't mean we are supposed to go into the game with extreme confidence. But Bruce's likely point is that we shouldn't be going in having to listen to how the Patriots will have no chance week in and week out. He is intentionally being extreme in one direction why you and most of the media have been extreme all year in the opposite direction.

    4. Actually, it was bad enough that @MikeReiss retweeted this:

      Out-of-town perspective MT: @espn_afceast: Wow. After advancing to Super Bowl, some Pats fans complaining on Boston radio on pass D. Really?

      If you think it's "bad", Bruce is just reflecting on what many of us are talking about here. See the comments on most of the posts over the past 3 months.

    5. "Brady has been outplayed by the opposing quarterback in 5 of his last 6 playoff games…"

      Those two things aren't indicative of Brady's performance at all. Last time I checked, Brady isn't on the field at the same time as the opposing QB.

    6. You have to be Steve from Fall River. The Patriots could win the Super Bowl and Steve would look at where the Patriots got "lucky", while whining about the DBacks.

      1. Sure it isn't Louie from the Cape? I know it's one of the guys from "the Cape" but F+M usually let him through. They've called him an Indy fan before because he trashes Brady in the Manning v. Brady (Peyton Manning) debate. I think he's more of an "anti-Pats" or "hate Brady+Hoodie" person than a Colts fan, though.

    7. So I have been thinking about what Steve here wrote for a few hours and I get it…I really do…he wants to emulate the voices he hears on the radio or he reads in the newspaper. They make an argument and because he is too lazy to make his own observations he parrots what he hears. He wants to be edgy, the swarmy guy who goes points out the flaws rather than looking at what causes the success…because he thinks it will make him look smarter. To be honest the act has grown tired to me…whether it is Shaughnessy, Tomasse, Borges, Felger, Masseroti, the late McDonough, Fearless, DA or SMY its all the same…smug, condescending contrary opinions all designed to elicit anger from the fans. The problem with guys like Steve is they want to be like these mediots rather than thinking rationally and enjoying the games/results. Congratulations Steve you have proved in one post that you are no smarter/ more interesting than the average Boston sports mediot!

      1. I'm not going to waste any more effort trying to reason with you people because you are proving my point for me. If you actually read my original post I said I think that the Patriots will win the Super Bowl. I am simply getting tired of Bruce (and apparently everyone here) preemptively bitching about any negative Patriots talk. At the end of the season, the only thing that is black and white is whether or not you were the last team standing. The Patriots hold themselves to a high standard- one that is judged on being that last team. And if they have flaws that could prevent them from reaching that goal, is it not fair to point them out? I don't understand why Brady's recent postseason trend of subpar performances (cue the pink hats pointing out his 6 td game vs Denver and ignoring the 4 other most recent games), or the secondary's play is not a cause for at least mild concern.

        On the other hand, we SHOULD be happy about the fact that Vince and the front 7 played their best game of the year (also pointed out in my original post). I am very happy that the team won. But to show blind faith and not question anything is moronic and ignorant. Do you not strive to be better? Do you think Belichick is 100% happy with everyone's performance yesterday? Is he not going to point out flaws and hope the team can improve on them in the next two weeks? I also don't like unintelligent, thoughtless columns penned by Shank or Borges that or heavy on opinion and light on fact.

        My point, which I was trying to make and no one seems to understand, is that it is more than fair to find something to complain about with yesterday's performance. Should that be the ONLY focus? Of course not. Just like when the team loses, it's not fair to only focus on the negative. When the Pats lost to the Bills, they deserved criticism, but Wes Welker deserved nothing but praise.

        I know everyone here is a fan, but that doesn't mean you need to be a fanatic, and bitch about people who can actually look at something with a level of objectivity and analysis.

        1. This genius is going to take his ball and go home to cry? Oh my what are we going to do without brilliant nuggets such as this one:

          “and the pass defense WAS atrocious yesterday.”

          On a dry day with almost no wind, the Ravens managed to score two whole offensive touchdowns. When I think atrocious, I think of the 6 TDS allowed by Denver against the Patriots, you know, the game that only pinkhat fanboys have any memory of?

          You really need to get a life.

        2. You clearly don't read many of the posts here, or you're new to the site. Most regulars on these walls will be as quick to point out the flaws as well as the positives. Because we harp on Negative Nancies like F&M, doesn't mean we're fanboys, more like we ask for reasons and obejective analysis. If they do X wrong, what do they do right. Instead, the latter is ignored, and the former is hyped up.

  2. The next two weeks are going to be nauseating and it starts tonight with the NFL Networks re-air of Super Bowl 42 in its entirety. Don't even get me started on whats going to happen to sports radio next week. Bruce, can't thank you enough for being back just in-time to bring some sanity to the equation!

  3. And that, people, is why games aren't won or lost based on analysis. You can bloviate all you want about how X can't cope with Y, or Z means that Team W will absolutely win — and hey, I do that too, it's fun — but CRAZY EFFING SHIZNIT can and does happen on the gridiron, all the time, which is why they bother to actually play the games. A 17-0 team loses because a journeyman hack of a WR catches an overthrown ball on his facemask with one hand — right after an All-Pro cornerback drops a ball that's perfectly thrown right to him. A team led by a scatterarmed Jesus freak who's afraid to throw to slant runners beats a football juggernaut that has approximately 400 billion times more talent — on the road. A reliable kicker shanks a chipshot FG right after a WR fails to get the sole of his foot down in the end zone before a journeyman CB strips the ball from him.

    Football is ultimately not about draft strategies, gameplanning, coaching, or even talent — it's about (to paraphrase a Tuna of note) football players making football plays in football games. Good planning, good drafting, and good talent increase the odds that you'll have playmakers making plays… but it's not determinative. And it can be totally undone by one crappy DB who didn't even know what play was called somehow managing to dislodge a ball a split-second before the ref would have called a touchdown.

    That's football.

  4. Eh…I'm not one to troll-bait, but speaking as a long-time Pats fan, they really looked terrible and are going to get killed by the Giants. It won't be competitive.

    Obviously, who knows, and I'm just being facetious…but I do agree a little with Steve above. Yes, they won – great! But nothing in that Baltimore game gave me any sense of satisfaction, sorry.

    Incidentally – how come members of the media can write the "Myra Kraft tipped the field goal" storyline with a straight face after spending all that time badgering Tebow for speaking his feelings? I totally respect Kraft and Brady honoring the woman, but I don't respect the media using her memory as an easy, contrived lead for their stories.

    Anyway…Giants 42, Pats 14.

    All best,
    Hatey McHaterston

    1. Mr. McHaterston,

      Appreciate the troll bait, it was enjoyable. Just one note to you (if you were serious) and any others who think the manner in which the Patriots won yesterday was less than great… you could say the same thing about the Giants. The 49ers threw up on themselves in that game and it still took OT (and another vomit incident) to win.

      Neither team was 'lucky'…. they were both good. Shocked if either team wins by more than 1 score.

  5. Mutt & Merloni ultimately have to go for no other reason than their football talk is so godawful it's an embarrassment that they're a part of "Patriots Monday". Hearing Troy Brown have to work with two guys who are clueless about the game, and then the line-up of guests they have on — say whatever you want about Gresh & Zo, but when it comes to football talk, Bruce is right…it's not even a debate.

    1. The big problem with Merloni is that he also repeats every single football cliche in the book, with nothing else to add. He is not immune since many in the industry do it. Oddly enough, credit a segment that D+C did last week on this.

      "Setting the edge"
      "Get off to a fast start."
      "Establish the run"
      "Keep a balanced offense"
      "Spread the defense out"

      Could go for many lines there.

      I can't listen to him talk anything but baseball anymore.

    2. Mutt is the consummate weekend host. He's not a strong personality, delivers nothing you didn't already know, isn't terribly knowledgeable about anything in particular. He's just there to kind of steer the ship, create the occasional easily-thwarted straw-man argument, and make sure no one swears. Maybe worst of all isn't just that he's not a strong personality, he's completely devoid of personality. I'm sure in real life the guy must have some sort of charisma, but on the air he's about as boring as they come. His voice isn't awful, nor is it distinctive.

      Merloni as a sidekick just sort of sounds like a nice guy you'd want to have watch your dog for the weekend or something, not necessarily someone who is must-listen on the radio. And if he's supposed to play the part of the former athlete on the radio, having him talk hoops or hockey is pretty brutal. I mean, if your experience is simply Pop Warner or youth hockey, then heck, I could be Mutt's co-host.

      These guys are just vanilla and easily forgettable.

  6. The Patriots certainly weren't the better team yesterday – they won on a coin flip. I'll take the win, but don't tell me to be proud of that performance. And yes, Brady's playoff greatness has deserted him. i'll give him the 2007 Super Bowl, but since then, he's come up short in three out of four games – plain fact. And the recent history of the Patriots-Giants games can't possibly favor the Pats. They've been man-handled by the Giants – another plain fact. To me, this game will be a pick-em.

    I'm not sure what DaveR's point is – obviously, they have to play the games. That's called a truism. But all those flukes that can change games don't happen if the better team plays up to potential. If you're up by 2 TDs, flukey calls don't change the game. The Ravens and the Pats were about equal on the field, and luck won the game for the Pats. Just don't tell me that a lucky win is a good thing. That luck doesn't carry over to the next game. Talent and execution do.

    1. Losing on two last second TD drives is not getting “manhandled”. Also, how did you feel in 2001, 2003, 2004 when nearly every game came down to kicks, goofy plays, clutch D, and referee calls? I guess you’ve never been pleased by any big victories they’ve had. And you want to talk about luck? Look no further than the 9-7 Giants and their recent history.

      This is not the BCS. This is the highest level of football.

    2. Dave Rs point is that football games are not won because of style points. All these so called "experts" and fans are upset because the Pats are not winning stylistically perfect games. Tom Brady misses an open Gronk down the seam yet the team still wins but it "feels like a loss". They are now in the SB. Does it really matter how they got here? Seriously, 15 years from now is anyone going to say….they got to the SB in spite of Tom Brady. No…they are going to say…On Brady's 5th appearance in the SB…

      Is it so wrong to ask that the columnists and talking heads at least try to help fans enjoy what this team has done rather than rip it to shreds about what it hasn't done?

    3. "Manhandled"?

      — The Patriots outpassed the Giants and outrushed the Giants.
      — The Pats lost Spikes and Chung during the game.
      — The Giants punted on their first five possessions of the game.
      — The Giants gained 75 yards total in the first half.
      — The game-winning drive featured a stupendous catch on a ball that was overthrown by about 4 feet and a BS pass interference call.

      This is what f–king drives me nuts. At the time, the Giants game was correctly viewed as "A loss to a team that the Pats absolutely should have beaten if Brady didn't suck donkey balls during the first three quarters." Now, it's "OMG THE PATS WERE MANHANDLED BY THE GIANTS WHO ARE A TEAM FULL OF BART STARRS AND ED TOO TALL JONESES AND NOW THEY WILL BEAT US 947-0 BECAUSE BELICHICK IS A LOUSY DRAFTER." Or so the media and certain "fans" will tell you. Because, as Bruce notes, if you only read/listened to the media around here, you'd think that the Pats were an 0-16 team composed of crippled kindergarteners who were given a special dispensation into the Super Bowl by the President after Bob Kraft paid him a billion dollars of Patriot Place graft and bribery money under the table who are certainly worthless sacks of puke compared to the TRUE FOOTBALL TEAMS such as St. Rooney's Steelers (lost to a mediocre college QB at home) or the Great and Powerful Ravens (missed a 34-yard field goal, couldn't score a needed TD against the "second-worst defense in the league").

      If Asante Samuel just holds on to the ball that Eli so graciously threw right to him, we're not even discussing this. It's "Will the Giants be able to take revenge for their crushing Super Bowl loss four years ago?" But no — the Theme for Football 2012 in these parts is "Inferior Patriots are Inferior". Except they're inferiorly in the Super Inferiorbowl now. Which, I guess, occurred because all the other teams superiorly excercised their superiority to superiorly lose.

      I'm tired of hearing "the Pats are going to lose because ___________". There's only one answer to that blank: "they have fewer points after 60 minutes of football." Anything else is unsupportable BS and a waste of time.

      1. I was at that game – a 24-20 destruction of the Patriots by those Super G-men. When Gostowksi missed a chip shot at the end of the first half we just knew it was a sign of things to come.

        Sarcasm aside I don't think any real Pats fan thinks the Giants are going to rollover this team in two weeks. Do the naysayers, who believe in the vaunted Giants pass-rush know Vollmer didn't play that day? If he plays in the Super Bowl then having Solder play TE is a huge boost. Do you think Brady might have some time to talk to Martinez, his private QB guru? And this week we forgot about the presence of McDaniels who knows a couple of things about NY.

        The the DB's are playing better than they were that game too.

        And I think this Patriots team has a bit going for it in wanting revenge for 2007 along with the influence of Myra Kraft.

        A win wouldn't erase the memory of 2007 but it would allow for some measure of redemption and most of us would feel a whole lot better, especially the Patriots organization.

        Of course those things are moot to the media types and those who go through life, one whine at a time. I know I look forward to the game and think the Pats have a certain magic this year the Giants don't. Just my two cents.

        1. I hate the Giants but their run to this Super Bowl has been magical. They beat the #1 and 2 seeded teams in their conference in their buildings. If that's not magical, I don't know what is.

      2. BB is a lousy drafter when it comes to evaluating secondary talent. McCourty's first season notwithstanding.

    4. A coin-flip? Luck? I think that perfectly defines the Giants win in the Superbowl in '07, no?

      They "man-handled" the Pats so badly… that they needed a last minute drive to overcome Brady's 'game-winning' TD to Moss… and that drive required a dropped interception, a Houdini-like escape from a sack and a catch on a dude's dome.

      Yup…. Pats got KILLED in that game.

      This year, as pointed out, the Giants again needed a last second drive to overcome the 'game-winning' TD, that again required an ridiculous catch.

      Pats for KILLED.

      Giants may win… and maybe that will require more 'luck'.

  7. "Just don't tell me that a lucky win is a good thing. That luck doesn't carry over to the next game."

    A lucky win IS a good thing, otherwise there is no next game.

  8. You know what's awesome? I don't have to give a shiit that you "don't take any satisfaction from yesterday's win", or that you're "not proud of that performance." I'm content to let you discover new and exciting ways to be thoroughly miserable – I'd say from the above comments that you probably have it coming to you. "Enjoy" yourself. I'll just watch my team play in another Super Bowl.

  9. Show me a championship season, in any sport, where the failures of the opposition or plain dumb luck don't play a part. Boston fans don't just want the win, they want the ball to spin a certain way after Gronk spikes it.

  10. While I have very negative feelings about this game, I will say that this gives the team a chance to do even a step above what would have happened in 2007.

    By winning they would bookend the 2002, 04-05 Super Bowls, and validate everything in the middle…so the 2006 AFC game, the 07 SB, even the recent playoff losses all become chapters in a decade-long dynasty. Which is MUCH different than the fading 'almost did it' chapter of losing those games.

    Other than the 49ers from 1982-94, I don't think any other team would have been as decisively part of the conversation for such a long time. Dallas was dominant for a long time, but I think the championship gap from 1978 to 1992 is too long to call "one dynasty"

    If the Pats win, then the almost-undefeated season is just one additional bauble in a crown that spans 11 years.

    So believe me, even though I'n Mr. Negative, I fully understand the stakes at hand…but I'm not blind. They didn't look good. They did what they did had to do to win, and I hope that's enough two weeks from now.

  11. Hey, remember the Tuck Rule game in January 2001? Boy, that felt like a loss. Had to rely on the officials to bail us out of playing terrible against the Raiders.

    Hey, remember the AFC Championship in January 2001? Boy, that felt like a loss. Hell, the fans in Pittsburgh are still talking about how they "basically won" the game, despite not winning the game.

    Hey, remember the divisional round in January 2004? Boy, that felt like a loss. Had to rely on Vinatieri to bail us out against the Titans, who clearly would have won the game except for the fact that they didn't.

    Hey, remember the AFC Championship in January 2004? Boy, that felt like a loss. If you take away the 4 interceptions and the clearly improper failure to call pass interference on every defensive play, the Colts would have won easily.

    Good god — when have the Patriots ever won a game? I'm baffled now!

    1. None of those games felt like losses at all.

      This Baltimore game didn't feel like a loss. It felt like a win where they didn't play very well, and had to make some breaks to pull it off. That simply is not the kind of game you want right before the Super Bowl!

      No offense, but there is a middle road here…you can be a Patriots fan and also not be overwhelmed by excitement at their performance.

      1. That's fine, Webster, you can say that…but the Giants win vs. SF had the same feeling. So by your logic, both teams backed into the Super Bowl. I guess it'll be a tie…

        1. Oh yeah, if I was a Giants fan, I would be bad-appling just the same. They looked awful too, and actually deserved it less than the Pats.

          But, Eli is scary-good…

  12. Maybe you ladies should quit watching football and concentrate on Truck Day, I hear it's approaching

  13. You guys would crap all over a winning lottery ticket. Try rooting for a team like the Redskins or the Chargers year in and year out and then see how stupid your complaining about the quality of wins isn't good enough. No wonder fans around the country hate New Englanders. Its because of whiners like you guys.

  14. Webster got no satisfaction from winning the AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME?? Ya, you're a fan all right. For how long? Since 2001? Because anyone who has been a fan since the early 70's got a whole lot of satisfaction for having things go the Pats way in a game where they werent perfect. Again, entitled whining ninnies who take no joy in anything. I pity the girlfriends or wives of you guys.

  15. The Patriots now have 15 total wins this season, tied for the most in the league. It's not like they just backed into the playoffs because the rest of their division either dramatically under-performed all season or fell apart down the stretch. Then they would be…the Giants.
    Listening to Felger and Mazz last week, they operated under the fundamental premise that that the Ravens were a much more physical team and for the "pretty boy" Patriots could only win by playing a finesse game. There was no disputing that. It was fact. So what happened? The Patriots won ugly, and proved they were mentally tougher and at least as physically tough as the "gritty" Ravens. It takes a complete lack of shame to be so wrong, so often and not be embarrassed by it. Enjoy the Bowl…

  16. Some of you supposed "fans" who think the Patriots owe you some sort of artistic grandiosity in their wins make me sick.

    The last decade of football has been AWESOME!! Months of your pathetic little lives are lifted up and given some semblance of 'meaning' and happiness because this franchise is competitive and exciting each year.

    Even if they lose in two weeks, who cares? What a ride these years have been and we are damn lucky to be here to see it. Some day this run of competitiveness will come to an end and those of you with even a bit of introspection will look upon your current negativity and see it for what it is: pathetic and pathological.

    1. The only defense to this is this:
      – Would you take 10 years of being great with one or two Superbowl wins or basically 10 years of suckage with one lucky reason? Ask those inept franchises out there like the Raiders since 02, Bengals, Browns, etc.

      While the trolls love to harp on the latter, I'll take the winning/good seasons over anything. If someone was being honest, they'd rather a shot every year instead of having to endure dark age periods in the decades before getting good for 2-3 years, maybe winning it all or getting close, and then repeating.

      1. Perfect point:
        See Minnesota Vikings 2-3 years ago
        Carolina Panthers earlier in the decade
        San Diego Chargers middle of the decade
        Seattle Seahawks middle of the decade

        Where are these franchises now after a solid 2-4 year run? Back in the tank where they will remain for another 3 years before getting good again.

  17. You coalition of the miserable, we get it; A Patriots win over NYG will just reopen the hurt of that 19-0 season you earned emotionally but they didn't deliver. Say no more.

  18. You know if I was Bob Kraft I would seriously consider buying a sports talker in town. How much money do the patriots earn 98.5 only to be unfairly pilloried by the afternoon hosts day in and day out. What about the midday hosts…both employed by the Patriots do to the pre, during and post game shows and they can't find positive angles to talk about for up until today and then it was only some of the time. Maybe Kraft should take his business and go somewhere else or start his own brand…some place where his team is not treated like ugly red headed step child. He should pull Patriots Monday and Friday from WEEI for the same reasons, although to be fair D & C have been fairer to the team than anyone else….although that is damning with faint praise. He should pull his advertising from the Globe and Herald…its not like they are doing him any favors with much of the coverage he receives. Of course this will not happen because there will be yells about censorship, or voices will be mocked for being sunshine, but in this new world at least there might be one place to go to avoid all the agendas and vendettas. I just find the whole treatment the Pats receive ridiculous….not that it is new…it has been going on since the Globe sided with the traitor Parcells in 1996 in his battle with Bob Krafft for control of the groceries.

    1. Juxtapose that with Doc Rivers’ treatment. Nobody buried during the pre – big 3 era and nobody is calling him out now during his worst coaching performance to date. Why? Because he’s a backslapper

      1. I always come back to comparing the Pats treatment to the Sox…it took the worst collapse in history, seriously the worst one in MLB history before the press was even willing to look critically at Theo and Tito and even then they determined it wasn't their fault…obviously it was the players eating chicken and drinking beer. Your Doc Rivers example is great too. Look at the kid gloves 98.5 treats the Bruins….Hey Felger you own the broadcast rights to the Pats as well you goof! At least WEEI was critical of the Bruins for years…but that seems to have evaporated with the 1 cup and the removal of Harry Sinden. All of a sudden Jeromy Jacobs is a cult hero. The guy could care less about Boston or the Hockey team.

  19. If you’re a DirecTV subscriber, you might be nervous about being able to see the Super Bowl.

    Well the over the air feed is still free and available. Right?

  20. In five minutes' time today, Felger managed to contradict himself three times. Guys, if you want to be contrarian, fine, but at least try to be consistent in your position.

    As for Tim Thomas, he just dropped, like, 10 spots in my book. Two bullets in that guy's head. Today was not about you, not about Obama, but about the Bruins and teamwork, ya jackass!

    1. The guy won you the Stanley Cup and you want him murdered because he expressed his free speech rights. Wow.

    2. My favorite thing about Felger & Mazz is how the last few weeks have boiled down to this:
      "The Pats defense sucks, Belichick has made dubious decisions, Brady plays bad they're dead, they're totally one-dimensional… that said, they should win this game this week."
      Asses. Covered.

  21. Random thoughts on the afternoon listening to Felger & Mazz:
    (quick aside, I only listen to this at work because my other option is the Big Show, nuff said).

    1) Felger made the comments that "they" helped breakdown the loss from 2007 and assisted Patriots getting through and over that loss. I beg to differ, they harped on the same points relating to defense, draft picks, Belichick bashing, etc. Not breaking down the game, just same takes repeated.

    2) Mazz offfers no insight and is very similar to the Big O.

    1+2= 3) The two points above have combined to create F&M new stance, that is the Patriots win, they can finally say they have beaten an Elite team. Lets break this down:
    (I may have to make another thread if this is too long)

    a) Patriots didn't make their regular season schedule. They were 13-3, 1 loss was to Buffalo who sucked. So if the Patriots went 16-0 again, would Felger and Mazz then say they only beat 1 team that was legit (Giants)? Doubt it, beating the Giants would mean they never would've made the playoffs, they lessening the quality of that win. A theoretical win over Pitt would be lessened by the fact that Pitt lost to Denver.

    b) So leading up to this game, Baltimore was lauded for being a great team with tough Def, a great running game, and a QB with questions. The latter was surprisingly effective. After the Pats win, F&M lumped Baltimore in with the "can of corn" teams the Pats have beaten all season…….

    1. This leads me to my last point. F&M had the nerve to state the win over the Giants would be the first over an elite team. What?????? So based on their reasoning, the entire AFC sucks. NE, Pitt, Balt were considered the cream of the "canned corn" crop. Alliteration aside, who else in the AFC could they possibly say is elite, Houston, the Jets (lmao)?
      Let's take a look at the NFC using their logic and past comments:
      GB, fatally flawed on DEF yet they have the playmakers that your NE DEF does not have. The have a great QB with better offensive weapons. But are they really elite.
      F&M response: Nope, not enough balance.

      New Orleans: See Above

      San Fran: They have the same type of QB as Flacco. Alex Smith is a puddle that can't get it done. They have the DEF of Baltimore, but the QB is what can come back to bite them. Reminder, this part was actually mentioned on the air today, but I'm paraphrasing. My interpretation is SF=Balt, can of corn.

      Who does that leave? The NYG. So the entire league only has 1 Elite team that the Patriots could potentially beat. This brings me back to letter (a). If the Patriots win in the regular season vs the Giants, does this argument even happen, make sense, or defy logic?

      1. That's the New York Giants who only made it into the playoffs because the Cowboys took a giant cowdump against them on the last day of the season, correct? The one that got "manhandled" by Washington?

        Oh yeah, they're totally elite, F&M. Way more elite than those pansy 12-4 Ravens with their +112 point differential. I mean, the Giants allowed only 400 points, while the Ravens gave up a whole 266! A scant 11 of the 15 other NFC teams allowed fewer points than the Giants! Compare that to the pedestrian Ravens — a whopping two teams gave up more points! In the whole NFL! I mean, that's as close to "non-elite" as you can come, right? How could the Pats only win by three against such a mediocre, nonachieving bunch of slackers like that!

        1. Exactly, just saw the stat on Sports Tonight about total defense, a stat F&M love. Patriots 31st in the NFL, Giants 27th. Yet "The Man in the Sweater Vest" and his Curious Parrot will tell you that regular season DEF means nothing, its how the Giants are playing now. Yet the same twig and parrot will use the 31st overall stat to lessen the Pats.

          They have mastered in art of shape-shifting facts to fit an argument, Fact not opinion!

        2. I'll go you one better: they only made the playoffs because back in October the officials decided that Victor Cruz "gave himself up" against Arizona, and therefore did not fumble, when in actuality he fell down, got up and left the ball behind, which Arizona fell on. Game over if the refs don't make that bizarre "gave himself up" call. The Cardinals were ahead and the Giants were out of timeouts. Instead, the NYG kept possession and scored the GW touchdown a few plays later. And the Pats were robbed by those P.I. calls in the regular season meeting–especially the incredibly bogus call on Arrington earlier in the 4th quarter which cost them 40 yards.

        3. If Jason Witten made that catch in the first Dallas game. If Garrett didn't ice his kicker.. we'd have a different story.

          Bradshaw and Nix (I think Nix or one of their WRs) was not in the game. Spikes got hurt in the 2nd and they had to put in Guyton.

  22. Love it! I'll save you some time…F+M will waffle for two weeks then both pick the Patriots by 3 because of the QB edge..or the coaching edge..or the Myra Factor.

    Posters are bringing the A Game – hope the radio boys can keep up. Agree that Gresh/Zo are the go-to in the midday right now mostly by default. Have to say that D+C responded to the AM challenge with their re-focus on sports only (mostly) and it could be a long two weeks for Toucher & Rich, although the Knights Inn bit this morning was funny, especially if you've ever stayed in one. Too many pom poms for me at 2 on EEI so I guess that means Hot Sports Takes for the duration.

    Here's my call on the emerging radio theme for the next two weeks: Giants have the edge at quarterback.

  23. Alright folks, looking at some of the posts it looks like we need to have a history lesson. Let's look at the previous ownerships:
    Billy Sullivan, 1960-1987 Record 193-202
    The Good:
    1) Sullivan brought football back to New England after five previous attempts failed.
    2) Patriots made six playoff appearances and were in two title games in 1963 and 1985.
    The Bad:
    1) Sullivan and his sons were cheapskates. They refused to pay some of their elite talent like Nick Buoniconti and Mike Haynes.
    2) They stabbed Chuck Fairbanks in the back. Fairbanks, who had player personnel responsibilities, offered John Hannah and Leon Gray contracts before the 1978 season. Chuck Sullivan who was the CFO stepped in because he felt the offer was too large and made Fairbanks go to Hannah and Gray and take back the offer. Patrick Sullivan would take over GM duties. We all know what a class act Patrick was during the 1985 playoff run in Oakland. The Patriots would then suspend Fairbanks after he knew his time was up and signed with Colorado. The 1978 Patriots who looked like a surefire Super Bowl team would get run over by Earl Campbell and the Houston Oilers 31-14 in the AFC Playoffs.

    Victor Kiam, 1988-1991, Record 23-57
    The Good:
    Nothing, Nothing at all
    The Bad:
    I could write a book on it. From Lisa Olson to forcing Ray Berry to replace Doug Flutie with Tony Eason because Eason made more money. Kiam was an unmitigated failure.
    (P.S. Billy Sullivan was still president and had a hand in Flutie being replaced.)

    James Orthwein, 1992-1993, Record 17-31
    The Good:
    Orthwein hired Bill Parcells and started a culture change in the organization.
    The Bad:
    Orthwein, the grandson of Adolphus Busch, was on a fast track to bring the team to St.Louis. If it were not for the incredible business savvy of Robert Kraft, we would be talking about the St. Louis Patriots and the chance of an NFL team ever being in New England again would have been truly slim.

    Since Robert Kraft has become the owner of the New England Patriots, the team has posted a record of 193-95. The Patriots have had double digit victories in ten of the last eleven years. It is the thirteenth time in eighteen seasons the Patriots have made the playoffs. This is the sixth Super Bowl under Kraft. Has it been perfect? No, there was Pete Carroll and Bobby Grier. But unlike other owners, (Jerry Jones) Kraft learned and has made the team what it is today.

    Think about it, people are complaining about how the Patriots got to the Super Bowl. That is hysterical. Some people would only be happy with a 35-0 victory. These folks are more spoiled than four year old cabbage. Would I like to have seen Tom Brady go 31-36 for 375 yards and five touchdowns? of course, but that is unrealistic. The fact is as the "experts" like to point out the Patriots "historically" bad defense out played the third best defense in the league. In the playoffs, you need to have a defense step up when the offense is not clicking. The Patriots did and they are going to the Super Bowl. What more could you want?

      1. I salute you, tl;138, in acknowledging in public your lack of reading comprehension. That's a brave thing you just did, confessing that 542 words are just too much for your poor, addled brain to process. Must be hell simply reading the prescription on your ADD medication.

        I can only imagine how difficult it is going through life when even Cliff Notes versions are too long. Twitter must have been like a lifeline to you!

        I should close as I'm probably already past your limit. Let me just say, I think it's swell what you've accomplished despite everything. I think that's just the tops!

    1. Great post mandb97!

      Looking at the success of the Pats since Kraft bought them, and Boston sports over the last decade I don't know how anyone can be miserable. The real shame of it to me is the so called "pros" are old enough to have see some really bad stretches for the local teams, and should realize how good we have it now.

  24. Just curious: has Mr. Borges decided whether or not that AFC title game on Sunday was a "street fight" or a "pillow fight"? Last week on Felger's show he said Baltimore would win the former and the Pats could only win the latter.

    Just wondering…

  25. Hey Bruce, Why don't you give Jerry Thornton credit when you stole his "settling Family Business" comment?

    1. I never saw Jerry write it, if I did, and got the idea from him I would have said so. I first said it right after the season when the Jets went nuts and Polian was fired. I don’t know when Jerry wrote his. It is possible for two people to have the same idea independently.

  26. I’ve never heard anyone say that the Giants victory in Super Bowl XXV should have an asterisk attached to it, but I’m pretty sure that if the Pats do win it, there will be a small minority of local so-called media and fans that say there should be asterisk attached for just getting there on a lucky play.

  27. I heard a new debate angle from a caller to T&R this morning: "Ochocinco doesn't deserve a Super Bowl ring!" I don't know how anyone, just days after your team advanced to the Super Bowl, would even think about that, let alone call in to a radio station to complain about it.
    One/only positive byproduct of the Thomas White House snub: at least it is distracting the media (somewhat) from horrifically annoying story lines like above.

  28. "Patriots won"
    The only news I wanted to read yesterday.
    I truly don't care how they do it. Let them back into a Super Bowl victory.

  29. The giants suck. They had 2 games handed to them. Green Bay didn't show up and a rookie handed them the game in San Francisco. They have no chance. They will get blown away. The line should be 7 and all of the giant fans who think they're making a great bet because they're underdogs, will get a big wake up call after the game. They have no business being there.

Comments are closed.