Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?
DukeSox Likes Rick Reilly
#8
Posted 20 June 2010 - 01:43 PM
HILARIOUS!
Seriously, what a turd column with very little originality. Wait, there are ties in soccer? We don't know how much stoppage time there is? And every third comment about the horns? Just a poor effort all around, although I did like the Hamburger Helper joke. Those goalie gloves are awesome, the goalies look like Mickey Mouse.
#11
Posted 20 June 2010 - 04:10 PM
...hence, DukeSox likes him.
I mean, did you not see Drocca's post? Geesh.
Edited by JayMags71, 20 June 2010 - 04:11 PM.
#13
Posted 20 June 2010 - 07:38 PM

"And WHAT'S THE DEAL with the BLACK BOX? Why don't they just make the WHOLE PLANE with the SAME STUFF they make the BLACK BOX!"
#14
Posted 20 June 2010 - 08:08 PM
Milquetoast doesn't even begin to describe him. Going through the motions and cashing the checks.
And he shouldn't get on anyone for being fake; his happy-go-lucky put-on attitude whenever he's on TV is as transparent as a stripper's top during a wet T-shirt contest.
Edited by Mueller's Twin Grannies, 20 June 2010 - 08:08 PM.
#17
Posted 21 June 2010 - 06:53 AM
HILARIOUS!
I didn't click on the link yet. You're saying he just rips off Ginger Skinny? Lame.
#18
Posted 21 June 2010 - 10:53 AM
I don't mind that trick if it's used correctly. But to use it to talk about the horns after everyone had said everything that needed to be said about the horns was very poor.
#19
Posted 21 June 2010 - 11:13 AM
Milquetoast doesn't even begin to describe him. Going through the motions and cashing the checks.
And he shouldn't get on anyone for being fake; his happy-go-lucky put-on attitude whenever he's on TV is as transparent as a stripper's top during a wet T-shirt contest.
I think you're going to the wrong strip clubs.
#25
Posted 21 June 2010 - 08:41 PM
DukeSox, we: Rick Reilly and SoSH- celebrate your entire catalog.
Edited by JohntheBaptist, 22 June 2010 - 05:07 PM.
#26
Posted 21 June 2010 - 08:53 PM
Admittedly it's been awhile and my early experiences were not pleasant, believe it or not, mostly due to the "talent" being less than "talented" far too often. Feel free to substitute with something more to your liking.
#28
Posted 23 June 2010 - 01:50 AM
The only thing I laughed at of his was when he talked to Hasheem Thabeet before the draft and how Thabeet was glad the Clippers got the 1st pick since he knew he wasn't going to end up going to them.
#29
Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:32 PM
LeBron James comes home to Cleveland. Now that's a Homecoming episode I'm dying to host.
Is there anything as perishable as sports superstardom? Nine months ago, the three most popular athletes in this country were Tiger Woods, Peyton Manning and LeBron James. Since that time, Woods has become the Sultan of Sleaze, Manning is suddenly the guy who can't get it done in the big moment, and James is disloyal, narcissistic and cruel, apparently. It's like one of those ancient cultures that would anoint a man king just long enough to kill him, ensuring a bountiful harvest. Sports fame is like riding a tiger. It's fun for awhile, but how do you get off without being eaten?
On South Beach, will LeBron be a regular at the Clevelander?
First, jokes about LeBron going back to Cleveland? OH MY GOD THAT'S SO CUTTING EDGE!!!1 Second, a joke about LeBron going to the Clevelander in Miami? Oh, I get it, it's funny because he can't go back to Cleveland!
Third and finally, as much as I dislike Peyton Manning...huh? Tiger Woods lost his popularity because he was a serial cheater who was outed as a scumbag, LeBron lost his because of the distasteful way he dragged out his free agency decision and the grandstanding way in which he shat all over Cleveland and their fans in primetime...while Peyton Manning failed to win the Super Bowl. And it's not like he blew it himself, as the Saints were too much for the Colts' D. If anything Manning was saddled with the "can't get it done in the big moment" tag years ago, which he pretty much erased following his Super Bowl win and subsequent achievements in the years that followed. It just seems like Reilly was making a (surprise!) lazy attempt to shoehorn in a theme there about the fluidity of sports fame and found himself lacking in concrete examples.
In conclusion, Rick Reilly sucks.
#30
Posted 19 July 2010 - 03:22 PM
Third and finally, as much as I dislike Peyton Manning...huh? Tiger Woods lost his popularity because he was a serial cheater who was outed as a scumbag, LeBron lost his because of the distasteful way he dragged out his free agency decision and the grandstanding way in which he shat all over Cleveland and their fans in primetime...while Peyton Manning failed to win the Super Bowl. And it's not like he blew it himself, as the Saints were too much for the Colts' D. If anything Manning was saddled with the "can't get it done in the big moment" tag years ago, which he pretty much erased following his Super Bowl win and subsequent achievements in the years that followed. It just seems like Reilly was making a (surprise!) lazy attempt to shoehorn in a theme there about the fluidity of sports fame and found himself lacking in concrete examples.
The obvious problem with the piece is that sports celebrity is fickle largely because the Rick Reilly's (and SI and ESPN) spend most of their time pronouncing that popular athletes' athletic accomplishments and personal traits to be superhuman and then lambasting the same athletes when they fall short of the mark. If Rick Reilly hadn't spend the past thirteen or fourteen years telling us that Tiger is a great person who cares about golf, winning, his family, and nothing else, maybe people wouldn't be so crestfallen about Tiger.
#31
Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:56 AM
Even his feelgood stories suck ass. They did then, and they do now. Rick Reilly is one of the most god-awful things ever to happen to sports journalism.I miss when Reilly had the end column for SI and wrote feel good stories.
He was the only blight on the otherwise outstanding British Open coverage by ESPN, and he nearly ruined it single-handedly with his sappy piece-of-shit commentaries. The nauseating waxing over Oosthuizen's name pronunciation and he strong winds at the Old Course, not to mention his posturing of Oosthuizen's use of a black caddy as a symbol of racially-unified kumbaya in South Africa, were pathetic. His voice and campy facial expressions are far worse than his written word.
#32
Posted 18 December 2010 - 05:50 PM
Proof positive that the Bill Belichick coaching tree has no limbs.
Has Rick Reilly never heard of Nick Saban? or even Pat Hill and Kirk Ferentz? Is Reilly aware that the Kansas City Chiefs are 8-5 and in first place?
#33
Posted 18 December 2010 - 06:01 PM
A really dumb line even from a Reilly column about Josh McDaniels:
Has Rick Reilly never heard of Nick Saban? or even Pat Hill and Kirk Ferentz? Is Reilly aware that the Kansas City Chiefs are 8-5 and in first place?
Nick Saban failed miserably as a head coach in the NFL. As did Crennell. Wiess made a fool of himself by the end of his tenure at ND and has never even tried to be an NFL head coach. Maybe that fatso Mangini will figure it out, but I'm not holding my breath. McDaniels was an unmitigated disaster. I think thats what Riley is referring to.
Which IMO, makes Belichicks accomplishments all the more impressive.
Edited by Rocco Graziosa, 18 December 2010 - 06:02 PM.
#37
Posted 18 February 2011 - 10:00 PM
http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6136707
Quick summation:
At the Iowa state wrestling tournament, the 5th ranked wrestler in the state defaulted over wrestling the first girl to ever enter the tournament. He's 16 and home schooled by his minister father, and according to him, his faith wouldn't allow him to engage a woman in a violent manner. The girl made zero big deal out of it, and said she respected his faith and his choices.
And Reilly takes the kid to task, in one of his typical moral high ground articles. He takes pot shots at the kid throughout the entire article, hammering him with subtle and not so subtle accusations, ending with this blurb...
Neither he, nor his coaches, nor his dad, had any comment. He was reportedly on his way back home to Marion, Iowa, where his mom was about to deliver her eighth child.
For the kid's sake, I hope it's a boy.
Real classy.
Look, I'm not going to pass judgment one way or the other on whether or not the kid should have wrestled with the girl. It's a decision I've wondered about what the right thing to do would have been, whether it was sexist, etc, since I heard about it a few days ago. I've still never found an answer I'm comfortable with. I don't think the kid should have been in a spot like that, but at the same time, I don't think the girls should be excluded. It's oxymoronic, I know, but what can you do? There's no easy answer. I'd like to think that I'd respect the opponent and get on the mat with her, but I've never actually been put in that position. And I'm not a home schooled 16 year old boy.
Point is, who knows what he was actually thinking. There's a lot going on. She's the first girl to ever qualify. You know this is probably going to be national news one way or the other. He was probably afraid of hurting her, being hurt by her, accidentally groping her, accidentally getting a boner in his wrestling outfit from all the wrestling with a girl, and a myriad of other things only 16 year olds can worry about, only all multiplied by knowing that there was going to be some level of national attention on the outcome no matter what happened. And the kid probably panicked, withdrew, and said what he thought would sound best.
All of which is why I think this was a scumbag article to write, and an easy morality play for page hits from the king of them all. There was far more malice and condescension in this article than was ever involved between either of those two wrestlers, and it must be nice to sit in his ivory tower at ESPN, making all that money they pay him for that little shit box on the main page, and launch attacks at a high schooler with no forum to respond. Ass.
#38
Posted 19 February 2011 - 10:02 AM
God... I don't usually read Reilly, but THIS crap needed to be addressed
http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6136707
Quick summation:
At the Iowa state wrestling tournament, the 5th ranked wrestler in the state defaulted over wrestling the first girl to ever enter the tournament. He's 16 and home schooled by his minister father, and according to him, his faith wouldn't allow him to engage a woman in a violent manner. The girl made zero big deal out of it, and said she respected his faith and his choices.
And Reilly takes the kid to task, in one of his typical moral high ground articles. He takes pot shots at the kid throughout the entire article, hammering him with subtle and not so subtle accusations, ending with this blurb...
[/size][/font][/color]
Real classy.
Look, I'm not going to pass judgment one way or the other on whether or not the kid should have wrestled with the girl. It's a decision I've wondered about what the right thing to do would have been, whether it was sexist, etc, since I heard about it a few days ago. I've still never found an answer I'm comfortable with. I don't think the kid should have been in a spot like that, but at the same time, I don't think the girls should be excluded. It's oxymoronic, I know, but what can you do? There's no easy answer. I'd like to think that I'd respect the opponent and get on the mat with her, but I've never actually been put in that position. And I'm not a home schooled 16 year old boy.
Point is, who knows what he was actually thinking. There's a lot going on. She's the first girl to ever qualify. You know this is probably going to be national news one way or the other. He was probably afraid of hurting her, being hurt by her, accidentally groping her, accidentally getting a boner in his wrestling outfit from all the wrestling with a girl, and a myriad of other things only 16 year olds can worry about, only all multiplied by knowing that there was going to be some level of national attention on the outcome no matter what happened. And the kid probably panicked, withdrew, and said what he thought would sound best.
All of which is why I think this was a scumbag article to write, and an easy morality play for page hits from the king of them all. There was far more malice and condescension in this article than was ever involved between either of those two wrestlers, and it must be nice to sit in his ivory tower at ESPN, making all that money they pay him for that little shit box on the main page, and launch attacks at a high schooler with no forum to respond. Ass.
Reilly is an idiot who has obviously never participated or even attended real wrestling matches. My brother wrestled in college, so I asked him about it. He said he would never wrestle a girl. He would play a girl in just about any other sport, basketball, baseball, even football, but no way would he wrestle. He said he would feel like he was raping her. Think about it. Your goal is to wrestle her to the ground, throw her on her back for the pin, or on her stomach and then "ride" her from behind all while she is fighting back. Anywhere else besides a wrestling mat and thats aggravated sexual assault. And Reilly is stupid enough to criticize a 16 year old boy for not wanting to do this? What an idiot.
Edited by lostjumper, 19 February 2011 - 12:38 PM.
#39
Posted 19 February 2011 - 10:41 AM
http://sports.espn.g...rick&id=4263659
and i had forgotten this gem Reilly wrote about college softball a few years ago- if this had been a college BASEBALL coach, he would have been praising him-
Edited by deborafitz, 19 February 2011 - 10:46 AM.
#40
Posted 19 April 2011 - 01:15 PM
http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6388708
You're thinking: What about these $60,000 checks that went out this week to the players from the NFLPA's lockout war chest? That should pay for a few babysitters, right?
True, but maybe you should meet …
… former Air Force star Chad Hall, Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver.
Hall, 24, isn't getting any $60,000. Since transforming himself from an F-16 mechanic into a modern-day "Invincible" with the Eagles, the 5-foot-8 Hall hasn't exactly hit the Lotto. He was on the team for only 11 games, so he got the minimum salary, prorated. The most he'll get from the lockout fund is "about $10,000," he says.
Now he's training friends' kids for whatever they want to pay him -- "I don't really charge a set fee" -- and trying to open a wings restaurant in Atlanta with his sister's boyfriend, Detroit Lions QB Matthew Stafford.
"If we don't have a season, I'll be waiting tables and bartending there," he says. "Plus, my uncle says he has a plumbing job for me. Pays $15 an hour, so that's not bad."
You think Seattle Seahawks owner Paul Allen will be asking "BBQ or teriyaki?" anytime soon?
#42
Posted 26 April 2011 - 12:36 AM
http://espn.go.com/b...rld-malaria-day
#45
Posted 13 May 2011 - 01:32 PM
Talking to draft experts and using our own eyes, you'll find below the re-drafts of the first rounds of 2006, 2007 and 2008. Each draft was conducted as if you were drafting right now with the same pool of players, but now you have three years of watching them in the bank.
Fine, all well and good, whatever. Silly exercise for a stupid column. But then, in the throes of declaring Seattle the worst out of those three years, he brings up Kentwan Balmer's failure in the NFL. That would be fine, you know, if Seattle had actually drafted Balmer. But they didn't, San Francisco did, and Seattle got him for a 6th round pick last year.
But, no big deal. Only that one of the three criteria he uses to come to his final conclusion is completely and utterly wrong. Jesus, that's not even a small mistake. How do you write a column on the NFL draft and NOT know who was actually drafted by which team?
#46
Posted 13 May 2011 - 02:48 PM
Rick Reilly is a fucking dunce. In his latest "column" he uses some redraft, and...I'll let him explain it:
Fine, all well and good, whatever. Silly exercise for a stupid column. But then, in the throes of declaring Seattle the worst out of those three years, he brings up Kentwan Balmer's failure in the NFL. That would be fine, you know, if Seattle had actually drafted Balmer. But they didn't, San Francisco did, and Seattle got him for a 6th round pick last year.
He gets at least some of the draft positions wrong (Revis was 14 not 32).
He just made up the slots where people would get redrafted. There aren't 151 2008 players better than Branden Albert, no fucking way-he's a starting left tackle. Pierre Garcon isn't a top ten pick ahead of Jake Long. Whinter, Sims and Kiwanuka are three good players--they're not getting picked 129, 160 and 172. Brodrick Bunkley at 219? There are 218 players from 2006 better than a guy who started on good teams for three years and who is at least a rotational d-linemen. I'm not so sure Talib is getting picked 15th with the criminal activities and what not.
Edited by Shelterdog, 13 May 2011 - 04:15 PM.
#49
Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:22 AM
I got all rex ryan dyslexic there. Reilly says Revis went 32 when he in fact went 14.
I could have probably verified what you were saying if there was ever a chance in hell I would click on a Rick Reilly column. Which I wouldn't do. Even if it were to avert nuclear holocaust.
I'd rather annihilation than read Rick fucking Reilly.
Reply to this topic
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users













