Kurt Warner tipped it off last year. When he got people riled up saying he trusts Murray more than Stafford, he admitted later its just entertainment.
I had not heard that but that's interesting to me.
I guess there are different ways to look at it.
Angry Ram wrote '
It's supposed to be funny!'; and that's from a guy who is often very angry when he posts!
It's a legit-take in my opinion but it's just not how I view things.
When a competent-Analyst ... like Kurt Warner ... provides his opinion, I am interested in what he has to say. It's the expertise that I find entertaining. If Warner really did admit that his Murray/Stafford comment was fabricated to 'entertain', that's not something I respect. He would lose credibility as an "Expert-Analyst" in my opinion; and I would be less inclined to pay attention when he speaks.
Now Skip Bayless is in a different category. He's NOT an "Expert-Analyst" in any objective way. He's just a guy with a platform; and he wants to generate ratings by saying stuff that HE does
not even believe. Again, that's not entertaining to me. It's manipulative. In my first post to this thread, I wrote:
"What's Not-Smart (in-my-opinion) is tuning-in to Skip Bayless."
Listening to Skip is just a waste of time in my opinion. I live in Manhattan. I can go out any time and listen to a crazy-person rant about ridiculous/insane-stuff. I don't but I could. Skip Bayless would fit-in very nicely here.
I'm thinking 60th and Third Avenue near Bloomingdale's.
Guess that's how I look at it but ... like I said above ...
there are other ways to look at it.
