- Joined
- Nov 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,624
- Name
- News Bot
NFL FANS DESERVE BETTER THAN PHIL SIMMS AT THE SUPER BOWL
Posted by Dan Levy on Jan 25, 2016 11:45
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/nfl-fans-deserve-better-than-phil-simms-at-the-super-bowl.html
After Tom Brady threw his second interception of the AFC Championship on Sunday, Phil Simms commented as the camera slow-motion zoomed on Tom Brady, saying, “brace yourself, it’s gonna hurt.”
That felt like a warning to viewers as much as to Brady.
Since 2004, CBS has led its NFL in-game coverage with Jim Nantz and Phil Simms in the top booth, calling the Super Bowl whenever the network comes up in the NFL’s media partner rotation. This season, with Super Bowl 50’s shiny gold veneer being all over every channel all season long, fans have been bombarded with reminders for months, ever increasing as the playoffs rolled along, that the Big Game is on CBS, with Nantz and Simms calling the action.
Nantz is one of the finest announcers of his generation, and while he is a bit overprotective of the stars he covers, and CBS certainly over-exposes him to criticism by giving him the lead chair for almost everything the network shows—golf, NFL and NCAA basketball—there is no one at CBS, by design, who is better suited or more deserving of calling a Super Bowl.
Simms will also be there.
Look, it’s become sport to rip on announcers like Simms because the grass is always greener and each generation resents the one it’s replacing and Joe Buck hates your team and, wait…we’re getting off topic. Yes, Simms falls into that “it’s probably time to replace him” category, but not because the 61-year old former NFL quarterback is too old, and not because CBS has some hot young up-and-comer behind him who deserves a shot in the booth.
It’s none of that, sadly. It’s simply, fans deserve better than the flat, one-note, quarterback-centric commentary Simms can provide. I almost wrote the word ‘analysis’ there, but it’s really not. It’s commentary. Simms just…talks, often not even about the game going on in front of him, though he probably thinks he is, which should concern CBS more than it obviously does.
When Peyton Manning took a sack on the first drive after Brady’s second interception, Simms lauded Manning, explaining how he knows not to throw the football while under pressure without being able to see his receiver, suggesting that Brady took a risk on his interception that Manning wouldn’t take. In that immediate context, Simms may have been right, but he failed to mention Manning’s 17 interceptions on 331 regular-season passes this year to Brady’s seven interceptions on 624 passes.
To suggest Manning is safe with the football at this point in his career simply ignores the facts. To suggest the opposite about Brady shows a lack of attention to details, at best and a flat-out fabrication of the circumstance, at worst.
Simms is incapable of breaking from his narrative, either. When Brady rushed for a first down and Manning did the same a bit later in the first half, Simms wouldn’t let the “elusiveness” of both quarterbacks go, in lieu of actual in-game analysis. Granted, CBS did him no favors by putting a speedometer on both of their scampers, but on a second-quarter play where Manning is heard screaming “91 is hot,” Patriots linebacker Jamie Collins came screaming in on a third-down pass play to flush Manning and force him to throw the ball away.
Rather than break down the protection mistake that led to another punt for Denver—Manning was JUST yelling to his team which player was coming on the blitz and Ronnie Hillman went out on a pass pattern through the middle without so much as a chip block on Collins—Simms took the time to, again, talk about how fast Manning looked.
Perhaps CBS is just waiting for Manning to retire before shuffling its announcing crews. The odds-on favorite to hire Manning if he goes into television, CBS would surely be willing to put him in the lead booth right away, either relegating Simms to secondary status or moving him to the studio for a softer landing. If Manning wants to do studio work—less travel, more time to plan out thoughts and not have to react instantly which, ironically, often fells Simms during current telecasts—CBS will have to shuffle the studio crew, which could have a trickle down effect to the booth as well.
It’s not like CBS hasn’t made major moves before. It was just over 10 years ago now that CBS swapped Nantz with Greg Gumbel, putting Gumbel in the studio and pairing Nantz with Simms in the lead booth. A year later, when CBS snagged James Brown from Fox, CBS put Gumbel into the second booth, keeping Nantz with Simms and pairing Gumbel with, at the time, Dan Dierdorf.
Gumbel has since been passed over again, now by Ian Eagle and Dan Fouts, who make up the second crew at CBS, calling a playoff game earlier this season.
Wouldn’t Fouts be better than Simms in the lead booth, calling the Super Bowl? Is there anyone who would disagree with that move? Hell, wouldn’t Trent Green, who now calls games with Gumbel? Or Rich Gannon, another CBS analyst, or Steve Beuerlein—how many old white quarterbacks do they have in the booth at CBS—or Solomon Wilcots?
While only Fouts has the cache to supplant Simms—remember, Fouts is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame and Simms isn’t—it’s clear CBS has better options on its current roster. Tony Gonzalez, who is a studio analyst, would be great in the booth. Hell, Boomer Esiason, who could be the odd old-white-quarterback out if Manning retires to the studio and not the booth, is one of the best in-game analysts in the business calling games on radio. He would be a significant upgrade over Simms in the main television booth, if he’d be willing to do it with his other media commitments.
In today’s game, with the enhanced video and replays from nearly every angle at frame rates that can show a quarterback blink three times before he throws the ball, Simms is routinely exposed as being incapable of seeing the play in real time, relying on video replay as much or more than those watching at home. He doesn’t even seems to care, constantly admitting he misses plays live, too focused on what the quarterback was doing to see the rest of the play develop.
And yet, his defense of the quarterbacks may be his biggest weakness as an analyst. Manning was off on a lot of throws on Sunday. He was 17-of-32 on the game, with at least six or seven of those completions being off-target throws reeled in by his receivers. Manning missed several wide-open players throughout the game, but made up for it with two perfect touchdown passes to no interceptions, giving the perception that he played well, and didn’t do anything to hurt his team.
The play before Denver’s second touchdown was a great illustration of Nantz doing everything he can to spoon-feed Simms through the game at this point, asking, “what happened on a pass like that” after Manning flat missed a wide-open receiver for a score.
“Just misjudged him, Jim,” Simms said. “Tried to hit him and overthrew it.”
Now, yes, that is true, but we all saw that. He tried to hit the receiver and he over-threw him. What Nantz was asking Simms there was clear: was it rust, was it old age, was it Manning’s noodle arm, or poor mechanics or panic or good defense at the line? Instead we got, “Tried to hit him and overthrew it.”
What’s worse, if that’s possible, is what Simms said after that, as Nantz let the game breathe before the next play.
“You know, I always say this. You know the quarterbacks are not machines. They’re not going to hit every single pass that’s open. They’re not always going to make the right decision.
“It’s adversity always—you always have in the game. You’ve got to overcome it.”
The next play was a touchdown, which some might suggest made Simms look like a soothsayer—Manning immediately overcame a bad play with a good one—but that’s notadversity, that’s a bad throw followed by an excellent one. There was no actual analysis there. Just words.
At the end of the game, Nantz and Simms rightly focused on Manning getting back to the Super Bowl, with the camera squarely pegged on the quarterback for Denver and really no one else. Whether Manning got Denver to the Super Bowl or Denver got Manning there can be dissected for the next two weeks, but Simms’ final thought on the moment, again, illustrated how he lets narratives, storylines and surface-level nonsense dominate his commentary.
“He knows the team; they’re tough. It’s about the defense, you’ve got to go out there and compliment it, and the offense did all day long.”
Denver had 244 net yards on offense to New England’s 336. Denver had two drives in the game more than nine plays, one, granted, a 10-play 48-yard field goal drive that lasted five minutes of the fourth quarter, but Denver went three-and-out on each of its next two drives when one first down in either would have sealed the game. Denver’s second touchdown came on a 16-yard field after an interception and following that play, Denver’s offense had five first downs the entire game.
Denver had 83 net yards offense in the second half. Manning was 7-of-12 in the second half, but for just 48 yards.
The Denver defense bent and bent and bent and almost broke at the end of the game—and would have, if Bill Belichick had elected to kick a field goal either of the two drives New England opted to go on fourth down before the touchdown pass on the final drive—and Simms either didn’t see any of that, or didn’t remember it, because all eyes were on Manning, and regurgitating the narrative is seemingly better than doing one’s job.
And, yes, that moment with the confetti flying and both teams shaking hands is probably the one moment to make Manning’s trip back to the Super Bowl about the narratives, not about the facts. Nantz knows that better than anyone in the history of the medium. That said, if Simms wasn’t doing that the entire game, doing it there would have been fine. But that’s all we ever get with him, and as CBS gets another Super Bowl, it’s clear they are lagging behind every other network in terms of quality analysis from the top booth.
Cris Collinsworth, Troy Aikman, hell even Jon Gruden will be sitting and watching the Super Bowl on TV this year. Esiason and Fouts will be calling the game on radio for Westwood One. Remember that when CBS builds two weeks of coverage around Simms this year.
Fans deserve better. The game deserves better.
Posted by Dan Levy on Jan 25, 2016 11:45
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/nfl-fans-deserve-better-than-phil-simms-at-the-super-bowl.html
After Tom Brady threw his second interception of the AFC Championship on Sunday, Phil Simms commented as the camera slow-motion zoomed on Tom Brady, saying, “brace yourself, it’s gonna hurt.”
That felt like a warning to viewers as much as to Brady.
Since 2004, CBS has led its NFL in-game coverage with Jim Nantz and Phil Simms in the top booth, calling the Super Bowl whenever the network comes up in the NFL’s media partner rotation. This season, with Super Bowl 50’s shiny gold veneer being all over every channel all season long, fans have been bombarded with reminders for months, ever increasing as the playoffs rolled along, that the Big Game is on CBS, with Nantz and Simms calling the action.
Nantz is one of the finest announcers of his generation, and while he is a bit overprotective of the stars he covers, and CBS certainly over-exposes him to criticism by giving him the lead chair for almost everything the network shows—golf, NFL and NCAA basketball—there is no one at CBS, by design, who is better suited or more deserving of calling a Super Bowl.
Simms will also be there.
Look, it’s become sport to rip on announcers like Simms because the grass is always greener and each generation resents the one it’s replacing and Joe Buck hates your team and, wait…we’re getting off topic. Yes, Simms falls into that “it’s probably time to replace him” category, but not because the 61-year old former NFL quarterback is too old, and not because CBS has some hot young up-and-comer behind him who deserves a shot in the booth.
It’s none of that, sadly. It’s simply, fans deserve better than the flat, one-note, quarterback-centric commentary Simms can provide. I almost wrote the word ‘analysis’ there, but it’s really not. It’s commentary. Simms just…talks, often not even about the game going on in front of him, though he probably thinks he is, which should concern CBS more than it obviously does.
When Peyton Manning took a sack on the first drive after Brady’s second interception, Simms lauded Manning, explaining how he knows not to throw the football while under pressure without being able to see his receiver, suggesting that Brady took a risk on his interception that Manning wouldn’t take. In that immediate context, Simms may have been right, but he failed to mention Manning’s 17 interceptions on 331 regular-season passes this year to Brady’s seven interceptions on 624 passes.
To suggest Manning is safe with the football at this point in his career simply ignores the facts. To suggest the opposite about Brady shows a lack of attention to details, at best and a flat-out fabrication of the circumstance, at worst.
Simms is incapable of breaking from his narrative, either. When Brady rushed for a first down and Manning did the same a bit later in the first half, Simms wouldn’t let the “elusiveness” of both quarterbacks go, in lieu of actual in-game analysis. Granted, CBS did him no favors by putting a speedometer on both of their scampers, but on a second-quarter play where Manning is heard screaming “91 is hot,” Patriots linebacker Jamie Collins came screaming in on a third-down pass play to flush Manning and force him to throw the ball away.
Rather than break down the protection mistake that led to another punt for Denver—Manning was JUST yelling to his team which player was coming on the blitz and Ronnie Hillman went out on a pass pattern through the middle without so much as a chip block on Collins—Simms took the time to, again, talk about how fast Manning looked.
Perhaps CBS is just waiting for Manning to retire before shuffling its announcing crews. The odds-on favorite to hire Manning if he goes into television, CBS would surely be willing to put him in the lead booth right away, either relegating Simms to secondary status or moving him to the studio for a softer landing. If Manning wants to do studio work—less travel, more time to plan out thoughts and not have to react instantly which, ironically, often fells Simms during current telecasts—CBS will have to shuffle the studio crew, which could have a trickle down effect to the booth as well.
It’s not like CBS hasn’t made major moves before. It was just over 10 years ago now that CBS swapped Nantz with Greg Gumbel, putting Gumbel in the studio and pairing Nantz with Simms in the lead booth. A year later, when CBS snagged James Brown from Fox, CBS put Gumbel into the second booth, keeping Nantz with Simms and pairing Gumbel with, at the time, Dan Dierdorf.
Gumbel has since been passed over again, now by Ian Eagle and Dan Fouts, who make up the second crew at CBS, calling a playoff game earlier this season.
Wouldn’t Fouts be better than Simms in the lead booth, calling the Super Bowl? Is there anyone who would disagree with that move? Hell, wouldn’t Trent Green, who now calls games with Gumbel? Or Rich Gannon, another CBS analyst, or Steve Beuerlein—how many old white quarterbacks do they have in the booth at CBS—or Solomon Wilcots?
While only Fouts has the cache to supplant Simms—remember, Fouts is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame and Simms isn’t—it’s clear CBS has better options on its current roster. Tony Gonzalez, who is a studio analyst, would be great in the booth. Hell, Boomer Esiason, who could be the odd old-white-quarterback out if Manning retires to the studio and not the booth, is one of the best in-game analysts in the business calling games on radio. He would be a significant upgrade over Simms in the main television booth, if he’d be willing to do it with his other media commitments.
In today’s game, with the enhanced video and replays from nearly every angle at frame rates that can show a quarterback blink three times before he throws the ball, Simms is routinely exposed as being incapable of seeing the play in real time, relying on video replay as much or more than those watching at home. He doesn’t even seems to care, constantly admitting he misses plays live, too focused on what the quarterback was doing to see the rest of the play develop.
And yet, his defense of the quarterbacks may be his biggest weakness as an analyst. Manning was off on a lot of throws on Sunday. He was 17-of-32 on the game, with at least six or seven of those completions being off-target throws reeled in by his receivers. Manning missed several wide-open players throughout the game, but made up for it with two perfect touchdown passes to no interceptions, giving the perception that he played well, and didn’t do anything to hurt his team.
The play before Denver’s second touchdown was a great illustration of Nantz doing everything he can to spoon-feed Simms through the game at this point, asking, “what happened on a pass like that” after Manning flat missed a wide-open receiver for a score.
“Just misjudged him, Jim,” Simms said. “Tried to hit him and overthrew it.”
Now, yes, that is true, but we all saw that. He tried to hit the receiver and he over-threw him. What Nantz was asking Simms there was clear: was it rust, was it old age, was it Manning’s noodle arm, or poor mechanics or panic or good defense at the line? Instead we got, “Tried to hit him and overthrew it.”
What’s worse, if that’s possible, is what Simms said after that, as Nantz let the game breathe before the next play.
“You know, I always say this. You know the quarterbacks are not machines. They’re not going to hit every single pass that’s open. They’re not always going to make the right decision.
“It’s adversity always—you always have in the game. You’ve got to overcome it.”
The next play was a touchdown, which some might suggest made Simms look like a soothsayer—Manning immediately overcame a bad play with a good one—but that’s notadversity, that’s a bad throw followed by an excellent one. There was no actual analysis there. Just words.
At the end of the game, Nantz and Simms rightly focused on Manning getting back to the Super Bowl, with the camera squarely pegged on the quarterback for Denver and really no one else. Whether Manning got Denver to the Super Bowl or Denver got Manning there can be dissected for the next two weeks, but Simms’ final thought on the moment, again, illustrated how he lets narratives, storylines and surface-level nonsense dominate his commentary.
“He knows the team; they’re tough. It’s about the defense, you’ve got to go out there and compliment it, and the offense did all day long.”
Denver had 244 net yards on offense to New England’s 336. Denver had two drives in the game more than nine plays, one, granted, a 10-play 48-yard field goal drive that lasted five minutes of the fourth quarter, but Denver went three-and-out on each of its next two drives when one first down in either would have sealed the game. Denver’s second touchdown came on a 16-yard field after an interception and following that play, Denver’s offense had five first downs the entire game.
Denver had 83 net yards offense in the second half. Manning was 7-of-12 in the second half, but for just 48 yards.
The Denver defense bent and bent and bent and almost broke at the end of the game—and would have, if Bill Belichick had elected to kick a field goal either of the two drives New England opted to go on fourth down before the touchdown pass on the final drive—and Simms either didn’t see any of that, or didn’t remember it, because all eyes were on Manning, and regurgitating the narrative is seemingly better than doing one’s job.
And, yes, that moment with the confetti flying and both teams shaking hands is probably the one moment to make Manning’s trip back to the Super Bowl about the narratives, not about the facts. Nantz knows that better than anyone in the history of the medium. That said, if Simms wasn’t doing that the entire game, doing it there would have been fine. But that’s all we ever get with him, and as CBS gets another Super Bowl, it’s clear they are lagging behind every other network in terms of quality analysis from the top booth.
Cris Collinsworth, Troy Aikman, hell even Jon Gruden will be sitting and watching the Super Bowl on TV this year. Esiason and Fouts will be calling the game on radio for Westwood One. Remember that when CBS builds two weeks of coverage around Simms this year.
Fans deserve better. The game deserves better.
