Comments on: Which Is It?

By: Brent Hughes

Brent Hughes — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:19:33 +0000

Wow guy.

Ron Jaworski IS the media.

kevin = CHB’s relative

By: mandb97

mandb97 — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:45:11 +0000

The sentence should have said “They saw every play and saw why Moss had a tough game and he was not dogging it.” A good example of the brain working faster than the fingers.

By: kevin

kevin — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:48:03 +0000

Did you read the piece? The second one does not mention any media looking at tape to determine he did or did not loaf. It mentioned people popping up on the internet and airwaves to defend him and he quote included here neither mention any media looking at tape. So yeah they are too different things.

By: mandb97

mandb97 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:03:09 +0000

I advise everyone to please read this article by Randy Whitehouse of the Lewiston Sun Journal. He basically says unless the Boston media has any access to a coaches tape then they have no clue what they are talking about. He says that the reason why Ron Jaworski and Merrill Hodge came to Moss’s defense was because they did look at coaches tape. They saw every why Moss had a tough game and he was not dogging it. People like Shaugnessy, Borges and Felger do not and with it show their bias that they have wanted to see Moss fail because of their first impressions. This is a great read.

http://www7.sunjournal.com/node/487

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:41:39 +0000

It just befuddles me that a guy who has never made it much of a secret that he doesn’t really like football is allowed to write about it whenever he wants. If you read any of the CHB’s numerous baseball and basketball themed books from the 80s and 90s, he’s always referring to football as “violent,” and “made for TV.” —- In other words, stupid hicks like football; sophisticated brainiacs (like Dand and all of his Globe buddies) like baseball and basketball.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:11:56 +0000

Let’s see. In anecdote one, football analyst looks at tape and determines player is loafing. Dan celebrates analyst’s acumen.

In adecdote two, same football analyst looks at tape and determines player is NOT loafing. Dan fails to mention this and instead suggests a cartel of lackeys has done the Patriots bidding once again.

You’re right kevin, two entirely different things.

By: kevin

kevin — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:31:19 +0000

why does anyone have to accept anyones authority every time and never have a different view, that seems nuts.

If the first he praises Jaws in the second he does not mention him I fail to see any break. It is the opinon that Moss was taking plays off that he is calling attnetion to not any one person who made it. If Jaws was the lone voice doing this that would be one thing but he clearly was not.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:09:59 +0000

Let’s try it this way.

In the first quote Dan lauds Jaworski as an authority because he watches more film than Scorsese. Dan is only too happy to point this out as it supports his point.

Moss happens, Jaws Scorsese looks at his film again and declares Moss is not jaking it. This does not appear to be Dan’s point.

Why doesn’t Dan choose to accept the authority this time? If you think this is consistent, you’re nuts.

By: kevin

kevin — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:08:27 +0000

could be any combination of guys it was hardly a unique stance and they may or may not include Jaws. Even if it does include him it does nothing to weaken the point. Unless you maintain you cannot repect a persons view point and knowledge of a subject unless you agree with them 100% of the time.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:52:36 +0000

OK, then who else makes up this fictional “national media cartel” that was defending Moss last week?

Who else was Shaughnessy speaking of?