Chris Gasper--Heading Down Shaughnessy Road

[TomTerrific]

On the front page of the Sunday Globe sports section is Chris Gasper's column entitled "What's the point, NFL?".
 
Gasper makes most of his points in the following passage:
 
"The assault on the extra point is the most unnecessary, superfluous sports rule change in recent memory. There was no great groundswell of demand from fans to increase the degree of difficulty of an NFL afterthought. There is an increased risk of injury — and special teams health and safety hypocrisy — by taking a non-play and making it a play. There is the chance that games, seasons, jobs, and fan fulfillment could be lost on a trivial aspect of the game."
 
Even by the low standards of current sports journalism, this column stands out as being exceptionally lazy and thoughtless. Take his first point on the lack of demand from fans. Remind me which, if any, of the current rules were passed based on such a demand. And why is that such a good idea anyway? I bet a secret poll of the fans would find overwhelming support for celebratory BJs from the cheerleaders after a TD, but that doesn't mean the NFL Rules Committee should be rushing to go back into emergency session.
 
Second point on the risk of injury. Really? Following that logic to its conclusion, the NFL should not only keep the extra point as is, but award 6 points upon successful execution of three successive snaps to the QB. Voila, risk of injury minimized! No, the simple fact is that they're adding a play that is inherently more interesting while not introducing some radical new risk to the players. Does Gasper want to argue that somehow this new 33-yd extra point stands out from all the 120-odd other plays in a game in level of risk? I think not.
 
Last point. Does he mean to imply here that this chance doesn't already exist in every NFL game for a myriad of seemingly trivial aspects, like taking a few extra seconds here and there, and suddenly having a time crunch late in a game-ending drive? And if it isn't trivial because it can cost you a game, then how is an extra point trivial?
 
I've given this much more space than it deserves, primarily because I've been do disappointed in Gasper lately. Earlier in his career he seemed like a calm, relatively thoughtful voice but recently he seems headed down the Shaughnessy Snark Road, but without any of Dan's writing chops. Sad.

 

[David Laurila]

I don't have an opinion either way on this particular column, but overall, I think Gasper is a very talented writer and columnist. There are things the Globe could do better, but Gasper is more of an asset than an issue. 

 

[Van Everyman]

I would agree – Gasper has taken a bit of heat for his Deflategate coverage here as well which I think is largely unfair. While he's definitely looking for an angle there, he's not alone among Boston sports writers in struggling with consistency on the subject. These guys are simultaneously trying to use their local positions to propel them to national fame (for which I can't blame them given the tenuous state of local media in the country) while trying not to be outright homers.

It's a tough balance to strike given the polarity of the sides on the subject and, all in all, Gasper and the other guys at the Globe are doing ok on that.

 

[TomTerrific]

Agreed on Gasper's ability, but that doesn't mean he deserves a free pass for a piece of dreck like this. Since he could produce much better, in fact, he deserves more criticism, not less, on the theory that there's at least a chance it will have some good effect. If this came from Nick Cafardo I would let it pass.

Your comment prompted me to look at his piece again just to see if I was too harsh. I don't think so. Just look at the breathless and hyperbolic first sentence of the part I quoted. If anything I'm more disappointed.

 

[Vinho Tinto]

Is Gasper now off the whitelist?

 

[tims4wins]

Didn't Gronk break his arm on a PAT?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I'm having trouble seeing how this makes him into a new CHB? If you disagree with his point, fine. But CHB is a troll and I don't see how this fits into that basket. This isn't intentionally stirring the pot with local fans, which is the CHB hallmark.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

How is this remotely like a CHB troll job? Granted Gasper's topic and column choice was somewhat debatable but isn't that the point of most columns? Where in this column did Gasper troll his readers in the manner that Shank usually does? You have absolutely no examples to prove your point. Did Gasper engage in any racism in this column like Skank has done in the past? Nope! Did Gasper attempt to intentionally inflame his audience ala Skank? Would Gasper submit this column as part of a Pulitizer nomination? Probably not but to paint him with the Skank brush is a vast overreach. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a ridiculous comparison and starting such a topic in the first place.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

You do not understand the whole point of what makes Skank such a loathsome and despicable writer if you are comparing Gasper to him.

 

[Dotrat]

I generally like Gasper, but he does seem to be going out of his way to be a Pats contrarian of late. His Deflategate columns have been, like Volin's, full of assumption and innuendo but very light on substance about how the Pats brought all of Goodell's wrath on themselves because of Spygate, Tom Brady's phone, and a seemingly (at least in his own and Volin's minds) well-earned and established reputation for cheating. In this latest offering, he seems to have missed or largely ignored the heart of why Belichick was one of the driving forces behind the change--that the PAT needs to be a competitive play. He dances around the issue without ever really engaging that point.

 

[TomTerrific]

How is this remotely like a CHB troll job? Granted Gasper's topic and column choice was somewhat debatable but isn't that the point of most columns? Where in this column did Gasper troll his readers in the manner that Shank usually does? You have absolutely no examples to prove your point. Did Gasper engage in any racism in this column like Skank has done in the past? Nope! Did Gasper attempt to intentionally inflame his audience ala Skank? Would Gasper submit this column as part of a Pulitizer nomination? Probably not but to paint him with the Skank brush is a vast overreach. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a ridiculous comparison and starting such a topic in the first place.

 
Sorry, not ashamed, but I'll concede that CHB's worst qualities, especially the trolling, aren't present here. But I worry for the future if Gasper continues to pen columns that use easy targets to make essentially nonsensical points, in the hopes of getting clicks. Once you do that, it's a slippery slope.
 
Shaughnessy does what he does in part because it's a formula that works (also, in part, because he's a douche), and it wouldn't surprise me if he started out a much more readable and reasonable columnist. I certainly don't remember his stuff from the early 80's pissing me off in any way like his work since about '95 has. I don't want something similar to befall Gasper. Hence the title.  Perhaps it's a stretch, and perhaps I should have added a question mark at the end of the topic title, but I think my meaning's clear enough--I'm concerned about him picking up some of Shaughnessy's habits, and I've made clear what in his current column (as well as his Deflategate material) bothers me.
 
CHB is successful at what he does because he's also got writing talent--he just uses it to piss people off and stroke his ego. I think Gasper has talent, and I'm concerned about it being wasted.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I don't think Gasper is approaching the CHB Zone by any means.  I just think he sucks.
 
His suggestion that Tom should talk to clear the air or rebut the arguments was wildly naïve given the pending appeal.  Being in synch with Chris Russo is a good sign that you are wrong.
 
His suggestion that the Patriots are hated because they are arrogant was simplistic.  Not that the perception of arrogance (or even the reality) isn't a factor in how the Pats are viewed, but like most things in life, the reality is multi-layered and the facts that they win so much, Belichick is purposefully short with the media and Tom has, until recently, such a perfect looking existence all factor in.  Gasper compounded his one dimensional conclusion with extremely thin analysis as he brought only three examples of arrogance -- SpyGate, demanding an apology and playing legal games with their witness' availability.  Only SpyGate's continuation of the filming after the league memo was down to arrogance, in my view.
 
His suggestion today that the Sox travails are the fault of Ben, John Henry and the players, and not Farrell, is also thinly supported and wrong headed.  Again, why choose?  Everyone deserves blame for the current state of affairs, just as everyone usually deserves credit when things go well.  And it's inarguable that Farrell has booted a good number of tactical calls in this short season, and it's at least possibly true that he has failed to properly motivate his players.  However you view the latter, putting all the blame on people other than Farrell is arbitrary.
 
That the Boston Globe Sports Section, once the gold standard, is inhabited by the likes of Volin, Gasper and Cafardo is truly sad.