Friday, January 26, 2007

Bickley can't resist

It's not quite journalistic stalking, but the Republic's Dan Bickley can't resist making a little-too-late stab at fired ASU coach Dirk Koetter in his column on Andrew Walter:

As a rookie in 2005 he watched the 49ers' Alex Smith have an awful inaugural season, and he remembers how Dirk Koetter once came to ASU and proclaimed Chad Christensen the better quarterback.

He has also noticed that the Raiders play the Jaguars next season, and wouldn't it be fun to see Koetter pacing the opposing sideline?

As I recall, Walter started for Koetter for three years, and Koetter's downfield passing game allowed Walter to show off all of his strengths.

Why would it be "fun" to see Koetter on the other side of the field? What is Bickley not saying here? I'd be willing to bet Walter wishes he had Koetter on his own sidelines this past season.


Anonymous said...

Though it is true that Koetter's initial choice of Christensen was about as smart as Bush's decission to invade Iraq, Bickley's inference that somehow there will be some sort of payback when their two current teams meet reveals his own egotistical leanings. This is the manner in which he thinks and it has been evident in his writing. Such imagined controversy also sells papers (National Enquirer). Both Walter and Koetter are class acts and, though I'm sure they will both want their teams to win, it is apparent that there is no personal animosity between either.

Anonymous said...

Bickley, like all editorial writers, is in the business of creating interest in what he writes. (The best way to do that is to make readers love or hate what he writes......doesn't matter which.) Since day one in the Koetter era, he chose to find fault with whatever decision, circumstance or event took place with Koetter's team. (It may have been for purely personal reasons....who knows!)

On the reverse side, most of the writers in Tucson took the opposite approach with Mr. Rat coach. Their writing always sees the positive, no matter how farfetched it may seem.

Both sets of writers are doing the same thing. They are just using different approaches. The approaches may have been derived from personal biases.....who knows. (In the case of the Tucson writers, it may be the Kool Aid they are drinking.)

Matthew Self said...

I don't think Bickley is biased. I think he has a certain flavor of black-and-white worldview that allows him to judge grey areas without a backlash of conscience.

Tucson's a very different market. UA is the only game in town, and the only people who stay down there for entire careers are people who develop a rooting interest for Tucson/UA. It's not unlike Phoenix in the 70s and 80s.

Anonymous said...

"Though it is true that Koetter's initial choice of Christensen was about as smart as Bush's decission to invade Iraq"

It's funny how this myth continues to be perpetuated to the point it's now being accepted as if is there's some reality there. Sadly, it's mostly prepetuated by fans who didn't attend those practices. The reality of the situation for those that did attend was that Walter was not performing and Chad was. It was common knowledge at those practices and at Tontozona that Andrew struggled lamely, while Chad was doing well.

Stew said...

Another myth is that Bickley was finding fault with DK from day 1. He called him the next coach of the SD Chargers for about a year. The season this peice focuses on Bickley loved DK and was talking up his recruiting and what not. It was the 2003 debacle that turned the corner for both

John C said...

The whole Koetter fan war is a prime example of how humans can give opposite meanings to the same object or event. For example, Koetter was stubborn, instead of tenacious. Another fan could look at Walter's San Diego game and say that Koetter was a "genius" for getting Walter to deliver; and keep delivering for his career.

It pays to cut through the interpretations and get to the facts. For example, Koetter's losses to teams in California.