The Bruins remained undefeated on the young season, improving to 5-0-1 with a 2-1 shootout win over the New Jersey Devils last night at the Garden.
While that should be enough of a talking point, a certain morning show was more obsessed instead with a sausage that was thrown onto the ice during the shootout. Not so much that it forced a do-over of a shot, but about the sausage itself. Analysis of the “foreskin” of the sausage was included in the talk. Yeah. Other shows have focused on the actual game which is a nice change.
A few other odds and ends:
The notion that the Celtics are somehow more “likeable” without Rajon Rondo kind of blows my mind, as does the idea that getting triple-doubles is in any way selfish. While the Celtics may find a way to adapt without Rondo, in no way will they be better or more likeable without him. The team has struggled mightily thus far this season, and if they improve over the second half of the season, – which I still expect – it won’t be because Rondo is out.
Rondo has become the whipping boy on the Celtics by certain sports radio hosts. Much like Randy Moss or Josh Beckett, Rondo is often defiant, prickly and uncooperative with the media. That’s what it boils down to. If a fan is turned off by Rondo’s attitude, they’re either influenced heavily by the Felgers of the world, or they just dislike him, and use “attitude” as their reason. I’ve come to love his attitude, which is fearless and headstrong, not willing to suffer fools gladly.
Speaking of Randy Moss, I always enjoyed his media sessions. It was great to see and hear him yesterday at Super Bowl media day, and he is the biggest reason while I’ll be rooting for the 49ers on Sunday. (Well, that and keeping peace with my Bay Area family) He proclaimed himself the greatest receiver to ever play the game, (which is a stretch, but I can see his case) and expressed regret over how things ended here in New England.
In fact, if you’re going to compare Rajon Rondo to another athlete, it might be Randy Moss. Both are freaks of nature who can do (or did) things you never saw before, and someone who you can’t take your eyes off of when they either play or speak. They both are incredibly intelligent players and people who have had a testy relationship with the press, and who have been lauded by their teammates as great teammates and leaders, but blasted by the media who can’t fathom such a notion based on their own limited personal dealings with them. Both will speak their mind without regard for consequences, which isn’t always a great thing, but another example of their mindset.
Marshall Faulk: ‘I’ll never be over being cheated out of Super Bowl’ – Tom E Curran poked the former Rams running back with a stick, and he responded.
The Boston Magazine column from Monday has generated plenty of discussion and reaction from the media, many not happy with the portrayal of things. Some, predictably, missed the point, which was largely that we’ve had pretty much the same major voices around here for years and years, and those stale voices have blocked the emergence of some fresher, younger voices, who have then been “poached” by national or out-of-town gigs.
Others have argued that the media is really just a reflection of the fans, and is giving them what they want, meaning that Boston fans as a group are a bunch of whiny, cynical negative people who don’t get an ounce of joy from sports, but instead use it as an outlet to rant and criticize in an attempt to make them feel better about themselves.
OK, so maybe there are some like that out there. I know some. Are the majority this way? If there was a block of programming that was smart, insightful and without the usual snark would it be popular? The problem is that while many people would enjoy such programming, they likely would not react to it, which is one of the only ways that the producers of content can gauge whether their content is being paid attention to. By going to extremes the other way, they get the reaction, even if it is negative, so they know people are paying attention. Negative reaction is better than no reaction…or so they reason.
There are times I enjoy negative commentary. The last couple of seasons, the Red Sox have angered me as a fan, and there have been times I’ve enjoyed the biting commentary on them. The negativity is justified. But what about when things are going well?
It almost seems like an issue of insecurity. There don’t seem to be a lot of people secure enough in their abilities to just produce solid content that is void of controversy, and let it stand on its own. They need to know it is being consumed.
The feature really just scratched the surface. This is a subject that can be discussed without end.