It’s rare to see a media member own up to being wrong, but 710 ESPN Seattle’s Danny O’Neil did just that this week in a fascinating piece. O’Neil (seen at left above) admitted that his Twitter criticism of Seahawks’ guard Justin Britt for a supposed missed block in the team’s 38-7 win over the Minnesota Vikings Sunday was incorrect, as it turns out Britt had a different blocking assignment and it was someone else who didn’t pick up Vikings’ DT Brian Robison. Beyond just apologizing, though, O’Neil (a Seattle Times reporter before he went to ESPN) made some interesting points about how fan and media criticism of certain players is often misplaced thanks to not knowing exactly what was called:
I was absolutely, unequivocally, undeniably wrong.
Robison wasn’t Britt’s assignment on the play. It was someone else who didn’t hear the protection assignment because it wasn’t echoed to him before the snap. The fact that the play was nullified by a holding penalty on Minnesota doesn’t erase my mistake.
I say this not to beg for forgiveness or to publicly shame myself or in some Catholic fit of guilt to exhibit the depth of my regret. It’s not to apologize for being a jerk on the Internet, either. I’ve been one way too often to start backtracking now, and besides, I figure that if I mock myself on Twitter as often as I mock others it will all even out in the end.
This is about explaining the gap between the results we see on a given NFL play and the underlying reasons for those results. It’s the gap between what players and coaches know and what the people who observe the game — whether it’s media members or fans — think they know. And actually, it’s really not so much a gap as a canyon.
This is my 11th season of covering the Seahawks on a daily basis, and I am simply not capable nor qualified to give you a definitive explanation for why a specific play failed. Not only that, I’m suspicious of anyone else who claims expertise in that regard.
This is a smart piece from O’Neil, as he doesn’t say that no one should try to explain what happens on a given play, but rather that they should recognize they’re doing so with imperfect information. That’s something that often gets lost in an age of countless slow-motion replays and all-22 film that’s available to any fan or media member who wants to pay for the privilege. It’s not that the Xs-and-Os analysis is bad (O’Neil goes on to write “I try really hard to understand not only what I’m seeing, but why the play is unfolding in a particular way”), and it’s often more revelatory than the generic comments coaches and athletes give after games (which they’re somewhat forced into thanks to an unwinnable situation; be interesting, or give out actual information, and you create a controversy or give future opponents an edge against you). It’s that detailed tactical analysis can be brought down by misunderstandings of intent and assignments, information that’s often simply not available on the outside.
Again, that’s not to say analysts should just throw up their hands at the lack of perfect information and try to stop explaining things. The best TV commentators, reporters, columnists, bloggers and fans are able to pick up a lot from looking at a play, and they often do get it right even without access to the playcalls. The bigger takeaway is, as O’Neil writes, “it’s important to recognize our own limitations as observers,” and recognize that what you think may be the case isn’t always going to be correct. This is particularly important in an era of hot takes, where having the strongest and most definitive opinion often seems to be a recipe for drawing viewers. It’s great to see a media member not only have the courage and humility to publicly admit that he was wrong, but also to point out that definitive analysis has shortfalls in general and should include caveats. The sports media could use more of this way of thinking.
Comments are closed.