The return of Rick Reilly at SI

[JackReacher]

Back away from the Hateorade, Cran.

 

[JC]

What was great about that article?

 

[Songbird]

What was great about that article?

Yeah, stopped halfway through. Kind of like that movie I walked out of the other night. Wasn't bad but wasn't tickling my special spot either.

 

[Mr. Sunshine]

That is just pure Hater. Rick Reilly's run at ESPN had it undeniable embarrassments, but he did so much before that, and to suggest that Reilly not a person of legitimate accomplishment, talent and stature is an absurd overreach.

It's almost as if Deadspin is puprposely hyperbolic.

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

Oh goody. More basketball great, golf great, baseball bad columns. Still, Reilly and SI are a match so this is news.

Don't forget the golf "humor" columns.
Somebody mistakenly told Reilly both he and golf were funny about 30 years ago and he put it in his repertoire for good.

 

[poindexter]

That is just pure Hater. Rick Reilly's run at ESPN had it undeniable embarrassments, but he did so much before that, and to suggest that Reilly not a person of legitimate accomplishment, talent and stature is an absurd overreach.

Nobody is saying that Reilly isn't a person of legitimate accomplishment.

People are saying that his writing now sucks.

 

[Alma]

So...many...metaphors...and...similes...and...adjectives.

Reilly's style has dated.

It's not a bad piece. Who are we kidding? It doesn't suck. it has some good stuff. But he stands on the outside of the story. Reilly performs as a writer and it is a performance that, well, shows its age. And there is, I dunno, just a gentle shallowness to Reilly's work. I am surprised he'd muddle this wonderful team with his own stuff, and with a charity subplot.

No real shame in being dated. I'd tired of Gary smith, too, by the end of his run. Happens.

 

[RedCanuck]

I also found that piece hard to get into, granted I'm not a huge NBA fan. It almost felt a bit like a Family Guy plot with the forced metaphors and similes and it seemed kind of choppy from a storytelling perspective. I also question the need to bring the first-person narration into it the way it was done… but hey, Reilly's a multi-millionaire and I'm still pounding keys in a small town. With the quality of writing most people are reading on the web these days, maybe that's what people like.

 

[Thomas Gibbons]

Reilly reminds me of an NFL player who is really good in one system and goes to another team and is ineffective -- say a pass-rushing specialist in a 3-4 who goes to a a 4-3 system and can't cover anyone and is so-so against the run and is no longer getting his sacks.
Reilly was stiff on camera, and his writing never really seemed to fit with ESPN's website or the magazine
Now he's back with old team. Will he recapture the old magic? Don't know.
As for Reilly's dated style, I remember back in the 1980s USA TODAY sports used to review the major sports magazines. And I recall whatever forgotten Gannetter was writing the review of SI one week was absolutely incensed at a piece Reilly on USC football, calling under-reported and nothing but "word play" and then quoting a line about used USC used to be a bunch of future all-pro lineman blocking for a future network announcer (Sorry, I could not original piece, so I don't have the exact quote). It was a great line and when I read the story I could see the USA TODAY's point -- the story was a cleverly written rehash.
Reilly is not a great reporter, and he -- or his words -- have always upstaged any topic he's covered. That annoyed people in the past, and I am sure it will in the future.
But I think everyone on this board will agree that at times Reilly's approach produced some wonderful stuff.

 

[gravehunter]

Read the piece. It was OK. But if bringing Reilly back is supposed to make me start reading SI again, it's not going to happen.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Reilly reminds me of an NFL player who is really good in one system and goes to another team and is ineffective -- say a pass-rushing specialist in a 3-4 who goes to a a 4-3 system and can't cover anyone and is so-so against the run and is no longer getting his sacks.
Reilly was stiff on camera, and his writing never really seemed to fit with ESPN's website or the magazine
Now he's back with old team. Will he recapture the old magic? Don't know.
As for Reilly's dated style, I remember back in the 1980s USA TODAY sports used to review the major sports magazines. And I recall whatever forgotten Gannetter was writing the review of SI one week was absolutely incensed at a piece Reilly on USC football, calling under-reported and nothing but "word play" and then quoting a line about used USC used to be a bunch of future all-pro lineman blocking for a future network announcer (Sorry, I could not original piece, so I don't have the exact quote). It was a great line and when I read the story I could see the USA TODAY's point -- the story was a cleverly written rehash.
Reilly is not a great reporter, and he -- or his words -- have always upstaged any topic he's covered. That annoyed people in the past, and I am sure it will in the future.
But I think everyone on this board will agree that at times Reilly's approach produced some wonderful stuff.

USA Today used to review magazine issues? That's interesting. We did that here eons ago, with issues of SI.

 

[BDC99]

Reilly reminds me of an NFL player who is really good in one system and goes to another team and is ineffective -- say a pass-rushing specialist in a 3-4 who goes to a a 4-3 system and can't cover anyone and is so-so against the run and is no longer getting his sacks.
Reilly was stiff on camera, and his writing never really seemed to fit with ESPN's website or the magazine
Now he's back with old team. Will he recapture the old magic? Don't know.
As for Reilly's dated style, I remember back in the 1980s USA TODAY sports used to review the major sports magazines. And I recall whatever forgotten Gannetter was writing the review of SI one week was absolutely incensed at a piece Reilly on USC football, calling under-reported and nothing but "word play" and then quoting a line about used USC used to be a bunch of future all-pro lineman blocking for a future network announcer (Sorry, I could not original piece, so I don't have the exact quote). It was a great line and when I read the story I could see the USA TODAY's point -- the story was a cleverly written rehash.
Reilly is not a great reporter, and he -- or his words -- have always upstaged any topic he's covered. That annoyed people in the past, and I am sure it will in the future.
But I think everyone on this board will agree that at times Reilly's approach produced some wonderful stuff.

Reilly at one time was one of the best in the business, no doubt. But the magic was gone before he initially left SI. And to Alma's point, it's just a tired formula. Same with Steve Rushin, The stuff he used to write would blow my mind when I was a teenager, as far as the wordplay. Not so much anymore. Ditto Chris Berman, etc. As Alma said, it happens.