Columbus writer defends Mangini

Columbus Dispatch writer Michael Arace writes an article today defending Eric Mangini and says the media portraits of him are not accurate. He knows Mangini personally; they grew up in the same neighbofhood and Mangini was friends with his younger brother. He spoke with him after the Bengals game and says he could see the pain coming from the coach after the loss.

He admits that Mangini has made some mistakes but he thinks that if we give the coach time he can turn the team around. He thinks the stories we've heard from the media are overblown and Mangini is a smart guy who has a plan and hasn't lost his players. I guess we'll see if he's right.

It's nice to see someone stepping up and saying that Mangini isn't as bad as some have made him out to be. He must have some qualities as a coach to put up two winning seasons in NY and impress Lerner the way he did to get this job.

about 1 month ago Buckeye Brad 13 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting post. Thanks.
On the “we’ve played some pretty tough teams” thread…
Looks like Minnesota is going to hand it to Green Bay. It think one of the most interesting things is that Allen has 3.5 sacks tonight and a forced fumble. In our game against Minnesota, Allen had 0 sacks, 0 tackles and 1 assist. Thomas handled the guy and that is impressive. Thomas is a beast!

Brownsyup

by Brownsyup on Oct 5, 2009 11:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It is pretty fashionable to jump on Mangini right now. I know every coach isn’t going to be perfect, but my problem has really been with Daboll, who is directly responsible for a product on the field that had looked very poorly designed in the first two games.

It sounds like someone somewhere is learning from our mistakes on the offensive side of the ball, which is a good sign.

by rufio on Oct 6, 2009 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It’s less likely that someone would be objective about Mangini if they grew up in the same neighborhood and he is a friend of your brother. It amazes me that people don’t see that as obvious.

by elsandito on Oct 6, 2009 4:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If you read the article you’d see that he admitted this right off the bat in the first paragraph. But that doesn’t mean he’s wrong about him.

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 6, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You seem to think that admitting a lack of objectivity adds to the writer’s credibility on this subject. There’s a world of people out there who have no problem with their objectivity as it relates to Mangini, why waste your time on someone who does?

by elsandito on Oct 7, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one is objective. This writer is more biased than most, but admits his bias. I see that as better than someone who would claim to be completely objective (which is impossible).

Doesn’t mean he’s right about Mangini, but sports writers are wrong all the time.

by rufio on Oct 8, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So just because he used to know Mangini that means we can’t listen to anything he writes about him? That doesn’t make much sense.

There are plenty of writers who know nothing about Mangini who are bashing him for everything he’s done. How do you know they are right about him?

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 8, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t say that this writer’s lack of objectivity means that other writers are right. For all I know, they are all wrong. I’m just saying that I would rather read a defense of Mangini from someone who’s objectivity cannot be called into question so easily.

by elsandito on Oct 9, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

rec worthy. I doubt i one of my childhood friends would call me an a$$hole either

by Rocland on Oct 9, 2009 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair, he didn’t say Mangini was his friend, he said Mangini was friends with his younger brother. Were you friends with all of your younger brother’s friends?

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 10, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs