bleedgreen
Registered User
as for the first point, iwas originally responding to the number of posters (you were one of them) who started the usual "this guy is a kid/full of crap'. you responded so we're talking. i wasnt speaking about yiou specificly either, just the anti-eklund crowd as a whole.Dr Love said:Did I say you in specific? No, I did not. I was talking about as a whole.
A number of people in the chat came across as believing that he had actual inside information. And the number of threads created about his blog indicate to me that a decent number of people have at least some belief in him.
as i said ihavent read anyone who thinks this guy is 100% accurate. you say yourself a decent amount of people have at least some belief - exactly. no one believes everything this guy says but people want to talk about the possibilities, or maybe one angle of what he is saying. no one assumes its true, they just want to talk about "what if" it is. its certainly worthy discussion as most of his ideas on the cba have been mentioned in other places, who cares if the point of the thread came from him? people want to talk about the concept of the tiered system, soft vs hard cap, goodenow jumping off a cliff etc...in other threads its a reasonable conversation, put eklunds name on it and its suddenly a pile of dog poo. either way, no one is attaching their horses to this guy and letting him run them off a cliff, the ideas being mentioned - true or not - are worthy of discussion and sometimes just plain fun to talk about. if it came from tsn or espn or something, it would suddenly have more creditibility, sure. it really doesnt matter tho.
as for brooks, the nyp keeps him because he is sensational and thats what new yorkers like to read - not because he is a great sportswriter. its a paper that goes by ratings - what sells stays...brooks sells. im proof, i think the guy hasnt written an opinion backed by proof in years, i still read him.