JAWS' FLAPPING ALL WRONG

TStecker

Personal Assistant
Messages
63,158
Likes
3,460
#1
JAWS' FLAPPING ALL WRONG
Phil Mushnick-NY Post
September 21, 2007 -- BACK before producers got the memo instructing them to destroy football telecasts, viewers weren't told much more than down, distance, time of game and the score. Sweet, huh?

Today? Well, in just one football weekend - any football weekend, every football weekend, last weekend, this weekend, next weekend - viewers can hope for no better than to survive TV's verbal excesses without tearing Giuseppe Franco's hair out.

In Ron Jaworski, ESPN was supposed to have replaced blowhard/contradiction champ Joe Theismann on Monday Night Football. But Jaworski, thus far, sounds like an imitation of Theismann.

At 20-12, Redskins, Monday, 2:58 left in the fourth quarter, the Eagles had driven past midfield. At this point Jaworski could have chosen to say nothing; the game's particulars were self-evident. And MNF on ESPN is so overwhelmed by talking that its team mascot should be the yak.

But Jaworski seized the moment to provide some firmly asserted analysis that was cliched and wrong. "The clock," he said of the Eagles, "is still not your enemy, it's still your ally."

Really? Down eight with 2:58 left and the clock's on their side? Not that anyone at ESPN would coach Jaworski in such matters, but he should know that silence is always a can't-lose option.

On CBS, Sunday, the Jets, behind 20-6, had a fourth down with 4:47 left. At that point Dick Enberg might've stated the obvious - "This is the game, right here" - or he, too, could have chosen to say nothing.

Instead, he chose to embroider the moment with, "This is literally match-point." Of course, unless this was literally a tennis match, it couldn't have literally been match point.

And as long as Fox's Joe Buck and ESPN's Mike Tirico saw fit to parrot quarterback ratings that appeared in graphics - they must be significant stats if they're to be read and heard. They should be able to explain why Joe Namath is the 131st all-time rated passer, 126 places behind Marc Bulger, and why John Elway (43rd), Johnny Unitas (52nd) and Terry Bradshaw (106th) finished behind Ken O'Brien (38th).

Such explanations to national audiences would re-enforce the credibility and use of quarterback ratings, no?

Come to think of it, what would happen if no stats were issued to announcers during games. What if they could only rely on what they saw happen?
 

Harpua

Kornmissioner
Staff member
Messages
43,081
Likes
1,137
#2
TStecker said:
And as long as Fox's Joe Buck and ESPN's Mike Tirico saw fit to parrot quarterback ratings that appeared in graphics - they must be significant stats if they're to be read and heard. They should be able to explain why Joe Namath is the 131st all-time rated passer, 126 places behind Marc Bulger, and why John Elway (43rd), Johnny Unitas (52nd) and Terry Bradshaw (106th) finished behind Ken O'Brien (38th).

Such explanations to national audiences would re-enforce the credibility and use of quarterback ratings, no?

Come to think of it, what would happen if no stats were issued to announcers during games. What if they could only rely on what they saw happen?
because QB rating is just that, a metric on how well a QB is playing, not on how well a team is playing?  A great QB rating does not mean the team will win.

stats help you measure what is going on in the game and they can give a better description of what is going on.  A team may be getting lots of yards, but unable to score - says something about the red zone offense (or defense of the other team).  Statstistics don't lie, they are just misinterpreted.
 
Top