PDA

View Full Version : Nantz and Simms


FanSince72
12-20-2010, 09:05 AM
Am I the only one who thinks these two are the biggest tools on the planet?

I have had it with the both of them apologizing for the League and never taking a position on anything.

After Clark's 15-yard penalty for what turned out to be just a really great football play, neither one of these dopes could bring themselves to say that this was just a bad call and a great play by Clark. Instead they went on forever about "launching", having one's helmet "in the vicinity of the head", the "spirit of the rule" and on and on and on.

Both of them are so afraid of risking their cushy "Big Market" status that they'd swear to agree that the sun rose in the West if that's what the League asked them to do. Nantz earlier said (after showing a replay of Philly's DeShaun Jackson's 65-yard game winning punt return) that Jackson cruising along the goal line for a bit before actually crossing it, "Was showboating" and that he thought that was "sad".

Has Nantz ever actually had ANY fun in his life?

I mean Jackson is a showboat and I won't argue that. But look what he just did - especially after initially muffing the punt. I think that given the way that game was played and how Philly fought back, a run of 65 yards through traffic to win was worth a bit of celebration and even some showboating.

After all, this is SUPPOSED to be entertainment, no?

IowaSteeler927
12-20-2010, 09:11 AM
Very well said. I agree with all your points. Oh and to answer your question about Nantz... No I don't think he has ever done anything fun. I think he runs around like a mindless robot follower spewing out whatever he is told to say.

SteelCityMom
12-20-2010, 09:18 AM
Ok...it's been said in multiple threads (including the league officials thread, in which I just said this not 20 minutes ago), but it's unfortunately true.

What Clark did, according to the rules, is a penalty. He clearly launched and led with his helmet. It as a good call, get over it.

IowaSteeler927
12-20-2010, 09:22 AM
Ok...it's been said in multiple threads (including the league officials thread, in which I just said this not 20 minutes ago), but it's unfortunately true.

What Clark did, according to the rules, is a penalty. He clearly launched and led with his helmet. It as a good call, get over it.

It was a horrible call. He led with the face of his helmet not the top of it. How exactly is he supposed to hit the guy? He either has to run and hit him or jump and hit him and I think jump and hit him is the only option when Braylon Edwards is in the air. Edwards is a big physical receiver and outsizes Ryan Clark. Fact of the matter is that the referees do have some discretion and it could have been used here. Instead they have their tails between their legs because Goodell has become the Josef Stalin of the NFL and would probably have them fined, suspended, or purged if they did anything otherwise.

SteelCityMom
12-20-2010, 09:42 AM
Do you guys not know what launching is?

h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.

Note: Launching is defined as springing forward and upward by a player who leaves his feet to make contact on the receiver.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/29969/nfl-rulebook-unnecessary-roughness

SteelCityMom
12-20-2010, 09:49 AM
This bears mentioning as well...and it's not something I agree with completely, but it's in the rulebook. The refs are told to err on the side of caution, even if they aren't 100% sure.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/29969/nfl-rulebook-unnecessary-roughness

stb_steeler
12-20-2010, 09:57 AM
Simms likes to hear his own voice

FanSince72
12-20-2010, 10:08 AM
This bears mentioning as well...and it's not something I agree with completely, but it's in the rulebook. The refs are told to err on the side of caution, even if they aren't 100% sure.



http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/29969/nfl-rulebook-unnecessary-roughness


I understand that and to some extent I even agree with it.

What bothered me more was that Nantz and Simms offered nothing in the way of why it "could have" been a good hit or that it was even debatable. In their eyes the League was right and that was that and it's that fealty that bugs me.

When I watch a Sunday Night game with Michaels and Collinsworth, if they saw the same play, they would at least offer some reason why it might not have been called or offer an opinion about the call being more about adhering to rules (or erring on the side of caution). In other words, they try to see all sides of a situation and I've even heard Collinsworth say that a call was flat-out bad when he thought it was or that the officials are overreacting.

Whether he's right or wrong isn't the point. The point is that he had the stones to question something and I appreciate that honesty and the courage to take an opposing stance.

But Nantz and Simms seem to be following the League protocols as if not doing so would cost them their jobs and as a result, anything they say seems as if it was said to appease the League rather than offer a real honest-to-God opinion about something. They come off as suck-ups and apologists and that just drives me crazy.

SteelCityMom
12-20-2010, 10:13 AM
I understand that and to some extent I even agree with it.

What bothered me more was that Nantz and Simms offered nothing in the way of why it "could have" been a good hit or that it was even debatable. In their eyes the League was right and that was that and it's that fealty that bugs me.

When I watch a Sunday Night game with Michaels and Collinsworth, if they saw the same play, they would at least offer some reason why it might not have been called or offer an opinion about the call being more about adhering to rules (or erring on the side of caution). In other words, they try to see all sides of a situation and I've even heard Collinsworth say that a call was flat-out bad when he thought it was or that the officials are overreacting.

Whether he's right or wrong isn't the point. The point is that he had the stones to question something and I appreciate that honesty and the courage to take an opposing stance.

But Nantz and Simms seem to be following the League protocols as if not doing so would cost them their jobs and as a result, anything they say seems as if it was said to appease the League rather than offer a real honest-to-God opinion about something. They come off as suck-ups and apologists and that just drives me crazy.

Honestly, I remember when the call was first made, they were discussing for a minute how Clark didn't even make helmet to helmet contact...then they saw a closer replay and saw him launching and basically said, well that's a penalty anyway, that's why it was called (not quoting exact words...but the jist of what they said).

I was pissed too at first b/c I didn't think he made HTH contact (and he didn't...and I think the refs should have called it launching and leading with the helmet, not HTH contact), but either way it was a penalty.

Lex Yinzer
12-20-2010, 10:16 AM
The worst thing about a broadcast involving Phil Simms - and he was in perfect form with this last night - is the way he gets exasperated with the fans who want a flag thrown on a legitimate instance of pass interference, how he goes on to describe it as a "perfectly clean" play or "good coverage," only to have to backtrack when he sees the replay. He did this multiple times during the Jets game, but it seemed like it really caused him physical pain to have to own up to it when Sanders was held, blatantly, on the final drive.

Don't get me wrong. I'm more upset that the Steelers put themselves in a position to allow a non-call that was obvious to everyone in Heinz Field but the official to cost them the game with their lackluster, uninspired play, but a call actually costing them the game - after the entire Jets secondary got away with mugging our receivers the entire night, as Simms reluctantly had to acknowledge after initially calling all those instances "clean" - should rightly make everyone furious.

finesward
12-20-2010, 10:34 AM
I remember him saying "he had it but he (sanders) slowed down! Had he not slowed down that would of been an easy TD." then after the replay "it was clear that the defender was holding his jersey, that should of been called"

Guess the ref's saw the game the same way the announcers did. Good clean defending by some of the best CB's in the league. Goes to show you the jets db's are way overrated, and against our speedy wideouts, especially sanders and wallace...they had to resort to holding on SEVERAL occasions

steelax04
12-20-2010, 11:56 AM
I was pissed too at first b/c I didn't think he made HTH contact (and he didn't...and I think the refs should have called it launching and leading with the helmet, not HTH contact), but either way it was a penalty.

And that's where my issue is with the NFL and the Referees this year. Get the calls right... if you want to use these hits as "training" materials, then call them what they are. Focused on player safety? Then referees shouldn't have issues in determining what kind of unecessary roughness penalty it is.

And to the OPs point... yes, Simms sucks. He was on Sanchez's jock all game.

My favorite dialog of the game...(paraphrased)
Simms: "He's an incredible ball-handler!!!" (also after slobbering over Sanchez and how he has both hands on the ball when he drops back to pass on about 6 replays).
Nantz: "He had 4 fumbles last week. Of course you mean with fakes and play action?"
Simms: "Yeah, that's what I meant."

Atlanta Dan
12-20-2010, 12:43 PM
If the ref does not get the call right then I disagree it is OK if another penalty should have been called - that just bails out the ref and further adds to the confusion as to what is or is not a penalty

Consider the possibility the ref did not think Clark committed a launching penalty since I would hope they are as familiar with the rule book as posters on this board and that penalty assesses the same yardage while not requiring helmet to helmet contact

If a cop charges me for failing to use my turn signal when I use it but does not charge me for running a red light as I was changing lanes, even though i did run the light, it does not make the turn signal ticket correct because he "could have/should have" charged me with running the light.

Saying what could have been called is not the test

Whodis
12-20-2010, 12:50 PM
And that's where my issue is with the NFL and the Referees this year. Get the calls right... if you want to use these hits as "training" materials, then call them what they are. Focused on player safety? Then referees shouldn't have issues in determining what kind of unecessary roughness penalty it is.

And to the OPs point... yes, Simms sucks. He was on Sanchez's jock all game.

My favorite dialog of the game...(paraphrased)
Simms: "He's an incredible ball-handler!!!" (also after slobbering over Sanchez and how he has both hands on the ball when he drops back to pass on about 6 replays).
Nantz: "He had 4 fumbles last week. Of course you mean with fakes and play action?"
Simms: "Yeah, that's what I meant."

Don't forget the quote "that was just a little hold"

They threw a flag on Clarks, but not the hit Harrison made? I can honestly say I have no clue what is legal anymore.

Is there a rule for "pass interference"? Could someone please give me a link for it because I for the life of me can't figure out how Cromartie got away with that shit at the end. Those guys are such boobs they said "looks like he gave up on that play"
after replay "oh Cromartie pulled his jersey" akward silence..............

SteelCityMom
12-20-2010, 12:53 PM
If the ref does not get the call right then I disagree it is OK if another penalty should have been called - that just bails out the ref and further adds to the confusion as to what is or is not a penalty

Consider the possibility the ref did not think Clark committed a launching penalty since I would hope they are as familiar with the rule book as posters on this board and that penalty assesses the same yardage while not requiring helmet to helmet contact

If a cop charges me for failing to use my turn signal when I use it but does not charge me for running a red light as I was changing lanes, even though i did run the light, it does not make the turn signal ticket correct because he "could have/should have" charged me with running the light.

Saying what could have been called is not the test

I get your point, and don't disagree with it. I just understand why the penalty was called, even if it was the wrong reason. I guess I'd be more pissed if he made a perfectly clean tackle and they called it HTH (which they have done to him earlier this season).

I think the basic problem lies in what I posted earlier. Refs are instructed to err on the side of caution and hand out unnecessary roughness penalties even if they aren't 100% sure a penalty was committed.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

CargoJon
12-20-2010, 01:28 PM
Rulebook aside, these two are one of my least favorite announcing crews out there. They put me to sleep.

One of the highlights of last year's Super Bowl was listening to Simms (right before the Porter interception of The Almighty that sealed the game) that "the Saints should not blitz here, the Jets tried to blitz and Peyton Manning owned them."

Then, of course, the Saints brought the house and we all know what happened. Then listening to Simms sit and spend 10 minutes backtracking about his obvious idiocy was priceless.

TRH
12-20-2010, 01:29 PM
Nantz is horrible...the worst going today.

Simms usually just loves calling games when Pittsburgh is behind and pointing out our mistakes.
Although he did call out a couple of the pass-interference plays that were not called against us. That said....he refused to elaborate on them, which he should have went more into. Those were blatant, game-changing "non-calls"

A couple of our biggest fanboys when announcing are Jon Gruden and suprisingly, Chris Collinsworth. If you don't think so, just listen to a game called by Simms/Nantz...then listen to a game Collinsworth calls and he praises us almost to a ridiculous point all game...even when we're losing. I think he's changed his tune...seemed like he used to hate us...now he loves us.

steelerdave1969
12-20-2010, 01:52 PM
Am I the only one who thinks these two are the biggest tools on the planet?

I have had it with the both of them apologizing for the League and never taking a position on anything.

After Clark's 15-yard penalty for what turned out to be just a really great football play, neither one of these dopes could bring themselves to say that this was just a bad call and a great play by Clark. Instead they went on forever about "launching", having one's helmet "in the vicinity of the head", the "spirit of the rule" and on and on and on.

Both of them are so afraid of risking their cushy "Big Market" status that they'd swear to agree that the sun rose in the West if that's what the League asked them to do. Nantz earlier said (after showing a replay of Philly's DeShaun Jackson's 65-yard game winning punt return) that Jackson cruising along the goal line for a bit before actually crossing it, "Was showboating" and that he thought that was "sad".

Has Nantz ever actually had ANY fun in his life?

I mean Jackson is a showboat and I won't argue that. But look what he just did - especially after initially muffing the punt. I think that given the way that game was played and how Philly fought back, a run of 65 yards through traffic to win was worth a bit of celebration and even some showboating.

After all, this is SUPPOSED to be entertainment, no?

My thoughts of Nantz and Simms is kind of the same, but different . . lol
I just hate to hear any announcer talk about a DB holding a WR and saying that it was a Good No Call. That is Garbage. The Hit by Clark was all OK until he decided to Launch Himself into the WR. It was a good call according to the Rules. I would like to know where about 3 different Holding Calls or Pass Interference Calls that should have been made on those Jets Corners . . they try things differently just to see what they can get away with thats for sure and they got away with it several times yesterday . . Its ok . . The Panthers are next and lets not overlook this team or the Brownies coming up in 2 weeks and we will No Matter what Anyone else does Have the No.2 Seed and a Bye Week to start the Playoffs.

fer522
12-20-2010, 02:57 PM
no we're gonna blame it on Nantz and Simms
that's just pitiful

rich4eagle
12-20-2010, 03:11 PM
Am I the only one who thinks these two are the biggest tools on the planet?

I have had it with the both of them apologizing for the League and never taking a position on anything.

After Clark's 15-yard penalty for what turned out to be just a really great football play, neither one of these dopes could bring themselves to say that this was just a bad call and a great play by Clark. Instead they went on forever about "launching", having one's helmet "in the vicinity of the head", the "spirit of the rule" and on and on and on.

Both of them are so afraid of risking their cushy "Big Market" status that they'd swear to agree that the sun rose in the West if that's what the League asked them to do. Nantz earlier said (after showing a replay of Philly's DeShaun Jackson's 65-yard game winning punt return) that Jackson cruising along the goal line for a bit before actually crossing it, "Was showboating" and that he thought that was "sad".

Has Nantz ever actually had ANY fun in his life?

I mean Jackson is a showboat and I won't argue that. But look what he just did - especially after initially muffing the punt. I think that given the way that game was played and how Philly fought back, a run of 65 yards through traffic to win was worth a bit of celebration and even some showboating.

After all, this is SUPPOSED to be entertainment, no?

You got it buddy two pieces of crap "SALUTING" the Not FOR LONG LEague taking playing out of the game

I as you saw a big play hit from Clark which both of those two buffoons NOT DOCUMENTED should have taken issue with

instead our dope TV idiots saluted a BAD CALL

go Steelers and do keep trying to play the game as it was meant to be played.....because it seems the NFL wants to make this "DANCING WITH STARS PRISSY VERSION":tt::tt::tt::tt::tt::tt::tt::tt::tt:

kirklandrules
12-20-2010, 03:20 PM
Has Nantz ever actually had ANY fun in his life?

Well, he cheated on his wife with a women several years younger. :wink02:

Whodis
12-20-2010, 03:23 PM
^ WIN!!!:applaudit:

FanSince72
12-20-2010, 03:53 PM
Well, he cheated on his wife with a women several years younger. :wink02:

Recently?

If not, maybe he should consider it again because lately he sounds more and more like a man in dire need of a "happy ending" (unless Phil is handling that). :rofl:

kirklandrules
12-20-2010, 04:18 PM
Should have provided a link ....
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2302205/jim_nantz_divorce_a_big_controversial.html

jizzballz
12-20-2010, 04:37 PM
nantz and simms are good commentators for CBS, I love the Collingsworth-Michaels duo the most.

TRH
12-21-2010, 09:34 AM
no we're gonna blame it on Nantz and Simms
that's just pitiful

no one is "blaming" Nantz and Simms. They're just discussing what they think of the announcing duo. I actually like Simms, even though he seems to just love it when we lose. Nantz, on the other hand, i can't stand.

CargoJon
12-21-2010, 07:55 PM
nantz and simms are good commentators for CBS, I love the Collingsworth-Michaels duo the most.

Michaels is the only one of those four that actually belong behind a microphone.

FanSince72
12-22-2010, 08:47 AM
Michaels is the only one of those four that actually belong behind a microphone.

I think that Michaels is an excellent play-by-play guy, but I also think that if it was just him it would be boring as hell. Michaels needs Collinsworth and as color commentators go, Collinsworth is one of the best. He doesn't shy away from bad calls or stupid decisions and will point them out if he sees them and as far as the "X's and O's" go, he knows what he's talking about. The banter between him and Michaels is more like eavesdropping on two good friends watching a game instead of the statistical yak yak I hear from most everyone else and I like that feeling.

The ESPN crew by comparison all sound as if they each have an NFL encyclopedia in front of them and they spend three hours spouting one useless statistic after another and after about ten minutes it all sounds like white noise. I also don't appreciate the "choreography" of having one of them constantly running at the mouth until a second or two before the snap.

Sometimes (many times) it's perfectly OK to just shut up and say nothing. This, after all, is television, not radio so I don't have to be constantly reminded of what I just saw for myself or am seeing right this minute, nor do I have to be bombarded with all of the "filler" between plays.

That's one of the best things about Michaels and Collinsworth - if they don't have something to say, they don't say anything and when they ARE saying something, it's in a conversational tone rather than the frenetic jabbering you get from someone like Jaworski.

Put another way, if these crews were compared to music, the ESPN crew would be over- amplified techno-pop while Michaels and Collinsworth would be smooth jazz.

TRH
12-22-2010, 01:59 PM
I think that Michaels is an excellent play-by-play guy, but I also think that if it was just him it would be boring as hell. Michaels needs Collinsworth and as color commentators go, Collinsworth is one of the best. He doesn't shy away from bad calls or stupid decisions and will point them out if he sees them and as far as the "X's and O's" go, he knows what he's talking about. The banter between him and Michaels is more like eavesdropping on two good friends watching a game instead of the statistical yak yak I hear from most everyone else and I like that feeling.

The ESPN crew by comparison all sound as if they each have an NFL encyclopedia in front of them and they spend three hours spouting one useless statistic after another and after about ten minutes it all sounds like white noise. I also don't appreciate the "choreography" of having one of them constantly running at the mouth until a second or two before the snap.

Sometimes (many times) it's perfectly OK to just shut up and say nothing. This, after all, is television, not radio so I don't have to be constantly reminded of what I just saw for myself or am seeing right this minute, nor do I have to be bombarded with all of the "filler" between plays.

That's one of the best things about Michaels and Collinsworth - if they don't have something to say, they don't say anything and when they ARE saying something, it's in a conversational tone rather than the frenetic jabbering you get from someone like Jaworski.

Put another way, if these crews were compared to music, the ESPN crew would be over- amplified techno-pop while Michaels and Collinsworth would be smooth jazz.


I agree.....believe it or not, Collnsworth has turned into one of the, if not the best and most interesting commentator.
Michaels is OK, but he's a league apologist who won't do the hard criticizing when its justified and/or obvious. Chris, on the other hand, doesn't even hesitate.

cloppbeast
12-22-2010, 02:46 PM
I wish Troy Aikman would join CBS so we could hear him every once in a while. Though, I don't care for his over dramatic counterpart Joe Buck.

Phil Simms is such a douche, though. Not only is his commentating not the least interesting, I've always thought he was anti-Pittsburgh too. I hate it when he says, "I know the fans want a flag, but......"

kirklandrules
12-22-2010, 03:25 PM
I hate it when he says, "I know the fans want a flag, but......"

I hate it when Simms says "eeem" instead of "him". For instance, he will say something like "James Harrison should be fined because he hits eeem helmet-to-helmet.". If someone stole his wallet and was being chased by the police, what type of confusion would he cause if he yelled "GET EEEM!". The cop would stop, turn and shoot him (I mean "eeem"). Also, given this speach pattern, shouldn't Simms call himself "Phil Seeems"?