Houston-hating color men: Dierdorff Tasker Fouts I understand the last two, Tasker being cut by the Oilers, and Fouts getting his ass handed to him for 5 picks (after being 17 point favorites) and the loss in the '79 playoff game against the Pastorini/Cambell/Burrough-less Oilers. But I don't know what Dierfdorff's issue is... and he's the worst of the three.
Even ppl in Baltimore think he sucks. http://www.baltimoresun.com/enterta...ravens-texans-tv-hell-20121021,0,910319.story
LOL! He caught the play I mentioned earlier in the thread where Dierdorf said the ball hit Barwin on the chest, NOT. :grin:
I didn't really notice a bias or anything yesterday other than getting names wrong. How many different ways did they say Keshawn's name? What annoyed me was how both guys HAD to tell us every play whether Suggs was in or not. I don't usually yell at the TV during games, but I was like, "OK, shut the hell up! Who freaking cares now?!!!"
Why do you say that? They are both big time homers but other than that Vandermeer's play-by-play is good.
Even if he's ass (he might just be)...Is this even a thread if Cushing was coming back from an injury and he lauded him like he did Suggs?
Yes, because he still sucked still. Some people are overplaying that aspect, but he still was in general just bad. I don't really care about commentators, but obviously other people do and I can see why they complain.
Wasn't Paul McGuire one of the worst anti-Houston guys in the early 90's? I could have sworn I remember a former Bills player who was a color analyst then that seemed to discredit the Oilers every chance he got. My memory seems torn on whether that was McGuire or not.
I don't mind Andre Ware, but Vandermeer is a terrible play caller. Firstly, I HATE "Rock and Roll." It's stupid, cliche, and has nothing to do with this team. All of his calls are also the exact same, "Schaub drops back, throws down the field, caught by (insert name here) at the (insert yard line)." No variation to his calls, no details, no picture. It's just nonsense to me.
The writer is obviously writing from a Ravens' perspective; my complaint wasn't that I wanted *more* Baltimore analysis, obviously. But more analysis overall? Absolutely. He *nailed* the stuck storyline and Gumble/Dierdorf's striking inability to deviate from it: Four "never"s. I think any notion that Texan fans were hyper-sensitive is pretty much blown to heck-fire with the quad-"never." It was Ravens injuries/Terrell Suggs all afternoon. CBS should be embarrassed their #2 announcing team was incapable of offering *any* insight beyond a narrative they obviously concocted on Monday. No comment on the Ravens' offense, the Texans' offense, the Texans' defense, the passing of the torch, control of the AFC...
Looking back, I think this is exactly the issue I had. Not so much that they were pro Raven, I have heard some Dan Deirdorf comments on the Texans that were very positive.; but my problem is that they were stuck like a broken record on one solitary storyline. That, in and of itself, made it seem that they were looking at this one sided, and wishing the Ravens were playing better/winning so their story would be more relevant. I honestly think they expected a better game and didn't really come in prepared for what they got. That being said, I agree they should be embarrassed in the fact that they didn't have enough skill to adapt to the game they were given and instead reverted to cramming the hurt Ravens down the audience's throats.
You just mentioned to the two BENEFITS to MV for me: I like his entusiasm ("rock and roll" is just his thing, I kinda like it) , and his calls are clear and consise. I don't need someone to paint me a poetic picture. Tell me what happened on the play. Simple as that.
