Around the 4-minute mark, he talks about the Giants and Eisen asks him about Miami. Mooch makes some pretty even-handed remarks about it, how the WRs left themselves open for criticism and they weren't preparing for the game on their off day along with saying that if the Giants won, we wouldn't be talking about this. You can listen to it.
One thing someone brought up was that on that Sunday, the Pats played in Miami and of course had the bye after. Did some of their guys stay down there to party and not come back? We'll never know, I suspect some did but maybe not under Belichick. Either way, the fact that our guys put it out there with the pictures as opposed to it being under the radar says a lot since we don't know where other players are partying. Mooch says we will hear about this for the entire offseason.
Steve Mariucci - (
New Window )
The logic doesn't work, at all. All of this boat trip junk is moral finger wagging nonsense from resentful fans. The optic only matters to you if they lose a game. Nobody cares at all that the 2011 team went nuts the night before a super bowl, because they won. Which tells you how little it matters that a player would party a full week before a game while missing no time and missing no practices.
It's obvious you don't read what I post but just want to state your opinion, I never said that "it" was why they performed poorly only that they would hear about this forever until they perform well in the playoffs. If you think that's not the case you are deep in denial. And yes they brought it on themselves and will have to man up and endure the ongoing criticism. If you don't agree that's fine but this situation will not change until they have redeemed themselves on the big stage
What, exactly, did they bring upon themselves? What is the message they are sending by having fun in Miami and taking a picture for social media in an age dominated by social media such that "selfie" is now a word used by every generation?
Is it that the media was going to talk about it incessantly? So what, they probably tune it out anyway. Plus, it's NY. The sports media is ALWAYS looking for a nonsense headline. If the players let every headline get to them, they would never be able to last in NY anway.
So what is it about the trip that bothers so many people? Is the implication that they don't care about winning? Is it that they are proclaiming that they already won the Super Bowl? Is it that they are going to stay in Miami all week and not prepare? Is it that they didn't give up their bargained-for day off to instead spend more time practicing?
The only thing they brought upon themselves were well-deserved jokes about their fashion choice and pose like it's a rap album cover.
Here is what they brought on themselves:
When you shine the spotlight on yourself before the big show and say hey look at me (which is exactly what they did) and then proceed to come up small you are going to look like assholes. So there you go!
And one last time I am not saying that is why they came up small just why they won't stop hearing about "it"!
What does a popular athlete posting on social media have anything to do with needing to "come up big"? but you could say that any time anyone posts anything on any social media platform about themselves it's "look at me."
If he sent out a Snapchat to his followers of himself eating a delicious meal in front of his big screen TV on his off-day instead of a picture on a boat, would that require him to have to come up big and back that picture up? Why is that any less "look at me"?
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding.
That's what I'm getting at. Why are you talking about it? Why are people bringing it up. It's a complete non-factor with regard to his of the Giants' performance.
The media talk about it because it's clickbait, and the fools and suckers eat it up like they are watching Real Housewives and all that other manufactured crap.
But what's the excuse for people who know that there's no connection between the two events from continuing to judge the decision with no argument other than "people are talking about it."
What does a popular athlete posting on social media have anything to do with needing to "come up big"? but you could say that any time anyone posts anything on any social media platform about themselves it's "look at me."
If he sent out a Snapchat to his followers of himself eating a delicious meal in front of his big screen TV on his off-day instead of a picture on a boat, would that require him to have to come up big and back that picture up? Why is that any less "look at me"?
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding.
Paul, this is not like you or I posting on Social Media, this is a person who has to cultivate Social Media for the value in revenue it brings in. Once that hit ANY public media that becomes the copy of the internet and it's inevitable it would go viral.
Then they decide to double down on it (much like he did with the kicking net proposal) with the Shirts off warm-ups that they made sure went out to everyone. The media loves to break someone down, especially one that is constantly playing to them. They have no one to blame but themselves and it will be a price paid for years. Whether it's unfair or not, that is the fact. When you demand the spotlight you get it for good or bad
Drops the mike and walks off.....
End of story. You hit the proverbial nail on the head with a 5 lb hammer.
Any further discussion is a waste of time and breath.
If he ended up getting cold because of the lack of layers and couldn't catch because he was cold, then criticize him for that display (though who knows if sleeves would even change that).
It people want to criticize him for taking a stupid picture, go for it. He opened himself up to that type of scrutiny.
I'm not expressing shock that Beckham's social media posts were shared and went viral.
I'm asking what has to be "backed up" because he makes social media posts and what the Miami picture has anything to do with his poor performance. What was the Miami picture suggesting that required he back it up on the field?
Did he hold up a sign saying "I don't need to prepare" or make any guarantees from the boat of the stats he was going to put up?
There is literally no connection between going to Miami and his performance on the field. None.
Yet, somehow, there are all these suckers for gossip suggesting an attitude of "that's what you get for going to Miami."
The things you do before a game MATTER
the things you do before a big game MATTER MORE
the things you do before a playoff game MATTER THE MOST
Five years from now Beckham (when he has matured, much like his defenders) will look back on this and wish he had never gone on the stupid fucking boat trip!
Again it's not causal to his performance but he put himself in a bad light.
This mentality is part of the problem, though you aren't alone. You know it had no effect, so why are you perpetuating the notion and manufactured outrage that it did?
Why are you blaming Beckham for other people buying into the foolish notion that the Miami trip caused his performance, and not disabusing those people of their mistaken beliefs?
If he ended up getting cold because of the lack of layers and couldn't catch because he was cold, then criticize him for that display (though who knows if sleeves would even change that).
It people want to criticize him for taking a stupid picture, go for it. He opened himself up to that type of scrutiny.
I'm not expressing shock that Beckham's social media posts were shared and went viral.
I'm asking what has to be "backed up" because he makes social media posts and what the Miami picture has anything to do with his poor performance. What was the Miami picture suggesting that required he back it up on the field?
Did he hold up a sign saying "I don't need to prepare" or make any guarantees from the boat of the stats he was going to put up?
There is literally no connection between going to Miami and his performance on the field. None.
Yet, somehow, there are all these suckers for gossip suggesting an attitude of "that's what you get for going to Miami."
Once again I don't give a shit and I don't think them going to Miami had anything to do with their play. But to sit here and say the scrutiny they are getting for those actions is wrong is naive at best. This is what the media lives for this fuels their clicks. Is it stupid? Sure it is but its the reality we live in and it is something they should be aware of
This mentality is part of the problem, though you aren't alone. You know it had no effect, so why are you perpetuating the notion and manufactured outrage that it did?
Why are you blaming Beckham for other people buying into the foolish notion that the Miami trip caused his performance, and not disabusing those people of their mistaken beliefs?
Wake up and smell the java dude, the whole football world is laughing at beckham now. You gotta realize when you ask for the limelight you have to perform. Stop with the childish why/how mommy I didn't do anything wrong! It is what it is stop trying to blame me and others for what these guys did. They are men and responsible for their actions, take your lumps and move on already!
The answer to all of those things are "no." In fact, Beckham was praised for his work ethic and focus during the week. So I still fail to see what they have to own up to, or what they are responsible for, or what they brought upon themselves by doing something completely unrelated to football on their league-mandated day off.
The answer to all of those things are "no." In fact, Beckham was praised for his work ethic and focus during the week. So I still fail to see what they have to own up to, or what they are responsible for, or what they brought upon themselves by doing something completely unrelated to football on their league-mandated day off.
Man if you can't see it, I can't help you.
The scrutiny they are getting for something completely unrelated IS wrong. I'm aware that the media is going to drum up this nonsense so I'm not naive to it, but it doesn't make it any less wrong or stupid. The media do whatever they can to bait fools who live for the drama and scandal. Those people should be mocked for their tastes.
But I do agree that this is reality and the players should be aware that the media and other idiots are going to make a big deal just because it happened. But who says the players aren't aware of it? If the players don't care that the media will pull this crap and correctly view the media as haters and trolls looking to drum up controversy, then why should they stop their legal, harmless behavior that had no material effect on anyone else?
I'd argue that any athletes who live their lives completely based on "what would Skip Bayless say?" will have a very hard time enjoying their lives. That's a brutal insecurity.
But the argument writ large is not that these players can't believe that the media is talking about their boat trip. The argument is that there is no connection between the two things, that it's a non-story, and that players don't owe the "fans" anything just because they went to Miami and that they certainly don't need to "back it up" -- whatever the hell that means.
Remember when Tom Brady was made fun of for his haircut and wearing Uggs? I have no opinion on mocking him for it. But imagine someone ripping his poor play and bringing up the Uggs and haircut saying that he shouldn't have dressed like that and that it was "me me me" to dress like that, and stating "if you're going to style yourself like that, you have to back it up on the field." What do those two things have anything to do with each other?
1. You say that what he does before the game matters (in reference to his trip to Miami).
2. You then say that it had no effect on his performance.
So which is it: did it matter, or did it have no impact on his performance?
It can't be both. If you want to argue that it mattered and caused his bad performance, then make that uphill argument, but at least declare it and try to back it up with facts (that don't exist).
Instead, you resort to the idea that even though it didn't have an impact, it put him in a bad light.
So, you've built up your whole argument around the premise that what he did was bad because of what other uninformed people are going to think even though you acknowledge that his decision had no impact on his performance.
So what? Why should Beckham or anyone care what wrong people think about them?
If the "bad light" is shone by people intentionally shining a bad light, then who cares about the light?
You also repeat that if he's going to do this thing that didn't matter, then he has to back it up. I've asked you ad nauseum to explain what he has to back up but you can't seem to find an answer outside of running to the next cliche.
1. You say that what he does before the game matters (in reference to his trip to Miami).
2. You then say that it had no effect on his performance.
So which is it: did it matter, or did it have no impact on his performance?
do you just live to argue or what, NOBODY gives a shit about the trip IF you play well on Sunday, If you SUCK on Sunday then EVERYBODY is going to point to the unnecessary boat trip!
It can't be both. If you want to argue that it mattered and caused his bad performance, then make that uphill argument, but at least declare it and try to back it up with facts (that don't exist).
Instead, you resort to the idea that even though it didn't have an impact, it put him in a bad light.
So, you've built up your whole argument around the premise that what he did was bad because of what other uninformed people are going to think even though you acknowledge that his decision had no impact on his performance.
So what? Why should Beckham or anyone care what wrong people think about them?
If the "bad light" is shone by people intentionally shining a bad light, then who cares about the light?
You also repeat that if he's going to do this thing that didn't matter, then he has to back it up. I've asked you ad nauseum to explain what he has to back up but you can't seem to find an answer outside of running to the next cliche.
Quote:
you have offered nothing but irrelevant cliches
1. You say that what he does before the game matters (in reference to his trip to Miami).
2. You then say that it had no effect on his performance.
So which is it: did it matter, or did it have no impact on his performance?
do you just live to argue or what, NOBODY gives a shit about the trip IF you play well on Sunday, If you SUCK on Sunday then EVERYBODY is going to point to the unnecessary boat trip!
It can't be both. If you want to argue that it mattered and caused his bad performance, then make that uphill argument, but at least declare it and try to back it up with facts (that don't exist).
Instead, you resort to the idea that even though it didn't have an impact, it put him in a bad light.
So, you've built up your whole argument around the premise that what he did was bad because of what other uninformed people are going to think even though you acknowledge that his decision had no impact on his performance.
So what? Why should Beckham or anyone care what wrong people think about them?
If the "bad light" is shone by people intentionally shining a bad light, then who cares about the light?
You also repeat that if he's going to do this thing that didn't matter, then he has to back it up. I've asked you ad nauseum to explain what he has to back up but you can't seem to find an answer outside of running to the next cliche.
I guess you just get off on continual arguing the same shit. IF you play WELL on Sunday then nobody gives a shit about the stupid boat trip, IF you SUCK on Sunday then EVERYBODY will point to the stupid boat trip!!!!
We aren't getting anywhere and It seems we are done here. The "what will people think?" routine has worn thin.
We aren't getting anywhere and It seems we are done here. The "what will people think?" routine has worn thin.
you really think it's going to go away because YOU don't think it's an issue, you are kidding yourself.
We aren't getting anywhere and It seems we are done here. The "what will people think?" routine has worn thin.
I will take a stab at it. The minute they posted that pic they attracted media and public attention on them going there. The by-product of that attention was that it became a talking point, an angle to a story that would play out in a week. It allowed the media to be lazy, to take the easy way out and prop this story up for a week, for the pre-game shows to work it in. They became the story instead of the game.
By virtue of the fact that this was THE STORY for the week, it then becomes a distraction to their focus on the game. Does not mean they were wrong to go there, does not mean it affected them or caused the shitty game by them, but without-a-doubt it was indeed somewhat of a distraction
By virtue of the fact that this was THE STORY for the week, it then becomes a distraction to their focus on the game. Does not mean they were wrong to go there, does not mean it affected them or caused the shitty game by them, but without-a-doubt it was indeed somewhat of a distraction
Who cares that they got media attention? Beckham is a celebrity. He is going to get attention when he goes out no matter if he posts it himself or if others take pictures of him. So long as he doesn't break the law or harm others during his personal time, and so long as he is ready and prepared to go to work on his work time, then he can do whatever he wants.
There is no evidence that the team was distracted because of the trip. Having to answer a few questions during Q&A sessions does not automatically mean the team was distracted. It's not as if the media were running onto the field in the middle of drills or were barging into film sessions saying "we have to ask about Miami."
It seems like the entire argument boils down to the idea is that it was a distraction to fans who would rather only hear about the team preparing for the game instead of hearing about a stupid, meaningless trip.
I agree. I would much rather have heard about football related news than the Miami trip in the week leading up to the game and in the aftermath of the game. But my frustration with the terrible and lazy media coverage is not with Beckham, but with the media and with the fans-- the ones who are making it a story but know it's irrelevant.
Quote:
I will take a stab at it. The minute they posted that pic they attracted media and public attention on them going there. The by-product of that attention was that it became a talking point, an angle to a story that would play out in a week. It allowed the media to be lazy, to take the easy way out and prop this story up for a week, for the pre-game shows to work it in. They became the story instead of the game.
By virtue of the fact that this was THE STORY for the week, it then becomes a distraction to their focus on the game. Does not mean they were wrong to go there, does not mean it affected them or caused the shitty game by them, but without-a-doubt it was indeed somewhat of a distraction
Who cares that they got media attention? Beckham is a celebrity. He is going to get attention when he goes out no matter if he posts it himself or if others take pictures of him. So long as he doesn't break the law or harm others during his personal time, and so long as he is ready and prepared to go to work on his work time, then he can do whatever he wants.
There is no evidence that the team was distracted because of the trip. Having to answer a few questions during Q&A sessions does not automatically mean the team was distracted. It's not as if the media were running onto the field in the middle of drills or were barging into film sessions saying "we have to ask about Miami."
It seems like the entire argument boils down to the idea is that it was a distraction to fans who would rather only hear about the team preparing for the game instead of hearing about a stupid, meaningless trip.
I agree. I would much rather have heard about football related news than the Miami trip in the week leading up to the game and in the aftermath of the game. But my frustration with the terrible and lazy media coverage is not with Beckham, but with the media and with the fans-- the ones who are making it a story but know it's irrelevant.
And I don't have any doubt he was, its about the obvious fact that by virtue of the press hounding him some degree of distraction will undoubtedly come into play