Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by MichaelWinicki, Aug 17, 2013.
It's not really about who he works for with me. It's about he doesn't really bring anything to analogies that %50 of this board can't bring.
shills are shills. You do know what they are, right?
I would not disagree. 50% of this board does an excellent job with their analyses, including RS. I just do not believe in disregarding anyone because of who they work for. I read this board all the time for the latest news and info, if I had more time I would post more.
I know the Arkin-Broaddus Axis drives the Fate of the Free World and the Fed's Monetary Policy, but I think its worth repeating a point about the big picture. Most (if not all) of last year's starters on the interior line are now backups. We were hoping Livings and Costa would be healthy and starting last year and they are solidly backups at the moment. I still think Waters signs and if he does, all three of last years starters are second string and Arkin is third string. And Arkin just held his own against a very solid player in Calais Campbell.
Just like MacMahon and Watkins are shills for ESPN. Their job is not to write informative stories, but to toss out explosive, click garnering, controversy generating statements regardless of truth. That's what their boss wants, because more clicks and more comments means more money. Pretty simple.
As far as guys like Broaddus and Eatman are concerned, I don't get how they could be called 100% shills, while taking opposite sides of a given story.
For example, Broaddus has been a Matt Johnson fan from day one, while Eatman mocks him continually. These guys probably have talking points they are supposed to hit,but I've heard them speak negatively enough about various guys to know that they are not required to tow the company line all the time.
What is RS?
Anyway, I think in general the way technology has made access to videos easy that we as fans have been able to notice talent as good as anyone.
It's like saying Congress is better at writing laws for the people than we are. That's not true. They're just in a position to do it. If it came down to it, we'd be better at making laws and writing laws that benefited us.
It's just like that with football. It's so easy to scope different players now. And, in general, half the people are smart enough to make legitimate analogies regarding players. I've always been impressed with the abilities of some on this board--others not so much.But for the most part, this board is pretty good at it.
Some are winded and believe quantity equals quality. One in particular comes to mind, but I haven't seen those posts as frequently lately.
In my view, this board has gotten even better through addition by subtraction.
I'm basing my assessment off of Broaddus' long history with the Cowboys. There are a few Cowboys fans in the media that do good job and I give them credit. I think Broaddus is a nice guy. I admire his love for the game. I just don't think he's special when it comes to player analysis. That's all.