Dan Shaughnessy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Dan Shaughnessy

    Jeff Duncan from the New Orleans Times-Picayune in his daily blog reported that he was surprised to hear some of his Boston colleagues (specifically naming Dan Shaughnessy) blaming Sean Payton's game plan at the end of the game for the Saints' loss. Jeff says in his video clip that while he respects his Boston colleague, he disagreed with them, and thought that the Patriots' defense won the game rather than Payton losing it.

    Link: http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/10/differing_viewpoints_on_an_epi.html

    I don't think there is any reason why this guy would make this up but Shaughnessy's attitude rankles me a bit. Just give credit to the team when they deserve it, buddy. It does not make you a homer. Your journalistic integrity won't take a hit. Running your own side down seems like a tradition in this town among some fans and journalists.

    Just venting! Carry on!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    Just another obvious example of the blatant anti-BB media. I think... I mean... Never mind.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    In response to neinmd's comment:

    Jeff Duncan from the New Orleans Times-Picayune in his daily blog reported that he was surprised to hear some of his Boston colleagues (specifically naming Dan Shaughnessy) blaming Sean Payton's game plan at the end of the game for the Saints' loss. Jeff says in his video clip that while he respects his Boston colleague, he disagreed with them, and thought that the Patriots' defense won the game rather than Payton losing it.

    Link: http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/10/differing_viewpoints_on_an_epi.html

    I don't think there is any reason why this guy would make this up but Shaughnessy's attitude rankles me a bit. Just give credit to the team when they deserve it, buddy. It does not make you a homer. Your journalistic integrity won't take a hit. Running your own side down seems like a tradition in this town among some fans and journalists.

     

    Just venting! Carry on!




    Yeah....  This is so normal , though.  Fact is ,  it was an unlikely win based on the circumstances...  Prababilty (not sure how those einsteins calculate this) for pats to win after Brady pick was 5%...   That's 1 in 20.

    Its classic monday hindsight.  

    Everybody does it. Me included.  The thing is ,  Pats pulled it off by their brilliance and the conservative playcalling by Payton.  Conservative is not wrong...  Its the safer ,  prudent option.   As if SHAUGHNESSY  would have the balls to throw the ball into coverage on 3rd and 7....  

    The other beef is just the opposite...!!!  3rd down in FG range ... Hindsight says run the ball, use up clock,  dont throw the incompletion....    Oooohhhhh ,  too aggressive there.

    Dumb cherry picked argument...  Mike Golic was going off with that argument .  Would love to see some of these dorks try to manage an NFL football game in real time with tough decisions to make.

    Belichick and Brady are the absolute best at it and actually make it look easy sometimes but its not.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    Speaking of the CHB, a friend showed me this ...

    1977 WS Yankee (sorry)  lockerroom after clinching game.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-ZRwwODYmA

    FF to around the 3 minute mark when they start interviewing Reggie.  There is the CHB smack in the middle between RJ and the interviewer.  He stays on camera a lot.

    Tell me that is not Napoleon Dynamite

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    It might have been a little bit of both.

    The Pats D did what it needed to do to get the ball back. I mean it's hard not to say the D didn't have a big hand in getting that ball back. On the other hand everyone knew the Saints were trying to kill the clock so they played not to lose, not to win the game. The play calling was pretty bad which put the Pats D in a position to win that game. Not to mention that 3rd down throw which essentially gave the Pats a time out. That was a poor mistake by Brees. He should have known if there was nothing there try to get back to the LoS and just get down to keep milking the clock. Trying to force a throw was a poor mistake. So, I would put that victory on 3 things in the end. The Pats O pulling it together on the final drive, the Pats D for doing their jobs and getting the ball back twice, and the Saints O for making mental mistakes and playing into the Pats D with conservative play calling.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    It might have been a little bit of both.

    The Pats D did what it needed to do to get the ball back. I mean it's hard not to say the D didn't have a big hand in getting that ball back. On the other hand everyone knew the Saints were trying to kill the clock so they played not to lose, not to win the game. The play calling was pretty bad which put the Pats D in a position to win that game. Not to mention that 3rd down throw which essentially gave the Pats a time out. That was a poor mistake by Brees. He should have known if there was nothing there try to get back to the LoS and just get down to keep milking the clock. Trying to force a throw was a poor mistake. So, I would put that victory on 3 things in the end. The Pats O pulling it together on the final drive, the Pats D for doing their jobs and getting the ball back twice, and the Saints O for making mental mistakes and playing into the Pats D with conservative play calling.



    I'm inclined to agree with you.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    What Shaughnessy failed to realize, and may not have wanted to give credit where due, is the fact the Pats D DID get back to back 3 and outs from the Saints' O!!  Regardless of the play calling on the part of the Saints, they called those plays believing they would do the job to achieve a couple more first downs and run some clock down and the Pats D thwarted those plans.  Last year, we would have simply accepted the fact the D just could not get the opponent's O off the field quick enough to give the offense another shot to win the game.  This time they did and all Shaughnessy could so is diss the D.  Not enough credit is being given to the D all because of the past and too many still remember the past.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    It might have been a little bit of both.

    The Pats D did what it needed to do to get the ball back. I mean it's hard not to say the D didn't have a big hand in getting that ball back. On the other hand everyone knew the Saints were trying to kill the clock so they played not to lose, not to win the game. The play calling was pretty bad which put the Pats D in a position to win that game. Not to mention that 3rd down throw which essentially gave the Pats a time out. That was a poor mistake by Brees. He should have known if there was nothing there try to get back to the LoS and just get down to keep milking the clock. Trying to force a throw was a poor mistake. So, I would put that victory on 3 things in the end. The Pats O pulling it together on the final drive, the Pats D for doing their jobs and getting the ball back twice, and the Saints O for making mental mistakes and playing into the Pats D with conservative play calling.



    Agree. But I would say those circumstances provided the opportunity. In the end, the offense and defense won the game. Jones still had to make that shoestring tackle on Bree's in space. if Bree's gets past him, game over. Thompkins still has to grab a perfectly thrown ball. In the end, lots to be proud of with this team. They capitalized on the opportunity presented. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    What Shaughnessy failed to realize, and may not have wanted to give credit where due, is the fact the Pats D DID get back to back 3 and outs from the Saints' O!!  Regardless of the play calling on the part of the Saints, they called those plays believing they would do the job to achieve a couple more first downs and run some clock down and the Pats D thwarted those plans.  Last year, we would have simply accepted the fact the D just could not get the opponent's O off the field quick enough to give the offense another shot to win the game.  This time they did and all Shaughnessy could so is diss the D.  Not enough credit is being given to the D all because of the past and too many still remember the past.



    Agree. Shaughnessy is a fool and a drunk. I want objective reporting, but you can always cheer a pats win when deserved. This one was well deserved. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    The point I was alluding to is that conservative playcalling WINS THE GAME in those situations more than LOSING ... thats why coaches do it.  Make the other team pull off the unlikely.  This time Pats won because of their brilliance under pressure.

    The losing coach looks bad for going "prevent" but the other team still has to make the great  throws and catches... 

    100% congrats to the Pats IMO.  Nothing was made easy for them. Only possible and still unlikely.  Kind of dumb to criticize Payton.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    When no went for the pass on 3rd and threw the inc, they were being too agressive

    when no did 3 runs and didn't get the 1st, they were not agressive

    On the first, no one knew that TB would throw a pick, he might have scored a TD then

    the D did their job, they show real grit, they are in top  3 in points allowed pretty damn good

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    nein you are just now figuring out that Shaughnessy is a, umm, well, uhh. it rhymes with "massive fool?" 

    The Saints do bear some responsibility for their choke job but I'd give the Pats D plenty of credit there, especially for rebounding after the horrible 3rd and 20 touchdown. They made their stands. 

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    Wait, is it Shaaaaaughnessy's job to report the news? Or is it Shaaaaaughnessy's job to sell  the news? Taking a pot shot at the Patriots defense, or "taking credit away" from the Patriots defense upsets Patriots fans and generates debate. Shaaaaaughnessy is doing his job.

     

    Below Danny talks about how the 04 Sox team would be "FRAUDS" if it lost game 3 to the Yanks, and how they would become "dopey slobs". WHOOPS, guess not. He talks about how Dave Ortiz is a cheater, about how Kevin Garnett is scum, about how Dennard should because of his DUI, about how the Patriots should get over themselves with the "holier then thow" act

     

    By Dan Shaughnessy, Globe Columnist  |  October 15, 2004

    "They have one more game to make their case. Are the 2004 Red Sox a happy-go-lucky (then suddenly unlucky) pack of frauds who failed to show up for the biggest series of their lives?"

    "No baseball team has recovered from a 3-0 deficit in a best-of-seven series. Losing to the Yankees without putting up any kind of a fight would earn them a place of disgrace in Boston sports lore. It would dissolve all of the team's accomplishments. It would make them look like cocky, dopey slobs who folded when it counted most.But it does not have to go down that way. There's plenty of precedent for coming back from an 0-2 deficit."

     

    "David Ortiz was vocal in his denial of performance-enhancing drug use after The Boston Globe’s Dan Shaughnessy wrote a column questioning the slugger’s early-season success. Red Sox chairman Tom Werner also came to the slugger’s defense, calling out Shaughnessy for his “fact-less” attack on the Boston designated hitter. As NESN’s Adam Pellerin reports on NESN Daily, Werner wasn’t the only one questioning the column’s merit."

    "Meanwhile, Dan Shaughnessy outdid himself this morning with a snarky, bitter, sarcastic take on all four sports teams which likely took him less than 15 minutes altogether to write. KG a mercenary? Check. Lamenting the lack of disgrace being heaped on the Bruins for their “epic collapse” in game six? Check. Sucking up to potential future boss John Henry? Check. Shots at Robert Kraft, Bill Belichick, the “holier than others” Patriots and their “legions of sycophants?” Check, check, check and check.

    I’ve said it before, and will say it again. The best thing the Globe ever did was put Shaughnessy behind the paywall."

     

     

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pats-fan-2007. Show pats-fan-2007's posts

    Re: Dan Shaughnessy

    Shaughnessy is a reporter-punk. Only Borges is more unworthy of writing in this awesome sports town.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share