Felger and Mazz - Creating False Naratives one day at a time
- Thread starter HomeBrew1901
- Start date
thurin68 said:
No idea what became of him, but he got the wind yanked out of his sails by the Sox winning the Series in 2004 (on top of the Pats getting 3 Super Bowls). His whole schtick was reveling in the misery of being perpetual losers. He was even a featured part of a movie that chronicled the highs and lows of the 2003 season, wasn't he?
Hard to keep that up in the midst of an era of unprecedented success for the city's sports teams.
NortheasternPJ said:
Dakota is in the running.
I think Danny is FAR more tolerable than Mike from Attleboro. Yes, he can certainly be annoying on occasion, but I find a decent number of his rants funny and well-crafted words-wise, I find myself agreeing with him more often than not, and he generally makes his point quickly and concisely before hanging up. Meanwhile Mike just spews and sprays inanities like angry Chris Farley ("I think we need one of those spit shields from the salad bar..." [/DennisMillerSNL]), and continues rambling long after his useless argument has been made.
The celebrity caller I loathe the most, and who I'm glad hasn't called F&M in ages, is Ron from Vegas. Yes, by all means, please fill the airwaves with 10 minutes of monotone play-by-play on your personal betting habits, and feel free to include numerous irrelevant asides on your daily life in Nevada.
Or in this case, the constipation, from the looks of it.FelixMantilla said:
Awesome pic. I might take it for my FB profile shot.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
He breaks out the original in Bruins game threads once in a while. Jerkface.
Mazz watched the Pats game at a bar with no sound. I'd normally be disgusted, but I'm impressed he watched the game.
I've been on record as despising Mazz in this role since day one, especially because of his willful ignorance. But what's wrong with watching without sound? He probably got a better idea of what was going on than if he had listed to Obvious Dan.
Why does Mike from Attleboro get such a platform on this show? Maybe my favorite part of Felger was early on when he was trying hard to be the anti-big show he would just cut callers off. People thought he was a dick but it made better radio because he kept it short and even shorter if you weren't saying anything useful. Yet this guy gets a full uninterrupted 2 minute soapbox every day to yell about anything and everything. And his own articles on csnne. He's he embodiment of everything wrong with sports radio and Felger just let's him go. I don't get it
Felger loves him, for whatever reason. When you watch on Comcast and Mike from Attleboro is spittling all over himself, Felger always has a big nodding smile going. He loves it.
Mazz simply doesn't take his job seriously, on the air and in prep. You can be sure he didn't watch the Seattle-New Orleans game, and that he thought it ok to admit on the air he watched the Pats in a bar with no sound just shows how non-serious he takes his job. Now, maybe he also DVR'ed it and watched it again later and took notes, but I doubt it.
Say what you want about Mike and Mad Dog -- they watched the games and did their prep. They knew what they were talking about and didn't need the gimmicks F&M relies on, because they could talk intelligently about a lot of topics based on their dedication to what they were doing.
Say what you want about Mike and Mad Dog -- they watched the games and did their prep. They knew what they were talking about and didn't need the gimmicks F&M relies on, because they could talk intelligently about a lot of topics based on their dedication to what they were doing.
Mazz said that he had no idea San Diego had 1 yard passing in the first half until Felger told him today. There is no way he could've watched that game yesterday and not known that.
F&M comparing Belichick to Don Shula because he's gone so far without a title. That is so far off base because Shula's teams weren't in this position nearly as many times as Belichick has the Pats.
RedOctober3829 said:
Sure, because it's been 8 years since the Pats won (never mind the 2 SBs they've been in since that they lost by a combined 7 points). Shula went what, 20+ years after his last SB before retiring, never winning another and getting blown out in his last SB appearance? Even though he had Dan Marino at in the prime of his career for years and years?
Good take by these two. My God.
It took Shula nine seasons to get a team back to the Super Bowl after his last win. Belichick is one win away from his third Super Bowl appearance in the nine seasons since his last Super Bowl win.
I think entering this season it was actually the same -- Shula went to four conference title games and two Super Bowls after his last title.
Shula in his last 4 championship games whether it be Super Bowl or AFC Championship lost by double digits each time.
Super Bowl 15 loss to the Redskins 27-17
Super Bowl 19 loss to the 49ers 38-16
1985 AFC Title game loss to the Patriots 31-14 (in Miami)
1992 AFC Title game loss to the Bills 29-10 (in Miami)
Super Bowl 15 loss to the Redskins 27-17
Super Bowl 19 loss to the 49ers 38-16
1985 AFC Title game loss to the Patriots 31-14 (in Miami)
1992 AFC Title game loss to the Bills 29-10 (in Miami)
Three of the conference title games and the two Super Bowls were within the first 12 years, in a conference that included the Steelers and Raiders (7 combined titles in the first 10 seasons following Shula's last title).
Plus, after losing to the Pats in the AFCCG in '86, Miami missed the playoffs in each of the next 4 seasons. With Dan Marino in his prime, in an era where there wasn't really much free agency.
That's tough to do. Shula found a way though.
That's tough to do. Shula found a way though.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
And the AFC was relatively a weak conference as well with really only Denver being good in the late 80's along with the Bills who just started to get good in 1988. Shocking that they blew Marino's prime in such a weak conference.
Let me rephrase: in Shula's first 12 years after Super Bowl VIII, he went to three conference title games and two Super Bowls. So your statement, they all came in his last 24 years is true, but he front loaded most of them. I don't think the analogy is so awful
It was Shula's fault because he should have gotten himself a real personnel man instead of trying to do it all (Mike Robbie was officially GM) and he was also far too loyal to his coaches, for better or worse. I'm not sure that he got that much worse as an actual coach. But the personnel of the late 80's Dolphins teams was horrendous outside of the Marino, Clayton, and a couple others (Duper had fallen off by then). And when he added all of his league responsibilities without giving up any Dolphins responsibilities, things just got worse and worse. Belichick's singular devotion to the next game is to his credit.
Buffalo Head said:
To be fair, the analogy is complicated because they're comparing completely different eras. Most experts would say that it is tougher to sustain winning since free agency, the cap, and the various concerted efforts by several league commissioners to create parity.
And, to be fair, comparing Belichick to Shula doesn't work, because Shula actually won his Super Bowl with an undefeated team.
<ducking>
<ducking>
Isn't this the same knock that F&M have on Belichick. Great coach, not great GM?smastroyin said:
I don't think it's an unfair comparison either, plus they have 12 hours of air time to fill and how much more Manning/Brady talk do you want?
You can do it in three more years if they don't win Sunday and don't get back to the AFCCG in that span. At that point, both coaches will be 12 years post-title with two Super Bowl losses. The difference will be that Belichick will have been in five AFCCG (2-3) and Shula three (2-1).
smastroyin said:
A thousand times this.
Here's the deal for people not of a certain age: Shula was relentless ballwashed by the Francesas of his time. All glory, no warts.
Here the problem: He had Dan fucking Marino and only went to 1 SB from a relatively weak conference, against the '49ers in Marino's second year (if I recall) and the 49ers killed them. Try that nowdays and see what happens to your reputation.
Here's the essential fact relating to that problem. Shula was every bit the absolute dictator as BB. HC, GM, he called all the shots.
So take your choice, Shula the GM screwed Shula the HC, or vice versa. I think it's the former, and in that connection bear this in mind: damn close to all of his tenure was pre-FA, so Shula did not have any of the obstacles to sustaining excellence that BB has faced for the last 12+ years.
Comparing across eras is stupid for many reasons, but if you are going to compare Belichick and Shula you might want to at least mention the whole free agency thing.
At any rate Shula was a great coach so I don't see the issue. Of course F&M are making this comparison because of the fact that Shula never won a Super Bowl again after '73 and in their simple minds nothing else matters. But it is really fucking hard to win Super Bowls. Belichick has three of them, plus has basically fielded a Super Bowl contending team for 14 years in a league designed to not let that happen, I think he's done OK. Both are probably Top 10 coaches of all time, if not Top 5. I don't see the point. Felger can eat a bowl of dicks.
At any rate Shula was a great coach so I don't see the issue. Of course F&M are making this comparison because of the fact that Shula never won a Super Bowl again after '73 and in their simple minds nothing else matters. But it is really fucking hard to win Super Bowls. Belichick has three of them, plus has basically fielded a Super Bowl contending team for 14 years in a league designed to not let that happen, I think he's done OK. Both are probably Top 10 coaches of all time, if not Top 5. I don't see the point. Felger can eat a bowl of dicks.
What makes this even funnier is the fact that, if memory serves, Felger stated at the end of last season that the Pats would win the SB this season. So if they somehow manage to prevail over Denver and Sea/SF, his tune will change and this year-old statement will be recycled like Babe Ruth's called shot.
In fairness though, FA is merely an additional consideration. And in fact Shulas best team after 84 was built on fledgling FA, but of course then Marino blew his Achilles.
The thing about no FA is that it made drafting even more important. FA makes it important to get value or if the draft. No FA makes it so you have to get all of your good players on the draft.
Ironically, it seems Shula had a better handle on scouting pros, he may actually have been better off in the modern era.
The thing about no FA is that it made drafting even more important. FA makes it important to get value or if the draft. No FA makes it so you have to get all of your good players on the draft.
Ironically, it seems Shula had a better handle on scouting pros, he may actually have been better off in the modern era.
I'm not getting into a semantic argument over adjectives, but to look at the cyclical roster turnover Belichick has presided over and conclude that he's not good at evaluating and selecting talent is, to me, insane.
The GM/coach distinction is simplistic as well, since talent isn't fungible. Coaching is not only partly about talent evaluation as well, but it is also inextricably tied to player selection. They're synergistic, which ties back to the points Smashed and DC made regarding Shula.
The GM/coach distinction is simplistic as well, since talent isn't fungible. Coaching is not only partly about talent evaluation as well, but it is also inextricably tied to player selection. They're synergistic, which ties back to the points Smashed and DC made regarding Shula.
Felger reiterated the point that started this a little while ago ... when he was growing up (late 70s, early 80s), Shula was regarded in the same kind of way Belichick is now, having gone to three straight SBs (winning two) at the beginning of the decade, but then didn't win another for several years (and wouldn't win again in his career, even with the HoF QB). Felger's comparison is that Belichick is into the early part of that same track: won a bunch of titles, then stopped winning them, despite his coaching greatness and HoF QB. Felger said if they win this one, he ends that, obviously, but its starting to have a similar feel.
BB is only 1/3 into the post-SB track of Shula and is already more successful in 8 years than Shula was in 24 covering such a period. And of course BB has won with his HoF QB which Shula never managed to do (in fact the Dolphins missed the playoffs 4 straight years after losing to the Pats in the AFCCG).
I get what he's driving at, but it's at best misleading and at worst ham-fisted.
I get what he's driving at, but it's at best misleading and at worst ham-fisted.
So all BB has to do is get back to or win the SB any time in the next 15 years and the analogy of Shula and BB possessing the same post-SB career arc falls apart... This is the most fruitless and anti-intellectual conversation I've read in this thread.
The only mention of Shula I heard was at Felger said that when he was a kid Shula was talked about as such a great coach and Felger never saw it since he was not born or too young and didn't get it growing up. Did he go on a rant about Shula = BB? I didn't list me from 430-515 so maybe I missed it.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
That's what I was referencing also, but we're ruining riboflav's message board experience, so we should stop talking about it.