Angry Rant Against ESPN

They've (not just ESPN, but also other major outlets like SI) been on Philadelphia's nuts for years and years. I will say this about the Eagles, Andy Reid is a great team builder, and I'm not surprised that Philly is doing what they are doing. Of course if we were ANY good, they wouldn't be where they are right now, so if ESPN was talking up Reid's job ad nauseum, I'd probably be sick to my stomach.

Regarding the Pats...who knows where they'd be if the NFL rules weren't wacky, and they had lost to the Raiders in the 2001 divisional round (the snow bowl)? Brady could be a relatively underhyped QB right now. The bottom line is that good team building and coaching are helpful things, but the game chooses it's champions in a relatively random manner. No one player or coach is bigger than the game, but listening to some of the talking heads, you'd think guys like Brady and Belicheck are larger than life. They aren't. They are great players and coaches who just happened to be lucky enough to win a few championships. Tons of players who have a lot of tools similar to those guys flounder in mediocrity not because they go about playing/coaching the game any differently than a Brady or a Belicheck, but because guys like Brady catch all the breaks, not them.



You aren't seriously suggesting that being only the second team in 40 years of Super Bowl history to win three Super Bowls in four years is matter of luck, I hope. It's fine not to like Brady for whatever reason you choose, but to lump him with "tons of players" is flat out laughable. Brady is one of THE top clutch quarterbacks in NFL history and there's really no debate- his record proves it. In terms of titles he's far and away the most accomplished quarterback playing today. Last year's playoff loss at Denver was the first time the guy had lost a playoff game in four trips to the playoffs- that's impressive no matter how much you might hate the Pats.

Similarly, Belichick's won-lost record speaks for itself. W's talk and BS walks.

As for the snow bowl, whatever- most dynasties have a break or two along the way, but they only add to the lore- they certainly can't account for all the success a team like the Patriots have created for themselves
(and in any event that call could be seen as revenge for the royal screw job the '76 Patriots got in getting jobbed out of a win over eventual Super Bowl champion Oakland).

Somehow I wonder if you'd be so upset if it was Gibbs and Campbell the talking heads were gushging over.

Bottom Line: Even if the Pats get blown out at San Diego today, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that unless some team comes out of nowhere and really pours it on the next 3-4 years, New England is hands down the team of the decade, and you'll be seeing this team imortalized forever on ESPN CLassic- and deservedly so.

As Bill Simmons correctly said, this year's Pats represent the greatest rebuilding year in the history of sports.
Bill Simmons is the biggest Boston "homer" on ESPN.com. What the hell did New England rebuild from??? They finished in first place in their division BOTH last season and this season. I for one am a lot more impressed with what the Saints did as a reclamation project. Coming off a last place finish, they bring in a new coach, sign an injured Drew Brees that San Diego and Miami wanted no part of, draft Bush, then plug in a bunch of role players and ride it all the way to the NFC Championship. Bill Simmons should take off his rose-colored Patriots glasses for a dose of reality.

the only person i have ever heard say anything goodabout the redskins is mark scherelith,all the rest of them including jaws,morton,ditka,ishamel,and 8 ball irvin who still holds grudges from teams from his playing days.i have'nt really heard john claton crack on them,but sean salsbury and"merril"hodge(his parents must have hated him why else would they give him that name and the hair that looks like it came off of a donkey's ass?)deion sanders cracks on them every chance he gets to on the nfl network.the skins,and coach gibbs never get respect for anything,not the 3 superbowl qbs in 3 different superbowls or nothing.i jusst quit watching that shit,and inside the nfl too!they kiss the pats,the cowboys,the colts,the 49ers ass so frequently they have to order chap stick by the truckload i bet!

Bill Simmons is the biggest Boston "homer" on ESPN.com. What the hell did New England rebuild from??? They finished in first place in their division BOTH last season and this season. I for one am a lot more impressed with what the Saints did as a reclamation project. Coming off a last place finish, they bring in a new coach, sign an injured Drew Brees that San Diego and Miami wanted no part of, draft Bush, then plug in a bunch of role players and ride it all the way to the NFC Championship. Bill Simmons should take off his rose-colored Patriots glasses for a dose of reality.

Simmons has never denied he's a Boston homer. It's part of his schtick. When the Patriots were on their way to their first title he went on at length about what a bland, unexciting history they had, how there had never been a truly memorable game in Foxboro Stadium, etc. He's not without bias and doesn't pretend to be.

New England lost Willie McGuinest, Deon Branch, David Givens, Adam Venatieri and several other players from recent Super Bowl teams. While the overall value of these players (save Venatieri) to other teams in questionable, there's really no arguement that they were vital to the Patriots. I disagree that they are the biggest rebuilding job in the league and would agree with your example of New Orleans, but in this day and age to sustain their kind of success (12-4) with losses like that is remarkable.

As to some of the other sentiments expressed in this thread, why should ESPN be raving about, or even mentioning, the Redskins except to crack on them? They were 5-11 this year, 21-27 since Gibbs game back, have only two playoff appearances in the last 14 years, only 5 finishes above .500 during that same 14 years and haven't been to the conference title game since 1991, much less the Super Bowl. This is New England's sixth straight winning season; you can dismiss that if you want but Washington hasn't done that in twenty years (1982-87). Those old Super Bowl trophies are dusty relics- if you went to listen to praise for what Gibbs did during those years, tune in to ESPN Classic.

I do understand some of the sentiment against listening to the endless Parcells/T.O./Dallas saga when the Tuna is still looking for a playoff win after four years, and I agree that it sucks the Redskins don't get much serious discussion anymore, but the bottom line is that if the Redskins were winning big right now, they'd be getting talked up- they'd be a big story and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You aren't seriously suggesting that being only the second team in 40 years of Super Bowl history to win three Super Bowls in four years is matter of luck, I hope. It's fine not to like Brady for whatever reason you choose, but to lump him with "tons of players" is flat out laughable. Brady is one of THE top clutch quarterbacks in NFL history and there's really no debate- his record proves it. In terms of titles he's far and away the most accomplished quarterback playing today. Last year's playoff loss at Denver was the first time the guy had lost a playoff game in four trips to the playoffs- that's impressive no matter how much you might hate the Pats.

Similarly, Belichick's won-lost record speaks for itself. W's talk and BS walks.

As for the snow bowl, whatever- most dynasties have a break or two along the way, but they only add to the lore- they certainly can't account for all the success a team like the Patriots have created for themselves
(and in any event that call could be seen as revenge for the royal screw job the '76 Patriots got in getting jobbed out of a win over eventual Super Bowl champion Oakland).

Somehow I wonder if you'd be so upset if it was Gibbs and Campbell the talking heads were gushging over.

Bottom Line: Even if the Pats get blown out at San Diego today, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that unless some team comes out of nowhere and really pours it on the next 3-4 years, New England is hands down the team of the decade, and you'll be seeing this team imortalized forever on ESPN CLassic- and deservedly so.Are you saying that if the Raiders had beaten the Pats in the 2001 playoffs (like most agree SHOULD have happened), that:

1) Brady would be viewed in the exact same light he is right now.

2)The Patriots would still have two Super Bowls; that is to say their success as a team in 03-04 was in NO way assisted by their championship in 01. Consider that they missed the playoffs in 02, so they very easily could have been considered a one year wonder.

The game chooses it's champions. This statement doesn't mean that it's fixed, it means that if you DON'T get some good fortune, you don't win 3-4 games in the playoffs, no matter how good you are. It's a simple concept. It chose the Pats three times. Thus they are three time world champions. Worship them if you must, but Bill Belichick is not my lord and savior.

The Patriots are not bigger then the game.

Bottom Line: Even if the Pats get blown out at San Diego today, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that unless some team comes out of nowhere and really pours it on the next 3-4 years, New England is hands down the team of the decade, and you'll be seeing this team imortalized forever on ESPN CLassic- and deservedly so.

I agree. If we are to crown 'teams of the decade' I don't know who else you could pick for the 2000's but New England. In the 90's it was the Cowboys, in the 80's it was the Niners.

Now, in my mind, if you win 3 Super Bowls in any one decade, you deserve the team of the decade title. Especially if no other team did it. If a team wins two Super Bowls, that's certainly worthy of note, but IMO, it doesn't warrant "Team of the Decade."

Too bad that doesn't include the Redskins of the 80's because they went to three and won two -- if it weren't for that damned Super Bowl 18 ... ARGGGH! We'd have been right up there with the 49ers as "Team of the Decade."

Are you saying that if the Raiders had beaten the Pats in the 2001 playoffs (like most agree SHOULD have happened), that:

1) Brady would be viewed in the exact same light he is right now.

2)The Patriots would still have two Super Bowls; that is to say their success as a team in 03-04 was in NO way assisted by their championship in 01. Consider that they missed the playoffs in 02, so they very easily could have been considered a one year wonder.

The game chooses it's champions. This statement doesn't mean that it's fixed, it means that if you DON'T get some good fortune, you don't win 3-4 games in the playoffs, no matter how good you are. It's a simple concept. It chose the Pats three times. Thus they are three time world champions. Worship them if you must, but Bill Belichick is not my lord and savior.

The Patriots are not bigger then the game.

Who is saying Belichick is your lord and savior? Don't say people were suggesting it, just show me where someone said it.

I am not worshipping the Pats. I am simply recognizing that they have done a better job of taking advantage of the oppotunities they have been presented than other teams.

This is nothing but sour grapes. Again, if the Redskins were winning big and all the rage, we're not having this discussion.

What does bias have to do with it? They went 12-4.

How are the Patriots in a "rebuilding year"? They won their division and went to the playoffs last year and they won their division and went to the playoffs this year. Because they dump Deion Branch, they are rebuilding? They dump guys every year.

Not anymore...NFL Network is!

There is nothing great about Gumbel and Collinsworth.

How are the Patriots in a "rebuilding year"? They won their division and went to the playoffs last year and they won their division and went to the playoffs this year. Because they dump Deion Branch, they are rebuilding? They dump guys every year.


Not just Branch, but Venatieri, Givens, McGuinest...they lost some key guys, guys who had a lot to do with those Super Bowl trophies. Are you saying that replacing those guys isn't rebuilding? That because New England didn't fall apart for a year like a lot of teams would that somehow this is a less than impressive accomplishment?

What I'm seeing here is a lot of pent up frustration from fans who are perhaps understandably bitter at our team's long-term status as an also-ran. Still, taking out that frustration by belittling the obviously outsanding accomplishments of another team is flat out lame. I mean, three Super Bowls in four years is primarily the result of luck? It had nothing to do with Belichick or Brady? Replacing key players on a championship team isn't rebuilding?...okay, whatever.