Akin to his steak counterpart...

[red mosquito]

Prime rib, London broil, Strip, Porterhouse, Flank, Rib Eye, filet mignon. Ah, there we have it at the bottom of the pile... Salisbury steak. Amazingly enough Sean Salisbury has all these incredible opinions on what it takes to be an NFL player... yet he SUCKED. That's right, I said... SUCKED.
Is Akili Smith ever going to be a good player? Probably not, but who knows? Being with the Bengals didn't help... but the fact of the matter is that Salisbury loves to run his mouth on "what it takes" to be an NFL qb... yet he was terrible. What were the ESSENTIAL things he couldn't do to be a successful qb?
Now if Norv (black angus) Turner says something... I'm listening.

I hate "smug has been" commentators like Salisbury and Golic (Tolbert for the NBA). Do networks check their resumes or carreer stats before they hire them? Ray Lucas will probably get three million a year from ESPN if that's the criteria. I can hear Lucas now..." He makes bad decisions in the pocket, he throws the ball at his receiver's feet too much, he fumbles quite often, he doesn't look off his receiver."
Nothing beats expert analysis.

 

[Cranx]

This is a very good post. I agree wholeheartedly and I have always been of the opinion that Steak's opinions were as much bitter grapes as they were grounded in reality.

You were wrong in one area however, as Salisbury cannot be considered a has been since he never was.

 

[Va.fin fan]

golic was a quality starter for many years tho, but steak i agree with you.

 

[Samphin]

The reason these guys are commentators as opposed to the truly great players is probably because these guy can speak a sentence or two consecutively without tripping on words. Plus, they do have some experience in the bigs so it can't be discounted altogether. Afterall, how many games did you play in the pros? Their opinion is much more valid on these manners than yours or mine. I know you were saying Norv Turner, but I think you see my point.

 

[DannyNoonan]

Originally posted by red mosquito


I hate "smug has been" commentators like Salisbury and Golic (Tolbert for the NBA). Do networks check their resumes or carreer stats before they hire them? Ray Lucas will probably get three million a year from ESPN if that's the criteria. I can hear Lucas now..." He makes bad decisions in the pocket, he throws the ball at his receiver's feet too much, he fumbles quite often, he doesn't look off his receiver."
Nothing beats expert analysis.

I disagree with much of what you are saying here. I, too, dislike the smugness of many of the announcers. However, you seem to be making a direct correlation between on-the-field excellence and off-the-field analysis. I am not sure the relationship is that direct. I would compare it to playing and coaching...great players do not necessarily make great coaches...some do, many don't. Some mediocre players end up as great coaches (Gruden was the back-up QB on a Div III college team). The same can be said of commentators. Just because they were great players does not mean that they are great commentators (e.g. Dickerson, Walton). Just because someone never played the game at the highest level does not mean they cannot give solid analysis. There are some buffoons out there to be sure, but there is some decent work being done, and much of it by individuals who were never NFL all-pros.

I think the "Edge NFL Match-up" show (which Salisbury has been on) is one of the best shows about pro football. I also think that Tolbert is far better than Walton (okay, the bar is not too high there), and he gives good insight in a not-trying-too-hard-to-be-funny manner. I occasionally listen to Tolbert on the radio (he has a show on sports radio here in the Bay Area). He seems like a genuinely good guy who knows his stuff...maybe one of the few on the air without the huge ego issues.

Perhaps you just don't like Salisbury. That's fine. But to make a broad generalization that all non-star ex-players are unqualified seems a bit extreme.

 

[inFINSible]