Wednesday, June 15, 2005
The Daily Suckie - June 15th, 2005
Welcome to today's Daily Suckie. Seeing how the Pistons won last night, you knew that today's Daily Quickie (link is on the left of course) would be in fine form. Luckily, it was my turn today and I didn't have to tread through shit river like Adam did yesterday (Michael Jackson themed? Give me a break). Anyway, on to the Suckie! In today's Quickie, we are treated to:
You Guessed It, A Reversal:
"Two Words For You: NEW. SERIES. It is SO back on... The entire mood of the series has shifted. Did you catch it in the 3rd and 4th quarters?"
I turned the game off last night and was expecting to see something along these lines. Luckily, if Shanoff is anything (in addition to a terrible writer, a bandwagoneer, a douchekettle, etc), he is predictable. He was leading the charge in discussing a sweep, and now suddenly, it is "SO back on". If he was a good writer, he would have taken my advice and not gotten overexcited about two games that the Spurs won (and were supposed to have won). What I really don't get is this line that he uses to end this sections of his "column": "But the fan-wagon was definitely too quick to write the Pistons off." I don't know if he is ripping on himself (I don't think he is, as he makes it pretty clear when he does that) or if he unknowingly is being extremely hypocritical and ironic, but he just described himself in a nutshell. He was writing them off after game 1 when he started discussing a sweep.
As a nod to yesterday's Quickie, The Charge: Shanoff is an awful writer who is fickle and has a moronic point of view. The Verdict: Guilty!
Another Bandwagon to Jump On? Yes Please:
"Phil's already hedging: 'It's not going to happen overnight,' he said of his Lakers turnaround job. 'It's going to take some time.' Um, how does 'never' sound?"
Loyal readers (all 2 of you: me and Adam), please mark this date down. I want to refer to it if and when the Lakers are doing well next season. Because when this happens, you can be sure Shanoff will be right back on the Lakers bandwagon (as opposed to the anti-Laker bandwagon that he is on now). I love the fact that Phil Jackson is admitting that his current team is weak and needs improvements, and then Shanoff tries to take him down a notch. If Jackson was being delusional by stating something along the lines that the Lakers are a great team, that is one thing. But what do you expect from a writer who has no class (or talent)?
The All-Knowing Shanoff:
"The lingering question is: Why would Phil put himself through the pain, aside from money and power? Maybe that's the answer."
Back to the Phil Jackson section. In what seems to be a running theme of late, Shanoff suggests that he knows yet another answer that us mere mortals do not know. I don't know why exactly Jackson would be going back to the Lakers. Money and power are definately two things to consider. But what about the fact that Jackson could dispell the myth that he cannot win unless he has superstars to carry him? What about the fun of tackling a challenge like coaching a team that isn't expected to do much? What about being close to his girlfriend again (in case you don't know, she is the boss' daughter)? What about working a job in a city you love? What about... I can keep going here. Instead of actually looking at the full spectrum here, Shanoff takes the low road (again) and tries to paint a picture of someone at one end of the spectrum. Why actually look into something when you can make fun assumptions and write about extremes?
Yet Another Reversal. What F-ing Side Are You On??
"New Nats Mania"
This one isn't so much about what he says in his section. It is the fact that he was pulling the Nationals bandwagon up until they lost a game (after they won 10 in a row mind you), and then quickly abandoned ship. Well, they won last night and look who is back to talking about them yet again in a positive light? If you guessed Shanoff, then you would be correct.
Stale Jokes (That's An Understatement):
"The only thing older than the Yankees' lineup is their stadium. (Thank you... I'll be here all week.)" and "The park's dimensions will be roughly the same (although shouldn't they be considerate of 2009 pitching staff Santana, Perez, Prior, Peavy and Clemens?)"
The first one he obviously pointed out the fact that it was a joke, and not a good one. I wouldn't even be highlighting it if it weren't for the fact that he has already mentioned the Yanks' age in just about every Yanks related piece he has written this year. The other joke, the one where he predicts the Yanks' staff in the future is beyond lame. He actually thinks this is funny because he doesn't put in a self deprecating comment whenever he uses it (and trust me, he has used this more than he used his joke about the Yanks' age). I think Shanoff should start doing a comedy tour with Dave Coulier from Full House, just so we could see definatively who is the unfunniest man alive.
A Truly Dumb-Ass Statement:
"Biggest Stars in NBA: 1. Phil Jackson"
I am absolutely speechless. Phil Jackson is the biggest star in the NBA? I am assuming this is a joke, but who knows. I guess he means who was the biggest story of yesterday. And in Shanoff's world, that is all that matters. History or facts sure don't.
Well my furry friends, that will do it for today's Suckie. I hope you all enjoyed it. Stay tuned tomorrow for Adam's take on Shanoff's clusterfuck of a column. Hopefully, someone else won't get acquitted so Adam doesn't have to deal with another day like yesterday. Peace out homies.
You Guessed It, A Reversal:
"Two Words For You: NEW. SERIES. It is SO back on... The entire mood of the series has shifted. Did you catch it in the 3rd and 4th quarters?"
I turned the game off last night and was expecting to see something along these lines. Luckily, if Shanoff is anything (in addition to a terrible writer, a bandwagoneer, a douchekettle, etc), he is predictable. He was leading the charge in discussing a sweep, and now suddenly, it is "SO back on". If he was a good writer, he would have taken my advice and not gotten overexcited about two games that the Spurs won (and were supposed to have won). What I really don't get is this line that he uses to end this sections of his "column": "But the fan-wagon was definitely too quick to write the Pistons off." I don't know if he is ripping on himself (I don't think he is, as he makes it pretty clear when he does that) or if he unknowingly is being extremely hypocritical and ironic, but he just described himself in a nutshell. He was writing them off after game 1 when he started discussing a sweep.
As a nod to yesterday's Quickie, The Charge: Shanoff is an awful writer who is fickle and has a moronic point of view. The Verdict: Guilty!
Another Bandwagon to Jump On? Yes Please:
"Phil's already hedging: 'It's not going to happen overnight,' he said of his Lakers turnaround job. 'It's going to take some time.' Um, how does 'never' sound?"
Loyal readers (all 2 of you: me and Adam), please mark this date down. I want to refer to it if and when the Lakers are doing well next season. Because when this happens, you can be sure Shanoff will be right back on the Lakers bandwagon (as opposed to the anti-Laker bandwagon that he is on now). I love the fact that Phil Jackson is admitting that his current team is weak and needs improvements, and then Shanoff tries to take him down a notch. If Jackson was being delusional by stating something along the lines that the Lakers are a great team, that is one thing. But what do you expect from a writer who has no class (or talent)?
The All-Knowing Shanoff:
"The lingering question is: Why would Phil put himself through the pain, aside from money and power? Maybe that's the answer."
Back to the Phil Jackson section. In what seems to be a running theme of late, Shanoff suggests that he knows yet another answer that us mere mortals do not know. I don't know why exactly Jackson would be going back to the Lakers. Money and power are definately two things to consider. But what about the fact that Jackson could dispell the myth that he cannot win unless he has superstars to carry him? What about the fun of tackling a challenge like coaching a team that isn't expected to do much? What about being close to his girlfriend again (in case you don't know, she is the boss' daughter)? What about working a job in a city you love? What about... I can keep going here. Instead of actually looking at the full spectrum here, Shanoff takes the low road (again) and tries to paint a picture of someone at one end of the spectrum. Why actually look into something when you can make fun assumptions and write about extremes?
Yet Another Reversal. What F-ing Side Are You On??
"New Nats Mania"
This one isn't so much about what he says in his section. It is the fact that he was pulling the Nationals bandwagon up until they lost a game (after they won 10 in a row mind you), and then quickly abandoned ship. Well, they won last night and look who is back to talking about them yet again in a positive light? If you guessed Shanoff, then you would be correct.
Stale Jokes (That's An Understatement):
"The only thing older than the Yankees' lineup is their stadium. (Thank you... I'll be here all week.)" and "The park's dimensions will be roughly the same (although shouldn't they be considerate of 2009 pitching staff Santana, Perez, Prior, Peavy and Clemens?)"
The first one he obviously pointed out the fact that it was a joke, and not a good one. I wouldn't even be highlighting it if it weren't for the fact that he has already mentioned the Yanks' age in just about every Yanks related piece he has written this year. The other joke, the one where he predicts the Yanks' staff in the future is beyond lame. He actually thinks this is funny because he doesn't put in a self deprecating comment whenever he uses it (and trust me, he has used this more than he used his joke about the Yanks' age). I think Shanoff should start doing a comedy tour with Dave Coulier from Full House, just so we could see definatively who is the unfunniest man alive.
A Truly Dumb-Ass Statement:
"Biggest Stars in NBA: 1. Phil Jackson"
I am absolutely speechless. Phil Jackson is the biggest star in the NBA? I am assuming this is a joke, but who knows. I guess he means who was the biggest story of yesterday. And in Shanoff's world, that is all that matters. History or facts sure don't.
Well my furry friends, that will do it for today's Suckie. I hope you all enjoyed it. Stay tuned tomorrow for Adam's take on Shanoff's clusterfuck of a column. Hopefully, someone else won't get acquitted so Adam doesn't have to deal with another day like yesterday. Peace out homies.
