Quote:That's a tough one.

 

If you have a strong conviction AGAINST a player, how should you express that without making him look bad?

 

There have been plenty of players I have argued strongly against.

 

I have been proven right on some and spectacularly wrong on others.

 

But if I couldn't argue in a way commensurate with my conviction on a player-good or bad-I'm not sure I could debate a player's merits at all.

 

A way that I have learned to express "convictions against" has been to remove adjectives from the description and be as specific as possible. For example using a Defensive Tackle in this instance:

 

• I have not seen an ability to split a double team in the running game. I watched seven plays of his and he did not stand up to the blockers nor was the runner forced one side or the other due to his play.
  
• His hand punch in the Notre Dame game did not show any effectiveness. On the three plays where I saw him use his punch, the blocker swatted it away and he was forced to bull rush.
  

In short, speak to what you have seen and what you know. Not what you think. It's probably the toughest part about watching sports critically. You not only need to know what the player did, you need to know what he was trying to accomplish.

 

And reading back through this, I realize that I come across as stuffy and high-minded but them's the breaks I guess.

---