Sando Vs. Blount

[capncrunch]

I've been watching Sando in his weekly video with the other two guys discussing the ESPN power rankings. It's a good watch/listen. Every week the other two guys have a little fun at Sando's expense. They kind of tease him the way a know-it-all somewhat humorless kid would get it in school days. It does add to the entertainment value of the show. I always looked forward to reading Sando's Hawks material last year, while this year I don't really want to bother with Blount's articles. I agree with the other post that Eric Williams was great.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

I voted Blount because this is a ridiculous poll. No one in their right mind would prefer him to Sando.

:34853_doh:

That he has a Cougar avatar just makes it that much more win :th2thumbs:

 

[HawkFan72]

Shocker, I know, that I'm against the norm, but I like Blount. Sando is overrated IMO. Doesn't have much original thought, pretty basic reporter. He's very reliable at it, but that is all he does. When he tried his hand at being an analyst, he points out the obvious and misses the main hidden points.

unno: Sando used to come up with original ideas and articles all the time. That's why he used to be linked here constantly. He was a great discussion starter. I can't recall a single Blount article that wasn't something I've seen somewhere else.

 

[hawk79]

Blount's ok. I mean, especially in a bye week...what are you really going to write about..save for the suspensions. I think most of the time they have to find things to write about. But I notice that many of the bloggers from the other teams sometimes write about the same things.

 

[canfan]

Sando was a cut above the rest of the ESPN bloggers as far as creatlng stories and using stats to make points. Blount is about average for what you see on blog nation these days. Its not that Blount is terrible, its that Sando is very good. Complaining won't bring him back though, so my advise is to either read him or ignore him, but for God's sake, can we quit talking about him? Comments section on the ESPN blog now consist almost entirely of critiques of Blount's writing and people pining for the "good old days" with Sando. These are likely the same people who bitched about the content when Sando WAS doing the blog. Enough!!

 

[Subzero717]

Comparing those two isn't fair to Blount.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

I always appreciated what Sando brought to the table because he based most all of what he wrote on fact rather than jumping on the mediot band wagon of choice.

That said, it's always good to have variety, because I characterized Sando's reporting as taking the 'safe' route more often than not. He was pretty non-committal when it came to expressing an opinion and even though the basis of his articles came from verifiable stats, occasionally it seemed as though he was quicker to emphasize the negative indicators despite plenty of bright spots being evident as well.

Additionally, I got the impression that he wasn't much of an X and O guy either. He seemed to use stats to compensate for a lack of football knowledge.

 

[Spiderdan]

One problem I have with Blount is that he really is still getting to know the area. After the Monday night game he stated that thunder storms are a common occurrence in Seattle when they are, in fact, rare. Hopefully, he'll soon learn and spew less nonsense.

 

[Subzero717]

One problem I have with Blount is that he really is still getting to know the area. After the Monday night game he stated that thunder storms are a common occurrence in Seattle when they are, in fact, rare. Hopefully, he'll soon learn and spew less nonsense.

That's my beef with the guy. Comparing a Nascar guy to Sando isn't really fair. The guy making stuff up is ridiculous. He doesn't fact check anything. When and who guys played against. Confusing stats from one game to another. Its horrible.