I thought I would do something a little different today. I've been wanting to do a wrap-up of the NFL weekend for a while, but couldn't find the right way to do it and keep up the extremely high standard for this blog (rolls eyes). So I figured I would just do it and see how it goes. I've called it "...Our Pets' Heads are Falling Off!" after the line in what may be my favorite comedy of all-time (though I could change my mind tomorrow) "Dumb and Dumber." I think it fits because the line was spoken in the movie when Harry and Lloyd were at the very end of their frustration with the world. Lloyd is so concerned about overreacting to how bad his and Harry's lives are with no job and no money that he freaks out about their pet parakeet's (Petey) head falling off when there is clearly a more obvious explanation as to why it happened. It reminds me of, well me, and thousands of other NFL fans who overreact to their team winning or losing in a given week. It seemed like a pretty funny and panicky title to be used when wrapping up the NFL action for the weekend. I thought the quote was relevant. If anyone hasn't seen the clip, here it is.
(As a side note, I could listen to Jeff Daniels say "His head fell off" for about an hour. The way he delivers that line is hilarious. I think what makes the movie so funny is that Jeff Daniels somehow matched Jim Carrey comedic intensity when Carrey was in his comedic prime.)
Denver Broncos 31 Pittsburgh Steelers 19
I was worried in MMQB last week about Peyton Manning and whether his diminished arm strength would give him issues on the field. That is what Peter King has claimed several times in MMQB, that Manning's arm strength would be diminished but he would still get the job done. I'm not going to say I'm not concerned because it was only one week, but Manning looked good versus the Steelers. Granted, he could struggle a bit over the next few weeks if his arm strength diminishes from throwing every week in practice and in games. Still, Manning took a few hard hits and got right back up, so he doesn't look as fragile as it was reported either. Manning looked good. I mean real good. Everyone come see how good Peyton Manning looks! If I'm a Steelers fan, I'm not concerned about losing this game as it relates to the rest of the season. Yeah, you don't losing, Denver was pumped to have Manning playing for them and it just seemed like all the momentum was on the Broncos' side during the game. This game wasn't a case of Denver dominating. Ben Roethlisberger got sacked five times, which tells me the Steelers offensive line isn't a great, and though John Fox only got to punt twice, I think he will still consider this game a success. I'm not sure I can live in a world where Knowshon Moreno is stealing touchdowns from Willis McGahee though.
Chicago Bears 41 Indianapolis Colts 21
The Andrew Luck apologists are probably out in full force today. I'm not going to overly criticize him, but writers like Peter King and pretty much every other NFL writer with access to a keyboard have claimed Andrew Luck is the next great NFL quarterback after his preseason performance. They said he would keep the Colts in games. Luck ran into a great Bears defense and the result was four turnovers. This bullshit about how Luck is going to keep the Colts in games was overblown. He will probably be a great quarterback, but he isn't at the point he can keep the Colts in games by himself as a rookie, so let's take a step back from the "Andrew Luck is the next Peyton Manning" talk. Good thing the Colts decided to invest mostly in offense during the draft. Giving up 41 points to the Bears isn't embarrassing at all. Mr. Cavallari had a great game also and showed that he simply needs receivers to be a good NFL quarterback. I was also impressed with Cutler's physique. Just three weeks after having a baby he looked like he only had a little bit of baby fat left on his body. He's been working out. I don't want to overreact to them beating the Colts at home, but the Bears are a team to watch. I didn't think they could win the NFC North, but I may be wrong.
Philadelphia Eagles 17 Cleveland Browns 16
Bill Simmons always wants his teams to get pity, but let's hear it for Browns fans. If we have to give pity out, don't they deserve it? Not only do Browns fans know the Browns are going to lose, but they know exactly how. Bill Voth, former Charlotte television talking head (polite/joking way of saying he used to be a television sports anchor) called the end of the Cleveland game exactly, before it happened. Browns fans new they were losing this game to the Eagles. I didn't like Ryan Tannehill and I really didn't like Brandon Weeden coming out of this year's draft. Some people were (naturally) comparing Weeden to Chris Weinke, but Weinke won his first game as an NFL starter on the road (that's a half-joke). This whole "I have maturity and am used to struggling because one time I played baseball in the minor leagues" crap is just that, crap. Isn't the supposed advantage of drafting an older quarterback that he is more mature and doesn't have as many growing pains as a younger quarterback? I feel comfortable saying Weeden wasn't a first round pick and the Browns wasted one on him. As far as the Eagles go...good things happened in the end, but they can't have Mike Vick throwing the ball 56 times and expect to win too many games. It's not like this was a blow-out or the Eagles were playing catch-up. Andy Reid's play-calling strikes again. I say that, yet LeSean McCoy had twenty carries. I'm pretty sure that's an error in the box score. Mike Vick had six turnovers too, so that has to make Eagles fans nervous. I can't help but wonder if/when the Eagles release Vick whether another team will be stupid enough to give Mike Vick a $100 million contract. Who says "no" to this?
Detroit Lions 27 St. Louis Rams 23
Matthew Stafford wasn't very good during this game. The Lions won, but Stafford was feeling kind enough to handing interceptions to the Rams prior throwing the game-winning touchdown to Calvin Johnson. A win is a win though. I don't know about Sam Bradford. I think he's more of a game-managing quarterback at this stage as opposed to a franchise-type quarterback. He's like the Shia LeBeouf of NFL quarterbacks. He's had success in his career, but he's also had a good script and good supporting cast around him. Once we take away the supporting cast, he can't carry the team on his own. Bradford still doesn't seem to have that stud receiver he wants/needs, but perhaps that was all a part of the game plan to only have him through the ball 25 times. It's good news for the Rams they hung tough with Detroit while on the road. Losing sucks, but that's a positive, right? Steven Jackson had 21 carries while Isaiah Pead, who I thought was supposed to be the guy spelling Jackson, got zero carries. Very even game that someone obviously had to win and the better team probably won. That says a lot about how far the Rams have come since last year though in just one game.
New England Patriots 34 Tennessee Titans 13
Stevan Ridley probably was the most searched player at about 3:30pm yesterday in most fantasy leagues. He's one of those guys who you were sure didn't get drafted and then you look and some asshole already drafted him. How the hell did you miss Ridley getting drafted? Tom Brady was his usual efficient self even with a broken nose (what will Giselle think about Tom's pretty face getting hurt? More importantly, does this make him a true Patriot in the eyes of some of the fans?), the Patriots tight ends scored a couple touchdowns and the supposedly-improved Patriots defense did look improved. For the Titans, Jake Locker led the Titans in rushing yards despite being nine attempts behind Chris Johnson. Locker also managed to be an accurate passer, but he did get hurt trying to tackle someone. He's like Favre! Gritty and loves to play with little kids---I mean play the game like a kid. Locker got injured on a play that was ruled a fumble but should have been ruled an incomplete pass, so if the officials were competent Locker would never have had the opportunity to get injured. So we'll gloss over that quickly since there is no need to comment any further on the officiating. Personally, I think Locker didn't get hurt, but instead he saw Tom Brady's broken nose and because Locker is such a gritty competitor like Brett Favre, he pulled a "Favre" and intentionally got (or claimed he was) injured so he could talk all week about how injured he is and how tough he is to play through the injury.
Atlanta Falcons 40 Kansas City Chiefs 24
For the past month we have heard and read about how the Falcons are super-serious about throwing the ball deep this year. It seems the Falcons were true to their word. Matty Iccccccccccccccccccccccccce played like the sort-of kind-of franchise quarterback I am told that he is and Julio Jones selfishly displayed his diva tendencies by selfishly scoring two touchdowns like he was the diva Gregg Easterbrook always knew he was. How rude of Julio Jones to only care about his own statistics. Matt Ryan, Shaun Draughn, and Matt Cassel all scored rushing touchdowns while Peyton Hillis, Jamaal Charles, and Michael Turner scored zero rushing touchdowns. Fantasy owners who made the mistake of starting Chris Johnson and one of those three previous running backs weeped and gnashed their teeth (points at self). It's a good thing Romeo Crennel isn't supposed to be a defensive head coach, otherwise giving up 40 points at home to the Falcons would be embarrassing. Matty Icccccccccccccccccccccccce the Understudy played a little bit worse than he usually plays for the Chiefs, but it isn't completely his fault. It's hard to win a game when you are expected to score 40+ points. Somewhere Joe Morgan is complaining Matt Cassel didn't "play to the score" enough and "didn't do enough to win the game."
Minnesota Vikings 26 Jacksonville Jaguars 23
I've had confidence that Blaine Gabbert was going to play better this year. He got very little help last year from his receivers and he was very young. So the super-short passing game of the Jaguars seemed to work. I didn't think Christian Ponder would be as good as he was yesterday. I can't figure out if this is just two bad teams playing each other or Gabbert/Ponder really are making a sophomore leap. Blair Walsh, who upon further research actually exists and isn't a fake name the Vikings kicker usually uses when checking into hotels, kicked a 55-yard field goal to win the game. Very impressive. Jacksonville controlled the ball, controlled the clock, and still lost this game. That's sort of a kick in the gut if you ask me. Checking the stat sheet, this is a game the Jags should have won. They had fewer penalties, more time of possession, and much better third-down efficiency. They had 4.7 yards per play, which has to improve.
Washington Redskins 40 New Orleans Saints 32
I'm impressed with Robert Griffin III much in the same way I was impressed with Cam Newton last year. Meaning I am short-term impressed and long-term interested to see how the NFL adjusts to him. The Redskins built a game plan around what Griffin does well and he absolutely played fantastic in a game against a pretty average defense. My real question comes when defenses adjust and take Griffin out of his comfort zone. Still, the Saints' fans were pumped up for the game and Griffin absolutely delivered on the road, so I give him credit for that. Saint Brees played pretty average (for him), but I'm sure that wasn't his fault. He had no knowledge he was playing that badly, so the fans can't really blame him for his performance. How do you expect Saint Brees to know he is playing badly? He is only a captain and the team leader, so anything that goes on or is discussed in the Saints locker room is foreign to him. Nobody told Drew Brees about a bounty scan---that he wasn't playing well, so how do you expect him to know? It seemed the Redskins were in Brees' passing lanes all day and the Saints ran the ball 10 times total. It's easy to talk about how great the Saints running game is when they are in the lead and have the defense on their heels, but when it comes down to it, I don't believe they can run the ball. I'm not sure this game could have been scripted better for Griffin.
New York Jets 48 Buffalo Bills 28
Because I am trying to be the piss in your cereal, I'm going to try to put this 48 point outburst in perspective. 14 of those points came from an interception return and a punt return. The Bills also kept handing the Jets good field position after two first quarter interceptions and the Jets defense gave up 28 points and didn't get a sack (not that sacks are the end-all, be-all, but they still didn't register a sack). It was a dominating game, but a game won by 14 points the offense didn't score a couple of short fields. It's a great win for the Jets, yet I think this win will only serve to unnecessarily raise expectations. I don't know if the Jets will score 48 points in their next two games. I get the feeling Bills management is at Ryan Fitzpatrick's contract and saying, "I've made a huge mistake." He handed the Jets the ball and momentum in the first quarter by throwing interceptions. The Bills new and improved front four didn't register a sack, QB hit, and one tackle for a loss. They have to be better than that. Mario Williams claims he was held the entire game, which I don't necessarily doubt, but that seems like a pretty convenient excuse. I doubt in one month the Jets fans are going to be booing Ex-backup QB Punt Protector Jets and seeing their team put up 48 points against an opponent. Not that the New York media cares. They see and expect the 2007 Patriots offense now, mostly because they are knee-jerk reactive idiots.
Houston Texans 30 Miami Dolphins 10
I feel bad for Ryan Tannehill. He has no receivers. I don't see how a guy who struggled to beat out Jerrod Johnson as the starting quarterback at Texas A&M as a 22 year old junior is expected to win games with this receiving group. That's how I will always see Ryan Tannehill. He's the guy who was put at wide receiver by Mike Sherman (his current offensive coordinator, who was fired by Texas A&M this past year because he went 6-6), because he couldn't beat out Jerrod Johnson as the starting quarterback until Johnson graduated. Only after Johnson's terribleness was displayed, and Johnson graduated, did Tannehill get named the starting quarterback. Ryan Tannehill the wide receiver would be a starting wide receiver for these Dolphins. For him to have a fighting chance to succeed, he needs receivers. Someone like Brandon Marshall maybe. The Texans defense didn't give up a touchdown all day, so they are as-advertised. They should have shut the Dolphins down offensively and they did. The Dolphins did "Hard Knocks" wanting exposure for the team. Little did they know their offense is going to be exposed this entire season. Zing!
San Francisco 49ers 30 Green Bay Packers 22
As we did not expect from the media-driven narrative about a matchup of two quarterbacks drafted in 2005, Alex Smith came in to Lambeau Field and absolutely efficiently managed the hell out of the game. That's not a back-handed compliment either. He was accurate, took sacks when he needed to, and somehow managed to overcome the "Crabtree Curse" to pull out the 49ers victory. The Green Bay defense couldn't stop Frank Gore and the 49ers offense, so they had to comeback during the second half. It's so hard to look at a Week 1 game and say it sets the tone for the rest of the season, especially with a team as talented on paper as the Packers. What this game told me is Alex Smith is still very comfortable in the 49ers offense and the 49ers defense is still very good. Even the best offensive teams can't come back if their defense can't get stops. It's almost like football is a team game.
Arizona Cardinals 20 Seattle Seahawks 16
There's a difference in the preseason and the regular season. I wasn't hopping on the Russell Wilson Bandwagon (yes, it is capitalized) until I saw what he did in a regular season game against an NFL defense. So hopefully next week against the Cowboys we will get to see that. I'm just kidding Cardinals fans! Wilson looked pretty average, even if his last pass to Braylon Edwards which would have won the game should have been caught. Of course if you are counting on Braylon Edwards to catch a crucial pass you are already courting disappointment. Wilson had four turnovers and showed that like every other NFL rookie quarterback he is still a work-in-progress. Kevin Kolb proved once again that if you don't put any pressure on him, lower expectations, and don't expect him to actually start an NFL game, then he can play really well. Assume he will suck and bring him off the bench, that is how Kolb feels comfortable. Plus, he would prefer you not expect him to come off the bench every game and play well. In fact, just continue to act like he has retired and he will pop up every once in a while to collect his paycheck and play well over a short span of time. Andre Roberts led the Cardinals in rushing, which I am sure pleases the Cardinals coaching staff to see when Wells/Williams had 15 attempts for 23 yards. It's not like they used high draft picks on those two players.
Tampa Bay 16 Carolina Panthers 10
Tampa Bay did an excellent job keeping the ball out of the hands of the Panthers offense. Contrary to what Mike Martz repeatedly stated during the game, Josh Freeman wasn't outstanding, but he got the job done. Doug Martin was very good and Tampa Bay did enough in the first half to win the game. Carolina refused to run the ball at any point in the game in an effort to show what cool and exciting plays they could draw up that also manage to lose yardage. I think it is a bit too early to pronounce the Bucs as contenders, especially since the passing game wasn't exceptional. It isn't too early to pronounce that the Panthers offensive line needs to block a lot better and give Newton time to throw the ball. This game was a case of one team being ready to play and another team not being ready to play. Also, Mike Martz is a terrible analyst. At one point he gave Ronde Barber credit for anticipating a ricochet pass that hit two other players...as if Barber pursued the play from his safety position fully knowing two players would touch the ball and it would bounce to him. Apparently Martz thinks Ronde Barber is telepathic. Mike Martz also stated Carolina needed to protect the quarterback better and stop running long pass plays. Somewhere Kurt Warner and Jay Cutler sat astounded at hearing this statement come from Martz's mouth.
Dallas Cowboys 24 New York Giants 17
Tony Romo continued his tradition of playing poorly when it doesn't count and Eli Manning continued his tradition of not playing well enough to win games until December. At least that's the narrative we are given by the media. As we were told, this is a great opening statement that really, really means something...at least until the media decides in one month that Romo is a choker and this game is completely forgotten. But in terms of this week, this game meant something and this is a HUGE win for the Cowboys...at least until December when the Giants play well and the Cowboys are seen as a team who has a roster full of losers. Such is life with a fickle and reactionary media. The Cowboys got a career game from Kevin Ogletree and this overshadowed an issue with penalties. This game is going to serve as Example A come December of a game where the media makes a Week 1 game sound like it means the world as a "statement game" when there are 15 games left to play and they draw conclusions they no longer find true by the end of the season.
Showing posts with label awesome tweets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label awesome tweets. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
2 comments It's Okay, This Column was Written by a Freelance Contributor
ESPN is an easy target for a lot of people. I include myself in that category of "people," in case you were wondering. I tend to focus more on ESPN's writers rather than ESPN as a whole, but the point remains the same in many ways when I am focusing on a specific writer for writing a column I thought was bad or very much disagreed with. Mark Cuban and Bill Simmons got in a Twitter fight, well it wasn't quite a "fight" since at this point Simmons had not responded to what Mark Cuban had said about him on Twitter. A Mark Cuban/Bill Simmons Twitter fight isn't quite a huge ESPN issue, especially since Simmons is only tangentially related to ESPN through Grantland at this point. I what caused a lot of Mark Cuban's frustration with Bill Simmons' Twitter comment (which I will get to in a minute) is his frustration with ESPN's coverage of LeBron and the discussion he had with Skip Bayless after the Finals were over.
There seems to be an overwhelming attitude at ESPN of "We are ESPN, we are big, so we are going to do whatever the fuck we want to do." When one of their employees is caught in a somewhat-scandal over using Wikipedia, ESPN comes back with a sort of "boys will be boys" type response. If it isn't a "boys will be boys" response, it certainly doesn't seem like a response that shows any type of concern for what was discussed about Lynn Hoppes copying and re-wording Wikipedia entries.
The exact statement by ESPN in that situation consisted basically of saying "it was an example of journalistic laziness and we've addressed it." This wasn't simply AN example of journalistic laziness, it was a pattern of journalistic laziness. There were repeated examples of Wikipedia entries copied and re-worded. Just look at how often Lynn Hoppes re-worded or copies a Wikipedia entry over the last few years. That's a pattern, not a single example, of journalistic laziness. It's not even laziness, that's outright copying. Laziness is doing this once or twice over a year or two, while re-wording or copying Wikipedia entries repeatedly is a pattern that shows Hoppes relied on this information to help write his columns.
No one wants to see Hoppes publicly executed or his body hung by a cross in the hot sun for an entire week to show his contrition, but to downplay this as a sort of incident that could result in a slap on the wrist or that it doesn't concern ESPN that other writers may be doing this is concerning to me. That's a pretty big deal to re-word Wikipedia entries or copy them like Lynn Hoppes did. Yet, ESPN doesn't seem to have a sense of urgency or concern in the statement they released. It's a "we've dealt with this already, so please stop talking about it" type of statement. ESPN wants us to continue watching and reading, but they seem displeased when having to give us a reason to believe that what we are watching or reading is an original thought. I feel like they want the public to trust them because they are ESPN.
It's a pattern that can be seen in other ESPN employees as well. I received an email recently from someone who stumbled across this blog and he linked a passage about Fred Jackson that Gregg Easterbrook wrote in TMQ. It was a passage where Gregg was showing the type of criticism that Fred Jackson had gotten and why he had not started at running back in high school. Gregg said Jackson was "too small" and "too slow." I wanted Gregg to cite exactly where he got this specific criticism of Fred Jackson. Gregg seems to do this all the time, quote certain articles that aren't linked. He did it when he called Julio Jones a diva last year and he did it when discussing why Fred Jackson didn't start at running back in high school. I searched at the time I wrote the TMQ post, but couldn't find anything. I didn't look in the most obvious place perhaps.
I didn't come up with much of the following the research, so all the credit goes to the kind gentleman who emailed me about this. I didn't ask if I could use his name, so I won't. Either way, he seemed to show me Gregg Easterbrook makes use of Wikipedia as well in this instance and I would bet this isn't the first or only time Gregg has used completely uncited criticism from Wikipedia in TMQ. It's one thing to use Wikipedia for facts, but Gregg used Wikipedia to cite an opinion as if it were fact from an actual scouting report of Fred Jackson out of high school, which I completely disagree with doing.
The TMQ post I wrote is here.
Gregg wrote the following:
Runner-up: Fred Jackson, tailback, Buffalo. Jackson never started a game in high school, being "too small" and "too slow."
I wrote the following:
Usually when a writer puts words in quotation marks he is actually quoting something that exists in literature. I'd love to see Gregg provide proof that Jackson didn't start a game in high school because he was "too small" and "too slow." This may be true, and I'm not English teacher, but I'm pretty sure if you put words in quotes they need to be an actual quote that exists and not the figment of the writer imagining what was said. Mostly likely Gregg did here what he usually does, which is deceive his readers into believing these were words used on an actual evaluation of Jackson's skill set in high school. He attempts to deceive his readers by putting "too small" and "too slow" in quotes as if this came from a specific evaluation of Jackson in high school.
It turns out I was wrong, Gregg did have a citation, he just didn't tell us about it. He seemed to have directly copied this evaluation of Jackson directly from Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page, which states:
Jackson attended Lamar High School (Arlington, Texas) and although he was a member of the powerful Lamar Vikings teams of the late 1990s, he never started a game in his two years on the varsity. Back then he was considered too small (5-8, 160 pounds) and too slow. He began his senior year as a third-string running back, and only after a knee injury to starter Justin Faust (headed to Stanford), was he elevated to second-string behind Tommicus Walker (headed to TCU).
The emphasis in red is mine from the Wikipedia entry on Fred Jackson that was emailed to me. So it appears Gregg Easterbrook enjoys the use of Wikipedia as well. The issue I have with this is Gregg isn't discussing a fact. It isn't a fact that Fred Jackson was considered too small or too slow. This is an opinion. Yet, it seems Gregg uses the opinion of Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page writer as empirical proof for why Jackson didn't start in high school. That's a bit shady to me. It's fine to use Wikipedia to research facts, but I'm not sure we can trust a Wikipedia entry to provide opinion-based information like whether a player was "too small" or "too slow" to start in high school. If this were from an official Scout.com or Rivals.com scouting report I think it has much more credibility...but not an evaluation of Fred Jackson on Wikipedia. Yet, that's the information Gregg Easterbrook relied upon. Who knew such a lofty and well-known writer like Gregg Easterbrook did his research in Wikipedia? Now I know why he doesn't cite or provide a link to a lot of the criticism he uses in TMQ. Most likely he's just looking for some sort of comment on the Internet which agrees with his point of view and he doesn't want us to know where he got the information from. I don't know what other conclusion I can come to.
So we know about the journalists of ESPN and their propensity to use Wikipedia. There have also been instances of ESPN freelancers doing whatever the hell it was that Sarah Phillips was doing and even making up interviews that were done with an athlete, even though the athlete denies there was ever an interview. In both instances ESPN hid behind the idea these interviews were done by freelancers, as if in some way they weren't responsible for content that was put on ESPN.com or any ESPN.com affiliates. That's the good thing about freelancers. You can blame them when something goes wrong, but also take the credit (by having the freelancer's story on your site) when the story is done very well.
ESPN said, in response to Awful Announcing questioning what had happened in the case of fake interview,:
"The story was written by a freelance contributor. We removed the story as soon as we discovered sourcing questions and are looking into those."
ESPN, much like in the Sarah Phillips case, is very quick to point out this was done by a freelance contributor and doesn't reflect on the journalistic standard ESPN wants to be held to. I'm sure you can excuse the audience's confusion since this article appeared on an ESPN.com site. This incident with a freelance contributor, which ESPN is in no way affiliated with outside of publishing his material on their website, had "sourcing issues" which I commonly refer to as "making shit up." I don't know what type of "sourcing issue" an interview published detailing an interview that never actually took place might be, but it sounds a lot less like a sourcing problem and more like an honesty problem.
It was clear from the Sarah Phillips incident(s) that ESPN doesn't hold their freelance contributors to as high of a standard as their ESPN-employed writers. It seems in their excuse-filled apologies ESPN treats their freelance contributors like the weird uncle-by-marriage of the company's online presence.
"Uncle Dave always drinks too much at weddings. He isn't our uncle by blood though, purely through marriage."
I understand that things go wrong and with all of the articles that get published on ESPN.com and their affiliates sometimes things go really wrong. I don't want ESPN to lay their soul bare in apologizing, but the excuse a person was a freelance contributor and some vague promise to look into "sourcing issues" with the interview doesn't feel right to me. You want your audience to believe the content on your site is informational and original, then don't you owe to your audience to not separate yourself from your contributor and then provide no promise of doing better the next time?
I can talk around this all day, but ESPN can get away with it. The reason they can get away with it is because they have no competition. That day will end though. ESPN will get competition and they will have to compete for their share of the sports market. Let's all keep waiting for that day. It will come.
So back to the Mark Cuban-Bill Simmons one-sided Twitter war. It's not even a war because in typical Simmons fashion, he hasn't responded. This is the same reason Bill doesn't allow comments on his columns. He doesn't want feedback and he ignores any criticism he gets because it discourages his own held point of view that many of the things he says and does are absolutely correct simply because he says and does them. That recent article on "The Onion" hit the nail on the head.
I think much of Mark Cuban's frustration stemmed from his appearance on "First Take" when he eviscerated Skip Bayless and others like him. He's tired of being second-guessed by those who don't have experience running an NBA team. I'm not going to defend the Maverick's moves this offseason, that's not the point, nor will I say the whole "he doesn't have experience on a championship team" statement is persuasive either. We all know Bill Simmons wants to be an NBA GM. He did nothing short of beg-without-begging to be the Bucks and Timberwolves GM over the last 4-5 years. This non-exchange with Cuban is part of the reason in my opinion Bill's being a GM of an NBA team can't happen. It's the major divide between being a journalist with an opinion and believing you can run an NBA team. Bill is great at documenting what happens in the NBA and his original Tweet I thought was funny and accurate.
Put it this way: I wasn't crazy about Elton Brand and Chris Kaman playing together in 2006 when they were still good.
But Bill is the guy who documents and writes the book of basketball. He isn't the type of person who creates and is responsible for the events in the book of basketball. There's a difference in a how a GM/owner wants to run an NBA team and how a GM/owner is able to run an NBA team. Bill is a writer. His ideas are sometimes good, but reality doesn't give a shit about great ideas. That's why I make fun of his "Who says no?" comments. A good idea is great, but the implementation of that great idea is hard to do. There are more than just two people with an opinion involved. Bill does a (generally) good job of documenting (and dissecting) what happens in the NBA. Bill has no idea what he would have done other than not sign Elton Brand or Chris Kaman. If he had an idea, I'm sure we would have heard it by now.
There is a divide between those who know NBA basketball and those who run NBA basketball teams. I think the divide is clear here. Mark Cuban responded to Bill:
@sportsguy33. They next smart personnel comment you mae will be your first
Mark Cuban deleted that Tweet eventually for some reason. Bill is a know-it-all type guy. It rubs people the wrong way. Dan Gilbert, the owner (I originally had Gilbert as the GM of the Cavs. As a commenter noted, that wouldn't probably end well) of the Cavs, actually Retweeted this comment by Mark Cuban at Bill Simmons. I wouldn't rank Dan Gilbert as one of the top 5 owners in the NBA by any means, but I find it interesting we have two of the most Twitter-active NBA owners showing ESPN's top NBA guy (he is ESPN's top NBA guy when it comes to opinions and influence...at least in my opinion) he doesn't have their respect. Maybe it is two owners being bitter or angry, but do we really believe Bill could be an NBA GM and deal with personalities like Mark Cuban and Dan Gilbert on a regular basis? I'm not sure he could. Running an NBA team is a different world from pretending you can run an NBA team because you think you have great ideas.
Of course then the one-sided conversation went downhill and Mark Cuban ruined his point when responding to someone defending Simmons...a guy named Mufasa-7000 (maybe he is a big "Lion King" fan?).
@mcuban @sportsguy33 Well to be fair, Simmons also didn't let an entire championship team minus the superstar walk away for nothing.
Followed by Mark Cuban's silly response...
@CmackChase @sportsguy33 possibly because he has never had any involvement with a championship team.
That's just silly. It puts Mark Cuban in a position to never be criticized by anyone who hasn't won a title. My point, and I think I do have one, is that Bill Simmons can't be an NBA GM/VP of Common Sense. He's good at what he does, which is get people to read his columns and NBA opinions. Bill Simmons did have a point. Elton Brand and Chris Kaman isn't a great combination power forward-center for the Mavericks. I think his debate after the NBA Finals win by the Heat still has Mark Cuban in a fit and he is overly-sensitive to criticism from anyone at ESPN at this point.
If Bill Simmons was a freelance contributor he could create an entire interview he had with Mark Cuban where Cuban admits he was wrong and try to pass this off on Grantland as a real interview that occurred. Or Bill could base all of his Chris Kaman or Elton Brand-related criticism on something written in Wikipedia. It seems that's the safer way for him to go.
There seems to be an overwhelming attitude at ESPN of "We are ESPN, we are big, so we are going to do whatever the fuck we want to do." When one of their employees is caught in a somewhat-scandal over using Wikipedia, ESPN comes back with a sort of "boys will be boys" type response. If it isn't a "boys will be boys" response, it certainly doesn't seem like a response that shows any type of concern for what was discussed about Lynn Hoppes copying and re-wording Wikipedia entries.
The exact statement by ESPN in that situation consisted basically of saying "it was an example of journalistic laziness and we've addressed it." This wasn't simply AN example of journalistic laziness, it was a pattern of journalistic laziness. There were repeated examples of Wikipedia entries copied and re-worded. Just look at how often Lynn Hoppes re-worded or copies a Wikipedia entry over the last few years. That's a pattern, not a single example, of journalistic laziness. It's not even laziness, that's outright copying. Laziness is doing this once or twice over a year or two, while re-wording or copying Wikipedia entries repeatedly is a pattern that shows Hoppes relied on this information to help write his columns.
No one wants to see Hoppes publicly executed or his body hung by a cross in the hot sun for an entire week to show his contrition, but to downplay this as a sort of incident that could result in a slap on the wrist or that it doesn't concern ESPN that other writers may be doing this is concerning to me. That's a pretty big deal to re-word Wikipedia entries or copy them like Lynn Hoppes did. Yet, ESPN doesn't seem to have a sense of urgency or concern in the statement they released. It's a "we've dealt with this already, so please stop talking about it" type of statement. ESPN wants us to continue watching and reading, but they seem displeased when having to give us a reason to believe that what we are watching or reading is an original thought. I feel like they want the public to trust them because they are ESPN.
It's a pattern that can be seen in other ESPN employees as well. I received an email recently from someone who stumbled across this blog and he linked a passage about Fred Jackson that Gregg Easterbrook wrote in TMQ. It was a passage where Gregg was showing the type of criticism that Fred Jackson had gotten and why he had not started at running back in high school. Gregg said Jackson was "too small" and "too slow." I wanted Gregg to cite exactly where he got this specific criticism of Fred Jackson. Gregg seems to do this all the time, quote certain articles that aren't linked. He did it when he called Julio Jones a diva last year and he did it when discussing why Fred Jackson didn't start at running back in high school. I searched at the time I wrote the TMQ post, but couldn't find anything. I didn't look in the most obvious place perhaps.
I didn't come up with much of the following the research, so all the credit goes to the kind gentleman who emailed me about this. I didn't ask if I could use his name, so I won't. Either way, he seemed to show me Gregg Easterbrook makes use of Wikipedia as well in this instance and I would bet this isn't the first or only time Gregg has used completely uncited criticism from Wikipedia in TMQ. It's one thing to use Wikipedia for facts, but Gregg used Wikipedia to cite an opinion as if it were fact from an actual scouting report of Fred Jackson out of high school, which I completely disagree with doing.
The TMQ post I wrote is here.
Gregg wrote the following:
Runner-up: Fred Jackson, tailback, Buffalo. Jackson never started a game in high school, being "too small" and "too slow."
I wrote the following:
Usually when a writer puts words in quotation marks he is actually quoting something that exists in literature. I'd love to see Gregg provide proof that Jackson didn't start a game in high school because he was "too small" and "too slow." This may be true, and I'm not English teacher, but I'm pretty sure if you put words in quotes they need to be an actual quote that exists and not the figment of the writer imagining what was said. Mostly likely Gregg did here what he usually does, which is deceive his readers into believing these were words used on an actual evaluation of Jackson's skill set in high school. He attempts to deceive his readers by putting "too small" and "too slow" in quotes as if this came from a specific evaluation of Jackson in high school.
It turns out I was wrong, Gregg did have a citation, he just didn't tell us about it. He seemed to have directly copied this evaluation of Jackson directly from Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page, which states:
Jackson attended Lamar High School (Arlington, Texas) and although he was a member of the powerful Lamar Vikings teams of the late 1990s, he never started a game in his two years on the varsity. Back then he was considered too small (5-8, 160 pounds) and too slow. He began his senior year as a third-string running back, and only after a knee injury to starter Justin Faust (headed to Stanford), was he elevated to second-string behind Tommicus Walker (headed to TCU).
The emphasis in red is mine from the Wikipedia entry on Fred Jackson that was emailed to me. So it appears Gregg Easterbrook enjoys the use of Wikipedia as well. The issue I have with this is Gregg isn't discussing a fact. It isn't a fact that Fred Jackson was considered too small or too slow. This is an opinion. Yet, it seems Gregg uses the opinion of Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page writer as empirical proof for why Jackson didn't start in high school. That's a bit shady to me. It's fine to use Wikipedia to research facts, but I'm not sure we can trust a Wikipedia entry to provide opinion-based information like whether a player was "too small" or "too slow" to start in high school. If this were from an official Scout.com or Rivals.com scouting report I think it has much more credibility...but not an evaluation of Fred Jackson on Wikipedia. Yet, that's the information Gregg Easterbrook relied upon. Who knew such a lofty and well-known writer like Gregg Easterbrook did his research in Wikipedia? Now I know why he doesn't cite or provide a link to a lot of the criticism he uses in TMQ. Most likely he's just looking for some sort of comment on the Internet which agrees with his point of view and he doesn't want us to know where he got the information from. I don't know what other conclusion I can come to.
So we know about the journalists of ESPN and their propensity to use Wikipedia. There have also been instances of ESPN freelancers doing whatever the hell it was that Sarah Phillips was doing and even making up interviews that were done with an athlete, even though the athlete denies there was ever an interview. In both instances ESPN hid behind the idea these interviews were done by freelancers, as if in some way they weren't responsible for content that was put on ESPN.com or any ESPN.com affiliates. That's the good thing about freelancers. You can blame them when something goes wrong, but also take the credit (by having the freelancer's story on your site) when the story is done very well.
ESPN said, in response to Awful Announcing questioning what had happened in the case of fake interview,:
"The story was written by a freelance contributor. We removed the story as soon as we discovered sourcing questions and are looking into those."
ESPN, much like in the Sarah Phillips case, is very quick to point out this was done by a freelance contributor and doesn't reflect on the journalistic standard ESPN wants to be held to. I'm sure you can excuse the audience's confusion since this article appeared on an ESPN.com site. This incident with a freelance contributor, which ESPN is in no way affiliated with outside of publishing his material on their website, had "sourcing issues" which I commonly refer to as "making shit up." I don't know what type of "sourcing issue" an interview published detailing an interview that never actually took place might be, but it sounds a lot less like a sourcing problem and more like an honesty problem.
It was clear from the Sarah Phillips incident(s) that ESPN doesn't hold their freelance contributors to as high of a standard as their ESPN-employed writers. It seems in their excuse-filled apologies ESPN treats their freelance contributors like the weird uncle-by-marriage of the company's online presence.
"Uncle Dave always drinks too much at weddings. He isn't our uncle by blood though, purely through marriage."
I understand that things go wrong and with all of the articles that get published on ESPN.com and their affiliates sometimes things go really wrong. I don't want ESPN to lay their soul bare in apologizing, but the excuse a person was a freelance contributor and some vague promise to look into "sourcing issues" with the interview doesn't feel right to me. You want your audience to believe the content on your site is informational and original, then don't you owe to your audience to not separate yourself from your contributor and then provide no promise of doing better the next time?
I can talk around this all day, but ESPN can get away with it. The reason they can get away with it is because they have no competition. That day will end though. ESPN will get competition and they will have to compete for their share of the sports market. Let's all keep waiting for that day. It will come.
So back to the Mark Cuban-Bill Simmons one-sided Twitter war. It's not even a war because in typical Simmons fashion, he hasn't responded. This is the same reason Bill doesn't allow comments on his columns. He doesn't want feedback and he ignores any criticism he gets because it discourages his own held point of view that many of the things he says and does are absolutely correct simply because he says and does them. That recent article on "The Onion" hit the nail on the head.
I think much of Mark Cuban's frustration stemmed from his appearance on "First Take" when he eviscerated Skip Bayless and others like him. He's tired of being second-guessed by those who don't have experience running an NBA team. I'm not going to defend the Maverick's moves this offseason, that's not the point, nor will I say the whole "he doesn't have experience on a championship team" statement is persuasive either. We all know Bill Simmons wants to be an NBA GM. He did nothing short of beg-without-begging to be the Bucks and Timberwolves GM over the last 4-5 years. This non-exchange with Cuban is part of the reason in my opinion Bill's being a GM of an NBA team can't happen. It's the major divide between being a journalist with an opinion and believing you can run an NBA team. Bill is great at documenting what happens in the NBA and his original Tweet I thought was funny and accurate.
Put it this way: I wasn't crazy about Elton Brand and Chris Kaman playing together in 2006 when they were still good.
But Bill is the guy who documents and writes the book of basketball. He isn't the type of person who creates and is responsible for the events in the book of basketball. There's a difference in a how a GM/owner wants to run an NBA team and how a GM/owner is able to run an NBA team. Bill is a writer. His ideas are sometimes good, but reality doesn't give a shit about great ideas. That's why I make fun of his "Who says no?" comments. A good idea is great, but the implementation of that great idea is hard to do. There are more than just two people with an opinion involved. Bill does a (generally) good job of documenting (and dissecting) what happens in the NBA. Bill has no idea what he would have done other than not sign Elton Brand or Chris Kaman. If he had an idea, I'm sure we would have heard it by now.
There is a divide between those who know NBA basketball and those who run NBA basketball teams. I think the divide is clear here. Mark Cuban responded to Bill:
Mark Cuban deleted that Tweet eventually for some reason. Bill is a know-it-all type guy. It rubs people the wrong way. Dan Gilbert, the owner (I originally had Gilbert as the GM of the Cavs. As a commenter noted, that wouldn't probably end well) of the Cavs, actually Retweeted this comment by Mark Cuban at Bill Simmons. I wouldn't rank Dan Gilbert as one of the top 5 owners in the NBA by any means, but I find it interesting we have two of the most Twitter-active NBA owners showing ESPN's top NBA guy (he is ESPN's top NBA guy when it comes to opinions and influence...at least in my opinion) he doesn't have their respect. Maybe it is two owners being bitter or angry, but do we really believe Bill could be an NBA GM and deal with personalities like Mark Cuban and Dan Gilbert on a regular basis? I'm not sure he could. Running an NBA team is a different world from pretending you can run an NBA team because you think you have great ideas.
Of course then the one-sided conversation went downhill and Mark Cuban ruined his point when responding to someone defending Simmons...a guy named Mufasa-7000 (maybe he is a big "Lion King" fan?).
Followed by Mark Cuban's silly response...
That's just silly. It puts Mark Cuban in a position to never be criticized by anyone who hasn't won a title. My point, and I think I do have one, is that Bill Simmons can't be an NBA GM/VP of Common Sense. He's good at what he does, which is get people to read his columns and NBA opinions. Bill Simmons did have a point. Elton Brand and Chris Kaman isn't a great combination power forward-center for the Mavericks. I think his debate after the NBA Finals win by the Heat still has Mark Cuban in a fit and he is overly-sensitive to criticism from anyone at ESPN at this point.
If Bill Simmons was a freelance contributor he could create an entire interview he had with Mark Cuban where Cuban admits he was wrong and try to pass this off on Grantland as a real interview that occurred. Or Bill could base all of his Chris Kaman or Elton Brand-related criticism on something written in Wikipedia. It seems that's the safer way for him to go.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
0 comments BotB Podcast #17
As you listen, you may notice that I thought it was the 15th podcast. Turns out we're better at churning these out than we thought. Anyway, this week's discussion covers the NBA Finals, Buster Posey's broken leg, Kevin McHale, tweeting during games and the Scottie Pippen question: Is LeBron better than MJ?More importantly, there's new fade out music! I'm not really sure why I changed it up, but it's just feeling like that kind of day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)