top of page

Quick Sports Commentary

Updated: Nov 4, 2019

To Michael Jordan: Would you please shut up!

MJ was interviewed recently interview by NBC's Craig Melvin for an interview on the "Today" show and stated that Stephen Curry is not yet a Hall of Famer. According to the article, Curry has won three championships, two NBA MVP awards, a scoring title and is the greatest shooter in the history of the NBA besides making six All-Star teams. Oh, I forgot, he's averaging 43.6 percent as a 3-point shooter.

Perhaps that huge earring dangling from Michael's left ear is clouding his perspective. Even without the three championships, Curry is a Hall of Famer as he's single-handedly responsible for the three-point basketball evolution. Just like Jordan revolutionized the game with his isolation basketball, Curry is too revolutionizing the game albeit in a different manner. One must realize that making it to the NBA Hall of Fame is not necessarily confined to scoring 25,000 points, handing out 10,000 assists or achieving 10,000 rebounds in their careers.

During Jordan's heyday, kids on playgrounds and hardwood courts were attempting to emulate Jordan's isolation basketball game. The same can be said of Steph Curry in today's world, most kids on playgrounds and indoor hardwood courts try and emulate Steph's long-game.

Perhaps Michael is a little jealous at the fact that Steph is averaging almost 44 percent as a 3-point shooter for his career while Michael was at 33 percent. Michael certainly had more athleticism and a freakish body for the game, but lacked the consistency of the long-range shot.

Perhaps Michael is a little jealous at Steph's free throw accuracy. Even though MJ excelled at the free throw stripe converting 83.5 percent for this career, Curry is currently converting 90.5%, or 7 percent better than MJ.

According to the article, MJ was interviewed to discuss the two medical clinics that he and his family funded in Charlotte to help underprivileged people. I appreciate his commitment to charity but you don't have to go negative during the interview and throw shade at Steph. If you can't help yourself by being a contrarian, then admit before the end of the interview that you were just being a provocateur and don't really believe the shit that you just said.

Monday Night Football Announcers

Unfortunately, my wife and I watched the majority of the MNF game between the New England Patriots and New York Jets last night where the final score was 33-0. I say 'unfortunate' because it wasn't much of a game after the first quarter. Two compelling features, how many turnovers Sam Darnold of the Jets would commit and how the Patriots' offensive coaches would surgically carve up the Jets secondary. Getting back to my wife, she isn't a Patriots fan per se, however, she loves the efficiency and effectiveness of the team from New England, she marvels at how well run it is. In other words, she just likes to watch good football with a minimal amount of mental errors and stupid penalties.

During the second quarter of the broadcast, she asked me about the announcers for MNF.

A little background, she hasn't watched a Monday night game in a few years so she had no idea who the announcers were. My reply, the play by play announcer is Joe Tessitore and the analyst is Booger McFarland (a former NFL defensive lineman). She proceeded to say they were awful; they lacked personality, pizzazz, and enthusiasm. She made several similar comments of these announcer during the broadcast and longed for the other broadcasters who had much more passion and camaraderie. To name a few: Romo/Nance, Aikman/Buck and Collingsworth/Michaels. I must also add she's annoyed by Joe Buck over all but still prefers Aikman/Buck over these two Monday night announcers.

I was surprised to hear that she was able to quickly recognize the inferior broadcasting from the booth within an hour or so of viewing. In my mind, I've never been a fan of this crew or even last year when Jason Witten was in the booth and Booger was positioned on a 10 foot high movable platform but it took me some time to formulate my opinion.

I must add her desire to stay involved in the game had nothing to do with Joe and Booger, again, she marvels at the way the Patriots play on both sides of the ball and the incredible amount of adjustments they make during the game in all facets.

Back to Booger and Joe, it appears they just lack the 'It' factor. Maybe it's a lack of personality or a lack of these two complementing one another during the broadcast. It could also be that some of these games on MNF lack an overall appeal to a larger audience. Some say Joe is more suited for college football and it appears Booger talks to much. You see, there's a limited amount of time being each play so analysts need to make their point quickly and move on to the next play. Also, Booger will use football lingo that some viewers don't understand, even by experienced football viewers.

Again, Booger was a defensive lineman in the NFL so anticipating what the offense will do based on their alignment could be a greater challenger for someone from that world. Said differently, he doesn't have the on the field experience from a offensive perspective such as Romo, Aikman, or Collinsworth.

The next MNF game is between the winless Dolphins and the Roethlisberger less Steelers. If I ask my wife next Monday is she's interested in watching that game, I'm already prepared for the answer.


Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page