Anything Merrill Hoge says ever

Mike Wilner is awesome and smarter/ more rational than 99% of the media. Plus he constantly pwns morons who call in and ask ******ed question. Also several teams he has mentioned that John McDonald's defense can't make up for the fact his OPS (He is in the media and cites OPS) is like 100 points lower than any other starting shortstop.

Well back in 2006 apparently Tiki Barber "willed" his team to a win. I sh*t you not. He willed his effing team to victory. The running back. While the O-line was stink-palming themselves and giving eachother reach-arounds, Tiki seized the rock, and willed his team to the promised land. Man, Tiki has a great smile. Let's put him on TV.

Made my post slightly more coherent.

Some of the comments and criticisms made by the posters in this thread are actually worse than the actual announcers' comments.
Somewhat stunning because it's hard to fathom how one could actually be more incompetent about sports than some of the worst announcers out there. But 2+2 is here to show me that it is indeed possible.

Packers get a delay of game
"Favre is one of the best clock managers in football"

Some idiot on the TEX/ATL telecast said "this is 4th down territory for the Texans here."

4th Quarter, 14:52 left, ATL winning 23-13. Texans ball 4th and goal from the 2. Fourth. Down. Territory. If. I've. Ever. Seen. It.

Seriously, wtf?? There is 14 minutes left and you are down by 10 points. In no way, shape, or form is this 4th down territory.

The kicking team came out to the field immediately and he was like "Well, I guess I was wrong, they're actually going to kick the field goal here..."

Lol, going for it is definitely optimal.

I'm watching that game too although wasn't paying attention to that part.
But I definitely prefer a commentator who takes some chances and isn't afraid to be wrong.

Some of the results-oriented complaints here or stuff where the replay shows he just didn't see it well are kind of annoying.
Some commentators sit there and pretty much never say anything and never really offer any opinions worth discussing or disagreeing with.
The commentators who actually give their opinions truly ARE going to be wrong some of the time....or, in the very least, you are not going to agree with them every single time they speak.

It's non-stop talking and analysis for 3 straight hours and obviously they aren't going to be perfect.
That doesn't excuse some of the really idiot-stuff.
But things where the announcer was just merely incorrect shouldn't really be considered that big a deal imo.

Seriously, way to prove Bob's point. Great time to go for it.

Vn level, almost fooled me

It's funny, because I was either watching that same game, or an almost identical situation while flipping around (early 4th quarter, team down by 10, kicks a FG on 4th and short inside the 10) and the play-by-play guy asked the color guy whether he liked the decision, and the commentator said "yeah, it's the right call, you're gonna need a FG and TD anyway, so want not take the 3 now?". Which is one of my pet peeve asinine cliches that announcers trot out without considering the situation.

I am a Texans fan and I was super-pissed that the Texans didn't go for the touchdown on 4th and goal from the 2.

NFL coaches simply don't understand that if you don't convert on 4th and 2 and turn the ball over on downs, having the other team pinned inside the 5 is such a huge edge. Kicking a FG and giving up superior field position on a kickoff is a terrible decision.

Also, you don't "need" a FG and TD. You can go for it on 4th, get the TD, then hopefully get another TD later to win it. Playing solely for a tie is generally a terrible gameplan.

Well I know one thing that's a hot topic on the Cardinals' offense - and that is look out for #43. He already came in and dropped a load on Edgerrin James, and that time it was Bryant Johnson.

-Dan Dierdorf, advising Peter North to watch out for Troy Polamalu

Drew, the end of that drive looked terrible, they had no way to pound it in. They must have had like 6 or 7 plays from inside the 15 and just didn't look good. I had no faith that Dayne could jam that thing in. Kick it and get within a score.

I do realize that you need two scores (minimum one TD) just to at least tie, and that if you get the TD now, then you may get another later and take the lead, but how often do you get the TD here?

And if you don't, you are in a much larger hole still needed 2 scores and giving the ball away.

Let me clarify by saying it's more the fact that he called it "4th down territory" as opposed to saying "I'd really like to see them go for it here. If they don't make it, they pin them deep anyway. There is still time left to get 2 scores IMO."

Again, I'm not sold that either play is particularly better, but it was the whole "This is 4th down territory" comment that made me scoff.

It definitely was NOT "4th down territory", and I'll argue that as long as I need to.

What is "4th down territory" if not a situation in which going for it on 4th is good? Or do you mean the actual part of the field? Because teams should be more and more inclined to go for it the deeper they get into the red zone.

Watching MASN in Baltimore for the Phils/Nats game.

Nats commentators said while the camera is showing the Phils fans going crazy as the last outs are being made, "Hey Nats fans, this could be you in a couple years."

pro,

your last post made no sense.

Are these not the same?

Meh! I don't know, I always interpret "4th down territory" as "It's absolutely vital that they must score a TD here or they are like >99% to lose this game."

I didn't think it was "4th down territory", that's all. If they don't get a TD there, they still have plenty of opportunities to win that ballgame.

It's not completely unrealistic and no I'm not kidding. We've seen plenty of crappy teams turn it around fairly quickly via young prospects and pitchers' breakout seasons.

How many years elapsed between the Tigers losing 120 games and then making it to the W.S.?

It's a little over-the-top for them to be implying this perhaps. But they've pretty much spent the last several weeks talking about this propsect or that and the kind of future they bring to their franchise and stuff like that to put a positive spin on the tail-end of a losing season and find a way to look forward to the upcoming ones.

I'm in Florida now and have been watching a lot of Marlins and Devil Rays broadcasts so I've been seeing a lot of this kind of positive-spin announcing strategy lately.

Phil Simms has troubles distinguishing between his left/right and your left/right. Morris of IND plants his left leg funny and looks to be seriously injured. They replay it a bunch and Simms and Nantz keep talking about his left leg. They eventually get Morris's leg wrapped up and onto the cart. He's driving off facing the TV, so his busted leg is on the viewer's right.

Phil, "Oh.. it's not his left, it's his right leg Jim." <few seconds of silence> "No, it's his left!"

Probably just a brain fart, but it was funny.

You should google EV and let it soak in a while before you post again.