My goodness, that Wilbur column does not make him look good. At all. He's also being very defensive on Twitter.

The other columns I would have mentioned (the Yahoo one, Bruce Arthur, etc), people got to. Thanks for the Barstool links, I generally avoid them, but that was good stuff.

Yes, Welker should have caught the ball. But there was more that could have been done in the game to have won, other than him. So it's /not/ all on him, or on Brady.

OK, sure, Satan, whatever, but if you're using Austin 3:16 in /2012/, you are grasping at straws.

Gresh & Zo: Get more up to date material. Like, I dunno, something from the 21st century?

I did like the Bruins post-game and the SportsHub guys on afterwards (Johnson and Flynn, I think?) Because they did say that basically Marchand wasn't dirty but it wasn't a good hit, and the Bruins were undisciplined. (Though Beers seemed convinced it would be fairly simple to be more disciplined during the playoffs, to which I'm like, "What, just magically?")

Also: Gresh has in fact been one of the "there is no way the Patriots can lose this game" crew. I am most irritated by him when he is arrogant and blustery, so I'm just thrilled at this. Bleh. (I don't actually know what Zo's saying about it, because he keeps getting overwhelmed by Gresh's bluster. I like Zo better with other people.)

And, since I failed to notice it til Davis pointed it out, Gino Capelletti was doing the analysis on that call. (Well, "analysis" -- anyway, he was the person not doing play-by-play.)

I was listening to the Pats in the car while driving hither and yon for family things.

I was always a TV person until last year, so I don't have the basis for comparison, of having heard them in their prime. But Gino's just not there. He's hesitant, when he forgets names or doesn't know them, it throws him off his rhythm, and he too-often trails off at the end of sentences. (This is aside from the fact that even when he does have the facts to hand, Zo has a more up-to-date take.)

Gil, as I've said before, just needs a better spotter.

I don't /mind/ Tanguay, but I don't think he'd leave room for thought, or reactions, or non-manufactured emotion. Dale's not good enough, either, but he's better than Tanguay.

I'm with you; Bradford's good. I do think his radio work's improved, even with Minihane. (I can tell because Minihane pushes his agenda and Bradford sticks to facts and opinion based on reasonable conjecture from those facts.)

I also enjoy Flannery and Pete Abraham. (Abraham may be too cynical on Twitter to be a long-term objective success, but in the meantime, he's funny, so it all works out in the end.)

I've discovered, after not listening to The Big Show for a few months, that Ordway occasionally shuts up. Glory be! More specifically, the show (Holley, Ordway, and the producers, I assume) have found a way to let Holley talk -- Ordway's positioned as In Charge, but (and this is important) Holley and the show's mechanics combine to undermine that. They're doing very well with it. (The show's still annoying, but at least Holley's not disappearing anymore.)

As for your list -- Yes, yes, God yes, dunno her, dunno him.

What's so bad about Merloni? Or, rather, why Lou and not Mutt, too? Because ew.

I read it. I mean, for sure not all of it (the college football stuff, no thanks), but I scan for folks I'm interested in, etc. (And being a woman and all, I'm not, ostensibly, Simmons' usual audience.)

Lordy lou. So someone with power over Andrews harasses her somewhere where she literally can't escape, and ESPN goes full court press to deny everything. Way to try and bury your pervasive structural problems, ESPN.

Also: Endearing? Not so much.

(And Harrison's less taking shots at the defensive players, and more at the coaching. Which is an important difference.)

Honestly, Scovell's piece was fluffy and very self-centered. (I mean, it was obviously supposed to be, but it rubbed me the wrong way.)

Chad Finn linked to a Sports Illustrated piece that was way better.