I blame nothing on my editor. It's all on me. I tweaked the phrase and didn't catch the mistake. It should have read "activity never should be mistaken for accomplishment." I do need to do my job a lot better. Correct.

As for malodorous.... really Beef... you couldn't figure that out without consulting with Webster? Mal means "badly" ... "poorly" as in "maladjusted" or "malcontented." Odor means... well... you know. You've met Jurko.

Stunned I am a man of your intelligence couldn't connect the dots.

Don't know if I would have noted it if it wasn't coming from a self described "grammar dick" like you.

Are you breaking into a dyslexic stammering Yoda on us now?

We know you're a wordsmith Mac. You don't have to rub it in every Thursday.

_________________
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are not suitable for work or home viewing.

The name's Rockmore. Beef Rockmore

frank barone, no need to qualify it. i absolutely expect to get hammered for mistakes like that one. keep 'em coming. makes me work that much harder in the editing process. thanks for the push.

"I'm no Hemingway. I have a long way to go." -- Mac on his column-writing.
Ummm...yeah.
Must be cool to be able to practice in the employ of a major metropolitan paper.

Anywho...he said on the air that he wanted more detail, so here goes.

It is easy to spot the grammatical mistakes (double-negative), tired phrases ("Norris Division", "over my skis", "activity/achievement"), and odd/awkward construction ("is to stand in that line only conditionally", "will mean nothing more than the latest tease", "adulating", "malodorous" -- I know what it means, but by ascribing a bad smell to the draft selections you're already making a figurative point, don't need to further exaggerate with 4 strenuous show-off syllables -- keep the metaphor simple, or try to make it clever; maybe analogize the smell of Angelo's picks to that of the bait used on the fictional fishing trip), but the problems of the column go much deeper.

Beyond the obvious mechanical/lyrical shortfalls, Mac's most glaring deficiencies continue to relate to flow and overall construction.

The potential beauty and freedom of a column is that it represents opinion, and so a writer can assemble any playing field on which they want to state their case -- but the author DOES need to supply that field. Lay down some ground rules, define the framework, give us a map as to where you're going, and why. One can debate any merits that they want...but if it's not obvious, you must tell us why the points are meritorious.

We get none of that in this column.

Q: Why does a team that is winning need to do it with a QB instead of a running game and/or defense?

The column admits that the team wins, that it may take the division title, and we know that it was recently in the Super Bowl...so why do we need a franchise QB? I'm not saying that we don't -- but make the case. Throw in a paragraph positing that an offense is sustainable year-in/year-out only when anchored by a steady signal-caller; talk about the myriad injuries and aging legs on a fading all-star defense; discuss trends in the league that show a team can win a division without a QB but not a title; wax upon the need to take pressure off a rare find in young RB Matt Forte. Do not take it for granted that it is undeniable fact to every reader that a winning team must also have a great QB -- convince them!

Q: From what orifice comes the idea that Angelo's future should be determined "solely on Orton's level of success this year?"

Again -- perhaps this position can hold water -- but tell us why! Via the restatement of well-worn facts and names, Mac re-re-re-re-establishes that Angelo has had no luck at QB. With a list of draft flops, failed free agents, worthless trades, and an unwavering commitment to the Rex Grossman Experience, Mac makes the point that Angelo doesn't know quarterbacks. The logical extension of this argument is that if Orton does happen to thrive this year, it will be merely overdue good fortune for Angelo and not proof that he finally knows his onions. Why would an unexpected (and perhaps fluky) season from someone drafted as a back-up four years ago undo all of the lousy work that Mac so giddily details? It's a seemingly false premise that undermines the rest of his argument and points. It would be like saying that since one small country like Libya abandoned its terrorist pursuits during his tenure, George Bush has been a great President and deserves an (unconstitutional) third term (even though his policies worked nowhere else).

Without better explanation, resting Angelo’s fate upon one season by a heretofore non-featured player on which Jerry has not staked his reputation and whose play has not been established as the primary winning ingredient for this team seems as arbitrary as a deadly coin toss in No Country for Old Men. Indeed -- as Tad Quesy points out -- Mac himself labels this position an empty assessment when he declares, "Fair or not, I'm dropping Orton’s development solely on Angelo's doorstep.". Fair or not? Such an intro pre-emptively guts the rest of the argument and is a red flag that screams "don't bother reading on!" Why tell us that you're throwing out an idea that may not be fair -- tell us why it is fair!

I know that Mac has a lot in his head -- but he needs to pare down his thoughts to craft a cogent piece. This column could have been:

-- Angelo is a good GM having given us a solid defense, running game and special teams, but he cannot find a quarterback for the life of him; let’s see if Orton can be good enough or get him a special assistant VP in charge of QBs.

-- A testament to Kyle Orton for emerging as the unlikely last man standing in the bizarre Bears' QB derby that has seen so much misery and rotation, only to have its winner be a 4th-round party-boy emerging from the shadows.

-- Angelo is a terrible GM: look at all of the busts in the last seven years, it's time for a change.

-- An analysis of the unpredictable nature of the draft: with first round, high-profile picks supposed to have cemented our skill positions for years to come in Grossman/Benson, only to have 4th-round Orton and small school Forte at the front of a divisional resurgence.

-- A description of how weak our division is -- stating how amazing it is that we are leading with this rag-tag bunch of talent assembled by Angelo. Illustrate that the standings are not a testament to the Bears’ greatness, but speaks poorly of the "Norris Division". Declare that fans should not be placated, that they should demand the Lombardi trophy instead of Central bragging rights.

-- Borrow the No Country for Old Men idea as a lark-- state that with so many wild hits-and-misses to his credit, it’s impossible to tell if Jekyll-and-Hyde Angelo is a good GM or not, so we are going to leave it to chance and pin it all on Kyle. It would be partially the same principle as Mac’s column, but would admit that there's no legitimacy to the argument, that it’s an unpredictable determinant for an unpredictable guy. Sprinkle with humor and parallels to the movie.

But pick ONE and only ONE of these ideas and develop it, organize it, fill it in -- don't take samples from a lukewarm buffet of unfinished thoughts (mixed with Favre turkey guts).

Mac is good on the radio where it's fine to use his fun cliché-ridden shorthand and possible to assume that all listeners are on his page as he preaches to a choir that hangs out with him 20 hours each week (well not each week -- I think he gets 18 weeks of vacation!). Scattershot and comfy are OK approaches when he has 4 hours to support, craft, convey his messages, but when one has only 500 words with which to amuse and win over a potential stranger -- inside jokes, recycled tripe, and sloppy structure are not the ways to do it.

Jesus....that's quite a critique.

True. If the Bears go 9-7 or 10-6 and win the Division, Angelo likely bought himself another couple of years.

If the Bears were able to bring in Roy Williams in the offseason and draft Percy Harvin or Jeremy Maclin, that would be a pretty deep receiving corp, wouldn't it? Big Roy, Brandon Lloyd, Devin Hester, Harvin or Maclin, Marty Booker, Earl Bennett, Rashied Davis, Greg Olsen, and Des Clark?

You'd have a pair of legit deep threats in Harvin or Maclin and Devin Hester, a big play guy who can go over the middle in Williams, a couple possession guys in Olsen and Des Clark, and role players like Lloyd, Booker, Bennett, and Davis, whoever makes it out of that group.

You'd have to say that our WR's would become a strength and Kyle Orton would benefit

A very good and accurate critique. The column is sloppy, poorly written and seems to try to impress readers with vocabulary rather than thought. a first year journalism student would probably get a D on this column, I give it an F. It fails all the way around. Little thought and verbose language do not make a column, as this one proves.
Mac, you suck as a writer, give it up now before you further embarrass yourself.

This column is embarrassing. You make Greg Couch look like a good writer, which is almost impossible to do.

Hmmm, kinda like Bleacher Boy's SECOND ever post here?





Well thank you professor. However, if you are a teacher and are actually grading this entertainment piece, please give it an F.

_________________

Yes, clearly my post lacked thought. My SECOND post. Way to point that out with your insight and analysis, COZTANSA.
I can only hope that some day I will average 10.81 posts per day, and then perhaps my perspective will be valid.

Wait -- this makes THREE posts....I feel myself getting more legitimate by the minute!

Thanks Mr. Spellcheck. It's fixed and the column still was amateurish.

Merely pointing out how much time you took to critisize a sports editorial written as a side job.

And of course, there were no "show off" words from the word a day desk calender in your post either.

Welcome, I guess.

_________________

COZTANSA:

A) My point isn't that the length or quality of a word makes it a "show-off" word, but that when one clearly makes an intentional choice to go with a less common, less clear adjective that is not normally in one's vernacular (to which we are privy with Dan, having listened to him for 15 some-odd years) to make a point that might be conveyed better and more fluidly with a simpler phrasing, then it comes across as show-offy.

Anyway -- I know that Dan IS smart and does have a very good vocabulary, and if his written voice is going to be more refined than his broadcast one, that's great -- but he'll need to be more consistent and should still select words based on rhythm/meaning/humor in context, not on Scrabble scores; here "malodorous" (like "adulating") is accurate, but a bit of a speed bump.

But this word choice was far from my greatest concern/criticism of the work -- it was listed as one of three awkward constructions, which were just one of three easily-spotted issue categories, which all took a back seat to the construction and flow...so if you want to vehemently defend "malodorous", I'll give it to you.

B) "Merely pointing out how much time you took to critisize [sic] a sports editorial written as a side job."
Wouldn't illuminating how few posts I have to my name actually emphasize how little time I spend commenting on sports talk issues? And a "side job" in a major paper is still an impressive post (note -- I never bothered to comment on Danny's NWI columns).

Score is doomed:

Thanks for your compliment, but I think you're being a bit harsh on Mac -- I don't feel that he SUCKS as a writer or should be embarrassed for giving it a go, but I do clearly believe there is much room for improvement that shouldn't be worked out on the virtual pages of the Sun-Times, that perhaps at his age and ability he should be sated with his on-air achievements, and that it remains a bit hypocritical for him to tell those with dreams of a simple ascent to broadcast greatness that they need to log the sweat, prove themselves and work their way up, while he comfortably lobbied for -- and slipped undeservedly into -- such a potentially prominent niche in print.

It's criticize too btw Peter Grant wannabe.

_________________
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are not suitable for work or home viewing.

The name's Rockmore. Beef Rockmore

that's how much of your post to SiD that he read...just so you know...the rest of it was well thought out...

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.

"Worst epidsode ever!" would have sufficed.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Isn't Maclin just a sophomore? Doesn't he have to wait until after his junior year to be draft eligible, or did he graduate high school early and start college a semester early? Just curious.

A bunch of grammar dicks splitting hairs... this thread makes me wish for the return of Mao.

_________________

No because Big Fan has always said "In exchange for no more MAO postings, I have offered up a soccer section"

_________________