you're comparing a guy who threw for 120 yards in a half to a running back rushing for 200 yards and a kicker kicking what would be the second longest kick in NFL history. 120 yard halfs happen all the time. the other two don't. thus, no one cares when a 4th round rookie puts up good stats against scrubs. it's that simple.
Who cares if it's the preseason by the backup rookie kicker, it's noteworthy TODAY. Report it. There's enough time in any hourlong program to cover it.[/B]
no they weren't. there's a gulf of difference between guys who play in the second quarter of pre-season games, who Manziel played against, and even into the third quarter, versus the third and fourth quarter, especially the fourth quarter where Thomas had his "amazing" play and did a lot of his damage.
The butt end of the 2nd+3rd quarter versus 3rd+4th quarter are pretty comparable imo. Maybe we disagree but after the starters are gone, it's all pretty comparable. It doesn't have to be perfectly equal. But I wouldn't call the butt end of the 2nd quarter to be a huge difference. They both played the 3rd quarter.
True the great play happened against the 4th quarter scrubs, but the point is, it was a great play, and it's exactly what you want to see rookie QB's do, in their first action. Could you imagine ESPN's coverage if Manziel pulled off a play like that?
Yeah a 32-0 victory and a rookie QB that plays heads and tails above Manziel against comparable competition, is also comparable to a kicker who kicks a 62 yarder, or say a 58 yarder if it fits better. Or rushes for 140 yards. Maybe I made a mistake by setting the bar too high, but there are plenty of good performances that are noteworthy and they don't have to be record breaking or near record breaking, but I guess I was trying to find some sort of performance that would pass a threshold of being in scrub time that would then become noteworthy. Either way shutouts are rare. How often do they happen, like five times in regular season a year or so? That's pretty noteworthy even in preseason.
I never said you said Bortles played lights out. I said THEY TALKED about him and showed his highlights, which flies in the face of your lengthy rants.
You said you watched Bortles and didn't see what I was saying. I didn't see them talk about him during the broadcast. But maybe I blinked and missed it. My bad. We simply miscommunicated on that, I thought you were talking about Bortles performance vis a vis Manziel. It still doesn't excuse all the other great performances that they overlooked, which were many.
Lengthy rants? Just because something has length, doesn't mean it's a rant. Some things just require length and nuance to discuss properly. Not everything in the world can be boiled down into a twitter sized comment. I tend to see the nuance others miss. If I think it matters to the situation, I'll bring it up.
Internet forums are not the same thing as ESPN broadcast, they are rough draft form, by amateurs with zero backing and resources.
if you think ESPN had a van outside the stadium for a Cards-Texans first pre-season game, I don't know what to tell you. They didn't have a crew there for the game, which means they weren't editing this segment on the fly during the game. I really wonder if you have any idea how these packages and segments are put together. I've worked for sports/entertainment networks as a P.A. back in the day and i assure you, there is an allocation of resources that's much lower then you expect and the editing process to get stuff done is fast and furious.
That's not what I said. I was saying at each NFL game there is a trailer outside for the broadcast. I didn't say ESPN's trailer.
I was trying to showcase that yes people AT the game, ANY game, regularly do a better job of collating plays and letting their play-by-play and color commentator do a better job of analyzing the plays in real time compared to that specific broadcast by ESPN which as a whole is a much, much bigger operation, at a fixed location, with much greater resources and manpower at their disposal.
You were saying ESPN was doing it in real time, and I'm saying, they're not, yet the people at games who are doing it in real time, do a much, much better job then ESPN did that night.
You said that ESPN Sportscenter was live, but it's not a live broadcast.
Well it IS and it ISN'T. They read from a teleprompter, and someone first wrote what's on that teleprompter. So all of it is prepared and approved in advance, and thus it isn't off the cuff LIVE, which is where that excuse would apply. There are some off the cuff observations or banter, but the direction of the broadcast and the majority of words aired are written beforehand. Plus any recorded segments they have that they interject between stories/coverage.
They read stuff written and approved from a teleprompter. So they are reading an approved text LIVE and overseen by a program director hired by a multibillion dollar operation known as ESPN.
I also stated they have been doing it for 35 years, and usually do a great job at it, so the idea that somehow all this got past them, isn't a valid excuse.
You're right I don't have experience writing for Blue Mountain, or any of the other stuff you did, and my whole point wasn't with you in mind. I'm complaining about ESPN's coverage and lack of professionalism, not anything about you Cheese.
ESPN is a multibillion dollar company, that basically 3-5-7 dollars of just about every cable bill in America goes towards ESPN plus ad revenue. I know Cox paid over $3 a month per subscriber a couple of negotiations ago.
They are raking in billions, so I don't have pity for their small time operations, if it is as such, and I think they are probably a bit bigger then where you worked, but I don't know, because I don't know where you worked. Also I realize that as the years goes by, ESPN grows and grows. But regardless, if you're raking in billions there's no excuse to not have the staff and resources. If they choose to be penny ante, that's their bad. But somehow I don't think that is so. I think that bad moves they made were CHOSEN, because they decided their narrative, before Manziel even played the Lions.
I don't need to know from the inside that billions of dollars should buy an extra HDTV or two, some equipment, and someone to man it. Or 10. It's simply common sense. They have a money for a ferrari, but not enough to fill the tank? It doesn't make sense.
the entire pre-season is FAKE. It doesn't count, thus the scores are immaterial. What's important (to pretty much everyone who watches sports) is what you can take from the game from the guys who are actually going to play this year. No one cares what a 3rd back up QB who will never see the field did when there's no way he'll be on the field come gameday.
Yes it doesn't count, so what matters the most are pure storylines from the games by what occurred during them. X did this. The team did that.
The thing is cheese, the people who play well in preseason games, and thus the guys I want covered (and this extends beyond just NFL preseason games), are the guys who have a better shot at playing when the games matter. Preseason doesn't count, but it still matters. If Manziel plays in the regular season, they'll be dropping real good regular season performances to cover the Manziel train. This isn't new, and in the end they even had to abandon their other crappy golden boy Tebow.
Sure we have our annual WR who does great then disappears. But you also see flashes of other guys like, John Brown. Every year you have guys who do some great things in preseason and it carries over into the regular season. As the sports news, the supposedly definitive sports news station, that's what they are supposed to do. Highlight good individual and team performances.
Highlighting great plays, and great starts for rookies is exactly what preseason is about. Highlighting things way out of bounds like routs, and shutouts, and all that sort of stuff. Whether someone is bouncing back from injury. Whether a new coach is turning something around. Lots of good storylines exist for preseason even if preseason itself is fake. Just because preseason is fake, doesn't mean the narratives have to be. If a new coach isn't getting his team prepared and it's obvious, they should report it. If Ryan Leaf is sucking it up, they should be at his locker asking questions. Regardless of what the end result is, it's their job to point out what's really happening on the field and ask questions to find out even more.
ESPN passed over what's not important to 99% of the viewing public for what was important. Plain and simple.
actually, all you've clearly shown to me is that you really hate Manziel and have very little understanding how TV production works. And ESPN is shoveling out "propoganda"? It's a sports entertainment network. It's not CNN. you want cardinals news on 3rd stringers and highlights, go to the website like every other fan of every other team who wants the same.
Really hate Manziel? No not really. Do I think he is spoiled? Yeah. Who doesn't? If he does good, great. He hasn't yet.
It would be a good story if he did well. Smallish guy, against the odds, playing like no one else has ever been successful doing since Fran Tarketon. A guy that was before my time. I wouldn't mind seeing one in today's era. But he isn't one, not yet. Will he be? Who knows, but if you watch ESPN you'd think he'd already established himself.
But what I hate is that ESPN and others ignore reality and come up with a narrative BEFOREHAND, dismissing anything that contradicts that narrative. They can do research about who they want to cover, and not let the downsides of such a process get in the way. This is the blowback from doing that sort of coverage...deciding beforehand the winners of a future event.
Again I understand that they want to cover hot stories, but do they need to embellish crap to keep up the predetermined narrative?
This is what is known as fitting the data to the idea. They were going to take anything but a Matt Schaub 2013 performance and spin it as good. If he didn't throw 4 INT's, he was a QBOF.
That's what I hate. That's why I'm posting on this issue. I'm sick of LIES, pure and simple. I want reality to be showcased on TV, not Reality TV that was prescripted and the events of reality shaped around it. That's what's going on, and it's HORRIBLE.
Sportscenter IS the newscast of Sports, it's the CNN of sports reporting. Well it's what CNN and other newscasts SHOULD be, but ALSO aren't. But we'll skip over that and just generally say,
yes indeed, ESPN IS the CNN of sports, and that's EXACTLY what they've tried to be for 35 years. So I'm wrong in holding them to their own standard? I don't think so.
No I want ESPN and other sports sites to cover events, and tell me what happened. If someone does some noteworthy things, regardless if 1st string or 5th string, I want to know, regardless of ANY team.
Good performances are the cream that rises to the top, and it doesn't take much to notice and collate them all. Plus even if you didn't see ANY performances by ANY of the other rookie QB's, having seen any NFL QB play good would scrape against their narrative of what Manziel did. So it isn't one thing, but incorrect from BOTH sides.
You know I was aware of Logan Thomas and didn't go to ESPN to see it. I was watching ESPN while reading this and other sites, and saw the lack of reporting, meanwhile a complete brown nosing edition of the Manziel sports hour. I saw tons of stuff not reported. I saw HOW they were reporting stuff. Manziel = God for 10 minutes, then at the end they say, but it only amounted to 3 points, and in the last 2 seconds, oh and there was another team playing, and they won. It's pathetic.
It's also not just Manziel. They have a few guys they want to cover, and they bend over backwards, at everyone else expense, not counting their viewers, to accomplish it. They even had apologists out there trying to make Michael Sam's first appearance look good when it wasn't.
They shafted Detroit. They shafted Logan Thomas. They shafted many others. It's the whole kit and kaboodle Cheese. None of this means I'm saying not cover Manziel more then others. I'm simply saying, if you're going to go overboard, at least be correct, and while going overboard, make sure you don't cut out some really great performances to highlight a crappy one. I'm sure 99 percent of people want that, or would want that, if they actually had a choice between the present propaganda, or reality based reporting, from a place that is supposedly the newscaster of sporting events.
Even if I drop Logan Thomas from the equation, I can fully make the same argument. Logan Thomas is interchangable with many others.
