Things In American Football That Grind Your Gears

Realt Dearg Sec

D3PO wrote: »

in fairness to him I think hes playing a role there and hes not meant to be the analyst. I mean little things like him asking Jeff last night what the box is during analysis.

We all know he knows exactly what the box is but hes asking it so the casual fan who may not be able to follow the analysis can understand what is being said.

I know but it's dumb to the point of farcical. Mike Carlson is able to explain things to casual viewers without going overboard.

Although Mike us one if my favourite broadcasters full stop, let alone in AF, so maybe that's an unfair comparison.

More important is when Neil is asked who will win or whatever, and he just comes out with Totally banal, self proving points along the lines that "whoever has the more high scoring offense in the day should shade it"

D3PO

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I know but it's dumb to the point of farcical. Mike Carlson is able to explain things to casual viewers without going overboard.

if you were a casual viewer not up on the game you probably would have a different opinion though.

personally Reynolds and Carlson are both ****e in my mind, id much rather Reinbold and Gayle but I do appreciate the angle and demographics both of them aim at.

and its not really fair to say Reynolds sits on the fence all the time. He had the balls to come out and say hed prefer AP never got a shot in the NFL again as he cannot support a guy who did what he did. Most presenters would shy away from answering a question like that. Weather you agree or not you have to give him props for speaking his mind.

Realt Dearg Sec

D3PO wrote: »

if you were a casual viewer not up on the game you probably would have a different opinion though.

personally Reynolds and Carlson are both ****e in my mind, id much rather Reinbold and Gayle but I do appreciate the angle and demographics both of them aim at.

and its not really fair to say Reynolds sits on the fence all the time. He had the balls to come out and say hed prefer AP never got a shot in the NFL again as he cannot support a guy who did what he did. Most presenters would shy away from answering a question like that. Weather you agree or not you have to give him props for speaking his mind.

No I don't mean he always sits on the fence, I mean he always says things that are completely obvious and I don't think it's all an act to pander to casual viewers, I think he genuinely has no more insight into the game than I do. It's one thing to be in the role of enthusiastic amateur, but it should just be a role. I think he genuinely, like me, only has a very basic understanding of the game.

Carlson has the benefit of being genuinely a likeable, funny guy, who played the game at some point. And honestly I could listen to him read the phone book, I really like when I'm staying up for a very late game and feeling like I really should be in bed, that there's this guy who seems to get that it's a bit late, and speaks in tones befitting the hour. And if the game is bad will just start chatting about whatever. It's an approach to broadcasting that Sky just would never accommodate.

HigginsJ

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

No I don't mean he always sits on the fence, I mean he always says things that are completely obvious and I don't think it's all an act to pander to casual viewers, I think he genuinely has no more insight into the game than I do. It's one thing to be in the role of enthusiastic amateur, but it should just be a role. I think he genuinely, like me, only has a very basic understanding of the game.

Carlson has the benefit of being genuinely a likeable, funny guy, who played the game at some point. And honestly I could listen to him read the phone book, I really like when I'm staying up for a very late game and feeling like I really should be in bed, that there's this guy who seems to get that it's a bit late, and speaks in tones befitting the hour. And if the game is bad will just start chatting about whatever. It's an approach to broadcasting that Sky just would never accommodate.

Impossible to disagree, Carlson is fantastic. I love his odd references & he offers great insight.

On a slight tangent all games should be co-commentated on by Chris Collinsworth. I find him very insightful & he comes across as very genuine. He & Carlson make Sunday Night football for me.

D3PO

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

No I don't mean he always sits on the fence, I mean he always says things that are completely obvious and I don't think it's all an act to pander to casual viewers, I think he genuinely has no more insight into the game than I do. It's one thing to be in the role of enthusiastic amateur, but it should just be a role. I think he genuinely, like me, only has a very basic understanding of the game.
.

hes written some pretty detailed books on the NFL he certainly has the knowledge but I guess presenting isn't for everybody.

I think everybody prefers different styles of presenting so theres room for em all. Carlson and the other guy with him whom to me is far more an armchair enthusiast than Reynolds drive me potty. I actually end up hitting mute a few times every sunday night

For me I just want to hear about the game, not some random movie reference or something else lobbed in. The ask Carlson thing does my nut totally

none of em would be as good as a D3PO & Realt Dearg co presented show though :pac:

D3PO

Maybe we could do a poll of the most annoying football presenter.

Id say Jay Gruden would be up there too. Jesus they guy is loved up on everybody !! Even a guy missing a tackle is fantastic to him !!

jack presley

D3PO wrote: »

Maybe we could do a poll of the most annoying football presenter.

Id say Jay Gruden would be up there too. Jesus they guy is loved up on everybody !! Even a guy missing a tackle is fantastic to him !!

Not a presenter but the sideline reporter Tony Siragusa is really really bad.

Realt Dearg Sec

D3PO wrote: »

hes written some pretty detailed books on the NFL he certainly has the knowledge but I guess presenting isn't for everybody.

I think everybody prefers different styles of presenting so theres room for em all. Carlson and the other guy with him whom to me is far more an armchair enthusiast than Reynolds drive me potty. I actually end up hitting mute a few times every sunday night

For me I just want to hear about the game, not some random movie reference or something else lobbed in. The ask Carlson thing does my nut totally

none of em would be as good as a D3PO & Realt Dearg co presented show though :pac:

I would be as annoying as eamonn dunphy and even less insightful. With as many irrelevant mentions of the Kilkenny hurling team, and more pen throwing.

Jolly Red Giant

Just in answer to the question in the OP - Pats fans

Hazys

Fr Tod Umptious

Phoenix Park wrote: »

The constant worshipping of the US military. I wouldn't mind it if in moderation, but it's not.

This has made a few waves in the media in the last few days.

I always thought that the military involvement in the pregame/halftime etc was something sponsored by the team, but in fact the team is actually getting paid to host the military event.

Now I know the sums are not huge when you take into account what a NFL team makes in revenue or in terms of what the US defense budget is, but it still leaves a bad taste that teams get paid for this.

It would be better spent on veteran welfare and let the likes of Arthur Blank and Bob Kraft pay for the military pageantry if they want to have it.

Patriots among highest-earning teams in 'paid patriotism'

(Sent from Boston.com)
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/11/04/patriots-among-highest-earning-teams-paid-patriotism/XqS0uqwXGvXtRuMtJxpbOP/story.html

JCTO

Typical example of government agencies burning large budgets to keep their budgets next year. No surprise that a Gov agency is burning cash in the wrong areas. The NFL are the biggest earners from it in sports but the MLB and NBA and NHL all receive the same funding for these events. As do local towns and governments. Was talking to a PR guy in the company I am in and he is ex military and he said things like this have been happening for a long time. Says its done to help the military recruit. Make everybody feel good about the military and get them all riled up about Patriotism and hope they join.

Should sports team do it for free? From a morale aspect probably but if someone approaches you with a ton of money for an event and it is all above board and going to line your organisations pockets of course you are going to do it.

Magico Gonzalez

The whole catch/no catch rule is ridiculous.

Paully D

Vontaze Burfict.

Son Of A Vidic

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Patriots among highest-earning teams in 'paid patriotism'

Weird how you specifically mentioned the Patriots, even though 18 teams in the league also received money from the DOD.

The article and its link is also wrong. In total 18 teams in the NFL received money for paid patriotism and not the 14 mentioned in the Yahoo sports link.

The 18 NFL teams were....

The Falcons, Packers, Pats, Jets, Ravens, Bill, Bengals, Browns, Saints, Cowboys, Colts, 49er's, Chiefs, Dolphins, Vikings, Steelers, Rams and the Chargers.

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/12de6dcb-d8d8-4a58-8795-562297f948c1/tackling-paid-patriotism-oversight-report.pdf

jack presley

I'm surprised this hasn't been a bigger story to be honest, you know the way the Americans love patriotism and honouring their military. I think giving the impression that 'you're saluting the troops' because you're patriotic ands not saying anything about the financial benefits is is worse than actually taking the money in the first place.

Did I read somewhere that Godell said they were giving the money back? Too little, too late I know for PR though.

namloc1980

Military paying for propaganda and the multi millionaire / billionaire owners lapping it up. Personally I hate seeing militarism at sports events. Not the place for it IMO.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Military paying for propaganda and the multi millionaire / billionaire owners lapping it up. Personally I hate seeing militarism at sports events. Not the place for it IMO.

Fr Tod Umptious

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Weird how you specifically mentioned the Patriots, even though 18 teams in the league also received money from the DOD.

The article and its link is also wrong. In total 18 teams in the NFL received money for paid patriotism and not the 14 mentioned in the Yahoo sports link.

The 18 NFL teams were....

The Falcons, Packers, Pats, Jets, Ravens, Bill, Bengals, Browns, Saints, Cowboys, Colts, 49er's, Chiefs, Dolphins, Vikings, Steelers, Rams and the Chargers.

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/12de6dcb-d8d8-4a58-8795-562297f948c1/tackling-paid-patriotism-oversight-report.pdf

Not singling out New England.

Heard the story first on a WEEI podcast then saw it on the Boston.con app, that's where I linked it from.

Patriots among highest-earning teams in 'paid patriotism'- Is the headline from the Boston.com piece not my input.
Sorry if the formatting was confusing, I did it from the phone.

Realt Dearg Sec

Not to cross pollinate threads, but the hypocrisy of the Greg hardy situation. If he gets a new punishment, v it kind of sums up the problem rather than solving it. We're OK with domestic violence unless there's pictures. If they don't punish him, is a blatant hypocrisy. And either way, the criticism of the league is totally merited and their behaviour can't possibly be forgiven. It's hard to compute how disgusting it all is. They're essentially protecting scum. And these are just the bastards we know about. Who knows who we're cheering on every week?

Son Of A Vidic

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Not to cross pollinate threads, but the hypocrisy of the Greg hardy situation. If he gets a new punishment, v it kind of sums up the problem rather than solving it. We're OK with domestic violence unless there's pictures. If they don't punish him, is a blatant hypocrisy. And either way, the criticism of the league is totally merited and their behaviour can't possibly be forgiven. It's hard to compute how disgusting it all is. They're essentially protecting scum. And these are just the bastards we know about. Who knows who we're cheering on every week?

Realt don't realise by now that Rog & his clowns will only go after you when something embarrassingly reaches the public domain and can't be suppressed. Or he takes on the laws of physics and wastes millions on a witch hunt without any evidence. All in a pathetic attempt from the most hated Commissioner ever, trying to gain popularity with other fan bases. They'll posture and discipline a player over marijuana use, yet turn a blind eye and brush steroids under the carpet. Beating, abusing and threatening to kill women is grand. Hell they'll even reduce your suspension for ya. But that's the joke the NFL has become under the guidance of Clowndell. #intergity

Hulk Hands

What annoys me is this idea that it's up to the league to get involved in the first place. It's a matter for the law and the courts. If the player isn't prevented from going to his day job by the law, then it shouldn't be up to a bunch of sporting rule makers to play the law and decide whether he's guilty or not. Whether the franchise itself decides to suspend or cease employment is up to them. But the league's insistence on getting involved, and even moreso, the publics expectation that the league should be taking action, is stupid

jack presley

Hulk Hands wrote: »

What annoys me is this idea that it's up to the league to get involved in the first place. It's a matter for the law and the courts. If the player isn't prevented from going to his day job by the law, then it shouldn't be up to a bunch of sporting rule makers to play the law and decide whether he's guilty or not. Whether the franchise itself decides to suspend or cease employment is up to them. But the league's insistence on getting involved, and even moreso, the publics expectation that the league should be taking action, is stupid

"Conduct detrimental to the league". It's in the CBA.

NotYourYear20

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Beating, abusing and threatening to kill women is grand. Hell they'll even reduce your suspension for ya. But that's the joke the NFL has become under the guidance of Clowndell. #intergity

Amazing how the NFL lost the Ray Rice video, claimed they couldn't get the Hardy photos, yet they could produce a 243 page report on Brady's balls. They're nothing but corrupt muppets if you ask me.

tripperman

One thing that annoys me is when there's say 10 games of Sunday between the early and late slot, they seem to allways put it 7/8 early and 2/3 in the late slot, why not split it evenly, it would get more people watching more games

BoJack Horseman

tripperman wrote: »

One thing that annoys me is when there's say 10 games of Sunday between the early and late slot, they seem to allways put it 7/8 early and 2/3 in the late slot, why not split it evenly, it would get more people watching more games

Hasn't that got to do with the scarsity of teams on the western time zone?

jack presley

jack presley wrote: »

"Conduct detrimental to the league". It's in the CBA.

It sounds like the "bringing game into disrepute" used in football to incorporate off the field issues.

But the FA rarely intervenes in criminal matters, so a convicted rapist like Ched Evans or a person who killed 2 kids when drink driving like Luke McCormick did not get any penalty whatsoever from the FA and can play...if clubs employ them.

Think much more criticism can be directed at the football team that continues to employ them, like the Cowboys, than the NFL. Perhaps the mistake the NFL made was wading too far into suspensions for allegations arising away from the sport.

digzy

Dunno if it's been mentioned yet, but the whole tie in between the nfl and the us armed forces:rolleyes:

Itssoeasy

Just to say about the Greg hardy issue. The role of the NFLPA who appealed the suspension to get it to four games seems to have been forgotten. The league did act swiftly though IMO.

jack presley

digzy wrote: »

Dunno if it's been mentioned yet, but the whole tie in between the nfl and the us armed forces:rolleyes:

I think all the stuff today is because of Vetern's Day but all the other stuff was because the military was giving them millions of dollars. When have you ever seen the NFL turn down money?

jack presley

Deleted User wrote: »

It sounds like the "bringing game into disrepute" used in football to incorporate off the field issues.

But the FA rarely intervenes in criminal matters, so a convicted rapist like Ched Evans or a person who killed 2 kids when drink driving like Luke McCormick did not get any penalty whatsoever from the FA and can play...if clubs employ them.

As I said though, it's in the CBA. The players signed off on the league being able to intervene. There's no CBAs in soccer so it's two totally different situations.

jack presley

jack presley wrote: »

As I said though, it's in the CBA. The players signed off on the league being able to intervene. There's no CBAs in soccer so it's two totally different situations.

Anyone who plays soccer accepts that they can be adjudged to have brought the game into disrepute, where the governing FA incorporates that rule. It exists just as much as anything in the CBA, it governs the players actions just as much as any rule in the NFL, it has been used to adjudicate in off field activity like use of Twitter...the difference is that the FAI, FA etc. are less likely to get involved in off field activity that is really a matter for the criminal courts.

Paully D

The spelling of Super Bowl as Superbowl.

Dirty Dingus McGee

The constant reference to the possibility of a British Franchise on Sky's coverage.

Neil Reynolds constant references to British Running back Jay Ajayi who's parents are both Nigerian and he left the UK when he was 7 to live in America but he's a true brit you know.

Imagine how heartbroken Reynolds would be should it be announced that there isn't going to be a London franchise and Ajayi isn't really British.

threeball

Some of the tackling is beyond stupid. For a game obsessed by numbers and inches you'd think they would at least coach some one how to tackle. It seems its more important to try to poleaxe someone with your head with the hope of injuring him rather than worry about the three yards you give up when the hit isn't perfect.

Two weeks ago (can't remember which game it was), the offensive team on third down had the RB held one yard short of first down by two defenders only for their buddy to come charging in from behind, smash the RB but push him over for first down and no one batted an eyelid. Not one of the commentators mentioned it.

The big lummox then got up and celebrated like he just sacked the QB and got a fumble to boot.


Its also annoying how superior they think their athletes are to every other on the planet and just spout off combine numbers. Odell Beckham would still be a wonderful player even if he wasn't as fast because of his fantastic hands but if his split times were even slightly off he wouldn't even get a look in.

Itssoeasy

How the PI rules are so slanted towards the receivers. I get what the NFL is doing and no we shouldn't go back to Mel Blount and Jack Tatum legally mugging receivers all the way down the field. It should be re balanced to not make it to so one sided without effected the spectacle of the NFL being a passing league now.