What’s all the fuss about?
-
- January
- 30
I keep thinking about how stupid it is, all this reaction and overreaction to Plaxico Burress answering a reporter who asked him for a prediction by saying “23-17.”
So he’s predicting a Giants win. It wasn’t a guarantee. It wasn’t anything other than an answer by a confident football player. But Burress should have known better, especially since only a day earlier he was admonishing a reporter because his paper had taken someting and “blown it out of proportion” and adding that his editor should be ashamed.
Burress, in that instance, was referring to the story last week when he said some of the Giants’ receivers do some things as well or better than some of the Patriots’ receivers, and the headlines blared that Burress claimed the Giants’ receivers to be better than the Pats’ receivers.
He also should have known that anything mumbled during Super Bowl week, a week completely bereft of news, is more than likely to be blown out of proportion because of the sheer number of reporters and news outlets here, and the dearth of anything worth reporting.
I wrote a column on this topic for The Journal News and LoHud.com tomorrow.
Fire away with your responses.



Ernie Palladino






Yup, it wasn’t brilliant of Burress. In the media circus out there almost anything will become a big deal.
But he was right about what the Daily News did a few
days ago. That was pure b.s. by the News.
This time, if anything, Burress was giving too much credit to the Giants defense, as I think Brady also jokingly said.
17 points? If the Giants can hold NE to 17, then Burress should be at the racetrack every day this winter betting the horses.
If he said 34-31 Giants, I could say “reasonable.”
But he really shouldn’t have said anything at all.
But is this Pats’ “Perfect Season” book that’s already
being pre-sold getting as much hype as Burress is?