The number one British single today in 1966:
The number one single today in 1968:
The number one single today in 1975:
No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 20
-
-
The headline refers to the old saw that the first step to get out of a hole is to stop digging.
Rich Galen sees Barack Obama not following that advice in the upcoming State of the (Dis)Union speech that I once again will not watch:
Not content with overseeing the largest — in terms of both numbers and scope — seat losses by any President in American history during his term, Barack Obama has set his sights on causing potential nominees for his office to have to run against his schemes in 2016. …
The same geniuses at the White House who concocted the politics and policies that allowed Republicans to gain the largest majority in the House in three generations and to take control of the U.S. Senate by winning a net nine seats in the last election have decided that they can utilize the “bully pulpit” of the Presidency to keep the GOP back on its heels in spite of its large majorities. …
President Obama and his staff have determined that he and he alone must be the voice of those [voting] non-participants. They didn’t stay away because of Conservative plots to keep minorities from voting. They stayed away because neither party — and that includes Obama’s Democrats — gave them a reason to spend maybe one hour of the 8,760 hours available to them over the course of a year to vote.
Remember that Obama said during the run up to the elections that even if his name wasn’t on the ballot, his “policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.”
He also helped out Democrats struggling for re-election by saying, according to reporting in The Hill newspaper:
“lawmakers avoiding him on the campaign trail were ‘strong allies’ who have ‘supported my agenda in Congress.’”
And we know how that all worked out.
The White House brain trust believes that approach was so successful that they are now “paying it forward” by having the President announce his version of tax reform is, as reported in Bloomberg.com …
“proposing new taxes on the wealthiest Americans that would limit their profits from investments and make it harder for them to pass assets to heirs.”
Bloomberg points out that his plan would raise the tax rate on capital gains — income from investing in things like new companies — “to 28 percent from 23.8 percent.”
Ok, a 4.7 percentage point increase might not sound so bad, even though it is a 17.6percent increase. But, Bloomberg reminds us that it is even worse:“The rate was 15 percent when Obama took office in 2009, meaning that he’s proposing to almost double it over his two terms in office.”
The percentage or percent increase in this tax or that is not that important because, as we might have mentioned before, the House and Senate are firmly in the hands of Republicans and the few remaining Democrats have learned the hard lessons of just how wet become those who have walked the political plank on behalf of Obama policies.
It would be amusing for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) to bring Obama’s tax plan to the floor and force Senate Democrats running for re-election in 2016 to spend the next 22-or-so months defending a vote to increase taxes on investors and on death taxes.
House Speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio) should do the same thing in the House if only to get House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–California) on the record defending forcing her caucus to support it.
Moreover, it will make Hillary Clinton and other non-announced candidates for the Democratic nomination for President to have to run against Obama and his tax plan, or support it and risk a 2014-style revolt by the voters.
Barack Obama is determined to force the Democratic Party to become the American version of the Socialist parties in Europe who believe it is better to wreck the economy for everyone equally than to have some people become — and remain — successful.
-
One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’
Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.
Whatever your life’s work is, do it well. A man should do his job so well that the living, the dead, and the unborn could do it no better.
Man is man because he is free to operate within the framework of his destiny. He is free to deliberate, to make decisions, and to choose between alternatives. He is distinguished from animals by his freedom to do evil or to do good and to walk the high road of beauty or tread the low road of ugly degeneracy.
Success, recognition, and conformity are the bywords of the modern world where everyone seems to crave the anesthetizing security of being identified with the majority.
“No work is insignificant. All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.”
-
The number one single today in 1959:
The number one British single today in 1967:
Today in 1971, selections from the Beatles’ White Album were played in the courtroom at the Sharon Tate murder trial to answer the question of whether any songs could have inspired Charles Manson and his “family” to commit murder.
Manson was sentenced to death, but his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment when the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty.
-
First, some music for the day:
Chris Lempesis has a somewhat obvious recipe for getting to Super Bowl XLIX today:
The Seattle Seahawks have lost once since late October. They’ve won seven games in a row and their defense has allowed 56 points – or eight points per game, if you want to make it sound even scarier – in that span.
They have maybe the best home-field advantage in the game. It’s certainly the loudest.
They are the defending world champions and they seem completely and totally focused on winning it all again this year, further cementing their status as a potential dynasty.
Still, the Seahawks are not perfect. They have, in fact, lost some games this year. They’ve even struggled at times in victories.
For this article, seven Seattle games were studied. Those games were its four losses (to San Diego, Dallas, St. Louis and Kansas City), plus close wins over Carolina and San Francisco and a close-for-three-quarters rematch against Carolina in the divisional round last weekend.
In studying those games, some definite statistical trends emerged. To varying degrees, these things could and should give Packers fans hope that Green Bay can pull off the upset.
Perhaps the biggest thing the Packers must do is stay committed on the ground, even if it’s not always working.
In the seven games studied, only once did a team not have at least 30 rushing attempts against Seattle. That would be St. Louis, who defeated the Seahawks on October 19. The Rams still ran it 27 times, though, so they came fairly close.
Interestingly enough, even though all of those teams made a concerted effort to pound the rock, not all of them had big days on the ground.
The Rams averaged just 3.8 yards per carry, for example, finishing with 102 yards rushing. The Chargers, who beat Seattle on September 14, only had 101 yards on 37 carries (2.7 yards per attempt).
In their first meeting with Seattle, on October 26, the Panthers averaged just 3.7 yards per attempt, running it 31 times for 114 yards.
The point is, you have to keep trying with the run game. You may not rack up big yardage, but by sticking with it, it at least gives you a chance to wear down that defense, even slightly.
The Packers didn’t really do this in their week one loss at Seattle, only running the ball 21 times. In their three other losses this season, they didn’t, either, never topping more than 24 carries in any of those games (the 24 carries came against Buffalo).
In their best three wins of the season – New England, Detroit and last week against Dallas – they did, running the ball at least 29 times in each of those games.
So keep an eye on 30 – it could be a big number Sunday.
Another big number to watch is two, as in sacks allowed.
Five of the seven teams that gave the Seahawks trouble surrendered two sacks or less in those games.
Green Bay’s offensive line has been perhaps the best in the game since its bye week, so the Packers have the unit to pull this off.
Aaron Rodgers has only been sacked five times in the team’s last four games, so that’s a very good sign. With Rodgers still nursing an injured calf, the o-line will have to turn in another sterling showing Sunday.
Staying committed to the running game and keeping your quarterback upright tends to have a nice side effect, too: You find yourself in more manageable third downs. When you are in those spots against a ferocious defense like Seattle’s, you pretty much have to convert at a sizeable clip.
In the seven games studied, five of those teams converted on at least 40 percent of their third-down attempts. Only Carolina, who went 2-of-10 on third downs in the first meeting between the teams, really struggled in that department.
Green Bay did well here in week one, hitting on 6-of-12 third downs, and in the end, it didn’t mean much. For the Packers to have any chance, they will have to duplicate that type of showing Sunday. Good news on that front – Green Bay is 17-of-27 (63 percent) on third down over its last two games.
If all of these things work in Green Bay’s favor, it will have a very good chance at winning the time of possession battle.
Again, five of the seven teams who gave Seattle trouble this year won that category. That helps not only the offense, but it can be a massive boost for Green Bay’s defense, as well.
The Seahawks are not known for their offense, but it can be as explosive as any offense in the league at times, so it’s best to keep that group on the sidelines for as long as you can.
It also limits Seattle’s opportunities to wear Green Bay’s defense down with its bruising ground game. Seattle held the edge in time of possession, 33:20-26:40, in the week one matchup. That probably can’t happen again if Green Bay wants to win.
Another thing that can’t happen is failing to convert in the red zone.
Seattle’s first game with Carolina is an excellent example. The Panthers lost, 13-9, and a huge reason for that was their 0-for-3 showing in the red zone. Convert even once there and Carolina likely wins. In the other six games studied, the opposition went 15-for-20 in the red zone (75 percent).
It’s hard to even reach the red zone against Seattle, especially lately, so when Green Bay gets there Sunday, it’s fair to say it will have to cash in on at least 75 percent of its chances, if not more.
The Packers have been close to that number in their last two games, going 5-of-7 in the red zone (71.4 percent). Field goals just don’t get it done against these guys.
Winning the turnover battle and getting to the quarterback are always important, especially this time of year, but in an interesting twist, that may not be absolutely crucial for Green Bay in terms of winning.
Teams gave Seattle trouble this season and didn’t necessarily do well in either of those categories. In only four of the seven games did the opponent either win or tie the turnover battle and only twice did those teams have more than two sacks.
That’s not to say Green Bay shouldn’t put massive effort into winning these categories, because of course it should. But there could be at least a small amount of wiggle room here.
When you add all this up, you get a fairly clear picture of what Green Bay will have to do to win Sunday.
The Packers don’t need to rely on gimmicks or tricks or anything crazy, really. They just have to play smart, patient football and consistently cash in on opportunities when they arise.
That last paragraph seems like master-of-the-obvious stuff, but teams usually do win big games by doing the obvious stuff, particularly when playing a stout defense like the Seahawks.
Fans pessimistic about today might be placing too much import on the season-opening loss to Seattle, because, Cheesehead TV notes, the Packers playing today aren’t the same team that opened the season for these reasons:
1. Clay Matthews at Inside Linebacker
It’s no secret the success the Packers have had on defense since the post-bye role expansion of Matthews to include inside linebacker, particularly their run defense.
At the season’s midpoint, it ranked dead last in the NFL—32nd—allowing more than 150 yards per game on the ground. But by the end of the regular season, the run defense climed up to 23rd in the NFL, giving up 119.9 yards per game.
Matthews and the rest of the Packers run defense will have to be at its best as they face the league’s No. 1 rushing offense with the Seahawks rumbling for an average of more than 170 yards per game.
It’s very possible Matthews will also be used as a spy on Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson, the NFL’s 16th leading rusher, gaining 849 yards on the year.
2. Sam Barrington’s Role Expands While A.J. Hawk’s and Brad Jones’ Contracts
The starters at inside linebacker Week 1 for the Packers were Hawk and Jones, both of whom have received demotions since that time.
Although they still play small roles on the Packers defense, Hawk has been relegated primarily to the base 3-4 defense while Jones plays almost exclusively in the team’s dime look.
Back during Week 1, Hawk and Jones received the lowest grades on the Packers defense from ProFootballFocus.com, both players guilty of poor run fits, missed tackles and inadequate pass coverage. Jones, in particular, was also flagged for two penalties.
Barrington, meanwhile, has stepped up as the Packers’ inside linebacker in the Packers’ nickel defensive package, playing an average of 46 snaps per game from Week 13 onward.
Even though Barrington has been prone to miscues too, they’ve been far less glaring than Hawk and Jones. And the physical presence Barrington brings to the Packers defense has made a noticeable impact.
3. Julius Peppers Kept Fresh
In Weeks 1 through 15, Peppers played no fewer than 50 snaps per game on both defense and special teams.
The cumulative effect of such high snap counts appeared to have taken a toll as Peppers failed to record a single sack during a five-game stretch ending Week 15.
In the Packers’ last three games, including playoffs, Peppers has played 32, 35 and 37 snaps, keeping him fresher and more effective. In those three games Peppers has eight tackles, three sacks, three forced fumbles and two deflected passes.
The Packers have found a formula that works for the 34-year-old Peppers, one that figures to continue on Sunday as the hybrid linebacker/defensive end looks for the first Super Bowl championship of his 13-year career.
4. Ha Ha Clinton-Dix Goes Full-Time at Safety, Micah Hyde at Slot
Although the first round draft pick of the Packers has played in every game this season, Clinton-Dix didn’t make his first start until Week 7 when he became a full-time player on defense.
Clinton-Dix took over for Hyde at the free safety position, which has benefitted both players. Clinton-Dix has been the better safety while Hyde has settled into his comfort zone as a slot cornerback.
Following the bye week, Hyde took over the nickel cornerback responsbilities, pushing Casey Hayward into dime duty.
Since the bye week, Hyde has grabbed both of his interceptions, broke up six of his seven passes and wrapped up his only sack.
5. More Man-to-Man Coverage by the Cornerbacks
Yet another bye-week adjustment, the Packers have started to committ safety Morgan Burnett to the box more frequently, aiding in stopping the run.
At the same time, they’ve also increased their rate of blitzes under defensive coordinator Dom Capers as outlined by Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
His five-man pressure numbers on pass plays went from 36.2% in Games 1-8 to 39.3% in Games 9-16, and his all-out pressure (more than five rushers) rate almost doubled from 5.7% to 9.2%.
More responsibility has fallen on the shoulders of the Packers cornerbacks to play more man-to-man coverage with Clinton-Dix acting as the deep safety, providing Cover 1 responsbilities over the top.
As a result, the Packers have given up fewer explosive, big plays in the passing game and have only allowed three wide receivers to gain over 100 yards this season. …
7. Offensive Line Finds Continuity
Back during Week 1, Bryan Bulaga went down with a knee injury 20 snaps into the game and was replaced by Derek Sherrod in the lineup.
The Packers’ new right tackle proceeded to allow a fourth-down sack, turning the ball over on downs and then gave up a strip-sack, recovering the ball in the end zone for a safety.
Green Bay had to endure one more game without Bulaga in Week 2, but he’s been back in the lineup ever since as the Packers have had the same starting five on the offensive line for 15 straight games.
Continuity on the offensive line has been evident. They’ve allowed 30 sacks on the season, their fewest since 2007. And they’ve also opened up holes for Eddie Lacy, allowing him to gain 100-plus yards from scrimmage in each of the last 10 games, the longest streak in team history.
8. Third, Fourth, Fifth Receiving Options Emerge
The Packers aren’t worried about Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb, but the concern all season has been for other options to emerge when opponents take away the Packers’ top receiving threats.
Back during Week 1, not a single wide receivers outside of Nelson or Cobb caught a pass. Since that time, rookie Davante Adams has taken hold of the No. 3 wide receiver job and hasn’t let go.
Adams has been up and down, going through an especially rough patch during the month of December, but he stepped up big time in the Packers divisional round playoff win over the Dallas Cowboys when quarterback Aaron Rodgers identified a mismatch and targeted him 11 times, catching seven for 117 yards and a touchdown.
The Packers have also struck a comfortable balance with Andrew Quarless and Richard Rodgers at the tight end position with both players catching touchdown passes in the win over the Cowboys.
9. Lesson Learned from Avoiding Richard Sherman
Not unlike the scrapping of the “Quad” on defense, the Packers learned a valuable lesson on the offensive side of the football in Week 1, knowing they can’t be one dimensional and throw the football to only one side of the field.
“We’re a no-huddle offense, and my thought was—and I told Jordy (Nelson) in the game plan—just line him up on the left side,” explained McCarthy on Monday. “We thought Richard would come over there and guard him on the left side. That didn’t happen.”
Aaron Rodgers threw just one pass to the right side of the field beyond the line of scrimmage for a gain of just two yards. The Packers plan to adjust accordingly.
“It just depends on who’s open,” said Rodgers. “It’s always important to throw it to the right and throw it to the left a little bit.”
10. Rookies Become Battle-Tested
Outside of center Corey Linsley, who did an admirable job making his first career regular-season start in Week 1, the other rookies on the Packers roster weren’t ready for primetime.
As described above, Ha Ha Clinton-Dix hadn’t yet become a full-time starter. Davante Adams played just nine snaps on offense in the season opener. Richard Rodgers played 20.
Each of these first-year players have gone on to play key roles for the Packers this season, and they’re light years ahead of where they were back in September.
Even the role players, such as defensive lineman Mike Pennel and linebacker Jayrone Elliott, weren’t trusted to even be on the 46-man active roster back during Week 1. Now they’re week-in, week-out contributors.
I’m pretty sure the Packers won’t win today, which will bring on the Dead of Winter in Wisconsin. (Winter starts Thanksgiving weekend and runs until the end of Packer season; the Dead of Winter runs until Easter.) I hope I’m wrong about the Packers today.
-
The number one single today in 1960 was written by a one-hit wonder and sung by a different one-hit wonder:
The number 45 45 today in 1964 was this group’s first, but not last:
Today in 1974, members of Free, Mott the Hoople and King Crimson formed Bad Company:
-
The number one album today in 1976 was Earth Wind & Fire’s “Gratitude” …
The number one British album today in 1999 was Fatboy Slim’s “You’ve Come a Long Way Baby”:
-
Horsepower Kings asks:
Can you imagine a Mustang GT with no V8? Can you imagine Ford announcing a 2018 Mustang GT, ‘powered by Ecoboost V6?’ We can’t either, and frankly, it makes us sick to even think about. That is why the following information is disturbing on so many levels.
We spent the better part of the day on the ground floor at the COBO Center attending the NAIAS. We are back here at the MGM Grand in Detroit, and what we took away from today was all the buzz surrounding the freshly-debuted Ford GT and 2017 F-150 Raptor. Unsurprisingly, much of that buzz is in regards to the lack of a V8 in these two high profile Ford vehicles.
The lack of a V8 is concerning, especially when discussing such a high profile halo car as the new Ford GT. After all, the entire history of this car revolves around it’s V8 powerplant. Some would argue that it’s the heart and soul of the Ford GT/GT40 legacy, and we would agree.
Regardless, when Ford finally debuted the next-gen Ford GT, powered by a 3.5L Ecoboost V6, our hearts started palpitating. You see, it’s not just the fact that this Ford supercar is powered by a V6 – what is most alarming is that Ford is showing us a very clear picture of the future of their Performance Division. …
Troubled by these horrible thoughts, we were able to have a quick chat with one of the many Ford reps here at the show. You see, if you attend enough Auto Shows, you start to build professional and personal relationships with the same manufacturer representatives over the years. And while our source certainly isn’t the end-all of Ford’s future plans, the information he provided us apparently echoes the larger opinion and direction of the executives at Ford. Our source has also been pretty reliable over the years, specifically in regards to Mustangs. If you aren’t sitting down right now, please take a seat – this news might be hard to take:
“Ford is definitely phasing out the V8 motor altogether”, he said – word for word. “CAFE and EPA are working very hard discreetly to make sure of that. There is quite a bit going on at Ford that the public is in the dark about. The impression that I am getting is that Ford wants to continue it’s V8 program, but things have (rather recently) taken a new direction, presumably from CAFE/EPA pressure in mid to late 2013. Ford has invested quite a bit of money into the ‘Coyote’ program over the years, and even had plans of going DI (Direct Injection). The future development budget for the 5.2L FPC motor has dwindled, and there is talk that this motor may continue it’s life exclusively in the form of sanctioned racing series, not on the street. The next big thing for Ford at this point is weight savings. They are trying to lighten these Mustangs to get high performance numbers out of the EcoBoost, and whether we like it or not, that is the (near) future. It’s not Ford’s fault, and you can thank the Gov’t for this – not the consumer”.
Our source later went on to explain that “The rebranding/reshuffling of the Ford Performance Division is all a result of this added EPA pressure. Ford wasn’t going to fund a performance program unless it’s primary focus was on the smaller EcoBoost motors, so SVT and Ford Racing were dissolved into this new Performance Division. And unfortunately, it would be foolish to expect to see any new V8 cars coming out of this new Performance Division. Ford Performance is going to be cranking out some very fast cars for some time, but even if the new Shelby GT500 gets the green light, it will likely be the last gasoline V8 that Ford will ever produce.”
A performance Mustang without a V-8? Actually, I can visualize that …
… though to call the V-6-powered 1974 Mustang II Mach 1 a “performance Mustang” is a huge stretch. For that matter, the 1975 Mustang, which did get a 302 V-8, could hardly be called a “performance Mustang” either given that it was equipped only with an automatic transmission to harness its 140 horsepower (the engine had a two-barrel carburetor and single exhaust). Buyers of the same-size Chevrolet Monza had one of two V-8s depending on where they were purchased. California buyers and those in high-altitude areas (because of different emissions requirements) got a 350 V-8 with all of 125 horsepower, while those outside those areas got a 262 V-8 with all of 110 horsepower.
This is similar to the slow death of the manual transmission, as well as the supposed next-generation Corvette. Those of us who prefer sticks, as well as those of us who prefer V-8s to smaller engines, are derided as opposing progress. (Conservatives should favor sticks, because (1) it’s something not everyone can do and (2) they are reminiscent of William F. Buckley’s statement about National Review magazine as standing “athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”) They fail to realize that V-8s and manuals are about the driving experience as much as performance. No engine sounds like a V-8 (except a V-twin motorcycle engine), and nothing ever will. Whether an automated manual can shift faster than a human is not the point, and except for professional racers has never been the point.
-
The sentiment is probably not unique to Packer fans, but Packer fans are convinced Fox announcers Joe Buck and Troy Aikman hate the Packers.
The reason probably has to do with (1) Aikman’s having been the Cowboys’ quarterback, who engineered all the Packers losses to the Cowboys in the 1990s, and (2) some people’s belief that saying anything negative about your team means they hate your team.
Buck and Aikman will be announcing Sunday’s NFC championship, as they have done all of the Packers’ playoff games since Aaron Rodgers first got the Packers into the playoffs. (Including all four 2010–11 playoff games and the final two must-win home games before those.)
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel interviewed Buck and Aikman before last weekend’s NFC playoff game:
Let’s get this on the record right up front: Joe Buck loves Green Bay.
Fox’s top play-by-play football announcer enjoys coming to Wisconsin, even when the weather is less than hospitable. He respects Packers coach Mike McCarthy. He admires quarterback Aaron Rodgers.
His father, the legendary Jack Buck, was in the broadcast booth at Lambeau Field on that wretchedly, wickedly cold day 47 years ago when the Packers beat the Dallas Cowboys in the 1967 NFL Championship Game.
“I was indoctrinated in the Ice Bowl and the Packers at a very young age,” Buck said in a telephone interview.
So why do a lot of Packers fans think he has an anti-Green Bay bias?
“It cracks me up,” Buck said. “It’s equal parts funny and frustrating. It’s just baffling to me. I’ve said that McCarthy is the coach I would start a franchise with, and (Rodgers) is the quarterback I would start a franchise with.”
Buck and his partner, analyst Troy Aikman, will call the NFC divisional game between the Packers and Cowboys at 12:05 p.m. Sunday at Lambeau Field.
Aikman, the former Cowboys quarterback, beat the Packers regularly in the 1990s and won three Super Bowls. So maybe there’s some guilt by association?
“I think that’s part of it,” Buck said. “He had success against them. But Aikman feels the same way. Troy loves Aaron.”
Aikman said he took the criticism from Packers fans in stride.
“It’s just the nature of the business,” he said. “It’s not isolated to me or Joe or one crew. There was a petition for Phil Simms not to do Denver games. It’s part of the job. Joe probably said it best: Fans say, ‘We want you to be unbiased,’ but they really don’t. They want you to be biased toward their team.”
Buck gets it, too. He understands that the venom heaped on him in social media by a segment of fans comes with the territory. There’s even a “Joe Buck Sucks” Facebook page.
He isn’t a “homer,” an announcer who is paid by the team and therefore refrains from being critical. But he can’t recall anything he’s said that would make fans think he roots against the Packers or revels in their misfortune.
“I honest to God can’t think of anything critical we ever said except for maybe (kicker) Mason Crosby when he was struggling in 2012,” Buck said. “I think we’re in a different era and some of that stuff gets fanned by social media.
“I mentioned it to McCarthy the last time we were there and he was like, ‘What?’ It is what it is and it’s nothing anybody has lost sleep over.”
Buck said that when he visits Green Bay, people he meets in hotels and restaurants are unfailingly polite.
“When you walk around town,” he said, “people could not be nicer.”
But when he sits in the open-air broadcast booth at Lambeau, fans throw peanuts at him and Aikman and yell things that aren’t fit for print.
“What are you even listening to?” Buck said. “Did you hear my Week 17 call last year, when (Randall) Cobb caught the touchdown pass (that beat the Chicago Bears)? I almost pulled a groin on that call. That was raw emotion coming out.”
Sports Illustrated’s Richard Deitsch interviewed Aikman:
How much do you currently enjoy broadcasting?
I’ll tell you a story: We did the Giants–Patriots Super Bowl in Arizona in 2008. It was a great finish, an unbelievable game. The Patriots trying to go for the undefeated season, the Giants upsetting them. I was staying at a different hotel from the rest of the Fox people and when the game ended I went back to the hotel. I was married at the time and my wife said, “Are we going to go to the [Fox] party?” I said, “No, let’s just go downstairs and grab some dinner.”
I was a little down, to be honest, a little depressed. So we are sitting there having dinner, relaxing, and [ESPN’s] Ron Jaworski comes over. He was eating at the other side of the restaurant. So he says, “Hey, man, what a great game! How about that catch from [David] Tyree!” He’s all excited. I was like, “Yeah, it was good.” He is going on and on and then finally says, “What’s wrong?” I said, “Nothing is wrong.” He said, “Why aren’t you excited? You just called this great game.” I said, “Ron, I didn’t do anything. I’ve played in that game. I won that game. I know what that feels like. All I did was talk about it. I didn’t do anything.” And he walked away and when he did, he gave me this quizzical look. It was like, “What is wrong with this guy?”
So he walks away and I said to my wife: “You know, this may be the greatest game that I ever call. I may have just called the biggest game that I will ever have the opportunity to call in this profession and I could not be more depressed right now.” It shook me up a bit. I thought, “Man, where does the joy come from broadcasting when you have already been the one out there doing it.”
But I will tell you since that time I have not experienced that low again. We did the Super Bowl last year in New York and I could not have felt a greater accomplishment in this business. I don’t know why I am all of sudden getting real satisfaction out of this job, but I am and that has really helped me. The preparation is extensive and I put a lot of time into it, but I enjoy it. As a former player I have a real appreciation for a guy like Aaron Rodgers and how much time he puts into his craft and how good he is doing it. I enjoy the relationships I have with coaches and players. I enjoy the process of getting ready each week. I enjoy my crew. I like the weekends and being at the site of the games, and we get to do great games.
I am so fortunate to have had a career like I had playing — I lived my dream playing in the league — and now to do a job where I get to be around the sport is beyond imagination. The only negative for me is I have my girls [he has two daughters, 12 and 13] and I am gone for six months out of the year. I miss a lot of their activities. I do get to see a lot of them during the week that a lot of dads don’t get to see and then I have six months where I am always there. But being gone on the weekends and missing some important moments in their life is really the only negative.
How did this professional fog lift? And how long did it exist?
You know, I don’t really have a great answer. I never felt it again. Of course it was three years until we did our next Super Bowl, which was the game in Dallas. But I didn’t feel that way after future playoff games. I have not experienced that feeling again and I’m not sure exactly why. I don’t want to say everything was fine the next season, but when we did our next really big game, I didn’t experience it. So because of that, I really have been able to enjoy the profession.
“At the time this was happening, I’ll admit I was thinking everyone wants to take pride in what they do and feel satisfaction and I was thinking, Do I need to go into coaching or something else to experience the highs and lows of winning and losing? That for me is real. You love the winning when you were playing but you just miss having so much invested and then not knowing completely whether we got it done or did not get it done. That’s how I felt in 2008 but I have not felt that way since.
You’ve been a broadcaster since 2001. At what point does a sports broadcaster reach his or her apex and why?
Good question. I feel that last year midseason is when the craft kind of clicked for me. I feel like I have been at my best since midseason last year. The one thing about being an athlete, say you are struggling with throwing a comeback route, well, then you go out and practice it. You throw it 100 times a day and you get better at it, and you see those improvements pretty rapidly. In this business, you don’t get the practice reps. You can’t work on it as much as you like to work on it. Your practice time is live. I find you have to do a lot of evaluating on your own. I’m asking myself, Why is this good? Why does this work? And not everyone agrees with that. We are in a business that does not give a lot of feedback and you just try to be a critic of yourself. Or you ask other people why something is good for them and try to incorporate it into what you are about but still remain authentic.
People who work in regular jobs get quarterly reviews or end of the year evaluations. How does you get your work reviewed?
Fox began a few years ago using an anonymous person to evaluate each broadcast. We also get a report each week — things they liked, things they did not like, things they felt I could have added. Or this was a great anecdote, things like that. It is helpful. But the frustrating thing for this business, and I think everyone experiences it, I use the analogy that when I played, I would be watching a Monday Night game and if Joe Montana threw three interceptions, you would say, “OK, he had a tough day but he is still a helluva quarterback.” In this business, it just seems like really more opinion than anything else. One is only as good as what people think. There is no real measuring stick as there is in athletics. That part of it is frustrating for all us who played competitively and then have gotten into television. But I receive critiques from my bosses each week and the weekly reports.
So how do you view the Dez Bryant play now that a couple of days have passed?
When it happened I did not think for a minute it was not a catch. When it happened, I’m thinking it is an unbelievable catch. Then when we went to break, [Fox rules analyst] Mike Pereira said he thought the call was going to be overruled. I said, “Really? It looks to me like if anything is changed to the call it will be ruled a touchdown.” They ruled it the way Mike saw it. I’m not going to argue with Mike. After the game you hear from all sorts of people about the call and 99 percent of my friends who texted me are just fans and most don’t know the rules. But I did hear from some coaches and that got my attention. And they felt it was a poor call.
The question becomes about the whole football act and that’s why it ultimately was not a catch. If you said Dez made a football move, then it would have been down by contact. Since it was through the process of the catch when the ball was bobbled, then it was incomplete. I trust Mike Pereira and I trust the New York office had the ability to communicate with [referee Gene] Steratore. But I think in general there are way too many discrepancies in our rule book. I have felt for years they should blow the whole thing up and start over and make it simpler. What is a football act? There are just all kind of different exceptions and not just on catches but the rules in general.
Something that’s interesting to me is that I believe Pereira frees up you and Joe not to have to get in-depth about rules decisions. I see that as a positive because broadcasters can get in trouble with rules-based stuff in any sport. But you might view it differently. Does Mike free you up, or do you still feel you have to get an evaluation in?
I don’t feel he necessarily think he frees me up. I think he is great to have and I think everyone has seen the benefit of Fox having Mike Pereira on our network because now everyone has gone with someone like that. And it makes sense. It is great for the viewer. The rulebook is extensive. The league sends a video out every week to the broadcasters on all the various plays that happened the previous week and here is why it was ruled that way. You go back and forth on why things are being called the way they are being called. Mike and I have disagreed on calls. Go back to the NFC Championship Game [Jan. 2010] between the Vikings and Saints. Mike said a hit on Brett Favre should have been roughing the quarterback. I disagreed. I think when you have a call that helps determine the outcome of a game and you are able to go to the guy who was once the head of officiating, it is a great luxury for us to have. But that does not take away from what my job is. So I don’t know that it frees me up. I just think it is a great luxury for us at Fox. …
Do negative comments ever impact your broadcast?
It doesn’t impact me. It really doesn’t. I think it is because I was a quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys for 12 years. I have been in the middle of the storm. I have thrown game-losing interceptions and had to deal with that for a week. Whatever is said, such as people saying I am hating on some team, it has no relevance to me.
As an athlete, you were trying to reach the top of your profession both individually and with the Cowboys. How important is it for you to be considered the top NFL analyst on television?
Well, that is what you strive for, that is what I work toward. But I don’t know that you ultimately ever achieve it.
Because it’s subjective?
Right. It’s like saying who is the greatest quarterback of all time? That’s what great about sports. It is a great debate. No one has ever ultimately achieved that unanimously. So if a fair percentage of people regarded me as the best at what I do, that would be a great complement to me and that is what I strive for.
Joe Buck is a strange case. He’s not a polarizing broadcaster with his content yet he draws emotion on both sides, especially from viewers who dislike his work. People always have a definitive opinion of him and, obviously, there are some fan bases that just don’t like him. Have you ever been able to figure out why a guy who is not provocative or a shock jock draws such strong opinions about him?
Yeah, that is a very good question and I don’t know that I have a good answer for you. I have worked with Joe for 13 years and the guy is phenomenal. He is so good at what he does. He simply does not make mistakes and with all that is going on, he just handles everything so effortlessly. I think Joe’s style is that he wants to come across as very casual, but the amount of time that he puts in for preparation is off the charts. He is a play-by-play guy who is not interested in just blending in. He has opinions and he is going to give them and people are going to take notice of him during a broadcast, And that is great. Beyond that, people just like something or they do not. To me, I think it speaks to how great he is, that people immediately have a reaction to Joe Buck. But as far as people viewing him unfavorable because of something he might have said or challenging this particularly fan base, nothing could be further from the truth. He is a great guy, cordial to everyone he comes across. I don’t quite get it and I don’t know if he is impacted by any of it. But there is no one I would rather be working alongside. …
Is there one game that you consider your best sports broadcasting performance?
There is usually two or three broadcasts a year that I come out feeling really, really good about. The game was great, we were really good, it was lively, and we had great conversation. Not that everyone agrees with that [laughs] but that’s how we [Buck and Aikman] assess it or how I assess what I did. But I will say I have never come out of a broadcast and didn’t look back and think I wish I had said something a little differently or pointed something else out. And I was like that as a player. I tend to think I will never have the perfect broadcast but when I am done I do think I will look back at one or two and say this was about as good as it got for me.
Part of this probably has to do with Aikman’s getting the biggest games, as part of Fox’s number one team with Buck. (Who gets complaints as well; Buck is Fox’s number one NFL and baseball play-by-play guy.) Their CBS counterparts, Jim Nantz and Phil Simms (who get complaints of their own — Nantz for being too vanilla, Simms for saying nonsensical things), apparently are setting a sports broadcasting record by announcing their 30th game of the season, the AFC championship, on Sunday.
Whether that’s overexposure depends on whether you like the announcer. Buck is following the path (maybe not by choice) of Curt Gowdy, who was NBC’s number one announcer for football, baseball and most other sports (including the 1972 Winter Olympics) in the 1970s, and Al Michaels, who did the same for ABC in the 1980s.
It’s not easy to be the number one announcers. (Though one of the networks really should give me the opportunity …) In addition to the pervasive commentary about and criticism of the commentators, there is the fact that they have to sort of dumb down their commentary the farther in the playoffs they go, because the last two rounds of the playoffs are viewed by an increasing percentage of casual fans who may watch the playoffs and not much of the regular season. That’s probably why Paul Zimmerman of Sports Illustrated often would rank announcers lower on the network pecking order higher in his announcer ratings, because Dr. Z was a football guy and wanted to hear about such inner details as line play. There will be many viewers of Super Bowl XLIX (carried by NBC in two weeks) who could not care less about the difference between an offensive guard and an offensive tackle, or a safety (the defensive player) vs. a safety (the offense’s ending up in its own end zone.)
But: Does this sound like someone who hates the Packers?
At least Aikman is willing to change his mind if the later evidence contradicts his first opinion.
I like Buck and Aikman (in the former case probably because we’re contemporaries age-wise), but regardless of your opinion, if you are from the ’80s or ’90s you should find this funny:
-
The number one single today in 1956:
The number one single in Great Britain …
… and in the U.S. today in 1964:
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 