Crying Zookeeper was talking about the Richardson trade and said that Andrew Luck had the best statistical season out of the ‘big four rookies’ last year.   Assuming he meant Wilson, Griffin, and Kaepernick (though technically not a rookie) and not Tannehill, he’s completely wrong.

  • Luck had the lowest passer rating of 76.5.   (Griffin – 102.4, Wilson – 100.0, Kaepernick – 98.3)
  • Luck had the lowest completion pct. of 54.1 (Griffin – 65.6, Wilson – 64.1, Kaepernick – 62.4)
  • Luck had the lowest yards/attempt of 6.98 (Kaepernick – 8.32, Griffin – 8.14, Wilson – 7.93)
  • Luck does have more TD passes than Griffin (23-20), but less than Wilson (26).   Way more than Kaepernick (10) in a half season of play.

He also has way more INT’s than any of them.  (18).     Griffin only had 5, Wilson 10, and Kaepernick 3 (again, half season).

Sports talk for dummies!


Finally got around to Cain’s silly column. This is my favorite part:

Belichick is now 61 years old, pretty much at the age or above the age when it begins to go south for all great coaches.

The “or above the age” part is awesome. “He’s already older than when a lot of coaches lost their fastball.” Doesn’t that already kill the point Cain’s trying to make?

But just for fun, let’s presume Cain’s got a worthwhile premise going here; he’s asking is there a point where the game passes a coach by, and if so, when does that typically occur? I’d suspect even if the first part were true, the age it occurs would vary on a case-by-case basis. For argument’s sake, though, let’s follow along. He starts with Noll:

Chuck Noll was just 2 games over .500 as a coach his last 11 years in the league. He retired at the age of 59.

So he’s already shot his “south at 60″ theory to hell, as he confuses “age when things go south” with “age the coach retires”. He does this with each example he cites.

If Noll was just over .500 the last 11 years, his “gone south” age then would be 48. Incidentally, during that same age interim (48-59), Belichick won at a .724 clip.

Cain has more examples:

Tom Landry was fired at the age of 64, after going 54-50 in his last 7 seasons with no Super Bowls.

OK, so maybe this was where Cain was going with this, as Landry would have been 58 at the start of those last seven seasons, which better fits his criteria. Belichick’s 61, so we can’t know what the next four seasons will bring. In the last three, though, he’s 39-9, with one Super Bowl appearance. In order to match Landry’s 7-year downfall, Belichick would need to go 19-45 the next four years. Next:

Don Shula was 89-70 from age 56 to 65. Unfortunately, he was never able to surround Dan Marino with enough talent on offense or defense and the Dolphins never made a Super Bowl appearance during that time.

Ah, so Shula’s “gone south” age is 56. Belichick since age 56 is 62-20. To match Shula’s final decade, Belichick would need to go 30-50 the next five years.

Now listen to the equivocating Cain does for Parcells:

Bill Parcells coached two teams with a break in between from age 58 to 65. He still had an eye for talent but he never had the elite Quarterback to take him the distance and never knocked on the door of another Super Bowl.

:lol: Is Cain a Parcells guy? Is this what this is all about? Parcells won 60 percent of his games with his last two clubs, and was 56 when he took the Jets job. He won exactly 50 percent of his Patriots games, so from ’93 ’til the end of his career, he won at a .533 clip. By Cain’s theory, maybe Parcells’s “gone south” age was 52.

Finally, Cain writes this:

Bill Belichick is 62-20 since the Patriots famously choked away an undefeated season in Super Bowl 42.

:lol: I’m guessing this is the real point of the entire column: Cain’s one of the loons who thinks he’s owed a perfect season. And by that standard, 62-20 ain’t gonna cut it, mister.

It’s just perfect that he’s got that record in there, though. He gives a handful of examples of coaches who went just over .500 in the twilight of their careers, then cites Belichick’s .751 mark in a column trying to prove it’s happening to him, too. Just perfect.

What Cain doesn’t show is:

  • A consistent target age when things “go south” for coaches;
  • A standard number of years over which the “going south” occurs (11 years for Noll, 7 for Landry, 10 for Shula); and
  • How any of this relates to Belichick.

The only thing he does show is that these guys all retired between ages 59-65. And maybe that’s Cain’s point: that someday Belichick will retire, and then probably go south. I doubt it, though; Bill’s a Nantucket guy.

Edit: I see in Cain’s #^$@ty analysis, he just used regular season records only (which gives him something in common with Bryan O’Leary; real shocker there). I had included Belichick’s full record before, but adjusted it to regular season only so the comparisons would be apples to apples.


The Rolling Stone piece could have been a decent piece had it stuck to being investigative. But it suffers from the same problem you see throughout journalism: too little reporting, too much opinion, too little vetting. The main author did some actual legwork and got some decent scoops (the PCP, carrying the gun everywhere, more on the the violent incidents in college, Meyer covering up for AH, AH with Belichick in Indy, AH skipping out on the workouts, etc.).

So the next step is the vetting. Does he have the goods? Are the sources credible? The meaty allegations were all anonymous sources close to the Hernandez family or anonymous sources close to Lloyd. And like Volin noted, the author quotes them in one paragraph, then calls them all thugs and crooks in the next. No red flag for the Rolling Stone editors?

The author brought up the same “multiple failed drug tests” accusation Bertie did at draft time. But like Bertie, he doesn’t have the goods:

As a sophomore, Hernandez was benched for the season opener, meaning he’d likely failed drug tests over the summer. But Meyer denied it, saying he “wasn’t ready to play,” again giving cover for bad behavior. “Meyer kept us at such a distance,” says the reporter, “or flat-out lied, that we couldn’t verify a pot suspension.”

“Likely” failed drug tests. No fire, just smoke. He follows that with this:

Hernandez would fail other drug tests, according to reports, and should have faced bans for up to half a season, per school regulations. Instead, he didn’t miss a single snap

What reports? More rumors like the last guy? Maybe Bertie’s unsubstantiated claims? It’s become an epidemic, this printing of rumor as fact simply because somebody printed it elsewhere.

How about the Belichick apartment story:

Belichick, per a close Hernandez associate, had told him to lay low, rent a safe house for a while.

“Close Hernandez associate.” So the provider of this big hearsay quote, which one is he: one of the gangsters or one of the thugs?

One of the funniest things to me is even the local Gainesville reporter wouldn’t go on the record, and he’s the source of two of the juicier stories: the waiter with the ruptured eardrum and the alleged stoplight shooting. Why is that guy anonymous too? Are these stories he won’t write for his own paper? If so, why are they printable for RS?

The Patriots claims are too abundant and too laughable to call out every one. Belichick aggregating power? He’s been the decider since day one. Only the Patriots would have drafted Hernandez? Please. Other Patriots calling Hernandez a “loner”? How ominous. Hernandez “practically ran up a banner saying STOP ME! I’M OUT OF CONTROL!”? Call me when he literally does that.

And I love the imagery: “cohort of thugs”, “stone-cold gangsters”; “smoke chronic and carouse.” It sounds like something from a 20-year-old Snoop Dogg video.

In short, it’s a lot of smoke without the goods for a fire. A few of the revelations have enough meat to print, but Rolling Stone features have to be ridiculously long (look at Taibbi’s work) and ridiculously detailed. So all the crap stories go in with the solid ones, the innuendo side by side with the fully vetted. I’d even bet Borges wasn’t part of it to start, but was brought in to help fill out the story to acceptable RS feature length.

With the baseless allegations being taken as fact, it’s reminiscent of the second shoe drop part of Spygate, when Tomase, Fish and Bishop within a day of each other wrote their speculative stories about Matt Walsh. Three months later, we learned it was bullshiit, but the CW that came from it was the Patriots were guilty. “The Patriots knew!” will be the lasting storyline from this one, even though Solotaroff has little more than speculation to that end.


I Swear, These People….

Why are people in a profession who are supposedly paid to “know” and discover things in practically any way they can,  have known virtually nothing about AH’s dealings until the murder happened?

How can these people say it defies common sense to claim the Patriots knew little or nothing, when they themselves knew little or nothing?

They shouldn’t assume the Patriots are an octopus-like version of the FBI or the Nixon White House, just because they have highly-paid employees, like to try to control information when they can, and not tell you pukes about which hamstring a guy pulled. It doesn’t mean they’re following their players 24-7.

I swear, these people. They think that because BB is tight-lipped in a press conference that he’s J. Edgar Hoover with his secret police or something.


On The Ben Volin Piece Today…

I just don’t see value in the Volin piece, so maybe you can help me.

At first he says you portray his family and friends as a bunch of gangster losers yet they seem to be your primary source, which I think is a sensible question. That was a good start. I also like that he laid into the Briggs/Mendes thing as being silly.

But then he says;

Yeah, PCP, I can see that, and here’s how he could get away with it in terms of the drug testing policy. No challenge.

Guns? Yeah I can see that too. No challenge.

Then he really starts to lose me with how much of a mind-bender it would be if Belichick had recommended laying low at a second location. Why would that be a mind bender, exactly, if the boss recommended you distance yourself from your underworld friends and protect yourself by going somewhere else? These guys are so stuck on that ‘flophouse’ angle that you’d think Belichick was circling real estate listings in the paper for places to stash guns and drugs. That’s just a stupid statement. What’s so mind-bending about it?

Then, he says he can buy the PCP angle, he can buy the guns angle, he can buy that he skipped out on rehab and blew off Tom Brady, but he simply cannot buy that Belichick would threaten to cut him ‘just months’ after signing him to a massive extension. Here’s why that doesn’t make sense. It would cost too much!

First, didn’t they just cut him and end up in exactly that position? Second, those few months he speaks of seem pretty eventful to me. You lose a championship game at home, decisively, and instead of everyone recommitting to the next try, Hernandez apparently gets flakier and flakier until he shows up in Indy telling the coach he thinks somebody’s going to kill him, goes out to California to rehab and work out and does neither….those kinds of things might make you rethink your position, is all I’m saying. Listen to Volin, though, and there’s no chance they would have ever dealt with him if he hadn’t killed somebody.

Then the whole ‘poor Bob has many business interests and spends 15-20% of his time on the Pats and shouldn’t be expected to know everything’ is ludicrous. He’s one of most visible owners in the world. I can only imagine how much we’d see him if he spent more than 15% of his energy on it.

And then he ends the piece by pointing the finger at Belichick while providing no more detail than the Rolling Stone article did regarding what he knew and when he knew it. All we get is “they HAD to know.”

I”m always happy to see somebody fact check Ron but that was pretty lightweight in my estimation.


One thing on that game that I didn’t see before:


Because the play was initially ruled a fumble, instant replay rules required the referee to see “incontrovertible visual evidence” on the replay that Brady had not “tucked the ball into his body and then {lost} possession” of it before reversing the original call on the field. In 2012, on the ten-year anniversary of the game, Coleman told ESPN that he did not see Brady lose the ball, and, as NFL refs were trained to do in this situation, ruled it a fumble because that call could be reviewed while an incomplete pass could not; once he saw a replay, Coleman quickly reversed his previous ruling, telling ESPN it was an “easy” call.

(About 2 minutes in)

I didn’t know Coleman was the one who made the original fumble call, and only made that call to keep review options open. Had it just been called an incomplete pass (which isn’t reviewable) from the start, would there be quite the same furor over the call?

I’m sure there would be from the Raiders, because they ***** about everything. But had it been called an incomplete pass from the start, I don’t know if the term “tuck rule” enters the lexicon in quite the same way. It just would have been seen (and forgotten) by many as a bad call. It was the “tuck rule” part of it that made it memorable over the hundreds of other bad officiating calls that affected playoff advancement (such as Mike Renfro’s TD catch in 1979 vs. the Steelers).


BestofBSMW has obtained a copy of this report:

Ron Borges: Will try to be a bully, but then will try and cozy up to you by talking union stuff. Hates the coach, will say anything that comes to his twisted mind about him. Was good friends with Drew Bledsoe (QB before Tom).

Mike Reiss: Super nice guy, but will tend to drift back to 2009 without warning. He is slowly being assimilated by the thousands of insane fans that participate in his chats and mailbags. Good with snap counts.

Albert Breer: Douchebag of the highest order. Thinks he knows the game. Talks nonstop about Ohio State, when in reality he was not accepted to Daddy’s alma matter, Michigan. Feel free to “accidentally” knock him over in the locker room.

Shalise Manza Young: Not really interested in football, just wants to hang out and talk with the guys. Complains when she can’t. Doesn’t like working weekends, holidays or nights. Will get you caught up in a conversation about handbags if you’re not careful.

Tom E Curran: Wiseguy. Generally fair, is increasingly calling out his colleagues ************, which puts him in good graces with us.

Peter King: Personna non grata. Talking to him is an automatic benching.

Greg Bedard: Gets technical with the game, still shaking off the Joe Sullivan slime, although aligning himself with Peter King (see above) will bear watching.

Ben Volin – Clueless nitwit.  Easily distracted.  Aspires to be Nick Cafardo someday.

Mark Farinella: Calls himself “Fearless.” More like “Bottomless Pit.” Easy to avoid if you just stay away from the buffet. Will usually just write something about Mr. Kraft’s Illuminati connections anyway. Keep him away from wicker chairs.

Hector Longo: Is not allowed to nap on the couches despite what he may tell you. Has been known to take food from player’s lockers. Try to keep foodstuffs with nutrional value in plain sight as he’s never been known to take any of that. Even after practice, the smell is probably him so best to have one of those pine trees around for emergencies. You’re not required to spell out words for him that he doesn’t understand.

Mike Silver: Hipster dufus, fabulist, inexplicably tight with Tom Brady, Sr.

Steve Burton: Use enclosed laser pointer to distract him.


The King of Nothing:

Coaches using preseason games to evaluate the roster! How groundbreaking!




If Felger and Mazz Existed in 1984

Watched Game 7 of the ’84 Finals on NBATV last night – after the game, Bird said that he ‘won this one for Terre Haute.’  Can you imagine the shiitstorm in Boston if that happened today?

What is he thinking, Tony?  This… this… hick from French Lick – Tony, he even got the TOWN wrong! – can’t take one second – ONE SECOND! – to thank the people who braved the 100 degree heat in the Garden last night?  Sweating their balls off?  He insulted YOU.  He doesn’t CARE ABOUT YOU.  The minute his contract’s up, he’s signing with the Pacers, Tony!  The window has closed for this team, Tony – sure, they beat the Lakers.  *Ooooh!  The Lakers!  They’re so tough!  They TURTLED because that PIECE OF GARBAGE McHale decked Rambis in Game Four!  They lost, you didn’t win!  MCHALE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED FOR THE SERIES!  

They didn’t beat Philly, Tony – they’re lucky the Nets knocked the Sixers off.   It took them SEVEN GAMES to beat the KNICKS!  The overrated KNICKS?   SEVEN GAMES!  THEY COULDN’T WIN A GAME IN NEW YORK! 

But Bird – How could he do this to YOU?  His head’s not here.  He’s leaving, Tony – he’s gone.  I’m telling you.

You’re absolutely right, Mike…

Terre Haute Tony, is he referring to the federal prison in Terre Haute?  Does he have friends there?  Larry Bird won this championship for convicted felons, we’re talking the worst of the worst.  He doesn’t care about you, he’d just as soon stab you in the back, literally, for someone doing life for murder.  Larry Bird loves murderers more than you.

@!&%in’ A right, Mike