Mike'd Up: The Mike Francesa Show

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Yes. Let's ask coaches if they'd rather be 5-2 in Super Bowls or 4-0.

Anyone who says 4-0 is completely full of shit.
 

Investor 11

Plobbably the greatest videographer ever
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2006
3,911
San Diego
"That's a suspicious nine"

What was that in reference towards? Someone came to my desk(how dare they) and i missed what was leading up towards it.

His head must be about to explode. It might.
Brady's salary number. He thinks they are paying him more money illegally.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
I love the dink and dunk crap. They threw it deep all year, almost historically well, and they threw it deep against Houston and Pittsburgh. They tried deep balls all first half and it didn't work. Should they keep trying it just to make Mike feel good?
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Mike's whole strategy when discussing the Patriots is that he takes/analyzes every positive comment about them literally, even if it's meant figuratively:

Caller:"These Patriots, man, nobody can close them out!"
Mike: "Well that's not true! The Giants closed them out! Twice!"

But when he analyzes anything negative about the Patriots, he discusses it figuratively so he can fudge facts and make up a narrative:

"Once Atlanta had no pass rush, Tom Brady had a good game. Before that he was whining and frowning. But before Atlanta's D got gassed, he was awful."

That's not supported by the facts; Brady led the team to scoring range on two early drives; yes, he threw a pick 6 to end one, but Brady was moving the ball fine before the half. They just couldn't get points.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Yes. Let's ask coaches if they'd rather be 5-2 in Super Bowls or 4-0.

Anyone who says 4-0 is completely full of shit.
Did I only play 4 seasons? Then yeah 4-0 and is awesome. It means I won it every year I played.

It's such a stupid argument

Brady's salary number. He thinks they are paying him more money illegally.
Klemko laid out one of the other rumors as an aside in his article (where he also threw out Hernandez as a Patriots way guy).

It has something to do with the lease Brady's facility has at Patriot Place.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Brady taking less money makes him a more valuable quarterback, of course. The team being so incredible to play for that he would take less money is a credit to the team, and Belichick specifically, of course.

It's sounds like it's all crazy rants. Or like someone whose staring at a losing chessboard looking for moves.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,662
where I was last at
Yes. Let's ask coaches if they'd rather be 5-2 in Super Bowls or 4-0.

Anyone who says 4-0 is completely full of shit.
Exactly.

I heard that gem driving back to the office, and started to laugh.

The question to ask any coach or athlete is not whether they'd rather be 4-0 or 5-2, but rather if they were 4-0, if they would want the chance to win (or lose) the next game.

As you say anyone saying they would stand "pat" at 4-0 is full of shit.
 

Investor 11

Plobbably the greatest videographer ever
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2006
3,911
San Diego
Does he know that Brady's wife pulled in 40+ million per year, and Brady only started doing a lot of endorsements after she retired from the runway?
He mentioned her salary but still kept saying he doesn't trust it and used the 49'ers as an example of hit happening.
 

chonce1

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
191
Ha, this is comical -- doesn't praise Brady once and hints that Amendola wasn't in the endzone "they never showed the replay on that." What? They showed it 3 or 4 times in succession.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
The only reason we are talking about how stupid the Falcons were is because the Patriots made pretty much every single play they had to down the stretch to pull this off. Sure, Atlanta had questionable play calling, but the Pats needed 31 points in 5 drives and they got it. That's the bottomline. If the Pats don't execute perfectly, everyone is showering Shanahan and Quinn with praise right now.

They made their own luck more than anything. The strip sack? Hightower made a play. The failure to get a FG after having the ball on the Pats 22 yard line? Flowers and Long made the plays. There was no fumbled snap, no dumbass interception, the Pats worked for everything they got last night. Not to recognize that is simply ludicrous.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
Caller (with Boston accent) challenges Mike on Brady/Montana. Mike responds with how can you challenge me? Mike cites Montana's numbers "are better" and performed at a higher level. That wasn't Tom Brady's best game yesterday. Montana never lost. Pats are 2-2 in SB since 2004 and could easily be 0-4.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,333
I can't wait to hear Francesa's words come out of my father in law's mouth next time I see him. He's a disciple, unfortunately. I regularly have to provide him gentle reminders about the Giants' luck over the years but his hearing tends to go in and out during certain topics of conversation.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
Dink and dunk fact check: Brady's Y/C (yards gained per pass completion) for the 2016 playoffs is 12.2. Ryan is 14.5, Rodgers is 12.6, Ben is 11.5, Wilson is 11.2, Alex Smith is 8.6 (actual dink and dunk), Presscot is 12.6.

Edit: Brady's regular season Y/C was also 12.2, highest its been since 2011, 13.1. Career reg season avg is 11.7 Aaron Rodgers career reg season Y.C is 12.1.

Edit2: Montana career reg season Y/C is 12.0 with 49ers and 12.5 in playoffs.
 
Last edited:

Muzman

New Member
Dec 22, 2013
27
Even if the Pats WERE 7-0 in the Super Bowl he probably wouldn't give in - he would find every possible angle and reason to cheapen the feat and not admit Brady and Belichick were the best. I could hear him now:
"Did the 49ers ever tape a walkthrough? Did the 49ers ever get fined for videotaping? Pats never won any of their Super Bowls by more than a touchdown - no blowouts, unlike the 49ers or the Cowboys. All their wins coulda went either way. Shoulda lost Super Bowls X,Y,Z. They are notorious cheaters. It's a much weaker, watered down league now."
There's probably a few dozen other things he would drudge up to throw cold water on their dominance. Can't win with this jerk.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
NFLN re-air confirms the Amendola 2-pt conversion replay happened right after the play. THREE different angles. Maybe Mike fell asleep again?
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
NFLN re-air confirms the Amendola 2-pt conversion replay happened right after the play. THREE different angles. Maybe Mike fell asleep again?
Not to mention, the refs flagged Freeney for being offsides on the play, so even if Danny didn't score--which he clearly did--at worst it would have been the Pats re-trying the conversion from the one.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
Not to mention, the refs flagged Freeney for being offsides on the play, so even if Danny didn't score--which he clearly did--at worst it would have been the Pats re-trying the conversion from the one.
No doubt. Mike also complained about the refs 'missing the facemask on Sanu' but again as replay confirmed, Sanu also held a facemask (to the point where the Pats DB's helmet came off) AND there was a penalty hold on the Falcons anyway which voided the play anyway. Mike always assumes and paints the most negative outcome possible when it comes to the Pats. He's pathological.
 

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
7,047
Auburn, MA
I'm as shocked as all of you that the New York sports radio guy has unfair hot takes on the New England Patriots. Lord knows, all we hear is even handed analysis from Boston media when it comes to New York sports teams.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
Mike is generally ruthlessly objective about most sports things. It's interesting to hear him tie himself into logic knots when it comes to his blindspots like the Pats.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Mike is generally ruthlessly objective about most sports things. It's interesting to hear him tie himself into logic knots when it comes to his blindspots like the Pats.
I've been listening to Francesa for 25+ years and the last words I would ever use to describe him are "ruthlessly objective."

He's a very smart, experienced guy, but his ego and biases have been on display from day 1. And now that he is on his own, he's become a bitter, unlistenable fool.
 

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
7,047
Auburn, MA
I've been listening to Francesa for 25+ years and the last words I would ever use to describe him are "ruthlessly objective."
I find him entertaining, but I know he doesn't hold the Giants/Jets or Yankees/Mets to the same standards. Same thing would be true of the Knicks/Nets or Rangers/Islanders if they were relevant. He has his biases and they are clear as day, even if he denies they exist.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
I find him entertaining, but I know he doesn't hold the Giants/Jets or Yankees/Mets to the same standards. Same thing would be true of the Knicks/Nets or Rangers/Islanders if they were relevant. He has his biases and they are clear as day, even if he denies they exist.
Rangers have made the conference finals three times in the past five years and the finals once. They are pretty relevant. Islands/Knicks/Nets, on the other hand, are tire fires.
 

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
7,047
Auburn, MA
Rangers have made the conference finals three times in the past five years and the finals once. They are pretty relevant. Islands/Knicks/Nets, on the other hand, are tire fires.
I may have a bias of remembering the coverage before '94, but the coverage from then to now is not close. May be the stars they had on those early/mid 90s teams and the drive to end the 1940 drought. It feels to me the current NY media only picks up on the Rangers when they are in the middle of a Cup run. The Knicks are horrendous, but being NY's NBA team and the daily soap opera that surrounds them leads to them having priority.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
I may have a bias of remembering the coverage before '94, but the coverage from then to now is not close. May be the stars they had on those early/mid 90s teams and the drive to end the 1940 drought. It feels to me the current NY media only picks up on the Rangers when they are in the middle of a Cup run. The Knicks are horrendous, but being NY's NBA team and the daily soap opera that surrounds them leads to them having priority.
You're right, I thought you meant relevant in a different fashion. To the fat one, the Rangers are barely involved, unless they win a playoff series. You don't hear a lot of hockey talk.
 

Nator

Member
SoSH Member
Hockey was way more popular back then as well. I believe it had TV ratings similar to the NBA, but the following work stoppages turned a lot of people away from the sport.

That, and the New Jersey Devil's and their accursed neutral zone trap, which turned every game into a 2-1 Canadian dry humping conference in between the blue lines. Once they won with that formula, everyone started imitating that style.
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,932
Have not listened in years, but heard him talking about Brady today. I immediately knew he'd go to how Brady at 5-2 in Superbowl is worse than Montana's 4-0. Sure enough, he launched into that argument, but for some reason diverted to talk about how he sat with someone who believes the Bills making the Superbowl 4 straight years was most impressive. Then goes on to talk about Montana 16-7 in playoffs, ignoring the implication that Brady making the Superbowl 7 times is more impressive than Montana's 4. He's oblivious to consistency even when he interwove the two conflicting arguments in the same 2 minute span.
 

Dan Murfman

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2001
4,187
Pawcatuck
He also was doing shows from from some bar in MSG on MSG network after Knicks & Rangers games back in the 90s so he paid more attention to hockey back then.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Have not listened in years, but heard him talking about Brady today. I immediately knew he'd go to how Brady at 5-2 in Superbowl is worse than Montana's 4-0. Sure enough, he launched into that argument, but for some reason diverted to talk about how he sat with someone who believes the Bills making the Superbowl 4 straight years was most impressive. Then goes on to talk about Montana 16-7 in playoffs, ignoring the implication that Brady making the Superbowl 7 times is more impressive than Montana's 4. He's oblivious to consistency even when he interwove the two conflicting arguments in the same 2 minute span.
Yeah, Montana is 16-7 in the playoffs, but Brady is 25-9. I mean, that's both a lot more wins and a better winning percentage.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,393
Overall Playoff Record:
Montana: 16-7 (.696)
Brady: 25-9 (.735)

Super Bowl Titles:
Brady: 5
Montana: 4

Conference Championships:
Brady: 7
Montana: 4

Playoff One-and-Dones:
Brady: 2
Montana: 4

Super Bowl MVPs:
Brady: 4
Montana: 3

The gap is very real and it's widening every year.

There are only two arguments for Montana, and they're not bad ones, but I don't think it's nearly enough to overcome this huge gap. But here they are:

(1) He is undefeated on the game's biggest stage.
(2) His Super Bowl and overall playoff numbers are better than Brady's.
 

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
7,047
Auburn, MA
There are only two arguments for Montana, and they're not bad ones, but I don't think it's nearly enough to overcome this huge gap. But here they are:

(1) He is undefeated on the game's biggest stage.
(2) His Super Bowl and overall playoff numbers are better than Brady's.
(3) The NFC of the 1980s was insanely stacked.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
He's pitching to a NY audience that is jealous and resentful, as he is. Understand that if you must listen -- and understand that he's never going to change.

And so the value here, if any, is comedic.

You may as well try to turn Felger and Mazz. Ain't happening.
 

cheekydave

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 11, 2004
3,134
Bohoken
Just turned it on. Lombardi, if you eliminate two rebuilding seasons.....Gee what If you eliminate the 14 games with the Browns who sucked!! What if you eliminated two flukey catches, Brady is 7-0.

I realize now why Mike makes me insane. in the 80 and 90s, when for the most part the Sox sucked, and the Yankees ruled, I was at BU...and Mike is the epitome of the bloviating, arrogant, loud, onnoxious asshole know it all prick that dominated then.

You CANNOT win with jackals like him, ever. BUT, remember this, you cannot in anyway shape or form, underestimate how much it DESTROYS Mike that NY is now a sports afterthought, and Boston is the sports capital. This KILLS Him. Look no further.
 
The past week he continually talked about how great his former BFF was while taking digs at Belichick. Just sayin...

Parcells With Bill Belichick: 12 Seasons

117-73-1 (.616 win pct)
Post Season: 11-5 with 3 Conference Titles and 2 Super Bowl Titles

Parcells Without Bill Belichick: 7 Seasons
55-57 (.491 win pct)
Post Season: 0-3 with 0 Conference Titles and 0 Super Bowls Titles
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,393
(3) The NFC of the 1980s was insanely stacked.
Yep that's true. There were basically 4 incredible franchises during those years: SF, NYG, Washington, and Chicago. Even Philly got really good again starting in 1988.

Mitigated by the counter-argument that Brady has won in a much more difficult era with the salary cap and all, so his turnover has been much greater.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,662
where I was last at
Billick was on earlier and called Brady the greatest ever (Aikman has done this too) and not a peep out of him, no outrage.

But beware the caller who gives him a reasoned take, and he bullies, screams, and belittles the caller.

its a great act.