Who's Sick of Network Coverage of the NFL?
| 12
|
by user Sofa king cass
The Chicago Bears! The New York Giants! The Indianapolis Colts! The New England Patriots! The Colts, again! The Dallas Cowboys! The San Diego Chargers!
Is anyone else tired of trying to get insightful analysis of the NFL, and coming away with nothing better than a bunch of talking heads who can't wait to get over-excited over a team, proclaim them "the team to beat", and then become shocked when a team beats them? It seems like it's par for the course nowadays to be a broadcaster, and pick your Super Bowl favorite every week. What ever happened to evaluating teams over the course of a few weeks, or (shocking as it may sound) the season? I understand the need to know, RIGHT NOW, who's going to win the Super Bowl, but do we really need to be subjected, as a media market, to every single ex-player's flavor of the week?
The NFL is a league of parity - it has been for a long time, so that's really nothing new. Although it's really a stupid cliche, the saying that any team can win on any given Sunday is probably truer in the NFL than in any other sport. And mainstream media does a good job of promoting that aspect of the sport: it's what draws fans to every game, and keeps interest strong through all 17 weeks of the regular season. That said, how can these broadcasters look themselves in the mirror and honestly annoint a new team as the next Chicago Bears every week?
Specifically, I'm a Giants fan, so we can use them as an example, but it's merely meant to be representative of a phenomenon happening throughout the league. New York came out of the regular season last year strongly, looking like a solid team. Everyone seemed to forget they were led by a sophomore quarterback who'd never taken a snap in the playoffs before, and the media was shocked when the Giants were shut out in Carolina and sent packing from the playoffs. Clearly that played into evaluations of the team this past offseason, as the Giants were labelled a mediocre team, and as likely to finish fourth in the NFC East as first. When the Giants got off to a 1-2 start, the world was about to implode. I don't live near New York, but even the national media was publicly calling for Coughlin's head. No broadcaster I heard even mentioned the fact that the teams they had lost to were the Indianapolis Colts and the Seattle Seahawks. The Colts were ridiculous last season, and are proving to be a pretty decent team again this year. Likewise, the Seahawks went to the Super Bowl last year, and again look impressive when at full strength (this past game at Arizona notwithstanding). Lo and behold, the Giants had a bye week and came back by ripping five wins off in a row. Even as a Giants fan, I'm able to see clearly that none of those wins were that impressive. Their best showing was at Atlanta, where they managed to shut down that impressive running attack; this was nothing earth-shattering, however. Winning at Dallas wasn't that great, either, when you take into account that if Drew Bledsoe had managed to find his receiver in the end zone rather than Sam Madison, the Giants would have trailed going into the half, and who knows what impact that could have had on the Romo era. That said, Romo did enter the game, and played like it was the first time he had ever played in the regular season (weird, huh?). All in all, the win against the Cowboys, while important, wasn't as impressive as the media made it out to be.
So there were the Giants, at 6-2, and suddenly the talk of the NFC. Watch out for a big showdown with the Bears, right? The flaws and injuries finally exposed and caught up to the Giants, and the Giants began a four game tailspin. That stretch included a loss to the Bears (now 10-2), at Jacksonville (who stomped Indy yesterday), and at Tennessee (who beat Indy last week). At 6-6, the Giants were dead and buried. The media was again calling for Coughlin's head, and the season was written off. Some members of our beloved national media believed the answer would be found in Jared Lorenzen.
Needless to say, after the Giants' victory yesterday, the Giants are again the talk of the NFC. If the Bears lose tonight, do not be surprised to see the words "Giants" and "NFC favorite" included the same sentence.
What am I getting at? This whole system is ludicrous! Why can't commentators take a deep breath, pause for a second, and not declare the latest team to win "the next big thing" or the "team to beat"? The Giants are 7-6; if any reasonable person looked at them at any point in the season, now or earlier, they would see a team very indicative of that record: a very talented team who makes big mistakes and is led by an inconsistent quarterback. There is nothing overly shocking about seeing the Giants beat Philly or Dallas, or seeing them lose to Tennessee.
Not a Giants fan? I'm sure your team's season can be chronicled in a similar way. The Jets? Awful, then all of a sudden, good; now dead in the water. The Patriots? Okay, then the best thing since sliced bread until Indy came to town; now they're bad again. Even the 49ers were everyone's baby until this past week.
Clearly the NFL has parity. Clearly, any team can beat any other team. We all know that, we all love it. So why does everyone seem so inclined to make season-long predictions based on last week's results? Can we please all take a step back, take a deep breath, and actually look at what these teams have done?
That said, those Chargers looked pretty good against the Broncos, huh? Bet you they're the team to beat...until next week.
