And when you add Rolishberger and Eli Manning to the list, both two time winners who I don't think would ever be considered for the HOF minus the titles, and suddenly Felger's point make a little more sense.
Felger and Mazz - Creating False Naratives one day at a time
- Thread starter HomeBrew1901
- Start date
But he was bemoaning how the league had become too easy for QB's...which wouldn't make it that much easier for a decent QB to become very good and a very good to become great? He also said that once the playoffs start, the league reigns in the slack rope and calls it tougher, making it more difficult...so you still need a well-rounded team to actually win it all.
Which is it Mike? An elite, H of F worthy QB or a well rounded team with a strong D? I am shocked that many teams that win the SB are strong in more than one aspect of the game. He is a douche who was trolling Pats fans bu saying in the playoffs you need to have a D, but then forgot about that part and started trashing the league, pining for yesteryear.
So...Mazz just dropped the S bomb
"let's drop the finesse, pansy shit"
He was talking about the Packers' timing, finesse based offense
"let's drop the finesse, pansy shit"
He was talking about the Packers' timing, finesse based offense
Mike Pereira coming up at 5pm every Monday starting today. Hopefully they make it worth while.
As expected, Mazz drawing all the wrong conclusions about yesterday's loss:
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/massarotti/2012/09/we_should_have_seen_this_patri.html
Hint to Mazz: Waters ain't coming; another $500K isn't the difference here.
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/massarotti/2012/09/we_should_have_seen_this_patri.html
Hint to Mazz: Waters ain't coming; another $500K isn't the difference here.
One thing I've learned today... Felger clearly has Larry Fitz on his fantasy team.
I know the tone because it's the same tone we've all had with a talented WR on a team with a garbage qb. Happened to me early in Vernon Davis' career with Alex Smith trying to get him the ball
I know the tone because it's the same tone we've all had with a talented WR on a team with a garbage qb. Happened to me early in Vernon Davis' career with Alex Smith trying to get him the ball
How soon into the show does Mazz say he doesn't believe SMY's article re: the $4 million offer to Waters during camp?
edit: aaaaaand 30 minutes in: "I think the $4 million is bullcrap."
I swear, they could get Waters on the phone and he could tell them that the team offered $4 million and Mazz would still say he doesn't believe it
edit: aaaaaand 30 minutes in: "I think the $4 million is bullcrap."
I swear, they could get Waters on the phone and he could tell them that the team offered $4 million and Mazz would still say he doesn't believe it
They always look for ways to rip every team in this market. It was refreshing at first, but now it's just tired and old. I haven't listened to them in a while and it's really noticeable when you take a break from them.
Not listening because I'm at work, but I am surprised at Mazz's approach. I have heard him do the contrarian schtick a million times, of course, but what you guys are saying would seem to suggest that he's undercutting another beat reporter. Is he accusing the Patriots of floating a story, or is he accusing SMY of having bad sources?
Either way is a little funny. The Patriots don't need to float stories to save any face, if anything they are accused of being stand-offish. And if he's questioning SMY as a professional, that would seem to go against professional courtesy. Am I crazy or just missing the gist of it?
(On a related note, why is the spell check picking up "contrarian?")
Either way is a little funny. The Patriots don't need to float stories to save any face, if anything they are accused of being stand-offish. And if he's questioning SMY as a professional, that would seem to go against professional courtesy. Am I crazy or just missing the gist of it?
(On a related note, why is the spell check picking up "contrarian?")
Paul Perrillo is great on this show.
One of the few who comes on, and goes after Felger and Mazz's crap.
Really weak on not asking Shalise Manza-Young to come on, either. But if she came on at 2:30 and destroyed the narrative of the show, then what would they do for 3 1/2 hours?
One of the few who comes on, and goes after Felger and Mazz's crap.
Really weak on not asking Shalise Manza-Young to come on, either. But if she came on at 2:30 and destroyed the narrative of the show, then what would they do for 3 1/2 hours?
They literally said, "We're trying to send her a tweet, but there is a problem with out Twitter account".
What a horrible show today.
Peter Gammons came on F&M and said he heard a rumor linking PED use to Robinson Cano three weeks ago. If that comes to fruition, wow.
Didn't the same thing happen to Melky? That there were rumors of PED use a few weeks before it was announced?
Yeah, they were talking about this at like 3:30. Gammons said he heard about Melky about six weeks before the announcement came down. He had 5 or 6 six sources, but none of them could convince him that it was definitely true when it happened. He must have enough now to come out and mention the Cano thing, maybe the same sources? Or the same amount of sources.
God I fucking hate Mazz so much. The only thing he's interested in saying today is that Belichick should be suspended.
And then when Belichick gives a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for why he was trying to get the attention of the official, Mazz finds it "curious" because Belichick "is just trying to cover his ass."
And then when Belichick gives a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for why he was trying to get the attention of the official, Mazz finds it "curious" because Belichick "is just trying to cover his ass."
I shut it off after the 1st hour because I was so bored with Mazz just repeating and Felger telling him he's wrong repeatedly and he's just acting like a baseball beat writer.
Mazz doesn't even watch the games. How he is even a cohost on a sports show is beyond me. I wish Gasper would get his job. The show would be a lot better in my opinion.
Gasper and Felger would be great. Mazz is on the back 9 of his career and is now in the John Dennis role of saying shit to fire up Felger and let Felger do all the heavy lifting. I've said it on numerous occasion, Callahan is great when paired with a co-host like Felger but that is never going to happen.
Gasper is just starting his career and doesn't put up with Felger's bullshit and I think Felger would really enjoy working with him long term because he likes to be challenged by competent guests.
Gasper is just starting his career and doesn't put up with Felger's bullshit and I think Felger would really enjoy working with him long term because he likes to be challenged by competent guests.
The funny thing is, Felger and Mazz are roughly the same age (both in their early 40's). They both started working at the Herald at the same time. John Dennis has close to two decades on Mazz.
I can understand how being a baseball beat-writer can tire somebody out, but Mazz hasn't been on the beat for at least 5 years. You would think his batteries would be recharged by now.
But it was clear yesterday that the only storyline Mazz wanted to talk about was the ridiculous "Belichick should be suspended" topic. It's an easy way to fire up Felger, and an even easier way to troll listeners.
Mazz will probably admit out loud today that he didn't see the end to Seattle/Green Bay. How can we expect somebody to watch football for his job on Sunday, Monday night, AND then again on Thursday night? It's just too much...
I'm usually one to defend Mazz but he needs to get his act together. I'd put Betrand, Gasper and Flynn ahead of him in terms on on-air talent at The Sports Hub right now. I'd rather listen to any of them over Mazz right now.
Huh? What are you talking about, they never have celebrity callers on the show.
Ron from Vegas
Mike from Attleborough
Dakota
Danny from Quincy
Jill from Minnesota
Louie from the Cape
Frank the Tank
Frank's roommate
Yes, they started out being adamant that they didn't want celebrity callers. The only two I can stand are Mike and Ron, Ron provides a certain unintentionally funny quotient.
Apparently, what that meant was no celebrity callers who made their name on WEEI. Celebrity callers that they cultivated themselves...perfectly welcome.
But based on the list HomeBrew just posted, maybe they really are hypocrites.
I wouldn't call them hypocrites, they started out in one direction and then realized it wasn't possible because you end up having the same people calling every single day. Mike from Attleborough has good takes but he calls every fucking show that Bertrand is on, he'll spend 20 minutes with Bertrand and Gasper if they give him the air time.
Maybe? I want you on my jury when I'm accused of a felony.
Wiggy just made a great point. NFL looks like total clowns with today's announcement given all the commentary from rules & referee-types last night that the call on the field was wrong.
I find the dude incredibly awkward. I feel bad for the guy. I end up turning it off literally every time he comes up. Just...so lame.
Oh, I get that. It is inevitable that you will have callers who repeat...there's only so many people in a listening audience who have the nerve to call at all (especially now when you can text or email the show instead of sitting on hold for an hour). Repeaters, good and bad, are bound to surface and make themselves known. I guess where I see it as hypocritical is that, by your list, Danny from Quincy and Dakota are among their regular callers. Those two pre-date the station as celebrity callers on Boston sports radio. My assumption was that when they said no celebrity callers at the beginning, they were specifically trying to distance the station from the familiar callers heard down the dial.
I don't mind Ron from Vegas. He's entertaining in a strange way, but he is calling in way too much. Now he's calling Bertrand & Gasper and Johnston and Flynn which is getting old.
As for Mike from Attleborough, I think hes trying to get his name out there and try to make a living off of it. He's now writing for CSNNE.com under the name Mike from Attleborough.
No one calling any station is worse than "Joey" from the "North End" or Manny in the Truck that call in other shows including Gresh & Zo. They are so beyond bad its not even funny.
As for Mike from Attleborough, I think hes trying to get his name out there and try to make a living off of it. He's now writing for CSNNE.com under the name Mike from Attleborough.
No one calling any station is worse than "Joey" from the "North End" or Manny in the Truck that call in other shows including Gresh & Zo. They are so beyond bad its not even funny.
Has Mazz ever, ever had one original thought on this show? He is beyond brutal. I tuned in for ten minutes and all the weasel does is say, "Mike, listen..." and then screams the exact same thing Felger just said. But because he says it louder and slower it supposedly is some important statement.
Some good stuff in the first hour. Felger splooging over Aaron Rodgers' radio commentary, and Beetle with a complete lambasting of the 8th anniversary celebration last night at Fenway. Bertrand went ballistic over Nomar's participation, and ownership's attempts to rewrite history as if his moping on the bench and subsequent trade weren't a major depressant and turning point respectively in the '04 championship season.
That station management can keep Mazz as a co-host while a true talent like Bertrand remains fully underutilized is downright maddening.
He did it again today, regurgitating Felger's comments on Rodgers, and reinforcing Bertrand's anti-Sox diatribe.
That station management can keep Mazz as a co-host while a true talent like Bertrand remains fully underutilized is downright maddening.
He's awful. Takes forever to make a point. His vocal tone is obnoxious, as is his accent. And they just let him ramble on, and on, and on.
Ron from Vegas is that know-it-all loudmouth at the local sports bar that you make every effort to sit as far away from as possible.
Gammons on stating the case for Trout over Cabrera for AL MVP. After Gammons is gone, Mazz breaks out "If Cabrera wins the triple crown he's the MVP." He goes on to say that Trout is a better defensive player, but he doesn't care. No one has won the triple crown in 45 years! You win the triple crown you're the MVP.
Crikey.
Besides, he should tell all that to Ted Williams.
Crikey.
Besides, he should tell all that to Ted Williams.
I know sabermatically, Trout may be the MVP, but is it REALLY a stretch to say the Cabrera doesn't deserve it? These things are so subjective, as long as they get someone who deserves to be in the discussion (if there's no clear cut winner) WTF is the problem?
Sure. It's not REALLY crazy to pick Cabrera. There is an argument to be made. But "I don't care" about Trout's vastly superior defense and "Triple Crown = MVP" with no questions asked are not the arguments.
When was the last time that defense entered into the equation? Pudge Rodriguez?
How many times has a batter won the Triple Crown? 15. When was the last time it happened? 1967. Awarding Cabrera the MVP over Trout isn't like when Bob Welch beat Roger Clemens for the Cy Young back in 1990 because he had more wins and Clemens dominated in every other category.
If Miguel Cabrera wins the Triple Crown and if he leads the Tigers to the AL Central title, IMO he'd earn the award more than Trout.
What Massarotti is saying isn't so crazy.
How many times has a batter won the Triple Crown? 15. When was the last time it happened? 1967. Awarding Cabrera the MVP over Trout isn't like when Bob Welch beat Roger Clemens for the Cy Young back in 1990 because he had more wins and Clemens dominated in every other category.
If Miguel Cabrera wins the Triple Crown and if he leads the Tigers to the AL Central title, IMO he'd earn the award more than Trout.
What Massarotti is saying isn't so crazy.
Good thing Gammo didn't mention Trouts vastly superior stolen base stats... Mazz may have had an aneurysm.
Triple Crown as a factor in Cabrera's favor? Absolutely. Tigers winning the Central being a point for Cabrera over Trout is BS. Trout's team is going to finish with a better record than Cabrera's. They just have the misfortune of being in the toughest division in the league rather than the weakest.
Say Cabrera loses the HR race to Hamilton by one home run. Would you give him the MVP then? Because there really wouldn't be a heck of a difference in his offensive numbers "value" if he loses by one home run/ties Hamilton/wins by one.
As I said, I don't think it would be crazy to give Cabrera the MVP, even if he doesn't win the Triple Crown. I just think the idea the winning three statistical categories, some of which have questionable value to many people, should not guarantee that you win the MVP.
And in my opinion, defense should play a part.
As I said, I don't think it would be crazy to give Cabrera the MVP, even if he doesn't win the Triple Crown. I just think the idea the winning three statistical categories, some of which have questionable value to many people, should not guarantee that you win the MVP.
And in my opinion, defense should play a part.
Crazy talk.
The triple crown is awesome and I'm super excited that someone, especially someone I've liked for years, may win it. That said, to suggest that winning a a mythical construct that includes two statistics that are poor measures of a players skills (BA is fine I guess, RBI are almost completely useless) means someone should win the MVP is silly. Especially when a different player has similar value offensively and is VASTLY superior defensively (at a more difficult and valuable position) and VASTLY superior on the basepaths. Miguel Cabrera may be the best hitter in baseball, but at least for this season Mike Trout was a better player.
The triple crown is awesome and I'm super excited that someone, especially someone I've liked for years, may win it. That said, to suggest that winning a a mythical construct that includes two statistics that are poor measures of a players skills (BA is fine I guess, RBI are almost completely useless) means someone should win the MVP is silly. Especially when a different player has similar value offensively and is VASTLY superior defensively (at a more difficult and valuable position) and VASTLY superior on the basepaths. Miguel Cabrera may be the best hitter in baseball, but at least for this season Mike Trout was a better player.
I'm with JMOH. If we've come to the point where winning the triple crown should be ignored when considering someone for the most valuable player, then pull the bus over.........its time for me to get off.
I suspect there will be an army of baseball fans exiting with me.
I suspect there will be an army of baseball fans exiting with me.
Cabrera: 1.003 OPS, 167 OPS+
Trout: 0.949 OPS, 167 OPS+
It's not crazy to suggest that Cabrera deserves a mention when it comes to the MVP race.
Trout: 0.949 OPS, 167 OPS+
It's not crazy to suggest that Cabrera deserves a mention when it comes to the MVP race.