Now I don't claim to be nearly as good as the great Website, Fire Joe Morgan, but Sandy's response letter was so bad, insulting, vicious, and well honestly not very well thought out, that it's time for a takedown:
The blogs basically consist of a select group of people reinforcing the same silly notions without challenge, and assuming that they're more entitled than those silly fools who actually pay to watch the games in person. And any media person who doesn't level the same vicious, personal attacks in addition to the usual blather about firing the coach must be a shill or a stooge.
Yes all bloggers have the same voice, opinions and tone. It’s like we’re the borg. A vicious, personal attacking borg who go around trying to get coaches fired and acting elite.
As opposed to those noble sports radio personalities who would never lower themselves to vicious personal attacks or the usual blather. Radio personalities are known for their pleasant candor and reasonable rational arguments and not jumping to stupid conclusions.
That's not to say that you don't occasionally come by some reasonably decent analysis, or that even the lunatics aren't entitled to an opinion. It's just not opinion that they're more entitled to hold.
Yes if they were more entitled to hold that opinion they’d obviously be on the radio, or even better TV.
There's a massive difference between thoughtful criticism and calling for someone's immediate dismissal. I challenged no one particular site, but one particular site did take offense. The response was to claim that an email had been sent to me in an effort to promote some level of civil discourse. Which would be fine if the email had ever in fact been sent. Of course, it wasn't because these folks are cowards who lack the ability to argue a point, much less a case. The last thing they want is a conversation they can't dominate.
First there's exactly 4 blogs (5 now since DD discovered one this morning) that I know of that Write on the avs performance on a day to day basis. So saying that you're not refering to any one site is kinda bogus. (Jori's writes about Avs prospects, I doubt much on Quenneville so I didn't include hers in this)
Second It’s a good thing this media member doesn’t use vicious personal attacks in addition to the usual blather about people on the internet who lack the ability to argue a point. That might make him a blogger. Hey kids, it’s the new insult.
"My dad can beat up your dad", "
You play ball like a girl",
"oh yeah You’re dad’s a blogger."
"Damn I got served."
Quenneville is on the air here every week at the same time. People can call, email, or text a message. No caller has ever been screened for content...another lie that cowards who have never even tried to get in constantly perpetuate. Quenneville is quite graceful, as is Karl, about accepting critical commentary and answering it. Again, you have to come with something beyond saying that the coach is incompetent because he changes lines during games, but our standards aren't terribly high.
How about the call against the bench in the Red Wings game that lead directly to a 2:00 5-vs-3 powerplay that killed any chance of an Avs comeback? Or how about the San Jose game (which they won, and I attended) that had line changes so jumbled that on 2 occasions Avs had to dive over the board in order to avoid "Too many men penalties". Or not giving Budaj a fair chance to start the season.
If, as you say, people get knocked down for false assertions, how come the notion that Quenneville is nothing more than "a .500 coach" has never been identified as false? We'd be skewered if anyone on our show misrepresented a coach's record, or anyone else's, this way.
As opposed to, say, misrepresenting someone’s comment? Which was clearly meant to say he’s an average coach and that with him the Avs record would hover around .500 (which it is now!), not that his career record was .500.
But on the blogs, it doesn't matter. Fact is opinion and opinion is fact. And for $75, you, too, can have a website on which to say anything you wish and pronounce yourself an ultimate, unchallenged authority.
In all my schooling I forgot this very important but often overlooked rule of facts: On the internet Fact is opinion, and opinion is fact. On the radio, and TV, the waves used to broadcast them flip everything so that Fact, is indeed fact, and opinion is held to the opinion relm. I think Einstein won the Nobel prize for this.
I think MHH is free to set up (I don’t know, and really don’t care that much), I know Jibblescribbits is. Anyone with a gmail account can get one. Since you are mistaken by a fact does that mean you’ve lost all credibility. Can I call and skewer you? Oh and there’s comments too where people can challenge anything I’ve said, and have.
The Avalanche went 15-2-2 "sitting on leads" down the stretch last year. I personally hate the trapping style they played then, and employ even now, but Quenneville's in the winning business. So is the much-celebrated Jacques Lemaire, whose Minnesota Wild sit all of three points ahead of the Avs this morning. With Gaborik having played in 58 games...Bouchard 63 games...Rolston 62 games...Demitra 50 games... Burns 63 games. The Wild play a soporific style that would have any self-respecting admirer of the late Herb Brooks deeply disenchanted. Lemaire has great talent that's shackled by his methods. If you're honest, you'd subject him to the same criticism you apply to Quenneville.
First of all I, personally (again that means the entire blogosphere, jerks), compared Jaques Lemaire to Magneto, by saying he’s an evil genius who has a noble goal, but employs an absolutely evil technique. I have also said he’s morally opposed to goals. I think that’s pretty critical. Second that 15-2-2 record was partially a result of goaltending play that was well above anything we’ve seen this season, or could reasonably expect to see consistantly. I would say to employ a strategy that relies on a level of play that isn’t realistic is bad coaching. I have also pointed out that the Avs have a GAA of over 4 when they have gone into the third period with the lead since the beginning of the (calendar) year, despite improved play from the goaltender position.
As to the line-juggling, tell me how that could conceivably affect the power play or penalty kill units? It would only have an impact in even-strenth, five-on-five situations, wouldn't it? An area in which the Avs have won the most favorable working margins across the entire league. I understand that this kind of analysis is rarely practiced by the "elite bloggers" because it requires the application of fairness, intelligence, and knowledge. None of which they have in abundance.
While Colorado’s even strength goals for is truly excellent, bad line changes and miscommunication due to line juggling is going to take an effect on the defense due to players being out of position and not working together as much as they should. The Avs are 17th-T in ES goals against, which is average... wait I’m an "elite blogger" , and as such my answer to this question obviously should have been: But your mom’s a whore, and so is your face.
Oh by "my answer" I meant "the blog collective’s answer". That’s right Will Leitch from Deadspin just called your mom a whore. So unprofessional.
Budaj was awful in preseason. The job was his, even if Theodore hadn't been injured. He messed it up, or maybe he was never anything more than a back-up in the first place. He played early and often only because he was healthy, not because he played well. Anyone who didn't have an agenda saw this clearly. Again, this would leave out the bloggers with nothing but interest in advancing agendas. The players, even those who weren't Theodore fans, could see that the injured goaltender was working hard. When the stars began to fall to injury, he responded, as did Hannan and Clark to a lesser degree. The Lake Erie guys helped but were victimized collectively as part of the law of diminishing returns, a familiar principle to sophisticated sports fans, who only occasionally include the bloggers.
Some reasonable people (obviously not the blog collective) would say they don’t think preseason is a particularly good place to judge how well a person will play in the regular season, but a place where players get used to playing competitive games again. And that in the games that were competitive, and you know actually counted this season, Budaj started the season (before sharing his duties): 3-1 with a 92.5 save % and a 2.68 GAA. Not bad, and certainly not bad enough to lose his job. Also if you take out the debacle in Nashville the second day of the season, in which the entire team was awful not just Budaj, he looks downright sparkling: 3-0 95.2 save% and GAA of 2.00. So apparently one bad regular season game, and poor play in games that don’t count, was enough to pass judgement on Budaj, which is what drives us Q critics crazy. And even the most ardent Theo critique has said he has been good lately, no one argued anything different.
Neither Jones nor Richardson should be playing in the NHL. Jones plays now because he's bigger and more of a banger, but you're arguing about which one would always be among the least often used forwards. It's the kind of essentially irrelevant debate the bloggers love because it makes them seem smart and engaged and since neither is qualified to play, there's no wrong answer. Just no answer that matters.
A reasonable person (again not the blog collective) would point out if Richardson isn’t qualified to be in the NHL, why was Quenneville putting him on the first line with Joe Sakic at times this season, and last season?... wait sorry, I forgot to blog again "Q’s a moron, that’s all my pea-brain can handle"
In doing this for 30 years, I would hope that I have come to understand that listening to what people more expert say has more value than telling those same people what I think.
No argument here
When I first started doing sports talk in 1980, I used to be like the bloggers. Rip now and think later, if ever. Team starts slowly, fire the coach. Be a tough guy. Fortunately, one friend who saw some hope for me told me to grow up and knock it off. "Get to work. Do your job. Go to the games and don't just watch. Talk to people. Learn from them. The coaches, administrators, and even players are usually happy to help someone who's curious."
Whew, there’s hope for me to be like Sandy Clough yet. If only I read from people whose hockey opinions I respect, watched the games intensely, went to as many as I could, and researched statistics and articles that shed light on relevant analysis. Too bad I’m a blogger and my brain can’t...ooohh a shiney coin.
Today, I NEVER advance a thought without some foundation. The conclusions I reach are my own, but the information I draw from are obtained by asking questions. What a great concept! Something the bloggers in question would never understand.
Yet you work for a company that owns the team you are opining on, one that is notorious and has been criticized nationally (by Terri Frei for sure) for employing people and shows that only promote the company line. But there’s no reason to possibly believe there’s a conflict of interest.
p.s. You're free to send this along to that phony at "Mile High Hockey," who claims to have sent me an email and will I'm sure shortly attack me for having not responded to an email I never received because it was never sent. Just posted on his site that I found by chance yesterday. You can be ignorant through no fault of your own and still have integrity. The bloggers are frequently ignorant and deliberatley dishonest.
It seems as though the blog collective has assimilated him, since he is using the same vile personal attacks that he is so far above, and that radio hosts would never employ. Welcome to the collective Sandy!