Monday, January 18, 2010

From the stoopid files

When I started this blog (well, the old iteration), I did so as an outlet for my frustration at not being able to discuss Georgia and collegiate athletics as often as I would have liked. At the time, that meant a lot of reading articles from the hit trolls at the AJC and reacting to the stoopid that inevitably flowed from the likes of Terry Moore, Jeff Schultz and Mark Bradley.

If you have been reading the blog in the past few months, you have noticed that I rarely do that now. For one, I don't even like to read what they have to say. Much like the various message boards, I simply choose to ignore about 75% of their writing. It makes for a much healthier mindset for me. For two, when I do read it, I usually treat it much like I would a 15 year old's asinity. I simply ignore the stoopid. For three, I don't like to drive traffic to the dribble, so even if I do end up writing something about what they have said, I refuse to link to it.

So you'll have to find the article from Mark Bradley that I am referencing on your own.

On Friday, Bradley asked the semi-rhetorical question "Did UGA or Tech make the better hire?" Let's put aside for a second the numerous opines from Bradley about how there was no way Georgia could make a good hire after the 'ineptitude' (Bradley's word, not mine) of the head coach in this search. He actually arrives at the opinion that much smarter and less asinine people did when Coach Martinez was fired: the question will be answered in the fall. That in itself is a small bit of logic, so I guess I should be happy. However, how he got there is just...well, stoopid.

He starts out by saying process didn't matter, yet for five weeks all he wrote about was process. The he proceeds to say Grantham won't stir the hearts (and message boards) of Georgia fans, therefore isn't as good a hire.

The he asks "who had heard of Todd Grantham a month ago?" Well, I have prepared a list:

Nick Saban, two national championships. Defensive guru.
Tried to hire Grantham to be his DC in Miami.

Personally vouched for Grantham to Mark Richt.

Told Wade Phillips to go hire him.

Hey, not exactly the masses of Montana, but still.

At least he admits that "Grantham will do more for Georgia than Groh will for Tech." But even that admission is a backhanded compliment of sorts. Richt needs the help more, at least according to Bradley. Therefore, he is more likely to be the better hire long term.

There is no doubt that Bud Foster, Kirby Smart, and John Chavis would have been the sexier hire. However there is little doubt that had Bud Foster eschewed Chicago Maroon and Orange for Red and Black, Beamer's first call would have been to Grantham. When Nick Saban calls and says you should hire Grantham, that is enough for me. Why not Mark Bradley? Oh, yeah. He has to drive hits.

I keep forgetting the overriding purpose of all of his writing. And that is why I just don't like reading him.


  1. I would prefer Grantham to all of the D coaches that you listed except Foster.

  2. Bradley is a mukraking journalist at best.

  3. What qualifies Bradley to even have an opinion on anything sports related? Did he once win a Checker tournament or something?

  4. Never click on Bradley or Schultz. They create headlines that induce you to view their work (i.e. Dooley has three-way affair with Yoculan and UGA). Both writers are breathing their last with the AJC. Don't encourage them!

  5. Mark Bradley is a stoopid head. I thought I would opine in the same vein I view his work in re: all things Dawgy.