I don’t think most people read the entire article, throughout which quick calls into question the media attention as well as having both nate and Roy agree with his take.

To start with, your phrase (“If you misread it, you’d do well to seek interpretive assistance at a community college prior to posting comments again.”) is both unhelpful and condescending and undermines what is otherwise a well written piece by creating a negative tone. Inherent is the implication that should the reader disagree with you, they are either illiterate or stupid. As a law student with a degree in political science I can assure you that my reading comprehension/intellegence levels are just fine, and yet, I disagree with you.
Secondly, people took issue with Quick’s usage of the word “underwhelming” because objectively Oden has done very well on a per minute/Reina Value/Winscore/PER/ etc. basis, especially having sat out a year due to injury. The difficulty is that expectations are subjective and so if Quick expected Oden to drop 50 is first few games and hit 40% of his threes, Oden’s performance would indeed “underwhelm” Quick.
The fanbase took issue with Quick’s assessment not because they don’t want to hear anything negative about Oden, but rather because they disagreed with Quick’s assertion that Oden was underwhelming and felt that Quick’s usage of the phrase was uncalled for, especially to Oden’s face.

Perhaps you might want to re-read your post and edit it a bit. I am sure that the negative tone was unintentional/melodramatic/intended for humor. However, it ends up coming off as mildly offensive and insulting.

I appreciate your opinion and your effort in posting your thoughts and look forward to your reply.

a drunk using a bunch of 15cent words. I’m with you, drunk! Also, didn’t most of the vitriol come through over at the OLive site? We’re all so sophisticated here; you’re preaching to the choir!

Oden will DUNK on bynum’s FACE tuesday and this will all be water under the bridge.

quick’s article was fantastic. he shouldn’t need to say a single word in his defense.

of any communicator – whether in print or in person – to choose how to use his/her particular medium in order to get across the idea he/she is trying to communicate.

Let’s assume that this particular article was mis-interpreted by the majority of readers (and I’m not saying that’s true, but just for the point of argumentation) – tens of thousands of people – then perhaps any ‘fault’ to be placed lies in the one who chose the words, not the ones who read them.

This has nothing to do with Jason Quick’s commitment to his craft, or his knowledge of basketball or of people. He perhaps simply chose the wrong words to communicate his idea, so a different idea (an un-intended one) was interpreted by the readers.

There’s a 6 stage communication process that we all use thousands of times a day – taking an idea in our minds and trying to communicate so that the recipient(s) of the communication get the same idea. Successful communication has happened when the two ideas are the same. That doesn’t seem to have happened here. But I’m not comfortable laying the entire blame on the audience, any more than I am with laying it all on Jason.

until you used Fox News as your example of sloppy journalism. Why pick on them, when the vast majority of print and TV journalists have been blatantly lobbying for Obama since well before the Democrat convention? Now I have to question everything else you wrote.

I do agree with Ben. Quick owes no one an apology. Maybe if he had written that Greg was whining…

Let me preface this by saying, while the article certainly raised my eyebrows, JQuick is a journalist and was doing his job (and pretty well considering how much this article has been passed around).

However, I think the reason people took offense to this particular article was their emotional “attachment” to Greg. Quick asked Greg some tough questions (the infamous “underwhelming” comment in particular). Greg’s response showed a side of the big man that Blazer fans hadn’t really seen before.

So many people’s hopes are riding on this 20 year old kid. When something (in this case, a Quick interview) comes out that challenges him, many people’s reaction was to panic and blame the interviewer. Fans felt that, instead of reporting ON the team, Quick was reporting AGAINST the team, searching for a controversial article that will get him readers. The consensus was that, since GO was upset with Quick, all Blazer fans need to be upset with Quick.

But this is silly. Not only was this article great and insightful, I think it showed promise for GO and the Blazers. When Oden says

“It’s understandable,” Oden said after I was done. “And I know it’s out there. That’s the big thing with me. That’s why I’m out here working and trying to get better. Trying to understand this, and doing what I need to do so people don’t think that way.”

Think which way?, I asked.

“Underwhelmed,” he said slowly with more than a hint of disgust.

it only shows Greg’s motivation and drive. The fact that Greg’s response to Quick’s term “underwhelming” was one of disgust and outrage is a relief. If GO didn’t get fired up by that kind of talk, fans should be worried. JQ is paid to ask the tough questions. We should be happy with Oden’s tough answer.