Dear JJ Redick:
Big fan here. Huge. Not of your playing career necessarily. I mean, I liked you as an NBA player. You were an incredible shooter and a meaningful component to some very good teams, but I have never rooted for Duke in my life. Not once, which is probably why it took me time to appreciate your pro career.
I’m a huge fan of the lane you’re driving in the media world, though. Have been from the jump, actually. I thoroughly enjoyed you fitting Chris Russo for a clown suit when it came to his opinion that America did not like Draymond Green. I also thoroughly enjoyed your boxing out of Stephen A. Smith earlier this week after he expressed the opinion that he was not a fan of Russell Westbrook attending the introduction of Darvin Ham.
“So you said a random, random take,” you said. “And then you explained a bunch of things about Russell Westbrook that had nothing to do with that take so I want clarification. What is your issue with Russell Westbrook being at that news conference?”
Awesome. You put him in a corner and forced him to talk his way out of that one.
You’re part of a players revolution in sports media. A revolution that will, in fact, be televised. Actually, that’s kind of the point with former players such as yourself and even current players like Green, C.J. McCollum, perhaps even Patrick Beverly becoming part of the industry whether it’s podcasts, stints on the studio shows that anchor event coverage or (increasingly) the debate shows that fill the morning programming on ESPN.
Let’s talk about that last role for a second. Because ESPN has taken to posting you up against an old man who yells at the clouds (Russo) and the slightly less old man known for his over-the-top bombast (Smith). It’s not as easy as people think to consistently disagree with your co-workers in public. It’s downright tricky when your co-workers have cartoonish or outdated opinions. So at the risk of coming off as a presumptuous dolt, I’d like to offer a few suggestions, and I think these can apply in general to broadcast debates.
1) Don’t use sarcasm.
I know it’s tempting. Feels good, too, doesn’t it? I chuckled earlier this week when you clapped back on Russo’s insinuation that you didn’t know how good the game of pro basketball used to be because of your age: “I did not have the luxury of watching in person the 1986 NBA Finals. OK. I’m at fault there.”
This did point out how silly Russo’s criticism was, but it actually doesn’t land as well in what is a debate, and it makes the next step awkward for everyone. Also, it lets your opponent off the hook because they’re not forced to explain their rationale.
2) The best offense is making them play defense.
Force your opponent to defend specific points. Point out the flaws in their logic or their assumptions, and make them address those. You did that earlier in that conversation with Russo when he argued that players today do not possess the same level of fundamental basketball skill as players from 20 years ago:
Russo: “Fundamentally they’re not as good. Because back in those days, Tim Duncan played four years in college. These guys don’t play four years of college basketball.”
Redick: “Fundamentally?”
Russo: “Fundamentally they’re not nearly as good.”
Redick: “Fundamentally? What game are you watching today, Chris? Honestly, what game are you watching?”
See, this is great. You made it clear that you think his point is ridiculous, but you’ve forced him to answer for his perspective on what he sees today. Watch where the conversation goes.
Russo: “You think anybody is a better fundamental player than Larry Bird? You think anybody is a better fundamental player than Larry Bird?”
Redick: “You’re bringing up a top-10 player of all-time.”
Russo: “You’re talking about the Golden State Warriors.”
Redick: “I’m talking about the average NBA player.”
3) Save your anger for serious stuff
I know it’s frustrating, JJ. Seriously, I get it. You’re being brought on to answer for any of the shortcomings — real and perceived — with today’s game. This week, it was Mike Greenberg and Smith on Get Up! expressing the opinion that today’s players whine too much.
Greenberg: “The softening of the game, a lot of it comes from the constant complaining to the officials, the constant whining, the constant selling of calls.”
Redick: “Michael Jordan didn’t complain to the officials? Larry Bird didn’t? C’mon guys?
“This nostalgia that you have for the ‘80s and the ‘90s, a great era of basketball. But it’s at the expense of our generation and it has been for the last 15 years. And it gets annoying. That’s annoying, Stephen A.”
All of that is really good. It’s great. The problem came later when Redick was visibly frustrated, shaking his head and turning away.
Smith: “Shake your head all you want to. We comprehend what you’re saying.”
Redick: “I’ll see you again in like an hour.”
Smith: “Are you sure? Are you sure? You gonna’ be ready?”
Redick: “Oh I’ll be ready. 10:55.”
Honestly, it’s an incredible tease, but the visible frustration and turning away from Smith were not only unnecessary, but made it uncomfortable.
4) Don’t apologize. At all. Ever.
When that 10:55 segment did roll around on Wednesday, Redick apologized if he went over the top. There was no need for a public apology. At all. Any issues in execution can be handled off the air. On the air, it’s a show. A live show, actually, and emotions are part of it. Play through those.
More than anything, don’t let up, man. Go hard in the paint. There’s a couple of generations of commonly recited talking points that need to be flushed out of sports media entirely, and you’re part of a group of former players who are poised to do it. I’ll be cheering you on!
Danny O’Neil is a sports media columnist for BSM. He has previously hosted morning and afternoon drive for 710 ESPN Seattle, and served as a reporter for the Seattle Times. He can be reached on Twitter @DannyOneil or by email at Danny@DannyOneil.com.
