I think Fran is pretty good. Sure, he overdoes it on trashing the Rockets when they lose, and may be too generous when they win. But that's his job. I can guarantee you, if he just came out with an article saying, "Good solid win" or "Unfortunate loss" each game, NOONE would read any of it. He's a color man, and color men are supposed to exaggerate. The alternative is that he could give a highly strategic description of each game. While there are some of us on this board who might enjoy that, most people wouldn't. So what else is there to judge him on? Well, I think he does a few things well. First, he has a pretty good read on the personalities of the players and coaches. For example, he was right when he described JVG as being a good coach, but being too strict. He was right when he described TMac as soft (although TMac has other strengths). Second, I personally think his writing is pretty good. Even in his blog, he never fails to at least make an attempt at saying something witty in response to the questions. And his columns read pretty well, even if not every joke is funny. And he is light years ahead of that idiot John Lopez, whose writing was at a 3rd grade level.
You have to take Fran with a grain of salt, kinda like I do with many of the posters around here. Some days I agree with him, some days I'd like to be that GM that punched him in the mouth. He's does seem to never want to get to high on most notes, but doesn't mind getting too low. I do agree with him on somethings like: 1.) Yao being the man. 2.) Tracy being a faker. 3.) JVG sucking the life out of his basketball teams. I don't agree with everything because I try to see the glass as half full. But I do like to read his articles, for better or worst. You can have ten different people see a car accident and get five completely different versions of how and why the accident happened, thats just human nature.
I'm not really a fan, but calling Cato "The Hallucination" was hilarious. I totally remember reading that article back in the day.
The Houston Chronicle basically has only two full-time basketball writers: Jon and Fran. When dealing with the team management and the players, one needs to have a more moderate approach (kid-glove) hile the other can afford to be more straight forward (to tell as it is). It is like a Yin and Yang balance.
I think most people would appreciate Blinebury if all he did was tell it like it is and offer straightforward analysis. Heck, even Jerome Solomon does better. People may love to disagree with John McClain, but he does know how to offer criticism when he wants to and people appreciate him for that. Blinebury, on the other hand, constantly comes off as a bitter, cynical old blowhard who seems to think that coating every sentence in his blog with dripping sarcasm makes him look cute.
So, Fran should be 'Blind'bury as in blindly burying any opinions and just be a homer (yawn). The man might never be 'The Man' but at least he tells it like he sees it. Cry cry, sob sob, FB won't just tell me what I want to hear...
You completely miss the point. Now, I think Justice is an *******, and I don't take him seriously, but he simply seems more devious than lazy. Fran's writing isn't even in the same neighborhood. It's just bitter, tiresome, and snide, with little if any insight or value. Justice might be a troll but at least he's not washed up. See the difference?
I posted something to the effect of, "You shouldn't have your job". I can't seem to find it on the blog anymore, although I do see many people that went the more vulgar "Shut up Fran, you suck" route. Fran is one of the reasons I have so little respect for the Chronicle. There's no such thing as tenure in journalism, I don't care what he was at the Summit to see back in the old days. He has no skill, and it seems like he, Justice, and even Feigen at times resort to the Irony/Sarcasm defense as a blanket justification for all the drivel they write. For that matter, I'm not a Justice fan either.
