Commentator Awards 2010 Follow-Up Post

I have a couple of follow-up thoughts about my awards. Overall, I'm pretty happy with them. Although I feel I should have switched Fouts and Eagle and Simms and Nantz. Throughout the postseason, I have not been overly-impressed with Nantz and Simms, while I actually think Buck is honing in more on his skills and not being so monotonous. Unfortunately I missed the Ravens-Steelers game that Gumbel and Dierdorf did. And obviously I did not do a review of the second NBC team that did the Saints-Seahawks Wild Card game or one for the NFL Network team of Bob Papa, Matt Millen and Joe Thiesmann, but I'll take a wild guess and say they're pretty bad because of Millen and Theismann. I'll close with this, if you tune out Siragusa, Albert and Johnston are a good team, trust me. Just mute your set when "Goose" speaks. And is Dick Stockton really that terrible?

Looking Back On My Pre-Season Predictions

Sorry about all the typos and mssing words and shit from my last post. That wasn't one of my better days. Anyway, I'd like to take a look back at my pre-season predictions from this NFL season and see just how good I was at picking the records of all 32 teams.

Bengals (10-6) - Actual: (4-12)

Man, was I wrong! But really, who forsaw the Bengals being one of the worst teams in the league this year?

Ravens (11-5) - Actual: (12-4)

Only one game off. Not too bad.

Steelers (6-10) - Actual: (12-4)

I guess I read too much into Ben Roethlisberger being suspended and his off-the-field issues last offeseason and that it would hamper their record or I forgot that Mike Tomlin is one of league's best, perhaps underrated, coaches.

Browns (4-12) - Actual: (5-11)

Surprisingly the Browns did better than what I actually predicted. While we were all expecting a big year from Jerome Harrison, he was cut and Peyton Hillis ran well for them instead. In the end though, sloppy and inconsistent quarterback play led to another lost season and another coach.

Colts (13-3) - Actual: (10-6)

Never before has Peyton Manning had to do so much in a season for the Colts. It seems as though they're always banged up but missing Clark and the Jaguars having a good season shook them up a bit. I figured, hey, with all this talent, how bad would they be?

Texans (11-5) - Actual: (6-10)

It seems like year after year under Gary Kubiak we think this will be their year...and it wasn't...again. Even with the NFL's leading rusher they could not garner a winning season. They do have players who play under the title of "defense", right? Perhaps a coaching aquisition in the offseason will change this.

Titans (6-10) - Actual: (6-10)

I'm right for once! The Titans shortcomings were terribly obvious before the season and during it too. I can't this was a great prediction on my part, just because what was there was blatantly obvious, but perhaps I'm being too modest.

Jaguars (9-7) - Actual: (8-8)

One game off here. Evidently the loss of Holt was not a big deal because Lewis, Walker and Thomas did so well for them, and of course there's Jones-Drew.

Patriots (12-4) - Actual: (14-2)

In the games where I said they might have issues they won. (raises right hand) "I, state your name, will never underestimate a Bill Belichick defense again." (puts hand down)

Jets (11-5) - Actual: (11-5)

Let's see, they blitzed the Colts in last year's championship game and lost. In this year's Wild Card game against the Colts, they played coverage, and won (granted on a miracle last-second field goal). I'm not trying to sound like Gregg Easterbrook here, but I am seeing a pattern. "Let's go eat a goddamn snack."

I know Rex Ryan said it's personal against Peyton Manning, and while I'm not a huge fan of his trash talk, I can't imagine the feeling as a defense winning a playoff game against the league's best quarterback, especially when Revis covered Reggie Wayne like a blanket, holding him to one reception for one yard.

Dolphins (9-7) - Actual: (7-9)

What happened (to the Dolphins)? That's all I have to say.

Bills (3-13) - Actual: (4-12)

I guess I underestimated their badness? Although Ryan Fitzpatrick did not have a bad year at quarterback. That is about the only postive about this team.

Chargers (13-3) - Actual: (9-7)

The AFC West wound up being one of the more competative divisions in the league this year. A slow start by the Chargers was anticipated, however that Week 16 loss to the Bengals really hurt their playoff chances. I stll think its hilarious that everybody thinks that Norv Turner is a lame duck coach despite the fact that he is an offensive genius and has a 41-23 record with The Bolts.

Raiders (7-9) - Actual: (8-8)

I give myself a pat on the back for this one. It was bound to happen though, as over the past season or so the Raiders have looked improved (and naturally, it's all over). I guess it wasn't an earth-shattering prediction to have the Raiders win more than three or four games. I mean, yeah, they lost to Tennessee and Arizona and San Francisco, but still, it was nice when it lasted (undefeated within the division). And once again Al Davis has screwed the team by firing Tom Cable, but that's Davis. The Raiders as a franchise will go nowhere with him as the head honcho.

Broncos (6-10) - Actual: (4-12)

Perhaps I gave them too many wins with six, considering I basically said their players suck and they have a hard schedule. About the only bright spot was Tim Tebow starting, but other than that, a lost season.

Chiefs (7-9) - Actual: (10-6)

They had a really easy schedule in 2010, as they played the NFC West in their intra-conference games. They have good coaches though, although they'll lose one - Charlie Weis - to the college ranks.

Vikings (10-6) - Actual: (6-10)

Tough call on this one. I honestly thought Brett Favre was smarter than he actually is and that he would not play because he was old and still not 100% but he played anyway, which lead to alot of ugly throws, picks, and more injuries and pain. When I said this is Adrian Peterson's team, I meant to say this should be Adrian Peterson's team. Really, it should. About the only positive of this season is through Childress' firing they seem to have found their next coach.

Packers (12-4) - Actual: (10-6)

Well their offensive line still gave up way too many sacks but their defense has come together and they're still a Super Bowl contender.

Bears (8-8) - Actual: (11-5)

I said the Bears could go either way. They could be good or they could be bad, so I picked 8-8 just to be safe. Obviously they were good and they are in a mostly win-win situation with Mike Martz at coordinator.

Lions (2-14) - Actual: (6-10)

Did anybody notice they won their last four games? Perhaps they'll ride this streak into next season?

Saints (11-5) - Actual: (11-5)

I'M RIGHT! OK, they couldn't run the ball but they still played good defense. Somehow it seems fitting that they lost their playoff game even though Drew Bress threw 60 passes for over 400 yards and did not throw any interceptions.

Falcons (10-6) - Actual: (13-3)

They are mysterious, but basically what I said about them in my pre-season post still rings true, which is just plain scary.

Panthers (8-8) - Actual: (2-14)

Fail pick here. I really thought Matt Moore would build on the success of 2009, have a average to decent season, and help Jimmy Clausen develop...however that was not the case. Steve Smith, you still here?

Buccaneers (1-15) - Actual: (10-6)

I'll be a man and admit I was wrong. Clearly I vastly underestimated thier coaching staff in developing Josh Freeman and their defense played solidly.

Cowboys (13-3) - Actual: (6-10)

Me being wrong is really starting to get old. There is a complex series of reasons why the Cowboys sucked this year and basically all of them lead back to Jerry Jones. Although it seems, for awhile at least, that he's come to his senses and hired a coach that can get his players in line. However in three or four years he'll probably fire Jason Garrett for being too mean and hire another peachpuff coach. Tony Romo actually being healthy would probably win them a game or two, too, so there's that.

Giants (9-7) - Actual: (10-6)

One game off ain't so bad. As long as Eli Manning is the quarterback and Tom Coughlin is the head coach, the Giants should be okay. Their defense is nothing to scoff at either.

Eagles (7-9) - Actual: (10-6)

Well I'm a dumbass thinking them losing Donovan McNabb would hurt them, however I'm still not convinced Vick is a franchise quarterback they can hang their hat on, so they should keep Kolb around as a happy backup. You know what is one constant for the Eagles though? That Andy Reid guy. He might, just might have something to do with it.

Redskins (8-8) - Actual (6-10)

Actually I didn't miss on the Redskins too much. They did have a tough schedule and they do have a good coach but I don't think him and McNabb get along too well. And with Dan Snyder being the owner I don't see this franchise going anywhere, so there's that.

49ers (10-6) - Actual (6-10)

Another fail pick here. They need a quarterback. They have a coach, they just need a quarterback.

Cardinals (6-10) - Actual (5-11)

This time last year we had just come off of one of the wildest playoff games in NFL history where the Cardinals beat the Packers 51-45. They just simply lost too many of their quality players. Somehow (and very quietly) Larry Fitzgerald amassed 90 receptions for 1,137 yards, which are more yards than last year...but they still had Anquan Boldin then, too...and Kurt Warner. That seems like so long ago.

Seahawks (9-7) - Actual (7-9)

Well what I said about them wasn't entirely bullshit. Pete Carroll has a winning record as an NFL head coach even though everybody seems to hate him and hated him when he was in the NFL in the 90s. Their talent still is not bad if you ask me. See, I'm not entirely crazy when I make this stuff up. Oh, wait, I'm not supposed to say that...

I realize that for some reason I did not do a preseason pick for the Rams. Perhaps I thought they would be so bad that they deserved to not be in the NFL. They wound up being 7-9 and led the NFC West down to wire. Just to throw something out there - 3-13 for a pre-season pick.

My Reaction To TYT Calling Phil Simms Worst NFL Announcer

The Young Turks is an Internet political talk show, who now I guess have branched off into sports a bit, as I discovered this YouTube video of them proclaiming Phil Simms as surpassing Randy Cross as worst NFL announcer. Technically, Phil Simms is not a announcer but an analyst, nor is Randy Cross. Jim Nantz is an announcer. Dick Stockton is an announcer. Simms and Cross are analysts, but anyway, their reasoning for naming Simms the worst "announcer" was laughable. It was during the waning moments of the Steelers-Ravens game from Week 4. Phil deduced that the Ravens should go for it on 4th & 2 but that they should run. (In actuality they passed and converted). There are a ton of reasons why that is not an outlandish prediction, which I won't go into here, but it all boils down to why is that such a bad prediction? And because he was wrong, he's the worst announcer? Have you not watch football for about, oh, about the past 15 years? He does that all the time! And most of the time, he's right (that's what being a cerebral quarterback for 16 seasons in the NFL does to you!)

Another bullshit reason of there's about why Simms is the worst announcer is because he said "nice hold" on a penalty. Again, was this their first game with Simms that they've watched? I doubt it. I am 99% sure he was joking. Again, I don't see why this is such a big deal if they know how Simms is as an analyst. The evidence tells me they don't.

Now I'm not a viewer or listener of The Young Turks, so I don't know know why they branched off into sports talk anyway, and it seems to me by reading the comments on their videos that their viewers don't like it either.

There are probably 15 or 20 announcers worse than Phil Simms, perhaps more. Trust me, he's one of the best. You want a bad announcer? I'll even give you an analyst to be along the lines with Simms - John Lynch. Steve Tasker. Rich Gannon (this kills me because I loved him as a quarterback). There.

Last Night's Cotton Bowl Broascast Not A Disaster

I watched last night's Cotton Bowl until the final minutes waiting to nit-pick on how Fox fails at covered college football bowl games, and frankly, I found very little. Granted, the game was a game until the last few minutes. That probably dictated a lot of it and the kept John Lynch and Charles Davis' spiels to a minimum, but it felt like Kenny Albert and Daryl Johnston were quite comfortable during the broadcast and knew the differences in rules between college and NFL football and they hinted at how they wished that they did more college game. (Note: This will change because Fox won the contract to televise the Pac-12 Championship game, and Fox Sports Network has televised Pac-10 games in past seasons).

Now, it will probably be awhile before the rating are posted, and whether or not they are good or not, the game itself was good and Fox's coverage of it was solid from the broadcasting side of things. I'm not sold with Chris Rose as studio host, but if that's the worst Fox does, I can live with that.

I'm glad that Pat Summerall did not do the play-by-play for this game, but it would have been a crime to leave him out of the telecast given his history with the game. He still has quite a voice, and he can still hold a conversation, despite the fact he's looking quite frail, so I'm glad he provided the voice-over for the open and the interviews he did with Jim Brown, etc.

My Commentator Awards For 2010

I've finally decided to give this a try. I've tried my hardest to view games from every commentator team for both Sunday afternoon networks.

I wish it were possible to list some people individually (I suppose I could), because there is a difference between the skill levels of some teams. Dick Stockton and Ron Pitts I bet would be tiered higher if they had better analysts, as would Brian Billick if he were paired with a better announcer. Conversely, I think Jim Nantz would be doing worse if he were not with Phil Simms.

It seems stupid, but I applaud analysts and announcers to actually do what they're supposed to do (talk about the blocks, the coverage, who made the tackle, etc), because too few do. Some teams get too caught up in talking about the prominent players on the team or the dreaded storyline.

Play-by-play men are listed first, then analysts, with their network in parenthesis.

*****Five Stars*****

Sam Rosen, Tim Ryan (Fox) - Never heard of them? Chances are you haven't. They're fifth in the batting order according to the network, but they're money on Sunday afternoons. Rosen handles the game well, quick to identify substitutions, yardage, penalties, etc. I love that in football play-by-play, and not enough p-b-p guys do it. And Ryan, a former defensive end, obviously focuses more on what's going on in the trenches, but to my liking, he'll identify changes in the starting line-ups from what the network shows in their graphic (say, if the offense comes out three-wide and/or the defense counters with a nickel or dime). Rosen does this throughout the game, too.

Greg Gumbel, Dan Dierdorf (CBS) - Gumbel could very well become the football play-by-play voice of a generation. CBS, when they came back to football, made Gumbel their lead play-by-play man in an effort to attract more African-American viewers to their telecasts. The network had him take a two-year hiatus to host CBS's Mickey Mouse pre-game show (more on that later), and since '06, he's been the #2 play-by-play man at the eye network.

Gumbel is usually very quick to identify yardage and penalties and will often get into a little analysis with his partner (in what little time there is allowed between plays). Example from this past week in fact: The Colts are out-rushing the Raiders. Reason why, Gumbel identifies the Raiders are keeping a safety or two more than 15-yards off the line of scrimmage and Peyton Manning keeps audibling to runs and Dierdorf is letting us know exactly what kind of defense it is play-in, play-out for a series. Sweet. Could use who actually made the tackle more, but I won't nit-pick, because nobody does it anyway. Will also let us know who of the skill position players are in on a given play, even if they are well known (perhaps this is their spotter).

I've gotten used to Dierdorf's pronouncements over the years, they don't bother me ("If this linebacker, quarterback, running back doesn't get into the Hall of Fame, it'll be the biggest travesty since...") because he can really get into some good analysis, and not just within the trenches or just with the quarterback, but everywhere on the field and is probably the best at telling the viewers just how a play developed.

Jim Nantz, Phil Simms (CBS) - Simms is hands-down the best analyst, and just based on that I'm giving this team a five-star rating. He'll point out and identify things that seem so mundane that one would think would not manner in the realm of football when in fact they do. However when I hear this I think he's either a genius or he's making it up. Another thing I absolutely enjoy is that his analysis goes beyond the X's and O's and will get into the emotion of the game and how if affects players and how they perform. Speaking of X's and O's, I would say on a healthy third of the plays of the game, Simms will correctly guess what the offense will do on a given play based up how the defense is lined up. It all goes back to his quarterbacking days. About the extent of the conversation between Nantz and Simms about the action would be Nantz asking a question and Simms answering. Nantz is good, and he deserves to be at the top of the batting order. He's smooth, and to my liking, identifies the subs well.

****Four Stars****

Mike Tirico, Ron Jaworksi, Jon Gruden (ESPN) - Second-year for Gruden, and it's going well so far. I actually knocked them off a star because a.) I want Gruden to go back into coaching and get the hell out of the broadcasting booth, and b.) I'm not fond of three-man broadcasting teams for football. Tirico is a top-notch p-b-p guy. He gets into it and will identify yardage and tacklers often, but because he is in a three-man booth with two other analysts, he rarely gets in on the between-the-play action (for some reason, I enjoy it when the play-by-play guy can carry on an intelligent conversation with their analyst. It means they actually have a "feel" for the game, even if they never played it.) Their slight downfall is when they get wrapped up in the storyline, whether its the Brett Favre lovefest or Mark Sanchez or whatever. Stuff about the quarterback seems to get Jaworski on a roll. I would say this team has Favreitis. I'm sure you know what that is, and working for ESPN, by default, you have it.

Don Criqui, Steve Beuerlein (CBS) - This team is probably the biggest disparity between the two individuals of the broadcast team that I can tell. You call tell Criqui is from the old-school because he is deadly accurate with his calls (meaning he called games before all the scrolls and on-screen graphics and such). He'll even call-out passing patterns on some plays and identify blockers, which is nearly unheard of from p-b-p. And while Beuerlein is not terribly insightful, this team is not terrible, and should probably being moved up the CBS totem pole. They are clearly better than a #7 team. Just for good measure I watch Houston-Denver, which was Tebow's second start. Not a whole lot about the ol' storyline or Tebow, other than stuff that is actually helpful toward his development. Beurlein, I think you can do more. Criqui play-in, play-out sets you up with stuff to digest for us on the replay, about the blocking and such. Criqui will say something like "Good blocking and he picks up 11." Beurlein, you should have the capacity to tell us why the blocking was good, not just about the athleticism of the quarterback and the receiver. Why am I spending so many words on a #7 team? Because I want them to do better and move up in the batting order. I think Beurlein can become a better analyst. There are flashes of how he can be an elite analyst, just do it play-in, play-out, OK? Oh, and please, CBS, you've got a good gig going, just be sure to move this team up in 2011, OK? Thanks.

Al Micheals, Cris Collinsworth (NBC) - Micheals is the gold-standard for football play-by-play. Collinsworth is an excellent analyst, but can, annoyingly, be a smart-ass, and will shower the telecast with I-told-you-sos when a rip is called for. Case and point, the finale of the San Francisco-Philadelphia game. Read an earlier post of mine for the details.

Kenny Albert, Daryl Johnston (Fox) - First things first. Dump Siragusa. Most consider him a second analyst when he is basically a sideline guy who wants to talk about the dumbest, randomest stuff, and doesn't appear to put much effort into his spiels. If he's gone, then this team would almost be perfect, at least tie for best on Fox. Albert, unlike some play-by-play people above him on the Fox totem pole, actually has a "feel" for the game (that's the only way I can describe it). Albert does the stuff a play-by-play guy is supposed to do and does it well; identifying tacklers and the yardage on a given play. He probably got tips from his dad. It also seems this team has done their share of NFC West games, but never once have I heard them exhaustively yacking about how crappy the NFC West is and this and that. In a word, they show up, do their game, talk about the action on the field, and that's about it. They don't get caught up in the storyline or Favreitis. Johnston is one of the more articulate analysts out there (he doesn't sound like some half-wit ex-jock) and he does a solid job at analysing all aspects of the game.

Ian Eagle, Dan Fouts (CBS) - Fouts was an excellent college analyst, and unfortunately was just a sidenote for ABC's Monday Night Football with Dennis Miller as "the third guy," so we never really got to see his true colors as an NFL analyst. He quietly signed on as an analyst on CBS and was assigned the #3 spot with the now-retired Dick Enberg. Obviously being an-ex quarterback, that is where his expertese lies. Eagle is kind of lazy on his yardage, but again, that really doesn't bother me, but he is excellent at identifying tacklers and those who assisted on the stop. Lovely.

***Three Stars***

ESPN No. 2 Team Of Brad Nessler and Trent Dilfer (ESPN) - I was semi-surprised to not see the trio of Mike Greenburg, Golic, and Ditka this year, as it seems ESPN is promoting Mike & Mike so much lately. ESPN put in Nessler and Dilfer for the second game of their opening Monday doubleheader (Kansas City-San Diego). Nessler, who mostly does college football play-by-play, has a silk smooth delivery, but sort of lacks on accuracy; not indicating yardage alot of the time and only IDing tacklers some of the time. Dilfer is obviously good at describing the pass-catch side of the action, but other than that, not so good. He's not terrible, but I wanted more. Perhaps if they did more games then it might be better.

Dick Stockton, Charles Davis (Fox) - Stockton has always been a top-notch play-by-play guy. He is smooth despite his strong New York accent and does everything a solid play-by-play guy should do well. He would fare better in my ratings if he were paired with a better analyst (he has in the past).

Ron Pitts, John Lynch (Fox) - Pitts has done almost everything in the realm of football on TV. He's been a sideline reporter, an analyst, and now, a play-by-play man, and he's done a fantastic job at all three. The problem lies in his partner who I think still has not grown accustom to an NFL broadcasting booth. He's also not very smooth, either, and I always think he's trying to rap.

Kevin Harlan, Soloman Wilcots (CBS) - This team would be tiered lower if not for Wilcots, who is a fantastic, smooth, and low-key analyst, and has been for years. Like breakdown of the coverage? You'll get it here. Wilcots is an ex-defensive back. Yeah, Harlan IDs the subs, and of the certain offensive sets, but we'll get such obviousness like "The defense is in a 4-3" or "Four in the secondary." Both of those happen on the majority of defensive snaps, just sayin'.

**Two Stars**

Joe Buck, Troy Aikman (Fox) - This is really the highest I could go with this team. Aikman is solid analyst, maybe a little shakey on line play, but it really doesn't bother me. Aikman seems to also be able to describe the development of a play really well, which is good. The bad: Favreitis. New England-Minnesota, Favre love abounds, even after he was removed from the game and Tavarus Jackson was doing well for the Vikes and trying to bring them back, moreso from Aikman than Brennaman. Now for Joebaby, he just doesn't have it. He doesn't have it in his heart or in his head to do football play-by-play. Only points out the obvious stuff, does not concern himself with accuracy; who made the stop, yardage, penalties, etc. I know he speaks during a play, but they're just words. I don't know if he's lazy, he doesn't care, or if he really has no idea what's going on out there, but better should come from a #1 team.

Thom Brennaman, Brian Billick (Fox) - This team likes to plug the stars and talk about the old storyline a bit too much. We're all aware of the implications of the NFC West, we get it. They seem to have forgotton the fact that there is a game going on down on the field and instead talk about the quarterback or the star linebacker. I'm not saying that all time should be spent in the trenches, but at least give a majority of your attention to the action on the field. I have a feeling, though, that this team is going to move up the Fox totem pole for all the wrong reasons (to me). This season Brennman spelled Buck during the baseball playoffs when in the past it had been either Stockton or Albert (and honestly, it was a nice restbit from Buck). Brennaman is a Buck clone, very monotonus in his delivery and not terribly accurate on his calls, either.

Sometimes Billick will get on a roll and actually get to talking about what's actually going on in front of them. That I enjoy. Obviously he will talk about the coaching side of it and team chemistry, which is cool because that, typically, is a side of football that not covered enough in telecasts. He'll also do a pretty good job at explaining why a certain play was called on a certain down and distance. What I'm getting at is Billick is a solid analyst who, if paired with a better partner, may be higher rated.

Bill Macatee, Rich Gannon (CBS) - Just average all around. I saw them in several Cleveland games this season and the show was just very boring. A little love for Peyton Hillis sprinkled in from Gannon, but other than that very boring. But how much should we expect from a #6 team?

*One Star*

Gus Johnson, Steve Tasker (CBS) - The Denver-Oakland game where Tim Tebow started was by far the worst game from a broadcasting standpoint. It was just one big Tim Tebow plug, which a.) I've had my fill of, and b.) Tebow and the Broncos did not do well. So whatever the director or producer had lined up for Johnson and Tasker to talk about just blew up in his face, and they had nothing else to fall back on, which tells me that Johnson and Tasker just decided to keep talking about it, ignoring the play on the field. Tasker has always been a plugger for the stars, whether they're doing well or not. And Johnson, don't get me started. Even though he's done play-by-play for years I still don't think he has the feel of the game. Not accurate in his calls whatsoever, never has been. He's relied on being into the emotion of the game and being an annoying yeller, whether or not it's a big play. We CAN hear you, you know that, right?

Zero Stars

Chris Rose, Torry Holt (Week 13, Fox) - Fox had a musical chairs of commentators in their seventh and eighth spots. It was either Chris Myers and Kurt Warner or Chris Rose and somebody. Well for the Week 13 Cleveland-Carolina game, Rose was paired with newcomer to the booth Torry Holt and it was a disaster. Holt offered nothing in the way of analysis and had trouble on really simple things like finishing sentences and using the proper verb tense when he speaks. I'm not kidding. It was cover-your-ears awful.

This is a work in progress. I have one game with Chris Rose and Kurt Warner and from the NFL Netowork that was actually meaningful so I can sit though it (thank god for NFL Game Rewind).

Now for pre-game shows. They're all useless noise. I don't watch them, or I try my best not to. But I guess if I had a choice, I'd watch Fox NFL Sunday. Football Night in America is a complete and utter joke. Dan Patrick is making inhuman noises during highlights and Tony Dungy and Rodney Harrison are just sort of there. Bring back Olbermann. Even though both Olbermann and Patrick have past experience as spors broadcasters, I don't know, I guess Olbermann made the show tolerable, even after they wanted to make it a spin-off of his regular MSNBC show, and gave it a bloated cast.

And since ESPN is just one big case of Farveitis, I never bothered to watch Sunday NFL Countdown or Monday Night Countdown. Same goes with NFL Live. Whether its Mark Schlereth or Trent Dilfer or Herman Edwards dick-riding Favre or Marcellus Wiley blabbering about god knows what - just stop!

Now let's move onto one final thing: why Fox sucks. Or, why their coverage this year has been so down. For whatever reason, Fox totally abandoned the Saints, or the whole NFC South for that matter in its national coverage, instead opting for whoever was playing in the NFC East, including three-straight Giants games or the Vikings. Here are their games below:

Week 1: Green Bay-Philly
Week 2: Chicago-Dallas
Week 3: Dallas-Houston
Week 4: Washington-Philly
Week 5: Green Bay-Washington
Week 6: Dallas-Minnesota
Week 7: Washington-Chicago
Week 8: Minnesota-New England
Week 9: N.Y. Giants-Seattle
Week 10: Dallas-N.Y. Giants
Week 11: Green Bay-Minnesota
Week 12: New Orleans-Dallas (Thanksgiving); Philly-Chicago (Sunday, #2 team)
Week 13: Dallas-Indianapolis
Week 14: N.Y. Giants-Minnesota
Week 15: Philly-N.Y. Giants
Week 16: N.Y. Giants-Green Bay
Week 17: Green Bay-Chicago

The games where Jim Nantz and Phil Simms of CBS were sent to were a little more varied:

Week 1: Cincinnati-New England
Week 2: New England-N.Y. Jets
Week 3: Indianapolis-Denver
Week 4: Baltimore-Pittsburgh
Week 5: Tennessee-Dallas
Week 6: Baltimore-New England
Week 7: New England-San Diego
Week 8: Jacksonville-Dallas
Week 9: Indianapolis-Philly
Week 10: N.Y. Jets-Cleveland
Week 11: Indianapolis-New England
Week 12: New England-Detroit (Thanksgiving); Jacksonville-N.Y. Giants (Sunday, #2 team)
Week 13: Oakland-San Diego
Week 14: New England-Chicago
Week 15: N.Y. Jets-Pittsburgh
Week 16: N.Y. Jets-Chicago
Week 17: Indianapolis-Tenneessee

I Can Finally Put Into Words Why I Hate Fox!

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2010-articles/december/eric-shanks-is-an-idiotits-called-a-focus-group.html

Somebody else has put into words the way I feel about Fox, and I'm not going to take credit for the thought, either.

In case you haven't heard (and you very well may not have), Fox has decided to put in music during random parts of their NFL games at the direction of Fox Sports' new president, Eric Shanks, the guy behind the glowing puck in their hockey coverage. Worse yet, Shanks has proclaimed that the music will be used during the Super Bowl -- when hundreds of millions of people around the world will be watching.

Am I looking forward to Super Bowl? Hell no. You know why? Because Fox is covering it. It's going to suck no matter what teams play, because we'll have to listen to Joe Buck and random dramatic music that will probably be played during the most tense moments of the game, ruining the moment.

A commenter in the post I linked above basically gave the reasons I've been trying to explain why I don't like Fox Sports right now (I don't hate Fox the network or News Corp. It has nothing to do with that. I just don't like Fox Sports.)

Yes, Fox used to be cool. They were the pioneers of the scoring bug and the electronic first down line. But now they are just living on their past innovations and now just being arrogant and proposing outlandish ideas to try and enhance the sports on TV experience, which, for now, high definition does it enough.

I don't watch NASCAR, hell I don't even watch that much baseball, but I'm sure they suck because Fox is failing. Joe Buck simply cannot do play-by-play whether its baseball or football. Yes, he's boring, but actually that does not bother me. Pat Summerall (before he went senile) was dry and boring too, but he's one of the best announcers ever. Buck just doesn't have the "feel" for the game that so many announcers have. In football, he almost never bothers to announce yardage or who made the tackle. And Buck has said that he does not like doing baseball play-by-play, so why should he be kept? But if Buck likes football play-by-play then he should continue to do that, but do the obscure games like he used to (fourth in the batting order from 1994-98. Usually working with Tim Green).

Eagles-Vikings Game Postponed To Tuesday

Due to the snowstorm blanketing much of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, the Eagles-Vikings game scheduled for tonight has been moved to a Tuesday, 8:00 PM kickoff. Since the game was supposed to be a nationally televised game, I'm assuming Tuesday night's make-up game will be the same, unlike the Giants-Vikings game from two weeks ago that was only shown regionally.

And, to be honest, it would be silly to restrict this game from national coverage, which they did for the aforementioned Vikings-Giants game from Week 14 (although it was free to attend the game. That was the only consolation.)

The only problem with that is a.) I have nothing to do tonight. I guess I'll have to watch Top Gear, which the American version is nowhere near as good as the British version. And b.) access to NFL Game Rewind is blocked because there is normally a game during this time, so I can't watch the games from this afternoon that weren't shown in my area (read: the good ones)