"For all the talk of this dynasty, they are 2-3 in those previous five AFC Championship Games". Of course then he goes on to praise the immortal Andy Reid "15-2 after byes" who I believe has ended every postseason he's every been in with a loss. Continues to take shots at Brady's recent postseason record after another WIN.
Mike'd Up: The Mike Francesa Show
- Thread starter cheekydave
- Start date
He's sensitive, because his best friend, Parcells, played too conservatively in the Superbowl and ended missing a chance to become a legend when Scott Norwood hit that easy 47 yarder.
Does his hate of BB date back to that Jets press conference? His hate of him is pathological.
Seattle was only near the goal line because they had just secured the second luckiest catch in playoff history. Pats deserved to win that SB.
I think it actually pains him to see BB so consistently good. He paints the Giants as the model franchise yet the Giants are far from it. The SB wins over the Pats are the only things he can hang his hat on for that franchise since the early 90s. Something happened between him and Belichick to the point they no longer speak.
Francesa again touting that he was the impetus in getting Parcells to draft Witten...as a lifelong Cowboys fan I'm eternally grateful...
I suspect Bill's middle finger at the Jets ("I hereby resign as head coach as the NYJ") and, to Big Mike, by extension, his former bud Parcells, started it.
Caller just asked if he had one game to win who would he want to coach...wouldn't give definitive answer but said for motivation it would be Parcells and for X's and O's Belichick
Francesa and Parcells were very good friends. While it is no longer the case, the collapse of the Parcells/BB relationship meant that Mike had to pick between the two of them. I don't why. But that's what happened.
What's funny about it is it seems like (emphasis on 'seems like' because Parcells is pretty much out of the spotlight and BB doesn't say much about off-field issues) BB and Parcells made up over the years following the Jets drama in early '00 (have said complimentary things of another, BB has attended offseason events like the Senior Bowl with him, as I recall). So Mike is still fighting the good fight for a guy who is not Mike's friend anymore against a guy that Parcells seems to be on good terms with at this point. Figures.
That's something that a toady does to make it seem like his antipathy wasn't just following his idol, it was based on something, anything of principle. Sure, his idol can reconcile with the other guy but he won't because . . .
Agreed with all of the above but also in Mike's mind the Pats don't play fair (but Peyton did).
Mike will always say about Ernie Adams and the Pats that he 'knows where all the bodies are buried' although he never specifically says what all of those things are (though he does believe they taped the Rams SB walk through) or where that info came from to him. He's playing the media hero who is willing to stand up against the Evil Pats in his mind and if it helps him defend his beloved Giants and those two SB wins in the process then it's a net gain.
Mike will always say about Ernie Adams and the Pats that he 'knows where all the bodies are buried' although he never specifically says what all of those things are (though he does believe they taped the Rams SB walk through) or where that info came from to him. He's playing the media hero who is willing to stand up against the Evil Pats in his mind and if it helps him defend his beloved Giants and those two SB wins in the process then it's a net gain.
He's a sad old man who no longer cares enough about his job to know the difference between George Karl and Jerry Sloan. The only thing that gets him going is this vendetta, and it makes him look ridiculous.
The only difference between late-career Eddie Andleman and FF is that Mike had more knowledge to start with, so it'll take a while for him to reach complete incompetence.
The only difference between late-career Eddie Andleman and FF is that Mike had more knowledge to start with, so it'll take a while for him to reach complete incompetence.
According to Kurt Warner, the Rams practiced their red zone offense in their walk through. The Rams got into the red zone once and scored a touchdown. Even accepting, just for the sake of argument, that the Patriots taped the Rams' walk through, they got nothing out of it. So if they got no practical benefit, is the Patriots' supposed crime having impure hearts? No one else wanted to cheat or would even think of it. Really? What a dumb argument.
Seattle had scored a TD on a short pass play with seconds on the clock to end the first half.
Seattle was only in the building because of the luckiest NFCCG in league history.
There's no end to this.
In a 1 on 1 conversation with my wife about 11 years ago (she spent the better part of a day with Mike and Ro), Mike offered up in very plain words that he has issues with BB, but refused to go into any detail at all beyond that.
Mike lashing out at a caller who questioned his watching 'The Affair' and 'Homeland' over the Cavs-Warriors game. Highly entertaining.
I WATCH EVERYTHING.
I WATCH EVERYTHING.
If you add it up little by little, game by game, it's amazing how many games Mike admits to NOT watching. And on a similar note, how little show prep he does as well.
It's "Verbal Crutch Day" on the show: the "bottom loyne" count is off the charts today, and social media is noticing it.
EDIT: this is hysterical, he's actually picking up steam now.
EDIT: this is hysterical, he's actually picking up steam now.
Last edited:
Francesa's funny, and not in a good way.
As we know, he likes to take the Pats down a peg and today made a comment on "Tom" as if he's on a first name basis with TB12, (paraphrase-but damn close to a quote)
"take away his SB winning post-season wins (12 wins, obviously 0 losses) and he's just a .500 QB in the post-season"
Sounds pretty damning, except its not true, and very misleading.
First Tom's 23-9, so take away 12 wins, he's 11-9, a .550 record.
Now lets take a look at the other post-season win leaders.
Montana, Bradshaw, Elway and Manning
Montana 16-7 (4 SB), subtract out his SB winnning post-season games, 12 wins, would yield a 4-7 record.
Bradshaw 14-5 (4 SB) deduct 12 wins 2-5 record
Elway 14-7 (2 SB) deduct 7 wins 7-7 record
So applying the same methodology to the top winningest QBs in the post-season, FF would find there is only only 1 QB with a record over .500.
TOM.
As we know, he likes to take the Pats down a peg and today made a comment on "Tom" as if he's on a first name basis with TB12, (paraphrase-but damn close to a quote)
"take away his SB winning post-season wins (12 wins, obviously 0 losses) and he's just a .500 QB in the post-season"
Sounds pretty damning, except its not true, and very misleading.
First Tom's 23-9, so take away 12 wins, he's 11-9, a .550 record.
Now lets take a look at the other post-season win leaders.
Montana, Bradshaw, Elway and Manning
Montana 16-7 (4 SB), subtract out his SB winnning post-season games, 12 wins, would yield a 4-7 record.
Bradshaw 14-5 (4 SB) deduct 12 wins 2-5 record
Elway 14-7 (2 SB) deduct 7 wins 7-7 record
So applying the same methodology to the top winningest QBs in the post-season, FF would find there is only only 1 QB with a record over .500.
TOM.
And you forgot St. Peyton (14-13, 2 rings), whose non-SB playoff record is 8-13 (.381).
Cupcakes are ready!
Cupcakes are ready!
Lurker NobodyInteresting posted this in the Celebrating What Is thread:
Since 2001, the Pats have a better winning % in the playoffs than any other team has in the regular season.
Since 2001, the Pats have a better winning % in the playoffs than any other team has in the regular season.
Take away all of Babe Ruth's home runs and he finishes his career with no home runs. Geez, Babe Ruth SUCKS.
If you deduct any QB's Super Bowl seasons from their post-season record, you're going to end up with, at best, a slightly better than .500 record by default. If you aren't winning the title, there's a loss guaranteed each time you make the post-season, so the only way to be .500 is to win at least one game per post-season to off-set the inevitable loss. To be better than .500, you're have to make it to a bunch of conference championships and possibly Super Bowls, even if you lose them. So absent his Super Bowl winning seasons, Tom Brady's post-season record most closely resembles Donovan McNabb (9-7, four straight conference championships, one Super Bowl loss) and Jim Kelly (9-8, four straight Super Bowl losses).
Why stop at quarterbacks? If you take away their SB years, Parcells is 3-7 in the playoffs, 137-127 overall; Coughlin is 4-7 in the playoffs, 155-144 overall. They're Jeff Fisher.
I removed the Pats SB year with Parcells. But if Diet Coke can make up his own rules, so can I.
For reference, if you remove all the SB years, Belichick 8-8 (so far) in the playoffs, and 157-99 in the regular season, 165-107 overall . So by winning %, Belichick is downgraded to Landry status. Well, a little better than Landry.
For reference, if you remove all the SB years, Belichick 8-8 (so far) in the playoffs, and 157-99 in the regular season, 165-107 overall . So by winning %, Belichick is downgraded to Landry status. Well, a little better than Landry.
If you take away all the enemy combatants he killed or captured, Audie Murphy was just an average Marine.
If you take away all the Red States, then Hillary won the EC in a landslide.
If you take away all the Red States, then Hillary won the EC in a landslide.
It truly is the stupidest cherry picking of statistics I've ever seen anyone actually put forth to support an earnest argument.
"If you don't take into account the years when Paul McCartney was in the Beatles, he was just kind of an average rock star."
"If you don't take into account the years Abe Lincoln was President, he really didn't accomplish that much."
"If you don't take into account the years when she was in her twenties and thirties, Cindy Crawford is kind of just a normal good-looking woman."
"If you don't take into account the years when Paul McCartney was in the Beatles, he was just kind of an average rock star."
"If you don't take into account the years Abe Lincoln was President, he really didn't accomplish that much."
"If you don't take into account the years when she was in her twenties and thirties, Cindy Crawford is kind of just a normal good-looking woman."
If you took away all quarters that Francesa won his time slot in the ratings, he's 1010 WINS.
Obligatory: SSS
But what's absolutely silly about it is how easily it can be debunked (without even having to show your work, it's that obvious).
If you take away her three Oscar wins, Meryl Streep is 0 for 16 in her remaining nominations. Think about it: 16 noms with ZERO wins. It's the very definition of abject failure. You might as well be starting Mira Sorvino or Marissa Tomei.....
Last edited:
If you take away all the years that the Pats didn't win the Super Bowl, they are undefeated in the postseason.
I meant to post earlier: why on earth would you even take the SB-winning years out of the equation in the first place? What analytic or scholarly purpose might that possibly serve? (other than obviously trying to take Brady's reputation down a few pegs) Does he get a Gold Star because no one has ever thought to point it out before? (again, there's a reason no one has ever pointed it out before)
Last edited:
I feel like this sort of thing started happening in the late 90s, when callers and hosts would say," Yeah, but if you took Pedro's stats out of the equation, the Red Sox team ERA is 4.97"
It's just stupid.
It's just stupid.
Yeah, like in 2000 if you threw out all the games Pedro won he would have only led the league in ERA by half a run. Bum.
Mike takes the Pack with the points and thinks that the best thing for the Pats was that they played badly last week to BB can crack the whip. Also didn't like the Steelers on the road all year. Thinks lots of people will take the Steelers but thinks it's a close game and takes the Pats 34 or 31 to 20.
