Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

06 Oct 2005

Brady Takes on Coach a la Harrison

Uh oh. The Kool-Aid Brigade (which is part of the "Are You Disrespecting Me?" Branch) is in full effect. New KAB spokesman, Tom Brady, had a few choice words in response to Schottenheimer's comments following Sunday's game. At the time, Schottenheimer said, "that every team comes to a tipping point when it comes to injuries." Brady responded with, "You don't talk about our team. He has no business talking about our team."

Um, OK.

The article does note that Brady "delivered his remarks with a casual grin and his trademark ease," but it looks like he's the new Rodney Harrison in charge of motivating his teammates.

Posted by: P. Ryan Wilson on 06 Oct 2005

63 comments, Last at 07 Oct 2005, 6:04pm by Purds


by Harris (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 9:45am

Yeah, that article is full of barnicles. I saw a piece of that press conference on NFL Network and Brady looked and sounded angry. And handsome.

by Wicked (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 10:24am

For a sport in which guys try to mame each other for 60 minutes, they sure are a sensitive bunch off the field. First Vermeil over Bailey's comments, and now this.

by Theo (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 10:34am

I didn't catch the 'respect' comment Harrison made.

Can someone post a link to the article??

by Adam H (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 10:46am

He hasn't quite got this "motivate my team" thingy down yet. Usually you do this before the game in question. At the very latest, you could do it at halftime. Three days after other team kicks your ass and rubs your nose in the turf it just sounds bitchy.

by MDZ (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 10:47am

I'm pretty sure with Harrison its referring to the fact that every action in the history of the universe has somehow disrespected him and/or the Patriots.

by Moe (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 10:55am

Um sure Mr. Brady... whatever you say Mr. Brady...

Give it a rest already.

by Ron Mexico (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 11:06am

Three days after other team kicks your ass and rubs your nose in the turf it just sounds bitchy.

If it looks like a bitch and talks like a bitch....

by Kachunk (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 11:17am

Re:#7 Then it probably has herpes?

by RowdyRoddyPiper (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 11:59am

I think it was mentioned on this site last year that we'll probably see Brady lining up at Strong Saftey at some point. This could be the start.

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 12:03pm

Wow, are the comments here a sign that people are getting sick of the Pats Worship? Hmmm...

by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 12:10pm

When is FO going to come out with the matrix on "trash talking" or "disrespecing points" we really need to project wins and losses in the NFL?

by princeton73 (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 12:16pm

when did this start? when did every statement, gesture, facial expression,gerundive, or dependent clause uttered by your opponent become a sign of "showing me up"

I mean, yeah, everyone used to look for bulletin board material, but it's gone off the deep end

(and it's actually worse in baseball)

(at least, if you team is managed by Dusty Baker ot Tony LaRussa)

by Tony LaRussa (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 12:25pm

Okay, now it's on.

by Johonny (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 12:49pm

Anyone else notice Brady's been a little more talkitive on the field this year. Twice I've seen him really gripe at officials.

by Purds (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 12:52pm

I am interested in seeing how well Brady leads this year, as he'll be under two pressures he's not faced often in the past:

1) He gets to call many of his own plays through audibles. So, if the offense fails, he'll have to take the heat (a la Manning does in Indy).

2) He's losing games. It's easy to be a leader when you win. Let's see if this stuff motivates his team to rally, or simply is vacant mid-week press conference talk.

by Drew (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 12:55pm

I agree with post 12.

I don't remember when it started, but I'd like to see it reigned it. Sadly, it never will be. The art of letting your game on the field speak for itself is dead. There is probably some cultural lesson to be learned from this, but I've lost interest.

by BB (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 1:03pm

Boy, people can get so ugly when they sense their empire may be falling. All Schotzy was saying is that it's hard to win when you have a lot of injuries. How dare he say the Patriots are struggling to win due to injuries. Face it Tommy, you are not what you once were.

by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 1:40pm

Something is wrong when your QB is closer to Trent Dilfer in DPAR than Kerry Collins.


by mawbrew (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 1:52pm

I'll have to admit, I thought Marty's comments regarding the Pats were a little .... odd. It's standard coachspeak to say injuries (on your own squad) aren't an excuse for poor performance. I'm sure Marty's said the same thing many times in the past. To suggest that injuries are an excuse for somebody else's team seems, well, a bit condescending.

Nobody wants anybody else's pity (see Banks' article on the Chargers feeling sorry for the Pats).

That said, I think Brady would have been better served to hold his tongue unless/until they get a rematch with the Bolts.

by Parker (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 1:53pm

Welcome back to the pack, Patriots. We've missed you.

by pcs (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 2:26pm

I wonder if Marty was speaking in "figurative metaphors." God knows Brady has those explained to him a dozen times a game.

by B (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 4:34pm

Aren't all metaphors figurative?

by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 4:48pm

"But the words still carried considerable weight. Schottenheimer's comments begged for a response, and while a few players were asked about it on Monday, none delivered the message with Brady's clarity."

Who says Schottenheimer's off the cuff remark "carried considerable weight?" It seems the Pats didn't even know about the opinion (which was probably right, but...) until the beat reporter mentioned them.

Did they carry weight only for the reporter who had to cram 12 inches of meaningless copy onto a page? Or because he feared the Globe's beat reporters were going to have the same 12 inches of meaningless copy so it was CYA time in Boston?

"But Brady still sent a clear shot at the coach with a .294 career playoff winning percentage."

How is the .294 career playoff winning percentage important to the point he was making? Is the SD coach disqualified from discussing how injuries ravage a team because he loses three out of every four playoff games he's been in?

Or is this a reporter becoming a homer? I don't report the news! I sop up all the genius in here and wring it out for the fans!

Just a nutty thought, but could last year's NFL coach of the year (not B) possibly know something about the game of professional football? I mean, in 18 seasons he's put together 13 winning campaigns -- that's far better than average, especially in the salary cap era.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the former linebacker for the Boston Patriots (1969-1970) might have a bit more knowledge than the QB for the Pats AND A WHOLE FREAKIN' LOT MORE THAN THE BOSTON BEAT WRITER about how injuries rule the game of football.

My two cents.

by Glenn (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 4:58pm

As a Pats fan, I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at how everyone from expert Carl to folks in the peanut gallery are piling on Brady and the Pats. I especially loved the post that Brady doesn't have the 'motivation' thing down yet.

High comedy, gentlemen....keep it up!

by David (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 5:07pm

It's not piling on, it's being sick and tired of the Patriots' "we are exempt from any criticism" act. It gets old, especially when you're 2-2.

by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 5:11pm

I don't see how I'm "piling on" Brady. He's one of the greatest QBs to ever suit up, a brilliant manager of the game and an outstanding guy to interview.

I'm confused by the pointless and misleading article turned in by the New England beat reporter. I hate stories like that. Easy to write. Say nothing. Pure homer crap.

I mean that in the best possible sense.

As for Brady's DPAR, I'm not really blaming him for that. That's the sum of his line protection, inefficient wideout play (which is odd for the Pats) and a running game that just won't run.

The Pats still will win their now horrible division. But Schotty is absolutely right about the cumulative toll of injuries, especially those at key positions such as o-linemen at the Pats' unique linebacker-turned-safety (the LB part is more important than the S part).

The irony is that I've read absolutely great copy lately from Minneapolis as they cover a team with many of the same (albeit far more chronic) injury problems, and I'm amazed that Boston doesn't have the bar set very high for football.

This is odd because Boston baseball and basketball coverage is usually first-rate. If you tried some of that crap in a football town like Pittsburgh, Minneapolis or Washington D.C., you'd be tarred, feathered and sent to Oakland.

by CaffeineMan (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 5:59pm

This is odd because Boston baseball and basketball coverage is usually first-rate. If you tried some of that crap in a football town like Pittsburgh, Minneapolis or Washington D.C., you’d be tarred, feathered and sent to Oakland.

Yeah, this looks odd from the outside, but you've put your finger on it. Boston is NOT a football town and never will be. It's a baseball town, period. When baseball's not in season, it's a hockey town, sort of. The Celtics put together one of the better dynasties in the history of sports under Auerbach and Russell with comparatively little attention. But they at least attracted enough attention to draw reporting talent (e.g. Bob Ryan). In football, you get a choice between puff pieces like the one above, which don't even belong linked on this site, IMO, or the heavyweight columnists that are too busy grinding their axes against Belichick to provide any content.

The funny thing is, Belichick will talk to guys, it just never makes it into the paper. Tom Curran, in his Providence Journal blog, mentions standing off to the side talking to one of Belichick's assistants while Belichick talked to another reporter, scribbling X's and O's on paper and talking animatedly. It was Michael Smith of ESPN, but formerly of the Globe. Curran says Belichick does it with a couple of guys every press conference. But have we seen any of it? Nope, not a chance...

And Ryan Wilson, I expect better links out of this site than this. I'd really rather see links to insightful articles by local reports on their local teams. You're a Steelers fan, point us to something insightful on them. I'm really tired of the "soap opera" stories, no matter who the team or player is. If you wanna trigger a p***ing contest, can we at least trigger one about football strategy or something?

by Bassett (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 6:16pm

I knew Tom's goat pictures made him a different man this year, but when I saw him during the kickoff game against the Raiders and he ran into the endzone and did that "pump up" move with his arms it was ON. A little rigid, a little whitey mcwhitenstein, but that it was ON nevertheless...

by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 6:21pm

How is the .294 career playoff winning percentage important to the point he was making? Is the SD coach disqualified from discussing how injuries ravage a team because he loses three out of every four playoff games he’s been in?

I just want to shoot anyone who ever starts talking about "playoff winning percentages." Just stop it, please. Forever. They don't mean anything. They're horribly, horribly biased.

If you wanted to even try to be fair, you'd have to give coaches losses for every playoff game they missed because they didn't make it that far.

Belichick's winning percentage would drop to 10-25, or a 0.285 winning percentage.

Schottenheimer's would drop as well (something like 5-36, or a 0.121 winning percentage) but there are coaches with much, much worse ones.

by Nolan (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 6:31pm

Or (paraphrasing, er, somebody): "'Tis better to have played and lost, than to have never played at all".

by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 6:45pm

"mentions standing off to the side talking to one of Belichick’s assistants while Belichick talked to another reporter, scribbling X’s and O’s on paper and talking animatedly."

I've had the same experience with Schotty's coordinator, Cam Cameron. Unfortunately for Cam, his winning percentage at IU was something like .124, too.

by princeton73 (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 7:52pm

I don’t see how I’m “piling on� Brady. He’s one of the greatest QBs to ever suit up,

SEE? you said "one of"; what a slam

as I said up above in post #12, this "need" to be disrepected as a motivational tool is getting old

and I assumed the Pats were above it

by Richie (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 8:18pm

The Pats still will win their now horrible division.

I've heard a lot of comments like these lately. We still have a long ways to go, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

Miami has already won 2 games that nobody thought they would.

And New England has already lost 2 games that nobody thought they would.

I think it's safe to say this division is up for grabs. Buffalo still has a shot at it, too.

by bsr (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 8:27pm

I have to agree with Carl in that the Boston media has a serious lack of quality when it comes to football coverage. However, it wasn't always the case. The combination of a less then talkative Patriots organization and the advent of the Newsman/Radio Personality has kind of sent it into a tailspin. Sensationalism is now bottom line in all Boston area sports news stories.

And I disagree with Caffine man with regards to Boston being a strictly Baseball town anymore. Football was bigger in this town during the ninties and runs pretty close in popularity with the sox even now. News coverage isn't the same but that has little to do with fan support or popularity.

by Paul (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 9:20pm

Re 29:
I agree with Pat's idea of judging postseason coaches records. I would propose the following method:
Judge every coach on the 4 postseason games his team should play in every season.
Not playing, because the team, under your tutelage, didn't make it? Loss.
Got the first round bye because your team dominated the regular season and finished #1 or #2? Win.
Actually played the game? Judged by the results.
With this method, the 32 coaches are a combined 15-113 each postseason, a .117 average. Fifteen is based on 8 teams advancing the first week, 4 the second, 2 conference winners and 1 Super Bowl winner. So if the coach can win 2 playoff games every 4 years (including weeks off), he's slightly above the average pace. Average will keep you hired in some cities. Same method could be applied to teams, not just coaches.

by Richie (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 10:08pm

Nice job, Paul. So we need to consider that any coach who has a career playoff record better than .117 is an above-average playoff coach.

I'm going to give Schottenheimer a pass in 1984 when he took over a 1-7 Cleveland team, went 4-4 and missed the playoffs.

So, Schottenheimer has a career Adjusted Playoff Record of 10-62 or .139. So a little above average.

George Seifert is at 16-28 or .364.

Belicheck is 13-27 or .325.

Cowher is 14-42 or .250.

by Fnor (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 10:10pm

Patriots were above it? Did you sleep through last year?

Anyway, this is funny. Very funny. I am very happy it was linked to, because in the context this site gave, it made me laugh like crazy.

Sure, we could say "but it's not insightful! There's no good football value in linking to it!!" But then we'd be taking ourselves waaay too seriously. Harrison said something very funny last year. Brady said something a bit crazy this year. It's funny, people. Chill out.

by PatsFan (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 10:18pm

Re: #34

And remember that the NYTimes (which owns the Globe) owns a chunk of the Red Sox. And remember that the local sports station is the flagship of the Sox radio network (the Pats are over on a rock FM station).

I still think there are weird ox-goring games going on between the Globe and the Patriots as well. You have the lunacy of the Borges, the shilling-for-every-released-player and Tom-Donahoe-is-god tiredness of Cafardo, the current sports page editor's sudden whining about "access", which even makes its way into the beat writer's column (and yet no other paper complains and one of the Globe's own employees has a public blog and mailbag where he obviously has plenty of access to player). It's just weird.

Re: #27

Absolutely. Various reporters have mentioned multiple times in radio, blogs, and other "unofficial" places that you can get loads of interesting football facts, strategy, etc. out of Belichick and that he loves talking about it. But none of it ever gets into any paper.

Maybe if the local sports "reporters" would spend more time working on their columns/stories and less time pimping themselves on TV/radio things might be different.

by RhodyFan67 (not verified) :: Thu, 10/06/2005 - 10:45pm

Schottenheimer was being condescending...years of frustration finally catchilg up to vent after he won a "big one"

by NF (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 12:11am

Speaking of Adjusted Playoff Record, a better name is Adjusted Postseason Record, and how would you normalize for coaches such as Lombardi, who played when there were less postseason games? I think you could take the number of adjusted wins-losses for the year, and extrapolate that to a standard, such as 4, the current # of postseason rounds. Here's Lombardi's Adjusted Postseason Record:

Non-normalized: 8-7 (0.533)

Normalized to 4 postseason games/year: 20-20 (0.500)

Wow. And an assumption made in normalization is that in a bunch of seasons that Green Bay didn't have a playoff win, because there was only one postseason game, the championship, they would have not won a single game if there were 4 postseason games. In the 1960 season they lost to Philadelphia in the NFL championship game.

As an Eagles fan, I'd like to say that I think that was the beginning of the Curse of the Lombardi. Since winning that game, the Eagles have not won a single league championship, and only played in two, one against the 1980 Oakland Raiders team that was the first wild-card team to win the Super Bowl, and the other last year against the 2004 New England Patriots, the best team of at least the last 8 years.

Although, I wonder if I'm disrespecting the Patriots if I say I think they will defeat the Colts in a shoot-out in Super Bowl XL.

by Purds (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 12:34am


You may be right that SOME information could be had from Mr. Bill, but you can't deny two oddities:

1) After games, the team always has a party-line message that is clearly enforced (those who say anything else mysteriously shut up or disappear from media events the following week).

2) Mr. Bill rarely talks to sideline reporters as they go to the half. He almost always sends an assistant. Few other coaches deny this media access, even if it is almost always fluff.

by Balaji (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 12:58am

#40, NF: "Although, I wonder if I’m disrespecting the Patriots if I say I think they will defeat the Colts in a shoot-out in Super Bowl XL."

If the Patriots and Colts somehow both get into the Super Bowl, you'd better believe something fishy is going on in the league offices.

by Raul Allegre's Revenge (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 1:28am

What I find even more preposterous than Schotty's comment or Brady's reaction to said comments is the fact there is someone who believes Miami actually has a chance to win that division.

by 2 cents (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 3:55am

On the subject of postseason performances, would somebody rank the top 10 active coaches. Not just by pure numbers as computed above but a very current ranking based on various factors. For example Billichick, Gibbs, Parcels have won multiple SBs etc but are they 1-2-3 right now? Anyone care to try ranking?

2 cents

by 2 cents (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 3:57am

Or can someone send me a link to a recent article/analysis ranking current coaches?

by Dervin (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 5:08am

I think it's safe to say Tom Brady has mastered the methodology of the Red Sox Jihad.

It was in it's infancy after the first SB victory when they would claim to be long suffering and when you reminded them they went to two SB's in the past and that's more than..., they act like you tried to eat their children. But now it's "matured."

by PatsFan (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 8:28am

Re: #41

So what? (I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it seriously).

With respect to your #2, I think it's great to see a coach show the contempt to those sideline "interviews" that they deserve. I only wish that more NFL coaches would blow off those stupid just-before-kickoff and just-before-halftime interviews. If they did, maybe they'd actually go away.

As for your #1, what's wrong with that? It's how virtually every other business operates. That it means the knights of the keyboard probably have to work harder to fill their space is just gravy :)

I'm not just giving BB on a pass on these -- I'd be perfectly fine with any other coach acting the same way.

And though I'm "only" 37, I guess I'm old and cranky enough to want to see less sensationalist/gossipy sports coverage and more about the sport itself. Which is why I'm not particularly upset when coaches keep a tight rein on what players say.

by charles (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 9:11am

i would take marty in a fight with tom brady right now. Did anyone see brady try to tackle larry foote after he recovered the fumble in pittsburgh game? Are you kidding me? I will now send michael westbrook to punch tom brady in the face.

by princeton73 (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 10:17am

What I find even more preposterous than Schotty’s comment or Brady’s reaction to said comments is the fact there is someone who believes Miami actually has a chance to win that division.

detectives believe alcohol was involved

by Drew (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 10:59am

Hey, I'll second the thought that Miami can win the division. The Jets look like a steaming dung pile right now. Buffalo is already benching their QB-of-the-future. If the Patriots do succumb to all the injuries (no disrespect to Mr. Brady), who is left? I don't think that Miami is all that likely to win the division, but I'd give them a 25% chance.

by princeton73 (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 11:27am

I don’t think that Miami is all that likely to win the division, but I’d give them a 25% chance.

lessee--AFC East, 4 teams..

by jove, I think he's got it!

by Drew (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 11:45am

Re 51:

So, the Patriots only have a 25% chance of winning the division now? Don't let Rodney Harrison hear you say that.

I thought someone might make that observation, but figured it should be obvious that each team doesn't have an equal chance of winning a given division. I'm guessing that back in August, the odds would have looked more like:
New England -- 80%
Field -- 20%

by Carl (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 12:55pm

I picked Buffalo to win the division. Well, the computer picked Buffalo, but that's only because I tweaked the QB field because I didn't know how Losman would perform.

I, errr, tweaked incorrectly. I thought he'd be "mediocre" instead of "abject failure" and put in the array of variables to prove it! Oh, well.

Pats were going to finish second (barring major injuries, of course), so I'll now put them in first.

The computer also picked the Bengals as a wildcard so I keep the "genius" cred!

The computer also said Colts beat Eagles in Super Bowl. Sue me.

I think NF said the same thing.

"If the Patriots and Colts somehow both get into the Super Bowl, you’d better believe something fishy is going on in the league offices."

I think he meant that the Eagles would be playing the Colts, and that the Eagles would win.

He and Pat are passing the same Philly Blunt on the left hand side, but I don't think he's saying the Colts and Pats will be in the Super Bowl together.

For those keeping score at home, the playoffs will fall out like this:

Buffalo (what can I do now? Without the tweak San Diego or Denver gets in)
New England
Colts (best record)
Chiefs (yeah, I picked the Chiefs)

Philly (best record)
St Louis

I'm not sure about Dallas now, but it doesn't matter! It's a NFC wildcard team! They're going nowhere! Maybe the Bucs?

by Purds (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 1:25pm


Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier argument. I thought you were suggesting that the Patriots were a relatively open-to-the-media team, but that the local reporters just don't listen. My point was that the Pats aren't an open team.

Do I care? No.
Do I think it's a silly joke? Yes. Look at any injury report -- the Pats either put no one on the list, or put everyone. They have 11 players listed as "questionable" for this week, for example.

Have the Pats been the dominant team of this era? Yes. Does that mean EVERYTHING they do is perfect/to be copied? No. I'm trying to stay off that Cool-Aid.

by B (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 1:27pm

Carl, I was going to ask what your projections picked for the games this week but, uhhh, nevermind. I think you might have messed up the variables on Harrington, too.

by Carl (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 2:11pm

My projection for QB in Detroit was somewhat novel. I predicted Harrington wouldn't last the year, so I took the known historical range of variables for both Garcia and Harrington and averaged them out to make a composite Slightly Better than Crappy But Really Good For That Crappy Division quarterback.

Then Garcia broke his leg. Or ankle. Detroit has mentioned both. Regardless, his now mediocre ass ain't out there and Harrington's is.

Still, as I have mentioned elsewhere, Detroit still has the best roster of any team in that division, due to injuries. That's not saying much, but if you have to go with someone, go with the team that still has a walking QB, most of the o-line and d-line, and a few ok WRs.

My algorithm didn't account for Matt Millen.

On paper, this weekend should go with the Pats by 1, but when I run the injuries, it looks as if Atlanta by 1. Still don't know about Vick.

San Diego by a FG. Colts by 12. Detroit by a FG. GB by 6. EVEN for Buffalo and Miami (might give the extra point to Bills for no other reason than the belief that Losman can't be really that bad). Jets by 2 (tough to call because of the QB variables).

Seattle beats St. Louis. Houston gets by Tennessee. Philadelphia beats Cowboys by five if QB lasts the game without his groin detaching from legs).

Carolina beats Arizona by a FG. Denver by 10 over Washington. Begals just narrowly beat Jags.

Tough to call a lot of these this early in the season because the range of comparative values aren't great.

Consider these smart computer educated guesses.

by Carl (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 2:27pm

Oh, yeah, and Sox beat Sox. Lock.

by PatsFan (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 2:47pm

Re: #54

I was saying that BB is willing to talk plenty about the game of football (history, strategy, etc.) but reporters (at least up here) aren't interested in any of it. Boo on them. I wasn't saying the team was "open" (though I will point out that Mike Reiss's boston.com mailbag has enough "access" to actually ask some of the players questions the fans have sent in to Reiss).

As for "cool-aid", I'd feel the same way about the Patriots' openness (or lack thereof) if they were 0-16. I think keeping everyone on message is an objectively good thing, period.

And I think I've already said before that I'd prefer that injury reports weren't public (though they still should be reported to the NFL head office and NFLPA). Though someone in that thread did make a good point about injuries needing to go public so that Vegas types wouldn't be trying to hang around teams to pick up information.

by B (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 3:40pm

Carl: I heard on NFL network that Kelly Losman will be starting for the Bills this week. How does that affect your predictions?

by Richie (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 4:22pm

What I find even more preposterous than Schotty’s comment or Brady’s reaction to said comments is the fact there is someone who believes Miami actually has a chance to win that division.

Why is Miami any more unlikely to win their division this year than Pittsburgh or San Diego was to win theirs last year? Or Carolina in 2003?

Every year the NFL has at least one surprise division winner. Miami could be one. Washington could be one.

If I had to bet, I would pick New England and Philly. But I don't think either team will walk away with their divisions this year. That's all I'm saying.

by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 5:30pm

He and Pat are passing the same Philly Blunt on the left hand side

I think Philly will beat Indy in the Super Bowl for the same reasons that Aaron does: because Philly is built to attack weak linebackers, and that's what Indy's got.

I am many things, but c'mon, Carl, don't ever accuse me of not being impartial.

by Carl (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 5:35pm

I was accusing you of being an Eagles fan, Pat. Nothing more, nothing less.

by Purds (not verified) :: Fri, 10/07/2005 - 6:04pm

PF #59:

Good points. I got ya. I may disagree about the one voice thing, but we can agree to disagree there.