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

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Shaughnessy has a point here. There is/was no explanation as to why Butler was benched in the Super Bowl and there should be. Aside from Terry Francona, Bill Belichick is the best coach/manager that I've ever seen and more often than not, his decisions normally pay off for the Patriots. He's been called a football genius because he is a football genius.

However, even geniuses make mistakes and they should explain what they were thinking. Maybe there's a logical reason why Butler was sitting on the sidelines while the Eagles dropped 500+ yards on the Pats. I don't know what it is, but Belichick knows. And he should probably share that with the masses. I mean, let's be honest, this is a football game; its not quantum physics, it's not nuclear science, it's not brain surgery. I know that football coaches like to think that they're on a level way above the average Joe, but at the very end of the day, it's an easy game. Give us the explanation, I'm sure 99.999999999% of the world can figure it out.

As for chiding the CHB about asking the question, that's how journalism work. Even if there is 98% chance that you know the answer, you have to ask the question because you might get surprised and because it's your job. Dan Shaughnessy is not the Patriot's friend, he has a job to do and sometimes that runs counter to the job that the Pats need to do. If that upsets you, I don't know what to tell you. The media is supposed to keep the powers that be from getting to cushy. I can guarantee you that when Mueller drops his investigation, Trump is going to say that it's all complete bullshit. But the media has to ask him or SHS about it. That's how these things work.

I'm not going to speak for Shaughnessy, but I think that he has a point about the "fanboys" (he probably should have used a different word). For years it's been IBWT (In Bill We Trust). The fans bought into that, the players bought into it, the owners bought into it; but last February was the first crack in that facade. People have been wondering about it for six months. To ignore that and play grab ass with BB would have been the absolute wrong thing to do.

Shaughnessy did his job today and did it well.

 

[tims4wins]

The first crack in that facade? Do you not remember 4th and 2? "Arrogant".

 

[pappymojo]

The journalist has the right to ask questions. The coach has the right not to answer them.

Belichick has no obligation to explain what drove his decision and I don't see how answering those questions benefits the Patriots.

We do know for sure that Malcolm Butler had the flu earlier in the week.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

The first crack in that facade? Do you not remember 4th and 2? "Arrogant".

That was nine years ago. He also let go of Lawyer Milloy too, which not too many people were thrilled about.

Belichick has no obligation to explain what drove his decision and I don't see how answering those questions benefits the Patriots.

Why? Belichick isn't giving up any secrets on his team. The guy doesn't play for him any more. The game has been over six months. It was last season. Why not say what your thinking was in that instant? What's the harm?

And like I said, I love Belichick, but for a person who demands accountability and responsibility for one's action, this is a hypocritical move on his part.

 

[tims4wins]

That was nine years ago. He also let go of Lawyer Milloy too, which not too many people were thrilled about.



Why? Belichick isn't giving up any secrets on his team. The guy doesn't play for him any more. The game has been over six months. It was last season. Why not say what your thinking was in that instant? What's the harm?

And like I said, I love Belichick, but for a person who demands accountability and responsibility for one's action, this is a hypocritical move on his part.

Re: Lawyer Milloy, that season ended in a title. 2009 and 2017 did not.

Re: accountability and responsibility, how has BB not taken full responsibility for the loss? He always, always says he needs to coach better after losses, including after SB52

“Obviously didn’t do a good enough job coaching,” he said. “Missed a lot of opportunities offensively in the first half. Didn’t play good enough defense. Didn’t play good enough in the kicking game. Just wasn’t quite enough against a good team like Philadelphia.”

There are many reasons why he shouldn't or doesn't go into detail, perhaps one of which is protecting Butler. It is very rare that he either criticizes or praises a single player for their performance in a single game.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Re: Lawyer Milloy, that season ended in a title. 2009 and 2017 did not.

Re: accountability and responsibility, how has BB not taken full responsibility for the loss? He always, always says he needs to coach better after losses, including after SB52

“Obviously didn’t do a good enough job coaching,” he said. “Missed a lot of opportunities offensively in the first half. Didn’t play good enough defense. Didn’t play good enough in the kicking game. Just wasn’t quite enough against a good team like Philadelphia.”

There are many reasons why he shouldn't or doesn't go into detail, perhaps one of which is protecting Butler. It is very rare that he either criticizes or praises a single player for their performance in a single game.

I'm not sure why I'm arguing with a guy with BB as his avatar but that "needs to coach better after a loss" is boilerplate bullshit. It's a non-answer answer. And no shit they didn't play good enough defense, because the guy who was on the field for 98.2% of the defense snaps was benched.

Why was Butler benched? The thing is, if Belichick answered the question in February, no one would be talking about it in March, April, May, June or July.

And BTW, Belichick praises tons of players. He's not Pete Carroll but there are a lot of times when he speaks very proudly of his players. It's actually a very endearing quality that he has.

Here's a question: what is the role of the media when it comes to covering the Patriots? Do you want a media who says, "Everything is great, don't question us"? Do you want a media that asks questions, that can be tough sometime and hold people accountable? Because if you want something closer to the first (and that's okay, I completely get that) then we're on two completely different sides of the argument and aren't going to get any closer; in which case we should probably end this.

But if you want the latter, then you have to accept that there are times when your team, coach, players are going to be made uncomfortable. How much of that discomfort is something that you have to decide. In this case, I think that Belichick owes an explanation other than, "Coach's decision. I have to coach better. Syntax Error 1030."

 

[tims4wins]

I'm not sure why I'm arguing with a guy with BB as his avatar but that "needs to coach better after a loss" is boilerplate bullshit. It's a non-answer answer. And no shit they didn't play good enough defense, because the guy who was on the field for 98.2% of the defense snaps was benched.

Why was Butler benched? The thing is, if Belichick answered the question in February, no one would be talking about it in March, April, May, June or July.

Here's a question: what is the role of the media when it comes to covering the Patriots? Do you want a media who says, "Everything is great, don't question us"? Do you want a media that asks questions, that can be tough sometime and hold people accountable? Because if you want something closer to the first (and that's okay, I completely get that) then we're on two completely different sides of the argument and aren't going to get any closer; in which case we should probably end this.

But if you want the latter, then you have to accept that there are times when your team, coach, players are going to be made uncomfortable. How much of that discomfort is something that you have to decide. In this case, I think that Belichick owes an explanation other than, "Coach's decision. I have to coach better. Syntax Error 1030."

Look, I get where you are coming from. Almost all of his press conference are non-answer answers. Would I like an honest answer from BB? Yes. I'd also like to know why he didn't kick the FG on 4th and 10 or 4th and 13 or whatever it was against the Giants in 2007. I probably have a dozen other questions I'd like an honest answer from him on. But given that we are now in Year 19 of the BB era, I have come to accept that we simply won't get answers on questions like these. And given the 8 SBs and 5 rings, I'm ok with that. It is the price we pay for the greatness. I don't think that the media holding BB "accountable" has one iota of impact on how he coaches the team. He simply doesn't give a shit. So yeah, I don't see a point in the media asking him question after question that they know they won't get an answer to. It may be their "job", but at this point, we all know the responses he is going to give, so what is the point exactly? The media can criticize him, as well they should when something doesn't work out, but it's so tired at this point watching press conference after press conference where they ask clown questions that BB won't answer. Just save everyone's time at this point.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Shaughnessy has a point here. There is/was no explanation as to why Butler was benched in the Super Bowl and there should be. Aside from Terry Francona, Bill Belichick is the best coach/manager that I've ever seen and more often than not, his decisions normally pay off for the Patriots. He's been called a football genius because he is a football genius.

However, even geniuses make mistakes and they should explain what they were thinking. Maybe there's a logical reason why Butler was sitting on the sidelines while the Eagles dropped 500+ yards on the Pats. I don't know what it is, but Belichick knows. And he should probably share that with the masses. I mean, let's be honest, this is a football game; its not quantum physics, it's not nuclear science, it's not brain surgery. I know that football coaches like to think that they're on a level way above the average Joe, but at the very end of the day, it's an easy game. Give us the explanation, I'm sure 99.999999999% of the world can figure it out.

As for chiding the CHB about asking the question, that's how journalism work. Even if there is 98% chance that you know the answer, you have to ask the question because you might get surprised and because it's your job. Dan Shaughnessy is not the Patriot's friend, he has a job to do and sometimes that runs counter to the job that the Pats need to do. If that upsets you, I don't know what to tell you. The media is supposed to keep the powers that be from getting to cushy. I can guarantee you that when Mueller drops his investigation, Trump is going to say that it's all complete bullshit. But the media has to ask him or SHS about it. That's how these things work.

I'm not going to speak for Shaughnessy, but I think that he has a point about the "fanboys" (he probably should have used a different word). For years it's been IBWT (In Bill We Trust). The fans bought into that, the players bought into it, the owners bought into it; but last February was the first crack in that facade. People have been wondering about it for six months. To ignore that and play grab ass with BB would have been the absolute wrong thing to do.

Shaughnessy did his job today and did it well.

I have no issue with the questions today per se. I have an issue with the theme. Said differently, if Dan did his job, and asked the question that many of us in fact have, I'd have no issue. But this is going to be an ongoing mantra. We're going to hear him beat this drum continually.

And I could not disagree more on the drum and about what Bill owes us.

In my view, he owes us maximum effort with respect to getting his current team ready to win. Bill could have many reasons for not revisiting the past. But my guess is that he does not think going there will benefit the current team. He might think it will cause the Butler thing to linger, for it to gain another set of legs. That may or may not be right, and it may be that just dealing with it would be wiser, but Bill has a paradigm that has worked for him. The notion that we get to pick how he handles the media, approaches past events, gets his team ready and responds to potential errors he made -- in the face of all of his success -- seems naive to me.

And along the lines that I wrote above, I think it's also naive in that we know how Bill works. Yes, asking him to answer is fine, but the column that preceded it ignored Dan's experience over almost two decades with this guy. And even that column itself is OK in a vacuum, but I think we know that Dan is going to bang this drum for quite a while and trot it out every time anything bad happens to the Pats in 2018.

At bottom, Dan starts with the premise that Bill needs to explain himself to the fans when I think that really isn't true. I mean, I'd love him to explain everything, and I love how open the coaches of the Sox and Celtics are. But what I love most about any coach is his ability to win with the methods he believes in, and no one in Boston sports other than Red Auerbach has done that better than Bill Belichick.

Having a healthy respect for all that is not "In Bill I Trust" or being a "fanboy." I still think the Bulter decision itself sucked ass and will say it probably more times than anyone wants to hear it. But I can maintain that view and not think that one perhaps wrong decision (or very likely wrong decision) doesn't mean Bill has to start over on his approach to coaching this team (all things considered, including media management), and having that perspective is far from being any kind of boy.

 

[splendid splinter]

BB isn’t interested in dwelling on past decisions except insofar as doing so benefits the team in the future - and he will do that privately. Explaining himself to Shaughnessey doesn’t accomplish that, so he won’t. And it would undermine his goal of keeping the players focused on the same thing - learning from their mistakes and getting better, and not getting caught up in any give and take with the media.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

But given that we are now in Year 19 of the BB era, I have come to accept that we simply won't get answers on questions like these. And given the 8 SBs and 5 rings, I'm ok with that. It is the price we pay for the greatness. I don't think that the media holding BB "accountable" has one iota of impact on how he coaches the team. He simply doesn't give a shit. So yeah, I don't see a point in the media asking him question after question that they know they won't get an answer to. It may be their "job", but at this point, we all know the responses he is going to give, so what is the point exactly?

There should be no quotes around the word job. It is Shaughnessy's job, he gets paid to do two things: ask questions and write and I'd argue that the bulk of his pay is to do the former because a lot of us here can do the latter. When you have access to a person, you have to ask the question even if there's no point in doing so. If you were to ask Dan Shaughnessy at 8:00 am today whether Bill Belichick would directly answer his Butler question, he'd probably laugh. Of course he knows that BB isn't going to answer his question, but he still has to ask it.

I probably told this story once before, so forgive me if you've heard it, but I think it's germane to the subject today. When I got out of college, my first real job was a reporter for a medium-sized, north of Boston weekly. We weren't the Globe, we weren't the New York Times, but my editor and I did the best we could (it was a two-man operation). Initially I strung for the paper (which meant I was basically an hourly reporter) getting my feet wet and getting experience writing obituaries and puff pieces. I was finally offered a full-time job after about a month, even though I was still very new to the city that I was covering and new to newspaper reporting in general.

On my third real day my boss and I were putting the paper together for printing later that afternoon when we heard about a huge fire in the north part of the city. There were fatalities. My editor looked at me said, "You wanted to be a reporter, go up there and get the story." I got to the fire, spoke to the fire chief who told me that two little kids were dead. The family was about 10 feet away from me watching their house burn down and dealing with their kids' death. I had to walk over to them and ask for a comment about what just happened. How did the fire start? What are you feeling right now? Tell me more. Tell me more.

It sucked and it was probably one of the most difficult things that I had to do -- and I knew what the family was going to say to me -- but it was my job and I had to do it. I got the quotes, offered my sincere condolences and went back and banged out a quick story. This was a legit "stop the presses" situation.

Now obviously, my story is nowhere near what happened to Shaughnessy today. For one thing, I was a kid and this was my first real story, the CHB has been around the block. Shaughnessy is asking about a Super Bowl loss, I was asking about a father and mother hearing the cries of their kids as they burn. But the point is, even if you are almost 100% positive you know the answer and even if you know that asking that question is going to suck, you owe it to your readers to ask that question.

That's what you get paid to do.

 

[tims4wins]

But Shank isn't a reporter. He's a columnist. Curran chided him recently about not personally going to Foxboro to get quotes, that he was relying on Bob Hohler or someone else. The question has already been asked of BB several times. Why was it his job to ask again? Shank showed up today to drive his own personal agenda, because he had written a story for today's paper and he wanted to be able to write in tomorrow's paper that BB is arrogant and owes the fans and blah blah blah (yeah, I am guessing - if he doesn't go this route I will eat crow). The point is that Shank didn't show up and ask questions today because it is his job. He showed up and asked questions to drive an agenda.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I know that Shaughnessy is a columnist. But sometimes columnists need to be reporters.

It's his job to ask again because people having been asking about this all spring/summer and he has not had an opportunity to ask the questions.

In this case his job and his "agenda" overlap. The funny thing is, if Belichick gave him what he wanted in the first place, there would be no agenda to push. This is what happens when two stubborn people meet.

 

[tims4wins]

How has he not had an opportunity? Was he banned from OTAs and every other press conference BB has had since the game ended? Just because he couldn't make it to Foxboro for one reason or another since the Super Bowl doesn't mean BB all of a sudden should indulge him. BB has answered the question many times since then. It's not his fault Shank wasn't there to ask personally.

 

[pappymojo]

That was nine years ago. He also let go of Lawyer Milloy too, which not too many people were thrilled about.



Why? Belichick isn't giving up any secrets on his team. The guy doesn't play for him any more. The game has been over six months. It was last season. Why not say what your thinking was in that instant? What's the harm?

And like I said, I love Belichick, but for a person who demands accountability and responsibility for one's action, this is a hypocritical move on his part.

He demands that the players on the Patriots are accountable to their coach and to their team primarily because the players are getting paid to perform a job. It is no way hypocritical for a coach to avoid a discussion with the Boston Globe about his decision making.

I assume that Butler didn't play because of a combination of factors. The guys got sick. He reportedly had a poor week of practice. He possibly had a minor infraction of team rules. If the last item is true, explaining what happened would be akin to Belichick shifting the blame onto the player. I don't think that's how he operates. He made the decision. It didn't work out. To say anything more, quite possibly, only throws Butler or someone else under the bus and what does it gain anyone?

 

[Vinho Tinto]

and he will do that privately.

Who will he be explaining anything to in privately? The players who have left the team have made it quite clear he hasn’t explained a drop.

 

[tims4wins]

Who will he be explaining anything to in privately? The players who have left the team have made it quite clear he hasn’t explained a drop.

Please watch this from the 12:28 mark for about a minute. He can explain something to the team without giving a true reason. This was from A Football Life regarding 4th and 2. He accepts full responsibility but basically said he did what he thought was best for the team. It is the same thing here.

 

[tims4wins]

I mean here is the transcript, word for word:

"My decision there at the end was based on what I felt was best for our football team and our best chance to win, ok?

And whether you agree with it or disagree with it, you know, I'm sure everybody has got opinion, but I'm just telling you, I did what I thought was best, alright, and it didn't work out.

And I'm not apologizing to anybody for being aggressive and trying to win. That's what we're here for, ok?

There's been some fallout"... blah blah blah... ends it with "Ignore the noise".

I mean, that could basically be verbatim regarding the Butler situation.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

He demands that the players on the Patriots are accountable to their coach and to their team primarily because the players are getting paid to perform a job. It is no way hypocritical for a coach to avoid a discussion with the Boston Globe about his decision making.

I assume that Butler didn't play because of a combination of factors. The guys got sick. He reportedly had a poor week of practice. He possibly had a minor infraction of team rules. If the last item is true, explaining what happened would be akin to Belichick shifting the blame onto the player. I don't think that's how he operates. He made the decision. It didn't work out. To say anything more, quite possibly, only throws Butler or someone else under the bus and what does it gain anyone?

The Boston Globe is the conduit to the fans. The people that indirectly pay his salary.

So there are three reasons that you assume why Butler didn't play that range from being sick to sucking at practice to breaking a team rule. Wouldn't you like to know exactly which one of your assumptions were correct?

BTW, by not saying anything and offering nothing on the reason why Butler didn't play, Belichick hasn't just thrown Butler under the bus, he's smacked him on the head, threw him under the rear tires and backed over him repeatedly. Don't pretend that by Belichick playing coy and quiet, that all of a sudden Malcolm Butler is somehow saved from embarrassment. Look at the list of reason you gave: if he was sick, fine. Nothing he can do about that. If he had a bad week of practice, that's on Butler. If he ran afoul of a team rule, that's on Butler. Both make the player look bad.

It's okay to say that this is bullshit. Bill Belchick isn't going to take away your right to watch the upcoming season.

I mean, that could basically be verbatim regarding the Butler situation.

Right. But that was on one play (and BTW, I completely agreed with him on that call. Manning was carving the Pats' exhausted D up and you have Tom Brady needing two yards to ice a game. I'll take that gamble every day). Butler was out for the entire game. And the Pats secondary looked like dogshit. You have a Pro Bowl caliber DB on the bench--one who made arguably the most important pick three years prior--and you're okay with "DNP-CD"?

I mean, okay, I guess.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I mean here is the transcript, word for word:

"My decision there at the end was based on what I felt was best for our football team and our best chance to win, ok?

And whether you agree with it or disagree with it, you know, I'm sure everybody has got opinion, but I'm just telling you, I did what I thought was best, alright, and it didn't work out.

And I'm not apologizing to anybody for being aggressive and trying to win. That's what we're here for, ok?

There's been some fallout"... blah blah blah... ends it with "Ignore the noise".

I mean, that could basically be verbatim regarding the Butler situation.

This can explain not starting him. It doesn't explain never once trying him out after every other option was getting toasted. Belichick has earned the right to make key benchings like Butler in the SB but I'll never understand the decision to never try him out, not even for a few plays to see what the impact would be. There was literally zero downside in a game where the defense played about as poorly as a defense can.

As a sports fan, I just hate the self-inflicted "what if's". I can deal with the bad luck like Tyree, Manningham, Kearse, etc. Shit happens in sports games. But holding out one of your best defensive players (a dubious title for the 2017 crap defense) the entire game invites the whole "what if" stuff that bothers me about sports. Losing stinks but you can deal with it. Losing when you aren't sure you put your best team on the field is worse, imo.

But, end of the day, we're whining about not winning a 3rd SB in 4 years so nobody really cares but spoiled Patriots fans.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Just because BB has a credo doesn't mean the media should stop asking the tough questions .

I am not a CHB fan, but I respect that he gave it a shot.

 

[NickEsasky]

I'm not sure why I'm arguing with a guy with BB as his avatar but that "needs to coach better after a loss" is boilerplate bullshit. It's a non-answer answer. And no shit they didn't play good enough defense, because the guy who was on the field for 98.2% of the defense snaps was benched.

Why was Butler benched? The thing is, if Belichick answered the question in February, no one would be talking about it in March, April, May, June or July.

I certainly appreciate where you are coming from on this, but you know the bolded is not true. Also, despite CHB being a member of the media and as you say "doing his job" you also know that this is Shaughnessy we are talking about here. He was pushing an agenda. I suppose they don't have to be mutually exclusive in this case.

 

[tims4wins]

This can explain not starting him. It doesn't explain never once trying him out after every other option was getting toasted. Belichick has earned the right to make key benchings like Butler in the SB but I'll never understand the decision to never try him out, not even for a few plays to see what the impact would be. There was literally zero downside in a game where the defense played about as poorly as a defense can.

As a sports fan, I just hate the self-inflicted "what if's". I can deal with the bad luck like Tyree, Manningham, Kearse, etc. Shit happens in sports games. But holding out one of your best defensive players (a dubious title for the 2017 crap defense) the entire game invites the whole "what if" stuff that bothers me about sports. Losing stinks but you can deal with it. Losing when you aren't sure you put your best team on the field is worse, imo.

But, end of the day, we're whining about not winning a 3rd SB in 4 years so nobody really cares but spoiled Patriots fans.

I realize that over in BBtL there has been enough discussion on this, but isn't it entirely possibly that once Butler was informed he wouldn't be starting / playing, BB figured he would mentally check out? Seems plausible.

Look, I hate that they lost. I hate that a guy who played 95%+ defensive snaps at a pretty high level didn't play a snap on D. I hate that we don't truly know why. But I accept that, as frustrating as it is, we'll never get a good reason.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I realize that over in BBtL there has been enough discussion on this, but isn't it entirely possibly that once Butler was informed he wouldn't be starting / playing, BB figured he would mentally check out? Seems plausible.

Look, I hate that they lost. I hate that a guy who played 95%+ defensive snaps at a pretty high level didn't play a snap on D. I hate that we don't truly know why. But I accept that, as frustrating as it is, we'll never get a good reason.

I hear you. To me, the Butler thing isn't even the worst part of the SB loss for me. The Brady strip sack robbed us of what could very well have been another epic SB-winning drive. Even with all the Butler/defense stuff, we still had TB12 with the ball and a chance to win but before you could blink, we lost the ball.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I certainly appreciate where you are coming from on this, but you know the bolded is not true. Also, despite CHB being a member of the media and as you say "doing his job" you also know that this is Shaughnessy we are talking about here. He was pushing an agenda. I suppose they don't have to be mutually exclusive in this case.

Yes and no. It would be a different conversation. Rather than debate on WHY Butler was benched, when we have zero data and only guesses, we can debate whether the reason was good enough to bench Butler.

John McNamara admitted that the reason why Bill Buckner was on the field during Game 6 was because he thought that it was important that Buck get to celebrate a World Series victory with his teammates. Obviously McNamara was wrong, but you can debate his intentions. Same thing with Grady Little in Game 7 and Pedro Martinez. Grady said he wanted Pedro out there because Pedro was his best pitcher and thought he had something left in the tank. Again, he was completely fucking wrong but at least you could see where he was coming from, if you squint a bit.

And you're right, no matter what Belichick said, Shaughnessy is probably going to have a negative story tomorrow. And I don't think that that's necessarily wrong. Like McNamara, like Little, Belichick was flat-out wrong. The only difference between Belichick and the other two is that at least the other two were forward enough to admit it. Belichick is the first person to cut a guy who can't get it done any more -- and I'm not saying that BB has lost a step -- but he believes in the bottom line. He fucked up, he should at least explain why and expect to get ripped.

 

[pappymojo]

The Boston Globe is the conduit to the fans. The people that indirectly pay his salary.

So there are three reasons that you assume why Butler didn't play that range from being sick to sucking at practice to breaking a team rule. Wouldn't you like to know exactly which one of your assumptions were correct?

My assumption was that it was a combination of factors, but for the record, it's been confirmed Butler was sick.

BTW, by not saying anything and offering nothing on the reason why Butler didn't play, Belichick hasn't just thrown Butler under the bus, he's smacked him on the head, threw him under the rear tires and backed over him repeatedly. Don't pretend that by Belichick playing coy and quiet, that all of a sudden Malcolm Butler is somehow saved from embarrassment. Look at the list of reason you gave: if he was sick, fine. Nothing he can do about that. If he had a bad week of practice, that's on Butler. If he ran afoul of a team rule, that's on Butler. Both make the player look bad.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

It's okay to say that this is bullshit. Bill Belchick isn't going to take away your right to watch the upcoming season.

It's more that I don't think he owes me an explanation. If he explains what happened, fine. If he doesn't, okay.

Right. But that was on one play (and BTW, I completely agreed with him on that call. Manning was carving the Pats' exhausted D up and you have Tom Brady needing two yards to ice a game. I'll take that gamble every day). Butler was out for the entire game. And the Pats secondary looked like dogshit. You have a Pro Bowl caliber DB on the bench--one who made arguably the most important pick three years prior--and you're okay with "DNP-CD"?

It's interesting that you bring up the pick from the previous Super Bowl, when it was the coach who identified the play that the Seahawks were likely to run, built a defense to stop it, ran it in practice so they could be ready for it, didn't call a time out, and put an undrafted rookie in a position to make the play.

You win some. You lose some. I, for one, continue to feel very lucky that Belichick is here. He can make whatever choices he wants.

 

[dcmissle]

I know that Shaughnessy is a columnist. But sometimes columnists need to be reporters.

It's his job to ask again because people having been asking about this all spring/summer and he has not had an opportunity to ask the questions.

In this case his job and his "agenda" overlap. The funny thing is, if Belichick gave him what he wanted in the first place, there would be no agenda to push. This is what happens when two stubborn people meet.

Shaughnessy performed very well today — generally I loathe him. Belichick also performed very well today — there was no upside to answering these question. And this is not a democracy — so pound sand.

But honestly — anyone who objects to the questions is a hopeless fanboy.

 

[tims4wins]

Shaughnessy performed very well today — generally I loathe him. Belichick also performed very well today — there was no upside to answering these question. And this is not a democracy — so pound sand.

But honestly — anyone who objects to the questions is a hopeless fanboy.

This is bullshit. The question has been asked of BB multiple times in multiple settings since the SB. Shaughnessy was pursuing an agenda, nothing more. While I love BB and am thankful for all he has brought us, I do criticize him and question him from time to time, including this situation. But I do not think I am owed any kind of answer from him.

 

[dcmissle]

This is bullshit. The question has been asked of BB multiple times in multiple settings since the SB. Shaughnessy was pursuing an agenda, nothing more. While I love BB and am thankful for all he has brought us, I do criticize him and question him from time to time, including this situation. But I do not think I am owed any kind of answer from him.

Right, and because Belichick has not answered the question — and I’m happy he hasn’t — reporters have a right to keep asking. These are legitimate questions; the training camp is a logical occasion to take a final stab. It would have been embarrassing to the press collected there if someone did not try. And it likely will be a final stab.

Sorry feathers were ruffled. It must be an agonizing life.

 

[tims4wins]

He’s answered it 10 times, all the same way. What changed between OTAs and today?

 

[dcmissle]

It’s reporting day, last chance. Probably the biggest platform until the opener. A little bit different from OTAs

Hate on the guy all you want, and more than 9 times out of 10 I’ll join you because he deserves it.

But even if his only purpose was to underscore that these are legit questions B.B. won’t answer — and realistically, that’s all Shank could accomplish — that’s fair game.

 

[tims4wins]

Agree to disagree I guess

 

[Marbleheader]

Shaughnessy was there to insert himself into the story in a desperate attempt to keep himself relevant.

 

[tims4wins]

There to insert himself. Exactly.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

There to insert himself. Exactly.

What if Steve Buckley asked the question?
Chris Gasper?
Joe Posnanski?
Chad Finn?

Is it just Shaughnessy or the questions?

 

[tims4wins]

Both. The subject is tired. The question has been asked. To be honest I don’t have a hatred for Shank. I know him in person. It was just a dumb line of questioning and entirely predicated on his article in today’s paper.

 

[StupendousMan]

I got to the fire, spoke to the fire chief who told me that two little kids were dead. The family was about 10 feet away from me watching their house burn down and dealing with their kids' death. I had to walk over to them and ask for a comment about what just happened. How did the fire start? What are you feeling right now? Tell me more. Tell me more.

That's an excruciatingly uncomfortable situation. I _can_ understand that you might ask them "How did the fire start?" or "How long did you have to escape?" or questions of that sort.

I _cannot_ fathom why you would ask "How are you feeling right now?" Can you explain that to me?

 

[The Big Red Kahuna]

I think my issue (and yes, like many, I’m biased because it is my belief Shank operates intentionally - and almost always - with the goal of “getting a rise out of” the interviewee/readers) is that it has been asked and answered ad nauseum. For those defending Shaugnessey, what if he repeated the same questions tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that? How many times before it’s simply an attempt to, as someone else put it, insert himself into the story? Because, it’s been asked / non-answered many, many times already.

Shaugnessey didn’t care if he got an answer. In fact, he probably got the one he wanted. That’s not reporting.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I think my issue (and yes, like many, I’m biased because it is my belief Shank operates intentionally - and almost always - with the goal of “getting a rise out of” the interviewee/readers) is that it has been asked and answered ad nauseum. For those defending Shaugnessey, what if he repeated the same questions tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that? How many times before it’s simply an attempt to, as someone else put it, insert himself into the story? Because, it’s been asked / non-answered many, many times already.

Shaugnessey didn’t care if he got an answer. In fact, he probably got the one he wanted. That’s not reporting.

Yep, that was my main point. The CHB knew Bill would not address the Butler Decision. No one who covers the Pats in any way would have expected an answer. So while the questions are legitimate, and ones that most of us would love to have answered, the initial column, the questions and today's explanation of the questions were all about his agenda and theme, which is largely about clicks and attention.

 

[Dirty Sanchez Forever]

Shaughnessy went to Foxborough for the annual renewal of his tough guy bona fides. Now he can chirp away at the beat reporters being sheep, while not setting foot down there again until the first home playoff game. It must be personally encouraging to him that people still fall for it.

 

[CantKeepmedown]

Didn't Butler himself say that he wasn't feeling well and wasn't prepared for the game? Isn't it kind of self explanatory why he didn't play? Maybe Bill doesn't want to expand on that. And what good would it do? "The player was sick part of the week, wasn't prepared, and playing him would not have been what was best for the team at that time." Even if he did come out and say that, people are still going to whine and complain and not be satisfied.

I get people saying that they needed to try something given how the game was going. But maybe Bill thought that playing him would make things even worse? The game was never beyond 10 points and maybe he thought that playing Butler could possibly put them in a worse position (I realize that is grasping a bit).

 

[pedro1918]

It’s reporting day, last chance. Probably the biggest platform until the opener. A little bit different from OTAs

Hate on the guy all you want, and more than 9 times out of 10 I’ll join you because he deserves it.

But even if his only purpose was to underscore that these are legit questions B.B. won’t answer — and realistically, that’s all Shank could accomplish — that’s fair game.

Why was it the "last chance"? So if someone asks BB at the next press opportunity it would be inappropriate? Is the subject closed when Lord High Shank finally gets around to asking the question? BB has been asked the question numerous times since the end of the Super Bowl and answered it the same way. I guess anyone can ask it whenever they want. I'm just not sure why a reporter would expect to hear anything different than the previous answers.

Shank may think he looks tough. I think he looks like the guy making himself the story. Look at me! Look at me!

 

[Humphrey]

I hear you. To me, the Butler thing isn't even the worst part of the SB loss for me. The Brady strip sack robbed us of what could very well have been another epic SB-winning drive. Even with all the Butler/defense stuff, we still had TB12 with the ball and a chance to win but before you could blink, we lost the ball.

My complaint was that they played defense on the game winning drive better than they had all game...no big plays, no glaring mistakes...and I don't remember saying on that last drive "if only Butler was out there" and, damn it, there were plenty of other times in that game I was saying that (glad I don't have to see Bademosi in a Pats uniform any more and hoping to say the same about Richards). But no way good enough...all that got them was minutes off the clock which in the end maybe led to the sack, etc...The biggest play of the game to me was a very short gain (don't remember how much) that gave the Eagles a first down around midfield.

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

Didn't Butler himself say that he wasn't feeling well and wasn't prepared for the game? Isn't it kind of self explanatory why he didn't play? Maybe Bill doesn't want to expand on that. And what good would it do? "The player was sick part of the week, wasn't prepared, and playing him would not have been what was best for the team at that time." Even if he did come out and say that, people are still going to whine and complain and not be satisfied.

I get people saying that they needed to try something given how the game was going. But maybe Bill thought that playing him would make things even worse? The game was never beyond 10 points and maybe he thought that playing Butler could possibly put them in a worse position (I realize that is grasping a bit).

This is the argument for not playing Butler that I cannot follow. Unless Butler was planning to murder his own teammates or intentionally score for the opposition, I cannot see a scenario where playing him "makes things even worse". The defense was allowing Nick fucking Foles to march up and down the field at will. At worst, trying Butler would have had a neural outcome and we could have saved billions of electons avoiding this endless debate.

We are also getting into a semantic argument over if "the question" has been answered or not. I believe BB has given a response to the question, but he has not answered it for whatever that is worth.

 

[JimD]

Whatever else you think of Shank, his shtick sure seems to be working based on the number of responses posted here since yesterday.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

That's an excruciatingly uncomfortable situation. I _can_ understand that you might ask them "How did the fire start?" or "How long did you have to escape?" or questions of that sort.

I _cannot_ fathom why you would ask "How are you feeling right now?" Can you explain that to me?

This was 20 years ago, so I don't think that I asked that exact question, but I asked something similar to it. And the reason why I did it is because I needed something from the people whose house was burning down. To be a little more specific (I did not include this detail yesterday because that post was already long and self indulgent enough) I didn't speak to the mother or the father. I spoke to the grandfather so my question was a bit more appropriate (may or may not be the the right word).

And don't forget this, I was 23-years-old, on my first real assignment, nervous as hell and I had to get something, so I said something.

 

[dcmissle]

https://sports.yahoo.com/bill-belichick-news-conference-remains-performance-art-distinct-purpose-143606531.html

The above puts yesterday in a fresh, healthy, happy perspective. And everyone should be thankful to Shank for providing an occasion for the “performance art.”

 

[tims4wins]

Duron Harmon

“It’s over with,” said Harmon after the first day of training camp. “I mean it’s all what-ifs now and what-ifs are not going to change anything. So what is the point of going back in the past and trying to go over that and try to find answers when in all reality, it doesn’t even matter anymore in the 2018 season?”

“You just gotta look at what you want to accomplish this year,” Harmon told me. “We know we want to play good football and be in a position at the end of the year to play more games in the winter. So looking at (the Butler situation), that doesn’t have anything to do with that (playing well this year). Malcolm has moved on. He’s with the Tennessee Titans now and it’s time we do the same (and move on).”

“You’re looking at a tunnel and you can’t even see the light right now.”

 

[Reverend]

I know this may sound weird, but, here goes:

Are there any attorneys in this thread??​

Spotting a "witness" that you know for a fact is going to stick to his story and then dancing around him with theatrics to make him look like an asshole for sticking to his story and thereby discrediting him for being consistent is basic hack litigator shit.

Of course, it also works--it's brilliant litigator shit too. But once you know how it works, it can be fairly distasteful; it is literally technique designed to use qualities such as consistency and integrity against the witness--it is a thing that is taught.

I posted this elsewhere yesterday, but it applies here too:

 

[Humphrey]

(duplicate post)

 

[Humphrey]

Do you really think Hall of Famer Dan Shaughnessy has a clue as to the relative merits of Natan Eovaldi vis-a-vis Zack Wheeler?

Of course, based on yesterday, I wished they acquired both of them.