Manther Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 Agreed. Only time I watch ESPN now is if a sporting event, or a 30-30 is on. The rest is basically garbage.Agreed and me too
TUBSTER Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 For about 28 years of my life I watched ESPN in some capacity on a daily basis. The last several years - I watch something maybe once per Month. It's just not what it once was - and is too much of what it shouldn't be. Your so right, a lot of this stuff isn't even real sports it's just drama. The analysis is atrocious most of the time. I was happy so see Skip Bayless leave, he was the fool of all fools.
justnzane Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 ESPN lost me about a decade ago. I loved the simple objectivity of recapping the games, giving a few highlights and moving on to the next one, with the occasional 30 second blurb about a player getting a DWI. This applies to all news outlets, too much blowhards with opinions talking and less reporting has left me jaded with TV news.
White Linen Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 Your so right, a lot of this stuff isn't even real sports it's just drama. The analysis is atrocious most of the time. I was happy so see Skip Bayless leave, he was the fool of all fools. I remember when they started calling themselves the "world wide leader in sports". I used to be like, darn right this is my go to channel. Then they started getting a little goofy with the visual effects and stuff but it the content was still there. Then it became an entertainment show but still had some cool stuff - especially some very inventive commercials. Now it's just wacky. I mean Dan Lebatard's dad - yikes. However honestly I don't know what it's like now - because I just don't view anything other than if they have a game on I want to watch.
GunnerBill Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 @billsupdates Buffalo #Bills have 8 blue-chip players on roster, ESPN's John Clayton says http://trib.al/1fXgVj6 Offense (5): Cordy Glenn, OL; Richie Incognito, OL; LeSean McCoy, RB; Sammy Watkins, WR; Eric Wood, OL Defense (3): Ronald Darby, CB; Marcell Dareus, DT; Stephon Gilmore, CB I think 7. Wood is good but not a blue chipper yet for me.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 31, 2016 Author Posted August 31, 2016 I think 7. Wood is good but not a blue chipper yet for me. Hughes?
GunnerBill Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 Hughes? Closer than Wood for me definitely. I'd still stick at 7 "blue chippers".... but then actually maybe Darby is with Wood and Hughes in that level just below. I think the other 6 start for at least 27 or 28 of the 32 teams. Dareus, Richie, Glenn and Sammy probably for all 32.
jumbalaya Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 What is the definition of blue chip? Top ten at their position? I don't see Wood as blue chip. He's good, not great. Glenn is a bit of a reach. Darby is too soon to tell. Jerry Hughes in 2014 but not in 2015. Preston, Clay or TyT could emerge this year.
Big C Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 What is the definition of blue chip? Top ten at their position? I don't see Wood as blue chip. He's good, not great. Glenn is a bit of a reach. Darby is too soon to tell. Jerry Hughes in 2014 but not in 2015. Preston, Clay or TyT could emerge this year. Good question. Depends on the position probably. You have more CBs and WRs on the field at any given time than C or QB. But if there isn't enough true elite talent at any given position, you can't go by a straight top 10 list. However, I do believe Wood was a top 5 center last. He had a great year. I think a lot of these types of list keep a nearsighted view of the past and future.
CardinalScotts Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 ya i know John, tell me again how Tyrod is going to sign with Denver. I wish any of the rock heads at GR would ask him about that prediction. He likes to talk- being accurate well frankly doesn't matter
White Linen Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 I think Wood is a really good player. He's not dominant by any means but he sure is pretty rock solid.
The Frankish Reich Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) Oh my god. You need to get over that there is some Buffalo bias. Most of the media would like for the Bills to go to the playoffs. You realize teams can have good players and be bad right? And Clayton kinda sucks but this is more than a fair assessment. Yeah, I just don't see that. Even if Clayton hasn't exactly been on the Bills bandwagon, it's not like the team has proven him wrong over the last 16 years. While I don't think anyone NFL/legacy network brass would be thrilled to see the Bills in the Super Bowl, that's only because it's a small market team that hasn't (unlike Pittsburgh and Green Bay) managed to capture a national following, at least not for a long, long time. But overall, would the NFL, ESPN, CBS/Fox, etc. love to see the Bills make a nice run? Absolutely. Everyone loves a feel-good underdog story. Hell, the KC Royals got tons and tons of great press during their run. EDIT: Oh, and ESPN does suck. Exhibit 1 in the Museum of Things the Internet Killed. MTV is 1a. Edited September 1, 2016 by The Frankish Reich
vorpma Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 For about 28 years of my life I watched ESPN in some capacity on a daily basis. The last several years - I watch something maybe once per Month. It's just not what it once was - and is too much of what it shouldn't be. Well put, my thoughts exactly!
Big Turk Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 So how does this compare to other teams in the league according to Clayton?
Recommended Posts