I'd like to hear his defintion of what constitutes a "Classic". When the Giants win maybe?Mike doesn't think the game was "a classic."
On what planet is that not one of the best 5 Super Bowls ever?
Brady's salary number. He thinks they are paying him more money illegally."That's a suspicious nine"
What was that in reference towards? Someone came to my desk(how dare they) and i missed what was leading up towards it.
His head must be about to explode. It might.
Oh of course. A secret payroll. His well of ridiculousness and hatred has no bottom.Brady's salary number. He thinks they are paying him more money illegally.
Did I only play 4 seasons? Then yeah 4-0 and is awesome. It means I won it every year I played.Yes. Let's ask coaches if they'd rather be 5-2 in Super Bowls or 4-0.
Anyone who says 4-0 is completely full of shit.
Klemko laid out one of the other rumors as an aside in his article (where he also threw out Hernandez as a Patriots way guy).Brady's salary number. He thinks they are paying him more money illegally.
Exactly.Yes. Let's ask coaches if they'd rather be 5-2 in Super Bowls or 4-0.
Anyone who says 4-0 is completely full of shit.
Does he know that Brady's wife pulled in 40+ million per year, and Brady only started doing a lot of endorsements after she retired from the runway?Brady's salary number. He thinks they are paying him more money illegally.
He mentioned her salary but still kept saying he doesn't trust it and used the 49'ers as an example of hit happening.Does he know that Brady's wife pulled in 40+ million per year, and Brady only started doing a lot of endorsements after she retired from the runway?
He said this?Pats are 2-2 in SB since 2004 and could easily be 0-4.
He has been beating this drum for a whileHe said this?
Could just as easily be 4-0...Pats are 2-2 in SB since 2004 and could easily be 0-4.
Not to mention, the refs flagged Freeney for being offsides on the play, so even if Danny didn't score--which he clearly did--at worst it would have been the Pats re-trying the conversion from the one.NFLN re-air confirms the Amendola 2-pt conversion replay happened right after the play. THREE different angles. Maybe Mike fell asleep again?
No doubt. Mike also complained about the refs 'missing the facemask on Sanu' but again as replay confirmed, Sanu also held a facemask (to the point where the Pats DB's helmet came off) AND there was a penalty hold on the Falcons anyway which voided the play anyway. Mike always assumes and paints the most negative outcome possible when it comes to the Pats. He's pathological.Not to mention, the refs flagged Freeney for being offsides on the play, so even if Danny didn't score--which he clearly did--at worst it would have been the Pats re-trying the conversion from the one.
I've been listening to Francesa for 25+ years and the last words I would ever use to describe him are "ruthlessly objective."Mike is generally ruthlessly objective about most sports things. It's interesting to hear him tie himself into logic knots when it comes to his blindspots like the Pats.
I find him entertaining, but I know he doesn't hold the Giants/Jets or Yankees/Mets to the same standards. Same thing would be true of the Knicks/Nets or Rangers/Islanders if they were relevant. He has his biases and they are clear as day, even if he denies they exist.I've been listening to Francesa for 25+ years and the last words I would ever use to describe him are "ruthlessly objective."
Rangers have made the conference finals three times in the past five years and the finals once. They are pretty relevant. Islands/Knicks/Nets, on the other hand, are tire fires.I find him entertaining, but I know he doesn't hold the Giants/Jets or Yankees/Mets to the same standards. Same thing would be true of the Knicks/Nets or Rangers/Islanders if they were relevant. He has his biases and they are clear as day, even if he denies they exist.
I may have a bias of remembering the coverage before '94, but the coverage from then to now is not close. May be the stars they had on those early/mid 90s teams and the drive to end the 1940 drought. It feels to me the current NY media only picks up on the Rangers when they are in the middle of a Cup run. The Knicks are horrendous, but being NY's NBA team and the daily soap opera that surrounds them leads to them having priority.Rangers have made the conference finals three times in the past five years and the finals once. They are pretty relevant. Islands/Knicks/Nets, on the other hand, are tire fires.
You're right, I thought you meant relevant in a different fashion. To the fat one, the Rangers are barely involved, unless they win a playoff series. You don't hear a lot of hockey talk.I may have a bias of remembering the coverage before '94, but the coverage from then to now is not close. May be the stars they had on those early/mid 90s teams and the drive to end the 1940 drought. It feels to me the current NY media only picks up on the Rangers when they are in the middle of a Cup run. The Knicks are horrendous, but being NY's NBA team and the daily soap opera that surrounds them leads to them having priority.
Yeah, Montana is 16-7 in the playoffs, but Brady is 25-9. I mean, that's both a lot more wins and a better winning percentage.Have not listened in years, but heard him talking about Brady today. I immediately knew he'd go to how Brady at 5-2 in Superbowl is worse than Montana's 4-0. Sure enough, he launched into that argument, but for some reason diverted to talk about how he sat with someone who believes the Bills making the Superbowl 4 straight years was most impressive. Then goes on to talk about Montana 16-7 in playoffs, ignoring the implication that Brady making the Superbowl 7 times is more impressive than Montana's 4. He's oblivious to consistency even when he interwove the two conflicting arguments in the same 2 minute span.
(3) The NFC of the 1980s was insanely stacked.There are only two arguments for Montana, and they're not bad ones, but I don't think it's nearly enough to overcome this huge gap. But here they are:
(1) He is undefeated on the game's biggest stage.
(2) His Super Bowl and overall playoff numbers are better than Brady's.
Yep that's true. There were basically 4 incredible franchises during those years: SF, NYG, Washington, and Chicago. Even Philly got really good again starting in 1988.(3) The NFC of the 1980s was insanely stacked.