Amari Cooper is a 'Turd,' Says ESPN Analyst - And Here's The Problem
FRISCO - Former NFL coach Rex Ryan, now an ESPN analyst, plowed through all boundaries of civil discussion and professional analysis on Friday morning when he opined on the Dallas Cowboys' decision to pay wide receiver Amari Cooper, calling the star wide receiver "a turd.''
"He is the biggest disappearing act in the National Football League,'' Ryan said on the ESPN show "Get Up.'' "I wouldn't have paid this turd."
There are certain truths that can lead a Cowboys watcher to the conclusion that Cooper won't live up to his new five-year, $100 million deal. Among those: This isn't really a five-year, $100 million deal; the structure can actually make it a two-year, $40 million deal.
There are also statistical truths about Cooper's 2019 performance, which included spotty play, difficulties on the road, in the cold and against star cornerbacks - all surely impacted by Cooper playing through injuries.
We've seen some media people line up in Cooper's corner to defend him against criticism of inconsistent play, and those people are wrong. We would point out that Dallas management asked itself the same questions about the ups and downs (read the details on "Dallas Double-Checking The Amari Plan'' here), ultimately coming to the conclusion on Day 1 of NFL Free Agency that the perennial Pro Bowler is an elite talent and a key piece to Dallas' contention.
But Ryan? His negative opinion on Cooper (to which he's entitled) plunged him off the deep end here.
"He doesn’t show up on the road … when he’s against the top corners, that guy disappears,'' Ryan ranted, tossing in a cuss word for emphasis.
It is fair to broach the issue whether Cooper can play at an elite level every week; he did so in 2018 after Dallas traded with the Raiders to acquire him. But he did not do so last year. It's also fair to question his "want-to''; the Cowboys themselves asked those same questions - even checking in with his coach at Alabama, Nick Saban, for an endorsement - before the trade.
But "questions'' and "doubt'' are valid tools of journalistic analysis.
Calling people "turds'' sinks many levels below that. ... to the point at which it comes across as a turdish reflection on the analyst himself.
