Author: Anthony Stalter (Page 1305 of 1503)

Five questions with Aikman and Buck

Much like Scores Report contributor John Paulsen, I had the opportunity to sit on a conference call with three-time Super Bowl champ Troy Aikman and FOX play-by-play announcer Joe Buck. I was even fortunate enough to ask Troy about his past Super Bowl experiences, as well as listen to his response on whether he believes the Patriots are one of the greatest dynasties ever. Below I’ve compiled five of the most interesting questions from the call, including my question to Troy (which is listed first) and Joe’s response to being asked about the differences between calling a World Series compared to a Super Bowl.

Troy, Tom Brady is going for his fourth Super Bowl victory and Eli Manning his first. You were a three-time Super Bowl winner – I realize all Super Bowl victories are hard-fought, but was there one in particular that stood out to you as being harder than the rest?

TA: Well, each one got a little more difficult for us and the last one was the most compelling when we played Pittsburgh. That was a pretty tight ballgame and the other ones, you know, we beat Buffalo the first time 52-17 and it was basically over by halftime or early in the third quarter. New England though, the three that they have won, they’ve won all three by only three points, so they’re accustomed to being in tight games. So, they’re going to be well prepared if this game goes down to the wire, too.

There seems to be many complaints from Giant fans that you guys are biased towards the Patriots. Do you feel that there’s any merit to that?

JB: Since I’ve been doing all of these World Series – I’ve done 10 of them – and this is the second Super Bowl, it doesn’t matter what the matchup is or the history of me and that city, or my relation to that city…and I know this is the same for Troy and anyone else that puts on the headset…if you get emotional and get excited during the key moments of a game, you’re always going to be considered by one fan base or the other as being for or against a certain team. I can honestly sit here and tell you that I do not care who wins on Sunday, nor have I cared at any time during the postseason. You just call the game and people are going to hear it the way they’re going to hear it. I get it – if Giants fans are used to hearing their local announcer Bob Poppa get excited or disappointed when the Giants don’t do well…it happens more in baseball because there’s more of a local feel…that people get used to hearing games a certain way, so to hear it from a down-the-middle perspective, they think automatically the (announcer) is against (your team). It’s pretty easy to understand and it doesn’t affect any one-second of what I do on Sunday. And Troy is starting to go through this for the first time this post season. It’s just the nature of the business and it’s been this way since my dad was doing it, (Vince) Scully and everyone else.

TA: Yeah in Dallas, they feel that I’m anti-Dallas (laughing). You know, it’s a small minority of whom we hear from and you know, hey, that’s why they’re called fans. It’s pretty absurd or ridiculous to think that we have a rooting interest in the booth or that we’re calling the game that’s slanted towards a particular team.

Troy, since you were on a team that was considered one of the best Super Bowl teams of all time, where would you rank the Patriots if they prevail on Sunday?

TA: You know, when you get into ranking the best teams or best players, I think it’s obviously very difficult to do. If they’re able to win this week and win four world championships, it obviously puts them in a class with San Francisco and Pittsburgh as far as those dynasties during those decades are concerned. I certainly appreciate what (the Patriots) have been able to accomplish, you know, having been through it myself and knowing how difficult it is to do. The thing that has been most impressive to me is the fact that, you know, this is a team that has gotten better in a lot of areas, as well as gotten younger. And whether it was a team that I was a part of or the 49ers or the Pittsburgh Steelers, the key figures were guys that were on all of those (championship) teams before. Tom Brady is obviously a constant for New England, but I use the example of their offensive line all the time. Matt Light is the oldest player on their offensive line and he’s just 29-years old. There are only two starters on the offense that were starting back in ’01 when they won their first Super Bowl. So, I do think that if they are able to win this week, you could make the argument that they’re the greatest team of all time and it would be a very strong argument considering they haven’t lost this year. As far as being a dynasty and where they rank with the other franchises in the other decades…you could make that argument that they’re the best ever…but I also don’t see this being it for them. I see them being really, really good for a long time.

Joe, is there any difference in preparation from calling a World Series compared to a Super Bowl?

JB: Well, the World Series is so different because it seems like you’ve been there night after night after night…and it used to start with FOX coverage of the Divisional Series and then the Championship Series then you know, you get to the World Series…and you hope that (the emotion) builds during the course of a World Series. Then you get to a Game 6, a Game 7 – we haven’t been that lucky lately but we’ve been there before – and with it being night after night, it’s a machine gun-style way to broadcast. And in the Super Bowl, you prepare for this game in a weekend, but there’s been so much downtime from the last game we did in Green Bay and the game coming up on Sunday that you feel like you’ve got three hours or however long the broadcast lasts – three hours to give it your best and don’t embarrass yourself, and do a good job. And the (World Series) is more a marathon, you know? If you make a mistake, you’ve got plenty of time to correct it and make up for it. Here in the Super Bowl, from my perspective, a mistake is a little more magnified and you hope you don’t make them.

John Madden had this theory that quarterbacks don’t do well in the big games because they have a tendency to have too much adrenaline and overthrow a lot of the passes. What’s your feeling – is there something particular about the big game that makes it harder on the quarterback?

TA: I think it depends on the quarterbacks you’re referring to. I don’t think it was too difficult for Terry Bradshaw or Joe Montana. I don’t think it has ever been too difficult for Tom Brady, either. Good luck trying to get any emotion out of Eli, because he’s been so calm lately. I think people react to it differently and you can’t prepare yourself for the enormity of the event. You know, you tell yourself it’s just like any other game and that’s the approach you take until you hit the field. But it’s not like any other game, at least not initially. You’re aware that this game is special and that’s why you want to be a part of it. I wouldn’t define the pressure being only to quarterbacks, either. Some people handle it differently than others. I think that’s one of the best things about this game – you get a chance to see how quarterbacks, players, whoever it may be, react and respond to being on center stage with so much at stake. And that’s why I’m looking forward to this game and why I’ve always looked forward to the Super Bowl.

Mets land Santana, have three days to sign him

A New York team landed Johan Santana, but it wasn’t that New York team. Santana is heading to the Metropolitans.

At a seemingly reasonable price — swift outfielder Carlos Gomez and young pitchers Philip Humber, Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra — the Mets have satisfied the Twins. Now they have three days, beginning Tuesday, to satisfy Santana who, armed with a no-trade clause that can be as effective in these circumstances as his world class changeup, can veto the trade if the Mets don’t make him happy.

Wow. The Mets landed Santana by only giving up one of their top prospects (Humber), a very good prospect (Gomez) and two very average prospects (Mulvey and Guerra). Seems like the Twins might have settled a bit here, which is a surprising considering how long they wanted to make a deal. Give the Mets credit – they improved their starting rotation tenfold and didn’t mortgage their future too much in the process.

Here’s Peter Gammons’ take:

Were Browns wise to extend Romeo?

The Cleveland Browns have extended head coach Romeo Crennel’s contract for two more years according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The Bleacher Report makes some good points that extending Crennel might have been a mistake.

But does he really deserve a new contract? Shouldn’t he have to prove this wasn’t a one-year wonder, that he can keep it going for another year and actually get into the playoffs?

It’s not like Crennel would have entered next season as a lame duck. He had two years left on his original deal. And the Browns should have pretended they were playing a game of HORSE and made him prove it.

After all, the Browns went just 1-3 against teams that made the playoffs, and many of their victories were close, high-scoring contests won by their offense. Crennel is supposed to be a defensive guru, and yet that side of the ball ranked 30th in the NFL in yards allowed.
In fact, Crennel’s defenses in Cleveland have declined every year, from 16th in 2005 to 27th in 2006 to 30th this season.

Before this past season, I think a lot of Brown fans were ready for Romeo to disappear. I agree with the article that with two years already left on his contract, Cleveland should have waited at least another year for him to prove that last season wasn’t a one-hit wonder. I wouldn’t go as far to say it was a bad move or a mistake, but it’s a curious one nonetheless. We should probably hold judgment on his defensive prowess until he gets more talent on that side of the ball, however.

Where are all of these Russian hotties coming from?

The Slate has an interesting article dedicated to answering the question: Where did all those gorgeous Russians come from (ala Maria Sharapova)?

Though this is a fairly frivolous question (OK, extremely frivolous), I am convinced it has an interesting answer. To put it bluntly, in the Soviet Union there was no market for female beauty. No fashion magazines featured beautiful women, since there weren’t any fashion magazines. No TV series depended upon beautiful women for high ratings, since there weren’t any ratings. There weren’t many men rich enough to seek out beautiful women and marry them, and foreign men couldn’t get the right sort of visa. There were a few film stars, of course, but some of the most famous—I’m thinking of Lyubov Orlova, alleged to be Stalin’s favorite actress—were wholesome and cheerful rather than sultry and stunning. Unusual beauty, like unusual genius, was considered highly suspicious in the Soviet Union and its satellite people’s republics.

After watching a couple rounds of Sharapova, Anna Kournikova or Olga Poutchkova, I think I can speak for everyone when I say – It doesn’t matter where they come from, just keep em’ coming.

Belichick a genius? Not without T-Bone.

SPORTSbyBROOKS.com (via the Minneapolis Star-Tribune) posted an interesting piece about Bill Belichick’s coaching record prior to Tom Brady.

• Belichick was 36-44 with the Browns.
• The Patriots were 5-11 in 2000, Belichick’s first year, sans Tom Brady. And they lost their first game in 2001, also without Brady.
• Total record of 41-56 with one playoff appearance and no victories.
• Starting with Game 2 of the 2001 season, Brady has started every game for the Belichick-led Patriots. Since then, New England is 86-25 in the regular season with three Super Bowl titles and possibly a fourth on the way.

Of course, these numbers don’t mean Belichick isn’t the super genius the media has made him out to be, but 41-56 without Brady? For you mathematicians out there, that means Belicheat won only 42% of his games without the Golden Boy. Kind of staggering when you think about it.

« Older posts Newer posts »