Jump to content

NFL on CBS, Fox, ESPN


  • Please log in to reply

16020 replies to this topic

#5341

alexias

alexias

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 9:24 AM

How freaking lame was the crowd booing as Randy Moss was down and walked off the field hurt?

No, they cheered when he was down and booed when he got up and walked off the field. Now that's classy.

And you know, I'm going to start this by saying that I hate the illegal contact call in general. Hate it. The fact that you can't put your hands on the receiver after 5 yards bugs the shit out of me. That said? It's the rule. You can't. So Stallworth was more than 5 yards downfield and the defender had his hands all over him. It wasn't ticky-tack (anymore so than the call is in general which, I feel, is pretty ticky-tacky) it was a violation of a sucky rule and needed to be called. I mean Collinsworth showed the replay and said, "Yup...there it is. Can't do that". So no, it wasn't a made up call or some grand conspiracy against the Giants to save Brady from a sack or whatever. Does the rule suck? Sure. But so long as that is the rule, you have to follow it.
  • 0

#5342

loriro

loriro

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 9:37 AM

To me his problem is that he just sounds so un-authoritative. His voice is just not suited for this job. It's like he is narrating a children's book about football instead of calling a game, and it is infuriatingly boring. Joe Buck, TK, Sims are blowhards but at least they sound like they are actual football authorities. I don't mean to imply that Bryant is not (I do love Real Sports and its analyses), but play-by-play is SO not his bag. Thank god for Cris Collinsworth tonight (and that's a sentence I never thought I'd utter.)


Can I just say AMEN?? This sums up Bryant Gumbel perfectly for me! I've always thought he sounded just like my cousin (who is a teacher...and a female...). He just sounds so matter-of-fact when he speaks. Probably a trait he developed from his years as a news reporter. He really sounds like he's reading from a script, not with any authority. And above and beyond that...he has no emotion in his voice. Now I know the announcers need to be objective, bu thtat doesn't man there can't be some excitement when either team does something great or when the play is really good. I'm sure that's a result of his prior news background, but it really does make for boring announcing.
  • 0

#5343

i am rick

i am rick

    Channel Surfer

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:08 AM

His voice is just not suited for this job. It's like he is narrating a children's book about football instead of calling a game, and it is infuriatingly boring.


Boring? How about annoying. I cannot listen to BG's voice without picturing him sitting on a pretty couch on the set of the Today Show interviewing some eleven year old girl who just rescued her neighbor's cat from being stuck in a mailbox or something equally stupid. He can make a football game sound as exciting as a wait in line for your license at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Did anybody catch him at the beginning of the second quarter when Moss caught the TD pass and not less than three times Bryant said that "three records have fallen". Uh, no, Brianna, at that exact moment only one record had fallen and two others were tied.

I've changed my mind about the NFL network. I don't really care anymore if my cable company picks it up if this is what I have to look forward to. Ugh.

And how about showing the down and yardage info up on the screen near the score? And how about showing the play clock up there? I don't consider that to be screen clutter. I want that info. I don't want to see the down and yardage info on the turf in some gawdawful teardrop or arrow shaped vomit fest colored blob taking up half of the screen. Just put that info back near the score where it used to be thankyouverymuch. That applies to all of the networks.
  • 0

#5344

mojoween

mojoween

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:17 AM

While Bryant never hosted Survivor, he did host the reunion specials for the first few years, and he sucked at that, so there ya go.

When they were sorting out what happened on that one kickoff return where there was a late hit PF call against number 31 of the Pats, which looked pretty cut and dried to me, during the replay Bryant thought they maybe meant 81 for the Giants, so he kept saying "watch Toomer...watch Toomer...watch Toomer."

I was really hoping that Amani was going to break out in song and dance since I was supposed to be paying such close attention to him. And it wasn't even Amani, the refs had it right the first time.

Shut up, Bryant.

Towards the end of the game, they showed Brady on the sidelines after a Pats TD, and he had all of his gear off. I was excited that maybe he was done for the day, but then he got redressed. Any ideas on why he took his pads off?
  • 0

#5345

HickoryColt

HickoryColt

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:26 AM

They totally will be in the SuperBowl. Don't get fooled. They do what they need to win. If they're completely better than the other team, it's a complete rout. Otherwise, they do what they need to win as of late. Don't be fooled. Don't think they're vulnerable because of that. Like I said before, they remind me of some teams of old.

The media should be saying they're a lock for the superbowl, because they are undefeated headed into the superbowl, and breaking records left and right. Unless one would allege that the media doesn't ever have the right to say someone is a lock for something, then what has to happen for a team to be a lock - what, do they have to win every game by 100 points? Silly. They're a lock for the superbowl at this point. Everybody in the AFC is either unqualified, has injuries or will fold in the cold weather. The Pats have a bye and 2 home games in New England in January. Yeah, the media is insane for thinking the Patriots can win two games at home when they just won 16 straight games. That's crazy talk! Only not really.


They are not a lock for anything, but I know how the media is and how they will claim they are. The records they broke mean nothing, however. In fact, if you are looking at the individual records, they actually are a negative come playoff time. Marino in his 48 TD season did not win a SB. Manning in his 49 TD season.....did not win a SB. The previous highest scoring team in the league was Randy Moss and the Vikings. THey went 15-1 in the regular season and.......wait for it.......did not win the SB. In fact, I don't think any of those teams even MADE IT to the SB. I'd have to look up which season Rice had his 22 TD season to know if SF won that year. The last two teams to go 15-1, which is the closest anyone has come to 16-0......did not win the SB. Indy essentially went 13-1 two years ago, then tanked the last two games with reserves......and.....can anyone guess the ending? I think the media might be pointing these things out. They can pick NE to win if they want, but based on recent history, if anything, they should be pointing out the odds are actually strongly AGAINST the Pats. The top seeds in the AFC have lost in the playoffs the last three years, not even making the SB.

I do have to hand it to NE, though. They have made the season very interesting and their games have been very entertaining.

Edited by HickoryColt, Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:28 AM.

  • 0

#5346

Roark13579

Roark13579

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:35 AM

Yeah, I know the illegal contact call was technically correct, but that doesn't keep it from being ticky-tack. It's one of those penalties like holding that could be called on nearly every play, if the refs really wanted to. Refs have to make those calls occasionally to keep guys from gradually getting worse about it, but ideally you'd like them to come when they aren't game-breakers. So of course it gets called on the most important play of the game, right when the Patriots are starting to look lost and the Giants are building a head of steam, right when it can completely change the game. I don't think there's any conspiracy, just the Patriots' continued good luck that a call that could happen at any time happened when they needed it most. Good for them for taking advantage of it, anyway.
  • 0

#5347

loriro

loriro

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:49 AM

Hee! This is from Jay Mariotti in the sun times... here

On a night so significant that the almighty NFL stopped its fight against Big Cable and allowed an unprecedented network triplecast -- the downside being that millions more had to hear Bryant Gumbel -- the Patriots are Bo Derek, Nadia Comaneci, Don Larsen


Glad to know we aren't alone.

As this article attests, however, of course the media is going to play up the Pats as the "inevitable" champion. As some have said, it's "the story". However, I appreciate much more those who acknowledge that there are teams out there that really can beat the Pats ...like the Jags or the Colts ( who are the champs until someone beats them, and who will in all likelihood have Harrison back...). However, I do think the only thing that matters right now is that the Pats believe they aren't invincible. They've done a great job all year of keeping a level head and focusing on the task at hand. I don't think they'll lose focus now, and that will give them their best shot at completing the perfect season...
  • 0

#5348

Doom

Doom

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 10:57 AM

They are not a lock for anything, but I know how the media is and how they will claim they are. The records they broke mean nothing, however. In fact, if you are looking at the individual records, they actually are a negative come playoff time. Marino in his 48 TD season did not win a SB. Manning in his 49 TD season.....did not win a SB. The previous highest scoring team in the league was Randy Moss and the Vikings. THey went 15-1 in the regular season and.......wait for it.......did not win the SB. In fact, I don't think any of those teams even MADE IT to the SB. I'd have to look up which season Rice had his 22 TD season to know if SF won that year. The last two teams to go 15-1, which is the closest anyone has come to 16-0......did not win the SB. Indy essentially went 13-1 two years ago, then tanked the last two games with reserves......and.....can anyone guess the ending? I think the media might be pointing these things out. They can pick NE to win if they want, but based on recent history, if anything, they should be pointing out the odds are actually strongly AGAINST the Pats. The top seeds in the AFC have lost in the playoffs the last three years, not even making the SB.


Sure they are (a lock). Once the playoff matchups are set by this afternoon, it'll be even clearer. The media is right - they're a lock to go to the superbowl. They're clearly the best team this year, and have a legitimate claim to being one of the best ever, with top 10 not even a question.

Those record setting stats are only a couple among a million. That doesn't turn the odds "strongly against the Patriots", though they might try to conjure up this logic-related sleight-of-hand to try and convince themselves that they are the underdogs. What about rushing yards, sacks allowed, receivers leading the league in yardage, in catches, point margin, and other undefeated teams in the regular season. They aren't underdogs and the odds are not against them. They have a fantastic team and they're playing at home the next 2 games. Sports reporters would be stupid to think they won't win their first playoff game at home. Then they play the AFC championship game at home, likely against the Colts, who they can beat. Who have injuries. The media is right.

ESPN had a new quote from Mercury Morris about how the Patriots can come stand beside them in the record book (for undefeated SB champions), and that won't be a bad thing. He said he'll welcome them to the neightborhood with his Mister Rogers sweater on....but first they have to get to the neighborhood.

Now, I'm a little confused about Mr. Morris' mapping system. Before, he said call me when they're on my block. Aren't they on the block now, a few houses down? And wouldn't that mean they are already in the neighborhood?

Edited by Doom, Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:02 AM.

  • 0

#5349

HickoryColt

HickoryColt

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:14 AM

Sure they are (a lock). Once the playoff matchups are set by this afternoon, it'll be even clearer. The media is right - they're a lock to go to the superbowl. They're clearly the best team this year, and have a legitimate claim to being one of the best ever, with top 10 not even a question.

Those record setting stats are only a couple among a million. That doesn't turn the odds "strongly against the Patriots", though they might try to conjure up this logic-related sleight-of-hand to try and convince themselves that they are the underdogs. What about rushing yards, sacks allowed, receivers leading the league in yardage, in catches, point margin, and other undefeated teams in the regular season. They aren't underdogs and the odds are not against them. They have a fantastic team and they're playing at home the next 2 games. Sports reporters would be stupid to think they won't win their first playoff game at home. Then they play the AFC championship game at home, likely against the Colts, who they can beat. Who have injuries. The media is right.


8 of the last 9 SB champions did not have the best record in the league during the regular season. And out of all the stats you mentioned, outside of point margin, I am not even sure the Pats lead the league in those categories. They don't lead in rushing yards. Reggie Wayne is right up there with Moss in receiving yards. I don't think they lead in sacks. And none of those are records they have set or even come close to setting this year except point margin. Oh, and undefeated/untied teams in the regular season? They showed that stat last night. There have been three. ONE won the SB or championship, the Dolphins. Do I honestly think the odds are against them? No, they will, and should, be favored. But talk of one of the greatest teams of all time, by you or the media, cannot enter the discussion until they actually WIN a Superbowl this year. Top ten is not in the question UNTIL THEY WIN IN THE PLAYOFFS. The media ought to recognize it is far from a lock and actually ASSESS the match ups instead of just assuming the season is over because they went 16-0.
  • 0

#5350

smrou

smrou

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:20 AM

Yeah, I know the illegal contact call was technically correct, but that doesn't keep it from being ticky-tack.

I was shocked about the call because I just don't remember seeing illegal contact being called when no pass was even made. Yes, it was correct as Collinsworth said, but isn't that highly unusual?

The media is right - they're a lock to go to the superbowl. They're clearly the best team this year, and have a legitimate claim to being one of the best ever, with top 10 not even a question.

That still doesn't make them a lock, unless I'm misunderstanding the word. It makes them the favorite, which is what the media should be saying (and some have been--not every commentator and analyst and reporter claims that it's in the bag).

On a night so significant that the almighty NFL stopped its fight against Big Cable and allowed an unprecedented network triplecast -- the downside being that millions more had to hear Bryant Gumbel -- the Patriots are Bo Derek, Nadia Comaneci, Don Larsen

Glad to know we aren't alone.

You know, I really didn't think he was so bad. He doesn't seem really qualified to call games, which is sometimes evident, but for the most part I thought the job he did last night was competent. Sure, he doesn't really have a voice for football (as opposed to Collinsworth whose voice is strong and clear and I really like it) but I don't have any major complaints about the announcing last night. And it's not like so many other announcers have great voices. Phil Simms doesn't seem to be disliked, but when he calls games his voice sounds like it's locked in a permanent yell, which I find annoying.
  • 0

#5351

loriro

loriro

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:25 AM

ok...I'm gonna throw what is probably gonna be a hugely UO here, but what the heck...

I was just watching NFL Countdown and they were talking about the Vince Wilfork "poke-in-the-eye" incident and how he's likely to get a fine but, since no one was hurt, not a suspension. Ok fine. I don't dispute any penalty (and I wouldn't even dispute a suspension) because it was a tacky, classless, unnecessary thing to do. And even though I'm a Pats fan, I don't believe they can do no wrong. That was stupid, lame, shouldn't have been done, and deserves whatever penalty the league sees fit to hand down.

However, and here's the UO, I don't think (as the media is making it out to be) that Wilfork was intentionally going for his eye. I think he was trying to disrespect the guy by poking him in the forehead or maybe even between the eyes. Kinda like you'd see someone do if two guys were goin' at it and in each other's faces and one guy goes up and pokes the other just to get under his skin, disrespect him, treat him like a "boy". There isn't a whole lot of room under those helmets and I think he just came too close to his eye.


Honestly, I'm not trying to justify in any way what he did. Like I said...classless regardless of his intent. But I just don't believe, after watching replay after replay of that thing, that he was trying to poke his eye out.

ETA...can someone explain something to me? There has been discussion about the illegal contact call that was made (I'm assuming we're talking about the one involving Donte' Stallworth.) Well... if that was "illegal contact" even though the play wasn't going to him, how come no "illegal contact" or a personal foul wasn't called on the defender who clocked Randy Moss completely away from the play. He wasn't throwing a block or defending a pass, he just leveled Moss. I'm not arguing that it was necessarily unfair that nothing was called and the announcers didn't seem phased by it, but I guess I'm just missing something.

Edited by loriro, Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:30 AM.

  • 0

#5352

emma675

emma675

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:28 AM

Thankfully for those who have never had the opportunity to catch the NFL Network, Gumbel didn't do too bad last night. He still wasn't much to listen to but at least he wasn't making blatantly obvious mistakes (like referring to Marion Barber as Marion Berry). I do hate his calling touchdowns early when the player is still 2-3 yards away from the goal line.

Sure, he doesn't really have a voice for football (as opposed to Collinsworth whose voice is strong and clear and I really like it) but I don't have any major complaints about the announcing last night.

I agree, his voice is a little high pitched, which bothers me. I like the tones of Collinsworth and Summerall better and I appreciate having former players calling the games because I like hearing inside knowledge on the plays.
  • 0

#5353

smrou

smrou

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:34 AM

Honestly, I'm not trying to justify in any way what he did. Like I said...classless regardless of his intent. But I just don't believe, after watching replay after replay of that thing, that he was trying to poke his eye out.

I actually agree, and here's a case where I'm going with Gumbel's interpretation over Collinsworth's. Collinsworth seemed pretty horrified by the whole thing--and not unreasonably, because what the hell, Wilfork? What kind of an asshole are you? But Gumbel said something like, "It looks like more of an intent to annoy than an intent to injure," and I agreed with that. I don't know if he was specifically going for the eye or something else. I think he may have been specifically going for the eye because he was pretty direct about it, but I don't think he was trying to actually hurt the guy--he stuck his finger in toward the eye then moved it toward the nose, and I really don't think he was trying to really jab the guy hard in the eye. I think he was trying to piss him off by invading his space in an annoying way like that.

Which is still ridiculous and of course deserving of at least a fine, but I agree with Gumbel's call that he was trying to annoy him, not injure him.

Thankfully for those who have never had the opportunity to catch the NFL Network, Gumbel didn't do too bad last night. He still wasn't much to listen to but at least he wasn't making blatantly obvious mistakes (like referring to Marion Barber as Marion Berry). I do hate his calling touchdowns early when the player is still 2-3 yards away from the goal line.

I have watched games on NFL Network and agree that he's usually really crappy--I was just commenting that last night he seemed okay. Though you're right, I'd forgotten about the early calling. Not only does he call touchdowns early, but at least a couple times he called a pass complete when it was then dropped. He does like to jump the gun.
  • 0

#5354

bookwrm74

bookwrm74

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:35 AM

Sure they are (a lock). Once the playoff matchups are set by this afternoon, it'll be even clearer. The media is right - they're a lock to go to the superbowl. They're clearly the best team this year,


My first post was eaten but, as others have said by now, this does not make the Pats a lock. It makes them the clear favorites, which they've more than earned the right to be, but not a lock. Just last week, the Bears beat the Packers by a huge margin, despite the fact that the Packers have been the clearly superior team throughout the season. The Pats almost got upset by the Ravens, a team that just two weeks later earned the dubious distinction of being the only team the entire season to lose to the sadly awful Dolphins.

My point is that upsets happen all the time, and that's what makes the sport thrilling and exciting. There have already been games this year that IMO would qualify as more shocking than the Jags, Colts or Chargers beating the Pats in the playoffs, though I know most of the media would disagree with me. IMO, it's the media and some fans declaring the Pats as the already annointed champs that feed into my anti-Pats sentiment and add support for the theory that they're an arrogant, smug team. However, strangely enough, I have a feeling the Pats *themselves* will be a lot less complacent than the media and some of their fans. One thing I'll readily give the Pats credit for is that they almost never overlook opponents. Believe me, us Colts fans would love it if the Pats bought into the media/fan hype about them being a 'lock' and therefore decided they didn't have to take other AFC teams seriously or prepare especially hard in order to beat them. However, I give the Pats and their work ethic too much credit to think that will be the case.

On another note, I think I've devloped a crush on Tom Jackson. Seriously, everything about his demeanor and thoughtful, level-headed analyses just delight me to no end. Yeah, I know...I need to cure my sad addiction to ESPN!

Edited by bookwrm74, Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:39 AM.

  • 0

#5355

tominboston

tominboston

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:35 AM

Looking ahead two weeks, has there been any announcement regarding the AFC/CBS and NFC/Fox schedule for January 12th and 13th? I'm specifically wondering if CBS has the prime time game on 1/12 (and sort of hoping they don't, since I won't be able to watch it live and would hate to have to tape-delay the Pats, who I'm guessing will get preference over the Colts for the better time slot of CBS's two games).
  • 0

#5356

loriro

loriro

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:39 AM

Would Chris Berman be able to speak if someone tied his hands behind his back? Just wondering, because...gahh....it's annoying. And that little flip he does with his right hand constantly?? Enough.to.drive.me.crazy! (And I'm an Italian who does the speaking with my hands thing, but this is ridiculous!)

It's also a fact that the receiver can't put his hands on the defender after 5 yards, but somehow the guy wearing 81 gets to do it EVERY SINGLE PASSING PLAY and gets called for it about 1 of every 200.


I won't argue that he gets away with it a lot, but I'd also argue that defenders get away with a lot more pass interference on him than gets called as well and disproportionately so as compared to other receivers. I guess when you're that good, it goes both ways. You get away with more, but more is expected of you so the PI calls just don't get made. Not saying it's right (on either count...) but that's what seems to be happening.

Edited by loriro, Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:42 AM.

  • 0

#5357

bookwrm74

bookwrm74

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:48 AM

Would Chris Berman be able to speak if someone tied his hands behind his back? Just wondering, because...gahh....it's annoying. And that little flip he does with his right hand constantly?? Enough.to.drive.me.crazy!


Heh---yeah, I've noticed this as well. It's funny, because Chris Berman is exactly the kind of TV personality who usually bugs the crap out of me...but, for some inexplicable reason, I really like the guy. He's just so genuinely passionate about the game, and I find it kind of infectious.

And I do hope that media coverage allows for the fact that...well, that the Pats are playing other talented, successful NFL teams and therefore aren't an absolute lock. As I've said, the Pats will be declared the favorites, and certainly deserve to be. But something about the media being ready to---in the immortal words of Denny Green---"crown their asses" seems to sort of discount the fact that while the Pats are certainly the *best* team, other teams do, in fact, have a chance. If there weren't the possibility of surprises and upsets on 'any given Sunday', many of us wouldn't bother tuning into games!

Edited by bookwrm74, Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:49 AM.

  • 0

#5358

alexias

alexias

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:50 AM

It's also a fact that the receiver can't put his hands on the defender after 5 yards, but somehow the guy wearing 81 gets to do it EVERY SINGLE PASSING PLAY and gets called for it about 1 of every 200.

You're right. Terrell Owens gets away with it all the time.

; )

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

The Pats aren't a lock for anything at this point. If they don't start freakin' tackling somebody they won't get past the first playoff game! Arm tackling aint gonna get it done boys. Wrap 'em up and take 'em down for fuck sake.
  • 0

#5359

Doom

Doom

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:53 AM

HickoryColt, I think I'm not being clear. I'm saying you can cite the Patriots position in any number of statistical categories, and then use that to try to decide what their odds are. That really doesn't accomplish much. It's meaningless, is what I'm saying. Were it that the last 5 teams to lead the league in rushing got to the superbowl, it wouldn't matter that the Patriots don't. Just like if the last 15 teams that were 6th in punt coverage did not make the superbowl, and oh no, the Patriots are (if they were) 6th in punt coverage! See what I'm saying? There are thousands of statistics one could cite to improve or lessen the Patriots alleged odds. It's all nonsensical, really.

They're a lock to win the next 2 games, to me. I really don't think that's an unreasonable or crazy thing for the media to say, after they just won 16 straight games. I mean, if this team isn't a lock to win these two games, coming off a bye, at home, in the cold, in January, against a dome team (Colts), then one would have to be saying no team should ever be a lock.

That still doesn't make them a lock, unless I'm misunderstanding the word.


I do wonder if we have differing definitions. Mine is that it's basically assured. Like a 16 seed at the NCAA tournament losing to a #1 seed. That's pretty much a lock that the #1 team could win. Of course in the crazy world of sport, an upset could happen. Just like some team could come into New England and beat the team that just won 16 games in a row, and has no notable injuries. But it's not going to happen - it's pretty much a lock. I understand that fans are scared of jinxing the Patriots, so there's a desire to not say it's a lock.

Bob Kuechenberg, 72 Dolphins guard is saying that his heart is dead set against the Patriots matching them in the record books. Okay, now it really is starting to seem to me like they should be a little more gracious. The team is good, for goodness sakes. At least Don Shula is coming around.

As far as Wilfork, sorry, but he tried to poke the guy in the eye. Classless. Just classless. He should have at least had the decency to do it at the bottom of a fumble recovery pile, come on.

The Randy Moss thing - he was slipping and falling and ran into the defender, who just helped him down with a forearm. That's what was so lame about that whole thing. It wasn't like the defender popped him, and thus something to cheer about. Randy just slipped.

I loved Brady getting excited and slapping the pass rusher on the rump, that was kind of funny. I can't wait until the playoff matches are set, so it can be really obvious that the Patriots are a lock for the superbowl. Who ever would have thought one would have to actually make a case for it basically being a lock that an undefeated team with no significant injuries playing at home would win two whole games. Amazing.
  • 0

#5360

TWoP Barnes

TWoP Barnes

    TWoP Moderator

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 11:53 AM

REMINDER: Please remember that TWoP's sports threads are for discussion of TV coverage of various sports, not the games themselves. For more information, please see Strega's announcement in the forum. Since this is a TV site, the conversation should be focused on television. Thanks!

#5361

loriro

loriro

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 12:11 PM

You know...one other thing that's annoying me is that all of the commentators (particularly Chris Berman today on NFL countdown, but I've seen it in various print forms as well) are describing that 65 yard TD pass to Moss as such a wonderful call... "they had the balls to go back to the same play"... yadayadayada. Ok. Great. The play was fantastic and they scored and it deserves props. BUT... if you listen to the words of Randy himself, he admitted that that play is NOT what was called in the huddle. It was supposed to be a pass to Welker for the first down, but he got doubled. It just so happens that Brady, as any capable (not even necessarily great) QB should be able to do, recognized that and found another option. And I don't buy that "they probably didn't know that...". I know it, and I'm just a fan who happened to notice the quote. And I can't believe no one other than one single lone reporter asked them about that sequence of plays. It's these guys' job to know this stuff.

Again, great play. But to me, this is just another example of the media just tripping over themselves to heave every superlative at them they possibly can. If I were the Patriots, I'd be sitting in the locker room listening to all of this, shaking my head... "idiots".
  • 0

#5362

xaxat

xaxat

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 12:11 PM

Does anyone know how the commercial ad rates worked for last night? If they were still based on the probable NFL Network ratings, then that would have to be the greatest ad buy ever.
  • 0

#5363

msburg

msburg

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 12:29 PM

Does anyone know the overall ratings for last night? Since I could watch it on four stations (not one of them the real NFL Network), I'm really curiousas to the total number of people that tuned in.

Also with the Wilfork eye-poke -- I was hoping they'd rewind the tape even more and show us what happened to provoke him to do this. I never thought it was Wilfork's style to get so angry to the point of doing something so blatantly stupid. It was an awfully chippy game last night on both sides, surprisingly so.
  • 0

#5364

bookwrm74

bookwrm74

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 12:40 PM

I do wonder if we have differing definitions. Mine is that it's basically assured. Like a 16 seed at the NCAA tournament losing to a #1 seed. That's pretty much a lock that the #1 team could win. Of course in the crazy world of sport, an upset could happen. Just like some team could come into New England and beat the team that just won 16 games in a row, and has no notable injuries. But it's not going to happen - it's pretty much a lock. I understand that fans are scared of jinxing the Patriots, so there's a desire to not say it's a lock.


Did the media really compare a potential Colts-Pats rematch to a first seeded team playing a 16th seed, though? I just find it surprising that the media would compare the 13-2 reigning Super Bowl champs to a 16th seed college team despite the fact that they'd be facing an absolutely stellar, historically dominating Pats team. It seems quite disprecteful to the Colts IMO, almost implying that they don't even belong on the same field and shouldn't bother showing up. As pro-Pats as the media's been, delcaring them as a guaranteed lock still kind of baffles me, as the people who've covered sports for years know better than anyone that surprises can and do happen in sports.

Again, great play. But to me, this is just another example of the media just tripping over themselves to heave every superlative at them they possibly can. If I were the Patriots, I'd be sitting in the locker room listening to all of this, shaking my head... "idiots".


True, but as much as I like Berman, he's always been wildly effusive. I'm sure most players and coaches take his praise with a heaping pile of salt!

Edited by bookwrm74, Dec 30, 2007 @ 12:43 PM.

  • 0

#5365

CtLady

CtLady

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 12:41 PM

Okay, just saw a blurb on ESPN countdown from one of the '72 Dolphin offensive lineman and he was quoted as saying how the Pats "exhibition season has ended and how the real season is about to begin". WTF?? Can these guys get anymore freakin' bitter?

And how about Boomer interviewing Shula who was all kissy, kissy about the Pats achievement? He's trying really hard to rectify his "asterisk" comment
  • 0

#5366

DocHopper

DocHopper

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 1:19 PM

Since I don't have NFL network and hadn't heard Gumbel before I was basing my expectations on what you guys have been posting. He wasn't as bad as I thought he would be, but I did take into consideration that with the attention last night's game was getting he probably prepared much more carefully than he has other weeks.

And he still wasn't good. I actually like Cris Collinsworth and think he is a good color man. I actually think among the ex-players in broadcasting he's one of the best. And even though he isn't polished or experienced, I really enjoy Jerome Bettis. He just seems to enjoy himself so much on FNIA. I feel the same way about Siragusa on Fox, but I like Bettis much better.

I'm another person who can't bring myself to be annoyed by Chris Berman. He's just so much fun to watch, even if you can do half his patter.

I also really like James Brown, even though I tend to not watch the CBS pre-game anymore because I'm in an NFC market. Oh, and even though I love Inside the NFL, I can't stand Dan Marino (another reason I stay away from the CBS pre-game stuff). Can't stand him. I think Marino is a) a pissy, pissy bitch at times in his interactions with his fellow INFL and CBS co-hosts and b) is actually, despite knowing football, as stupid as Terry Bradshaw pretends to be.
  • 0

#5367

Doom

Doom

    Stalker

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 1:29 PM

I can't really recall some broadcaster saying the Patriots will be in the superbowl in such an obnoxious way that it seemed like the other teams have zero chance. Close to zero, sure, but not zero.

Berman said a while back that he doesn't think the Patties can do it. He thinks the season is just too long and hard, and that they won't do it. Of course, out of all the guys on ESPN's countdown show, he has the worst record, or did a week or two ago. Keyshawn was leading, I think, in the predictions. I didn't see today's update to see the standings. But when Boomer was predicting that the Patriots wouldn't even score 30, I knew he was on crack, so him saying they won't do it is even more reason for me to think they will.

The coverage I can think of seems to paint it as the Patriots will make it to the superbowl, though the AFC championship won't be a cakewalk. That is, the reporters are saying that they are sure the Patriots will win, but that it's not like it will be completely easy.

I love Bermans hand cycling. He does it often, and sometimes TJ just kind of stares at him like "get it out, old man!" It's so funny.
  • 0

#5368

loriro

loriro

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 1:37 PM

I think Marino is a) a pissy, pissy bitch at times in his interactions with his fellow INFL and CBS co-hosts and b) is actually, despite knowing football, as stupid as Terry Bradshaw pretends to be.


I love that comment about Bradshaw, because it is sooo true!
And don't get me wrong, it's not that i hate Boomer. Quite the contrary...I really enjoy his analysis/commentary and that of the entire NFL countdown crew. But those hands! Aggg... sometimes I just have to listen rather than watch when it gets too demonstrative.
And I do have to admit that the one I really enjoy is Keyshawn...much more than I thought I would. I've always liked him as a player, but I didn't think I'd like him as much as a commentator. But I really, really do. (I will say, though, on a purely superficial note...that while I LOVE his fashion sense, either he's gained some weight recently or the wardrobe department has got a hate-on for him, b/c those are some ill-fitting jackets he's been wearing the last few weeks...).

And I did really like Chris Collinsworth last nite. I like him as an analyst, but when he's doing the NFL on NBC sunday nite game with Bob Costas, the two of them trying (and failing) to be funny all the time is truly, truly painful to watch.


From what I've seen of the commentary, it seems as though most think that the Patriots will get to the Superbowl, but it won't be easy at all. And most seem to feel that their toughest game won't be the Superbowl itself, but rather the AFC Championship game, with whoever wins that one winning the SB.
  • 0

#5369

snowfall

snowfall

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 2:49 PM

Yes, my friends, it was a big night of television on Saturday this week courtesy of CBS and NBC airing the New England Patriots versus New York Giants football match-up. CBS coverage averaged a dominant 13.70 million viewers and a 4.5 rating/13 share among adults 18-49 from 8-11 p.m. And NBCs coverage was healthy at 11.67 million viewers and a 4.0/12 in the demo. Together, the two networks totaled 25.37 million viewers and an 8.5/25 among adults 18-49 on Saturday. Lesson to be learned: with the right programming, the broadcast nets can still attract an audience on Saturday.

http://pifeedback.co...0451/m/23010939
  • 0

#5370

emma675

emma675

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 30, 2007 @ 3:16 PM

Just last week, the Bears beat the Packers by a huge margin, despite the fact that the Packers have been the clearly superior team throughout the season.

And now the Bears are up on the Saints! Where was this Bears team all season?

And I did really like Chris Collinsworth last nite. I like him as an analyst, but when he's doing the NFL on NBC sunday nite game with Bob Costas, the two of them trying (and failing) to be funny all the time is truly, truly painful to watch.

Too true. Costas is one of those guys who thinks he's funnier than he actually is and kind of drags others down with him, IMO. I think Collinsworth was good paired up with Gumbel; he knows the game, covers Gumbel's mistakes, and had some insightful views on certain plays throughout the game. Kind of why I like Aikman, too, I think.

Ok, the Fox Transformer robot thing? Creeps me out. Something about the way it has no real eyes and bounces up and down shaking its thighs is just weird.
  • 0