NFL 2011

[Sir Fodder]

Does anyone else get annoyed with the camera field of view during NFL broadcasts? My enjoyment of the game is seriously hindered when I cannot see what is going on during the play, to the point where I sometimes turn games off due to frustration. It seems like the narrow field of view is getting worse each year. I thought that HD broadcasting would ameliorate it to some extent, but no, not at all, its getting worse. Its not due to standard definition legacy- they can letterbox that like CBS does for SD sets.

On every network that broadcasts NFL games the camera view will start out showing all the players, even the defensive secondary, but as the ball is about to be snapped the idiots zoom in to the point where the secondary and often even linebackers are not visible, as the receivers head down field, they too move out of the field of view - this is the game, they are not showing it. I want to see the game. Duh. To compound matters, the way the field of view is framed makes things even worse; a sensible camera angle would pan so the quarterback appears right at the edge of the field of view, this way the screen area is maximized, instead as the ball is hiked and the play starts the camera pans so that there is a large amount of empty space behind the QB, inexcusably wasting screen area. Add on to this the annoyingly zoomed in parts in between plays, "ooh zits!" I want to see shots of fans (regular folks, not the idiot superfans that the idiot producers love so much) to get a sense of the life of the stadium, go in the fucking seats and corridors with a camera and talk to some fucking fans please, I want to see the players and coaches milling around and interacting, I could go on and on about this and the coverage, computer graphics and bleeps, and the fucking commercials everyone loves so much etc... Argh!

[naum]

Does anyone else get annoyed with the camera field of view during NFL broadcasts? My enjoyment of the game is seriously hindered when I cannot see what is going on during the play, to the point where I sometimes turn games off due to frustration. It seems like the narrow field of view is getting worse each year. I thought that HD broadcasting would ameliorate it to some extent, but no, not at all, its getting worse. Its not due to standard definition legacy- they can letterbox that like CBS does for SD sets.

On every network that broadcasts NFL games the camera view will start out showing all the players, even the defensive secondary, but as the ball is about to be snapped the idiots zoom in to the point where the secondary and often even linebackers are not visible, as the receivers head down field, they too move out of the field of view - this is the game, they are not showing it. I want to see the game. Duh. To compound matters, the way the field of view is framed makes things even worse; a sensible camera angle would pan so the quarterback appears right at the edge of the field of view, this way the screen area is maximized, instead as the ball is hiked and the play starts the camera pans so that there is a large amount of empty space behind the QB, inexcusably wasting screen area. Add on to this the annoyingly zoomed in parts in between plays, "ooh zits!" I want to see shots of fans (regular folks, not the idiot superfans that the idiot producers love so much) to get a sense of the life of the stadium, go in the fucking seats and corridors with a camera and talk to some fucking fans please, I want to see the players and coaches milling around and interacting, I could go on and on about this and the coverage, computer graphics and bleeps, and the fucking commercials everyone loves so much etc... Argh!

Lowered expectations, I guess. On replays you usually get to see the secondary / defensive backfield coverage (and receiver routes) and action.

But you are right that, especially since all these games are HD now, there is no excuse. It's just that the QB is the star so the entire focus is on him (or RB but NFL offense is almost entirely all about the passing game and running plays are just a foil or short yardage situations only or to eat up some clock). It goes along with the announcers that blather incessantly about every facet of the QB, replete with camera shots of his family watching on from the stands.

[HaemishM]

Hooooooooooosh to the Raaaaydaaaaaaaaaahs

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501623_162-20128957/t.j-houshmandzadeh-moving-to-oakland-raiders/

Boy, T.O. has got to be feeling mighty unloved about now. Not even the Raiders are taking a flier on him.

[Trippy]

The Arena League wants him

Also T.O. is coming back from knee surgery so he's much more of a risk even ignoring his, uh, personality.

[01101010]

And my Browns keep trundling along... 

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2011/11/cleveland_browns_sign_rb_thoma.html

[Paelos]

I'm just doing some quick looks at the Browns last couple of drafts.

2008: You traded away all your early picks. Guys you could have had at those slots - Chris Johnson, Jerod Mayo, Ray Rice, or Desean Jackson
2009: You missed on Robiskie, but you got a probowler center, and Massaquoi who is a very solid WR.
2010: You drafted your starting QB in the 3rd round. That's NEVER a good sign. TJ Ward and Montario Hardesty are proving to be pretty solid busts. For some reason you took Joe Haden in the first round when guys like CJ Spiller, Dez Bryant, Jahvid Best, and Devin McCourty were still on the board. That was a bad pick.
2011: Phil Taylor in the first round and I think he's really good. Jabal Sheard, also good. Greg Little's an ok WR, not fantastic.

Here's my problem. Notice how you haven't had a great running back? You draft Hardesty who sucks, but you pass on Spiller, Best, and in 2011 (unforgivably) passed on Mark Ingram. Your leading rusher is averaging 3.3 a carry and has no TDs. Meanwhile, Ingram has 3.9 a carry for 3 TDs as a fresh rookie.

[ghost]

Sometime you have to wonder about the idiots making these picks.

[WayAbvPar]

A good cornerback is far more valuable than a RB as a first round pick. And there are quite a few very successful QBs drafted in the 3rd round or later. Tom Brady comes instantly to mind (6th round, IIRC).

Also, Spiller rarely gets on the field and Best is a concussion-fest, so I don't think they really missed out on them regardless.

[HaemishM]

As for the QB being drafted in the 3rd round, I do think Colt McCoy is going to be a good starting NFL QB. He just needs a fucking team, and this isn't one. This is a collection of scrubs and busts.

[Rasix]

Spiller, Best and Bryant aren't really solid yet.  They haven't done much, and all have had injury problems.  They could end up being busts easily.

They're showing improvement in their second years, but again, injuries.

[ghost]

Usually RBs are a good pick starting in the second/third round, right?  

I like to see the teams I like picking up skilled linemen in the first round.  

Edit:  I'm not all that sold on McCoy.  I'm a Texas fan and spent four years watching him play in college.  I just don't think he'll make it long term. 

[Merusk]

Hooooooooooosh to the Raaaaydaaaaaaaaaahs

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501623_162-20128957/t.j-houshmandzadeh-moving-to-oakland-raiders/

Oh good, Carson can spend another year not throwing to him.   

Wait.. that only happens if there's a superstar on the team.  n/m.

[Paelos]

I'm just going to list the top 10 QBs in the league this year by throwing yards.

Brees, Newton, Rodgers, Brady, Roethlisberger, Stafford, Little Manning, Schaub, Rivers, Romo

Draft round - 2, 1, 1, 6, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, undrafted

Brady's an anomoly at best. That's not even counting Manning the greater, who was a first rounder.

[Trippy]

2010: You drafted your starting QB in the 3rd round. That's NEVER a good sign.

Unless the quarterback's name is Joe Montana.

[Paelos]

Really? Montana? Any other all-stars you want to toss out that were drafted before the Reagan administration?

[ghost]

I think the point is that Joe Montana and Tom Brady are the exceptions rather than the rule.  Typically good/great QBs are drafted in the first or second rounds.

[Trippy]

He said, and I quote, "You drafted your starting QB in the 3rd round. That's NEVER a good sign." Note the word "NEVER" in all caps

[Ingmar]

Dan Fouts was also a 3rd round pick. Roger Staubach was a 10th round pick.  Bart Starr was picked in the 17th round. And then there's Warren Moon...

[Paelos]

He said, and I quote, "You drafted your starting QB in the 3rd round. That's NEVER a good sign." Note the word "NEVER" in all caps

I   the words NEVER and ALWAYS. They ruffles the feathers.

Also, let's try and focus on things that have happened since the invention of the internet and the obvious increase in information flow beyond 8mm flim.

[Trippy]

Dan Fouts was also a 3rd round pick. Roger Staubach was a 10th round pick.  Bart Starr was picked in the 17th round. And then there's Warren Moon...

Staubach was different, though, cause he went to the Navy after college. He would've been a first round pick otherwise.

[ghost]

Who is Warren Moon?

[Trippy]

Also, let's try and focus on things that have happened since the invention of the internet and the obvious increase in information flow beyond 8mm flim.

The Internet was "invented" in 1974

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc675

[Ingmar]

Montana went to Notre Dame when Notre Dame was Notre Dame. You can't argue that he was in any way obscure or people might not have seen him play.

Fake edit: Ghost, you can't be serious?

[ghost]

No, not serious. 

Montana wasn't obscure at all, but he also wasn't rated very highly.

[Ingmar]

A few more:

Jeff Garcia was undrafted.

Ryan Fitzpatrick, who is turning out to be pretty good, was a 7th round pick.

Doug Flutie, 11th round.

It isn't really hard to find guys who were successful that weren't picked in the first round.

[WayAbvPar]

Conversely, there is a metric shitton of 1st rounders who were horrible, as we discussed last week.

[Johny Cee]

He said, and I quote, "You drafted your starting QB in the 3rd round. That's NEVER a good sign." Note the word "NEVER" in all caps

I   the words NEVER and ALWAYS. They ruffles the feathers.

Also, let's try and focus on things that have happened since the invention of the internet and the obvious increase in information flow beyond 8mm flim.

You so wanted to say either "immaterial difference" or "statistically insignificant".

[ghost]

Wait, are we getting ready to rehash something else?  

This is one of the reasons that I like football.  It's quite variable who is going to be good and who isn't, and a lot of it is predicated on work ethic.  There are examples of good quarterbacks that have made it into the league as low picks, and I certainly don't know these statistics, but I would surmise that the lion's share of the elite QBs were drafted in the first two rounds.

[Ingmar]

Sure, for every great QB that wasn't a first round pick there are probably 2 that were, but there are also probably 16 first rounders that sucked.

[Malakili]

Well shit, I've got a choice of Rivers going in to Greenbay, or Cutler going in to Philly on Monday night.

Not that it matters, Calvin Johnson is on a bye this week, so half my point production is gone anyways.

Green Bay's secondary isn't very good.

[HaemishM]

Even with all the passing yards the Packers have been giving up, their secondary is still enough to cause fantasy problems because of the INT's.

[Sjofn]

I think Giants fans might still be slightly bitter the Giants drafted Simms over Montana. Joe would've been shitty with the Giants, though.

[caladein]

Does anyone else get annoyed with the camera field of view during NFL broadcasts? My enjoyment of the game is seriously hindered when I cannot see what is going on during the play, to the point where I sometimes turn games off due to frustration. It seems like the narrow field of view is getting worse each year. I thought that HD broadcasting would ameliorate it to some extent, but no, not at all, its getting worse. Its not due to standard definition legacy- they can letterbox that like CBS does for SD sets.

On every network that broadcasts NFL games the camera view will start out showing all the players, even the defensive secondary, but as the ball is about to be snapped the idiots zoom in to the point where the secondary and often even linebackers are not visible, as the receivers head down field, they too move out of the field of view - this is the game, they are not showing it. I want to see the game. Duh. To compound matters, the way the field of view is framed makes things even worse; a sensible camera angle would pan so the quarterback appears right at the edge of the field of view, this way the screen area is maximized, instead as the ball is hiked and the play starts the camera pans so that there is a large amount of empty space behind the QB, inexcusably wasting screen area. Add on to this the annoyingly zoomed in parts in between plays, "ooh zits!" I want to see shots of fans (regular folks, not the idiot superfans that the idiot producers love so much) to get a sense of the life of the stadium, go in the fucking seats and corridors with a camera and talk to some fucking fans please, I want to see the players and coaches milling around and interacting, I could go on and on about this and the coverage, computer graphics and bleeps, and the fucking commercials everyone loves so much etc... Argh!

Only nerds like me (and you) want to see All 22 footage.

[Paelos]

My comment is that if you want coverage of the whole field, you need to go to the stadium.

[Malakili]

My comment is that if you want coverage of the whole field, you need to go to the stadium.

Its hard to see the field with 20 drunken idiots jumping up and down in front of you.