Some NFL analysts are morons...

[BamaJets]

OK, maybe more than some, but on the NFL network they are talking about the Saints bounty and suspensions. The analyst, Willie McGinest, was asked how the Saints will miss Vilma (suspended for the year). Willie says Vilma's play has slipped, but the Saints will miss Vilma's leadership. They will miss Vilma's leadership? You mean they will miss the leadership of the guy who was considered one of, if not the, ringleader of a pay-for-injury program which has crippled the team? yeah, he sounds like a leader, stand up guy there. Think before you speak, Willie.

So many awful analysts out there who only have jobs because of their name. Michael Irvin? brutal. half the clowns on ESPN? can't even watch the channel with volume anymore. just seems like too many of these guys put ZERO effort and study into their craft. not enough guys who can really tell you the Xs and Os and make points most of us sitting on our couches watching cannot.

[NY's stepchild]

I think he's talking about the way he gets guys fired up, keeps them motivated, and focused on football day in and day out. I don't think he was talking about him being a role model.

[BamaJets]

Originally Posted by NY's stepchild

I think he's talking about the way he gets guys fired up, keeps them motivated, and focused on football day in and day out. I don't think he was talking about him being a role model.

I am sure he did mean it like you said, but he needs to say it that way. that what I was saying about no effort. if you are a talking head on THE NFL channel, you better be clear on things. just too many guys can't analyze any better than we can.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by BamaJets

I am sure he did mean it like you said, but he needs to say it that way. that what I was saying about no effort. if you are a talking head on THE NFL channel, you better be clear on things. just too many guys can't analyze any better than we can.

I can get behind this.

[GuidoYaztremski]

,,,yeah, like Hugh Douglas.

[Dimitri_0515]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

,,,yeah, like Hugh Douglas.

Why because he said the Jets would win the AFC east?







Umm.... what?

[Untouchable]

What the hell happened to Rich Eisen?

Who's this new mook with the Dumbo ears?

[ASG0531]

Originally Posted by Untouchable

What the hell happened to Rich Eisen?

Who's this new mook with the Dumbo ears?

Summer vacation? Andrew Siciliano has been a host for a long time. But yeah, he has frickin huge ears.

[Sroger]

Originally Posted by BamaJets

I am sure he did mean it like you said, but he needs to say it that way. that what I was saying about no effort. if you are a talking head on THE NFL channel, you better be clear on things. just too many guys can't analyze any better than we can.

Durr that damned NFL channel. Why it be broadcasted on my satellite dish. Specially when you can't done analyze no better than we

[NY's stepchild]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

,,,yeah, like Hugh Douglas.

Teddy bruschi comes to mind.

[NY's stepchild]

To be fair. It seems to be a very difficult sport to analyze. They often find it difficult to analyze what happened last year, and why, much less what will happen the next year. Why a team that looked inept one quarter can suddenly look unstoppable, and vice versa. There are just so many variables, and such a small margin for error. Game of inches and all that. One false step or hesitation can mean the difference between a game changing play, and looking like you have no business being on the field. No one can know when a team will mesh, or a player will emerge, or when they will falter, which is why I find it so interesting that people constantly speak from a position of absolute certainty. To me it make them sound like ignorant fools, but they are never held to account because they all do it, and they don't want to invite undue scrutiny upon their own forecasts. It reminds me of contractors that under bid every contract, because they know everyone else will do it, ergo they would get no work if they were honest about the time, and cost of a job. The only ones I really hate are the ones with an obvious bias(Teddy, and Harrison), or the ones that just say outrageous things to get attention(Skip Bayless).

[ASG0531]

Originally Posted by NY's stepchild

To be fair. It seems to be a very difficult sport to analyze. They often find it difficult to analyze what happened last year, and why, much less what will happen the next year. Why a team that looked inept one quarter can suddenly look unstoppable, and vice versa. There are just so many variables, and such a small margin for error. Game of inches and all that. One false step or hesitation can mean the difference between a game changing play, and looking like you have no business being on the field. No one can know when a team will mesh, or a player will emerge, or when they will falter, which is why I find it so interesting that people constantly speak from a position of absolute certainty. To me it make them sound like ignorant fools, but they are never held to account because they all do it, and they don't want to invite undue scrutiny upon their own forecasts. It reminds me of contractors that under bid every contract, because they know everyone else will do it, ergo they would get no work if they were honest about the time, and cost of a job. The only ones I really hate are the ones with an obvious bias(Teddy, and Harrison), or the ones that just say outrageous things to get attention(Skip Bayless).

I think Bruschi is usually very fair to the Jets... he's picked them to beat the Pats a number of times. He's often very critical of his old team and praises Jet moves.

[10PennyToColes87]

Originally Posted by Untouchable

What the hell happened to Rich Eisen?

Who's this new mook with the Dumbo ears?

Don't you have Directv? You should know who he was from Redzone Channel. Eisen's big thing these days is his podcast, which I don't listen to.

[ASG0531]

Originally Posted by 10PennyToColes87

Don't you have Directv? You should know who he was from Redzone Channel. Eisen's big thing these days is his podcast, which I don't listen to.

The Redzone Channel host is Scott Hanson. Different from the guy with the big ears. I read an interview with him once, where he was asked the question that's on everybody's mind: "when do you go to the bathroom?"

"Once or never in seven hours. Either one two-minute break or none at all. I’m like a kindergartner. I have to raise my hand and ask my producer, “Can you find me a spot to go to the bathroom in the next drive?” I’m asking permission and I’m a 40-year-old man. I can hear the games on my earpiece, so I’m going down the hallway and I have a path carved out for me to get to the bathroom, and I’m literally thinking: “No touchdown. No touchdown.”

Hilarious article, read more here: http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-scott-hanson/

[10PennyToColes87]

Originally Posted by ASG0531

The Redzone Channel host is Scott Hanson. Different from the guy with the big ears.

Hanson hosts NFLN's Redzone channel, Siciliano hosts DTV's. Ch. 703

http://support.directv.com/app/answe...nel-on-directv

[ASG0531]

Originally Posted by 10PennyToColes87

Hanson hosts NFLN's Redzone channel, Siciliano hosts DTV's. Ch. 703

http://support.directv.com/app/answe...nel-on-directv

Oh. Hmmm. Interesting. I didn't know there were two different telecasts. Learn something new every day.

[BamaJets]

Originally Posted by NY's stepchild

To be fair. It seems to be a very difficult sport to analyze. They often find it difficult to analyze what happened last year, and why, much less what will happen the next year. Why a team that looked inept one quarter can suddenly look unstoppable, and vice versa. There are just so many variables, and such a small margin for error. Game of inches and all that. One false step or hesitation can mean the difference between a game changing play, and looking like you have no business being on the field. No one can know when a team will mesh, or a player will emerge, or when they will falter, which is why I find it so interesting that people constantly speak from a position of absolute certainty. To me it make them sound like ignorant fools, but they are never held to account because they all do it, and they don't want to invite undue scrutiny upon their own forecasts. It reminds me of contractors that under bid every contract, because they know everyone else will do it, ergo they would get no work if they were honest about the time, and cost of a job. The only ones I really hate are the ones with an obvious bias(Teddy, and Harrison), or the ones that just say outrageous things to get attention(Skip Bayless).

good points and I agree about biased announcers and Bayless -- he's the worst ever. I honestly haven't listened to his voice in 2 years and it makes me a better person every day.

I guess I just wish some analysts were more prepared. You can tell the guys who study the film and teams and know their Xs and Os and nuances of the game. The things they say are insightful and original. But it seems like too many come in and think just because they are a former player everything will be easy. ESPN has so many former players as analysts from every sport and only a few seem to offer real insight. The rest are great at telling you a guy with a bad attitude can cause problems in the locker room or the quarterback needs to be the leader.

[Boynton Beach Jets]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

,,,yeah, like Hugh Douglas.

One particular poster does why dont you look in the:

[124]

Originally Posted by Untouchable

What the hell happened to Rich Eisen?

Who's this new mook with the Dumbo ears?

He's been M.I.A. since before Andrew Scicliano took over.

He's too "big time" now, only appearing for big Total Access shows, Thursday Night Football and now a new show on ABC premiering soon called "The Great Escape". I miss Eisen and since his departure on Total Access, I've cut down on watching.

As for McGinest, he's right. Like it or not, Vilma was a leader in the Saints locker room and after Darren Sharper left, THE leader.

[NY's stepchild]

Originally Posted by BamaJets

good points and I agree about biased announcers and Bayless -- he's the worst ever. I honestly haven't listened to his voice in 2 years and it makes me a better person every day.

I guess I just wish some analysts were more prepared. You can tell the guys who study the film and teams and know their Xs and Os and nuances of the game. The things they say are insightful and original. But it seems like too many come in and think just because they are a former player everything will be easy. ESPN has so many former players as analysts from every sport and only a few seem to offer real insight. The rest are great at telling you a guy with a bad attitude can cause problems in the locker room or the quarterback needs to be the leader.

I think like that too, but now I'm starting to wonder even about these guys that break down film. I don't know if they do as much as we think, or just break down a few plays hear and there. They could have an agenda too, but I wonder why 8 different guys see 8 different things when they break down the film. Maybe they just don't have enough time, but I've never seen any of them show me why a game changed momentum. Have you? They also don't seem to be able to use that film study to predict future outcomes any better than anyone else. Someone in Vegas is pretty good at this stuff, but no one on TV. They broke down the Bills film early last year, and they were obviously the next SB contender. The Jets were contenders right up until the middle of last year, now they haven't a chance for some reason. They broke down film of Tom Brady early in his career, and he was never going to be more than a game manager. Why can't they see, and explain why teams look good one week then look bad the next? They never go back and explain why they were wrong.