The Divide Between Analysis and Understanding

As America gets reacquainted with the NFL, there are plenty of people having live fantasy drafts over a few beers, rummaging stores for grills in order to tailgate and praying that their preachers speed up Sunday services for the next five months.

We already know what has made the NFL king of American entertainment over the last decade-plus; a few seasons of parity, a more passer-friendly style of play (though not exactly better) and the heavy dependence on the game for live viewing by partner TV networks. The latter, which provides the league revenue streams and advertising beyond comprehension, has been the bread and butter for the NFL since the 1960s under the stewardship of the late commissioner, Pete Rozelle.

With talk about the league pitching an additional eight-game Thursday night package to networks and some scheduling additions made by current league partners, there’s more to consume for the pigskin fan than ever before. 

However, one grossly overlooked aspect of this larger landscape for the NFL is that whether they care to admit so or not, there are still millions of fans that are not as savvy about every nuance of the game of football. [Honestly, the same goes for us media folks.]

Think of how many times Monday Night Football color commentators Ron Jaworski and Jon Gruden give the breakdown of a play and the terminology they use will go over your head. Even for those who know that there are multiple names and variations of the same football plays, it’s not easy to keep up with what ‘Jaws’, ‘Chucky’ or any commentator that played or coached will spit out.

With the bandwidth for programming that networks like ESPN and even the league’s own network possess, there’s plenty of room for a show that can actually explain what in the hell these commentators and analysts are talking about. Who needs another hour of highlight reels or fantasy football uber-analysis when there can be a program or two that will demonstrate what a dig route is or why there’s a need to have different personnel for defensive schemes.



Courtesy of Fort Hayes State Univ.



For those who have known and loved football for years, a show like this can be a way of refining, if not outright testing, your knowledge of the game. Sure, you might have a Master’s in Madden Football and you probably like to debate at the water cooler, but there’s a good chance that you may have thought the Wildcat formation was invented four years ago (single-wing, anyone?). 

Fans who have been introduced to the game in recent years would get a better sense of what makes the superstars so respected and popular. Many came on board because they kept hearing about Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and numerous fantasy football references throughout pop culture. Yet, save for those hackneyed company lines about their greatness – they’re winners, what would their teams be like without them, etc. – there is a lack of understanding what it took for those players to become future first-ballot Hall of Famers. Why? Because explaining the craft is too long for advertising copy.

That guy looks MAD familiar!

Last year while live tweeting a Monday Night Football broadcast, I suggested that the league’s broadcasting partners should actually try teaching the game a bit. I received a few replies, stating that it wouldn’t be a good idea because it’s not the responsibility of said partners – ESPN, FOX, CBS and NBC – to explain anything, at least during the game.

Yet, this isn’t about the guys in the booth explaining each intricate detail as if this is “Football for Dummies”. While it’s not impossible, it would ignore the primary purpose to their jobs; to speak on the game as it happens to a rabid audience.

However, when you look through ESPNews’ programming slate and see nothing but “Highlight Express” or wonder if the over-the-air networks are really serving us with those ginormous pregame shows, it’s not unfathomable to see that there’s room to take a step back and educate people on the game with more than telestrators and corporate-sponsored studio ‘fields’.

The first day that we are 'Back to Football', we can use something new, can't we?

Maybe this program is a once-a-week in-season affair a la Showtime’s (formerly HBO's) Inside the NFL or those weekly fantasy sports shows on your local sports network. Throughout the season, the hosts – experienced television former NFL players and coaches – can use game and/or practice footage combined with live demonstrations from a local semi-pro or high school team to illustrate their points. How cool would it be to see the contrast between how an offensive line works for a pocket passer and a mobile quarterback? The hair-splitting differences between the brilliance of running backs Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson? The real reasons why some teams play a 3-4 defense and a 4-3?

It may sound like one of those instructional tapes that you might buy for middle school-aged kids playing Pop Warner football. Yet, every season, people ask this Scribe how can they best learn the game in order to keep up with television analysis that continually goes over their heads. If this kind of program is crafted properly, it can be more than ‘suggested reading’ from the syllabus. It can be a great hors d'oeuvre before the football feast us pigskin gluttons scarf down every weekend.

Say What?!?!: In writing this post, an old one came to mind. Though younger generations have only come to know John Madden as the guy whose name graces the popular video game, he was once upon a time a great coach and the forefather to the sport’s color commentary. Whether some like it or not, with his retirement from the booth after the 2008 season, his approach to explaining the game to fans (though seemingly ineffective as the years went on) is sorely lacking these days.

Chucky!

It's been said already (via the AP), but heeeeerrrrrrrrreee’s Chucky!

Obviously, the Internets ablaze with news that Jon Gruden is replacing Tony Kornheiser in the Monday Night Football booth as the PTI host and longtime Washington Post scribe points to his fear of flying as the reason to step away after three seasons.

The criticisms of Kornheiser were well-founded as his detractors note his lack of improvement throughout each season. His attempts at humor fell short more often than not, his friendly arguments with Ron Jaworski took away from the action at times and his constant references to the most (in)famous quarterback in the NFL unnerved many. Yet, Kornheiser played his role as it was detailed; to be the ‘voice of the fan’ by way of the sports editor of the local newspaper who is on a deadline and needs an attention-grabbing headline.

As written about during this past season, he was supposed to be the outsider, chomping at the bit to talk about the topic du jour; whether it was the struggling quarterback, the coach who might be canned after another loss, the wide receiver who can’t seem to shut up or whichever player got arrested during the week. Yet, he was more like Joe/Jaquon/Jane Fan than we care to admit, which might have been the underlying reason for the hate spewed in his direction.

So now, ESPN grabs another coach who was just fired after a disappointing stretch (see Edwards, Herm) in hopes of providing veteran insight from years on the sidelines. A quick Google/Yahoo! Search will provide a range of opinions from overjoyed that Kornhieser’s gone to satisfied that Gruden joins the booth to disappointed that another former jock is actually going to talk about the game (if the latter baffles you, you’re not alone). Yet, the opinions are up to you to share here.

If anything, it would be interesting to see what kind of style producers help Gruden develop. Being media-friendly to the beat reporters and talkies is one thing, but to speak nationally to millions of fans for a few hours is a different story.

As most coaches have varying rapports with media members. From my professional experience, Giants head coach Tom Coughlin has certainly become more open to the Giants’ press over his time here and he’s certainly forthcoming and honest towards those that give him respect, even in criticizing some decisions. Yet, he can also be dismissive of certain media types that are looking for a reason to argue with him about the points of the game (and there are several folks in this category).

Now, can these five to ten minute post-game press conferences translate to adding analysis to the viewers for a few hours? That’s pretty hard to determine. It’s been said that Gruden had been pretty good with the media, even taking the Chucky nickname in stride wherever he has gone. In the booth, however, he has to essentially have a conversation with ‘Jaws’, whose breakdown of film and player biographies makes him the preacher to the converted, if you will. He’ll have to work with and around the parameters that Mike Tirico sets as the play-by-play announcer/occasional traffic cop.

What ESPN (and ABC before MNF was moved to Disney’s cash-cow channel) has tried to do was have someone in the broadcast booth that can dumb down the football verbiage for at least the casual or average NFL fan to digest without completely alienating the committed fan. Because the NFL has such a short season (which places games at a premium and captures more attention than the lengthier seasons of other sports) and the constraints of a live broadcast, it is vital for the network to dangle a carrot to those who may pass by the game while flipping through the channels.

You have to wonder if Gruden will be asked to fill that role in any degree. Jaworski is rather entrenched in his role as the breakdown analyst, but I can imagine that going into a fourth season, he’s figuring out how to either add explain the game’s language a bit more or cut down on its use. Gruden could bring the maestro elements of being a coach to the booth; in other words, explain the reasoning behind a play or what the guys in the headsets see and hear. He could also be asked to preach to the converted as Jaworski does and Tirico may have to bring in the casual fan a bit more.

It’s difficult to say how he will do in the booth considering that he hasn’t done it before. Outside of his work with the NFL Network as the Draft neared (which was well-received by some), he doesn’t have any body of work to suggest that he’ll be great or terrible. While he’ll make his debut during the preseason, everyone is working out the kinks from the players and coaches to the media to the concessionaires. It won’t be until the lights come on for the season opener between the Buffalo Bills and New England Patriots on September 14th that we’ll find out how ‘Chucky’ does.

Say What?!?!: Ladies, if you want the fulfill your fantasies, just know that he wears protection. This ad is great (at least to me)!

Telestrate

It’s amazing how a guy who did his job consistently and devoid of controversy can actually be reviled.

There are a lot of comments such as “thank (insert deity here)”, “about time already” and other less-sanitary thoughts around the internet and in person about the retirement of John Madden from the broadcast booth.

It’s not surprising that Madden decided to park his mammoth bus for good, but what set me back a bit was how quickly a good bit of NFL fans (likely those of Generation X and Y) were to cast him aside.

As budget as it seems to post a comment made on Scribe-favorite, TV by the Numbers, this is what I felt was what Madden was all about:

I always appreciated that besides showing favor towards a certain retired quarterback, he was fairly objective towards both teams on the field. You can tell with some analysts that there’s some favoritism or disdain, even if it’s not outright said. Among all the love and hate comments about Madden, I feel that everyone overlooks that. It’s going to be different and I hope that (Cris) Collinsworth can provide at least an ounce of that levity.

Madden loved the game and it showed in every broadcast. He may have not been as sharp in his last years, but considering the knowledge that all fans have gained over the years independent of broadcasts (enough scouting reports and YouTube clips could make all of us seem like experts), is it that much of a shock that he seemed to make these ‘obvious observations’?

Those of us that are fans and/or involved in the media should appreciate what he’s done.

I say this because unlike many who say “I put the game on mute because of the announcers”, I can appreciate what the (wo)men in the booth are trying to do. There’s a balancing act between speaking to the obsessed fans and speaking to those we hope become fans. Most of us who consume sports were born as these leagues, teams and players were already established in the American psyche. The rules may have not been innate, but with millions upon millions sharing their stories and passions with family members and friends, the concepts of these games were naturally absorbed. However, for those of us who are still trying to gain familiarity with the action on the screen, the broadcasters are bestowed a responsibility to explain, if not teach, the purpose and details of the executed plays.

Madden’s signatures may have been scribbling on the telestrator and dropping a few ‘Booms’ during the game, but he did those things because simplicity was essential to explain a complicated game. Adding snarky and jaded commentary, in his eyes, would have deterred him from speaking about the game’s essentials.

That’s the fear I have with Collinsworth. While he has the technical strengths and the experience with multiple networks (FOX, NBC, HBO and Showtime), you can say he may have spent too much time with some of the most opinionated (read: sarcastic, negative and strong on the ego) personalities in the business. Maybe he picked up something from Bob Papa for his NFL Network about only pulling out the opinions when absolutely necessary, but what can transpire between him and Al Michaels will be interesting as the 2009 season progresses.

Now, enjoy this for old times' sake (thanks to the uploader for this bit of sheer excellence).

Route

Raise your hand if you have ever taken an ill-advised shortcut en route to an appointment, work, school social gathering, etc.

Keep your hand up if you discovered that not only was that shortcut just plain stupid, but the traditional route wasn’t such a bad idea after all.
Finally, keep your hand up if, at the time, you couldn’t accept that you were too stubborn to realize that you went the wrong way.

It’s amazing how much press and blog posts – this one included – there have been devoted to former Detroit Lions president Matt Millen’s appearance on NBC’s Football Night in America than the games he provided analysis for.

It’s amazing because, as anyone who seeks out sports news and stories knows, it is pretty hard to fight against being perceived as an abject failure after… well, having failed.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

There’s not one Detroit Lions fan or member of the media that was not giddy when Millen was fired in the middle of what eventually became a 0-16 season. Yet, nearly all of them who enviously watched winning teams in the playoffs on Sunday probably threw a few dozen obscenities and remotes at the television when Millen was not only speaking about his dismal record as team president/de facto General Manager, but remained on the FNiA set as an analyst.

The mere sight of the man ignited a M80-like fury in the football blogosphere. On Monday, the mainstream media’s cavalcade (thanks to Fang's Bites) of mostly frustrated and angry opinions came in. As of tonight, it hasn’t stopped. If you asked anyone with a vested interest in the team, they’re probably angrier about Millen’s ineptitude as team president than they are about the ‘green’ campaign from Detroit's Big Three.

Yet, the man does have a right to go back to his roots, doesn’t he?

And NBC Sports does have the right to give him a chance, correct?

Now, this isn’t condoning Millen’s record as the team’s president. Even he told you that he would have fired himself after the 2007 season, a year in which the Lions were a playoff contender until they ran into an indomitable opponent (the month of November). Yet, the reality is that William Clay Ford, Sr. hired the man based seemingly less on his stellar playing career – including four Super Bowl championships – and based more on his television work.

In between his last year as a player for the Washington Redskins and his television career, Millen had never been involved in coaching or management at any level. Probably more damning was that he had never been involved with scouting; the underrated and certainly overlooked manner of actually finding players coaches and managers feel can succeed in a team’s scheme of play.

A scout’s work isn’t exactly glamorous and outside of the media, fans have little or no clue who one is. We know the names of every ‘hot’ coordinator being interviewed for head coaching jobs and every special teams coach that takes the fall for teams that fall short of lofty expectations. Truth be told that many GMs and team presidents have mostly administrative experience (Mike Tannenbaum of the Jets, Ted Thompson of Green Bay) or just happen to own the team (Jerry Jones, Mike Brown, Dan Rooney, Al Davis). However, there are successful GMs who came up the scouting ladder, such as the Giants’ Jerry Reese and the Chargers’ A.J. Smith.

Which leads to this point; what if Millen decided to take on some form of apprenticeship – as either an assistant in pro personnel, a position coach or a scout – before taking any helm, let alone for a franchise mired in decades of mediocrity?

Could he have better resisted the temptation to draft projected first-round wide receivers quickly of the draft board? Very likely as he would be less influenced to make a splashy, yet desperate pick and understood the perspectives of the coaches and scouts that have intimate knowledge of the players.

Could he have been a successful executive if he took one of those roles? That’s hard to say. After coaches and some expendable players, general managers and team presidents are the last to get the heave-ho after successive losing seasons. Considering how tough it is to win in the NFL in one year, it’s tough to say what kind of success the Lions could have had for more than one or two seasons.

It’s possible that in hiring Millen, Ford believed that he would find his own Ozzie Newsome, the Hall of Fame tight end who has been just as successful as the point man for the Baltimore Ravens. For all of his mistakes, Millen wasn’t just some guy who played football. You had to have been a pretty good player to capture four titles with three different teams (Oakland, San Francisco and Washington). Having become a trusted face on TV after his career ended seemed to have translated well to the front office… in Ford’s mind, that is.

Obviously, that couldn’t have been more wrong.

As for him being a part of NBC’s NFL coverage? Well, Millen was probably the analyst and color commentator that you could at least tolerate, if not respect or like, when he worked for CBS and FOX in the mid-nineties. He did something that as a 90’s-pre-teen-going-on-insane-teenager could appreciate; he actually gave you the game in ways that a fan can understand without dumbing down the specifics of the game. He could have easily gone heavy on the football jargon – as Ron Jaworski (a favorite over here) or John Madden (yes, I said Madden) – yet, he assumed that you were a football fan who was still trying to figure out what was exactly happening and why.

Hey, if you’re a Lions fan, your anger, while a bit much, is justified. A few of you may be able to separate Matt Millen, the executive from Matt Millen, the analyst, yet that in itself is an understandably tough task. For a couple of years, you’ll get a free pass.

Yet, as crazy as it seems, there was actually another former player who took a similar route. He went so far and ridiculously off the beaten path that his return to the small screen is as likely as the Oklahoma City Thunder winning the NBA title in June.

You can sleep easier now knowing that Millen could have been much, much worse.

Perfectionist

When you watch a game and see a team or a individual player make a mistake, the color commetator will add his or her thoughts on what should have happened. The commentator, of course, is a former player and/or coach who has been through the rigors of competing in the sport. Where the play-by-play announcer gives you the rhythm of the game by calling each movement, the color commentator fills in with anecdotes about how the game is played by these athletes and how it used to be played.

The one thing about commentators that people cling to is their critiques of game play and the players themselves. It's not necessarily about calling someone out or heaping praise, but most of the critiques are spontaneous observations of what just transpired. It's in the nature of their job. They are supposed to tell you that the play should have been run this way or if the team needs to kick up the defense a notch or two. Yet, what's funny about this part of the job description is that these comments come from a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" or even a rather condescending tone. After all, none of these talkies have ever played perfectly in their lives.

So, with the boost in readership as of late - many, many thanks - I want to hear from everyone who runs into this page. Who are the color commentators that seem believable in your eyes? What are those anectodes during the game that you know full well don't truly match his or her style as a player (such as Charles Barkley talking about defense)? And finally, did you notice what Mike Tirico (who did the play-by-play with Bill Walton) says at the :33 mark of this clip?