I hate Stephen Smith

[Wretch]

Dude is a complete jack@ss. Just had to tell somebody. Sometimes he's pretty insightful, but his tone of voice and lack of respect for any team that hasn't won a championship just ANNOY the p#ss out of me...

See the ESPN Motion, Sunday Conversation with Shaq...

Man... If I were CWebb or Garnett, I'd slap the lips of that jack@ss the next time he interviewed me.

[cyman3]

remember when Layden got replaced?

Smith was runnin his mouth sayin "Layden should NEVER get a job in the NBA" .... whether or not thats true, its kinda harsh... esp sayin that to a dude who just lost his job.

[Wretch]

He was a complete jack@ss about it - not just analyzing the situation, saying, "It's about damn time." He was loud and vocal about it as if he were a Knicks fan (probably is)...and just talking as much smack as he could. He's trying to be like Rome, but he just comes off as a f#ck-nugget with an attitude problem.

[Weez]

yeah, but at least he's vocal and educated on what's going on in the association, which is more than I can say for many of today's broadcasters. He's demeaning at times...but in the interview with Shaq I thought he was great....how else are you going to prod him into saying something defamatory (his goal)?

[cyman3]

i really liked shaqs responses to his questions...

the way shaq answered his questions would not offend GARNETT or the KINGS in any way...

[Wretch]

Between being direct, honest, and informed and being disrespectful. A guy like Rome talks [censored], but he's just giving an honest opinion - and the key here is that Rome will talks smack to people whether they are in his face or not.

...asking Shaq if the TWolves deserve to be mentioned in the same conversation with the Lakers and the Kings? As if ANYONE (besides maybe Ron Artest or Dennis Rodman) would give him the kind of answer he's looking for...

Smith has a decent opinion on basketball. He should drop the act.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

yeah, but at least he's vocal and educated on what's going on in the association,

---

If you have read his columns, though, he routinely proposes trades that violate the NBA CBA. I have almost no respect for him as a reporter.

[Weez]

granted, that's something I dont' do. I only see him on televised broadcasts and typically like his enthusiasm and style of reporting in that media. More liberties are given during live broadcasts, in terms of statistical/logistical accuracy. Print is something different; one is held more accountable and practicality has it's place ~ IMO DA comes across much better in print than on television.

But I'll stand by my general comments on Smith's television broadcasts.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

granted, that's something I dont' do. I only see him on televised broadcasts and typically like his enthusiasm and style of reporting in that media. More liberties are given during live broadcasts, in terms of statistical/logistical accuracy. Print is something different; one is held more accountable and practicality has it's place ~ IMO DA comes across much better in print than on television.

But I'll stand by my general comments on Smith's television broadcasts.

---

I agree he is better live but he strikes me as as much of a fan as a media figure. I think several people on this site could do as good a job of substantive reporting as Smith.

The best thing I can say about him is that he is willing to call a spade, a spade when some of his peers are too deferential because they don't want to burn any bridges.

I really don't like when he does that old school/new school thing because he is forced to adopt some ridiculous positions (as is his opposition) for entertainment value (at least I hope they don't believe everything they say).

[Wretch]

Quote:

---

I agree he is better live but he strikes me as as much of a fan as a media figure.

---

I think that says much of it right there; and because of that, his comments carry an annoying, disrespectful tone of bias.

[Weez]

yeah, but entertaining at times in comparison (as stated) to the bland non-controversial, refuse to take a stance/offend anyone co-commentators at times.

[Wretch]

There's nothing wrong with being direct or blunt. There's nothing wroing with questioning the legitimacy of a supposed title contender. There is a time to be impartial and there is a time to be blunt. Some analysts have a blunt stance on everything. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. It is refreshing and the truth is the truth. But again, there is a difference between being disrespectful and being blunt.

I think a guy like Jim Rome would say the exact same thing to Garnett's face as he would behind his back. I think the Hot Seat does a good job of asking direct questions expecting perhaps blunt and direct answers. But with Garnett sitting in front of Smith, does he ask him, "does your team deserve mentioning in a conversation regarding title contenders?"

And the comments about Sacramento, the words roll out of his mouth as if he shared the same opinion. I think Smith overplays his part...looking for just for reaction to make a name for himself; whereas guys, like Charles Barkely for example, simply give their opinion - telling it like it is.

Smith is just fake and annoying.