Guys like Herbstreit are annoying because they’re inherently biased, but at least they bring something in terms of analysis. Clayton isn’t exactly Mr. Excitement, but at least he has sources and brings unique info. Even someone like Stephen A. Smith has his moments. Even someone like Emmitt Smith was at one point a great player.
But Sean Salisbury combines the minimum of knowledge with the maximum of arrogance, the minimum of humor with the maximum of coarseness, the minimum of self-awareness with the maximum of self-hatred. It seems that most schoolyard bullies eventually get humbled and realize that they’re not god’s gift to the human race. But not Sean Salisbury, who for some reason is able to have a career despite being the least likable man on cable.
Watch the video. Maybe he was given some kind of insider information about what the question actually meant, but to Clayton and to us at home, Clayton gives an acceptable answer. The question was, is it better to have Shockey or Boss in the lineup? Salisbury saws Shockey is better, Clayton says Boss is better because Salisbury has been so injury-prone. Which makes sense. If you were going to have Shockey in this game, he’d probably not be 100%, because–you know–he’s been injured. Salisbury—the undisputed king of the ad hominem argument because he never has points good enough to back up on the evidence alone—then attacks Clayton for absolutely no reason.
It’s sad that Salisbury barely had enough talent to host BattleBots but has somehow climbed to the worldwide leader in sports. But, at least he’s finally proven one argument: that shit floats to the top.