Archive for the ‘Dan Patrick’ Category

Don Shula famously referred to New England Patriots Coach Bill Belichick as “Belicheat” recently, and a host of NFL apologists dutifully lined up to downplay the New England fraud in three Superbowls, proved for all time by the Spygate cheating tapes and their destruction by Richard Nixon — whoops, I meant Roger Goodell.

What was on those tapes?

What was on those tapes?

A core part of letting New England off the hook is that old standby “Everybody Does It” (EDI), an excuse so powerful it has been trotted out to excuse all manner of infamies, including felony crimes committed by Bill Clinton, etc.

And so I enjoy when this monolithic “EDI” excuse is ripped apart, either vigorously, or casually, which is even better.

A recent case in point is from former NFL player Ross Tucker, who guest-hosted the Dan Patrick radio show last week. Mr. Tucker was an offensive lineman who played on several pro teams, including the Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, Ross TuckerBuffalo Bills, Cleveland Browns, and yes, the cheating New England Patriots.

And so, here was a back-and-forth between Tucker and Andrew Perloff on January 21, 2015:

Perloff: “Isn’t everybody guilty of something, Ross?  I mean all 32 teams, is it, as you said, it’s kinda, I don’t know…”

Tucker: “I don’t know the answer to that, and I can tell ya, most of the other teams I was on I don’t remember anything like that…”

Boom, there it is. But he left a little loop hole in his answer by saying “most of” instead of “all of”.

However, this get cleared up immediately by Mr. Tucker, who goes on to say

…although I do remember my rookie year that when were in Washington, we thought we knew some of the hand signals that the Cowboys had.  This should be noted, though, that’s not illegal, to try to steal signs.  It’s just illegal to videotape them.

Right, Ross Tucker, exactly: videotape them as the New England Patriots did throughout their “dynasty” years, which were actually their fraud years. What the Patriots did is illegal, and not something you saw when you played for five other teams.

What makes Belichick and Brady the frauds that they are is that the Patriots took an acceptable level of opponent espionage and pushed it past the boundaries into a destruction of the integrity of the game: one of their guys actually walked over to the opponents’ sidelines (!!!) with a video recorder and videotaped the opponents’ play books.

What was on those tapes?

We will never know, because Roger Goodell destroyed them rather than allow the ugly truth to become known: Brady and Belichick and Mr. Kraft’s football team are an elaborate hoax.

0 wins

2 losses

3 disqualifications


Read Full Post »

The evolution of a career is always intriguing, and Dan Patrick’s career is no exception. I was not a big Sports Center watcher back in the days when he and a certain loony Liberal innovated the now ubiquitous sports highlights format, and I was not a loyal listener of his ESPN radio show (thought I flipped past it from time to time). When he left ESPN, and then launched a personal website foreshadowing his next move, I became interested.

In 2007 he launched his own radio show and in only a few years achieved broad national distribution along with a television simulcast. I have been a listener of this show from the very beginning and consider myself a fan; it has been a great ride. Lately, though, I feel like I am listening to a man who is losing his edge, specifically in two areas: laziness, and failure to ask the tough questions in interviews of his guests.

Dan is Lazy

I say “lazy” for several reasons.

The first is his over-reliance on certain callers to his show. As a listener to many radio shows (sports and political in nature) I understand the agonies that hosts must endure when taking calls from unknown people across the country: there are freaks and geeks and people who can’t get their words out; people who talk too long, too short, and everything in between. Fielding calls takes infinite patience and brilliance on the part of the host. Dan may be smarter than many, but he no longer seems to have the patience for this particular part of the game. So he cops out and goes to a roster of guys who are just not deserving of a daily or weekly spot on a national radio show. I should add that “Chris-in-Syracuse” gets an exemption from this criticism given his early claim to the real estate and because he is just weird enough to keep our interest, although at the same time he has lately been abusing the privilege and milking more time than he should be.

The second is Dan’s inability to come up with an interesting tid-bit of “what he learned on the show” each day (a nice piece of inventory for sponsorship that Dan created). “What he learned” is not so terribly interesting, mind you, but the fact that he asks one of his side-kicks to be the author of it is another example of his sloth.

The third reason is of far more importance to the declining quality of the show: Dan has chosen to replicate the Howard Stern Faux-Fighting-Family ecosystem that apparently earns big ratings in the culture but is an absolute bore to a thinking man’s sensibilities. This motif is one of a parental figure (Howard, or Dan in this case) playing favorites with certain “children” and chastising and scolding certain other “children”. Stern’s reliable doormat is Gary Dell’abate and Howard has earned more than $500 million yelling at him for his foibles (yes, with some naked women thrown in, but don’t underestimate the “family” vibration Howard has cultivated). Dan’s version of this is to chastise Andrew Perloff, a smart guy who apparently drew the short straw among his other “siblings” and has to ape that he is prone to making mistakes. The whole thing is asinine and an insult to the alleged superior quality Dan imagines that he offers to his listeners.

Why do radio hosts pursue this strategy, other than to attempt to earn Howard money? The human animal seeks the familiar, even if that familiar involves painful experiences. We all grew up in houses with occasionally angry parents, and so radio hosts either unconsciously or consciously try to recreate this emotional terrain for their listeners. There is no denying the power of the motif, but personally speaking I hate it and am not entertained by it. It is boring, predictable, and adolescent, and I expect a more sophisticated experience, especially from hosts who purport to offer one.

It is also the easy way out, and Dan is taking it now far more than when he started his show five years ago. He has become lazy.

Dan is Scared

I had begun to wonder a few years ago just how far beneath Dan’s lofty self-assessments he was getting in terms of his interview skills, and this really matters to him. I’m sure if Dan had to rank his professional attributes — the ones that really count for him personally — he would put interviewing near or at the top. Sadly, at this point, he has fallen into the middling crowd. I offer only one example, but it is comprehensive and effectively the death knell of a once-talented interviewer: his recent interview of disgraced former pitcher Roger Clemens.

By Dan’s own admission, he failed to ask the tough questions or challenge Roger’s obvious lies. After the interview was over, we were treated to more than ten minutes of a supposedly brutal self-assessment by Dan: “I should have asked him this, I should have followed up with that…”.  I say supposedly because after awhile it seemed to me that he was beginning to imagine that a self-critique would restore some credibility, as if the display of his knowledge of how he should have done it were an achievement in and of itself.

Sorry Dan, you ran scared and screaming from mr. Clemens, a man whom you disagree with on so many levels. I could make the analogy of Matt Lauer throwing soft balls to Hillary Clinton in 2008, but you were worse. You were worse because Matt Lauer does not pretend to be a tough interviewer.

You will say that “Hey, keep comparing me to Howard Stern and Matt Lauer, I’ll be king of the hill at this rate.” And I will say, sure, go ahead and use such defense mechanisms to mask the decline in your professional integrity.

Will the money be worth it? I think you know the answer.

UPDATE: Nov 14, 2013

Dan this week gave Jay Glazer of ESPN heaping piles of grief for not asking tougher questions of Rich Incognito, the football player embroiled in controversy over bullying a team mate.

Sorry Dan, but your interview with Roger Clemens was so pathetic — you were so scared, and so mute on all the important issues — that you have no standing whatsoever to give Jay or anyone any grief.

Man-up yourself first, and then critique your colleagues.

Read Full Post »

Let me first say that I am a Dan Patrick fan. I have followed his radio show since the day he launched it from the attic of his house, and it’s a great program.

Tonight he presented the Superbowl trophy to the New York Giants, including the MVP Eli Manning, and he couldn’t resist pushing the Peyton Manning issue with brother Eli.

It was inappropriate and crass on several levels, all of which Dan must know. And this is why I am disappointed: Dan is a smart man, yet he did this, which reveals him to be just another guy who’s success has gone to his head and who thinks it’s all about him.

How long before the infidelity and then the divorce, Dan? This is the pedestrian trajectory of the substantial majority of successful men.

You think you are different? We shall see, but tonight you took a step towards the dark side.

Read Full Post »

I like Dan Patrick’s sports radio show, but even a pro like him is just a gutless shill for the NFL. It’s downright disappointing. On today’s show he was asked by Andy Perloff whether he’d put Ben Roethlisberger of the Pittsburgh Steelers on the same level with Tom Brady of the New England Patriots if Ben goes on to win his third Superbowl this year. Dan said “no,” with conviction.

“No..No…I wouldn’t put him on the level with Brady.”

What’s that, Dan?

As we all know, the Patriots cheated in three Superbowls, using illegally procured videotapes of opponents’ play calling signals and schemes. The cheating tapes were so damning that the NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, summoned his inner Nixon and destroyed the evidence before it could fully be scrutinized by the media and public (including the public in Las Vegas, where Superbowl outcomes affect millions of dollars in sports gambling, and where a reversal of a previous outcome might create a rather crushing liability). Brady’s wireless helmet speaker was probably buzzing with stolen signals through three Superbowls, and this renders New England’s (and Brady’s) ‘victories’ null and void. There was obvious foul play, and Goodell destroyed the evidence.

And yet, even the likes of Dan Patrick, who fancies himself a maverick in the industry, will claim the Emperor’s robes are so very pretty, when in fact there are none in the picture. Roethlisberger is already a superior quarterback next to Brady because Ben has two rings and Brady has none.

So Dan, since you claim to like asking hard-hitting questions during an interview, here’s one to ask yourself: do you enjoy being Roger’s beehotch?

And Andy, here’s a suggestion for a future poll question on the show:

Roger Goodell and Adam Sandler slip off a ledge and almost fall to their deaths, but just in time Dan grabs them and has each one dangling by a hand. However, Dan’s strength is fading and he can only save one of them – the other will fall to his death. Whom does Dan save?

Read Full Post »

I want to express my gratitude to Keith Olbermann for being such a perfect example of the mental disorder known as Liberalism. In rare cases like the Keith incarnation, you get the pure stuff – uncut and unadulterated – and its disgusting nature can be sampled and catalogued properly in the zoo of Liberal doofuses.

Today we enjoy the entirely predictable self-destruction of the man: he has been suspended without pay from his MSNBC show as a result of his having made financial contributions to several Democrat candidates in the recent election. These contributions violated the network’s policies, and also confirmed what we already knew about Olbermann, namely that he is a hypocrite of the highest order. That is,

Olbermann’s contributions came after he lambasted News Corp., the parent company of Fox News Channel and NewsCorp, for its donations of $1 million each to the Republican Governors Association and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Is anyone surprised by his ignominious fall? I doubt it.

And when you look at the actual candidates he chose to support, you really get the 24 carat Liberal sickness: he backed none other than Raul Grijalda, the benedict arnold of Arizona, who almost lost his congressional seat to a no-name tea partier in a 70% Democrat-leaning district. His offense? Calling for a boycott of his own state in response to SB 1070.  Mr. Grijalda is a traitor to Arizona and to this country and should be deported immediately. His every breath while inside our borders is an insult to every citizen in this nation. He is the embodiment of the Enemy Within.

And Keith Olberman supported him.

…Bitch you belong in a zoo (23)

So thank you again, Keith, for being so perfectly insane. Your fall is no surprise, but please don’t stay away for too long – we need you, clown.

PS: Don’t bother calling your old friend Dan Patrick for another job you don’t deserve. He doesn’t need you any more and any sports segments you purport to do with him are unwatchable and unlistenable, as was confirmed this football season in your firing from NBC’s highlights show. He can’t seem to cut the chord with you for reasons we don’t understand, but if you love Dan the way you claim to, just leave him alone.

Read Full Post »

Humans are very predictable, and aliens observing us while planning an invasion would not need much analysis to wipe us out, or at least enslave us and have us lick the boots of a power-mongering dictator (Is Obama from Mars?). A persistent behavioral element of our human construct is the Icarus syndrome, which occurs when success gathers momentum and the individual riding the updraft thinks “Just a little higher!!” until his wings melt and he crashes to Earth.

Tiger Woods is the latest poster child for this syndrome and I have chosen him as the mascot for the Mastersen Icarus Alert, which the sasoc will sound from time to time in hopes of saving souls and livelihoods.

Today’s MIA call is for the benefit of Jon Stewart, of the Daily Show, and Doug Ellin, creator of Entourage.

Both of these men are flying ever higher in their career success and are showing some signs of mania as they p-push it real good. Can either of them enjoy the ride without giving in to that last bit of megalomania that can rip it all away?

Each of their success is undeniable.

Jon Stewart failed in his late-night talk show stint (I remember Sharon Stone, in the wake of her star-making turn in Basic Instinct, sympathetically offering to ice-pick the executives who canceled his show) but bounced back with The Daily Show, widely heralded as offering better world news in its fake format than network news programs do in their un-ironic real format. Excessive praise is a hallmark of the Icarus syndrome, and Stewart has enjoyed heaps and piles of it. One of my favorite sources is the NYT columnist Frank Rich, whose extremely frequent mentions of Stewart come across collectively as one big homoerotic overture (if unrequited love is painful, I’d say Mr. Rich is in total agony about now).

Of interest with Stewart is his change from being a smart and earnest comedian to being a smart and I love the sight of my own face and sound of my own voice comedian. Yes, the Daily Show requires its host to be snide and mocking, but I submit that Stewart has at this point absorbed the schtick into his very being, and therein lies a big difference. John Wayne reportedly took on in his personal life the mannerisms of the gun-toting lawmen he portrayed in countless movie westerns, and Stewart strikes me as a guy who really thinks he’s as smart as his dozen writers make him sound and that he’s influencing national policy at the highest levels. (I know Jon, I forgot to mention the cultural zeitgeist as well, sorry). Achtung Jon! This is a Mastersen Icarus Alert for you!

Doug Ellin is the highly successful creator of Entourage, a fun show on HBO that entertains a cross section of American culture (older, younger, and everything in between). Personally, I love the show. In keeping with a format originally masterminded and executed beautifully by Gary Shandling on The Larry Sanders Show, Ellin and crew incorporate numerous Hollywood actors and sports celebrities, and even a real billionaire or two, into the fictional show each week. It’s a feel good project all around.

That is, unless you cross Ellin, and then he’ll use the show to take pot shots. For example, there was the Seth Rogen dust-up last year:

“Entourage” chewed up comic actor Seth Rogen in Monday  night’s episode. Now Seth is biting back. The writers had their characters referring to Seth’s “ugliness … oddly fascinating” in a comic debate over whether Rogen could get a Katherine Heigl babe in real life. Rogen fired back to E!s Daily 10: “Yeah … I actually ran into Matt … Kevin Dillon in a Starbucks. And he’s like ‘You know, I’ve got to kind of apologize because apparently the guy who created our show doesn’t like you so much.’ “

Apparently Rogen admitted to making some “disparaging comments about the show,” but Ellin, a man with such towering success, need not have lashed out in such a petty way.

Another warning sign for Ellin was his interview with Dan Patrick earlier this year, in which he informed Dan that a promise made by Jerry Ferrara, one of the show’s stars, need not be honored by Ellin because Ferrarra was merely “Chris Chambliss” to Ellin’s “George Steinbrenner.” The air is gettin’ thin….. Achtung Doug! This is a Mastersen Icarus Alert for you!

What does this mean? It means that both of these gentlemen are starting to get the bends, and if they push a bit more, they may nuke themselves with a WMD (Woods Melt Down). With luck, the sasoc can save them.

Read Full Post »

Sasoc fights to preserve and defend the dative, accusative, and ablative cases inherent in the English language. This is because in the last 20 years otherwise educated people have feared that use of these cases makes them sound stupid, but they have it exactly backwards. While it is incorrect and stupid-sounding to say “Me and him threw the ball to each other”, it is also true that it is completely correct to say that “Dad threw the ball to him and me”. These days, the latter sentence becomes “Dad threw the ball to he and I”, which educated types say proudly, and wrongly.

Last week on a well-listened to national sports radio show, Tony Dungy, formerly of Indianapolis Colts coaching fame, had this to say about expectations for him and Rodney Harrison in their upcoming sophomore season of television broadcasting:

…I’m looking for good things from Rodney and I tonight…

No, Tony, that would be “from Rodney and me“, which is the ablative case.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »