03-03-2015, 09:09 PM
I've been one of Lombardi's critics, not because of any animus, but precisely because he is a Stanford guy making his way. I want him to improve so that he succeeds, and, to his credit, I think he's gotten a little bit better since joining ESPN.
My main criticisms of Lombardi have been:
His writing is overly pretentious, and tough to read. It reads like a freshman creative writing assignment where he often uses a whole lot of words designed to sound impressive but which don't say much. He needs to learn how to write more simply and directly. As I said, he is improving in this regard.
He is unduly opinionated and too narrow-minded in his views. The best example of this was last year, when he was trying to create a QB controversy for the new year that didn't exist. He was disguising his opinion (that he thought Hogan should be replaced as QB) as factual reporting (that there was a QB controversy). Further, he weaseled into it by using my favorite crutch "some have argued..." without giving sources or citations.
He has tried to mold statistics and facts to fit his viewpoint rather than molding his viewpoint to fit the statistics and facts. The old saw that he "uses statistics much as a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination" holds true. CT Card (if I recall) had an extensive post showing that the statistics he was citing didn't imply what he wanted them to imply.
His reporting has been lazy, often parroting what we already know or what has been written by the coach. I think this is a good example, where the article doesn't tell us much new information. I think it is natural to compare him to Andy Drukarev, who works very hard to get information (especially about recruiting) for a much lower profile outfit. David falls very short in that comparison.
My criticisms do not arise from animosity towards Lombardi. As I said, I want him to succeed, because it would be great if we had more high quality Stanford-oriented content, especially at a nationally prominent media outlet like ESPN. But I want that content to be well-written, easily readable, insightful, and original. I don't want another idiot out there generating clickbait by posting bombastic and opinionated bloviation that is designed to generate a reaction rather than inform readers. WE already have Wilner for that.
BC
My main criticisms of Lombardi have been:
His writing is overly pretentious, and tough to read. It reads like a freshman creative writing assignment where he often uses a whole lot of words designed to sound impressive but which don't say much. He needs to learn how to write more simply and directly. As I said, he is improving in this regard.
He is unduly opinionated and too narrow-minded in his views. The best example of this was last year, when he was trying to create a QB controversy for the new year that didn't exist. He was disguising his opinion (that he thought Hogan should be replaced as QB) as factual reporting (that there was a QB controversy). Further, he weaseled into it by using my favorite crutch "some have argued..." without giving sources or citations.
He has tried to mold statistics and facts to fit his viewpoint rather than molding his viewpoint to fit the statistics and facts. The old saw that he "uses statistics much as a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination" holds true. CT Card (if I recall) had an extensive post showing that the statistics he was citing didn't imply what he wanted them to imply.
His reporting has been lazy, often parroting what we already know or what has been written by the coach. I think this is a good example, where the article doesn't tell us much new information. I think it is natural to compare him to Andy Drukarev, who works very hard to get information (especially about recruiting) for a much lower profile outfit. David falls very short in that comparison.
My criticisms do not arise from animosity towards Lombardi. As I said, I want him to succeed, because it would be great if we had more high quality Stanford-oriented content, especially at a nationally prominent media outlet like ESPN. But I want that content to be well-written, easily readable, insightful, and original. I don't want another idiot out there generating clickbait by posting bombastic and opinionated bloviation that is designed to generate a reaction rather than inform readers. WE already have Wilner for that.
BC