In response to TexasPat's comment:
In response to ATJ's comment:
ob·jec·tive /əbˈjektiv/ Adjective (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
That's the defintion of objective. So let's not kid ourselves, shall we? There isn't anyone posting in this forum that I've seen (myself included) who satisfies that definition. So anyone in here staking a claim to the high ground of objectivity may wish to reevaluate.
And since, by definition and my own admission, I'm not objective I'll offer my opinion on the claim often noted in here that the practice of rendering criticism is a credential certifying one's objectivity: who are you trying to sh1t? Being critical of a team is part of being a fan but has absolutely zippo to do with objectivity. (edited out a final sentence that I shouldn't have posted to begin with.)
I'll concede that no one who is a true Patriots fan can be 100% objective. But, won't you concede that some posters here are far more objective than others?
TP, a fair point. The question then becomes who is to determine who is more objective than whom. You and I have disagreed on a particular aspect of the team's personnel decisions two years running. I truly don't wish to revisit the particular issue, but who is to say that I am more objective than you or you are more objective than me? I think the more relevant discussion is whose argument appears more rational to the to the disinterested party. I consider you to be every bit as passionate a Pats fan as I am, perhaps moreso. We just happen to differ on how we view the team and the approach that BB takes.
My point? Neither of us is in a position to determine whether you or I are the more rational or objective Pats fan.