...sike! FUCK YOU PATRIOTS, LOL
Nah, just kidding. I still feel it was the wrong move, but I'll back off any accusations of incompetence, any blanket statements about it being an indefensible decision (I'm downgrading it to 98% indefensible), and any threats I might have made regarding the retrovirality of certain franchise employees. Furthermore, I will give the Patriots a little bit of credit, for obvious reasons. I've read some counter-arguments on the World Wide Web... here and here are good ones, albeit not entirely valid given the free pass the Pats brass gets on being a bunch of dicks. The take-home message is that they have not screwed up royally on a single thing, nor quasi-royally, nor semi-royally, nor even consort-ly, since this run began. That means something, I guess.
But despite giving them some credit, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt. There's a difference. I don't think they know about some big secret that would change the situation in any meaningful way. I still think it came down to a small amount of money that they decided would be better spent on "Big Play" Chad Scott. Easiest question of the week: who would you rather have... Paul Edinger and Chad Scott, or Adam Vinatieri? I refuse to defend the Pats' decision there, and it would take some spectacular-ass revelations to change my mind. I won't dismiss them entirely for this one mistake, though. They have earned the right to a mistake, even a grave one like this.
That said, it still hurts. First the aura-busting loss to Denver, now the aura-squishing absence of Vinatieri. My three Super Bowl rings in four years are rusting over from all the tears. I may be a champion (even though I don't drink like a champion) and I've definitely gotten my money's worth, but I still have feelings and loyalties that I want to honor.
Nah, just kidding. I still feel it was the wrong move, but I'll back off any accusations of incompetence, any blanket statements about it being an indefensible decision (I'm downgrading it to 98% indefensible), and any threats I might have made regarding the retrovirality of certain franchise employees. Furthermore, I will give the Patriots a little bit of credit, for obvious reasons. I've read some counter-arguments on the World Wide Web... here and here are good ones, albeit not entirely valid given the free pass the Pats brass gets on being a bunch of dicks. The take-home message is that they have not screwed up royally on a single thing, nor quasi-royally, nor semi-royally, nor even consort-ly, since this run began. That means something, I guess.
But despite giving them some credit, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt. There's a difference. I don't think they know about some big secret that would change the situation in any meaningful way. I still think it came down to a small amount of money that they decided would be better spent on "Big Play" Chad Scott. Easiest question of the week: who would you rather have... Paul Edinger and Chad Scott, or Adam Vinatieri? I refuse to defend the Pats' decision there, and it would take some spectacular-ass revelations to change my mind. I won't dismiss them entirely for this one mistake, though. They have earned the right to a mistake, even a grave one like this.
That said, it still hurts. First the aura-busting loss to Denver, now the aura-squishing absence of Vinatieri. My three Super Bowl rings in four years are rusting over from all the tears. I may be a champion (even though I don't drink like a champion) and I've definitely gotten my money's worth, but I still have feelings and loyalties that I want to honor.
posted by Jeff at
12:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home