- Admin
- #61
Offline
I put him in the same category as Glenn Guilbeaux never balanced mostly negative. I don’t mind when the team is doing bad. All I want is a fair balanced article.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
He makes the attempt to be objective and occasionally plays the role of contrarian and most Saints fans can't handle anyone who doesn't pump sunshine all day...
He makes the attempt to be objective and occasionally plays the role of contrarian and most Saints fans can't handle anyone who doesn't pump sunshine all day...
Where is the lie? I get that it's unflattering, but anyone who has spent time on this website knows every bit of that is true. We see wild *** conspiracies all the time on this forum.
Slightly off-topic: didn't someone write a book about Bountygate that exposed the sham of the investigation? Anyone else remember that, or is it a figment of my imagination?
Agree.
The Saints beat has to be among the toughest in all of sports. When the ball doesn't bounce our way, we can get pretty vicious, and won't tolerate an upstart beat reporter making "negative", although usually honest comments. Having said that, I didn't care much for Duncan. Sometimes he just didn't seem to know his football, or how to earn the respect of the fans and coach.
To everyone saying he is a good writer...
What about him is distinguishable? He is mediocre at best.
I'm not trying to start another argument, but I'm actually curios. I've never read examples of why people consider him good.
Calm down. Outside of Underhill, it's all fluff that everyone writes. Nothing groundbreaking comes from Triplett, Holder, etc either, but it's the stuff we want to know.So, can anyone provide an example of some just "above average" content from Duncan? Something better than just mediocre? I've never come across anything either. Please enlighten us, as apparently we've been sheltered from the good stuff.
Underhill is just too much X's and O's for me. LolCalm down. Outside of Underhill, it's all fluff that everyone writes. Nothing groundbreaking comes from Triplett, Holder, etc either, but it's the stuff we want to know.
Underhill's insight, statistical digging, and writing skills, all of which includes his x's and o's are what endeared him to a lot of folks here. But to each his own.Underhill is just too much X's and O's for me. Lol