I wonder, who the biggest Ranger fan and most ardent hockey fan of all the writers in NY is? I mean, which guy is writing about hockey hoping to get a shot at writing a baseball column. Or who cares and only wants to write about his passion which is hockey??
I like writers, who like fans actually get angry when teams that they cover "mail" a game in or don't compete. Again if I want to read about hockey and the big 3 papers are in front of me, I'm grabbing the Post. Guess that means I like the guy.
It's too bad honor wasn't in the tough-talking coach's vocabulary last summer when he urged general manager Glen Sather to sign free agent Donald Brashear a couple of months after concussing then-Blueshirt center Blair Betts with a blindside, suspension-worthy blow to the head.
it's stuff like that paragraph that he put into his piece on yesterdays game that has nothing to do with the game. it's just he has to get his little shots in on guys he doesn't like in every article (usually not even artfully thrown in but jammed in like the above) and that's why I can't stand the guy
To be fair, I think Gross and Zipay both do an effective job (as did Weinman). But Brooks, like him or not, is the only one that really, truly says something about the team. He puts himself out there. And I'm not discounting the fact that he has plenty of flaws (the rumors, the ridiculous BS). But he does actually provide analysis, whether you agree with it or not. His competitors provide some subtle analysis, but it's not the same.
I would be fine with him if he didn't try to sensationalize things and just stick to the facts. But alas, he mainly writes to get a reaction, and I can't stand that.
While I don't think Torts handled last night with Brooks correctly, Brooks just showed that he was trying to get a reaction out of Torts instead of getting information, and that is very unprofessional.
I find it funny that when the Rangers are doing good, Brooks seems awfully quiet. Maybe he is just one of those guys who loves to be negative.
I would be fine with him if he didn't try to sensationalize things and just stick to the facts. But alas, he mainly writes to get a reaction, and I can't stand that.
While I don't think Torts handled last night with Brooks correctly, Brooks just showed that he was trying to get a reaction out of Torts instead of getting information, and that is very unprofessional.
I find it funny that when the Rangers are doing good, Brooks seems awfully quiet. Maybe he is just one of those guys who loves to be negative.
That's one of the reasons why I dislike Brooks at times, he comes off as unprofessional.
He'll write a good article and then the next day he'll call Redden a crybaby in his headline. It's fine if we want to make fun of the players and call them names, but when a reporter resorts to namecalling it just comes off as immature.
I actually agree with a lot of what Larry has to say, but I could do without the cheap shots, it just harms his credibility.
Agreed. Thats not redden's game at all, he is not a fighter, and yet he dropped the gloves. I respect him for that. No reason for Brooks going after him. I really dont think redden wouldve allowed carcillo to do that to gaborik like girardi did. I strongly believe he wouldve done something, anything.
Agreed. Thats not redden's game at all, he is not a fighter, and yet he dropped the gloves. I respect him for that. No reason for Brooks going after him. I really dont think redden wouldve allowed carcillo to do that to gaborik like girardi did. I strongly believe he wouldve done something, anything.
I"d respect him more if he did that more than once a year.
I"d respect him more if he did that more than once a year.
But he isnt a fighter. Him doing at all is impressive to me because thats just not him. He fought Chris Clark last year in that game against the Caps where Semin was slapping Staal like some schoolgirl. I respect redden for trying because he knows he's on the ropes here. I respect him for trying to play tougher when thats never really been him.
But he isnt a fighter. Him doing at all is impressive to me because thats just not him. He fought Chris Clark last year in that game against the Caps where Semin was slapping Staal like some schoolgirl. I respect redden for trying because he knows he's on the ropes here. I respect him for trying to play tougher when thats never really been him.
Look at what you wrote and tell whats wrong here.
Last edited by HAPPY HOUR: 01-22-2010 at 05:22 PM.
The Rangers have 1 regulation LOSS in their 12 games.
The Islanders and Rangers are playing identical for the past month or so.
One is a feel good story, the league can't get enough notice.
One can't do a thing right, one loss, fire Sather, the world is ending.
A lot of why the Isles are embraced is because of the type of journalistic work Katie Strang and Chris Botta are doing. People like to listen to those "above" them.
Are there negative things about the Isles? Of course.. are you hearing about them? No, because WINNING and moving up in the standings is more important than what's negative right now.
Our writers make sure to emphasize the positive over the negative.
Not for Larry, not for the Rangers - and instead, this board is constantly negative. I don't know why, but I just feel this negativity when I come over here. And why that is for a team that has kept pace with a red hot Isles, whom can't get enough good press - is ridiculous.
If anything, one regulation loss in the last 12 games is a huge accomplishment. Why is that Larry Brooks fails to write about such? His negativity is daunting.
