1. Referring to Christian Watford’s play as “putrid” is really inappropriate. Your position requires that you not be a homer but that word in reference to a college kid is way over the line.

    It is also, at best, an inaccuracy dressed as an exaggeration. Watford’s play on the defensive end has been both strong and critical in the past few games. Moreover, in the Purdue game, anyone with a strong understanding of basketball and the dynamics of Indiana’s prior troubles in closing out games would know that the two free throws that Watford made after rebounding Sheehey’s block, after losing a contact, and in the face of a Mackey Arena crowd in crunch time, were both critical and contextually difficult.

    You’re a beat reporter for a small town newspaper in the Midwest, not a Boston talk radio host. That kind of language just has no place.

    P.S. The scenario outlined in the final question, which amounts to two more losses, would lead to a final mark of 24-8, not 24-7. Indiana already has six losses on the season. I hope that fact does not take their performance from “incredible” in your estimation to “putrid” or “rancid” or some other notion of extreme rot.

  2. Putrid is the correct word. CW has produced some putrid playing sequences over the last 2 seasons and proportionately has only moved the needle slightly better this season.

  3. I think “putrid” fits just fine.

    For the most part, the guy doesn’t even try and he doesn’t come CLOSE to living up to his potential.

    That’s “putrid” to me.

  4. I’ll defend Dustin on this one.

    Guest, having followed Dustin these past few years I can attest that he did not mean any harm with the “putrid comment.” Although a strong word to describe a college kid, it was a live question and answer session and the word probably just rolled off his finger tips. “Shock” beat writer is the last thing that describes Mr. Dopirak. I think we are lucky to have such good talent covering our Indiana Unversity sports, not many other institutions have a platform as refined as the Hoosier Scoop.

    It helped land Korman a gig at the Baltimore Sun. They saw what he did here and he was poached.

    Keep up the good work guys and let’s beat the Illini.


  5. Words like “putrid” to describe a player really do not belong in a serious newspaper. A play can be “putrid” (although even that is beyond the adjectives a good newspaperman should or ordinarily would use. And, there is a consistency…many of the stories have a negative optic of the Hoosiers.

    While I accept criticism is part and parcel of sports commentary, when negativity take away from the value of a professional and extreme words like “putrid” to what is basically a solid ball and valuable player who appears to lose focus from time to time subtract from the validity and legitimacy of the critique. There has to be more than words like “putrid” and “sucks” to the art of commentary.

    And…the most expert of basketball experts will tell you, there is more, much more than scoring that goes in to the game. Most of the critical performances that make winning teams involve skills that do not show up in a score book alone (blocking out, screening, timely movement away from the ball, pressure on the ball, defensively forcing bad passing and shooting angles…..)

  6. Guest, 2 things…

    1) I carefully re-watched the PU game specifically with an eye on Watford’s D. It was not strong, and he was by far the weakest individual defender of the night. Most of the layups scored by PU were a direct result of Watford’s D.

    Other than that I agree that Watford’s last 5. Minutes were strong, and that those FT’s were clutch and helped loosen up the rest of the team so they could close as strong as they did.

    2) being in the Portland, ME market I get WEEI and other Boston Sports talk radio and listen to it daily. Is it really that infamous around the th e country? If so, I take a weird pride in it. Words like Putrid are certainly commonplace.

Comments are closed.