Cowherd on C's - 4.5 minute segment

[PhoSita]

It's a good sports talk radio segment.

No need for nuance.  Results are the only thing that matter.

Gloss over the differences between the franchises you mentioned.

Say just as much as you need to satisfy the people who agree with you and provoke the people who don't.

Cowherd is at the peak of his craft.

[Ilikesports17]

It's a good sports talk radio segment.

No need for nuance.  Results are the only thing that matter.

Gloss over the differences between the franchises you mentioned.

Say just as much as you need to satisfy the people who agree with you and provoke the people who don't.

Cowherd is at the peak of his craft.

Cowherd is the best.

He’s even admitted he doesn’t really watch a ton of games. Admitted he’s inconsistent with his takes too. Only talking head I’ve ever seen say “yeah people don’t care if I’m consistent or well informed they want me to have entertaining takes and they don’t want me to straddle the line.” I actually enjoy listening to him every now and again.

But if you think you’re getting the insight or analysis you’re missing the point.

[Moranis]

It's a good sports talk radio segment.

No need for nuance.  Results are the only thing that matter.

Gloss over the differences between the franchises you mentioned.

Say just as much as you need to satisfy the people who agree with you and provoke the people who don't.

Cowherd is at the peak of his craft.

Cowherd is the best.

He’s even admitted he doesn’t really watch a ton of games. Admitted he’s inconsistent with his takes too. Only talking head I’ve ever seen say “yeah people don’t care if I’m consistent or well informed they want me to have entertaining takes and they don’t want me to straddle the line.” I actually enjoy listening to him every now and again.

But if you think you’re getting the insight or analysis you’re missing the point.

I tend to agree and Cowherd almost always does his research.  He will freely admit when he was wrong about a take as well.  There is a reason he is widely regarded as the best national sports talk radio guy.  He knows what sells, but doesn't sell out to it.  He doesn't make absurd takes that he doesn't believe and that he doesn't have support for. 

[Roy H.]

It's a good sports talk radio segment.

No need for nuance.  Results are the only thing that matter.

Gloss over the differences between the franchises you mentioned.

Say just as much as you need to satisfy the people who agree with you and provoke the people who don't.

Cowherd is at the peak of his craft.

Cowherd is the best.

He’s even admitted he doesn’t really watch a ton of games. Admitted he’s inconsistent with his takes too. Only talking head I’ve ever seen say “yeah people don’t care if I’m consistent or well informed they want me to have entertaining takes and they don’t want me to straddle the line.” I actually enjoy listening to him every now and again.

But if you think you’re getting the insight or analysis you’re missing the point.

Very slightly off-topic, but can you explain what is the point?

It obviously has an audience, but what’s the appeal to listening to people shouting about things they’re uninformed about? 

For me, I prefer insight and nuance. 

[PhoSita]

It's a good sports talk radio segment.

No need for nuance.  Results are the only thing that matter.

Gloss over the differences between the franchises you mentioned.

Say just as much as you need to satisfy the people who agree with you and provoke the people who don't.

Cowherd is at the peak of his craft.

Cowherd is the best.

He’s even admitted he doesn’t really watch a ton of games. Admitted he’s inconsistent with his takes too. Only talking head I’ve ever seen say “yeah people don’t care if I’m consistent or well informed they want me to have entertaining takes and they don’t want me to straddle the line.” I actually enjoy listening to him every now and again.

But if you think you’re getting the insight or analysis you’re missing the point.

results oriented / ringz culture / "titles are the only thing that matter" analysis is perfect for people who don't actually watch the games.


if you're interested in watching the games day to day, year after year, you need to find reasons to be invested beyond the end state of "championship." 

if you just want to have blustery conversations about which teams / players are "great," or you want an easy way to explain dismissively why you don't bother with a team or player, then dragging them for failing to win titles or "make it happen" (whatever that means), is perfect.

[PhoSita]

Very slightly off-topic, but can you explain what is the point?

It obviously has an audience, but what’s the appeal to listening to people shouting about things they’re uninformed about? 

For me, I prefer insight and nuance.

I don't know, but I feel similarly mystified trying to figure out why people like watching reality TV shows that seem rooted in deep misanthropy.

I suspect there's a link in that somehow.

[Donoghus]

Cowherd's always been a bit of a joke.  Nothing from that soundbite has really changed my opinion on that.

[Donoghus]

Very slightly off-topic, but can you explain what is the point?

It obviously has an audience, but what’s the appeal to listening to people shouting about things they’re uninformed about? 

For me, I prefer insight and nuance.

I don't know, but I feel similarly mystified trying to figure out why people like watching reality TV shows that seem rooted in deep misanthropy.

I suspect there's a link in that somehow.

National guys all have some schtick that they play to.  For whatever reasons, it pulls in attention.

[uconnceltic]

I've been a Celtic fan back to 1970 and this team has tons of talent, but is lacking heart. Sorry but that is a fact.

I am not a fan of Cowherd but he isn't wrong. The Celtics need a leader and they don't have that right now. Man I wish Paul Pierce type on the team

No offense to you, or paul pierce who I love but both Jayson and jaylen are better leaders then Paul was at the same age...they need the KG type.

That is a good point as  was going with Paul because he played with the Celtics most of his career. I actually thought about Larry Bird first or Dave Cowens type.

Something isn't working but part of it could be the lack of bench scoring

[Walker Wiggle]

The logic is pretty shortsighted, because you're looking at one particular snapshot in time, which happens to be one of franchise's recent low points.

Leading up to this moment, the Celtics had played in 3 of 4 conference finals series. They have two of the best young players in the league locked up for the next 3 and 5 years, respectively.

If Hayward had signed on for 4x$25 this offseason and Kemba looked like his 2019 self, who is making this argument? The Celtics haven't "gone for it" to this point because they've been in position to compete for the next decade. In other words, they haven't had to. All of a sudden you effectively remove two low-level all-stars from the equation and this is the year you get.

[Big333223]

"I watched the Celtics twice over the last 3 or 4 days."

 

[moiso]

Cowherd's always been a bit of a joke.  Nothing from that soundbite has really changed my opinion on that.

It's a bit of a joke how he only colors the mustache part of his beard