Mike'd Up: The Mike Francesa Show
- Thread starter cheekydave
- Start date
This is laughable. No one on the show knows what happened at the end of the half in the Bengals game.
dcmissle said:
It happened very quickly, but the caller seemed to have a problem with Mike interviewing Coughlin at all. The caller moved on really quickly to make a point about Brady having to do more with less, as compared to Luck, but Mike pounced on the first comment.
EDIT - Even better was how Mike appeared angry with his producers that none of them had seen the Gresham play/FG at the end of the half, despite the fact he didn't see it either because he "had to pick his daughter up." Mike appears to think no one besides him could have legitimate reasons for missing a minute of any of these games.
Why would Mayock change anything about how he calls a game, Mike? His profile has only been going up for the last few years. Wonder if Mike's comment about how Mayock used to come on the show, but now has "other things going on" was driving that little digression.
The way he handled that caller trying to describe it to him was Pure Mike. The guy would get two words in before he was trampling ahead barking some other question at him--he couldn't get it out! Then he's all frustrated he can't get it straight so he asks the guys in the booth and gets all shitty when they can't answer it, meanwhile he missed it "and I never miss a second of these games..." because he "really did" have to go pick up his wife or something.RedOctober3829 said:
Really, I've been listening to Mike/ Mike and MD since I was a kid and the way he handled that caller set a new standard for him in smarminess and twatiness. I have it on YES, the grin on his face telling some guy he didn't know what kind of fan he was...
The call had nothing to do with it too!
The call had nothing to do with it too!
Because the Pats have had this run of success, this is one of the few bullets the haters have to fire. They should have been packing a dump of a stadium to watch a perennially poorly run joke of a team. That shit goes in one ear and out the other.JohntheBaptist said:
Sadly, Mike has turned into a troll over the years. I used to turn to him for unbiased post-game analysis (which he used to be great at) but now it's all baiting, settling old scores and taking care of his buddies.JohntheBaptist said:
It's almost never without unintended irony.
A Giants fan called to complain about Jerry Reese. Mike asked the caller's age. The caller responded 53, and then Mike justifiably lit into him:
*What was it like to go 15 years in a row without making the playoffs? When Bill got there, there were 7000 people in the stands.*
A Giants fan called to complain about Jerry Reese. Mike asked the caller's age. The caller responded 53, and then Mike justifiably lit into him:
*What was it like to go 15 years in a row without making the playoffs? When Bill got there, there were 7000 people in the stands.*
He's factually wrong. He repeatedly said, "There was 9,000 fans when Bill (Parcells) was there!" The Patriots have sold out every game since 1993, Parcells' first season as coach.
If you need a fix of Mike Zaun and fake Russo trashing the Jets, this is your jam: http://turnonthejets.com/2014/01/turn-on-the-jets-podcast-mike-zaun-jets/
Mystic Merlin said:
That's just stunning, jaw-droppingly bad.
It's your fucking job to watch these games. Christ, dozens of guys around here probably watched every minute of all four and they're not getting paid to it. I understand that that's like 14 hours of football over 2 days and you might have to miss a minute here or there, but for fuck's sake, that's what DVRs and interns are for (you're telling me they couldn't get some St. John's student to make a 20-minute video for each game, with all the important plays from each, so His Lardassness could review it on Monday before his show)?
M&MD was once a must-listen. Mike on his own now is a never-listen. If he was a horse they would shoot it.
OilCanShotTupac said:
Agree that they were once must-listen, but I'll admit that Russo used to get under my skin. He wasn't invested in the NY fan's perspective as much as Mike was and his personality was a welcome contrast to Francesa, but Russo would often come across as, well, an uninformed and unhinged moron. And when they split up, I honestly thought that Mike would be free to do a show that would be must-listen for serious sports fans.
Instead, it's become obvious that Russo had an incredibly important role on the show that I did not give him credit for - he kept Mike honest. He also kept him grounded, in the sense that he didn't hesitate to take the piss out of him when he got a little too full of himself.
Without Russo there to balance him out, Francesa has become an egotistical, un-listenable crank. It doesn't appear to have hurt him with the NY fan base, but the decline in the quality of his show is astonishing.
Mike again betraying his fear of SD heading into Denver on Sunday. Thinks Denver will "have its hands full" and he "wouldn't be surprised if we get a tight game."
He'll keep hammering at this through the week.
He'll keep hammering at this through the week.
Some guy just called Mike and brought up PI in the NFL.
"There was a play in the Patriots - Cleveland game where pass interfe…"
"Terrible call. Awful…"
"…and then the next week, the Patriots player got mugged when it would have impacted the game and they didn't throw a flag." [talking about Hooman in the Dolphin game].
"[pause]… You're talking about the Gronkowski play, right? They said the ball wasn't catchable."
"There was a play in the Patriots - Cleveland game where pass interfe…"
"Terrible call. Awful…"
"…and then the next week, the Patriots player got mugged when it would have impacted the game and they didn't throw a flag." [talking about Hooman in the Dolphin game].
"[pause]… You're talking about the Gronkowski play, right? They said the ball wasn't catchable."
Sort of? But it really was mostly how America wants Manning in the Super Bowl.dcmissle said:
Average Reds said:
Francesa hitting his late 50s and his kids being old enough to really eat into his time can't be ruled out either. He conveys some of that weary sportswriter who has lost interest in the games vibe quite often, and his arrogance is off the charts. In a 20 minute interview he'll talk over the guest a hundred times, and repeat the same question 20 times.
It's amazing how far he's declined. I never agreed with all of his opinions, but at one time the guy really knew baseball, really knew college hoops, and had must-listen to takes on almost everything.
Mike repeatedly keeps saying how the Patriots are sub-.500 in the playoffs since they won their last title. As far as I know, they're 8-7.
mpx42 said:
I was just typing this.
It's an incredibly stupid and misleading stat, unless the only point is to contrast their recent run with the almost unbelievable '01-'04 stretch, in which they won three Super Bowls in four years well in the midst of the salary cap era. What a disgraceful, pitiful fall from grace.
I guess they should try to miss the playoffs more often, and when they get in, get in as a wild card and win 3-4 games. Percentages, yo.
EDIT - The Arizona Cardinals are 4-2 in the playoffs since '04. > Patriots.
And despite that pile of garbage, his worst argument is still that it's more damaging to lose a Super Bowl than not make it.
Mystic Merlin said:
I think the bye should be credited as a win in this kind of stat. They earn the bye by being one of the two best teams in the conference for 16 games, and they've done it five times in ten years. Says a ton about the overall quality of the team in that stretch.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
"Playoff record since x-date" isn't really a "stat." Its a stupid thing that stupid people point to to demonstrate their stupidity. Its the current generation (or semi-generation's) version of "those Buffalo teams that lost 4 straight Super Bowls really sucked." People who think like that will probably kill themselves accidentally by sticking their heads into the snow blower to remove an ice chunk. They aren't worth the time it takes to deal with them rationally.
Awesome.
Seahawks 30-13 30-17 something like that, Seahawks cover
Pats better team, but gives no score, or winner, take Colts and +7
49ers better team, take 49ers 20-13, 20-16 something like that , 49ers -1
Broncos, waffling on this one, close, could see blow-out, sees close game, Denver should win, won't cover.
Pats better team, but gives no score, or winner, take Colts and +7
49ers better team, take 49ers 20-13, 20-16 something like that , 49ers -1
Broncos, waffling on this one, close, could see blow-out, sees close game, Denver should win, won't cover.
Those teams only won each of those Super Bowls by three points so they weren't that great, remember? Mike was just praising the Niners saying that they lost the last two years in the NFC Championship and Super Bowl as the better team. He evaluates the Pats the same way. Oh wait. He even said earlier that, if you throw out 2011, the Pats numbers in the playoffs look worse. Throwing out a Super Bowl run is totally fair. Criticizing the Pats because he hates them is one thing. Contradicting himself and moving the goalposts at every turn to do it is just embarrassing.Mystic Merlin said:
Stu Nahan said:
Hypothesis:
A lot of these guys really came into their own as sports fans/critics/pundits during a nadir or parity in the league when Super Bowl point differentials were abnormally high and they have no adjusted to realizing that when they change the institutional rules of the salaries, the game changes.
Data: Link
Comment:
7 of the last 10 Super Bowls have been decided by less than a touch down, and 4 by only 3 points.
In that connection, there was tremendous unbalance in the League from the dawn of the SB era through the early to mid 90s. The AFC laid waste through the 70s, the NFC until Jerry Jones dismantled his own budding dynasty. Throughout, a competitive SB was the exception not the rule.Reverend said:
Hypothesis:
A lot of these guys really came into their own as sports fans/critics/pundits during a nadir or parity in the league when Super Bowl point differentials were abnormally high and they have no adjusted to realizing that when they change the institutional rules of the salaries, the game changes.
Data: Link
Comment:
7 of the last 10 Super Bowls have been decided by less than a touch down, and 4 by only 3 points.
It is instructive in this regard to consider when FA and the salary cap kicked in. Illuminating also is the fact that before the cap, certain teams routinely paid backups like starters -- Jack Kent Cooke really wanted to win -- and other teams violated the rules. Eddie DeBartolo also wanted to win, badly.
So Mike's "when men were men" old school perspective is complete horseshit. It is much harder to win consistently now then it was back then, and truly dominant teams now are difficult to build and impossible to maintain
He's a bitter old fuck.
FFF interviewed Giants owner John Mara on Thursday. Mara told Mike he regrets the Giants not making playoffs 5 of last 6 years, and then imparted this nugget : "For the Patriots to do what they've done, when they're in the playoffs every single year, making a run at the title every year is just UNBELIEVABLY IMPRESSIVE - we all strive to get to that level". The look on FFF's face was priceless - I thought he might choke on his Diet Coke. Of course, he had no response but to end the interview.
On his weekly FAN spot, Troy Aikman called out people who say Brady hasn't won a Super Bowl in however many years, calling it a ridiculous criticism. Two-faced FFF laughed as if to agree and said "Hey, he already has three". The hypocrisy here is FFF MAKES IT A DAILY POINT TO LET US KNOW BRADY HASN'T WON A SUPER BOWL IN TEN YEARS! Actually nine but for the Pats, he'll round the number up.
I made this video a couple weeks ago when Cano was signed by Seattle. Obviously the Fat Man meant MVP Voting but I love how he dismisses his callers. Shows his arrogance.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54BeGWzeUhI&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54BeGWzeUhI&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
Poopy face Sunday morning for sure.
The magnitude of the coaching job and roster construction has blown everyone away, and I mean everyone. FFF knows they are right, and it has to be killing him
BB is on top. There are vacancies at the 2 and 3 spots. The next best coach in the League is 4th or thereabouts.
The magnitude of the coaching job and roster construction has blown everyone away, and I mean everyone. FFF knows they are right, and it has to be killing him
BB is on top. There are vacancies at the 2 and 3 spots. The next best coach in the League is 4th or thereabouts.
I wonder if he'll put it on a not-ready for prime-time Luck, mention some of the big plays he did have, and then segue to Eli's older brother, and say he's another story andafter he torches the Chargers will torch the Pats D.
So far:
- Luck had no weapons
- 2 of the Int's not his fault
- Luck had to carry team on his back
- Colts still on course
- Luck had no weapons
- 2 of the Int's not his fault
- Luck had to carry team on his back
- Colts still on course
He did put it on Luck a bit, but said Pats were the better team. Veiled shot at "being the same position yet again", but other than that it wasn't bad.bankshot1 said:
I'm listening to the interesting defense of Peyton, FFF says (using some interesting cherry-picking) who's logic and math escapes me, that excluding the 8 1st round losses, his record is pretty good, and 2-0 in the AFCCG and 1-1 in the SB. And that 3 wins in 4 games is pretty good.
While I'm coffee and sleep -deprived right now, and I might have missed something, it was a head scratcher.
While I'm coffee and sleep -deprived right now, and I might have missed something, it was a head scratcher.