ESPN Needs New Writers

Let's take a close look at some of the good, bad, and ugly ESPN has hired recently to cover the NFL. First the good. Terry Blount, Mike Sando, and Greg Garber.
Then the bad and ugly. Jeffri Chadiha, John Clayton, and Ashley Fox.


While some may not agree on Terry or John, I've read enough of both of their articles to form my own opinion. I have very high standards for just about everything in life. I'm my biggest critic and I'm also everyone else's biggest critic. To me something that is "good" is most likely "phenomenal" to someone else. However, when it comes to the largest and most popular sports network in the world, my expectations on who they hire are quite high. Just like I'd expect an airplane manufacturer to hire the best possible people to design and build safe aircraft that don't fall from the sky. Unfortunately, like all big corporations, ESPN has hired a mixture of good and bad employees. It is truly up to them to listen to their fans and make a judgment call themselves on who gets the raises/promotions and who gets fired/demoted. I truly hope ESPN is paying attention to who is good and bad.


First up on my list is Terry Blount. He was hired to cover my home team in the NFL so of course this may seem biased. However, his articles are always nicely written. He uses a good mixture of vocab, and yet he is simple enough for most Americans to read and understand. What I love most about him is his opinions and presentation of facts are rarely biased. He seems to cover all Seahawks related news from the point of view of all fans. This helps give him a less biased and more respectable view of the Seahawks. You don't see him claiming they will dominate every team in the league. His predictions for their games are based on facts and he is typically dead on. He won't say they will get blown out or will blow someone out. He always expects close defensive struggles. Other ESPN reporters will blurt out non-fact based opinions that are usually way off and have no place in an official ESPN article. Those types of writers remind me of the ESPN/Facebook commenters on each article. Terry Blount was a great hire by ESPN and I'm glad he covers the Seahawks. He gets close to the organization, players, and coaches. He is constantly writing articles about on the field and off the field news. He will analyze practices, games, give injury updates, and even write about what a player does in their free time and how they think and feel as a person, not just a player. This personal touch really makes his articles about my favorite team all that more interesting as he gets to see a side of the team that no fan does. He also pumps out articles at an alarming rate so you know he's dedicated to his work and loves doing it.


Second on my list is Mike Sando. This may also seem a bit biased as he is all about statistical analysis and spreadsheets (which I also love) and we share a common home state as well. Mike writes a lot of insider articles which upsets me because I am not willing to pay extra to look at stats and opinions I can find elsewhere on the internet. However, he always lets the data do the talking via Excel spreadsheets and pivot tables. For this I respect him, his opinions, and his articles. Opinions based on numbers, facts, and mathematical calculations are the best and I'm glad ESPN found him and hired him. His statistical analysis intrigues me and I hope he can apply it to other sports like basketball and horse racing. It'd be interesting to see if his analysis could result in picking the NCAA basketball tournament correctly or the winners of the Triple Crown Races. As someone who has attempted to analyze both of those things, I can certainly say it is quite difficult. I've had success and failure in my methods, as has Mike. Hopefully his articles can become less insider and more available to the public because his data is always interesting to see.


Third on my good list is Greg Garber. Much like Terry, Greg is not very biased in a lot of his posts. He does have opinions like all other human beings, but he doesn't write emotional non-fact based mush in his official ESPN articles. Instead he covers things from well known stories and highlights, to things people may not be talking about, such as off the field good deeds or issues. He also likes to speak in "what if's" just so he can describe as many points of view of a sport as possible. Greg seems to be immersed in the NFL and tennis with his writing. Some good articles would involve what a team would be like if their star players were switched or how an unknown tennis player is the future of the sport. He tends to focus on things people don't really notice or pay attention to. He even has an interesting article on ex-offensive linemen losing weight so they can live longer/healthier lives.


Now onto the bad. I think we can all agree that Jeffri Chadiha is a joke. In fact a lot of comments I see about him call him an "affirmative action hire." Racism aside, he really has proven that his emotional fed opinions and uninteresting articles have no place in the top sports network of ESPN. He will write a strong opinion about something being a bad decision, or how one team is better than others, only to change his mind or not admit to his mistakes later on. Notably most of his opinions or predictions are not fact based at all. My best example of this would be Pete Carroll coming to the Seahawks. In 2010 he wrote this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=4816051 where he basically rips Carroll, USC, and Seattle a new one. Not only was he incredibly wrong, hindsight is 20/20, but he is still set in his ways. His latest article about Super Bowl 48, http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10322280/broncos-savoring-being-team-destiny-2013-nfl-playoffs, basically makes Seattle look like a little league team about to play a real team and how Manning and the Broncos will dominate the Seahawks because it's "destiny." Like everyone else who realizes the #1 defense vs the #1 offense will be an interesting, and most likely close matchup, he is just too proud to realize his opinions are incorrect. Instead of actually analyzing the game like a true columnist should, he just blindly picks a team because he believes it's their destiny to win. Even if Manning does win, it most likely will not be a blowout and it won't be because of destiny.
Not only has he been wrong about the Seahawks recently, but during this post season he even picked Green Bay to go far in the playoffs with the return of Aaron Rodgers, http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10197528/rodgers-makes-packers-dangerous-opponents, and claimed that the Niners could win it all after they beat Rodgers and the Packers. He also believed the Bengals would have been playing the Broncos in the AFC title game. None of these teams made the super bowl and now he's shifted his allegiance to Peyton and the Broncos.
The guy is inconsistent and his articles are pretty much awful to read for any sports fan. You can tell by all the negative feedback on his articles' comments that a majority of readers believe his writing has no place on ESPN.com.


Next on my bad list is Jon Clayton. I really do appreciate some of his articles and his insight on tv, but a lot of his writing is just not that interesting or clever. He seems to do a lot of opinion based articles or copy and paste type articles that you could find anywhere. However, as a guy who has been in the NFL and MLB media industry for a long time, he has certain connections and inside access that gives him a huge advantage over other reporters. However, as he ages and nears retirement I think he will lose this edge and be overtaken by some of the less experienced, but more talented writers at ESPN.
He does do some interesting Q&A articles where he'll respond to fan mail of his choosing and those are the best articles of his that I enjoy. Mostly because it's unique.


Now the bad and the WORST! Ashley Fox is by far the worst sports writer I have ever encountered. She has a horrible reputation and it's a shame. I know plenty of people who could write better sports articles than her, and a lot of them don't even watch sports that much. This is how bad Ashley is at her job. How she's still employed is beyond me. Much like Jeffri, her comments are all negative. Her articles are seldom accurate and full of typos. It's almost like nobody even proofreads her articles. In fact, even her ridiculous tweets should get her kicked off of ESPN. http://www.spinitreacts.com/2013/01/the-worst-of-espns-ashley-fox-this-nfl.html.
I have literally seen an article where she copied and pasted most of her information, only to forget to change some names and information around. She wrote an article on Marshawn that was edited several times by ESPN in order to be more accurate and to fix lots of typos. At the original posting she put the names of the 49ers offensive linemen as Lynch's blockers (yes this is in fact true and you can read about it in the comments at the bottom of the article to see just how horrible this article was when it was originally published and then fixed by her editor). http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10304802/marshawn-lynch-seattle-seahawks-top-challenge-san-francisco-49ers-nfc-championship-game.
Additionally, she is highly biased to her hometown team, the Eagles. However, like a lot of Eagle fans, she was not a fan of hiring Chip Kelly. She highly criticized him and thought he would fail. She even stayed the course halfway through the season with this incredibly inaccurate opinion of her team's head coach. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9914482/chip-kelly-success-philadelphia-stagnated-coaching-miscues-qb-instability. Much like Jeffri thought Pete Carroll would fail, Ashley thought Chip would be mediocre at best. At the end of the season Ashley then wrote an article about how Chip Kelly is excellent and a perfect fit for Philadelphia. She just can't seem to keep her opinions straight. Additionally, she picked her hometown team to go far in the playoffs, http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10214379/healthy-explosive-eagles-tough-playoff-draw-first-year-kelly, but when they lost to the Saints she suddenly believed that the Saints were the new super bowl threat because they finally won a road game. http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10245932/sean-payton-drew-brees-make-new-orleans-saints-threat. She did not take into account that the Seahawks are dominant at home and had already beaten the Saints a month earlier. She is wrong 90+% of the time and does not seem to want to admit it.
Why would ESPN allow such an inconsistent and unintelligent writer stay employed? It's making their company look terrible to the public and it's an outrage to others who would be much better writers, but were overlooked by this terrible writer.