With the Pats on TNF and on the bye, I’ve got to watch some other prime time games and can’t comprehend how ridiculous some of these prime broadcast crew (CBS/NBC) seem to consciously do everything to protect PManning from any criticism. It’s ridiculous, it’s Kubiak’s offense if he falters and when he succeeds, it’s because he’s allowed to command his offense. It’s astonishing how they can be opposite and critical of Brady. That when Pats succeed, it’s because of McDaniel’s. Your thoughts?

Honestly I tune the announcers almost entirely out and that’s if I’m not watching the game on mute, which I usually do for non-Pats games or ones they’re losing.

I relate this to sports radio too, where these guys have to talk for three hours and they have to provide a narrative, and they’re almost assured to say something dumb or have a forced take. Without forced narratives football can actually be pretty boring. 

I mean I think my blog is generally pretty boring because it’s realistic in its perspective. I don’t really deal in hot takes,  I like a calm level-headed, long-term strategic approach, but if you’re in the big media you can’t really do that. The team either has to suck or be headed for 16-0. Peyton Manning is either DONE or hanging in there for one last title run.

So I don’t really listen to who gets the credit or the blame from the announcers. Boiled down, it’s the Brady or Belichick debate. Would Belichick be the same failed coach in Cleveland without Brady? Or would Brady be just another out-of-the-league 6th round pick without Belichick? The media would have you believe one of them is along for the ride with the other.

But the truth is that they’re intertwined in a way that cannot be broken. Belichick was smart enough to evolve the team to Brady’s strengths. Brady worked hard enough to develop those strengths along with his weaknesses. Together they made what the Patriots are today and you can’t extract either of them from that equation.

As always it just goes back to IGNORE THE NOISE.