I know Dale Arnold. Dale Arnold is NOT a friend of mine. To his credit, Damon Amendolara is no Dale Arnold.
The fact that he does these rants without a hint of irony is beautiful. You almost have to love that Felger is the one saying this.
I think part of it is the format of the show too, he has to talk for about 2 or 3 hours by himself depending on how many callers they get, and he has maybe a handful of topics. Thinking back to my college days, its kind of like writing a 10 page paper but you only have 3 pages of content in your head, inevitably that paper is going to be a weird read.
Felger's response to the Sox signing Mike Cameron: "Mike Cameron? Are you kidding me? This guy sucks. Sorry Red Sox fans, I saw him play a ton in Milwaukee the past year and he strikes out way too much. He's not going to fit here and you guys will hate him. I can't believe Theo signed this guy. He's terrible and old."
Banned, that's exactly what I was going for.
Yeah, but frequently they're a-holes who make their bones by crapping on people for the very sake of crapping on them, and view a confrontation as an opportunity to pump themselves up (think Jason Whitlock with people like Scoop Jackson). Sadly, the biggest person I can think of who says things about people and stands in the fire and faces it is Jon Heyman, who, for every single one of his many many faults, will always answer questions on twitter and via email, and not dodge the issues.
So what is he supposed to say? "Hi Mike, you suck"? That isn't an example of turtling, it's an example of not being an a-hole. If he had Theo on and refused to second guess the signing, THAT would be turtling.
I'm not going to answer for Banned, but Felger spent three weeks ripping--absolutely ripping--the Cameron signing and this is what he asks about: the weather in Milwaukee? He was being an asshole for three weeks and when the guy he's being an asshole to is on the phone (the fucking phone no less) he talks about the weather in Milwaukee.
No, he's not supposed to say that, but how about:
Actually, I wasn't talking about McD. McD was a grouch, imo, but I don't think his agenda was based solely on pumping himself up as the story. I think that he may have been a crank, angry, easy to make up his mind, and his was a world of absolutes, but I don't think that he ever wrote anything he didn't believe at the core.
Are you kidding me? The Pats would have destroyed either team last night. I was thoroughly unimpressed with both teams.
I'd only go so far as to say the Patriots would have destroyed Pittsburgh. I'm not as sanguine about their hypothetical chances against GB, whose strengths seem to match up well against the Pats' weaknesses.
But it's so hard to tell Rocco. Yeah they both looked bad, but if the Pats play GB, does Driver and Woodson go out? Does Nelson have those horrible drops? I just think a healthy Aaron Rodgers indoors against the Pats would be a tough matchup for the Pats. They've struggled against teams that have a good passing game and a defense that gets after the QB and has solid defensive backs. On paper at least, it's toughest opponent the Patriots could come up against in the NFL.
Yes, at least 450 passing yards bad because Rodgers could have had smoke back there surveying the field; the Pats bring nothing approaching the pass pressure the Steelers do.
I realize the Pack made some very stupid mistakes, its just none of them were turnovers and they didnt cost them the game. When I listened last week Felger seemed to think the Pack would ultimately lose because of them and that wasnt the case.
Felger was saying that the Packs stupid mistakes would cost them the game, while they didnt play the smartest football game ever they won the turnover battle 3 to 0, so his projection was incorrect. Not the biggest deal in the world, because they did have some stupid mistakes but none of them resulted in a turnover or cost them the game. I was just curious if he would admit that the Steelers were the team that had the bad plays that cost them the game.
HERE: http://boston.cbslocal.com/?podcast_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.podtrac.com%2Fpts%2Fredirect.mp3%2Fnyc.podcast.play.it%2Fmedia%2Fd0%2Fd0%2Fd0%2FdW%2FdT%2Fd0%2FdT%2FWT0T_3.MP3&podcast_name=Felger+Admits+He+Was+Wrong&podcast_artist=Felger+and+Massarotti&station_id=&audio_link=true&dcid=CBS.BOSTON
I did not. I haven't listened to them in weeks. I thought about it, but Felger crowing about being right about Marchand doesn't mean much when he's still on record as hurpaderpin' about that terrible terrible Bergeron contract. He is wrong about hockey vastly more often than he is right.
You missed a great interview with Marchand. Felger even admitted to Marchand that he was one of the people that doubted him and didn't think he would be as good as he is and followed it up with a great question. It was Felger at his best.
I thought this discussion today was rather disrespectful, in that they were clearly trying to create a controversial topic and had no problem demeaning the record Ray just set in the process. They were trying to make the point that longevity and the style of play in todays NBA made this possible, but neglected to recognize that Ray has played at a very high level for a very long time, and in todays game there arent any shooters close to being on track to break his record. Coming from Mazz I thought this was an absolutely joke. He covers baseball and I am sure thinks the all-time hit record is a big deal, even though Pete Rose stuck around for the last 6 years to set it while playing some very average baseball.
They also neglected to consider that both Allen and Miller are nearly a THOUSAND makes from the player in 3rd place..........Jason Kidd (who, if you used him to cheapen Allen's accomplishment you might have something, but you didn't). There isn't a player alive and playing in the league that you can make a reasonable case will surpass either one. That is WICKED significant. Reggie Miller is correct when he says that Allen breaking this record with the significant gap he has from everyone else is a devastating indictment to the state of shooting in the NBA today.
I agree 100% with the rest of your post, but unfortunately they did bring this up. However, the counter argument would be Kidds numbers are about longevity and simply taking too many 3s considering his 3pt%, whereas Miller and Ray take a lot of 3s but are also consistently the best 3pt shooters in the game, truly 2 guys in their own class with NO ONE near them. And most importantly considering that there is no one even considered anywhere close to the quality of 3pt shooter these guys are in todays game, you can not and should not claim their respective records were simply due to longevity.
Its truly pathetic, and not just because there are less and less shooters in the NBA every year, but because of its effects on the game. Without shooters offense cant stretch defenses, so defenses sag towards the paint, the result is more stupid jumpers by bad shooters or more athletic players who can still find room in the paint but dont know how to play basketball and make teammates better [see Tyreke Evans].
It's particularly ludicrous to call it out based on longevity when, if you matched his career numbers to other players on the list's years played, he'd still pretty easily be the leader.
You should have listened a bit longer - they went to great lengths to break down the list and the most negative thing they said about Ray Allen was that he was a fabulously talented shooter who broke a "record" that has only been relevant for ~10 seasons, as everyone who played before the line came into 22' (and has since been ballooned outwards a bit) in the mid-90s played in a different era and wouldn't have had an opportunity to even make the list, let alone set the record. Larry Bird took less 3 point attempts in his career than the average NBA team does in a single season. When you look at Ray Allen's #'s next to Bird's, on raw totals, it makes Bird look like a schlub - which we all know is a flaw with the stat, not with Bird, his game or his range/accuracy. Allen plays in the "3-point era" - entered the league just as the line came in a few feet - and has thrived in those game conditions.
Great post. I listend to F&M the other day when they were talking about this and the recap on this board is totally unfair. They weren't taking shots at Ray Allen, they were very accurately pointing out that the 3 point shot is such a new evolution in basketball. Miller and Allen are unique shooters in that they were exceptional in an era where they added this shot to the game. Both are surely generational talents, but it's impossible to talk about their place in history because the shot being common just hasn't existed in that history.
Lets back up a little bit. Talking about why the record isnt significant the day after a guy breaks it, is indirectly taking a shot at the guy in regards to his accomplishments which shouldnt be downplayed that day. When in reality, he had a major accomplishment and the topic could easily be 'is Ray the best 3 point shooter ever' but thats not a controversial topic, and probably why it wasnt chosen.
Sorry I have to disagree with some of this. Rays record isnt just a longevity thing, he has been a great 3point shooter for a very long time. His career 3pt shooting % is ~40%, whie taking 6 a game, and over the past 5 years he hasnt had much drop-off. Yes the game had fundamentally changed, but Rays abilities in todays NBA are impressive considering there are very few good shooters left in the league. This isnt like comparing a 300lb OL today to an OL in the 60s or 70s before weight lifting became the norm.
I dont think anyone would chose Ray over Larry for one shot, but that doesnt mean what Ray did is less impressive or means he isnt the best or one of the career best 3pt shooters ever. Would most of us chose Ray over MJ to take a 3 to win a game? Probably not, but MJ was a 33% career 3pt shooter.
While I hear what your saying, and I admit I didn't listen through the entire show, the entire point that Allen's accomplishment is "special" stems from the fact that there isn't a player in the NBA today that you could make a coherent argument is legitimately on pace to break either Allen's OR Miller's mark. That completely trumps the argument that this is a record based on era. In fact, the poignant point of discussion, as Miller point out, is that shooting is so poor in the current NBA that NO ONE is even in the discussion to break BOTH players marks. That doesn't even take into account that there is a good chance Allen plays SEVERAL more seasons and completely obliterates this record.
Well they did make the point that if Lebron does not have any shooting improvement he is only a couple of hundred away during his age 38 season so they did make an attempt to show that there are people that can make a run at him. They made the caveat of they anticipate some improvement in his shooting Alla Jordan and Bryant.
Lebron really is not 'on pace', Ray is 35 and has 2564 3s, and hits about 160-180 a season lately, lets say he hits another 80 this year and 160 next year and then retires at 36, he would have 2804 3s made. Lebron has 838 career 3s at the moment, lets say he gets another 60 this year and round it up to 900, so he would have to hit another 1900 to catch Ray. He has never hit more than 132 3s in a season, if he made 132 every year it would take him 14 seasons to top Rays record and he would have to play until he is 40.
1. And the counter point is that a "special" accomplishment needs historical context. Which, in this case, consists entirely of - the two best 3-point shooters, statistically, are guys who have played their entire careers in the "3-pt era" and benefited greatly from changes in the style of play and rules changes (i.e. moving the line in to 22').
First, to this point. It's fair to look at that, and I am. Ray Allen played one season under the adjusted 3 point line, his rookie year. Even knocking ALL of those 117 3 pointers off of his career total, he's still hundreds of 3 pointers above his next non-Reggie Miller comparison.
Mazz and Felger talking Bruins and analyzing last night's trade, which is funny since Mazz admitted he didn't know who Chris Kelly was before last night and Felger said "The name rings a bell. I recollect him playing for Ottawa I guess." I switch over to EEI where they have two solid guests in Haggs and McAdam sitting in talking Bruins and Sox. I guess this is where I am at this point. Choosing between the two depends on Ordway's rotating co-hosts.
Haha! Yes! I actually caught that as I was driving home. I giggled my ass off. What a putz!
I mentioned this in the other thread about the EEI changes, but The Big Show has made huge strides lately where Felger and Mazz have just grown tiresome. With Holley joining Ordway and a rotating third "contributor", The Big Show will now get first shot over Felger and Mazz during my drive home, especially with how disappointing F&M they were last year during baseball season.
Yup. On everythng you posted. I switched over with about an hour and a half left and heard the interview, it was great. And that's whats infuriating about Felger, when he's on, he's radio gold - by far the funniest and most interesting host to listen to. But when he has a guy like Mazz just agreeing with everything he says, he often goes contrarian rogue and it leads to a lot of shit trolling that makes me stop listening. I love criticism of local players and teams but not when he does it just to do and with no solid argument to back him up.
