Daily Links: Obsession Can Be a Good Thing
- Woody is “obsessed” with winning a Super Bowl.
- There’s a lot of guys to pay, writes JetsTwit.
- The WSJ is getting a light nose tweak at the hands of Frank Deford for their Honorifics in their sports section.
- The Kvetchers talk to a Crew tryout.
- A Houston writer slams Bryan Cushing saying his explanation was “outrageous.”
8 Responses to Daily Links: Obsession Can Be a Good Thing
-
ron2473000 says:
Let me clarify a litle more I mean we’ve done more cost cutting than spending on our players so where is the large chunk going to? Now you can say the stadium but this question was referencing players not PSL’s or stadium cost!!!
-
Ben Nevis says:
Frank Deford has got to be one of the most pompous, most tedious, most irrelevant pundits in all of sports.
In the piece Bassett links to, Deford makes this one point, re: the WSJ’s coverage of sports: “If you’re going to write about games, you don’t call players ‘Mr.’ or ‘Ms.’” Which would be fine if he just made the observation and moved on. But FD makes the same point over and over and over again—devoting an ENTIRE column to it.
The unintentional irony here is that Deford is supposedly tweaking the WSJ for being too precious, too effete, too high-handed in its coverage of sports, but Deford’s column itself is so precious, so effete, so unbearably smug and snobbish that it’s almost embarrassing to read.
I used to listen to NPR regularly—I still listen now and then, but less often (the quality of NPR has gone down over the past several years)—and every time I hear Frank Deford’s voice, I hit the off button as quickly as I can.
-
Ben Nevis, you are awesome.
Plus, the New York Times uses “Mr.” and “Ms.” all over the place, but never in their sports section. Clearly they’ve gotten the message.
Not to mention that the WSJ opened their new sports section with an article that botched a poll of baseball’s most hated teams, incorrectly indicating that the Cleveland Indians are more hated than the Yankess. I think they need to go back to day trading.
-
miketaliaferro says:
WOW. Just, WOW.
Cushing is such a lying sack of [crap]
I’ve recently buried two friends of mine, waaaay too young. Then, to hear this arrogant, overpaid moron cry “tumors” as maybe a way to sneak out from under getting caught red-handed, makes me puke. The whiny “victim” card, eh? In fact, the bogus, make-believe tumors “victim” card. How vile.
I know the NFL has outlawed Bounties during games. Fine, that makes sense. That’s as it should be. But here is a clear-cut exception — a situation that cries out for putting a huge target between this ass’s numbers. He makes every Sunday from George Halas’ leather helmets to Drew Brees foul and wretched. He makes every player, ever, dirty.
Quick! Somebody give me a uni… I’ll go out there and beat the ever-lovin’ snot outta this kid myself.
-
I dunno, Ben…
Didn’t really have a problem with DeFord’s column. Not an eternal bit of prose, but no real harm there.
-
mike—
It may be that I’d been subjected to Deford’s arrogant bombast on NPR for so long (before I started just shutting off the radio whenever he comes on), but it seems that the column is guilty of exactly the same (small) crime Deford accuses the WSJ of: effete self-involvement, smugness, being out of touch with common practices and concerns.
Deford is just such a windbag that I find it irritating to listen to him, especially when he goes on and on and on (as he usually does), long after the point has been made (usually in one simple sentence), as if the only thing he was truly concerned with was listening to his own voice.
But I’m willing to concede, mike, that this is no big deal, as nothing Deford says is ever of any consequence at all.
-
I think that’s on target, Ben.
He’s just boring and inconsequential, overall.
He makes a small, gentle point, we note it in passing and we move on…
Kinda like a highway billboard.
I’m not really trying to cause no stir but did anyone pay attention to Woody J responding to Cimini’s question about the budget. Pay attention to the last line in our owner’s response very interesting I thought, and here is the transcript:
Q: There is no salary cap this year, but you got rid of Jones and Faneca, two team leaders, and you played hardball with Jay Feely over maybe $500,000 — and lost him. It looks like you’re cutting payroll in a year where that shouldn’t be a concern. Are you trying to save money?
WJ: No, we got everybody we wanted. It’s just that the rules make it more difficult to spend. We had a budget; it’s still a pretty hardy budget in the NFL. I don’t know if it’s the highest, but we’re spending quite a large chunk.
What do you guys think? Am I overthinking here or what?