OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 01:56 AM
I sure wish he'd SHUT UP!
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 02:07 AM
How is this OT? You presumably have to listen to him through my Axioms... isn't there a Sims filter or something? 
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 02:50 AM
OK
Phil Sims sounds like an idiot on my Axioms.
Does anyone know where I can pick up a Phil Sims filter before next season? Price doesnt matter.
Phil Sims sounds like an idiot on my Axioms.
Does anyone know where I can pick up a Phil Sims filter before next season? Price doesnt matter.
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 02:54 AM
Er... well I guess you don't listen to them through my Axioms... unless...
(looks behind sofa)
(cue horror soundtrack)
AAAAAAAH!!!
(looks behind sofa)
(cue horror soundtrack)
AAAAAAAH!!!
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 03:19 AM
Phil Simms threw the football very well.
i was taught not to say anything if it was nasty.
Phil Simms threw the football very well.
i was taught not to say anything if it was nasty.
Phil Simms threw the football very well.
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 02:04 PM
i am not a big fan of phil's either. let me throw a few others on the list..
joe thiesmann
tony siragusa
michael irvin
and the worst ever, thank gosh he quit commenting football, deion sanders.
with the super bowl on fox, i think we will get joe buck, chris collinsworth, and troy aikman. thats a good crew.
bigjohn
joe thiesmann
tony siragusa
michael irvin
and the worst ever, thank gosh he quit commenting football, deion sanders.
with the super bowl on fox, i think we will get joe buck, chris collinsworth, and troy aikman. thats a good crew.
bigjohn
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 02:10 PM
It is funny, we had a football thread happening a while back - started by BigJohn...if memory serves.
Anyway, it discussed announcing crews, with each expressing their likes and dislikes. I stumbled across this article on CNNSI recently - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/dr_z/01/12/drz.announcers/index.html
Anyway, it discussed announcing crews, with each expressing their likes and dislikes. I stumbled across this article on CNNSI recently - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/dr_z/01/12/drz.announcers/index.html
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 02:33 PM
clickable link.
BTW- we can never talk enough football.. especially since its fixing to go away for the next 7 months..
oh- and i forgot dan dierdorf.. now, he is horrible...
bigjohn
BTW- we can never talk enough football.. especially since its fixing to go away for the next 7 months..
oh- and i forgot dan dierdorf.. now, he is horrible...
bigjohn
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 03:54 PM
Thanks Mike. I didn't completely agree with his rankings, but he's definitely on the right track.
I don't know when it happened, but somewhere along the line, the networks and announcers crossed over into thinking THEY were part of the entertainment. They lost site of the fact that the GAME is why we're watching,and their function is to keep us informed about the GAME.
And where did they get the idea that announcers blathering ad nauseum would keep us from tuning out of a boring game. Now let's see. The score is 47 to 3 in a game between two teams I don't really give a rat's posterior about, and I'm about to switch over to curling, or field hockey, or anything that is competitive and won't put me to sleep. But wait! The announcers are being clever, and their witty banter is just riveting me to the screen. They've stopped talking about the game, and are regaling me with great tales of what happened to them on the flight in, or stories of great players of the past. They're SO entertaining, that I just can't leave. CLICK!
They ALL talk too much, and too much about things other than the game itself. I find myself yelling at the screen "I DIDN'T TUNE IN TO LISTEN TO YOU. TELL ME ABOUT THE GAME." Many years ago, as an experiment, one of the networks did a game with no announcers at all. They just ran a crawl at the bottom of the screen with score, down and distance, and other pertinent information. I must've been the only person in the country who absolutely ADORED it, because they never tried it again.
I don't know when it happened, but somewhere along the line, the networks and announcers crossed over into thinking THEY were part of the entertainment. They lost site of the fact that the GAME is why we're watching,and their function is to keep us informed about the GAME.
And where did they get the idea that announcers blathering ad nauseum would keep us from tuning out of a boring game. Now let's see. The score is 47 to 3 in a game between two teams I don't really give a rat's posterior about, and I'm about to switch over to curling, or field hockey, or anything that is competitive and won't put me to sleep. But wait! The announcers are being clever, and their witty banter is just riveting me to the screen. They've stopped talking about the game, and are regaling me with great tales of what happened to them on the flight in, or stories of great players of the past. They're SO entertaining, that I just can't leave. CLICK!
They ALL talk too much, and too much about things other than the game itself. I find myself yelling at the screen "I DIDN'T TUNE IN TO LISTEN TO YOU. TELL ME ABOUT THE GAME." Many years ago, as an experiment, one of the networks did a game with no announcers at all. They just ran a crawl at the bottom of the screen with score, down and distance, and other pertinent information. I must've been the only person in the country who absolutely ADORED it, because they never tried it again.
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 05:25 PM
In reply to:I must've been the only person in the country who absolutely ADORED it, because they never tried it again.
That was YOU?
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 05:47 PM
actually CBC did the same thing a couple of years back in the NHL Playoffs. The french language announcers went on strike and they broadcasted the majority of the games with no announcers! It seemed like they cranked up the ambient noise mikes in the building to compensate. If you closed your eyes it sound like you were there. Very entertaining.
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 05:50 PM
I must say that I have heard most of them do both good and bad jobs on games. I can't say one is ALWAYS better than another. Being technically minded, I like those that can break the games down technically, and still hold the attention of people who are not hardcore football fans.
I remember a behinds the scene look at producing a sportscast. The one horror they are faced - the blowout. MNF said they live in terror of blowouts because they lose a great precentage of the viewers. I can only imagine doing one of those games!!!!
I remember a behinds the scene look at producing a sportscast. The one horror they are faced - the blowout. MNF said they live in terror of blowouts because they lose a great precentage of the viewers. I can only imagine doing one of those games!!!!
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/24/05 10:21 PM
I actually like listening to Phil Simms. I'll agree with Theismann, though. He makes me cringe. I watch the games mainly because I can't find anything else to watch. I'm somewhat of a Packer fan, but the whole experience has soured for me. The I'm better than you because the team I support banter has me doing other things like watching movies and listening to music. I don't have time for the hate.
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/25/05 02:12 AM
When I hear the trio of Theismann, Maguire and Partrick, the mute button is automatic. As if the other two weren't bad enough, Mike Patrick is just PAINFUL to listen to. It takes him soooo looonnnnggg to chew the words out of his mouth and his inflection/delivery indicates that he thinks everything he says is a revelation. These three should have their mouths duct-taped and then be put behind the counter in the snack stand to cook french fries.
Re: OT: Phil Sims - 01/25/05 06:54 AM