Category Archives: Sherman Spotlight

New NFL Network documentary on Revis: Total access during his rehab, off-season move to Tampa

Posted on by

While Andrea Kremer didn’t necessarily wish for a player to tear an ACL, she threw out an idea last fall.

“I said, ‘What if an Adrian Peterson-type player gets injured like that? Why not follow him around during (his rehabilitation),” Kremer said. “Everyone looked at me like I had four heads. ‘Yeah, right.'”

Shortly thereafter, Kremer had her AP-type player when Darrelle Revis blew out his knee during week 3. Kremer, who covers health issues for the NFL Network, jumped into action, chronicling Revis’ difficult rehab and off-season saga, which saw him leaving the Jets and signing with Tampa Bay.

The end result is Darrelle Revis: A Football Life (9 p.m. ET, tonight, NFL Network). It is a deep inside look at what happens when a superstar’s career gets turned upside down and how he copes with adversity.

Kremer said it was an extraordinary journey for her and the production team. And it almost didn’t happen.

“Darrelle is a very private person,” Kremer said. “This is not his thing at all. We reached out to (his representatives) and said, ‘We have to do this all out. We have to be there before the surgery, during the surgery, and then right after that.’ They agreed to do it.”

Kremer said the day of the surgery stood out in particular for her.

“Here was this multi-million dollar athlete, an All-Pro,” Kremer said. “Yet in the hospital, he’s just like any other patient. The vulnerability factor stood out to me. You’re seeing him at his most vulnerable.”

Kremer said the production team had around 15 shoots with Revis during nearly a year of following him. She said the toughest was Revis’ first game back, which just happened to be at the Jets. Naturally, he was extremely nervous before the game.

However, Revis’ mother, Diana Askew, might have provided the most memorable clip from that day.

“She has a big personality,” Kremer said. “We were sitting with the family in a box, and she yells, ‘Go Jets.’ When we showed the video to Darrelle, he said, ‘What did she say?'”

Kremer said her biggest takeaway from the documentary was the vulnerability and uncertainty these athletes face when they are suddenly thrust into these situations.

“When it all is said and done, they are human,” Kremer said. “They have to deal with all the different things we do. It’s just under a bigger microscope.”

 

 

 

 

 

Why? CBS moves Anthony to lead analyst for college basketball; Kellogg to studio

Posted on by

Major shakeup for CBS Sports. Greg Anthony is the new lead analyst for college basketball, while Clark Kellogg moves to the studio.

In a CBS release, sports chairman Sean McManus said:

“Greg and Clark are two of the most respected, knowledgeable and passionate voices in college basketball. They are both excellent game and studio analysts. It’s a luxury to have them both on our team. We believe this shuffling of our line-up allows both Greg and Clark to play more to their individual strengths, enhancing our overall coverage.”

I don’t get it. Nothing against Greg Anthony, but why are Clark Kellogg’s strengths better suited for the studio? I thought he did a fine job as the long-time lead analyst.

Obviously, somebody (ultimately McManus) didn’t agree, and now Kellogg will be in a studio instead of at arenas this year. CBS can say what it wants, but it certainly seems to be a demotion in my eyes.

All I can is that it is a weird business. One day, you’re in. The next day, you’re out.

*******

Here’s the official release.

Greg Anthony has been named the lead college basketball game analyst for CBS Sports beginning with the 2013-14 season. The announcement was made today by Sean McManus, Chairman, CBS Sports, and Harold Bryant, Executive Producer and Vice President, Production, CBS Sports.

Anthony, who joined CBS Sports in 2008 as the Network’s lead college basketball studio analyst, in addition to serving as a game analyst, will partner with Jim Nantz to form the CBS Television Network’s lead college basketball announce team. CBS Sports’ 2013-14 college basketball schedule tips off on Saturday, Dec. 7 with UCLA at Missouri.

Clark Kellogg, who has been with CBS Sports full-time since 1997, has been named the Network’s lead college basketball studio analyst. Kellogg returns to the role he held for 16 years. In addition, Kellogg also will serve as an analyst for a full-slate of regular-season games.

“Greg and Clark are two of the most respected, knowledgeable and passionate voices in college basketball,” says McManus. “They are both excellent game and studio analysts. It’s a luxury to have them both on our team. We believe this shuffling of our line-up allows both Greg and Clark to play more to their individual strengths, enhancing our overall coverage.”

 

ESPN: Whitlock’s statements were “not acceptable” regarding Evans

Posted on by

It didn’t take long for Jason Whitlock to become topic A in Bristol.

This morning, ESPN issued a statement, saying his comments towards Sports Illustrated’s Thayer Evans were “not acceptable.”

“We have discussed Jason’s comments with him. They were personal in nature, they do not represent ESPN and they are not acceptable based on the standards we have set.”

Tuesday, Whitlock went on an Oklahoma City radio station and blasted Evans, who along with George Dohrmann is writing a series of stories about improprieties in the Oklahoma State football program.

ESPN has media policies in place about how its employees should address the competition. As in they really aren’t supposed to comment or criticize other media.

However, they are allowed to weigh in if it warrants discussing media coverage of a particular story. Even then, they are asked to follow certain guidelines.

The policy contains this line: “Comments must not be personal, vicious, dismissive…No cheap shots.”

And then there’s this: “No personal attacks or innuendo toward people, media companies, networks or publications.”

Now you be the judge about whether Whitlock crossed the line with comments about Evans to an Oklahoma City radio station.

“Knowing the lack of competence that’s there with Thayer Evans, knowing the level of simplemindedness that’s there with Thayer Evans, to base any part of the story on his reporting is mind-boggling.”

Does that fall under the category of a personal attack, juror 1?

And then there’s this from Whitlock.

“ … Let me end by saying this and I honestly mean this without malice. It wouldn’t shock me if Thayer Evans couldn’t spell cat and I say in all seriousness.”

Ding-ding-ding. Sound the cheap shot bell. I still love how he insisted that line was meant “without malice.”

Finally, Whitlock blasted “the brand of sports writers who love doing these investigative pieces.”

Yep, didn’t exactly go over well with ESPN’s many sports investigative reporters, who are among the best in the business.

I don’t respect the entire brand of investigative journalism that is being done here.

To add the whole dynamic, Whitlock sought a forum for his comments with a tweet inviting Oklahoma radio stations to give him a call for an interview. Not that he meant any malice.

Obviously, Whitlock veered from ESPN’s media policy on many different levels. The network responded to quell any internal fires as much as anything else.

Several of his new teammates talked about a double standard. They speculated what would happen to them if they went on the same rant.

“I’d be fired,” a staffer said.

Since Whitlock might not be current on ESPN’s policies, he likely received a lecture filling him in on what is acceptable at his new place of employment.

It might be a while before Whitlock comments about the competition again. And if he does, it definitely will be without malice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason Whitlock needs to brush up on Pulitzer Prize winner George Dohrmann’s credentials

Posted on by

When Sports Illustrated broke its story on Oklahoma State yesterday, Jason Whitlock went trolling via his Twitter account for Oklahoma radio stations to call him.

Sure enough, the Oklahoma City Sports Animal found him. Whitlock, as only he can, went to great lengths to debunk SI’s package.

His reason? One of the co-authors is Thayer Evans.

Kelly Hines in the Tulsa World had the diatribe, which included this:

“But then in addition to that, having worked with Thayer Evans at Fox Sports, having followed his work for some time, I am completely and utterly flabbergasted that a legitimate news outlet would allow Thayer Evans to be involved in some type of investigative piece on college football that tears down a program, and particularly one that tears down Oklahoma State when it is no secret what a huge, enormous, gigantic Oklahoma homer Thayer Evans is. This is just incredible. Knowing the lack of competence that’s there with Thayer Evans, knowing the level of simplemindedness that’s there with Thayer Evans, to base any part of the story on his reporting is mind-boggling.

And then it gets worse with Whitlock concluding:

“ … Let me end by saying this and I honestly mean this without malice. It wouldn’t shock me if Thayer Evans couldn’t spell cat and I say in all seriousness.”

Oh, I’m sure Evans didn’t see any malice in that statement.

Whitlock also had this statement:

“ … I can’t disparage (other writer George Dohrmann) because I have never worked with him. I have never seen any of his raw copy or anything like that.

Oh yes, George Dohrmann. Take a look at this excerpt from his bio, Jason.

SPORTS ILLUSTRATED senior writer George Dohrmann is the rare sportswriter to have won a Pulitzer Prize. He earned journalism’s top honor in 2000 while at the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The Pulitzer cited his “determined reporting, despite negative reader reaction, that revealed academic fraud in the men’s basketball program at the University of Minnesota.”

Jason, George won a Pulitzer Prize. You know, the same prize that you openly campaigned for last year.

I would say winning a Pulitzer gives Dohrmann fairly solid credentials to tackle this kind of story, especially since that Pulitzer came from his investigation of a college program.

And Jason, Dohrmann wrote the story. The entire package was overseen by SI executive editor Jon Wertheim, who has some impressive credentials in his own right.

In a Q/A with Anthony Slater of NewsOK.com, Dohrmann addressed the reporting that went into the story.

DG: How credible do you think the sources are?

Dohrmann: Very credible, or we wouldn’t write these things. These are players who spoke to us on the record, who we found. They didn’t come to us, they didn’t come and say, ‘Oh, I got a story to tell.’ We had to track them down and go to them and then hear their stories. This wasn’t something where, I think there’s a perception that, a lot of people who talk about their school is bitter because they got kicked off the team or they didn’t start. But you played the game, a lot of guys aren’t bitter at all, sometimes they are just years removed from this experience and you go and see them and they have time on their hands and you show them attention and you’re curious about their experience and they share it with you. Sometimes it’s not a guy sitting their spewing venom about a school he once attended.

Whitlock, though, isn’t impressed with what he calls the “brand of sports writers who love doing these investigative pieces.”

They are not hard to do these days in terms of so-and-so got this money under the table. We’re into this area where unnamed sources can say anything, any of these he-said, she-said stories. I don’t respect the entire brand of investigative journalism that is being done here. It’s not our job to go out and do NCAA policing.

“ … There’s some cute girl on campus who is a hostess who may have slept with one of these players. This has been going on for years and it goes on in the frathouses and the academic corruption they are going to talk about goes on in the frathouses and all across campus. We are singling out these athletes. It’s a good story. It will get you a promotion. It will get you on SportsCenter. It will get you talked about on this radio show and all over Twitter. But it’s bogus. It’s a trick for clicks.

Ah yes, SportsCenter. ESPN has several highly regarded investigative reporters who break stories on college improprieties all the time. Now that Whitlock is back at ESPN, it will be interesting if he has the same assessment when one of his colleagues uncovers dirt on campus. And it becomes the lead story on SportsCenter.

The local radio stations of the school should be sure to give Whitlock a call. He’ll be available for comment.

 

Q/A with Brandel Chamblee: ‘Audience deserves an opinion that’s not obvious’

Posted on by

Brandel Chamblee is in my backyard this week for Golf Channel’s coverage of the BMW Championship at Conway Farms in Lake Forest, Ill.

From my Golf World story on analysts:

Chamblee, 51, has emerged as the Golf Channel’s most important player. After a 15-year career which included one PGA Tour title, he made the transition to the Golf Channel in 2004. He separated himself from the pack, elevating his broadcast game in the process, by voicing blunt opinions backed by an endless stream of facts, virtually all of which he researched himself.

Then Chamblee digs in and dares someone to take him on. He has a strong, almost bulldog mentality when it comes to making a point, all of which makes for good television. Chamblee’s content and presentation are unique for a sport where many analysts tread lightly.

“He probably should have been a trial attorney,” said Golf Channel president Mike McCarley.

Earlier this summer, I had a chance to chat with Chamblee at the Golf Channel’s studios in Orlando.

When I walked into the viewing room, Chamblee’s eyes were intensely locked into his computer. It provided a good snapshot of how he does what he does.

My Q/A.

What are you working on?

Chamblee: I was up until 4:30 last night. I was writing on the oft-repeated argument that it is harder to win on the tour these days and how players are better today than they’ve ever been. It makes me insane when people say that.

It’s just not the case. Statistically, if the scoring averages were more congested, then you could make that argument. Coincidentally, the disparity between scoring averages almost is to the hundredth of a point as it was in 1980. Between first and 30, between 30th and 50th, between 50th and 125th, the disparity of scoring average actually almost is identical.

Where do you get those numbers?

I dig them up. I do the research.

Do you look at golf from more of an analytic approach?

Yeah, I suppose. When we’re analyzing golf, we’re looking at golf swings. Some of it, though, you have to tediously look up the information and try to connect dots. It takes time.

Do you feel naked out there if you’re not prepared? What is it about you and your preparation?

I just think the audience deserves to at least have an opinion on something that’s not obvious. That’s my job. I watch every shot. I chart every shot. I look at trends. I look for evidence to support those trends, to contradict those trends. I’ll find a half-dozen things a day that are very interesting.

How do you view your job as an analyst?

You have to realize you’re not speaking to the golf professionals. There’s 2,000 of them. It’s a small audience. There are 50 million golfers. You’re trying to explain to them why something happened. From a context point of view, you need to understand who did it like that in the past. You need to understand the context with which it happened. You have to know the situation. Maybe a guy is hitting to the right. Well, he’s working on a new move with his hips. What does that cause you to do with your golf swing? Who did it in the past? And how did they overcome that?

You just try to add layer upon layer?

I told Rich Beem when you say why something happened, it’s your opinion of why it happened. You need to support your opinions with as many facts as you can so that the (viewers) know that you’ve done your homework.

You mention Beem, what advice to you have for players making the transition to television?

They have to treat this job just like they treat their golf. When they played golf, they practiced all day. Not only is this a job, it’s a responsibility. It’s a responsibility to not state the obvious. It’s to enlighten the viewer.

You have to do it in a team-oriented way. Golf is a very selfish endeavor. In TV, it’s the team game. I can have an idea to do something. But if (the production people) can’t very quickly find the video to support the idea, I can’t run with it. All those pieces of the puzzle are amazing to me.

As a golfer, isn’t it unusual to be thrown into a world where you depend so heavily on other people?

You have to dive in. You have to work it. You have to come up with a completely different way of saying the same thing. Every single day. Writers do that, and I always had a great respect for writers when I was a golfer. When I went to the media center, here’s 300 people who all have the same information. It’s their job to come up with a different way to write about it.

That’s kind of like TV is. We all have same information, but you have to come up with a different way of presenting that information. You’ve got to do it in a memorable way, an insightful way, and a concise way.

How do you view your critics, especially those among PGA Tour players who take issue with some of the things you say?

I’m a huge fan of watching Rory McIlroy. I have to talk about shots he hits, because he’s on TV all the time. He’s the next closest thing to Tiger in that way. So you have to talk about why he misses a shot; why he doesn’t make as many putts as Tiger Woods does, because people are unfairly comparing him to Tiger. Then you have to talk about why those comparisons are unfair. In the process of doing that, you’re saying he’s not as good as Tiger. I understand if I’m Rory McIlroy, you could be upset. But if you listen to the entire show, you’ll hear us say he is extraordinary in almost every facet of the game.

But I understand that most people only hear criticism. And they hear it via their friends. So they don’t always get the whole story.

Later today: Chamblee on why Tiger Woods should be at 25 majors by now.

 

 

King, Simmons take important stand by not using offensive nickname for Dan Snyder’s team

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University focuses on Peter King and Bill Simmons trying to make a difference.

**********

Peter King writes about 2.5 million words for his weekly MMQB column, so there’s a chance due to eyes glazing over that I missed an earlier mention. However, since the Washington football team didn’t play (Sunday), his only reference was in a prediction for (Monday’s) game.

“Washington 31, Philadelphia 23. Robert Griffin III and Mike Vick set a land-speed record for number of plays (2,349) in a 60-minute game. I don’t trust the Eagles defense.”

Note that King used the nickname for the Philadelphia NFL team, but not for Washington. And he won’t.

Friday afternoon, King declared on his site that he won’t be using “Redskins” anymore.

“I’ve decided to stop using the Washington team nickname. It’s a name you won’t see me use anymore. The simple reason is that for the last two or three years, I’ve been uneasy when I sat down to write about the team and had to use the nickname. In some stories I’ve tried to use it sparingly. But this year, I decided to stop entirely because it offends too many people, and I don’t want to add to the offensiveness. Some people, and some Native American organizations—such as the highly respected American Indian Movement—think the nickname is a slur. Obviously, the team feels it isn’t a slur, and there are several prominent Native American leaders who agree. But I can do my job without using it, and I will.”

King isn’t alone here. Awful Announcing noticed that another high-profile figure, Bill Simmons, referred to the team as the “Washington D.C.’s” in a recent post.

King and Simmons are two heavy hitters. They have a combined 3.3 million followers on Twitter. So when they decide to take a stand, it gets people’s attention.

Indeed, the controversy over the “Redskins” nickname is getting more intense. It should go without saying that it is incredibly derogatory. Various Native American groups have called for it to be eliminated. I believe if a group of people says they are offended by the use of a nickname, it should be changed.

Washington owner Daniel Snyder could make it easy on everyone and change the nickname, as have many college and high school teams have done when it comes to their former Native American labels. Snyder, though, remains steadfast that “Redskins” will stay, adding to his legacy as one of the NFL’s all-time worst owners.

It continues to present a dilemma for news organizations covering the Redskins. The Washington Post never would refer to a Native American congressman “as the redskin representative from Arizona.” Yet it writes about the Redskins daily in its sports section.

ESPN ombudsman Robert Lipsyte addressed the issue in his latest column.

Lipsyte writes:

So what if ESPN refused to use the R-word?

That quixotic thought has been bubbling for a while in ESPN’s 150-person Stats & Information Group, where vice presidents Edmundo Macedo and Noel Nash collected information on the history of the team and opposition toward the name and then distributed it to network news managers. It was the start of a campaign to have ESPN stop using the name. Macedo told me that he thought the chances of actually succeeding were currently slim and none, but that it was worth the effort to get people thinking about it.

“Think about the name,” he wrote to me in an email. “Think about the stereotypical connotations around color. We would not accept anything similar as a team nickname if it were associated with any other ethnicity or any other race.

“Over the years, the more I thought about it, the less comfortable I became using it. I’m not sure other Americans have stopped to hear the voices of Native Americans. I can only imagine how painful it must be to hear or see that word over and over, referenced so casually every day.”

Lipsyte, though, didn’t go as far as to say ESPN should stop using the nickname, even though he clearly leans that way. He brings up a good point that news organizations shouldn’t make news. Consciously not using the nickname falls under that category.

Lipsyte also points to ESPN’s business relationship with the NFL, which has Snyder as one of its owners.

“I have retired the routine use of the phrase “conflict of interest” when it comes to ESPN – it’s simply inadequate to the nuances of the, um, conflicts of interest,” Lipsyte writes.

Lipsyte seems to settle for a compromise offered by ESPN.com editor Patrick Stiegman.

“To simply ignore the nickname in our coverage seems like nothing more than grandstanding,” Stiegman said. “We can use the name of the team, but our best service to fans is to report the hell out of the story, draw attention to the issue and cover all aspects of the controversy.”

Again, it is hard to argue with that line of thinking. Reporters shouldn’t become the story.

Yet in this case, the nickname is so offensive, it warrants people to start taking a stand. It has to begin somewhere.

Last week, Tony Kornheiser, who wrote the word “Redskins” a zillion times during his long career with the Washington Post, noted on Pardon the Interruption that it likely will take the biggest entities to eliminate the offensive nickname.

“I don’t think writers and bloggers and websites can make this happen,” he said, “I do think television networks can make this happen. … To pick two: If ESPN and Fox said ‘We’re not going to use Redskins anymore’ and the NFL tacitly went along with that and didn’t say anything, that would put pressure on CBS and NBC. I think it has to come from the larger institutions.”

I disagree. I think writers and bloggers and websites can effect this change. Especially when the writers and bloggers are as big as King and Simmons.

They carry a ton of influence in this business. Perhaps, it will spark a writer or an editor to think, “You know what? Peter King is right. We’re not going to use Redskins anymore.”

King and Simmons obviously feel enough is enough. Expect others to follow their lead.

Could ESPN really not use the nickname ‘Redskins?’ ‘Imagine how painful it is’ to Native Americans

Posted on by

For a minute, can you imagine if during tonight’s Monday Night Football game, Mike Tirico never referred to Washington as “the Redskins?”

What if he just called the team Washington throughout the telecast? Or the “Washington D.C’s,” as Bill Simmons labeled them last week (Awful Announcing with the link) in an apparent protest of the nickname issue.

And then the “Redskins” boycott carried over to the postgame shows, SportsCenter and then beyond? Starting tonight, the offensive nickname never would be uttered again on ESPN.

Just imagine the impact that would have on possibly getting the nickname changed.

Could ESPN do it?

ESPN ombudsman Robert Lipsyte asks that question in his latest column. He writes:

So what if ESPN refused to use the R-word?

That quixotic thought has been bubbling for a while in ESPN’s 150-person Stats & Information Group, where vice presidents Edmundo Macedo and Noel Nash collected information on the history of the team and opposition toward the name and then distributed it to network news managers. It was the start of a campaign to have ESPN stop using the name. Macedo told me that he thought the chances of actually succeeding were currently slim and none, but that it was worth the effort to get people thinking about it.

“Think about the name,” he wrote to me in an email. “Think about the stereotypical connotations around color. We would not accept anything similar as a team nickname if it were associated with any other ethnicity or any other race.

“Over the years, the more I thought about it, the less comfortable I became using it. I’m not sure other Americans have stopped to hear the voices of Native Americans. I can only imagine how painful it must be to hear or see that word over and over, referenced so casually every day.”

Clearly, Lipsyte, like many people, would prefer to jettison the nickname. However, he doesn’t take the ultimate stand here. Instead, he documents the reasons why ESPN will continue to use “Redskins.”

1) ESPN should be covering the news, not making it. Fair enough. The action Macedo proposed would be newsworthy enough to make ESPN a player in a controversy. We’ve been through this before in ESPN’s coverage of NBA player Jason Collins’ coming out. In one case, on “Outside the Lines,” instead of an in-depth look at the implications of Collins’ action, we got a debate on the varieties of religious experience.

Then there was this telling passage:

3) A gesture as aggressive as attacking a famous, long-standing team is antithetical to the ESPN business model. Snyder is a business associate (his Washington radio station is an ESPN affiliate), and the NFL is an important partner. ESPN is a major media corporation with a parent company (Disney) and shareholders. I am still in the early process of exploring the depths and facets of ESPN, but one thing is clear — it is an entertainment company trying to maintain a vigorous journalistic presence. This is no simple matter. This so-called “bifurcation” — business side and journalism side — requires respect and mindfulness.

“I’m from the D.C. area and a fan all my life,” says Rob King, senior vice president of content for ESPN print and digital media, “and I’ve thought about the Generals and the Statesmen as names, even George Washington replacing the Indian on the logo.

“At ESPN, the only thing that really matters is serving fans. NFL fans think of the Washington, D.C.-area franchise as the Redskins. So that informs how we’ll serve them across news, commentary, scores and fantasy coverage. We will use the term Redskins so long as fans expect this to be the nomenclature that drives their rooting experience.

“So hail to ’em.”

The most sensible ongoing strategy I’ve heard is from Patrick Stiegman, vice president and editor-in-chief of ESPN.com, who said: “To simply ignore the nickname in our coverage seems like nothing more than grandstanding. We can use the name of the team, but our best service to fans is to report the hell out of the story, draw attention to the issue and cover all aspects of the controversy.”

Indeed, it seems unlikely that ESPN is going to be a leader here and initiate a boycott. While it is noble to report the controversy, Tony Kornheiser, who wrote the word “Redskins” a zillion times during his long career at the Washington Post, had the most telling observation on Pardon the Interruption:

“I don’t think writers and bloggers and websites can make this happen,” he said, “I do think television networks can make this happen. … To pick two: If ESPN and Fox said ‘We’re not going to use Redskins anymore’ and the NFL tacitly went along with that and didn’t say anything, that would put pressure on CBS and NBC. I think it has to come from the larger institutions.”

Don’t hold your breath, Tony.

 

 

 

Star rookie: Randy Moss has chance to be big as an analyst for Fox

Posted on by

As Jon Gruden would say, “I like this Randy Moss.”

Or as Jimmy Johnson did say, “Whenever he’s on, he’s tough to turn off.”

While he might not be able to match the football equivalent of scoring 17 touchdowns in his NFL debut for Minnesota in 1998, Moss looks to be the early favorite for rookie of the year on the NFL analyst front. He currently is working for Fox Sports 1 on Fox Football Daily and Fox Football Kickoff.

However, don’t be surprised if Moss eventually finds himself at the big boys table on Fox NFL Sunday, sooner than later. He has some Charles Barkley in him. The combination of being candid and unpredictable will carry him a long way on TV.

On a Fox conference call Wednesday, Moss questioned his old teammates, Colin Kaepernick and Vernon Davis’ ability to mesh on the field.

“From my time there last year, it didn’t seem Kaepernick and Vernon Davis had a rapport. They haven’t shown that yet,” Moss said.

That prompted this response from Davis: “His job is to critique our offense and say whatever he feels is right. But my opinion is totally different from what he’s saying. We’re on a different level, for sure.”

Stirring it up is what analysts are supposed to do. It is why Fox Sports executive producer John Entz called Moss, “a game changer.”

“He was someone we hadn’t thought of until late in the audition process,” Entz said. “It wasn’t something he was actively looking to do. He came in and liked it better than he realized. We immediately thought of (him) as a game changer.”

During the call, I asked Moss how he liked his new job.

“It’s definitely eye-opening to be in this environment as opposed to a locker room,” Moss said. “I’m a work in progress. (The other analysts) were once rookies too. Each and every day, I  learn something.”

Later, Moss was asked to describe his style.

“I haven’t had time to really think about a style,” Moss said. “You can hear in my voice I’m excited to have something different in my life. I don’t know about too many things, but I do know about football.”

Just as it did for him as a player, football also can take Moss a long way as an analyst.

 

 

 

My Chicago Tribune column: Analysts mixed about Bears in 2013; Aikman ‘skeptical’ about Cutler

Posted on by

In my latest Chicago Tribune column, I talked to the various NFL analysts about the Bears’ prospects in 2013. The consensus: They like Marc Trestman, but aren’t sure about Jay Cutler.

You also can access the column via my Twitter feed.

From the column:

********

The national appeal of the Bears always ranks high with the networks. CBS is making the most of its two Bears games this season, and it will send its No. 1 crew of Jim Nantz and Phil Simms to Soldier Field for Sunday’s season opener against the Bengals.

However, the network’s various NFL analysts are mixed on the Bears’ outlook for 2013, with a few of them decidedly down.

CBS’ Boomer Esiason says the Bears will be “a second-rung team in the NFC.”

NBC’s Rodney Harrison, a Chicago-area native, was blunt about his hometown team.

“I would almost have to say at this point I wouldn’t fear the Bears,” Harrison said. “Just too much inconsistent play at the quarterback position.”

Indeed, the analysts all contend Jay Cutler will be the focal point. As he goes, so go the Bears.

Esiason called Cutler “one of the most frustrating players in the NFL.” He even wrestled with whether he’s a top-15 quarterback.

Bill Cowher, the former Steelers coach, contends the time has come for Cutler to dramatically step up his game.

“When the head coach or the quarterback goes into the last year of his contract, it’s a storyline,” Cowher said. “It was last year with Joe Flacco. We know how that unfolded. We have all seen Jay Cutler at times and his mannerisms, and you just wonder if they don’t get off to a good start how much that will play into it. This is very much a career-defining year for him. How he handles the questions and his performance week-in and week-out will be something to watch.”

Fox Sports’ Troy Aikman says he’s “skeptical” about Cutler despite a change in coaches. The Hall of Fame quarterback rattled off the list of offensive coordinators who have come and gone during Cutler’s years with the Bears.

“Every year, you wonder, ‘Is this guy going to be the guy?’ ” Aikman said. “Until I see it, I’m going to be skeptical. Jay has not played well in big games, especially against the Packers. That has to change if they are going to contend.”

******

Even though the Packers remain the favorites in the NFC North, NBC’s Cris Collinsworth thinks the Lions can be a dangerous team.

“When you start with that kind of front seven and especially that front four (on defense), you can control a lot of games,” Collinsworth said. “I think Reggie Bush adds an element to that team. If you can take a little pressure off of Calvin Johnson, it’s just a team with the chance.”

Fox Sports’ Jimmy Johnson still thinks it’s the Packers and everyone else in the North.

“None of those three teams will challenge Green Bay if they stay healthy,” Johnson said.

 

 

CBS’ McManus on glut of NFL on TV: ‘I don’t think we’ve hit saturation level yet’

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center site at Indiana University is on the endless feast that the networks will be serving NFL fans this season.

********

When Fox Sports swooped in with the NFL in 1994, it dared to be revolutionary by launching a 60-minute pregame show. Previously, the versions aired by CBS and NBC were 30 minutes.

An hour? Such lunacy. Who would want to watch a pregame show almost as long as the first half of a game?

The answer: Everyone.

Less than 20 years later, an hour of an NFL pregame show almost counts as clearing your throat. This year, the various networks are pushing the notion of too much football on Sundays and beyond to the extreme.

Besides the regular Sunday pregame coverage on Fox Sports, CBS, NBC,  ESPN and the NFL Network, there’s two new major offerings this year: “That Other Pregame Show,” a four-hour extravaganza on CBS Sports Network and “Fox NFL Kickoff” on the new Fox Sports 1 network.

This is all in addition to the myriad of shows that provide constant talk about all-things-NFL during the week. And that’s not including the NFL’s 24/7 own network. There’s so much out there, Richard Deitsch of MMBQ needed 3,500 words for his preview of NFL studio shows.

Is there any chance of breaking the saturation point? Or does the concept of infinite not apply to TV and the NFL?

“It’s a logical question when you ask when is too much enough?” said CBS Sports Chairman Sean McManus. “The answer is, I don’t think we’ve reached the saturation level yet.”

ESPN’s Mike Tirico tried to put it in perspective.

“I would assume at this point if we added up all the hours of pregame programming with so many people doing daily shows, it might equal the hours of actual football played during the week in the NFL,” Tirico said.

Actually, there’s probably more. There’s a simple reason for this endless smorgasbord of NFL: The audience is there.

NBC’s Sunday Night Football was the highest-rated prime-time show on TV last year; ESPN’s “Monday Night Football” does the highest ratings on cable; and nothing comes close to the Super Bowl. It’s the football version of “Field of Dreams.” Show the NFL and they will watch.

“I don’t see people complaining that there’s too much NFL product on now,” said NBC Sunday Night producer Fred Gaudelli. “At some point, ratings will get involved and how much you can sell things for will be the determining factor. But with five 24-hour sports networks, I mean how can you not have room for an NFL show or two or three? So I think at some point, we hit the threshold. Where that is I have no idea.”

McManus is counting on viewers finding CBS Sports Network’s new pregame show. Initially, the network was thinking three hours.

“Our feeling was that if you could start at 10 (a.m. Eastern), you also could start it at 9 (a.m.),” McManus said.

Sure, what’s another hour or four? McManus said the network got the idea to do a regular-season show after airing special coverage on CBS Sports Network during last year’s Super Bowl.

“The Other Pregame Show,” which can be conveniently shortened to “TOPS,” will be hosted by Adam Schien and feature Amy Trask, the former Oakland Raiders CEO who will become the first woman NFL analyst on a pregame show. After talking to Trask a couple of times, she has a chance to become a breakout star in her new TV gig.

“The lesson we learned from the Super Bowl is that if you’re creative enough and have some good panelists, you can put on some compelling programming,” McManus said.

Then again, you probably could stick a football with an NFL logo on the screen and it still would do a decent rating. Tirico has his theory on the insatiable demand beyond the fantasy football and betting elements.

“I think football fits the lifestyle of the fan because if you have five or six hours a week to devote to it, which is the equivalent of two Major League Baseball games, those six hours can have you as a pseudo‑expert on your team,” Tirico said. “You watch them play for three hours, watch a couple hours of pregame, listen to some talk during the week, get online and read whatever you need to get your fantasy team ready.  So when people want to access the information, it’s available to them and in a variety of methods of delivery, with personalities and approaches on all those pregame shows. ”

It all starts Thursday with an appetizer of Baltimore-Denver to launch the season on NBC. Then the complete feast gets rolled out on Sunday morning for Week 1.

Dive in America. The networks can’t wait to serve you football, live and in HD.