Dr.Z

[run pMc]

Favre plays the game very unconventionally. Z is a purist and has never warmed up to Favre's unconventional game. I doubt he has a personal dislike or a vendetta against him, especially since Favre is pretty good about talking (sometimes too candidly) with the media, and Z gets uppity about players who won't talk to the media. I generally like Z's analysis and observations, although sometimes I think he's way off. I didn't take the article as GB/Favre bashing.

[packinpatland]

Favre plays the game very unconventionally. Z is a purist and has never warmed up to Favre's unconventional game. I doubt he has a personal dislike or a vendetta against him, especially since Favre is pretty good about talking (sometimes too candidly) with the media, and Z gets uppity about players who won't talk to the media. I generally like Z's analysis and observations, although sometimes I think he's way off. I didn't take the article as GB/Favre bashing.

One more time.............

"I didn't say he was bashing...this time. What I meant was this, he writes not so great things about Favre and the Packers all year long. Yet who does he use in column? What sells magazines (articles with photos of Brett Favre)
He's using the GB/Favre cash cow to cash in."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Certainly SI is cashing in on Favre, but Z doesn't choose the photos, covers or captions. No writer does.

I didn't say he was bashing...this time. What I meant was this, he writes not so great things about Favre and the Packers all year long. Yet who does he use in column? What sells magazines (articles with photos of Brett Favre)
He's using the GB/Favre cash cow to cash in.

Stop with your damn logic and reason.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Not in his job description. Writers don't write the headlines either. And if I was a writer in the position to opine weekly, the headline would be second on my list of concerns (after the actual writing).

Copy editors get the headline and photo editors get to choose photos. That's their area of expertise. Writers just supply the text.

Certainly SI is cashing in on Favre, but Z doesn't choose the photos, covers or captions. No writer does.

I didn't say he was bashing...this time. What I meant was this, he writes not so great things about Favre and the Packers all year long. Yet who does he use in column? What sells magazines (articles with photos of Brett Favre)
He's using the GB/Favre cash cow to cash in.

He may not choose the covers. But I'll bet he has imput on the photos and captions........they are within HIS article.........why would he not?

Don't know that I agree with that but..............there certainly were enough mentions of Favre (even his wife, Deanna), McCarthy and the Packers in the text of his article.

You are completely wrong. Writers don't pick their captions, headlines or photos. What do you think the copy editor does? If nothing, then i want that job.

Take it from someone who briefly worked for a paper. Also, copy editors can rewrite the text, remove text, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Favre plays the game very unconventionally. Z is a purist and has never warmed up to Favre's unconventional game. I doubt he has a personal dislike or a vendetta against him, especially since Favre is pretty good about talking (sometimes too candidly) with the media, and Z gets uppity about players who won't talk to the media. I generally like Z's analysis and observations, although sometimes I think he's way off. I didn't take the article as GB/Favre bashing.

One more time.............

"I didn't say he was bashing...this time. What I meant was this, he writes not so great things about Favre and the Packers all year long. Yet who does he use in column? What sells magazines (articles with photos of Brett Favre)
He's using the GB/Favre cash cow to cash in."

You are really reaching on this one.

He mentions TO, Chad Johnson, Ruvell martin, etc.

The reason he uses Favre is that it is easy to make his point about fawning..who else is he going to use?

And, if you wanna use Favre, you don't bury the lead on page 3.

[packinpatland]

Favre plays the game very unconventionally. Z is a purist and has never warmed up to Favre's unconventional game. I doubt he has a personal dislike or a vendetta against him, especially since Favre is pretty good about talking (sometimes too candidly) with the media, and Z gets uppity about players who won't talk to the media. I generally like Z's analysis and observations, although sometimes I think he's way off. I didn't take the article as GB/Favre bashing.

One more time.............

"I didn't say he was bashing...this time. What I meant was this, he writes not so great things about Favre and the Packers all year long. Yet who does he use in column? What sells magazines (articles with photos of Brett Favre)
He's using the GB/Favre cash cow to cash in."

You are really reaching on this one.

He mentions TO, Chad Johnson, Ruvell martin, etc.

The reason he uses Favre is that it is easy to make his point about fawning..who else is he going to use?

And, if you wanna use Favre, you don't bury the lead on page 3.

Come on.....MJ already said I was wrong....

"No he's right, though at times photo choice goes to the page editor and depending on the size of the publication, the editorial assistant."
_________________

[woodbuck27]

These two clowns piss me off a whole lot.

2 STARS

Joe Buck and Troy Aikman, Fox

The biggest problem is that network boss David Hill, in a moment of crowning arrogance, decided to do away with lineups at the beginning of the game. Thus we learned about injuries and unusual substitutions only during the course of the action, if at all. "The announcers will tell you all that in their stand-up," he said, but it didn't happen. So the first part of each contest became a mystery, alleviated slightly during the post-season when he broke down and allowed a brief scrawl at the bottom of the screen.

The problem was especially acute during the telecasts by this No. 1 team because neither Buck nor Aikman is concerned with telling you much about defense, who made the tackle, who forced the play, etc., and the production style is to get off a play so quickly that you can't even see the uniform numbers of the people involved. Thus, it is always with a sinking heart that I approach a game this team is working, if I happen to be especially interested in it.

Aikman is very good in breaking down, right, matters of pass and catch, although he's too nice. Well, what the hell, he always was a nice guy, and I certainly didn't complain when he was playing and he made my job so much easier. But gosh, if I hear him say, "You are exactly right, Joe," one more time, I'm going to find someone innocent to yell at.

Buck? How can he be so knowledgeable about baseball and not about our own sport? Believe me, he wouldn't last, trying to bring the same knowledge to the diamond, where the announcing is on such a higher plane.

I have a whole bunch of platitudes I collected from a season of listening to this team. New England-Dallas contest ("I think that's going to be a heck of a game"). Jerry Glanville ("Quite a character"), and so forth. But why be miserable, just for its own sake? ("Because you're a miserable character to begin with," says the nagging voice, and you can just shaddup, OK?)


I hate to watch a game with these two working it or is it? '' Pimping it.''

I made this comment before in another thread, but it seemed obvious to me right off the top of the Giants at Packers NFC Championship game that they were ALL Giants. It was especially obvious and or difficult for Joe Buck to hide that.

Now of course, I may be mistaken? That's just the way I saw it.

BUCK and Aikman = 2 thumbs. . . down.

[packinpatland]

These two clowns piss me off a whole lot.

2 STARS

Joe Buck and Troy Aikman, Fox

The biggest problem is that network boss David Hill, in a moment of crowning arrogance, decided to do away with lineups at the beginning of the game. Thus we learned about injuries and unusual substitutions only during the course of the action, if at all. "The announcers will tell you all that in their stand-up," he said, but it didn't happen. So the first part of each contest became a mystery, alleviated slightly during the post-season when he broke down and allowed a brief scrawl at the bottom of the screen.

The problem was especially acute during the telecasts by this No. 1 team because neither Buck nor Aikman is concerned with telling you much about defense, who made the tackle, who forced the play, etc., and the production style is to get off a play so quickly that you can't even see the uniform numbers of the people involved. Thus, it is always with a sinking heart that I approach a game this team is working, if I happen to be especially interested in it.

Aikman is very good in breaking down, right, matters of pass and catch, although he's too nice. Well, what the hell, he always was a nice guy, and I certainly didn't complain when he was playing and he made my job so much easier. But gosh, if I hear him say, "You are exactly right, Joe," one more time, I'm going to find someone innocent to yell at.

Buck? How can he be so knowledgeable about baseball and not about our own sport? Believe me, he wouldn't last, trying to bring the same knowledge to the diamond, where the announcing is on such a higher plane.

I have a whole bunch of platitudes I collected from a season of listening to this team. New England-Dallas contest ("I think that's going to be a heck of a game"). Jerry Glanville ("Quite a character"), and so forth. But why be miserable, just for its own sake? ("Because you're a miserable character to begin with," says the nagging voice, and you can just shaddup, OK?)


I hate to watch a game with these two working it or is it? '' Pimping it.''

I made this comment before in another thread, but it seemed obvious to me right off the top of the Giants at Packers NFC Championship game that they were ALL Giants. It was especially obvious and or difficult for Joe Buck to hide that.

Now of course, I may be mistaken? That's just the way I saw it.

BUCK and Aikman = 2 thumbs. . . down.

You nailed it.

[MJZiggy]

That was out of Z's announcer-bashfest, right? I'm not sure I'd have given Aikman more than 1 star...

[chain_gang]

I like Fox's announcers a lot better than CBS. For some reason when I watch the CBS games their announcing makes me want to take a nap. On Fox, I think they get overly excited sometimes, but it keeps you in the game more. Especially if you're watching a 49ers vs. Falcons game.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Favre plays the game very unconventionally. Z is a purist and has never warmed up to Favre's unconventional game. I doubt he has a personal dislike or a vendetta against him, especially since Favre is pretty good about talking (sometimes too candidly) with the media, and Z gets uppity about players who won't talk to the media. I generally like Z's analysis and observations, although sometimes I think he's way off. I didn't take the article as GB/Favre bashing.

One more time.............

"I didn't say he was bashing...this time. What I meant was this, he writes not so great things about Favre and the Packers all year long. Yet who does he use in column? What sells magazines (articles with photos of Brett Favre)
He's using the GB/Favre cash cow to cash in."

You are really reaching on this one.

He mentions TO, Chad Johnson, Ruvell martin, etc.

The reason he uses Favre is that it is easy to make his point about fawning..who else is he going to use?

And, if you wanna use Favre, you don't bury the lead on page 3.

Come on.....MJ already said I was wrong....

"No he's right, though at times photo choice goes to the page editor and depending on the size of the publication, the editorial assistant."
_________________

You are just a pawn in my game to seduce Ziggy by paralling her thoughts.