Mike'd Up: The Mike Francesa Show

Mystic Merlin

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,244
Hartford, CT
That Victorino is a playah.
 
But when the Cahdnahls are the Cahdnahls, yer gonna be in fer a lawng series.  The Cahpentahs, the Freeses, the Hahlladays, they will keep coming atya with theya championship pedigree.  The thing that has to worry you if you're a Sahx fan is you only have a few guys left from that '07 group.  And don't talk to me about the managah, Matheny's an operatah fowa St. Louis.  You don't have a cleya  advantage with the managah.
 
Etcetera.
 
shawnrbu

shawnrbu

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
39,996
The Land of Fist Pumps
"The Patriots are not a very good team.  They are okay.  They have a brilliant quarterback."
 
"The Patriots are vulnerable. That is a bad defense without Wilfork, Mayo and Talib.  And they weren't that good of a defense with all those guys."
 
No credit given to Belichick for having this "okay" team at 5-1 and a # 2 seed in a tougher than expected AFC. 
 
L

LMontro

New Member
Aug 4, 2007
667
Live Free or Die
shawnrbu said:
"The Patriots are not a very good team.  They are okay.  They have a brilliant quarterback."
 
"The Patriots are vulnerable. That is a bad defense without Wilfork, Mayo and Talib.  And they weren't that good of a defense with all those guys."
 
No credit given to Belichick for having this "okay" team at 5-1 and a # 2 seed in a tougher than expected AFC. 
Click to expand...
 
He also said Brady has been the beneficiary of great talent around him other than one year.  
 
P

pedroia'sboys

New Member
Aug 26, 2007
640
Newington CT
bankshot1 said:
Francesa got the kill switch and just talks over rational discussion that does not agree with his Pats prejudice.
Click to expand...
I cant take it anymore he's so biased im going to lose it. Since when is going to the superbowl or afc championship and losing an indictment on their post season record. Its sports they won three by I think 11 and lost 2 by 7. Are you kidding me? Who else gets judged like the Patriots?  Peyton Manning has one superbowl. He has said in the past going to the superbowl and losing is a negative, but with baseball losing in the world series (yankees 2001) is not a heart breaker because you at least "acomplisshed something."  So basically its better to not make the playoffs, ala Pitt Giants this year, than to win 12 games and lose in the post season. Thats how he judges the Pats.
 
bankshot1

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Suspended
Feb 12, 2003
24,895
where I was last at
About a week ago in a defense of Peyton Manning he said something along the lines of Manning's losing against some good teams in the post-season.
 
But does he ever apply the same reasoning to the Pats? Nope, never.
 
The Pats have lost 4 tough games to the eventual SB winner, twice in the SB, and twice in the ALCS, AFCCG (got baseball on the brain).
 And in three of those games, if a play goes their way, or a less miraculous comeback doesn't, the Pats probably win another 3 SBs. But it easier and far more disingenuous to say they play in a easy division. 
 
redsoxcentury

redsoxcentury

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,227
NYC
pedroia'sboys said:
I cant take it anymore he's so biased im going to lose it. Since when is going to the superbowl or afc championship and losing an indictment on their post season record. Its sports they won three by I think 11 and lost 2 by 7. Are you kidding me? Who else gets judged like the Patriots?  Peyton Manning has one superbowl. He has said in the past going to the superbowl and losing is a negative, but with baseball losing in the world series (yankees 2001) is not a heart breaker because you at least "acomplisshed something."  So basically its better to not make the playoffs, ala Pitt Giants this year, than to win 12 games and lose in the post season. Thats how he judges the Pats.
Click to expand...
He stated earlier today that the Patriots benefitted from a weak division for a long time, so their regular season record did not reflect how weak they were, and their weaknesses showed up in the postseason.  At this point, there is no changing Francesa's crazy views, so just accept it, chuckle a bit, and move on.
 
JBill

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
Today seems like a good day to re-watch the post- Game 7 ALCS Mike and the Mad Dog opening.
 
"RED SOX NATION IN THE SOUTH BRONX!!! The Red Sox are going...to the WORLD SERIES"
 
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys_JB1lWQLo[/media]
 
bankshot1

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Suspended
Feb 12, 2003
24,895
where I was last at
Segued from Tuck Rule to an obscure rule never having been called before, to the rule deciding the game.
Then the condescension began to Pats fans lining up to call his show, complaining about the call, and to check their little book of Pats history, and how the Tuck rule starting the dynasty
 
RedOctober3829

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,663
deep inside Guido territory
He's being pretty objective with this push play. Says its a weird time to call it and he never heard of it and does mention it was the first time it was called. But also says Pats fans have no right to complain because of the Tuck Rule.
 
Dahabenzapple2

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,928
Wayne, NJ
douchebag Mike in prime form
 
 
I knew what he was goining to say before he said it
 
what the Tuck Rule play has to do with yesterday's call is only something that someone as filled with resentments towards the Pats would bring up
 
and those of us who have listened on and off to the guy for 25 years know how much he hates the Pats ever since his boy Bill left know that he cannot and will not ever be able to be unbiased when it comes to all thring Pats except for Brady.
 
ifmanis5

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,252
Rotten Apple
bankshot1 said:
The Daily Double:
 
He brings up Spygate.
 
Pats fans can't complain about the rule.
 
He's so predictable
Click to expand...
Just wow. 
In the past, when Mike went down this road, Russo would be there to throw Sugar Bear Hamilton on him and tamp it down. Now, it's just Mike's filthy ax to grind.
 
Mystic Merlin

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,244
Hartford, CT
RedOctober3829 said:
He's being pretty objective with this push play. Says its a weird time to call it and he never heard of it and does mention it was the first time it was called. But also says Pats fans have no right to complain because of the Tuck Rule.
Click to expand...
 
 
The Tuck Rule was a bad rule, but it was, you know a rule, in the sense that the teams were on notice of how officials would enforce it.  And it had been enforced similarly many times before (IIRC, it even came up earlier in the '01 season).  Further, the rule itself could not be clearer:  NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble."
 
If he can't see the distinction between a bad rule and a rule - good or bad - whose enforcement criteria suddenly changes in a critical moment of the game, then I don't know what to say.  It's a meaningful distinction, because, at their core, rules are about putting the teams on notice of what is or is not acceptable, and what happens or does not happen in the event of XYZ.  He would have a point if the tuck rule was being applied under a new interpretation for the first time late in the 4th quarter of that game.  That is not what happened.
 
Red(s)HawksFan

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,030
Maine
Mystic Merlin said:
 
 
The Tuck Rule was a bad rule, but it was, you know a rule, in the sense that the teams were on notice of how officials would enforce it.  And it had been enforced similarly many times before (IIRC, it even came up earlier in the '01 season).  Further, the rule itself could not be clearer:  NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble."
 
If he can't see the distinction between a bad rule and a rule - good or bad - whose enforcement criteria suddenly changes in a critical moment of the game, then I don't know what to say.  It's a meaningful distinction, because, at their core, rules are about putting the teams on notice of what is or is not acceptable, and what happens or does not happen in the event of XYZ.  He would have a point if the tuck rule was being applied under a new interpretation for the first time late in the 4th quarter of that game.  That is not what happened.
Click to expand...
 
It came up in a Patriots' game earlier that season, which is why Belichick knew to throw the challenge flag in the first place.
 
Which just highlights a further distinction between the two rules/plays.  The tuck rule was not randomly enforced for the first time ever by the one ref who remembered it from his pre-season training.  It was enforced only after a video review instigated by a coach who knew the rule existed because it had been called in a game before.
 
rodderick

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,966
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Besides, people knew about the tuck rule, the tuck rule had been called against the Patriots in a game versus the Jets in that very same season, and as soon as the play happened, as much as it looked like a fumble, there absolutely was talk of the play possibly coming back due to Brady's arm being in a forward motion. It's absolute bullshit to compare both rules, as if they are in the same ballpark of obscurity.
 
Oil Can Dan

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,075
0-3 to 4-3
redsoxcentury said:
He stated earlier today that the Patriots benefitted from a weak division for a long time, so their regular season record did not reflect how weak they were, and their weaknesses showed up in the postseason. 
Click to expand...
I have nothing but respect for Belichick, Kraft, Brady, and the entire organization.  That said I think there's more than a kernel of truth in this statement.
 
Remagellan

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2003
13,140
Jersey City, NJ (by way of Philadelphia, PA)
Oil Can Dan said:
I have nothing but respect for Belichick, Kraft, Brady, and the entire organization.  That said I think there's more than a kernel of truth in this statement.
Click to expand...
 
He mentioned this on his Sunday show as well.  The problem is he lumped their two Super Bowl losses in with their other postseason misfortunes.  Whatever case there may be made for the Pats being less than their record due to beating up on a weak division, it's hard to argue that that was true of the 2007 team, which destroyed every team it faced that year with few exceptions, most notably the one it lost to in the Super Bowl.
 
Leather

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Remagellan said:
 
He mentioned this on his Sunday show as well.  The problem is he lumped their two Super Bowl losses in with their other postseason misfortunes.  Whatever case there may be made for the Pats being less than their record due to beating up on a weak division, it's hard to argue that that was true of the 2007 team, which destroyed every team it faced that year with few exceptions, most notably the one it lost to in the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...
 
It's also stupid because, if his theory holds, then the Patriots would be constantly eliminated in the early rounds of the playoffs as they were exposed by teams from stronger divisions. 
 
In the BB/Brady era, the Patriots have only been bounced from the playoffs in their first PO game twice, and once was to a divisional opponent (the Jets in 2011), after they had gone 14-2.  So, the Patriots have only been "exposed" as playoff frauds by teams from "stronger divisions" once, in 2010 by the Ravens (and that came after the late-seasons Welker injury which made the Patriots a one-dimensional offense). 
 
It's easy to say "Oh, they just beat up on the bad teams in their division!" but that argument unravels if you do the least amount of digging.  It's not like they are the Atlanta Braves, who constantly lose in the first round to a stronger team; the Patriots, even since their last SB victory, have a very solid playoff record. 
 
Ralphwiggum

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
Oil Can Dan said:
I have nothing but respect for Belichick, Kraft, Brady, and the entire organization.  That said I think there's more than a kernel of truth in this statement.
Click to expand...
 
From 2001 through 2012 the Pats are 59-15 against their own division (.797) and 87-31 outside the division (.737).  If you remove the two non-playoff years from the calculation (since we are talking about regular season success and subsequent playoff failures, plus it removes the non-Brady year), then it is 51-11 in the division (.822) and 75-23 outside of the division (.765).
 
So while they have obviously been a touch better inside the division than out, the .765 winning percentage outside the division would translate into an average of 12 wins a season over that period of time.  No other team in the NFL has averaged 12 wins a season during the same period of time.  So maybe they were not quite as good as their record indicates but they were by no means "weak".  It isn't like they are tuning up their division foes and falling flat against the rest of the league.
 
Also, FWIW, the BB/TB team that is the biggest "failure" in the payoffs (if you measure that in terms of most regular season victories not to win the Super Bowl) is the 2010 team that lost to a division opponent in the playoffs.
 
bankshot1

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Suspended
Feb 12, 2003
24,895
where I was last at
Francesa just called the Dodgers "gutless" in their treatment of Mattingly (refers to LAD's firing his "lieutenant-didn't mention Trey Hillman by name)
 
"If they want to fire him (Mattingly), then fire him
 
Stu Nahan

Stu Nahan

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2003
5,741
ifmanis5 said:
He's declaring war on fake Twitter...
 
 
Click to expand...
Can we get some background on this? It sounds like the Daily News used a fake quote of his from Twitter. Shouldn't he be mad at the writer and his editors instead of the guys running a parody Twitter account? What's the story here?
 
ifmanis5

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,252
Rotten Apple
Stu Nahan said:
Can we get some background on this? It sounds like the Daily News used a fake quote of his from Twitter. Shouldn't he be mad at the writer and his editors instead of the guys running a parody Twitter account? What's the story here?
Click to expand...
The Daily News printed Tweets from the fake Francesa Twitter feed and ran with it as if the real Mike said it.
 
JohntheBaptist

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,410
Yoknapatawpha County
It's actually really funny how much agita grows from his John Wayne like refusal to become in any way aware of new media like Twitter, YouTube, etc.  I mean, not saying he has to be super into it, just the absolute proudly Luddite stance he takes on it creates so much more agitation for him than he realizes.  All these parodies are a good thing and a sign younger people actually listen to his show.
 
Something about that is pure funny to me.
 
edit--here's the image.  Pretty sure no one actually thinks this is his account, but they actually didn't make it very clear
 
 
Granite Sox

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
5,085
The Granite State
He's mad about that?!

Only an ignoramus would believe that was real.

It was even paired with a Manesh Mehta quote/Tweet, which should have been a dead giveaway given Mehta's propensity to quote his own Tweets as sources.
 
Stu Nahan

Stu Nahan

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2003
5,741
Mike has always been self-important and humorless. This is just the latest example. This is where the show misses Dog. Dog could have brought it up on the air, joked about it, and made Mike laugh. Instead we get Mike screaming into the storm, like King Lear, and appearing petty and hopelessly out of touch.
 
Investor 11

Investor 11

Plobbably the greatest videographer ever
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2006
3,921
San Diego
Mike, although he admits he hasn't seen the play, agrees with Harold Reynolds with regards to Victorino.

Edit: after they cue the play up for Mike to see, we hear a lot of "Wow" and "Totally agree"
 
ifmanis5

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,252
Rotten Apple
Investor 11 said:
Mike, although he admits he hasn't seen the play, agrees with Harold Reynolds with regards to Victorino.

Edit: after they cue the play up for Mike to see, we hear a lot of "Wow" and "Totally agree"
Click to expand...
I remember all those many times when Mike called out Nick Swisher for doing the exact same thing. OH WAIT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom