I was never a Sports Illustrated subscriber, so when ESPN announced that they had lured him away I was curious to see his work. I don’t get it. I don’t think he’s insightful, poignant or funny. I’m not sure what else there would be. What am I missing?
I share your opinion, although I’ve heard he was better in the old days. From what I’ve seen, every column is either a heartwarming story about somethingorother, or it’s a story about how whatever the statistics say, what matters is [insert traditional wisdom or intangible].
Yup, he’s a hack. He’s unorginal, borrows heavily from the footwork of other journalists (I’m not calling it plaigarism because he attributes his stories), is inconsisent in his criticism (example), and doesn’t bring anything new to the table. In his articles that don’t manage to trample on someone else’s scoop, tout the underdog (that’s probably not actually an underdog), or point out the obvious, they all boil down to “gosh, I sure do like watching sports!”.
Wow, I did not know there was a website devoted to him. Good stuff.
Deadspin has shown a number of times that Reilly basically plagiarizes himself quite a bit, too.
https://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=deadspin%20rick%20reilly%20plagiarism
Yeah he lost his fastball a long long time ago. Heck Joe Posnanski does a better Rick reilly than RR does today…
And he shouldn’t ever be allowed to comment on tiger woods… no one columnist/journalist has such a bad relationship with a player/focal point as those two do… No one is rooting against tiger harder than Riles… Should have stayed at SI… lost in the mix at ESPN and those masturbatory homecoming shows he was putting on… seriously rick?