Third Guy in Monday Night Booth - What style? Options

[Joe Bryant]

Lots of buzz today over the Jon Gruden for Tony Kornheiser swap.

What's your thought on what you'd like to see from the 3rd guy there?

J

[by_the_sea_wanna...]

I've had enough of the jockocracy

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Bikini model isn't even an option?

[perry147]

Someone like Howie Long I think would be good.

Or maybe make the third person a guest different every week.

[stevegamer]

I like a former player & a former coach to analyze, giving different points of view. I liked the Vermeil-Jaworski-Nussler backup 3 man team, a lot. Hopefully Gruden can be almost as good as Vermeil, and then we'll have something.

I've liked a copuple of the other 3 person teams, but some have been not good. I felt Miller was actually okay, but Kornheiser was poor in that format.

[cdwood]

If you get a very good play by play announcer and a very good color commentator in the booth together, you don't need a 3rd body. I think the best broadcast team out there right now is Joe Buck and Troy Aikman.

Christopher

[Matt Waldman]

I voted Fail - two guys are enough - but if they were to add another, I'd prefer a former player from the past 15 years who is recognized for his understanding of the game AND most importantly, his ability to articulate it on-air. I'd love for them to add a guy like Eric Allen if it were a defender. If not, Mark Schlereth would be a good former o-lineman.

Former QBs do tend to be great choices. Gary Danielson, IMO, is one of the best game analysts doing games in college football. The guy often nails what's going to happen before it does and then explains why he saw it after the play. The problem is few people under the age of 35 know who he was or value his knowledge from an NFL standpoint.

Give me Mike Tirico, Doug Flutie, and Craig James and I'll enjoy any game. These guys can make a bad game fun but they also talk about what it was like to be in a huddle and they add a lot of humor to their smart analysis.

[massraider]

Former coach for sure.

[Mark Wimer]

If you get a very good play by play announcer and a very good color commentator in the booth together, you don't need a 3rd body. I think the best broadcast team out there right now is Joe Buck and Troy Aikman.

Christopher

I agree that Buck and Aikman are one of the best duos on the tube as far as calling a game. I think that Buck and Aikman benefit from the many years of working together. One of the problems with the MNF booth has been too many changes over the years - not enough time for a team to settle down into a groove.

That said, I'm glad Kornheiser is gone and think Gruden will be an upgrade. I think the coach's angle is worth while if you have an articulate coach on camera - the example of Vermeil-Jaworski-Nussler cited above is a good one.

[rzrback77]

If Gruden can add as much as Jaworski and the two of them work well together it will be a very good crew. Tirico sticks to the basics fairly well, except for the celebrity interviews which I am sure he has no input on.

[Nemesis]

One of the problems with the MNF booth has been too many changes over the years - not enough time for a team to settle down into a groove.

That said, I'm glad Kornheiser is gone and think Gruden will be an upgrade. I think the coach's angle is worth while if you have an articulate coach on camera - the example of Vermeil-Jaworski-Nussler cited above is a good one.

So what happens a year from now when a team comes knocking on Gruden's door for their new head coaching position?

[Andy Herron]

I didn't vote because nothing really fit. I would just prefer them sticking with football people in touch with "today's" game. I don't want to hear about how things were done prior to the free agency era. I want input as to how teams are structured and deployed in the "modern" era.

That said, I like the choice of Gruden. He'll bring his own personality, color and familiarity with today's teams, players and coaches. One who in recent years has been in a position to draw up gameplans against many if not all of the teams they will be covering from week-to-week. He'll be able to touch on things many others wouldn't be capable of, and do it with spice. I, for one, am looking forward to it, even if it may be for only one season. I can certainly foresee some pretty good soundbites coming from him. He and Jaworski should be able to bounce some pretty good points off of each other, as opposed to Jaws and Tony continually getting sideways with each other. Leave that to the women on "The View." MNF just made an upgrade.

[Native]

These are my criteria:

1) A commentator who is eloquent and graceful and captures the mounting drama and tension in a Grantland Rice-esque manner. (Many people liked Madden; he embodied the opposite of this trait)
2) Someone who understands the history of the game and is therefore VERY prudent when using absolutes. The tone of his voice and the selection of his words are enough to convey his point without using these words: "greatest", "fastest" "best" "ever" or "all time". (No Peter King types)
3) Someone who analyzes the nuances and strategy of the game in a Jaworski-type manner without needing too many words to get his point across
4) Someone who critiques the play of the OL, DL and DB's
5) Someone who doesnt play the superstar card or follow contrived storyline arcs
6) Someone who takes the game seriously (unlike Tony Kornheiser) yet doesnt overdramatize the mundane (unlike Mike Patrick or Paul McGuire)
7) Someone who shuts the hell up at crucial moments and allows the natural sound and drama of the game to speak for itself

To me, the inability to find modern commentators who embody trait number one is the single biggest failure of NFL broadcasts. In the absence of #1, Id settle for a guy that can admirably perform criteria 2-7. At one time, Bob Costas came close to falling in this category but but he lacked a powerful, inspirational voice. Besides, he was never a football guy.

The closest guy I can think would be an NFL-equivalent of Peter Gammons (if he even exists).

This post has been edited by Native: May 18 2009, 08:23 PM

[Joe Bryant]

These are my criteria:

1) A commentator who is eloquent and graceful and captures the mounting drama and tension in a Grantland Rice-esque manner. (Many people liked Madden; he embodied the opposite of this trait)
2) Someone who understands the history of the game and is therefore VERY prudent when using absolutes. The tone of his voice and the selection of his words are enough to convey his point without using these words: "greatest", "fastest" "best" "ever" or "all time". (No Peter King types)
3) Someone who analyzes the nuances and strategy of the game in a Jaworski-type manner without needing too many words to get his point across
4) Someone who critiques the play of the OL, DL and DB's
5) Someone who doesnt play the superstar card or follow contrived storyline arcs
6) Someone who takes the game seriously (unlike Tony Kornheiser) yet doesnt overdramatize the mundane (unlike Mike Patrick or Paul McGuire)
7) Someone who shuts the hell up at crucial moments and allows the natural sound and drama of the game to speak for itself

To me, the inability to find modern commentators who embody trait number one is the single biggest failure of NFL broadcasts. In the absence of #1, Id settle for a guy that can admirably perform criteria 2-7. At one time, Bob Costas came close to falling in this category but but he lacked a powerful, inspirational voice. Besides, he was never a football guy.

The closest guy I can think would be an NFL-equivalent of Peter Gammons (if he even exists).

Hi native,

How do you feel Al Michaels stacks up to your #1 criteria?

J

[comfortably numb]

God, I still can't believe the Dennis Miller experiment.

I don't wish ill on anyone, but I sure hope several people were fired over that decision.

[Native]

These are my criteria:

1) A commentator who is eloquent and graceful and captures the mounting drama and tension in a Grantland Rice-esque manner. (Many people liked Madden; he embodied the opposite of this trait)
2) Someone who understands the history of the game and is therefore VERY prudent when using absolutes. The tone of his voice and the selection of his words are enough to convey his point without using these words: "greatest", "fastest" "best" "ever" or "all time". (No Peter King types)
3) Someone who analyzes the nuances and strategy of the game in a Jaworski-type manner without needing too many words to get his point across
4) Someone who critiques the play of the OL, DL and DB's
5) Someone who doesnt play the superstar card or follow contrived storyline arcs
6) Someone who takes the game seriously (unlike Tony Kornheiser) yet doesnt overdramatize the mundane (unlike Mike Patrick or Paul McGuire)
7) Someone who shuts the hell up at crucial moments and allows the natural sound and drama of the game to speak for itself

To me, the inability to find modern commentators who embody trait number one is the single biggest failure of NFL broadcasts. In the absence of #1, Id settle for a guy that can admirably perform criteria 2-7. At one time, Bob Costas came close to falling in this category but but he lacked a powerful, inspirational voice. Besides, he was never a football guy.

The closest guy I can think would be an NFL-equivalent of Peter Gammons (if he even exists).

Hi native,

How do you feel Al Michaels stacks up to your #1 criteria?

J

Hi Joe,

IMO Michaels is probably the best at this of any football sportscaster, which makes him deserving of prime-time games. Hes got a great voice and excellent timing for the lead role. Where he falls short IMO is following the superstar story arcs and using hyperbole to simplify his arguments. He also doesn't get any better as the game reaches its climax - hes great at leading you down the aisle, but he doesnt take you all the way to the end. Too often, his attempts at creating that perfectly tense sports moment at the end of game are drowned out by Madden's chatty diatribes.

That said, I like him better than anyone that broadcasts on Sunday afternoon. Id love if they matched his ability to slowly build the drama with an equally skilled color-man that can capture the moment in more poetic, less verbose fashion. Kind of like NFL films style. I think Michaels would really shine if he had the right wingman.

[Truman]

Dick Vermeil is probably the greatest 3rd man there is. He actually explains nuances like line play and running lanes, what DBs are doing in coverage, how protections are adjusting to the blitz, why a WR got open......no wonder the networks hate him.

[DoubleG]

If baseball, which is a much slower game can do it well wih two people in the booth, then football can to. A good play by play guy coupled with a good color commentator are more than sufficient.

I would suggest, however that item 3-5 on Native's list could easily be covered by a good color commentator and not necessarily need be the focus of the play by play guy. Sometimes, when a play by play guy starts talking strategy with a former player/coach sitting there, I'm thinking (and maybe so is the other guy!) "What the heck does this guy know?!" I love it though, when a play by play guy will throw out an observance or strategy thought but then defer to the former player/coach - not only does it work, but it allows both to do what they do best.

To use a baseball comparison, Len Casper and Bob Brenly do his fantastically. I am almost 40 - and have listened to alot of baseball and football - and the two of them have that balance down as well as any I've heard, in terms of who talks when, who comments on what and the defferal to one another. Much of that is a function of the play by play guys willingness to keep his own ego in check and actually defer to the color commentator (sometimes an issue with Al Michaels, imho) but also a point where the color commentator has to pick up the ball, as it were, and realize that this his chance to shed some light on the situation.

[Crandingo]

CHARLES BARKLEY

[Exit 1]

There's enough action during a football game for 2 people to call it effectively. 3 gets in the way of the game.

[Exit 1]

Or maybe make the third person a guest different every week.

I don't agree because the guest will just spend their time promoting their book/movie etc and not adding anything to the game.

[Duke1948]

i'm a personal fan of the mute button, really think he gives the best insight as to what goes on without being so obtuse.

This post has been edited by Duke1948: May 19 2009, 06:32 AM

[sparkky]

I didn't vote because nothing really fit. I would just prefer them sticking with football people in touch with "today's" game. I don't want to hear about how things were done prior to the free agency era. I want input as to how teams are structured and deployed in the "modern" era.

That said, I like the choice of Gruden. He'll bring his own personality, color and familiarity with today's teams, players and coaches. One who in recent years has been in a position to draw up gameplans against many if not all of the teams they will be covering from week-to-week. He'll be able to touch on things many others wouldn't be capable of, and do it with spice. I, for one, am looking forward to it, even if it may be for only one season. I can certainly foresee some pretty good soundbites coming from him. He and Jaworski should be able to bounce some pretty good points off of each other, as opposed to Jaws and Tony continually getting sideways with each other. Leave that to the women on "The View." MNF just made an upgrade.

sums it up well for me.

[Jeremy]

If you get a very good play by play announcer and a very good color commentator in the booth together, you don't need a 3rd body. I think the best broadcast team out there right now is Joe Buck and Troy Aikman.

Christopher

I used to like Aikman before some guy on the radio once pointed out that he actually doesn't say anything. Then I watched and paid attention, and he's right. All he does is state the obvious. He gives no real insight that even a casual fan couldn't figure out on their own.

I think Gruden will be good. Tirico is good as the play-by-play guy (though his radio show bores me to tears). I really like Jaws. Gruden is smart and funny. Should be a good booth this year.

[Jeremy]

2) Someone who understands the history of the game and is therefore VERY prudent when using absolutes.

Amen to this!

[Mark Wimer]

One of the problems with the MNF booth has been too many changes over the years - not enough time for a team to settle down into a groove.

That said, I'm glad Kornheiser is gone and think Gruden will be an upgrade. I think the coach's angle is worth while if you have an articulate coach on camera - the example of Vermeil-Jaworski-Nussler cited above is a good one.

So what happens a year from now when a team comes knocking on Gruden's door for their new head coaching position?

That could happen, or Gruden could decide he likes the MNF gig enough to make that his new career. It's hard to predict the future but I think he'll be good at this job and that he may decide to embrace the MNF gig and eschew coaching. Madden did.

[DoubleG]

CHARLES BARKLEY

6 minute honda

[Ron_Mexico]

If you get a very good play by play announcer and a very good color commentator in the booth together, you don't need a 3rd body. I think the best broadcast team out there right now is Joe Buck and Troy Aikman.

Christopher

[bueno]

I voted Fail - two guys are enough - but if they were to add another, I'd prefer a former player from the past 15 years who is recognized for his understanding of the game AND most importantly, his ability to articulate it on-air. I'd love for them to add a guy like Eric Allen if it were a defender. If not, Mark Schlereth would be a good former o-lineman.

Former QBs do tend to be great choices. Gary Danielson, IMO, is one of the best game analysts doing games in college football. The guy often nails what's going to happen before it does and then explains why he saw it after the play. The problem is few people under the age of 35 know who he was or value his knowledge from an NFL standpoint.

Give me Mike Tirico, Doug Flutie, and Craig James and I'll enjoy any game. These guys can make a bad game fun but they also talk about what it was like to be in a huddle and they add a lot of humor to their smart analysis.

I like your choices, but I think the right coach could be just as good as Danielson. In a perfect world, I would like to come away from every game understanding just a little more about the game. Jaworski is great at this, so is Danielson (though I don't see enough of him). Chucky might be - we'll have to see.

[Tom Servo]

Why does everybody feel the need to re-create the MNF heyday of the 70s? You had a chemistry that worked - the bombast of Cosell playing off the other two.

Two men is more than enough.

[davlar]

Ordinarily I would say 2 guys are enough in the booth, but on MNF it's good to have that extra opinion. Jaws provides good, clinical analysis of the game, especially the quarterback play. Gruden is a good guy to come onto the MNF team because he can play well off Jaws and Tirico. He's a huge upgrade over Kornheiser. Having a former coach - especially one with the rambunctious personality of Gruden - can only be a good move if you ask me.

[teamramrod]

Can we all agree on the Barring of the Fourth Person from the booth this coming year. You know, the "Hey I have a movie/book/tv show coming up." Person. The celebs stunk it up last year and made the mute button my friend. Utterly un-listenable.

[slayer666]

FAIL - 2 guys are enough. 3rd guy is a waste. But I'm not going to complain about Gruden replacing Kornhole.

This post has been edited by slayer666: May 19 2009, 05:46 PM