Some Media Stuff

[PackerDNA]

Had a chance to check out a lot of the NFL coverage on ESPN and such this week. Almost wall to wall Seahawks coverage. The Packers? A 3 minute locker room interview with ARod, and 2 brief mentions of injury to Lacy and Adams. No mention of Sunday night. I imagine had Seattle won, it would be wall to wall Seahawks coverage.

Pete Prisco has another interesting article at www.cbssports.com . It's titled "Those Packers pass plays from SNF? May be as illegal as they are clever." Give it a look.

 

[Mondio]

ESPN is the men's equivalent of the The View. I haven't watched willingly in a decade and don't miss it. In fact I'm annoyed by it when I happen to be somewhere and someone has it on. If I only follow the actual football game on Monday nights, I can take in a Packer game when they are on, and that's technically ABC here, so I still don't have to turn on ESPN

So, in short, I don't care who or what they cover because it's mostly pointless

 

[Mondio]

oh, and I read the article, i think it's crap. First off, those types of plays are not new, they aren't unique to GB and what's the motive for tagging the Packer's to it in the headline? Second, the first "still framed picture" looks to me like the Seattle defender is much more active in engaging the WR than vice versa. I wonder what the video looks like? I'm guessing it didn't look like offensive pass interference which is why a flag wasn't called. in the 2nd still picture, you can't even tell if they are engaged in a block since the picture is directly from behind.

3rd, If they're 5 yards away from the ball and clearly not making a play on the ball, I don't care.

 

[Sky King]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed.”

― Mark Twain

 

[Deleted member 6794]

oh, and I read the article, i think it's crap. First off, those types of plays are not new, they aren't unique to GB and what's the motive for tagging the Packer's to it in the headline? Second, the first "still framed picture" looks to me like the Seattle defender is much more active in engaging the WR than vice versa. I wonder what the video looks like? I'm guessing it didn't look like offensive pass interference which is why a flag wasn't called. in the 2nd still picture, you can't even tell if they are engaged in a block since the picture is directly from behind.

3rd, If they're 5 yards away from the ball and clearly not making a play on the ball, I don't care.

I took a look at the videos of the plays mentioned by Prisco and while it was pretty close it appears to me that the blocks by Adams and Montgomery on those occassions were legal.

 

[PackerDNA]

In fairness, he does mention it's going on around the league.
The pick play and it's variations have been making a comeback in a lot of games.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Had a chance to check out a lot of the NFL coverage on ESPN and such this week. Almost wall to wall Seahawks coverage. The Packers? A 3 minute locker room interview with ARod, and 2 brief mentions of injury to Lacy and Adams. No mention of Sunday night. I imagine had Seattle won, it would be wall to wall Seahawks coverage.

Pete Prisco has another interesting article at www.cbssports.com . It's titled "Those Packers pass plays from SNF? May be as illegal as they are clever." Give it a look.

It's all over the league, not just the Packers.

We might as well throw in the WR pick epidemic, something the Packers got called for against Seattle only because it was blatant and clumsy, which seems to be the bar for throwing the flag on these plays.

Here's another: offensive linemen are not permitted more than 2 yards past the line of scrimmage at the time the ball is thrown. That rule is broken all of the time as O-Linemen get out to the second level before screen passes are thrown.

Every year the league identifies certain common infractions that are not being called often enough, they advise the teams that more rigorous enforcement is forthcoming, and then they start throwing flags. This season, there is heightened focus on the "tight end uncovered" and offensive linemen "hands to the face" infractions, and more flags are flying.

I would hope the various downfield blocking and picking infractions move to the top of the crackdown list one of these years.

 

[Fazeman]

ESPN is the men's equivalent of the The View. I haven't watched willingly in a decade and don't miss it. In fact I'm annoyed by it when I happen to be somewhere and someone has it on. If I only follow the actual football game on Monday nights, I can take in a Packer game when they are on, and that's technically ABC here, so I still don't have to turn on ESPN

So, in short, I don't care who or what they cover because it's mostly pointless

I totally agree. Media news and reviews are a disaster. The NFL Network highlights crew on the Packers/Seahawks game is a prime example. While one guy is reviewing the game, the other two guys are mumbling a bunch of gibberish throughout the highlights.
http://www.packers.com/media-center...Packers-/0450f99f-253d-4ad8-8c7f-5844dea16e55

And why do we need to look at five men who are providing nothing more than useless opinions on Fox NFL Sunday? I could go on and on but to the heck with it.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

As far as the Seahawks getting more media attention than the Pack, who cares? Last time I checked GB is 2-0 with a jump on a division opponent, and an even more meaningful jump on conference foe Seattle. That may be irrelevant if the Hags can't get it together. Arizona is likely more of a threat anyway, so look for the NFCCG to be AZ v GB. The Hags may not make the post season. Boo hoo.

 

[Ogsponge]

Just look at the responses in this thread and you should know why ESPN does not give the Pack much coverage. There is no money/viewers in it.

 

[adambr2]

ESPN expert picks to win SB50 -

Seahawks 6, Ravens 3, Eagles 7, Colts 6, Cowboys 2, Patriots 2, Steelers 1, Packers 20. This was prior to the regular season and after the Nelson injury. I'm not sure about the media coverage compared to other teams, but we're not overlooked or disrespected by the 'experts.' Not by a long shot.

 

[Mondio]

I'm sure GB is getting plenty of love by experts. I don't know why it's so important to have that validation. I think we have a good team, i think we have some weaknesses, but we're pretty good. I think we can win it all and some talking head on tv isn't going to sway my opinion by what they say or don't say. And ESPN has been about creating drama and controversy for years, more so than letting the games create the drama and then report on them. I'm sure if they find some angle to create drama about the Packers, they'll take it and run. My hope is they don't do a single story on GB all year.

 

[Sky King]

How to enjoy game day: DO NOT watch any of the talking heads pregame, halftime, post-game. Keep volume low on TV and listen to McCarren and Larivee on the radio or during the broadcast stream. Keep favorite snacks and beverages within arm's reach. Don't answer the phone or doorbell. Send all non-Packer fans out to play or to go shopping (for more of your favorite snacks and drinks). Have fun.

 

[Fazeman]

I always looked forward to ESPN's old NFL Primetime hosted by Chris Berman and Tom Jackson. Probably the best Sunday night recap ever produced.

 

[red4tribe]

I'm going to take a bit of a different view on this. I would argue that, on average, the Packers receive more attention than the vast majority of teams. Having one of the largest fan bases in the country, nearly twenty-five years of continued success, along with a future hall of fame quarterback, will do that to you. Seattle is getting a ton of attention right now because they're 0-2, and aren't supposed to be. We aren't getting as much because we're 2-0, and are supposed to be. We got plenty of media attention/scrutiny last year after our really slow start.

 

[weeds]

While one guy is reviewing the game, the other two guys are mumbling a bunch of gibberish throughout the highlights.
http://www.packers.com/media-center...Packers-/0450f99f-253d-4ad8-8c7f-5844dea16e55

Hilarious .... Your characterization of the gibberish in the background had me laughing as I watched the highlights... had I listened to this clip before reading your post, I wouldn't have noticed the gibberish -- that is how desensitized I have become to the talking heads ... including but not limited to that freepin' Collinsworth, Troy and Joe, Mike and Chuckie ... and all the rest ... they've just become background noise.

 

[weeds]

How to enjoy game day: DO NOT watch any of the talking heads pregame, halftime, post-game. Keep volume low on TV and listen to McCarren and Larivee on the radio or during the broadcast stream. Keep favorite snacks and beverages within arm's reach. Don't answer the phone or doorbell. Send all non-Packer fans out to play or to go shopping (for more of your favorite snacks and drinks). Have fun.

I'm with you but my problem is that I always seem to slow down to gawk at the wreck, you know? I bought a new surround sound because my old one took a crap...this new one was supposed to be able to sync the picture to broadcasts crippled by the "delay" ... turns out it only does that in terms of "milliseconds"...not seconds. If that had worked the way I understood it, Wayne and Larry would be on full time accompanying my picture.

 

[Sky King]

I'm with you but my problem is that I always seem to slow down to gawk at the wreck, you know? I bought a new surround sound because my old one took a crap...this new one was supposed to be able to sync the picture to broadcasts crippled by the "delay" ... turns out it only does that in terms of "milliseconds"...not seconds. If that had worked the way I understood it, Wayne and Larry would be on full time accompanying my picture.

I had trouble with the various feed delays, too. In my case trying to sync to the Sunday Ticket broadcast and it's longer delay when compared to the regular network feed. Depending upon the radio source --which is Internet for me-- it is delayed a few seconds, too. At best, I could only get them to play sort of close time-wise, preferring the radio feed to be slightly ahead of the video. Still, that less-than-perfect result beats the typical network broadcast team due to the audio content.

Larry M. gives better details about what it going on than many of the network guys. Those guys are not guilty of bias so much as they are of simply talking far more than is necessary just to fill-in gaps. Yet, they are not always very informative about details. And what they say often indicates they don't really have as much in-depth a knowledge of either team's roster. Quantity trumps quality.