It's not even close to being true. If they find a replacement for Gregory and retain Talib, it is one of the best in the game. Talib, Dennard and McCourtey are all better or much better than average.fightingirish595 said:
Mike'd Up: The Mike Francesa Show
- Thread starter cheekydave
- Start date
Guys, for all the Francesca bashing here (and there's plenty of ammo for that), remember that he thinks very highly of Brady. He routinely calls him one of the game's "immortals". Not just one of the greats, or one of the best, or an all-time great player; no, he calls him one of the "immortals".
He thinks Eli has a strong HOF case, but says he and Brady aren't even in the same category - Eli may be a HOFer, but Brady is an "immortal".
So just keep that in mind.
He thinks Eli has a strong HOF case, but says he and Brady aren't even in the same category - Eli may be a HOFer, but Brady is an "immortal".
So just keep that in mind.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/is-bill-belichick-better-than-ever-as-coach-of-patriots-201401620.html
Someone should reference this article to him today....
Someone should reference this article to him today....
Guys, for all the Francesca bashing here (and there's plenty of ammo for that), remember that he thinks very highly of Brady. He routinely calls him one of the game's "immortals". Not just one of the greats, or one of the best, or an all-time great player; no, he calls him one of the "immortals".
He thinks Eli has a strong HOF case, but says he and Brady aren't even in the same category - Eli may be a HOFer, but Brady is an "immortal".
So just keep that in mind.
Joking?
Being right about one thing doesn't give his bullshit opinions on other matters any more credence. If anything, he uses that as a hedge against charges that he's biased against New England.
I mean, if I say "Ted Williams was a great hitter, but Pedro Martinez is an overrated jerk who never had to pitch in a big game in his life", statement A doesn't magically make statement B any more true.
He thinks Eli has a strong HOF case, but says he and Brady aren't even in the same category - Eli may be a HOFer, but Brady is an "immortal".
So just keep that in mind.
Joking?
Being right about one thing doesn't give his bullshit opinions on other matters any more credence. If anything, he uses that as a hedge against charges that he's biased against New England.
I mean, if I say "Ted Williams was a great hitter, but Pedro Martinez is an overrated jerk who never had to pitch in a big game in his life", statement A doesn't magically make statement B any more true.
Would he maintain a shred of credibility if he denied Brady's greatness? Besides this bow to reality fits into his Giants/ Eli beating a QB-god twice, narrative.
Someone above accurately noted the salad days with Russo, but he is just not worth listening to anymore, with two exceptions:
1. When he is proven decisively wrong about something he feels viscerally.
2. When there is clownish behavior by the Jets or Mets that sets the stage for an epic rant. (We know too well that the Yanks and Giants are forever off limits).
Door #2 isn't stocked so well these days, but we know well what may lie behind Door #1. And the best part would be that there isn't enough time left to morph his position.
1. When he is proven decisively wrong about something he feels viscerally.
2. When there is clownish behavior by the Jets or Mets that sets the stage for an epic rant. (We know too well that the Yanks and Giants are forever off limits).
Door #2 isn't stocked so well these days, but we know well what may lie behind Door #1. And the best part would be that there isn't enough time left to morph his position.
Does he do this to diminish Belichick's accomplishments? I mean, if I were trying to argue that someone other than Michael Jordan was the best player of the last 25 years I'd talk about how great Scottie Pippen and Phil Jackson were.ivanvamp said:
If FFF starts up with the videotaping the Rams walkthrough again (which he will if the Pats win this next game and/or the Super Bowl, maybe even if they lose), Pats fans should hammer him with "Are you accusing the NFL of a cover up?", as Goodell said no evidence was found of this. FFF seems to hold the NFL in particularly high regard, and he is basically accusing the NFL of lying and dishonesty here, so it would be interesting to hear how he would move the goalpost on this one. Call the fat bastard out once and for all. I still remember when word came down that Mike Martz had retired his crying and moaning about how poor Martz was cheated out of a Super Bowl because of the Pats "cheating". And the evidence is WHAT? Oh, that must have been destroyed in the NFL cover up. What an irresponsible a-hole.
According to Mike, the Pats two tight end offense was solely the work of Bill O'Brien. "That's why he got a head coaching job."
Belichick had nothing to do with the offense, because "he's a defensive coach."
So that must mean O'Brien was running the draft too in 2010? Interesting.
Belichick had nothing to do with the offense, because "he's a defensive coach."
So that must mean O'Brien was running the draft too in 2010? Interesting.
That must mean that Josh will get the Cleveland gig after all, as he is solely responsible for the shift to a running game. And who gets the credit if the defense plays well?
Yup, I'm sure the Texans owner texted Francesa that this is precisely why he hired BoB.
We have reached Felger/Mazz critical mass, as Mike is just making stuff up on the fly. Which means I won't listen anymore unless there is reason to anticipate an epic rant or profound disappointment and embarrassment.
Yup, I'm sure the Texans owner texted Francesa that this is precisely why he hired BoB.
We have reached Felger/Mazz critical mass, as Mike is just making stuff up on the fly. Which means I won't listen anymore unless there is reason to anticipate an epic rant or profound disappointment and embarrassment.
dcmissle said:
I'm almost at that level.
Mike's approach - that lacks any checks and balances via the lack of a partner - is becoming tiresome.
And I'm not even referring to his dislike of BB when I communicate that sentiment; it pertains more to his stance on the ARod suspension (where I think his actions and behavior have been deplorable).
Fatso should have an interesting take on Rex Ryan getting an extension today. He might actually agree with it.
"My criteria for Hall of Fameness is, first, I ask myself, 'is this guy a Hall of Famer?' If the answer comes back a resounding 'yes,' then he fits the bill."
Holy shit.
Holy shit.
JohntheBaptist said:
Come on, it's foolproof. Clearly, the only people that get in are deserving, since their answer is a resounding yes. I'm not sure how you could quibble with his system.
JohntheBaptist said:
The best (and worst) part of this comment is that a majority of Mike's listeners - probably a significant majority - were furiously shaking their heads in agreement with the logic.
'Tom Brady didn't do anything in that first Super Bowl....until there were 39 seconds left.'
Except throw a great fade for a TD to Patten to end the first half. And, yeah, I'd say most QBs would've executed that last drive, no doubt!
He was also fantastic in the '03/'04 playoffs, including in those Super Bowls. Francesa is nuts on this Peyton 'supporting cast' issue - he's had incredible skill guys for his entire career.
Except throw a great fade for a TD to Patten to end the first half. And, yeah, I'd say most QBs would've executed that last drive, no doubt!
He was also fantastic in the '03/'04 playoffs, including in those Super Bowls. Francesa is nuts on this Peyton 'supporting cast' issue - he's had incredible skill guys for his entire career.
What choice does he have. Mike thinks the Pats' defense is abysmal and no one, except those who have overdosed on DVOA, would argue that the Pats have a superior offense. So absent a complete about face, Mike has to belly up to the bar on this.
JohntheBaptist said:
The funny thing is this is the exact criteria I use when deciding if I need to take a dump.
"First, I ask myself, 'do I need to take a dump?' If the answer comes back a resounding 'yes,' then I take a dump."
Some callers occasionally say clever things...not sure if I'm reading into it...
There was a guy earlier today who said, "One more thing before I let you go..."
I love that. I hope the guy intentionally said that as if he controlled the dialogue. Subtly brilliant.
There was a guy earlier today who said, "One more thing before I let you go..."
I love that. I hope the guy intentionally said that as if he controlled the dialogue. Subtly brilliant.
One of the unintended joys of his interviews is undoubtedly the utter lack of chemistry he has with any other human being he needs to permit to speak freely. He can't even hide his annoyance at how some of the guests want to plug an event or product....which has been standard in radio for eighty thousand years. He betrayed some of this recurring annoyance earlier today when referring to OJ Anderson's upcoming spot next week.
Anyone else listening befor that last break? I missed part of what he was saying but I though Mike praised Harbaugh for being the 1st coach of some sort to go to 3 straight championship games. While conveniently leaving out that Belichick is in the midst of the same accomplishment.
Anyone else listening befor that last break? I missed part of what he was saying but I though Mike praised Harbaugh for being the 1st coach of some sort to go to 3 straight championship games. While conveniently leaving out that Belichick is in the midst of the same accomplishment.
I believe he is the 1st to do it in his first 3 seasons as a NFL coach.
I believe he is the 1st to do it in his first 3 seasons as a NFL coach.
Mystic Merlin said:
The same could be said of Eli in his first Super Bowl.
To me, the defense of Brady's MVP begins with the first play of the last drive. Leonard Little comes flying in on him, Brady slips away just enough to hit Redmond for a five yard gain. If Brady gets sacked and stripped there and the Rams recover, the Rams win the game. If he gets sacked there, the Pats probably have to take a knee and take their chances in OT, in which case their fate would have rested on a coin flip as that defense was done stopping the Rams that day. I wouldn't have had a problem with Law or one of the other defenders getting it, but Brady was a worthy MVP candidate in that game.
Remagellan said:
Not to derail the topic, but was there anything more improbable than JR Redmond catching not one, but two passes on that last drive?
Yes. Redmond actually managing to break two tackles in order to get out of bounds and stop the clock.
Ralphwiggum said:
Might have to rewatch Three Games to Glory tomorrow. It's been awhile.
Mike's picks should be coming up soon.
JohntheBaptist said:
Well, sometimes I ask myself, "is this guy a Hall of Famer?" and the answer comes back as a confident "yes", but I can't tell for sure whether it's really resounding. I mean, maybe it sounds like a yes that came from the diaphragm, full-throated and hearty, but does it really have that clarion power that will echo through the hills and valleys of my heart? That's where some of these borderline cases come in.
Denver didn't exactly play a slate of juggernauts, either.
By the way, when is the last time he has said they've earned their record?
By the way, when is the last time he has said they've earned their record?
Mystic Merlin said:
According to profootball-reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2013/), New England's strength of schedule was -0.7. Denver's was -1.6. So significantly easier schedule for Denver. For whatever that's worth - and probably not much.
While on the road yesterday, I heard FFF and a Pats fan duel yesterday over the question: Could the Pats be considered the most dominant team over the past decade?
Not a crazy question, but Mike's response (iirc) was how could they be the most dominant they haven't won in a decade, (he was corrected to 9 years) and left hanging a question, as his answer, "who would you rather root for over the past decade, the Steelers or Giants?" The interpretation? Either of those teams were more dominant, presumably because of more recent SB wins.
But if we consider that '13-'14 season is not over, and the Pats are still in the running, over the past 10 seasons ('03-'12) the Pats have won 2 SBs, as have the Steelers and Giants, but they've made the post-season 9 of 10 years, to the Steelers 6 of 10, and 5 of 10 for the Giants and neither the Steelers or G-men have made the post-season for the past two seasons.
To me its a no-brainer, but not to FFF
Not a crazy question, but Mike's response (iirc) was how could they be the most dominant they haven't won in a decade, (he was corrected to 9 years) and left hanging a question, as his answer, "who would you rather root for over the past decade, the Steelers or Giants?" The interpretation? Either of those teams were more dominant, presumably because of more recent SB wins.
But if we consider that '13-'14 season is not over, and the Pats are still in the running, over the past 10 seasons ('03-'12) the Pats have won 2 SBs, as have the Steelers and Giants, but they've made the post-season 9 of 10 years, to the Steelers 6 of 10, and 5 of 10 for the Giants and neither the Steelers or G-men have made the post-season for the past two seasons.
To me its a no-brainer, but not to FFF
Denver was 7-0 vs. teams with losing records and 7-3 otherwise, while New England was 7-1 vs. teams with losing records and 6-3 otherwise, so I'm not really sure what great distinction he is making.ivanvamp said:
Edit: It's also weird to use the "who did they beat" argument to diminish the Patriots compared to the Broncos given that the Patriots beat the Broncos.
Stu Nahan said:
This is why he's harped on how the Denver D isn't good, and how the AFC is a shitty conference. Unless Peyton throws some really bad picks (and probably multiple), that'll be his Alamo. He'll then have two weeks to remind us that the Pats won the aforementioned shitty conference and stand little hope against the NFC champion (but, hey, anything can happen, it's one game!).
The only way he really has egg on his face, ultimately, is if the Pats win the Super Bowl. He won't have any outs in that scenario.