Yes, picking Christian Ponder 12th overall is ridiculous. Absurd. A massive reach. And I'm mostly okay with it.
That's what scares me the most about this pick, really. Every Vikings fan seems to be so eager to be pissed off and rage about how they didn't trade down (no one called, because evidently there was no one to trade up FOR) or why they didn't pick Amukamura (he fell all the way to 19 so maybe teams know something we don't) or Fairley (headcase) or a defensive end (you mean like Duane Clemons? Erasmus James? Kenechi Udeze? Derrick Alexander?).
Lets forget for a second about how big of a reach this is, whining about who we didn't pick, and focus on what we actually have. Ponder is the anti-T-Jack. Quick comparison between the two:
-Ponder started three straight years in a pro-style system
-T-Jack started three straight years in a... "quarterback runs around and kinda does whatever" system?
-Ponder played for Florida State, a big-time program in a big-time conference, playing in front of 50,000+ every single week, often on national TV, with tons of pressure
-T-Jack played for Alabama State, a nothing school in a nothing conference, playing in front of nobody to a 0.00003 rating on some obscure Fox Sports Net channel
-Ponder put up good stats for said big-time program against the ACC. His junior year over 9 games: 69% completion, 2717 yards (over 300 a game), 8.2 yards per attempt, 14 TDs, 7 picks, QB rating of 147.7. His senior year stats were down thanks to injury, but still nice: 62% complete, 2044 yards, 6.8 yards per attempt, 20 TDs, 8 picks, QB rating of 135.7.
-T-Jack put up okay stats for said nothing program against meager competition. His career stats at Alabama State: 55% completion, 7201 yards (about 240 a game), 8.0 yards per attempt, 63 TDs, 23 picks.
Granted, if you're comparing the 12th overall pick to Tarvaris Jackson, you are inherently in trouble. The point I'm trying to make is regardless of where he was taken, he's a good player. He's capable, he's smart, and he's handled pressure in the past. New offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave's philosophy is to build the offense around the players' strengths, and he's got an accurate mobile guy to start with.
He'll be handing off to Adrian Peterson, he'll be throwing to Percy Harvin and hopefully Sidney Rice. There are players around him to make him better. He has every opportunity to succeed.
The mistake the Vikings made was assuming there would be a run on quarterbacks, which obviously never materialized, but the fact is, no matter what the Vikings would have done at 12, people would have been pissed off. GM Rick Spielman said the Jacksonville's trade to 10th forced their hand, which meant the Vikings were waiting for Gabbert to fall. And people would be equally as pissed today had they taken him. People would be whining if they'd been boring and taken an offensive lineman. People would be whining about whoever they'd taken at DE. It's just the way the draft works now.
I'm not nervous if Ponder will be good, because I think he will be. I'm nervous that I seem to be the only one that sees that.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Sticking Up for Joe Buck
In this column, I am going to attempt to do the unthinkable. More outrageous than Julian Assange having the balls to post secret US diplomatic cables. More improbable than Rex Ryan agreeing to a vow of silence. More unthinkable than Mike McCarthy successfully managing the clock on a 2-minute drill.
I am going to defend Joe Buck. To a certain extent anyway.
It seems most people have reached a general consensus about Buck -- he sucks. He's dull, he's monotone, his energy doesn't meet the moment, he doesn't seem to recognize when something truly riveting is happening (see: Helmet Catch call, which was panned by pretty much everyone), and he always came across as snooty and self-righteous, especially after the Randy Moss fake-moon "incident."
Be honest, when you found out this year's Super Bowl was going to be on Fox with Buck and Troy Aikman, you did one of three things: you groaned in disappointment, you said "Oh no" as you double-checked online to see if it was true, or you decided right then and there instead to watch all 6 hours of the "Puppy Bowl" on Animal Planet. Point is, people do not like Joe Buck.
He would at best receive begrudging praise for his baseball work, since he seems like a more natural fit -- his dad was the voice of the St. Louis Cardinals for decades, after all. But with football, he's come across as out of his element from the start, especially compared to his peers, people like Gus Johnson and Al Michaels.
Personally, I always thought Buck was trying to be a sort of throwback to Pat Summerall. In theory, there certainly isn't anything wrong with that, and it's understandable considering his lineage. The comparison stems from Buck's simple approach - not over-complicating what's on the screen, staying even keel, never getting too excited.
The problem with this is two-fold. First, obviously there's only one Pat Summerall. He had an everyman quality about him, and he came across as a fan just like anyone else watching. Buck tries, but you can't try to be an everyday guy on TV. You either are or you aren't, and Buck just isn't.
But most importantly, Summerall had the pipes, the regal NFL-Filmsian quality to his voice. That's primarily what made him one of the greatest and my personal favorite announcer ever. It's hard for me not to get goosebumps watching one of his classic intro packages to an important game. Take this one from the '92 NFC title game - "Sooooarrring out of the darkness are the new staaaaars in Dallas." It's perfect. It's football.
Now, Buck's voice is fine. It's not Summerallian, but it's fine. It's immediately recognizable, it's memorable, it resonates, and it's good enough that I think he's got fair reason to take a similar approach to play-by-play as Summerall.
But therein lies the 2nd part of the problem with that approach - I don't think it works in this day and age. Take Gus Johnson for instance. People are gaga over him to the point that he's become something of a cult hero, all because of his enthusiasm that he brings to whatever he's involved with. Some would say he's over the top, and I'm inclined to agree, but the bottom line is that his popularity is proof enough that other announcers should at least consider altering their style, change with the times and adapt.
It seems Buck agrees with that sentiment. Listen to his call of the unreal DeSean Jackson punt return that won Philadelphia the game against the Giants earlier this year. He NAILS it. It's perfect. And you know why? Because he sounded legit excited, and his timing for it was perfect. I have a strong suspicion that if Buck calls this play two or three years ago, it goes something like his droll Helmet Catch call.
That's just one example. Listening to him throughout the playoffs this year has been unexpectedly refreshing. It seems as if he's actively looking for a big play to get excited about (but carefully, not recklessly as people accuse Gus of doing), rather than letting something happen and judging as it happens whether or not it deserves that treatment.
So, I'm giving Buck full credit and sticking up for him. He's actually listened to criticism and has since changed up his style, something you very rarely see (or hear in this case) from someone so firmly entrenched in the sports media landscape
Now, Troy Aikman on the other hand? Don't get me started...
I am going to defend Joe Buck. To a certain extent anyway.
It seems most people have reached a general consensus about Buck -- he sucks. He's dull, he's monotone, his energy doesn't meet the moment, he doesn't seem to recognize when something truly riveting is happening (see: Helmet Catch call, which was panned by pretty much everyone), and he always came across as snooty and self-righteous, especially after the Randy Moss fake-moon "incident."
Be honest, when you found out this year's Super Bowl was going to be on Fox with Buck and Troy Aikman, you did one of three things: you groaned in disappointment, you said "Oh no" as you double-checked online to see if it was true, or you decided right then and there instead to watch all 6 hours of the "Puppy Bowl" on Animal Planet. Point is, people do not like Joe Buck.
He would at best receive begrudging praise for his baseball work, since he seems like a more natural fit -- his dad was the voice of the St. Louis Cardinals for decades, after all. But with football, he's come across as out of his element from the start, especially compared to his peers, people like Gus Johnson and Al Michaels.
Personally, I always thought Buck was trying to be a sort of throwback to Pat Summerall. In theory, there certainly isn't anything wrong with that, and it's understandable considering his lineage. The comparison stems from Buck's simple approach - not over-complicating what's on the screen, staying even keel, never getting too excited.
The problem with this is two-fold. First, obviously there's only one Pat Summerall. He had an everyman quality about him, and he came across as a fan just like anyone else watching. Buck tries, but you can't try to be an everyday guy on TV. You either are or you aren't, and Buck just isn't.
But most importantly, Summerall had the pipes, the regal NFL-Filmsian quality to his voice. That's primarily what made him one of the greatest and my personal favorite announcer ever. It's hard for me not to get goosebumps watching one of his classic intro packages to an important game. Take this one from the '92 NFC title game - "Sooooarrring out of the darkness are the new staaaaars in Dallas." It's perfect. It's football.
Now, Buck's voice is fine. It's not Summerallian, but it's fine. It's immediately recognizable, it's memorable, it resonates, and it's good enough that I think he's got fair reason to take a similar approach to play-by-play as Summerall.
But therein lies the 2nd part of the problem with that approach - I don't think it works in this day and age. Take Gus Johnson for instance. People are gaga over him to the point that he's become something of a cult hero, all because of his enthusiasm that he brings to whatever he's involved with. Some would say he's over the top, and I'm inclined to agree, but the bottom line is that his popularity is proof enough that other announcers should at least consider altering their style, change with the times and adapt.
It seems Buck agrees with that sentiment. Listen to his call of the unreal DeSean Jackson punt return that won Philadelphia the game against the Giants earlier this year. He NAILS it. It's perfect. And you know why? Because he sounded legit excited, and his timing for it was perfect. I have a strong suspicion that if Buck calls this play two or three years ago, it goes something like his droll Helmet Catch call.
That's just one example. Listening to him throughout the playoffs this year has been unexpectedly refreshing. It seems as if he's actively looking for a big play to get excited about (but carefully, not recklessly as people accuse Gus of doing), rather than letting something happen and judging as it happens whether or not it deserves that treatment.
So, I'm giving Buck full credit and sticking up for him. He's actually listened to criticism and has since changed up his style, something you very rarely see (or hear in this case) from someone so firmly entrenched in the sports media landscape
Now, Troy Aikman on the other hand? Don't get me started...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
