Skip to main content

Another bad ESPN article - I'm noticing a trend...

I hate being so hard on ESPN writers, but over the past few months, I've been noticing wretched articles with increasing frequency. The latest one comes courtesy of Phil Sheridan, and is entitled, "Kelly gets first taste of Vick turnovers."

The article came in light of the Philadelphia Eagles 26-16 defeat at the hands of the Kansas City Chiefs last night, where Michael Vick was picked off twice in the first half - his first two interceptions of the season (compared to 5 touchdowns).

Sheridan started his article with this:

"Now Chip Kelly knows.

Since January, when he was hired to replace Andy Reid as head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, Kelly has dismissed his video record of quarterback Michael Vick's habit of throwing footballs to the other team.

Kelly didn't know Vick's reads on the 24 interceptions he threw in his previous 23 games. He didn't know whether a receiver ran the wrong route or an offensive lineman missed an assignment. So how could he know whether all those turnovers were Vick's fault?

Now Kelly knows. On Thursday night, he got a sideline view of the Vick Slam: He threw two interceptions, lost a fumble, took five sacks and limped off the field after having his ankles rolled up during a 26-16 loss to the Kansas City Chiefs."

Sheridan seems to insinuate that Vick is to blame for all of his interceptions. But then he wrote this immediately afterward:

"It would be unfair to blame all of it on Vick. The Eagles' offensive line was confused and physically overwhelmed by the Chiefs. Vick's receivers couldn't get open and the offense looked out of sync from the beginning.

'I don't think Michael was out of sorts,' Kelly said. 'I thought Michael did some nice things. We have to do a better job of protecting Mike and giving him an opportunity to set his feet and throw the football.'"

Sheridan then spends the majority of the rest of the article bashing the Eagles quarterback.

I'm sorry, but is ESPN becoming a hybrid of that and TMZ or even America Online anymore? Provide shocking headlines and introductions, before revealing that it was just for shock value and there is much more to the story than was originally displayed?

Michael Vick had a lousy game last night, but outside of LeSean McCoy and Jason Avant, so did the rest of the offense. There's a reason Vick was sacked five times. He was under constant duress. One reason he finished 13 for 30 passing the ball was due to the pressure, throwing balls away, or getting balls knocked down by guys in his face. The speedy DeSean Jackson had trouble getting open and if he has trouble getting open, you know Riley Cooper will have that same problem. Drew Brees has three interceptions in two games. Eli Manning has an astounding seven interceptions in two games. Michael Vick has two interceptions in three games this season. Even with last night's poor performance, his quarterback rating is still at a very solid 96.0. If Sheridan wants to be take a serious objective look at the Eagles, the guy should focus more attention on the team as a whole as opposed to just writing hate mail about the team's quarterback. The guy's article almost made me laugh, because it read like this:

"Yankees Pitcher Throws the Game Away!

The New York Yankees closer Mariano Rivera threw the game away last night, when he allowed three runs in the ninth inning to blow a save and game against the Boston Red Sox. Sadly, this wasn't unusual for Rivera. He's blown four of his last six save opportunities, and for lack of a better word, has sucked. As much as I hate to say it, I think it's time for the team to bring in a new closer. Rivera just obviously doesn't have it anymore. Don't worry, buddy - you'll be in the Hall (of Fame).

Of course, this isn't to say it was all Rivera's fault. The team committed three errors in the ninth inning. He didn't allow an earned run, and due to all the bad defense behind him, his ERA hasn't risen through these four blown saves.

But still, he sucks! I hate him! I hate him! I hate him! Please do the city a favor and release him!"

Tell us how you really feel, Mr. Sheridan...

http://espn.go.com/blog/philadelphia-eagles/post/_/id/591/kelly-gets-first-taste-of-vick-turnovers?ex_cid=espnapi_public

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"