Clayton: Pats have had best offseason

[NEGoldenAge]

Is he good because he essentially believes in your POV??? What is the litmus test for good and bad NFL procrastinators??

I think he was being sarcastic. Either that, or he's referring to Clayton's side job as a fluffer.

 

[Ring 6]

Is he good because he essentially believes in your POV??? What is the litmus test for good and bad NFL procrastinators??

I think you mean prognosticators.

Clayton is good at developing contacts within teams to get information.
He is awful at injecting his opinion.
Many times he guesses at what teams are thinking, who might be interested in a player, or who they may want to draft, etc, and his record is terrible. I also find his logic in supporting his opinions weak (he is the king of "well they have ________ so the X( defense, running game, pass rush, whatever) should be fine" ignoring that 11 men are on a football field and thinking 1 is all that is needed)
If his job is to REPORT then I think he is good.
If his job is to offer opinion (which he does a lot of) I think he is one of the worst out there.

 

[Deus Irae]

Is he good because he essentially believes in your POV??? What is the litmus test for good and bad NFL procrastinators??

I've never taken the time to look at Clayton's personal POV, although I doubt his matches mine. He's a national sports correspondent, and he's very good at his job. A bunch of posters on a message board whining about people mistreating their team doesn't mean that those posters are right, and it certainly doesn't mean that those people being complained about are bad at their job.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Is he good because he essentially believes in your POV??? What is the litmus test for good and bad NFL procrastinators??

He's good because so many here don't like him and there could be no other reason than we're homeristic idiots...

He got where he did because in a time prior to the explosion of the internet as a sports media information superhighway he worked to develop contacts the old fashioned way, quid pro quo, and got information spoon fed to him. Some of it was valid, like his cap data, which is I believe where the little professor tag came from, while some of it was agenda driven by his most significant sources (which often included certain members of the overly chatty competition committee). He gets less solid information now than he used to and his competitors get just as much if not more and often sooner. Therefore he's ventured farther into the opinion/analysis business, which is a place where few mediots should honestly feel qualified tread.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I've never taken the time to look at Clayton's personal POV, although I doubt his matches mine. He's a national sports correspondent, and he's very good at his job. A bunch of posters on a message board whining about people mistreating their team doesn't mean that those posters are right, and it certainly doesn't mean that those people being complained about are bad at their job.

It also doesn't mean they are wrong or that the people being complained about are good at their job. Borges would be a fine example. Wrong is one of the 2010 nominees for that HOF writers award that his peers bestowed upon Clayton years ago that to this day they use to distinguish him from the mere mediot masses...

 

[DarrylS]

I think you mean prognosticators.

Clayton is good at developing contacts within teams to get information.
He is awful at injecting his opinion.
Many times he guesses at what teams are thinking, who might be interested in a player, or who they may want to draft, etc, and his record is terrible. I also find his logic in supporting his opinions weak (he is the king of "well they have ________ so the X( defense, running game, pass rush, whatever) should be fine" ignoring that 11 men are on a football field and thinking 1 is all that is needed)
If his job is to REPORT then I think he is good.
If his job is to offer opinion (which he does a lot of) I think he is one of the worst out there.

Good catch, you are right..

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I think you mean prognosticators.

Clayton is good at developing contacts within teams to get information.
He is awful at injecting his opinion.
Many times he guesses at what teams are thinking, who might be interested in a player, or who they may want to draft, etc, and his record is terrible. I also find his logic in supporting his opinions weak (he is the king of "well they have ________ so the X( defense, running game, pass rush, whatever) should be fine" ignoring that 11 men are on a football field and thinking 1 is all that is needed)
If his job is to REPORT then I think he is good.
If his job is to offer opinion (which he does a lot of) I think he is one of the worst out there.

With Scheffler and Mortenson; who have just as good if not better contacts throughout the NFL; on the staff, why is Clayton still there?

 

[Deus Irae]

With Scheffler and Mortenson; who have just as good if not better contacts throughout the NFL; on the staff, why is Clayton still there?

Why would you expect a company as large and successful as ESPN to fire a qualified worker when they are still in a general hiring mode?

 

[Rob0729]

Personally, I always looked at Clayton as that nerd in high school who always got picked on by all the jocks and now that he is in position of being able to be above them by giving "analysis" on them, he is getting his revenge. He always seems to be hypercritical and never afraid to take shots at players/coaches without much real analysis behind the criticism.

 

[TrueBeliever]

Please change to the appropriate thread title

How about "Clayton tries to get back in BB's good graces by kissing his posterior"

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Please, no one scold me anymore for calling him Fat Vince. Cool?