Comments on: ESPN-on-ESPN crime extends to Bears' interest in Vincent Jackson

By: Lions 8-8

Lions 8-8 — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:57:30 +0000

ESPN? Don’t you mean the James watch 2010?

By: J-oh

J-oh — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:30:11 +0000

Schefter > any other analyst out there.
Its simple as that. He’s accurate, holds zero bias and has good sources.

By: TryTheVeal

TryTheVeal — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:18:30 +0000

You mean to tell me BSPN is actually reporting on other sports instead of ramming this world cup crap down eveyone’s throat 24/7?

By: dabarber

dabarber — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:41:04 +0000

ESPN is a huge company with lots of reporters. It’s not that hard to have contradicting stories–especially since ESPN has like 5 channels and a website with 100′s of stories posted each day.

By: dlodown1

dlodown1 — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:37:37 +0000

Jackson is a product of a good QB and a great offensive system….He is nothing more than an average receiver, it’s that simple. Any WR in the league can do the things Jackson does, he’s not special. The only thing that makes Jackson standout is his character issues. The Bears never hand any interest in bringing this scum bag to Chicago. To the contrary, the Bears are happy with what they have at the position. This is just another botched rumor job by the attention starved Adam Schefter. Take Schefter with a grain of salt. The guy talks out of his ass more than his mouth.

By: CanadianVikingFan

CanadianVikingFan — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:26:09 +0000

Adam Schefter also coined the term Schism, in the Vikings lockeroom.

By: GregO

GregO — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:18:07 +0000

The Bears could also have changed their minds between the time of Schefter’s report and Pasquarelli’s.
I am not sure why you feel the need to point out every ESPN contradiction. It doesn’t make you look any better by comparison. When you have dozens of reporters questioning hundreds of sources there are bound to be conflicting reports.

By: J. Clayton

J. Clayton — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:51:12 +0000

ESPN is “sportish” news for high school girls.
I watch because there is sadly no other option.

By: wildcatter

wildcatter — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:21:46 +0000

I just wish Florio would go back to calling Pasquarelli “pastabelly”.

By: Hap

Hap — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:47:22 +0000

Hee-heespn is always wrong.

By: Levija

Levija — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:07:18 +0000

I don’t see the bears wasting that type if money and draft picks for someone who will be out the 1st 3 games. however, its not like it hasn’e happened before with them.

By: Florio-is-a-tool

Florio-is-a-tool — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:20:21 +0000

Len Pasquarelli is mostly known for having some sort of jones for Jeff George in a Peter King-Brett Favre sort of way. He’s the Al Davis of reporters.

By: Football Fan

Football Fan — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:13:52 +0000

I don’t even watch ESPN anymore unless I am specifically looking for a score. Someone needs to start a sports news network with people who know what they are talking about on draft day and where reporters don’t contradict each other weekly. ESPN has really become a joke. They have way too many people on air and allow their own people to say that others within the company are wrong. ESPN has truly become a joke.

By: chemicalxv

chemicalxv — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:58:21 +0000

Schefter is NEVER wrong. I hope Pasquarelli knows who he’s messing with

By: ProDarter

ProDarter — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:46:55 +0000

What’s truly a crime is that you took the time to spew out this garbage. Every site, including this one, repeatedly, gets thing wrong. Pointing out others, and not your own, shows you to be the sad little man you are.

By: aec4

aec4 — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:48:03 +0000

Hey, if the weatherman was right 50% of the time, everyone would be happy. Seems like ESPN is keeping their success rate > weathermen with this move.

By: Steve W.

Steve W. — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 05:37:32 +0000

Not necessarily. Pasquarelli stated “unless folks are lying to us”. How many times have teams inquired about trading for a player or signing a free agent, and at the same time denied it…especially if they thought there was a good chance nothing would come of it. I don’t blame them. Sneaking around behind your players’ backs looking to replace one or more of them could cause trouble down the line if you end up being stuck with what you have. The Bears certainly wouldn’t admit to it after having publicly talked up their receiving corps. The fans might think they were being had, and that the prospects for their team weren’t that good this year, which in turn could mean a decline in ticket and merchandise sales.

By: Cambodian Breast Milk

Cambodian Breast Milk — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:30:56 +0000

This Jackson thing is starting to become about as annoying as all the Haynesworth madness. Trade him or extend him. Why is this difficult?

By: monet99

monet99 — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:30:24 +0000

Schefter is great at making up stuff.

By: ZombieRevolution

ZombieRevolution — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:08:58 +0000

“Rosenthal recently has coined a term for those instances when one ESPN reporter refutes a prior report from another ESPN reporter, dubbing it “ESPN-on-ESPN crime.”"
Unlike PFT ESPN lets their reporters refute each other. In PFT everyone agrees with Florio, whether they publically want to or not. That is why Florio uses the royal “we” so many times. PFT is Florio’s kingdom to rule as he will, to grind into dust certain stories.

By: Tony DeHoff

Tony DeHoff — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:58:52 +0000

ESPN sold out. They are a joke and if not for Streak for the Cash I probably wouldn’t visit their site at all.

By: Sow Crates

Sow Crates — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:51:14 +0000

Schefter reported that Chicago at least took a whif of a good receiver that was available for trade. A player on a holdout with a few DUI’s and a suspension in his pocket might be shipped out for cheap, Chicago might as well smell around.
Pasquarelli reported that Chicago wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) pour draft picks and extra money on Vincent Jackson and that there was no practical way to make a deal.
Both covered a different angle, not sure how either of them can be considered wrong.

By: rovibe

rovibe — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:22:22 +0000

Can’t see why Jackson would want to play for the Bears, anyway. He’d have to share all those catches with opposing DB’s.

By: Wellsee

Wellsee — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:11:24 +0000

It isn’t a “crime”, even in the non-literal meaning you use. They have a gazillion reporters with different sources yanking their chains so they will get different information. Should they sit on it until they determine which is right? Where’s the fun in that? If anything, they get to have their cake and eat it too.

By: QB_of_the_Future

QB_of_the_Future — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 00:58:40 +0000

I laughed so hard at “ESPN on ESPN Crime” I snorted…

By: Omnipotent_1

Omnipotent_1 — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 00:34:25 +0000

Adam Schefter has a picture of some ESPN bigwig in a compromised position, because he is the worst football analyst ESPN has ever had. He should of never been hired there.