Finn (Globe) thinks it's time for Gil and Geno to call it a career

[Dighton Rockhead]

Gresh is really bad at everything he does.

For a guy with a horrible voice for radio, a grating personality, and not much of a grasp for any sport other than football......the guy's having a pretty decent career... ;D

 

[CTListener]

Gresh is really bad at everything he does.

For a guy with a horrible voice for radio, a grating personality, and not much of a grasp for any sport other than football......the guy's having a pretty decent career... ;D

You don't have to have a "radio voice" to succeed in sports radio anymore, especially on a talk show. And "grating" means "ratings."

 

[thirdendorsed]

From all appearances, Gresh knows football and talks football technicalities and strategy in a way that Boston had not heard football technical stuff discussed in the same way that we dissect baseball strategy. Let's face it; before 2001, Patriots games were nothing more than an excuse to get drunk so there is not a lot of institutional knowledge of the game among the fans.

I think the obnoxiousness factor with Gresch is clearly being worked on, and he's becoming easier to take and I think that as he carves out a niche with the football broadcasts the obnoxiousness will continue to fade since he will no longer feel the professional imperative to be controversial for the sake of being controversial.

Let's face it, Gino played one year in the NFL in which he attempted 15 field goals and made six. Gresh shows a facile understanding of the game the way it is played today, he communicates it well and is willing to take the air to get news. Clearly he picks up on things as they happen.

What holds him back is the unprofessional way in which Santos integrates his commentary into the game -- but that is clearly Santos' problem and not a failing of Gresh. Igt is painful when Gresh makes a comment and Santos ignores it, either out of spite or because he just doesn't understand it.

Cappelletti's days are clearly numbered, Santos can probably continue since there is no football play-by-play bench locally, but one wonders if Lee, Mass. native and Emerson grad Wayne Larrivee, now with the Packers, formerly Voice of the Bears, wouldn't be worth going after.

 

[ArtSpooner]

From all appearances, Gresh knows football and talks football technicalities and strategy in a way that Boston had not heard football technical stuff discussed in the same way that we dissect baseball strategy. Let's face it; before 2001, Patriots games were nothing more than an excuse to get drunk so there is not a lot of institutional knowledge of the game among the fans.

Let's face it, Gino played one year in the NFL in which he attempted 15 field goals and made six. Gresh shows a facile understanding of the game the way it is played today, he communicates it well and is willing to take the air to get news. Clearly he picks up on things as they happen.

Couple things. Gresh's playing career consists of playing for URI, which, as far as I know isn't even Division I. If you believe that he's the most technically astute football analyst in Boston, you're either joking or his mother.

I think you might want to take a closer look at Gino's career. He was a star in the AFL, not just as a kicker, but also as a pass receiver. I suspect that you checked a website that only showed his NFL stats after the merger of the two leagues. Clearly, you never saw him play. I also suspect that you're the Pat's version of a Pink Hat. There was pro football before 2001. The Pats were in two Super Bowls. I guess you missed those. Did you know that the Detroit Lions have never been to a Super Bowl? I guess what they've been playing in Detroit since the 1930s, has just been an excuse to get drunk.

 

[CTListener]

From all appearances, Gresh knows football and talks football technicalities and strategy in a way that Boston had not heard football technical stuff discussed in the same way that we dissect baseball strategy. Let's face it; before 2001, Patriots games were nothing more than an excuse to get drunk so there is not a lot of institutional knowledge of the game among the fans.

Let's face it, Gino played one year in the NFL in which he attempted 15 field goals and made six. Gresh shows a facile understanding of the game the way it is played today, he communicates it well and is willing to take the air to get news. Clearly he picks up on things as they happen.

Couple things. Gresh's playing career consists of playing for URI, which, as far as I know isn't even Division I. If you believe that he's the most technically astute football analyst in Boston, you're either joking or his mother.

I think you might want to take a closer look at Gino's career. He was a star in the AFL, not just as a kicker, but also as a pass receiver.

Correct about Gino, but Bill Belichick played his football at Wesleyan, which wasn't even Division II at the time. There are other ways to gain technical knowledge of football other than playing it at a high level, you know.

 

[ArtSpooner]

From all appearances, Gresh knows football and talks football technicalities and strategy in a way that Boston had not heard football technical stuff discussed in the same way that we dissect baseball strategy. Let's face it; before 2001, Patriots games were nothing more than an excuse to get drunk so there is not a lot of institutional knowledge of the game among the fans.

Let's face it, Gino played one year in the NFL in which he attempted 15 field goals and made six. Gresh shows a facile understanding of the game the way it is played today, he communicates it well and is willing to take the air to get news. Clearly he picks up on things as they happen.

Couple things. Gresh's playing career consists of playing for URI, which, as far as I know isn't even Division I. If you believe that he's the most technically astute football analyst in Boston, you're either joking or his mother.

I think you might want to take a closer look at Gino's career. He was a star in the AFL, not just as a kicker, but also as a pass receiver.

Correct about Gino, but Bill Belichick played his football at Wesleyan, which wasn't even Division II at the time. There are other ways to gain technical knowledge of football other than playing it at a high level, you know.

That's true. The way Belichick did it was to be the son of a college football coach, take a job out of college as unpaid intern for an NFL team and spend his entire adult life in the NFL. How did Gresh do it? I can't believe that you compared that loud mouthed buffoon to Bill Belichick.

 

[ArtSpooner]

What holds him back is the unprofessional way in which Santos integrates his commentary into the game -- but that is clearly Santos' problem and not a failing of Gresh. Igt is painful when Gresh makes a comment and Santos ignores it, either out of spite or because he just doesn't understand it.ot a Cappelletti's days are clearly numbered, Santos can probably continue since there is no football play-by-play bench locally, but one wonders if Lee, Mass. native and Emerson grad Wayne Larrivee, now with the Packers, formerly Voice of the Bears, wouldn't be worth going after.

It occurs to me that you might be confusing Gresh with Zolak. I have watched every game this year, so I'm not sure of this, but I believe Zolak is the sideline reporter and not Gresh. Is Gresh also part of the actual game broadcast? I think he's on the post game show, but not the game itself.

Zolak was an NFL quarterback. He has legitimate credentials and is not a bufoon..

 

[Blackroc]

think he's on the post game show, but not the game itself.

He may have a half-time role but nothing during the PBP call that I've heard.

The season's not hard on them so I'd expect G&G to stay as long as they can (the only critics that matter are named Kraft).

 

[aaronread]

There was pro football before 2001.

Given how much the game has changed since 2001, I'm not sure that statement is terribly relevant. Christ, just how much it's changed in the last two or three years is bordering on incredible.

Certainly baseball has changed as well. The DH being the most obvious example, and the Steroid Era being another. Moneyball, the concept of a closer, and the Religion of the Almighty Pitch Count are up there, too. But I think most would agree that the dynamic of the game is, well, a lot more dynamic (i.e. constantly changing) for the NFL than MLB.

You can have play-by-play guys who were MLB players 20 or 30 years ago and a lot of their knowledge is still pretty relevant today. Someone who played in the NFL 20 or 30 years ago was, arguably, playing a totally different sport.

That doesn't mean I think either fact is terribly relevant in how good a broadcaster you are. I think it helps, certainly, to have that perspective of being on the field...something a comparatively tiny amount of people have. But I don't think it's essential. I've seen some really, really good sportscasters that have zero professional sports experience. Like any good broadcaster, they do a lot of research, a lot of interviewing of players and experts, and - most importantly - they're just good storytellers. They know how to paint a picture of what's going on, and why it matters, in the mind's eye. That's a lot more important than being a player, no matter how good or bad a player you are/were.

Conversely, I think there are some world-class buffoons who might've been decent, or even good, NFL players...but they completely suck as sportscasters or analysts (cough, cough, Terry Bradshaw).

To be honest, I wonder if a lot of former NFL players are automatically LESS qualified to be sportscasters given the damage they do to their brains via concussions. Being a good sportscaster means you have to think quickly and have an excellent memory.

 

[ArtSpooner]

You can have play-by-play guys who were MLB players 20 or 30 years ago and a lot of their knowledge is still pretty relevant today. Someone who played in the NFL 20 or 30 years ago was, arguably, playing a totally different sport.

Phil Sims, Chris Collinsworth, Boomer Esiason, Howie Long, Troy Aikmen, all played 20 years ago and have managed to keep up with it. It's not rocket science. Blocking, tackling, pass routes, coverage, blitzes, and the like are still pretty much the same. I value the opinion of an ex-NFL player over a stat geek or a couch potato. I can't think of even one analyst who isn't an ex player. Who do you feel is a better analyst than the guys I named, who isn't an ex player? And I don't mean someone like Peter King who writes about it. I mean someone who can do it on the air, with no time to prepare.

Terry Bradshaw's intelligence was ridiculed by a punk from the Dallas Cowboys named Hollywood Henderson. Old Hollywood, who claimed to be so smart, ended up in jail for drug crimes. Bradshaw is not that bad. I think he plays up the good ol' boy image because it's expected. One thing that impresses me is the way he does those rapid fire halftime highlights. He runs through seven or eight games at rapid speed, live at halftime, and seldom stutters. I'm not a broadcaster, but my son-in-law is and he says that it's not easy.

By the way, the Moneyball method still hasn't won anything..........except a lot of money for Billy Bean. It's more economics than baseball. I don't care what some pencil-necked geek and his computer say. If I see a guy hitting .300, with 30 hrs and 100 rbi. I'm looking at a pretty good hitter.

 

[MassMusicMan]

I don't care what some pencil-necked geek and his computer say. If I see a guy hitting .300, with 30 hrs and 100 rbi. I'm looking at a pretty good hitter.

No intelligent person would tell you otherwise. But Moneyball teams can't afford to pay him what he's worth, so they mine for somebody who hits .270 and draws a bazillion walks.

 

[aaronread]

Blocking, tackling, pass routes, coverage, blitzes, and the like are still pretty much the same.

You're joking, right? Have we been watching the same sport this year? Especially blocking and coverage, the rules are incredibly different than they were 20 years ago. "Defense wins Championships" used to be the golden mantra of the NFL, and while three of the four offense-happy/defense-poor teams are gone from the postseason, there's still a real chance the Patriots could win it with one of the worst defenses in the league. That's in no small part because of the rule changes that make it so ridiculously advantageous to have a good offensive team...especially a good PASS offensive team like the Patriots.

I value the opinion of an ex-NFL player over a stat geek or a couch potato. I can't think of even one analyst who isn't an ex player.

The guys I know who aren't NFL players but are still really good football analysts are all at the college level. And there's a real chicken-n-egg thing there, too. You can argue that none of them are in the NFL broadcasts because they're not good enough. But none of them will make it to NFL broadcasts because it's an axiom that only former players make good analysts, so there's no way of ever really proving if they're good enough or not.

Terry probably does overact more than a little bit. But if he's merely supposed to be *playing* someone who's more than a little slow, well, with everything you hear about concussions these days, one does have to wonder. OTOH, I hadn't noticed the rapid-fire analysis (usually when I see Terry, I immediately change the channel because his "analysis" for lack of a better word, seems so vapid and useless) and I concur that something like that is not easy to do.

 

[CTListener]

Blocking, tackling, pass routes, coverage, blitzes, and the like are still pretty much the same.

You're joking, right? Have we been watching the same sport this year? Especially blocking and coverage, the rules are incredibly different than they were 20 years ago. "Defense wins Championships" used to be the golden mantra of the NFL, and while three of the four offense-happy/defense-poor teams are gone from the postseason, there's still a real chance the Patriots could win it with one of the worst defenses in the league. That's in no small part because of the rule changes that make it so ridiculously advantageous to have a good offensive team...especially a good PASS offensive team like the Patriots.

Sorry, it's still football, with a few recent wrinkles. My dad's 90 and he understands what's going on just fine. A DB touches a receiver, it's usually a penalty. Got it. Spread offenses require QBs to work out of the shotgun most of the time. Got it. You celebrate a touchdown with a choreographed minstrel show routine in the end zone, it costs your team 15 yards on the kickoff. Got it. Honest, you don't have to have played the game recently -- or at all -- to understand it. Watch a lot of football, talk to a bunch of coaches, watch a lot more football, talk to more coaches and some players and you too can host a talk show. Making it sound like specialized nuclear-physicist or theoretical-mathematician work is laughable.

 

[ArtSpooner]

Sorry, it's still football, with a few recent wrinkles. My dad's 90 and he understands what's going on just fine. A DB touches a receiver, it's usually a penalty. Got it. Spread offenses require QBs to work out of the shotgun most of the time. Got it. You celebrate a touchdown with a choreographed minstrel show routine in the end zone, it costs your team 15 yards on the kickoff. Got it. Honest, you don't have to have played the game recently -- or at all -- to understand it. Watch a lot of football, talk to a bunch of coaches, watch a lot more football, talk to more coaches and some players and you too can host a talk show. Making it sound like specialized nuclear-physicist or theoretical-mathematician work is laughable.

A certain age group seems to think they discovered the game ten years ago. The game his been around for over 100 years. The rules are constantly changing. There was once something called a flying wedge. The goal posts were once on the goal line. Kickers kicked straight on. There hasn't always been a two point conversion. There was once something called the "T" formation. There used to be seven defensive lineman, Tom Landry came up with the concept of linebackers when he was a defensive coach for the Giants(he also played for the Giants, little guy like that, imagine) At one time players didn't dance around like jacka**es when they scored a touchdown or, worse yet, after a routine tackle. That "new" wrinkle that Brady did last week, the quick kick, was fairly commonplace. This is a lot to grasp, but us old fogies have managed to keep up.
As far as the sabremetric approach to baseball goes, I think of what Willie Mays once said when someone started asking him "scientific" questions . He said "When they hit the ball, I catch it, when they throw the ball, I hit it". I think this theory will work even in the world of stat geeks.

 

[SonicOverload]

... and whatever happened to the 'coffin corner' punt? That seems to be a lost art, as well

 

[ArtSpooner]

... and whatever happened to the 'coffin corner' punt? That seems to be a lost art, as well

Remember when they used to call a blitz a "red dog"? Remember "clipping"? Now that's a "push in the back".

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

Zolak has improved over the course of the season and definitely adds to the broadcast now. I wouldn't mind seeing Dale return and I like McDonough even more. Zolak would be fine in the booth, as well.

Dale Arnold is likely to be the more realistic choice, since he doesn't have as much on his dinner plate these days. As for Zolak, I think he has the makings to become a very fine color guy.

 

[CTListener]

... and whatever happened to the 'coffin corner' punt? That seems to be a lost art, as well

Remember when they used to call a blitz a "red dog"? Remember "clipping"? Now that's a "push in the back".

Red dog! Wasn't it Al DeRogatis who brought that term into its very brief vogue? I remember hearing it in the early '70s, but "blitz" replaced it pretty quickly. "Clipping" is still around, but it applies to blocking below the waist -- or is that the "chop block"?

The "coffin corner" punt never died, either, but today's punters don't always put it in the corner, preferring instead to punt it somewhere around the 10 and hope the roll will get it closer to the end zone without going in. To me, this is an improvement. There was always a good chance of shanking a coffin corner kick and sending it soaring over the sideline five yards past the line of scrimmage.

 

[ArtSpooner]

... and whatever happened to the 'coffin corner' punt? That seems to be a lost art, as well

Remember when they used to call a blitz a "red dog"? Remember "clipping"? Now that's a "push in the back".

Red dog! Wasn't it Al DeRogatis who brought that term into its very brief vogue? I remember hearing it in the early '70s, but "blitz" replaced it pretty quickly. "Clipping" is still around, but it applies to blocking below the waist -- or is that the "chop block"?

The "coffin corner" punt never died, either, but today's punters don't always put it in the corner, preferring instead to punt it somewhere around the 10 and hope the roll will get it closer to the end zone without going in. To me, this is an improvement. There was always a good chance of shanking a coffin corner kick and sending it soaring over the sideline five yards past the line of scrimmage.

Red Dog was definitely around in the 60s. As I remember it had something to do with an Irish setter chasing someone. Clipping is an illegal block from behind, they just don't use the term very often any more. A chop block is below the knees.