Tony Romo The Analyst

[lancerman]

5 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Collinsworth bothers me because he pumps PFF during his announcing, and he purposefully calls the game in a way where he can do that. I don't care if he's said something negative about my team. Every announcer has. We've sucked for a decade plus. But I'd rather not have an announcer trying to sell his investments as part of the analysis.

Wouldn't you be annoyed if other announcers started selling their endorsements while announcing? "What a route by Antonio Brown! It was as smooth as a nice, refreshing Pepsi. Man, that Antonio Brown is elite. He's basically the Pepsi of WRs."

Well true but he's selling a methodology of stats relevant to the game that other analysts have used in the past. ESPN did the same thing with QBR. 

[jrry32]

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Well true but he's selling a methodology of stats relevant to the game that other analysts have used in the past. ESPN did the same thing with QBR. 

And QBR is a disaster. I hate when ESPN sells it just as much as I hate when Collinsworth tries to sell PFF. Replace Pepsi with Gatorade since it's tangentially-connected to the game.

I'd be less bothered by it if PFF were still a free service, but it isn't.

[lancerman]

Just now, jrry32 said:

And QBR is a disaster. I hate when ESPN sells it just as much as I hate when Collinsworth tries to sell PFF. Replace Pepsi with Gatorade since it's tangentially connected to the NFL.

That's not even remotely a fair comparison. PFF is an actual methodology that grades players based on an analysis of their play. He's applying his product to an analysis of the game. You can't do that with Pepsi or Gatorade. And he only does it like twice a game. 

Either way he's far better than Romo who at this point just tries to predict the routes based off the formation. But he's not adding context. Imagine a boxing analyst yelling what punch he though each fighter would throw next based off their stance and that's how the whole fight was called. It's just not the point. People have eyes. They can see what actually is happening.

[Dundalis]

7 hours ago, lancerman said:

That's not even remotely a fair comparison. PFF is an actual methodology that grades players based on an analysis of their play. He's applying his product to an analysis of the game. You can't do that with Pepsi or Gatorade. And he only does it like twice a game. 

Either way he's far better than Romo who at this point just tries to predict the routes based off the formation. But he's not adding context. Imagine a boxing analyst yelling what punch he though each fighter would throw next based off their stance and that's how the whole fight was called. It's just not the point. People have eyes. They can see what actually is happening.

95% of fans have NFI what is happening, what the hell are you on about. Even that 5% will not read the play as well as Romo does. As far as I am concerned if he's consistently correct with his reading of the plays, he should be well within his rights to make his opinion known. Too many people have a specific idea in their head about how announcing should be. Ain't no rulebook. If he's providing value to the broadcast with his voice, that's all that matters, and for 95% of fans watching, they are gonna learn something listening to Romo break it down. That just doesn't happen with other broadcasters.

[lancerman]

7 hours ago, Dundalis said:

95% of fans have NFI what is happening, what the hell are you on about. Even that 5% will not read the play as well as Romo does. As far as I am concerned if he's consistently correct with his reading of the plays, he should be well within his rights to make his opinion known. Too many people have a specific idea in their head about how announcing should be. Ain't no rulebook. If he's providing value to the broadcast with his voice, that's all that matters, and for 95% of fans watching, they are gonna learn something listening to Romo break it down. That just doesn't happen with other broadcasters.

Actually announcing has been around for decades and within the field their is a general standard of what good announcing is. It doesn't matter that he's right. He's just trying to predict plays to sound smart. Any QB who announced could do that. They don't because it's bad announcing 

[Dundalis]

10 hours ago, lancerman said:

Actually announcing has been around for decades and within the field their is a general standard of what good announcing is. It doesn't matter that he's right. He's just trying to predict plays to sound smart. Any QB who announced could do that. They don't because it's bad announcing 

Pretty sure announcing is for the fans. What people within the announcing business consider bad announcing is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Does the announcer provide value to the broadcast and add, rather than subtract from it? If the answer is yes, then he's doing a great job. Having rules, for rules sake is meaningless. In any industry, the guys who are typically regarded as the benchmark, guys who stood out are typically the ones who broke the rules. Something either works or it doesn't. Ain't anymore complicated than that.

[1ForTheThumb]

Continues to kill it. Romo was great last night.

[AlexGreen#20]

He's the best.

[BroncosFan2010]

Overreaction, but if he stays in the booth for a long time, like 10+ years, I don't really see a way he doesn't go down as the best, most substantive commentator ever. This is pretty nuts. I have never in my life been excited to hear someone commentate. Some guys that I enjoy, but never a guy I will research before the game to see if he is commentating. I have already done that twice with Romo.

 

[SteelKing728]

7 hours ago, Dundalis said:

Pretty sure announcing is for the fans. What people within the announcing business consider bad announcing is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Does the announcer provide value to the broadcast and add, rather than subtract from it? If the answer is yes, then he's doing a great job. Having rules, for rules sake is meaningless. In any industry, the guys who are typically regarded as the benchmark, guys who stood out are typically the ones who broke the rules. Something either works or it doesn't. Ain't anymore complicated than that.

that, or they've worked on their craft relentlessly and mastered it.

I think what you're getting into is stuff you hear in movies and passing it off as your own.

[Pugger]

2 hours ago, 1ForTheThumb said:

Continues to kill it. Romo was great last night.

I'm not sure if it was him or Nance but one of them said he could feel the tension in the crowd - that they could tell the game was in jeopardy - after Chicago scored even tho they were down 2 scores...  Otherwise Romo was good again last night.

[cddolphin]

8 minutes ago, Pugger said:

one of them said he could feel the tension in the crowd - that they could tell the game was in jeopardy

Company-man speak. "Stay tuned in folks!" I wasn't watching by that point.

[Malik]

On 9/28/2017 at 12:35 AM, lancerman said:

That's not even remotely a fair comparison. PFF is an actual methodology that grades players based on an analysis of their play. He's applying his product to an analysis of the game. You can't do that with Pepsi or Gatorade. And he only does it like twice a game. 

Either way he's far better than Romo who at this point just tries to predict the routes based off the formation. But he's not adding context. Imagine a boxing analyst yelling what punch he though each fighter would throw next based off their stance and that's how the whole fight was called. It's just not the point. People have eyes. They can see what actually is happening.

If the only thing you think Tony says during the entirety of the game is him predicting plays then all that says is that you an averse bias against him.

[lancerman]

15 minutes ago, Malik said:

If the only thing you think Tony says during the entirety of the game is him predicting plays then all that says is that you an averse bias against him.

It's not the only thing, but it's the only thing that makes him different and the reason we are talking about him. Take that away and he's actually kind of so-so to mediocre at actually commentating. 

[VikeManDan]

Count me in with those who have enjoyed him. I'll echo other in that he could tone it down a little bit but I'm sure he'll learn with time.