Patriots and the Media

[mascho]

Given the turn the Broncos thread has taken, this merits its own place.
 
Is there a double standard when it comes to media coverage of the Patriots vis a vis other teams that have success?  Are Pats fans whiny bitches?  Both?
 
EDIT:  And if people think this is better suited in the "Media" subforum, please move as necessary.  

 

[Stitch01]

I dont think its an anti-Patriot bias as much as the national NFL media being generally awful and lazy.

 

[ifmanis5]

If AMERICA'S TEAM THE DALLAS COWBOYS had 13 straight seasons of winning records and the kind of success that the Brady/BB era has afforded, the amount of media ballwashing would be roughly 1000000000x what the Pats get currently.

 

[loshjott]

Through setbacks, Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots machine rolls on
 
Adam Kilgore, Washington Post. (I did not know Kilgore used to write for the Globe)

 

[TomRicardo]

I am not sure what people expect.
 
The Patriots went from a laughing stock franchise to a moderately successful to absolutely dominant in a short period in time and have absolutely dominated the 21st century in a way that no other professional team has in the US.  They have had the best record in their division every year for the last 13 years.
 
People honestly cheer for anyone but the Pats because the Pats win so much.  We have not seen a streak of dominance like this in the free agency era of any sport here.  Even a year like this when they should have been rebuilding, they ended up with the third best record in the NFL.  It is absurd how good this team is especially at Gillette Stadium where they are 81-15 in the regular season and 10-3 in the post season.  Is there any other team in sports that has rocked over 83% winning percentage at home?

 

[NoXInNixon]

I dont think its an anti-Patriot bias as much as the national NFL media being generally awful and lazy.

And since Bill doesn't provide lots of useful or colorful sound bites, he's not praised as a great guy whereas Rex Ryan is always interesting so they shower him with love.
 
What I've never really grasped is why fans of sports teams even care about what the media says about them. I like watching the games, and I don't really care how much they are loved by the guys on PTI.

 

[Leather]

And since Bill doesn't provide lots of useful or colorful sound bites, he's not praised as a great guy whereas Rex Ryan is always interesting so they shower him with love.
 
What I've never really grasped is why fans of sports teams even care about what the media says about them. I like watching the games, and I don't really care how much they are loved by the guys on PTI.

 
I'll move my post from the other thread, because it seems more apt here.
 
It's convenient to just shush away the media treatment with a "Oh, nobody cares about the stupid media anyway, the fans know better!", but it's disingenuous and not helpful. 
 
People who don't actively follow the Patriots, much less people who don't actively follow football aside from the Superbowl and some nationally-syndicated stuff, form their opinions on the basis of what the media tells them.  So when five or six national columnists say nearly identical things such as "The Patriots are cheaters" and "the Patriots run up the score", that creates an echo chamber, and that is what people like me and Rev and anyone else that lives outside of the fuzzy warmth of New England has to deal with.  It's not just the NJ/NY folks that are looking to score points against their NE loving friends.  It's everyone. Not because they "hate" the Patriots on some rational or even fan-based level, it's just because they don't know any better.
 
It's at work, eating lunch with colleagues, Vikings fans all, who "don't like" the Patriots.  Why?  Because they are bad sports and jerks.  Gee, how did they get that opinion? 
 
It's in-laws, who actively root for the other team (no matter who) during Thanksgiving or the Superbowl, because they think the Patriots are crooks, despite knowing next to nothing about football.
 
With anyone other than a serious football fan (that you meet for the first or second time), it's almost impossible to have a rational conversation about BB, Brady, or the Patriots, where the terms "cheaters", "jerks", "poor sports", don't come up and need to be dealt with before you can talk actual football.   It's predictable and exhausting.  Does it make me enjoy the Patriots success any less?  No.  But purely on a social level its a fucking pain in the ass, and it's bullshit that I have to deal with that.  It would be as if, instead of just getting to say "Aw, yea, what a year, what a team, huh? We're so lucky!" and talk about the merits of the team itself, or their prospects moving forward, Denver fans living elsewhere would first have to get through five minutes of people who are barely football literate volunteering the fact that they think Peyton Manning is overrated, has a big head, is really fortunate to play with lots of talent, and then be expected to explain away the fact that Denver cheated on the salary cap 14 years ago or whatever.  That would be irritating, right?  You'd wish that you could just sit down and enjoy the game and maybe talk about the team's success?

 

[Shelterdog]

And since Bill doesn't provide lots of useful or colorful sound bites, he's not praised as a great guy whereas Rex Ryan is always interesting so they shower him with love.
 
What I've never really grasped is why fans of sports teams even care about what the media says about them. I like watching the games, and I don't really care how much they are loved by the guys on PTI.

 
For me the number one reason is this: I'm a football fan so I read some of the national guys, listen to some of the highlight shows, etc. and the stupid I hear can be annoying. 
 
The second reason is that some fans latch on to some of the stupid shit they hear in the media so I have to hear that as well, and that can also be annoying.

 

[Kliq]

The Patriots are either endlessly worshiped by the national media, or always being criticized by the national media, depending on who you ask.

 

[ifmanis5]

With anyone other than a serious football fan (that you meet for the first or second time), it's almost impossible to have a rational conversation about BB, Brady, or the Patriots, where the terms "cheaters", "jerks", "poor sports", don't come up and need to be dealt with before you can talk actual football.   It's predictable and exhausting. 

Yup. Read any post on ESPN.com from non-Pats fans and you see all the same stuff-- BB is a jerk, they cheated so their titles don't count, Brady is a whiner and all their fans are whiners too. The overall attitude from the gen pop on the Pats is F-them.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Yup. Read any post on ESPN.com from non-Pats fans and you see all the same stuff-- BB is a jerk, they cheated so their titles don't count, Brady is a whiner and all their fans are whiners too. The overall attitude from the gen pop on the Pats is F-them.

 
A great deal of the national disdain IMO comes from the original Tuck Rule game, which to this very day has people saying the Pats were given that game. Never mind that the rule was properly applied, never mind that the rule had been applied against the Patriots in that very same season (against the Jets), to this day casual fans will insist that the Pats weren't a "real" SB team because of the Tuck Rule.  The Raiders got on every media outlet they could find for years afterwards bitching about the call (Lincoln Kennedy in particular, who said the refs gave the Pats the game because the NFL hated Al Davis).
 
The organization morphing from a laughingstock to the best, most well-run one in the NFL is apparently too much for many fans to take and thus they look for reasons why the Pats aren't legit, and latch on to any half-assed reason to do so.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

 
A great deal of the national disdain IMO comes from the original Tuck Rule game, which to this very day has people saying the Pats were given that game. Never mind that the rule was properly applied, never mind that the rule had been applied against the Patriots in that very same season (against the Jets), to this day casual fans will insist that the Pats weren't a "real" SB team because of the Tuck Rule.  The Raiders got on every media outlet they could find for years afterwards bitching about the call (Lincoln Kennedy in particular, who said the refs gave the Pats the game because the NFL hated Al Davis).

 
But that is all true, it was a fumble, the second hand hit the ball, ending the tuck.
 
Of course, Dammit, the Raiders were robbed. Why wasn't the game moved to the afternoon? Cheaters*
 
*Or, the 2001 Raiders could have avoided losing their last three and just blown the Pats out in Oakland. 

 

[soxfan121]

I am not sure what people expect.
 
The Patriots went from a laughing stock franchise to a moderately successful to absolutely dominant in a short period in time and have absolutely dominated the 21st century in a way that no other professional team has in the US.  They have had the best record in their division every year for the last 13 years.
 
People honestly cheer for anyone but the Pats because the Pats win so much.  We have not seen a streak of dominance like this in the free agency era of any sport here.  Even a year like this when they should have been rebuilding, they ended up with the third best record in the NFL.  It is absurd how good this team is especially at Gillette Stadium where they are 81-15 in the regular season and 10-3 in the post season.  Is there any other team in sports that has rocked over 83% winning percentage at home?

 
I agree with TRic...we (Patriots fans) are whiny bitches, especially about the media. BB sure doesn't give a fuck (let alone two) and neither do I. The national media hates the Pats? So?
 
They hate us because we win. They're gonna hate us even more when we're celebrating another Lombardi trophy and Brady asks Peyton "how does my ass taste?"* during the trophy ceremony in two months.
 
*Not literally of course, but something like "I'd trade any individual records for the team success we've had in my career - 4 Super Bowl titles, 6 Super Bowl appearances, 11 division titles - that's why I play the game, for the team success. Not individual records." (Big smile)

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
But that is all true, it was a fumble, the second hand hit the ball, ending the tuck.
 
Of course, Dammit, the Raiders were robbed. Why wasn't the game moved to the afternoon? Cheaters*
 
*Or, the 2001 Raiders could have avoided losing their last three and just blown the Pats out in Oakland. 

 
 
Is that true? I just took a look at a couple of replays on YouTube and can't tell for certain at all. He clearly pats it once before the hit, but I didn't see a second pat. Of course the camera angles are terrible.

 

[soxfan121]

Yes, it is true. The Patriots got a gift from the Football Gods and Walt Coleman. It was a fumble and we are all fortunate that Walt Coleman chose to interpret the rule in our favor because it just as easily could have gone the other way. 
 
It is what you do with luck given to you by the Football Gods that matters. All hail Adam Vinatieri. So say we all.

 

[tims4wins]

Yes, it is true. The Patriots got a gift from the Football Gods and Walt Coleman. It was a fumble and we are all fortunate that Walt Coleman chose to interpret the rule in our favor because it just as easily could have gone the other way. 
 
It is what you do with luck given to you by the Football Gods that matters. All hail Adam Vinatieri. So say we all.

 
Also before that drive the Raiders had 2nd and 3 and 3rd and 1 and failed to convert. If they did the game was over.

 

[soxfan121]

 
Also before that drive the Raiders had 2nd and 3 and 3rd and 1 and failed to convert. If they did the game was over.

 
Great point. Boiling that game down to Walt Coleman's time under the hood is misleading. The Raiders fucked themselves and weren't bailed out by the refs while the Pats stopped Oakland, got a gift call, and then capitalized on it. 

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

This is kind of hysterical -- from an article posted on ESPN.com by something called Jeffri Chadiha:
 

 
1. Can Denver's defense survive without Von Miller? Yes. It's called the Peyton Manning effect. The future Hall of Fame quarterback has helped this team overcome plenty of setbacks already -- including the early-season losses of left tackle Ryan Clady and center Dan Koppen -- and he'll make up for a defense that has been less than impressive lately. [...]  The key is that Manning continues playing out of his mind while giving Denver the huge leads it has held for most of the season.
 
2. Does Tom Brady have enough help around him to make another Super Bowl run? No. [...]. The Patriots have simply taken too many hits to think Brady can do this all by himself going forward. The season-ending injuries to defensive tackle Vince Wilfork, linebacker Jerod Mayo and right tackle Sebastian Vollmer will haunt this team. A first-round bye can only help so much.

 
What the Patriots must need is "The Tom Brady Effect", I guess.
 
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10209928/2013-nfl-playoffs-denver-broncos-cincinnati-bengals-teams-beat

 

[DJnVa]

Reading some articles from 2007.
 
Hilarious.
 
In the NY Times: 

It just isn’t done. No N.F.L. team has ever “run up the score” the way the Patriots have this season. (If anyone can dispute this, please name the team). And there’s something unhinged about it. Why allow for the possibility of a late Tom Brady injury? Why give future opponents motivation, ammunition?
 

 
Unhinged. Oh, and that "future motivation" thing (the game referenced was against Buffalo)--the Bills were sufficiently motivated to go 1-11 in their next 12 games against NE.
 

Belichick and the Patriots have won every game, but they’ve lost the moral high ground. Decency is rewarded in the long run.
 

 
 
Washington Post:

But most alarming was the sight of Patriots Coach Bill Belichick, late in the game, asking Brady to convert a fourth-down play in an attempt to drive the score higher.
 

 
Or you know, to allow the defense to actually stop them and get the ball back.

Later, when asked about the play, Belichick stared for a moment.
 
"What do you want us to do, kick a field goal?" he said.
 

The Redskins did not openly complain about the fourth-down play. When asked what he thought of it Gibbs said, "I have no problem with anything that they did. Nothing. No problems from me."
The general reaction from the players could be summed up by Fletcher, who said: "It's their football, that's what they chose to do with the ball. It's our job to stop them."
 

 
So, when asked, the players and coaches were okay? But the writer was upset.
 
 
 
 
To recap: 2007: unhinged 2013: SI Man of the Year

 

[dcmissle]

He has been trolling Pats nation for a good long while now ....

This is very simple.

1. With few notable exceptions, journalists are basically whores. If you don't dish, you are in trouble. And if you are curt and dismissive with these people on occasion, they will never forget or forgive.

2. Excellence generally is resented, especially by your peers who come off not looking so good if you consistently excel.

 

[ShaneTrot]

Jeff Chadiha sucks. I live in KC and he is often on sports radio burying Pioli. He is an avid Pats hater, he said how awesome Welker would be with the Broncos, buried the Pats over Hernandez and wrote about the end of the dynasty here. He knows about as much about football as Andy Reid knows about clock management. Absolutely nothing!

 

[CaptainLaddie]

 
But that is all true, it was a fumble, the second hand hit the ball, ending the tuck.
 
Of course, Dammit, the Raiders were robbed. Why wasn't the game moved to the afternoon? Cheaters*
 
*Or, the 2001 Raiders could have avoided losing their last three and just blown the Pats out in Oakland. 

 

Of course, the refs missed a hit to the head of Brady there as well.  So it actually worked out better for the Raiders since the refs refused to give the Pats 15 more yards.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Chahida is the worst writer on ESPN, outside of maybe Jamele Hill. He's written that same Pats dynasty over thing at least twice. I am sure he'll recycle it again this year if the Pats don't win it all. Ashley Fox is another one to avoid.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Of course, the refs missed a hit to the head of Brady there as well. So it actually worked out better for the Raiders since the refs refused to give the Pats 15 more yards.


Add in the 15 for Biekert punting the ball and Oakland's lucky the ball wasn't on the 5!

I'm trolling.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

You're right though.  It should have been.  The Pats got fucked by the refs that game.

 

[Kliq]

 
A great deal of the national disdain IMO comes from the original Tuck Rule game, which to this very day has people saying the Pats were given that game. Never mind that the rule was properly applied, never mind that the rule had been applied against the Patriots in that very same season (against the Jets), to this day casual fans will insist that the Pats weren't a "real" SB team because of the Tuck Rule.  The Raiders got on every media outlet they could find for years afterwards bitching about the call (Lincoln Kennedy in particular, who said the refs gave the Pats the game because the NFL hated Al Davis).
 
The organization morphing from a laughingstock to the best, most well-run one in the NFL is apparently too much for many fans to take and thus they look for reasons why the Pats aren't legit, and latch on to any half-assed reason to do so.

 
I always just assumed that the tuck rule was karma stemming from the Sugar Bear Hamilton hit on Ken Stabler in the 1976 playoffs.

 

[Reverend]

 
But that is all true, it was a fumble, the second hand hit the ball, ending the tuck.

 
Why is this the case? I mean, it probably should be, but that's not how the rule is written, is it?

 

[DJnVa]

That's not how it was written.
 

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.[1]
 

 
 
 
The only thing it says is if it is actually tucked back against the body. There's nothing written there about the second hand touching the ball.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

This is kind of hysterical -- from an article posted on ESPN.com by something called Jeffri Chadiha:
 
 
What the Patriots must need is "The Tom Brady Effect", I guess.
 
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10209928/2013-nfl-playoffs-denver-broncos-cincinnati-bengals-teams-beat

 
Whenever I see a headline that looks like a curious/unfair/cheap shot at Patriots:

• If it's ESPN, it's Chadiha or Easterbrook
• If it's PFT, it's Florio

Never fails. It's to a point where you can guess the author without clicking on the link. 

 

[Dogman]

Hook, line and sinker.  Props, Gunfighter.
 
Enjoy your offseason.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

Hook, line and sinker.  Props, Gunfighter.
 
Enjoy your offseason.

 
Thanks, its all I have left. 
 
I am not optimistic about the second part of your post. 

 

[Dogman]

 

[lambeau]

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/22/stanford-markets-whats-your-deal-ticket-plan/

Jim Harbaugh may be coming to the rescue. Richard Sherman claims he drove by the Seahawks bus last year after beating them, honking and waving.

And this link recalls his attempting a 2-point conversion against Pete Carroll while up 27 points.Carroll asked him at midfield, "What's your deal?"

Stanford then sold a three-game package for 2010 including the next USC game using the marketing slogan "What's your deal?" BB is not alone,

 

[PedrosRedGlove]

Um, what?

Fairly or unfairly, I think a lot of the bitterness, and the change in tone of national coverage of the team happened after/because of how 2007 unfolded. Spygate was completely overblown by both the league and media, and the retraction (Rams walk through) never gets as much coverage as the initial story. That's why the belief exists amongst casual fans that the Patriots are dirty cheaters.

It isn't a great comparison, but its like the Barry Bonds situation in a way, though obviously steroids in baseball was an issue of much greater magnitude. Bonds will forever be the main villain of the steroid era. It doesn't matter that almost everyone in the sport was doing the same thing, and it doesn't matter that at the start it was a gray area of the rulebook. No one remembers all the AAAA players that did steroids just to compete, and no one would've remembered Spygate if it had been done by the Buffalo Bills. The combination of being labeled a cheater THEN continuing a level of success that would make any competitor bitter results in that kind of infamy.

 

[ifmanis5]

To recap: 2007: unhinged 2013: SI Man of the Year

Love this.
 
For those who were wondering the 2007 Pats point differential was +314 (588-274) while this year's Broncos were +207 (606-399).

 

[Super Nomario]

Love this.
 
For those who were wondering the 2007 Pats point differential was +314 (588-274) while this year's Broncos were +207 (606-399).

Also, the Broncos averaged 37.9 PPG when the league averaged 23.4. The Pats averaged 36.8 when the league averaged 21.7
Also, the Patriots only turned the ball over 15 times, best in the NFL. The Broncos had 26 TOs, 17th in the league.
 
Also, Aaron Schatz ‏@FO_ASchatz 29 Dec
Another reminder: DEN 2013 avg defense faced ranked 31st. NE 2007 ranked 11th. DEN 2004 ranked 16th.
 
Basically, the Pats had a better offense, not just a better team.

 

[crystalline]

Love this.
 
For those who were wondering the 2007 Pats point differential was +314 (588-274) while this year's Broncos were +207 (606-399).

 
Not to mention, the Broncos had 3 losses in there.  In wins, their differential was +233 (522-299) over 13 games, for an average differential of 17.2 per win.  The Pats were +314 over 16 games or 19.6 per win.  (These are statistically the same, t-test gives p=0.4).
 
And looking just in wins is the right question, because we're asking whether teams ran up the score.  You only get the chance to run up the score in wins.
 
As SN says: the Pats also likely had a better offense, and one effect is that they won more games.

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

Um, what?

Fairly or unfairly, I think a lot of the bitterness, and the change in tone of national coverage of the team happened after/because of how 2007 unfolded. Spygate was completely overblown by both the league and media, and the retraction (Rams walk through) never gets as much coverage as the initial story. That's why the belief exists amongst casual fans that the Patriots are dirty cheaters.

 
It really was the anti-perfect storm of timing for the Patriots.  Coming off of 3 SBs in 4 years not long ago, there was Patriots fatigue.  The same way people were sick of the Cowboys in the 90's, people were sick of the Patriots.  So any story with a negative edge was going to get huge traction.  Naturally, it blew up and people clung to the worst of all possible interpretations of what happened.
 
Then, on top of that, the 2007 season happened.  Bullies.  Poor sportsmanship.  Runner-Uppers.  So now you had cheating, poor sportsmanship, and this face:
 

 
...and congratulations, you've got yourself a narrative!  They're the bad guys!  Once that started seeping into every column, report, interview...it just became fact.  And since people have grown to hate the Patriots, they're in no rush to go out and find out if it's true or how valid it is, it's just accepted.  Then it just feeds on itself and compounds.
 
Brady didn't shake hands?  Well, they're the bad guys, so it must have been because he's a baby, not because he's competitive and takes losses hard.  Belichick didn't answer a stupid question?  Well, they're the bad guys, so it must have been because he's an asshole, not because he doesn't discuss injuries.  The Patriots offense is very complex?  Well, they're the bad guys, so it must be because they're arrogant, not because it's been wildly successful.  Rinse.  Repeat.  Ad infinitum.

 

[DJnVa]

TMQ: 

The Football Gods Were Puzzled: Why was Drew Brees, and the rest of the Saints' starters, on the field in the fourth quarter with New Orleans ahead 42-17? Saints coach Sean Payton has always loved stats. But trying to run up the score isn't sportsmanlike, and can cause pointless injuries.
 

 

[koufax32]

TMQ:

free pass

They saved NOLA

 

[Van Everyman]

Can someone explain to me where Tomase got the Rams walk through story in the first place? I was trying to explain the story was retracted to my brother in law -- he's a massive football fan and loves to rib me about the Pats – and he never even heard that.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Can someone explain to me where Tomase got the Rams walk through story in the first place? I was trying to explain the story was retracted to my brother in law -- he's a massive football fan and loves to rib me about the Pats – and he never even heard that.

 
I believe it was a claim from the now thoroughly discredited Matt Walsh. Tomase and the Herald didn't bother to double-check it or get other sources for it, they just ran the piece. And it blew up in their faces eventually, with Tomase having to issue an apology in the paper. Of course, the Herald ran it the day before Black Sunday in a transparent effort to sabotage the Pats' preparation for the game.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
I believe it was a claim from the now thoroughly discredited Matt Walsh. Tomase and the Herald didn't bother to double-check it or get other sources for it, they just ran the piece. And it blew up in their faces eventually, with Tomase having to issue an apology in the paper. Of course, the Herald ran it the day before Black Sunday in a transparent effort to sabotage the Pats' preparation for the game.

I don't think it was ever truly confirmed that Walsh was the source, but it's hard to see otherwise.  Walsh was trying to find people to believe that he had a much bigger story than the taping of defensive signals, and Tomase, like Sen. Spector, took the bait hook, line, and sinker.  
 
The retraction happened right after Walsh released what he had, when it became obvious that no such walkthrough tape ever existed.  The retraction also happened deep in the NFL offseason when everyone's mind was on to other things, and it therefore didn't warrant a whole lot of airplay in the national sports media.  And the Herald responded by hiring a noted plagiarist to write Belichick hatchet jobs. 

 

[Stu Nahan]

TMQ: 

Puzzled but not angered of course. Maybe the Pats cheerleaders have to show a lot of skin in the cold to appease them.

 

[DJnVa]

Original walkthrough story: http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2008/02/source_pats_employee_filmed_rams
 
But, you know, the national media has DEFINITELY dropped this story: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/30/marshall-faulk-patriots-cheated-the-rams-out-of-a-super-bowl/
 

It’s been 11 years since the Rams lost to the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXVI, but former Rams running back Marshall Faulk isn’t over it, because Faulk believes the Patriots cheated to win.
 

 
This was from 2013--Marshall Faulk is still bitching, and NBC Sports still posting stories about it.
 
So yeah, don't look to Faulk to hear anything unbiased on the Patriots while BB is still there.

 

[jacklamabe65]

I actually think that the worm has partially turned when you have someone like Francesa praise them for "their resilience and being one of the very few sports franchises to never hide behind excuses. No matter who they have, they will be prepared, they will play hard, and they probably won't be themselves."

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Original walkthrough story: http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2008/02/source_pats_employee_filmed_rams
 
But, you know, the national media has DEFINITELY dropped this story: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/30/marshall-faulk-patriots-cheated-the-rams-out-of-a-super-bowl/
 
This was from 2013--Marshall Faulk is still bitching, and NBC Sports still posting stories about it.
 
So yeah, don't look to Faulk to hear anything unbiased on the Patriots while BB is still there.

Just type Marshall Faulk into google and the 5th or 6th suggestion Is Marshall Faulk Patriots. Guy has gotta move on.

 

[PedrosRedGlove]

Definitely true, watching Chris Russo wax poetic about Tom Brady to David Letterman felt almost surreal. A NY writer fellating NE success, on national television no less?? So while there is still Faulk, Florio, et al. there are also plenty of pundits giving Belichick and Brady their due credit after this decade of consistency. I think Rodney joining the media ranks helped a little bit. Bruschi is good but hes also very Pats-centric, from what I've seen Rodney is pretty impartial and insightful in his commentary, particularly for an ex-player.

 

[Reardon's Beard]

 
It really was the anti-perfect storm of timing for the Patriots.  Coming off of 3 SBs in 4 years not long ago, there was Patriots fatigue.  The same way people were sick of the Cowboys in the 90's, people were sick of the Patriots.  So any story with a negative edge was going to get huge traction.  Naturally, it blew up and people clung to the worst of all possible interpretations of what happened.
 
Then, on top of that, the 2007 season happened.  Bullies.  Poor sportsmanship.  Runner-Uppers.  So now you had cheating, poor sportsmanship, and this face:
 

 
...and congratulations, you've got yourself a narrative!  They're the bad guys!  Once that started seeping into every column, report, interview...it just became fact.  And since people have grown to hate the Patriots, they're in no rush to go out and find out if it's true or how valid it is, it's just accepted.  Then it just feeds on itself and compounds.
 
Brady didn't shake hands?  Well, they're the bad guys, so it must have been because he's a baby, not because he's competitive and takes losses hard.  Belichick didn't answer a stupid question?  Well, they're the bad guys, so it must have been because he's an asshole, not because he doesn't discuss injuries.  The Patriots offense is very complex?  Well, they're the bad guys, so it must be because they're arrogant, not because it's been wildly successful.  Rinse.  Repeat.  Ad infinitum.

 
I've seen this look somewhere else.
 

 

[Garshaparra]

ESPN looks to be jumping on the underdog (2 seed) bandwagon now with this piece by the delightfully named Ashley Fox: http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10224300/bill-belichick-win-coach-year