Seriously, though, I did not know Dierdorf went to Michigan. Being a Wisconsin alum, that gives me a brand new reason not to like him. Thanks.
- CINCINNATI BENGALS VS. BALTIMORE RAVENS
- Finally, CBS Sports brings some energy, passion to Ravens telecast
- Ravens blow 17-point lead, but pull out 20-17 win over Bengals
- Ravens mandatory minicamp [Pictures]
- 2013 Ravens cheerleaders [Pictures]
- Ravens organized team activities 2014 [Pictures]
See more photos »
I loved your article this morning on the coverage of yesterday’s game. Fortunately, I did not watch the game – I have season tickets and am at every home game – but glad to hear CBS stepped up their production.
For the games I watch, you nail my thoughts exactly. And I love your comments on Dan Dierdorf – he drives me absolutely crazy and is “unlistenable.”
Anyway, just want you to know I very much enjoy reading your articles. Keep up the good work.
"I agree [that the overall production was better]. With the exception of Dierdorf's mistakes it was an improvement. Dierdorf's mistakes stood out tho."
But not everyone agreed with me on Dierdorf. Frederick writes:
I used to admire your work. But over the last several weeks, I have become annoyed with your little picky, unnecessary criticisms of the CBS crew covering the Ravens, especially Dan Dierdorf.
First, I am from the old school that believes the modern crews are forced to spew out more info, statistics, etc. than is necessary. I miss the Ray Scotts, Jack Bucks and Pat Summeralls. But I understand times change and maybe new school folks like all that garbage.
Nevertheless, I have always felt Dierdorf was one of the best analysts because he comes across as a human being who was also a great football player. You say and i guess you are right that he occasionally misspeaks on some stat or the physical update of a player; but in my mind he more than makes up for any miscues with his human and analytical approach to broadcasting the games.
So lay off of him, unless of course you are getting paid to be petty towards him, then well, we all have to make a living.
Z responds: Frederick, I hope you will follow up on the really interesting theory you offer at the end of your comment and reveal who you think is paying me to be "petty" toward Dierdorf. I will definitely share that with readers next week. And I do love it when readers go all "Guys and Dolls" on me and tell me to "lay off." But I think that's supposed to be followed by the phrase, "If you know what's good for you, buster."
OK, this comment is the winner of the week, because it offered support for something I suspected from the opening moments of the telecast: CBS Sports used more cameras and technology Sunday than it has in the past with the usual Sean-McManus, save-a-buck, small-market, cut-rate productions.
Mark, who was at M&T Bank Stadium Sunday, writes:
I noticed a camera in the upper deck at the entry portal between Secs. 500 and 501. I don't make it to every home game, but I usually sit in the same seats and haven't noticed a camera in this spot.
Z responds: Thank you, Mark. Could it be that CBS Sports actually responded to all the complaints about their on-the-cheap treatment of Ravens games and gave us a couple of extra cameras?
Now, if they would just spare us Dierdorf.
P.S. I didn't get all the comments in this week. I will try to get the ones that didn't make it today in next week. But thanks for all of them. I don't know about you, but I am enjoying this conversation -- a lot.