I know, I know, he's another talking head, and a jacka** at that, but on ESPN2's "First Take" show, he just dumped on Bill Parcells, saying he grades the trade of Taylor a "D" and how could the Dolphins trade for anything less than a 1st round pick. What an a-hole....he just makes my skin crawl.
Who cares what he says he is not one of those persons you stop doing what your doing or pause your conversation to hear what he has to say. With JTs age and his statement about wanting to play just one more year I think they got great value in return. I wonder if Bayless noticed no one was beating down the Dolphin's door to see about a Taylor trade?
If he was expecting the Dolphins to get a 1st rounder for a guy who may only be in the league for one or 2 more years, then he doesn't understand football and the value of players/draft picks.
The phins can do no right, right now. For some reason the media is hating Parcells & company and with it the Miami Dolphins. Even local media is caught up in it (Palm Beach Post). Since the draft everyone was hating on the Phins because we didn't trade Taylor for whatever we could get for him. Now he's traded for an admirable 2nd and 6th and they act like we are fools for giving our best player away for less then a 1st.
I'm not sure about draft grades but assuming that the round 2 pick is a high one and the 6th round pick ends up being a high 6th round pick couldn't that even out to a low 1st round pick draft grade wise? Plus I agree that Taylor is a great player and his skills are still there but he will only play 2 years max. So if the Fins got two draft picks that can end up hopefully playing for the next decade or more then I can only see this move as a plus. Taylor was a sure thing whereas the draft picks are risks but still they are worth it for the long term of this team. So whereas last year I hated the Cam trades/releases this one really makes sense as it helps the team and Taylor wanted out anyway. We also have a 2nd round draft pick this year in Phillip Merling that some draft gurus had rated 1st round quality so he could fill this void fairly soon (because I'm assuming he's perfect for the 3-4 defense).
Bayless' job is stiring the pot. He does it well. He may personally feel diferent then what he says on camera, but it's the camera that pays his bills. He knows if he knocks Parcells, he will receive (fan) mail from NE, MIA, TX, and others. Look at all the people who are Parcells guys. Like I said. He did his job. He started this topic.
Bayless was cut by Parcells in another life I guess or he is still pissed that Parcells made more then he did at ESPN for less air time...he has never been a BP fan so this doesn't surprise me...at any rate, ESPN scripts these things...they want Skip Clueless to bash Parcells to present the other side of the coin of what most of the talking heads are saying so that there is some controversy and it makes these blogs and forums go nuts...
What exactly is a "grade" for trading players? I mean, who thought it up and why is it even talked about (not necessary in any way).
I know and I gave in. I was his tool but it still rankles me he is always pounding on the Dolphins. What is his problem with the Fins ? Did he lose a lot of money on a bet once ???
lol I just heard this guy say, "Parcells should of rebuilt around him." Wow how dumb is this guy? Yes, every team that rebuilds does it around a 34 year old player with an acting bug. Thats the blueprint for rebuilding right? Then this other guy on the show goes, "Hes your best player, how are you going to win games now (or something to that effect)." Well genius, we had that best player all last year and how many games did we win with him? These guys are clueless. There was one guy on there that gave the trade a B+ and pretty much eluded to whats common sense with for most people to understand. I really dont know how anyone can question this trade. It seems so obvious that we needed to do this and it was the right move.
Its almost comical how bad some of their people are. A lot of their news shows are formatted to turn good analysing and commentary into a circus. If I want a pointless circus, I'll go watch Springer.
They used to be great, but something went wrong about 2-3 years ago. Something horribly wrong. I think it all started with Sean Salisbury.
you'll have to go back further than 2-3 years. this really started in the late 80's/early 90's when the Bills were hot. Chris Berman started this slide when he started man-lovin' on Jim Kelly and the Bills.
Much ado over nothing guys. Bayless's purpose is similar to that of a columnist's in a newspaper. As someone else already pointed out, the idea is to create a buzz. Pick a topic and discuss it from a controversial angle. Controversy drives that whole segment of the show. Their whole shtick is so transparent. One person starts the discussion expressing an opinion on something current. If his view is kind of bland or vanilla then the other will disagree and thus begins the debate. If the initial opinion is outrageous then usually Bayless (or whomever) chimes right in. As to his personal feelings towards the Fins and/or Parcells; I don't buy that he has anything against either. He just has made a name for himself with his harsh (and sometimes unfair) opinions.
if Bayless just went on and pointed out the obvious, nobody would watch. If nobody watched, they would go off the air. if they went off the air, what would we discuss? its up to the viewer to form their own opinions. id rather watch bayless speak out of his *** about football than watch soap operas and talk shows at 10am on a monday morning.
Unless he's completely changed his radio format, his show is almost entirely opinion. That's what he does. Aside from the interviews and call-ins, he features a topic and gives his opinion. I confess, I haven''t listened to his show in probably 2 years. So if he's changed his format, I stand corrected. But I stopped listening because I just got really tired of his negative and mean spirited diatribes.
his opinion is nothing but the obvious though. which is my point. he's horrible. sometimes my channel is just on his station when I wake up, and i'm a horrible morning person, even too lazy to change my station sometimes. and it was horrible during the Patriots run. Flat out hoping they win it, not for the great achievement, but so the 72 phins can shut up. He flat out hopes for this each year.
Were they bad when the Dolphins were winning? I don't think so and that makes sense b/c when guys talk your team up, they don't seem like douches. But when commentators rag on your team, usually with good reason, suddenly ESPN sucks. C'mon already, if the Phins were 11-5 every year you'd all love ESPN
I dislike this guy a lot, probably one of my most disliked analysts. He always says something negative. He has little knowledge.
I don't like any of their analysts. I have gotten to the point to where I don't even listen to them. The only time i hear them saying something negative is when someone posts a thread.
You nailed it pretty well. I think they encourage Bayless to say crazy and outlandish things ala Bill O'Reilly. Theres no way he can be serious about half the things he says.
Sad but true. Its all part of watered down media coverage thats been taking place for some time on countless networks. I think the internet is mostly to blame for this. More and more people are checking the web for news on looking to TV soley for its entertainment purposes.
There is lots of great places for information. Takes a little research, but they are out there. Instead of everyone on this board bashing ESPN, maybe they should try highlighting more of the stuff that actually is good. In the long run, that is the only way to improve ESPNs content.
Being honest and informative doesn't get you far in the media... Casual football fans are too impatient to listen to analysis that is informative. I guarantee you that if CK or Boomer went on the air with their analysis, it wouldn't turn out too well because it'd be too much information for the general audience to comprehend.
Ratings are the only thing that really matter to a network are they not? In previous ESPN threads Ive used my "Rock Radio" analogy. When a new Rock Radio station starts out its great. Metallica and Rage are playing all day long. But, you need sponsors and advertisers to pay for the station. Playlist's are dictated and the station becomes a watered down version of itself and alienates it's initial demographic. Its unfair to bash ESPN for what most major networks do. We just hear their name mentioned more because of the type of site we post on.
Exactly. People tuning out ESPN is the only way to send a message, if thats what you are looking to do. Personally, I could care less about ESPN
