The Footage the NFL Won't Show You
Moderator: Gregg Popabitch
- GUCCI CONDOMS
- Posts: 20799
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:09 am
- Location: NYC
The Footage the NFL Won't Show You
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj
Every play during an NFL game is filmed from multiple angles in high definition. There are cameras hovering over the field, cameras lashed to the goalposts and cameras pointed at the coaches, who have to cover their mouths to call plays.
But for all the footage available, and despite the $4 billion or so the NFL makes every year by selling its broadcast rights, there's some footage the league keeps hidden.
Every play during an NFL game is filmed from multiple angles in high definition. But there's some footage the league keeps hidden as Reed Albergotti explains on Lunch Break.
If you ask the league to see the footage that was taken from on high to show the entire field and what all 22 players did on every play, the response will be emphatic. "NO ONE gets that," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy wrote in an email. This footage, added fellow league spokesman Greg Aiello, "is regarded at this point as proprietary NFL coaching information."
For decades, NFL TV broadcasts have relied most heavily on one view: the shot from a sideline camera that follows the progress of the ball. Anyone who wants to analyze the game, however, prefers to see the pulled-back camera angle known as the "All 22."
While this shot makes the players look like stick figures, it allows students of the game to see things that are invisible to TV watchers: like what routes the receivers ran, how the defense aligned itself and who made blocks past the line of scrimmage.
By distributing this footage only to NFL teams, and rationing it out carefully to its TV partners and on its web site, the NFL has created a paradox. The most-watched sport in the U.S. is also arguably the least understood. "I don't think you can get a full understanding without watching the entirety of the game," says former head coach Bill Parcells. The zoomed-in footage on TV broadcasts, he says, only shows a "fragment" of what happens on the field.
For much of the NFL's history, seeing only part of the field wasn't a big problem. Passing wasn't as common, or complex, as it is today.
The NFL's creative geniuses were focused on the ground game and the lively run-blocking schemes that came with it. But as NFL offenses began passing more and sending more players into passing routes, they began stretching out the area in which plays are executedגmaking the All-22 footage more valuable. By the 1980s, when San Francisco's Bill Walsh began to perfect his pass-intensive West Coast offense, a scheme that involved moving the ball with quick, methodical throws, more of the game began to disappear beyond the edge of the television screen. Today's offenses, which routinely use four or even the maximum five receivers, have all but outgrown the traditional zoomed-in view.
Without the expanded frame, fans often have no idea why many plays turn out the way they do, or if the TV analysts are giving them correct information. On a recent Sunday, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Alex Smith threw a deep pass to tight end Delanie Walker for a 26-yard touchdown. Daryl Johnston, the Fox color man working the game, said Smith's throw was "placed perfectly" and that Tampa Bay Buccaneers safety Corey Lynch was "a little bit late getting there."
Greg Cosell, producer of the ESPN program "NFL Matchup," who is one of the few people with access to All-22 footage, said the 49ers had purposely overloaded the right side of the field so each receiver would only be covered by one defender. Lynch, the safety, wasn't late getting there, Cosell says. He was doing his job and covering somebody else. Johnston could not be reached for comment.
Frank Hawkins, a former NFL executive during the 1990s who is now a Scalar Media Partners consultant, says he remembers the NFL considering releasing the All 22. The biggest objection, he said, came from the football people.
Charley Casserly, a former general manager who was a member of the NFL's competition committee, says he voted against releasing All-22 footage because he worried that if fans had access, it would open players and teams up to a level of criticism far beyond the current hum of talk radio. Casserly believed fans would jump to conclusions after watching one or two games in the All 22, without knowing the full story.
"I was concerned about misinformation being spread about players and coaches and their ability to do their job," he said. "It becomes a distraction that you have to deal with." Now an analyst for CBS, Casserly takes an hour-and-a-half train once a week to NFL Films headquarters in Mt. Laurel, N.J. just to watch the All-22 film.
Lonnie Marts, a former linebacker for the Jacksonville Jaguars, says there are thousands of former NFL players who could easily pick apart play-calling and player performance if they had access to this film. "If you knew the game, you'd know that sometimes there's a lot of bonehead plays and bonehead coaching going on out there," he says.
After he retired, Marts says he wanted to talk about the Jaguars on a radio show, so he contacted the video guy from the Jaguarsגwho was a friendגand asked for a couple of game tapes. Marts says he never heard from the guy again.
The NFL makes a handful of plays from the All 22 available on its web site for a fee, but they're often so blurry the players' numbers aren't visible. Earlier this month, the league quietly asked fans, through a survey site, whether they would pay up to $100 to watch an online feed of the All 22.
News of the survey made its way to NFL message boards and fan sites, where the response among football obsessives was wildly positive. "Yes! Yes! Yes!" said one message-board post. Another said, "The All-22 tape would be amazing. We'd actually be able to see what the safeties are doing."
On a Buffalo Bills fan site called "The Buffalo Range," one message-board member said "I've been dying for them to release it for years. Please help me stuff the ballot box."
The NFL says the league wasn't actually serious about releasing the footage. The survey was meant only to gauge fan interest, Aiello says. "There's not a product in development," he says. "This is a long way from becoming a reality, if ever."
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:10 pm
-
- Posts: 9507
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:44 pm
- Location: Beaumont-sur-Mer
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:10 pm
-
- Posts: 9507
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:44 pm
- Location: Beaumont-sur-Mer
-
- Posts: 9963
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:29 am
Trademark wrote:Lol... You could also buy season tickets... Or does the NFL block peoples eyes....?
What, for every fucking team in the league? This is for people who actually want to study and learn from it, not for dudes who have a crush on their favorite player and want to make sure they can look at him and only him at all times, longingly.
hustler wrote:if you don't know that spiders protect you from ghosts, then i really dont know what to tell you.
- GUCCI CONDOMS
- Posts: 20799
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:09 am
- Location: NYC
I am glad this is getting out in the public. Having All 22 will be huge in understanding the game so much better for the fans and increase the advance stats in the NFL big time. Right now all of us that watch football are talking out of our ass for the most part at the per play level since we have no idea what went on for 70 percent or so of the play. We have no idea if say an int was great coverage, great play, a bad route that was run, a slip or any of a dozen other things that the All 22 can show. I suspect bad to average coaches don't want this public to avoid critizism.
a-fucking-greed. watching football is fun. but only getting to watch at most 13 of 22 guys 80% of the time because of dumb camera angle is becoming frustrating and makes me not want to watch sometimes.We have no idea if say an int was great coverage, great play, a bad route that was run, a slip or any of a dozen other things that the All 22 can show. I suspect bad to average coaches don't want this public to avoid critizism.
i dont think the nfl will release the all 22 footage anytime soon. the fans are at a level and vein of education where a corporatist league (or modern political party) really wants their fans/citizens. just educated enough to have a value system that is useful for the league but not so educated as to recognize what actually constitutes bad play or whats going on with a route concept. we spend so much time looking at the battle between the o-line and d-line (just watching the qb drop back (and how many times have we heard commentary on this basic part of the game, but does the average fan even know whats actually going on when the qb drops back?)) its not really conducive to enjoying the whole game, but its certainly conducive to telling people how to think about your product.
sometimes i honestly cant tell if commentators are dumbing down or actually believe what they say. there is intellect and skill in the ability to boil things down, and communicate the broad strokes. but come the fuck on. they must be dumbing it down insanely. theres no way brian billick is that limited (or is there???)
gruden, mayock, and charles davis >>>>>>>>>
-
- Posts: 9507
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:44 pm
- Location: Beaumont-sur-Mer
Despite its classification as a non-profit, we all know beyond a shadow of a doubt and without hesitation that the NFL is a profit making venture.ric wrote:a-fucking-greed. watching football is fun. but only getting to watch at most 13 of 22 guys 80% of the time because of dumb camera angle is becoming frustrating and makes me not want to watch sometimes.We have no idea if say an int was great coverage, great play, a bad route that was run, a slip or any of a dozen other things that the All 22 can show. I suspect bad to average coaches don't want this public to avoid critizism.
i dont think the nfl will release the all 22 footage anytime soon. the fans are at a level and vein of education where a corporatist league (or modern political party) really wants their fans/citizens. just educated enough to have a value system that is useful for the league but not so educated as to recognize what actually constitutes bad play or whats going on with a route concept. we spend so much time looking at the battle between the o-line and d-line (just watching the qb drop back (and how many times have we heard commentary on this basic part of the game, but does the average fan even know whats actually going on when the qb drops back?)) its not really conducive to enjoying the whole game, but its certainly conducive to telling people how to think about your product.
sometimes i honestly cant tell if commentators are dumbing down or actually believe what they say. there is intellect and skill in the ability to boil things down, and communicate the broad strokes. but come the fuck on. they must be dumbing it down insanely. theres no way brian billick is that limited (or is there???)
gruden, mayock, and charles davis >>>>>>>>>
If people demand it and it will increase investment in the brand with a big enough segment of the fan base, they'll absolutely do it. They're not going to switch the broadcast because the vast majority of folks -- who don't care -- would complain, but it's ridiculous to assert that they wouldn't stream this online if it would increase subscriptions and allow them to up their licensing fees. When the tech is there, being able to pick between the broadcast feed and other feeds is a clear an easy answer to the problem. You get to serve a small sector of your audience in a way you couldn't before, and there isn't any trade off.
@ popeye
a good point about there being no trade off except it would be a huge investment of time, motivation, and money just to get something up and running for a return that really isnt there. is any of this wrong? maybe it is.
if they have the other feeds available id love to get a no-commentator option with field sound and stadium-announcer optional.
a good point about there being no trade off except it would be a huge investment of time, motivation, and money just to get something up and running for a return that really isnt there. is any of this wrong? maybe it is.
if they have the other feeds available id love to get a no-commentator option with field sound and stadium-announcer optional.
-
- Posts: 9507
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:44 pm
- Location: Beaumont-sur-Mer
i recently wrote an email to gamerewind.support@nfl.com that included the stuff we discussed in this thread.
they promptly responded with this
they promptly responded with this
so something new "soon" is coming. i hope its good.Greetings,
Thank you for the NFL Game Rewind product feedback.
We've forwarded your note along to the NFL Game Rewind Product Team; they appreciate all suggestions and will be releasing a new version of the player soon with some enhancements emanating directly from user feedback such as this.
Best regards,
NFL Game Rewind Support
Great article. I always wondered how the television shows got the full screen angle that they don't show during the broadcast.
Can't believe they're treating the footage like it's some kind of nuclear weapon. ZOMG, If they see and understand what the safeties are doing it'll bring down the league!!!
What a bunch of fucking nonsense. How are people going to be more critical than they are now? People talk football 365 days a year as it is. As you guys have said, it's only going to appeal to hardcore fans anyway. It definitely sounds like they're just trying to create a buzz so they can sell a subscription service later on. They've already got the footage ready to go (or very nearly).
Can't believe they're treating the footage like it's some kind of nuclear weapon. ZOMG, If they see and understand what the safeties are doing it'll bring down the league!!!
What a bunch of fucking nonsense. How are people going to be more critical than they are now? People talk football 365 days a year as it is. As you guys have said, it's only going to appeal to hardcore fans anyway. It definitely sounds like they're just trying to create a buzz so they can sell a subscription service later on. They've already got the footage ready to go (or very nearly).
[i]Styles can be applied quickly to selected text.[/i]
-
- Posts: 14678
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:08 am
Don't they already have this option available on the Sunday and/or Monday night game? I've never gone online and tried it, but they always run a promo during the game about how you can choose camera angles and whatnot.Cash Rulz wrote:Ridiculously dope idea!!!PopeyeJones wrote:How long til we can get nfl sun tick subscriptions online where we can pick o our own camera angle from the available feed or the broadcast feed? Five years? Eight? Can't wait.
[i]Styles can be applied quickly to selected text.[/i]