Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Yesterday the CHB ribbed local talk radio for stating the obvious: The Manning HGH coverage has been non-existent while the DG coverage was ravenous. Today, Chad Finn wrote exactly that in the Globe. So is the Globe now also guilty of being a Pats propaganda vehicle, Danny?
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,163
“The one and only good thing to come out of the Globe’s home-delivery nightmare is the reinforcement that a lot of you folks still care about your printed hometown newspaper and still consider it part of your daily routine. Thank you. We will do better.” Shank

Well, no, still no paper today
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
“The one and only good thing to come out of the Globe’s home-delivery nightmare is the reinforcement that a lot of you folks still care about your printed hometown newspaper and still consider it part of your daily routine. Thank you. We will do better.” Shank

Well, no, still no paper today
Me either. I think I may cancel my subscription tomorrow. And that sucks because I've been reading the Globe every Sunday since 1986. When I was in college and broke as shit, I'd scrape some cash together and buy the Globe.

I really enjoy reading the paper on Sunday with my wife, trading sections and talking about what we read while my eldest is looking at the comics, like I used to do.

But John Henry had to save a couple bucks and fuck up this delivery thing. Fuck him. I don't want to read the Boston Globe on my iPad. I spend seven days a week staring at a screen, I'd like one hour to read a paper.

I don't think I've been this pissed off about something in a long time.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548

Jesus. This was a bit over the line, no?

The way that some people voraciously defend the Patriots (and all sports teams) is akin to them defending some weird amalgam of their wife/mother/daughter.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
IIRC Shank was one of the guys who got high and mighty when BB's son got busted for weed a few years back, saying he (BB) was a public figure and thus it was news. So frankly I don't have much sympathy for Shank when his idiot son gets arrested for being aggressive and drunk in public.

IMO empathy should be saved for those who deserve it. I know that's dickish to say but Shank doesn't really get the benefit of the doubt here.
 
Last edited:

Andy Merchant

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2010
1,655
It's been a while, but I seem to remember a writer from (I think) the Herald being on sports radio and saying that he was called by another media member and asked not to write about his son when he had gotten into trouble with the police. He didn't come out and say it, but the implication was that the caller was Shaughnessy.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
IIRC Shank was one of the guys who got high and mighty when BB's son got busted for weed a few years back, saying he (BB) was a public figure and thus it was news. So frankly I don't have much sympathy for Shank when his idiot son gets arrested for being aggressive and drunk in public.

IMO empathy should be saved for those who deserve it. I know that's dickish to say but Shank doesn't really get the benefit of the doubt here.
It's debatable whether Shaughnessy is a public figure, but even if you think that he isn't, it's bush league for him or Bruce Allen to drag the kid of someone into something like this.

Bruce Allen and his ilk try to be people who watch the media, but they're just as bad when it comes to this garbage. You want to be better than Dan Shaughnessy, be better than Dan Shaughnessy. Don't drag his kid into your "feud" (and it's really a silly dispute -- people are mad that he wrote bad things about their sports teams, that's what it comes down to, really).
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Sports media today are definitely public figures, and Shank has no problem reaping the benefits of it. I don't blame him for trying to squash the stuff about his son though, I'd do the same thing, even if it was hypocritical.
 

Dirty Sanchez Forever

goose-stepping wannabe
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2003
213
It's debatable whether Shaughnessy is a public figure, but even if you think that he isn't, it's bush league for him or Bruce Allen to drag the kid of someone into something like this.

Bruce Allen and his ilk try to be people who watch the media, but they're just as bad when it comes to this garbage. You want to be better than Dan Shaughnessy, be better than Dan Shaughnessy. Don't drag his kid into your "feud" (and it's really a silly dispute -- people are mad that he wrote bad things about their sports teams, that's what it comes down to, really).

Some people might be mad that he spent the time to locate and then complain to their bosses because a critical email came from a work related address. But I digress.

Anything and everything is fair game. Sam Shaughnessy isn't anonymous. He's the subject of a book that sold at least 500 copies, hopefully fewer.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
The CHB's dismissal of Berman as a fanboy caught up in celebrity ignores that Goodell made a huge leap from the findings in the Wells Report to his own, seemingly unsupported, conclusions and the many process issues that Berman cited. It also ignores that Court after Court has found that, despite the massive powers granted to the Commissioner in the CBA, Goodell has repeatedly managed to go way too far. I agree with Dan that it is far from a certainty that Tom wins the appeal. My opinion is unpopular but I would have long ago settled at a game if that option had been on the table (which it likely was not) because I think there is a decent possibility that the "wrong" panel could come down on the side of wide discretion under the CBA. But to reduce all of this to Berman being a fanboy is classic lazy thinking by the CHB. All Dan points to is Berman noting the 28-0 second half which is evidence only of the fact that a human judge effectively admitted that he was not immune to seeing the impossible to ignore context of this silly charade. Every judge is affected by context, whether he admits it or not, and noting it hardly tells us that Berman was star struck or a fan.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Dan in a column in today's Globe attempts to reduce the NE reaction to Peyton as pure homerism. He doesn't come out and say that but that's his essential argument.

In doing so, he ignores that those who dislike Manning are fueled, at least in part, by things like Manning's penchant for throwing teammates under the bus, the total character assassination of his Tennessee accuser, the patented Roger Clemens "blame the wife defense" when caught receiving HGH and other such items that point to an arguably flawed individual. Now, of course, Pats fans -- and Brady fans who are annoyed by the difference in treatment of the two players by the media and NFL, and who believe Tom is the actual GOAT -- are more apt to pick up on these things than fans from other cities. That's of course true. So it's not as if Dan is totally off base. But, as usual, it's not nearly as black and white as the CHB seems to suggest.

He also manages to present Tom's alleged ball deflation as a fact when it remains something that has not been firmly established as such. He does that by referring to it as something Tom did but then immediately minimizing the importance of it relative to Manning's perceived sins. Dan trying to be subtle as he creates the narrative around his own beliefs....
 

Buffalo Head

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2001
6,864
San Diego, CA
I'm a huge fan of women's basketball and "not" a fan of Danny......

But he's right - for once.

The 'UConn thing' is bad for the sport.
How so? By what metric? ESPN ratings are up. Two 7-seeds are in the Final Four, first time either team has reached a Final Four, so parity exists where it didn't 10-20 years ago. More money is flowing into women's programs that didn't happen 10-20 years ago. Hell, some total moron even wrote two books about the UConn prorgram in the past five years. Other than Pat and Geno writing autobiographies, no one was writing books about women's basketball 10-20 years ago. UConn had record winning streaks and routinely destroyed opponents in the NCAA Tournament in the early 2000s. Not only didn't it kill the sport, it clearly helped it. Why is it different now?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
they won at that rate. Were they doubling and tripling up on the opponents' scores?

I'm not saying this is good or bad for the game, but I'm trying to determine if these are apples or oranges.

And if UConn repeats, can we get a game with the UConn women against a good Div 2 or Div 3 men's team just to see how good they are? Or against the WNBA champs?
 
I've watched like four or five women's basketball games in my life and I'm someone who worked at CBS Sports years ago covering the NCAA men's games. Some people find women's basketball enjoyable, which is great, but I find it brutally boring.

That said, the only games I watched was UConn versus another elite team and I viewed it solely to see if UConn would actually lose. You couldn't pay me to watch ND vs Oregon or whatever. But I will take a look to see how UConn is doing on occasion just because I'm fascinated by their historic dominance. I know a lot of my friends feel the same way I do.

PS - Good for Geno and his comments - screw Shaugnessy. And let's be honest, it's not like Shank is going to be writing about women's basketball either way, he just loves to bitch.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
And let's be honest, it's not like Shank is going to be writing about women's basketball either way, he just loves to bitch.
Yeah, his premise seems to be that a Syracuse v. Texas final that comes down to the wire would be better for women's basketball. But I don't think that's true. I think this is all about people who don't watch, and won't watch no matter what, pontificating on why it's bad and what would make it better in the opinion of people who are never going to watch.

Would it be better if UConn had a Joe Frazier type foil? Maybe it would. But you can't script this stuff. It's great because it's not scripted. I've noticed this phenomenon in coverage of the men's tournament lately -- this thing where the dramatic and unusual is now expected and people are pissed if they don't get it. Buster Douglas beating Mike Tyson was amazing because of just how crazy and unexpected it was. Now, we're pissed that the Connecticut women haven't yet had their Buster Douglas moment. If they do, it will be memorable. But if it happens, it will be memorable precisely because it isn't supposed to happen, which also means in all likelihood it won't. We can't have it both ways.
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,260
Seacoast NH
There have been dominant men's D1 football or basketball programs where the question was posed "could they beat (insert pro team)?". Wanting to see how the team would compare against perceived better competition is not a strange thought. They've lost 1 game in like three years and since their last loss in November of 2014 they haven't won by less than 10 points. I think everyone is aware they are good.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I'm a huge fan of women's basketball and "not" a fan of Danny......

But he's right - for once.

The 'UConn thing' is bad for the sport.
Aside from the basic truth that Dan is never right (as correctly noted above), what in the world do you expect UConn to do? Stop trying to win? Stop trying to recruit the best players?

If the Sox won at a .700 clip or something preposterous like that or the Pats went 19-0 for a few years in a row, would anyone other than Roger Goodell and the other owners he carries the water for say it is bad for the sport? Would any Sox or Pats fan say that?

No, we would all be in awe of their dominance.

I think women's basketball is borderline unwatchable but the few times I have watched UConn play (only in the Final), I have been truly awed by the sense that I was watching something you really only see once in a lot of years. I was too young for the Bill Russell Celtics or the UCLA basketball teams. I did see Tiger Woods and as much as I never liked him personally, I was awed by his brilliance. I was rooting for Serena to get the calendar slam last year for the same reason.

The notion that a dominating, expertly coached winner is bad for the sport is laughable.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
they won at that rate. Were they doubling and tripling up on the opponents' scores?

I'm not saying this is good or bad for the game, but I'm trying to determine if these are apples or oranges.

And if UConn repeats, can we get a game with the UConn women against a good Div 2 or Div 3 men's team just to see how good they are? Or against the WNBA champs?
UCLA Undefeated Seasons: 4
UCONN Undefeated Seasons: 5

UCLA Longest winning streak: 88 Games
UCONN Longest Winning Streak: 90 Games

UCLA Titles Under Wooden: 10
UCONN Titles Under Auriemma: 10
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Does Serena Williams need to beat a mid-level ranked men's player to prove how good she is? Clown question, bro.
Not what I said, we know how good UConn is, and how good Serena is (and they are not on the same level). I said It would be nice to see what they could do against a men's team. That would get ratings.


UCLA Undefeated Seasons: 4
UCONN Undefeated Seasons: 5

UCLA Longest winning streak: 88 Games
UCONN Longest Winning Streak: 90 Games

UCLA Titles Under Wooden: 10
UCONN Titles Under Auriemma: 10
Most Impressive. Did Wooden's teams double and triple up on their opponents? I think the difference between the UConn women and the rest of women's basketball is much greater than the difference between the UCLA teams and the rest of men's basketball.
 

Buck Showalter

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2002
6,652
Citifield - Queens, NY
The notion that a dominating, expertly coached winner is bad for the sport is laughable.
Listen - I'm not insinuating that UConn needs to apologize. They're winning championships, they're out-recruiting their peers, and Stewart will work towards her 4th consecutive MVP in the championship game.....but the lack of competition is bad for optics and drawing new fans in.

And who could argue for or against the statement that UConn is "expertly coached".....Geno has proven to win these championships via national letters of intent while recruiting the best talent. Great for him? Sure. But give Geno Notre Dame's roster and he comes up short just like Muffet has.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
Most Impressive. Did Wooden's teams double and triple up on their opponents? I think the difference between the UConn women and the rest of women's basketball is much greater than the difference between the UCLA teams and the rest of men's basketball.
UCLA had a couple years where they weren't really tested, but I don't think anything like what UConn has done to its competition this year and a couple of the other years where they were much better than the opposition. That said, remember that most of UCLA's NCAA championships were won back when the top seed only played 4 games, so they were basically playing every year against only the top 16. I'm sure if they had played 16 and 8/9 seeds back then, there would have been some crazy blow outs.

While UCLA played somewhat more competitive games during their run, they were much more dominant over a compressed period of time, whereas Connecticut has had ebbs and flows. The current senior class has been dominant, so recent history makes it seem like they are the only game in town, and they had one other team like that back in the early 2000, which won 3 out of 4 years. But there have definitely been ups and downs with the Connecticut women over time, where they were just one of a number of good teams. They won their first national championship and then had several years where they couldn't get back, and then had a period several years ago where they couldn't get to the final four, finally made it, and then got beat by Stanford.

UCLA won 10 Championships in 12 years. Connecticut, by comparison, has won 10 over 21 years, so it's a different kind of dominance. When Connecticut has been the best team in the country, they have often been the best team by a decent margin, but there have been years mixed in where they were not in the final four.
 

Buffalo Head

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2001
6,864
San Diego, CA
Not what I said, we know how good UConn is, and how good Serena is (and they are not on the same level). I said It would be nice to see what they could do against a men's team. That would get ratings.

.
They would get killed by a Div. 2 or 3 team and anyone with half a brain knows that. The women could not compete with the size, length, speed and strength of the men. It's not the same game and it would be pointless and ultimately demeaning to the women's players, although those that just want to see that would certainly enjoy it.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
Listen - I'm not insinuating that UConn needs to apologize. They're winning championships, they're out-recruiting their peers, and Stewart will work towards her 4th consecutive MVP in the championship game.....but the lack of competition is bad for optics and drawing new fans in.

And who could argue for or against the statement that UConn is "expertly coached".....Geno has proven to win these championships via national letters of intent while recruiting the best talent. Great for him? Sure. But give Geno Notre Dame's roster and he comes up short just like Muffet has.
Uconn has had the top recruiting class just once in the past five years. He has the best player in Stewart and developed two other AAs, but the team is not deep. This isn't coach k getting four mcd AA every year.

When Geno has the best player, he wins. He is the best coach the women's game has ever seen. His players play a brand of basketball that any team would envy. McGraw is a fine coach but please don't compare her to him.
 

Buffalo Head

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2001
6,864
San Diego, CA
He had one legit star on the 2003 and '04 teams in Diana Taurasi. The '03 team in particular was all freshman and role players with minimal experience because the '02 team was so totally loaded with four seniors that all went in the top 6 of the '02 WNBa Draft. Those two teams won both titles. Sure, the rallying cry was, "We have Diana and you don't," but he coached the crap out of those teams.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,966
Boston, MA
They would get killed by a Div. 2 or 3 team and anyone with half a brain knows that. The women could not compete with the size, length, speed and strength of the men. It's not the same game and it would be pointless and ultimately demeaning to the women's players, although those that just want to see that would certainly enjoy it.
Well said. I think the comp would be a decent HS boys team versus UConn. I think that Uconn would be the better outside shooting team, but the HS boys team would still dominate UConn physically and athletically, and thus, probably win going away.

On the question at hand, I don't agree that UConn's dominance is bad for the sport. I think it's great, because it's impressive to see such dominance, plus, for me, it's mostly the only reason I tune in to see if a team can give them a game. I watched a lot of the Oregon State/Baylor game last night, and the guard play in the women's game has taken a quantum leap from about 20 years ago. The guards can handle, shoot, are tough as hell and can really play. The forwards and Centers, with maybe an exception here or there, are really not very good athletes or basketball players. BTW, it was fun to see Oregon State's joy at making the final four, which is something most here could relate to.

Edit: I feel dirty posting in a shaughnessy thread. Shouldn't this discussion be broken out?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
So, largely because of this mini-controversy and discussion, I watched most of the game last night. What I saw was interesting and a bit different from the Dan Shaughnessy narrative. Or at least what I think he's trying to say. And it was actually quite different from what I thought I was going to see, or had sort of been led to believe I would see.

The final margin was 21, but that was a bit flattering to the Huskies, or at least, what you might think it must mean about the game is probably not exactly right. This was not a case of obviously better players imposing their will on an overmatched team. In fact, if you watched the game without the sound or the score on the bottom, you might be surprised to learn the score at the end. Texas was good. They were actually a bit tougher than UConn. They were a little better on the boards -- both in terms of number of rebounds and even a little bit in aggressiveness and toughness on the glass. They were physical and caused turnovers. They were capable of runs and making UConn look hesitant at times.

UConn won this game, and in fact it wasn't close, because of the way they played as a team. Yes, they have individual players who can make strong individual plays, but it was surprising how little of that there actually was. UConn won, because they used their 30 seconds every trip to find exactly the right shot -- the right person in the right place had a bit of extra space to get a higher percentage shot off. That's it. That's the only sense in which I would actually describe Connecticut as the "better" team. It was most notable when Texas would go on a little run or UConn would get frazzled and then settled themselves. It was a dogged determination to get the best shot possible under the circumstances.

And then, when they got them, they just didn't miss. To see that a team shot 12-21 from behind the arc, you'd assume that the other team's perimeter defense was simply shitty. But it wasn't that. It was just that Connecticut found the right pass, and if it wasn't someone open behind the arc, then they made the other pass. Obviously, you need good players at every position to be such a threat that there is a correct shot on each possession. But the stuff that UConn did right, at least last night, is really stuff that other teams with very good players should be able to emulate.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
I actually don't think CHB meant anything sexist. If you read his articles he's always the same inept troll. But I mean if the SJW can force him out I guess it's the one thing I can get behind when it comes to the "Social Justice Army". It's an opinion. If you don't like it then don't pay attention. It's not like he said the crap Imus said a few years back about Rutgers.

I feel disgusting even somewhat defending the CHB but holy crap some people will not rest until every non mainstream opinion is extinguished.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
I actually don't think CHB meant anything sexist. If you read his articles he's always the same inept troll. But I mean if the SJW can force him out I guess it's the one thing I can get behind when it comes to the "Social Justice Army". It's an opinion. If you don't like it then don't pay attention. It's not like he said the crap Imus said a few years back about Rutgers.

I feel disgusting even somewhat defending the CHB but holy crap some people will not rest until every non mainstream opinion is extinguished.
Extinguished? There is a position that isn't defending or extinguishing. I dont think he was sexist either. Just wrong.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Extinguished? There is a position that isn't defending or extinguishing. I dont think he was sexist either. Just wrong.
True. He wasn't wrong about it being boring. I could say that about the last super bowl too or countless other sporting events. The end game is to drive other programs to get better. Mainstream media though is eating this up as CHB is a sexist pig. Which don't get me wrong I'm the first person to crap on the guy here for anything but he's not sexist. Just an asshole looking for attention on multiple fronts since the "curse" was broken.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I don't see any sexist angle here. He just thinks that when one team is dominant to the extent that UConn is, it dulls interest in the sport. That the sport is not one that is incredibly popular is part of it but noting that is again, not sexist.

I think he's wrong but pointing that out is not related to a need to root out dissent. It's more that it's kind of an interesting point, albeit one I strongly disagree with. That the churlish, click hungry writer known as the CHB authored the point likely increases the interest level of some. But in fairness to the CHB, he raised something worthy of discussion and, ironically, seems to have single handedly amped up interest in UConn's run to the title.
 

Buffalo Head

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2001
6,864
San Diego, CA
Fair enough vs. men. How would they do against a WNBA team?

And I have zero doubt that Geno is the best coach ever in women's basketball.
I think they would get rolled by a WNBA team as well. The physical maturity issue is still the same. The WNBA is a much more physical league than anything you see in college, and there is a physical maturity advantage to being roughly mid/late 20s, as opposed to 18-21 years old. Plus, WNBA teams are essentially college All-America teams mixed in with a few international stars. Outside of Stewie and maybe Jefferson and Tuck, no one currently on UConn would be considered a top player on a WNBA team, or even a starter in most cases. So, no, I would not expect UConn to hang with any WNBA team.

Now, if you said, would a team of UConn players over the past four years beat a WNBA team, yes, that would happen and happen a lot. A team of Stewart, Mosqueda-Lewis, Dolson, Jefferson, Hartley, Stokes and Tuck and coached by Geno would contend for the title.
 
Last edited:

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
So, largely because of this mini-controversy and discussion, I watched most of the game last night. What I saw was interesting and a bit different from the Dan Shaughnessy narrative. Or at least what I think he's trying to say. And it was actually quite different from what I thought I was going to see, or had sort of been led to believe I would see.
You already did more work than Shank did when he wrote his piece, because you actually watched the entire game. I guaran-fucking-tee you that Dan did not; I'll bet he saw some of it, zoned out, saw the final score of the game which he wrote about and drew his conclusions from that.

No snark here, I appreciate your take on the game. Some very good observations in there.
 

terrynever

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2005
21,717
pawtucket
The whole controversy seems to highlight the idea that newspaper columnists remain relevant, whether we agree with them or not. Even if they start the discussion via Twitter.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,671
The cradle of the game.

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,966
Boston, MA
Another sad reminder of what passes for journalism these days:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2016/04/25/patriots-brought-this-overpunishment-themselves/zEpsykTE1UJofIA7Y5YgNJ/story.html

"Bottom line: The Patriots were doing it. They had a system of deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials. Any agenda-less person who reads the Wells Report would come away with no other conclusion. The texts were unexplainable."
Oh, what a contrarian! Edgy Dan Shaughnessy, no homer he, no siree Bob. What a lazy, anti-intellectual dope.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
That column is Dan at his hateful worst.

Among other things, he calls Berman a fanboy, all the while ignoring that the chief judge filed a dissent. Is he a fanboy too? Is everyone who thinks that Goodell exceeded his powers a fanboy?

And perhaps worse, he effectively calls Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post a Pats lackey. Jenkins has been excellent on DG and there is absolutely no reason to suggest she's been influenced by the Pats in some way. Really shameful stuff by Dan, not that anything he does is a surprise.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
He's been calling Berman a fanboy since the day his decision staying the suspension was issued, merely because he decided in Brady's favor.

Anyone expecting something different from Dan this morning has been reading a different guy than the rest of us over the years. He won't be getting my clicks today, or ever.
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
5,056
The Granite State
"Bottom line: The Patriots were doing it. They had a system of deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials. Any agenda-less person who reads the Wells Report would come away with no other conclusion. The texts were unexplainable."

Among many other things in the article that are insulting and offensive, the decision by the court yesterday has nothing to do with Dan's "bottom line". Parker and Chin indicated that their role wasn't to determine the facts of the case at all, but rather to assess the appropriate application of power (by Goodell) provided by the CBA. Two completely different things. Yet CHB twists the verdict to apply to his own perverted beliefs. Execrable.