I don't agree with that assessment at all (save Lowe and Barnwell, but Sharp, really?), perhaps I'm being too optimistic with my view of the average sports fan. They're certainly reaching for people who are more engaged than the ESPN crowd.
Charles P. Pierce is still the best writer on that site (as I'm sure I've said before on here).
I've enjoyed some articles I've read by Sharp recently. Pierce is definitely good.
I guess my feeling is that while the stuff on Grantland isn't necessarily well crafted in a technical sense, there's lots of content and information to absorb if you care to take the time. And that means that it's clearly not tailored to the attention span of the average Internet using sports fan.
I could see how if you're an old school journalism type -- somebody who will notice, and be peeved by, all of the ways in which the articles do not conform to the rules -- Grantland could just seem irritating. It's obvious they don't spend a terribly great amount of time editing there, and they obviously have no particular interest in journalistic conventions.
What I really like about the Grantland site, and the writers therein, is that it doesn't feel agenda driven. It's driven by a genuine enthusiasm for the sports, and a desire to learn more about how they're played and the players who play them.
I can't say the same for anything on the main ESPN site.
But hey, these days the Boston area sports writers I tend to enjoy most are Chad Finn and Eric Wilbur. Jackie Mac is wonderful, but she doesn't write very often. Bob Ryan is retired.
