[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

We need joecrisp to chime in hiere. Joe, if you have deadlines and stories to write and maybe a sidebar to one of your gamers and the key player on the team is not available or is maddeningly late arriving for an interview and then answers all your questions in five words or less, is that going to make you happy with him? My guess is not until or unless you get to know him...

You definitely make a valid point, SC. In the short time that I've been covering the Redskins, I've been put off by more than a couple of the "star" players who felt I wasn't important enough to talk to. But then I noticed that they didn't make themselves very accomodating to any of the other reporters, either. Two players in particular, Coles and Portis, are notorious for playing "hard-to-get" with the Washington media, and the only time they really talk to them is when they're scheduled to do a press conference-- in other words, the Redskins' media relations department asks them very politely if they'd be kind enough to sit down and answer some questions.

The first time I tried to talk to these guys, I wasn't aware of their disdain for the media, and I was really taken aback at how cold they were towards me when I tried to introduce myself and ask them a few questions. Both of them pretty much walked right past me as if I didn't even exist. I was able to talk to Portis the second time I tried, but I had to walk right up to him head-on so he couldn't avoid me, and even then he wasn't going to talk to me, but the other reporters saw that I had him "corraled", so to speak, so they all hurried over and joined in. The first words out of his mouth, as he grimaced in disgust, were, "alright, y'all better ask your questions now, cuz there ain't gonna be another one for a while."

Now you know where Sean Taylor learned how to deal with the media.

Obviously, it does have an effect on the way reporters think about these players. Even if the reporters claim to hold no ill-regard towards the players that act this way, it's impossible not to take at least some sense of insult away from experiences like that. After all, these players do get paid an awful lot of money, not just to play their sport, but to deal in a mature and professional manner with all of the other peripheral "distractions" that go along with being a professional athlete. When one of these wealthy players treats you as if you just climbed out of a sewer, it does have a tendency to make you feel a little insulted. That's just on a personal level; that doesn't even take into consideration the professional frustration that reporters feel when they aren't able to get the information or soundbites they need to complete their assignments.

On the other hand, you've got players like Fred Smoot, who always has a smile on his face, always takes a good-natured approach towards the media, and never gives you a one sentence response to any question. Even with amateur reporters like myself, Fred makes you feel as if you're important and worthy of his time. I can tell you right now, if I had to cast a ballot for the Hall of Fame-- and I had to choose between Coles, Portis, Taylor or Smoot-- Fred Smoot would get my vote every time, just based on the way he handles the media.

I love Art Monk, and I think based on his career accomplishments, he deserved to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But now I can also understand, on a personal level, why he wasn't. That doesn't mean I agree with voters like Peter King and Paul Zimmerman, who dismiss Monk's career accomplishments with faulty arguments that cover up their selfish and personal vendetta against Monk for his disregard towards the media during his career. If you don't like a player because he didn't talk to reporters, then just say it, and stop insulting our intelligence with these lame excuses like, "Monk just wasn't a game-breaker" or "he didn't score enough touchdowns". Puh-leease.