Hplarrm Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 For the most part I do not think very much of Phil Simms analyst work (in fact I do not think much of any analysts work and wish that the net works would give another try of the effort mounted in the mid 70s when they did an announcerless game relying on ambient sound. The announcerless game had some serious drawbacks (explanation of weird calls and amount of gametime left- however, with the advent of a continous clock/score on screen and the first down line, it would be a different world today. As much as I love Steve Tasker and am pleased West Herr is keeping his family fed, it would be nice to see a game which was produced with the graphic showings designed to compensate for no announcer and to have an analyst insert themselves once a quarter to explain odd ref calls). At any rate, though Simms is often an idiot, it's great to see someone utter a caveat to the lemmings hard after Luck as their next savior. It's true he might be the next Peyton Manning and the multiple SBs he has led Indy too and one (oops make that one). I admit I have not studies Luck enough to have a real opinion on whether he has not shown he can make the pro throw consistenly as Simms maintains (I assume he means long throws across the field rather than downfield or throws on the move under tight pressure and a collapsing pocket or with so fast a release the pocket rarely collapses on him). However, one of the most annoying set of posts on this board for the last year plus for me have been those which hoped the 2011 Bills were 0-16 so they could get Luck. The 5-2 record may not result in a playoff for us (but at least our destiny is in the Bills hands) but it is a stark statement of how stupid the Suck for Luck folks were. Even if Simms is wrong and he is the next Peyton Manning in skills, we are seeing this year what the frail human body constantly dodging NFL LBs who run like DBs in DE bodies can do to a player. Relying on only one player in today's NFL simply does not work to win the big one.
Buftex Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 For the most part I do not think very much of Phil Simms analyst work (in fact I do not think much of any analysts work and wish that the net works would give another try of the effort mounted in the mid 70s when they did an announcerless game relying on ambient sound. The announcerless game had some serious drawbacks (explanation of weird calls and amount of gametime left- however, with the advent of a continous clock/score on screen and the first down line, it would be a different world today. As much as I love Steve Tasker and am pleased West Herr is keeping his family fed, it would be nice to see a game which was produced with the graphic showings designed to compensate for no announcer and to have an analyst insert themselves once a quarter to explain odd ref calls). At any rate, though Simms is often an idiot, it's great to see someone utter a caveat to the lemmings hard after Luck as their next savior. It's true he might be the next Peyton Manning and the multiple SBs he has led Indy too and one (oops make that one). I admit I have not studies Luck enough to have a real opinion on whether he has not shown he can make the pro throw consistenly as Simms maintains (I assume he means long throws across the field rather than downfield or throws on the move under tight pressure and a collapsing pocket or with so fast a release the pocket rarely collapses on him). However, one of the most annoying set of posts on this board for the last year plus for me have been those which hoped the 2011 Bills were 0-16 so they could get Luck. The 5-2 record may not result in a playoff for us (but at least our destiny is in the Bills hands) but it is a stark statement of how stupid the Suck for Luck folks were. Even if Simms is wrong and he is the next Peyton Manning in skills, we are seeing this year what the frail human body constantly dodging NFL LBs who run like DBs in DE bodies can do to a player. Relying on only one player in today's NFL simply does not work to win the big one. They did one game like this...it did not poll favorably. I gurantee, as much as people whine about the announcers, if they really went without announcers, ratings would plummet.
K-9 Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 For the most part I do not think very much of Phil Simms analyst work (in fact I do not think much of any analysts work and wish that the net works would give another try of the effort mounted in the mid 70s when they did an announcerless game relying on ambient sound. ... While modern TV sets no longer have those vertical and horizontal control knobs, I'm pretty sure they still have volume controls. Heck, I think you can mute the sound altogether these days. GO BILLS!!!
Metal Man Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 They did one game like this...it did not poll favorably. I gurantee, as much as people whine about the announcers, if they really went without announcers, ratings would plummet. I always thought it would be a good idea to offer alternative broadcasting kind of like you can get a Spanish broadcast using SAP. It would be great to be able to choose from the network's broadcast team, the home or away local broadcast team, or nobody at all. One big upside would probably be once the networks realized everyone hated Joe Buck and never listened to him he would lose his job.
billsfreak Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 While modern TV sets no longer have those vertical and horizontal control knobs, I'm pretty sure they still have volume controls. Heck, I think you can mute the sound altogether these days. GO BILLS!!! I know all of my televisions have that little button thingy on the remote control jobberdoo.
jimmy10 Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 It's true he might be the next Peyton Manning and the multiple SBs he has led Indy too and one (oops make that one). Even Peyton Manning wasn't supposed to be the next Peyton Manning. Ryan Leaf was widely regarded as an equally good, if not better prospect. And what's he amounted to? MVP of his anger management class? Bottom line, you never quite know.
Ozymandius Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Suck for Luck is actually smarter than what the Bills are doing. If Miami gets Luck and the Bills miss the playoffs, the Dolphins win. (They actually win regardless if they can get Luck but at least we'd have something to be happy about, too). If the Dolphins barely miss out on Luck, that'd be a hilarious failure, though. Time will tell. Luck will win a Super Bowl before the Bills do, but there was no point in rooting for Luck past the Game 1 demolition of the Chiefs.
Buftex Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 I always thought it would be a good idea to offer alternative broadcasting kind of like you can get a Spanish broadcast using SAP. It would be great to be able to choose from the network's broadcast team, the home or away local broadcast team, or nobody at all. One big upside would probably be once the networks realized everyone hated Joe Buck and never listened to him he would lose his job. You can find plenty of bad things to say about pretty much every announcer, they will annoy somebody (I don't like the ESPN MNF guys, or Joe Buck), but they do serve a purpose. As great a spectator sport that football is, you miss so much of a game if you simply watch it on tv. Guys like Phil Simmms, if nothing else, are able to point things out that you wouldn't notice on a straight up football broadcast. They have to talk for 3+ hours, they are bound to say stupid things, but sometimes they offer insight. Some are better at it than others.
Rico Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 They did one game like this...it did not poll favorably. I gurantee, as much as people whine about the announcers, if they really went without announcers, ratings would plummet. Most times if I'm home watching & the Bills aren't playing, I will crank tunes in the background instead.
Orton's Arm Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 For the most part I do not think very much of Phil Simms analyst work (in fact I do not think much of any analysts work and wish that the net works would give another try of the effort mounted in the mid 70s when they did an announcerless game relying on ambient sound. The announcerless game had some serious drawbacks (explanation of weird calls and amount of gametime left- however, with the advent of a continous clock/score on screen and the first down line, it would be a different world today. As much as I love Steve Tasker and am pleased West Herr is keeping his family fed, it would be nice to see a game which was produced with the graphic showings designed to compensate for no announcer and to have an analyst insert themselves once a quarter to explain odd ref calls). At any rate, though Simms is often an idiot, it's great to see someone utter a caveat to the lemmings hard after Luck as their next savior. It's true he might be the next Peyton Manning and the multiple SBs he has led Indy too and one (oops make that one). I admit I have not studies Luck enough to have a real opinion on whether he has not shown he can make the pro throw consistenly as Simms maintains (I assume he means long throws across the field rather than downfield or throws on the move under tight pressure and a collapsing pocket or with so fast a release the pocket rarely collapses on him). However, one of the most annoying set of posts on this board for the last year plus for me have been those which hoped the 2011 Bills were 0-16 so they could get Luck. The 5-2 record may not result in a playoff for us (but at least our destiny is in the Bills hands) but it is a stark statement of how stupid the Suck for Luck folks were. Even if Simms is wrong and he is the next Peyton Manning in skills, we are seeing this year what the frail human body constantly dodging NFL LBs who run like DBs in DE bodies can do to a player. Relying on only one player in today's NFL simply does not work to win the big one. It's funny that you brought up Peyton Manning. I see him as the exact illustration of the difference a good quarterback can make. With Manning, the Colts got into the playoffs almost every year. They would often advance in the playoffs before being eliminated by the Patriots or some other first-rate team. The Colts even won the Super Bowl with Manning at quarterback. Without Manning, the Colts do not seem capable of winning, period. One guy made the difference between last year's Colts and this year's Colts. Manning was drafted in '98. Even if he never plays another down of football in the NFL, he will have had a very long and illustrious career. If, in exchange for a season of ineptitude, you can add a guy like that to your football team, you'd be a fool not to do it! (Especially if you need a quarterback.) Andrew Luck may or may not be the next Peyton Manning. But if I'm the GM of a rebuilding team in need of a quarterback, I'd try to figure out how to go -1 and 17, just to be sure I could draft him!
dancing_joker Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) So did Phil Simms actually say something negative about Luck? Or did he just say don't immediately annoint him the next Peyton Manning? Edited November 3, 2011 by dancing_joker
Charles Romes Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 They did one game like this...it did not poll favorably. I gurantee, as much as people whine about the announcers, if they really went without announcers, ratings would plummet. That game was a reaction to a single out of this world bombastic announcer who became loved after he was gone
plenzmd1 Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 I always thought it would be a good idea to offer alternative broadcasting kind of like you can get a Spanish broadcast using SAP. It would be great to be able to choose from the network's broadcast team, the home or away local broadcast team, or nobody at all. One big upside would probably be once the networks realized everyone hated Joe Buck and never listened to him he would lose his job. You know..that is a great idea!! I am a tech midget, but if they can carry one alternative audio track, why not two or three? Maybe the frequency or something could not handle it? Plus, the radio and TV would have to be in perfect sync, but seems like the guy with the orange gloves already has that covered. Sirius can do it for the hockey games..albeit differnt channels..
buffaloboyinATL Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Suck for Luck is actually smarter than what the Bills are doing. If Miami gets Luck and the Bills miss the playoffs, the Dolphins win. (They actually win regardless if they can get Luck but at least we'd have something to be happy about, too). If the Dolphins barely miss out on Luck, that'd be a hilarious failure, though. Time will tell. Luck will win a Super Bowl before the Bills do, but there was no point in rooting for Luck past the Game 1 demolition of the Chiefs. Playing to lose is smarter than playing to win? I'm not buying that. Luck or not, I am much hep pier to be where we are now than where the Dolphins are.
Heels20X6 Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Suck for Luck is actually smarter than what the Bills are doing. If Miami gets Luck and the Bills miss the playoffs, the Dolphins win. (They actually win regardless if they can get Luck but at least we'd have something to be happy about, too). If the Dolphins barely miss out on Luck, that'd be a hilarious failure, though. Time will tell. Luck will win a Super Bowl before the Bills do, but there was no point in rooting for Luck past the Game 1 demolition of the Chiefs. Amazing that you can tell the future of Luck's career without him having thrown one NFL pass yet...
buffaloboyinATL Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Amazing that you can tell the future of Luck's career without him having thrown one NFL pass yet... No kidding. I seem to remember another great QB who played his whole career with the Fins named Dan Marino. How many Superbowls did he win again? Even if the Fins get Luck it doesn't mean they become an instant SB contender.
John from Riverside Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 I think Andrew Luck is gonna be a star in this league....having said that you can have a star QB and still lose......and god forbid the big "I" comes along and ruins your QB. This whole "suck for Luck" thing is just stupid.....what is interesting is the team that gets the number 1 pick might be the colts and they might not even take him.
Buftex Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Most times if I'm home watching & the Bills aren't playing, I will crank tunes in the background instead. Yeah, I do that often too...but, I would bet, if people start watching a game on tv, with no announcers, and have no horse in the race, they would likely start flipping stations (particualarly nowadays) the second they got bored.
ieatcrayonz Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Phil Simms played against daddy, and knows what sonny will bring to the table.
The Senator Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) . . However, one of the most annoying set of posts on this board for the last year plus for me have been those which hoped the 2011 Bills were 0-16 so they could get Luck. The 5-2 record may not result in a playoff for us (but at least our destiny is in the Bills hands) but it is a stark statement of how stupid the Suck for Luck folks were. . . . You find the folks that wanted to go 0-16 this season more annoying and more stupid than the Suck for Luck folks that wanted to lose all our games last season - and argued the point endlessly - so we could draft Luck last April, even though he never intended to enter the 2011 draft? Resolve yourself to this one incontrovertible certainty - fans may jump on the bandwagon when the Bills are winning and jump off when they lose, but we are fortunate that the fans have no say in directing the team either on or off the field. Fans have the freedom to opine such ridiculous thoughts - thankfully, we have a coach and a GM that believe that winning is the goal every time you take the field... GO BILLSSS!!!! "I expect to win every game." - Chan Gailey 17 and 2 baby!!!!! Edited November 3, 2011 by The Senator
Recommended Posts