Phil Simms and the Fumble that Wasn't

[Keegs]

I don't know what to tell you. I LIKE rodney. He is one of, if not my favorite players ever. I WANT TO like him. Every time he tries to make a point, I'm rooting for him, but it always comes out like a half-formed thought and his facial expressions are just not relaxed or natural. He has the deer in the headlights look just like that posterboard Dungy.

I guess we don't see eye to eye on commentators because Keith Olbermann, while savvy and articulate, is a raging douche.

Olbermann is a fraud scumbag pompous jerk. He should be on the daily show talking about bs politics and have nothing to do with football.

He appears to be intelligent and savvy to some people b/c that's the position the network puts him in. Similar to why John Clayton appears to be "the professor" to morons who watch espn b/c he's standing in front of a fake bookcase backdrop.

take him out of his stupid rehearsed show and see how smart he really is. I'm sure he's just another moron. But he does do a better job of being a fraud than John Clayton does, i'll give him that.

I find it very amusing that some people are impressed by Keith Olbermann

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Olbermann is just about the smartest, savviest, most articulate announcer out there. You may not like his politics, that's always my suspicion with cracks like this, but the idea that he's bad at his job -- as opposed to BRILLIANT at it, which is why so many people put up with his eccentricities and ego -- is as ridiculous as the idea that Rodney Harrison isn't comfortable on camera.

Politics aside, Olbermann was a colossal jacka$$ and a hater to the Nth degree (as another poster pointed out). He was so off in his comments and so biased towards certain teams/players....it's shocking someone could speak of savvy and Olbermann in the same football night in America sentence.

 

[Ring 6]

Simms is usually very good. Today though not so much.

I agree with this.
Simms is normally good. Today he made a lot of curious comments.

 

[PatsFan24]

I'm really starting to dislike Al Michaels. Collinsworth is decent, Al sucks.

 

[Aßßynormal]

I've quietly blamed Phil Simms for his ignorance of the Tuck rule as one of the primary reasons for it (Tuck call in 2001) being so controversial. Earlier in the year (2001), Testaverde had a Tuck call (for the Jets) that cost us the game. You'd of figured he'd of remembered it, he called the game (IIRC). He's paid to know the rules and then to explain them. He was surprised by the Tuck call and never considered the possibility, he did a terrible job on that play. His bafflement during the call/review helped create the problem.

As for today, if the ball was moving before possession was fully established and it came out, it would've been an incomplete pass. It wasn't moving until after he was touched, IOW, he had possesion, was down and was touched (play over). The ball moved because Branch was getting up to continue a now dead play. Obvious, makes Simms look like an idiot or a Jets homer.

 

[Bonzo]

Refs made the right call, no question. It was not a fumble.

What surprised me was that they overturned the call on the field.

 

[upstater1]

Politics aside, Olbermann was a colossal jacka$$ and a hater to the Nth degree (as another poster pointed out). He was so off in his comments and so biased towards certain teams/players....it's shocking someone could speak of savvy and Olbermann in the same football night in America sentence.

I'm not a fan of Olbermann's delivery at all, BUT...

...that's what he was being paid to do. Could anyone honestly expect different from WORST ATHLETE OF THE WEEK?

I mean, that was the schtick, and it was approved by the network. If you're going to have something like that, you have to find odious behavior and then go over the top moralizing about it.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Simms has been like this for years, I don't why people think he's a good announcer. Talks about one team the whole game and misses too much. Nantz is equally bad.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I'm not a fan of Olbermann's delivery at all, BUT...

...that's what he was being paid to do. Could anyone honestly expect different from WORST ATHLETE OF THE WEEK?

I mean, that was the schtick, and it was approved by the network. If you're going to have something like that, you have to find odious behavior and then go over the top moralizing about it.

No doubt, he was there to do provide entertainment. And when doing a schtick, you will get some people who are entertained by it and some who are not (I am not here to debate his entertainment value). However, you disregarded why I posted about Olbermann. Please refer to the post I repsponded to that anointed him the "smartest, saviest, most articulate". Those are three incorrect adjectives about Olbermann's time at Football night in America whether you liked his "schtick" or not.

 

[Deus Irae]

Olbermann is just about the smartest, savviest, most articulate announcer out there. You may not like his politics, that's always my suspicion with cracks like this, but the idea that he's bad at his job -- as opposed to BRILLIANT at it, which is why so many people put up with his eccentricities and ego -- is as ridiculous as the idea that Rodney Harrison isn't comfortable on camera.

No, Olbermann really isn't. His act got ratings/approval, Particularly when he was paired with the vastly superior Dan Patrick, which is why they put up with him, but that was largely an issue of chemistry. He wasn't worth the hassle in the end, which is why the bridges kept getting burned. His stint on Football Night in America was a great demonstration of just how much he is not what you're claiming.

 

[alamo]

Welker burns Revis for a 60 yard catch and Simms then does his best to make it clear to the world that it couldn't have been Revis's fault but wow he caught him! even after someone else must have screwed up!

Except, Simms was right. On that play Welker wasn't Revis' man. It was safety Eric Smith who bit on the play fake and got burned by Welker, it's a credit to Revis who was further away that he made up the extra distance and caught Welker. Shades of Ben Watson catching Champ Bailey. Dungy, Harrison, and just now Jerome Wiggins on Ch 7 all said the same thing about that play.

On the subject of Harrison -- I like him, even if he isn't smooth. He's nowhere near Emmit Smith painful to listen to and he makes good points, which is most important. There are too many commentators who are smooth but who have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[Bonzo]

On the subject of Harrison -- I like him, even if he isn't smooth. He's nowhere near Emmit Smith painful to listen to and he makes good points, which is most important. There are too many commentators who are smooth but who have no clue what they are talking about.

Pretty much the way I feel too. I'll take the jock with the life experience over the more articulate talking head who is frankly more accomplished in the art of hand-waving.

 

[wpdougie2180]

Taken Chef at PP

Yeah not a fumble

 

[Fencer]

The question IMO was whether Deion had control of the ball at the moment the play turned into a tackle.

As long as he was moving the ball from one hand to the other in a controlled way, and his knee was on the ground, then I think the act of touching him ends the play instantly before he can lose control of the ball from the hit.

 

[SEA_Pat]

Branch is clearly down, i still don't get the debate/confusion and Simms continues to make comments after the play about how "this one is going to get debated all week".

Well, based on this thread and others, I'd say he was pretty much spot on that it will be debated all week.

 

[madmarcus1960]

The pass was complete before he started to get up. The ball didn't start being switched from right hand to left until after he was touched with his knees on the turf. NO FUMBLE!
Any other conclusion is just being a jaded loser.

 

[goheels22002]

Exactly. His knee was on the ground, then he was touched by the Jet defender.

That one could have gone either way. Remember the Calvin Johnson TD last season when he caught the ball in the end zone, came down to his knees, rolled and the ball came out?

The rule is confusing. The questions were 1) did Branch complete the catch?, 2) did he 'make a football move' after he completed the catch as he tried to get up? 3) did he have control of the ball as he made a football move before he was downed by the defender?

I think they got it right after Belichick appealed.

The decision rested on whether Rex Ryan is a creepy foot fetishist who deserves to lose all appeals on moral grounds. Rex is and he should.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The thread about this on Jets Insider is gold. I would like to respond to it but I don't think I've drank enough to meet their argument criteria which consists of saying "douchebag" or calling someone "gay" in every post.

Then perhaps we need a gay douchebag Patsfan to respond over there.
I'm on it!

 

[goheels22002]

Pretty much the way I feel too. I'll take the jock with the life experience over the more articulate talking head who is frankly more accomplished in the art of hand-waving.

I'd take Suzy Kolber over Rodney Harrison in a heartbeat.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I was at the game and was so jacked that after spending hours first driving the daughter home and then back to New Hampster I watched it again on TV. My wife complained about Simms. I just think that he had one of his less than stellar announcing stints and don't perceive him as a Jet jock sniffer. He should have understood the Tuck Rule as the announcer n game 2 of the 2001 season and should have picked up on Branch down by contact regardless of shifting the ball from one hand to another. Kudos to Ernie Adams and BB's guys upstairs on the challenges.

If Brady can throw picks and Belichick get out coached on occasion then Simms can fumble the announcing.