Sports Illustrated (Reggie Bush cover)

Lots of fantasy football stuff, some okay stuff on baseball.

But to anyone else who has read it: is it not strange to see a writer like Jeffri Chadiha reduced to doing fantasy football stuff? And also . . is Mr. Taro Greenfeld's piece on Terrell Owens worth reading, or is it similar to his fawning work on Paul Tagliabue and Randy Moss?

 

I'm kind of disappointed that they are adding a weekly fantasy section to the magazine.  For a mag like SI that focuses on high quality sports articles, I doubt they will have much in depth coverage of fantasy sports, and it will be a waste of space.  Already, they were way off with Peter King saying that a great QB is more valuable than a great RB.

 

the t.o. story has to be done, i suppose.and it willl be, ad nauseam, all summer. but the guy is so full of crap, i don't know how you handle it. maybe just constantly warn the reader to take EVERYTHING t.o. says for what it's worth -- nada,

 

I skipped over most of this issue since I have no interest in T.O. or fantasy football. Reilly's column was pretty good, though.

 

Just got it in the mail this afternoon, and it hasn't been opened yet.

Since I spent maybe 15 minutes on the last one, plus another 5 while waiting in an office, I figure I'll need only about half an hour to get through this week's edition of The Incredibly Declining Publishing Industry.

 

Despite the premise being completely flawed? I love both those guys.

 

Which means you didn't read the Agassi story.

Which basically renders any comment from you on this subject completely without merit.

DyePack wants a return to the golden age of SI, when you --- or Fido --- could chew on an issue for hours.

 

Well, you would be wrong about the Agassi story. That was the one that got the 5-minute read in the office.

Good try, saying I can't comment here, though. It's yet another indication of the recent douchebaggery that's rising again.

You also show you are incapable of making an argument when you start with "DyePack wants (fill in bullshit here)." What I want is a better magazine, as SI used to put out. You must be too much of a fucktard to figure that out. Don't know how I can make it simple for you there, Beavis. Words, words, words -- they seem to have you stumped.

 

Dr. DyeP,

I'm honestly curious as to how you think the magazine has changed over the years. What could/should be improved? What's been lost lately? What, if anything, gained? How would you fix it?

As a card-carrying colleague over at the little Writers' Workshop, please share your thoughts. Thanks.

 

For starters, it's time to scale back the "Look how clever I am" bullshit. Just write the damn articles.

Later, when I have this week's and last week's editions in front of me, I know there's a prime example of that to cite. I just don't have the goods right here, right now.

 

I look forward to it, DyeP, thanks.

 

OK, got it.

It was the Joe Jurevicius article. I don't know if this was intentional excess, but I've read Ph.D. theses that could hold a reader's attention better than this thing.

The first sentence is close to 50 words long, if not more, and ends with "snot-crackling dusk?" WTF is snot-crackling dusk?

Then there's some blathering about "Vytis, the White Knight coat of arms," of which Joe has a tattoo on his arm.

Then we hear Joe has played in three Super Bowls, "about three more than most players."

Next, we have to find out he was signed away from the Seahawks (Super Bowl team III). Glad that was pointed out, because I'm sure no one could have figured it out otherwise. Way to use those Roman numerals, too.

That parentheses technique gets used at least a couple more times, too.

I stuck with it, but damn, this was a painful article to get through. If SI is going to keep its articles as short as this one, the bullshit has got to be cut and replaced with some substance.