NFL Films Presents: Manipulation and Revisionist History

I was just watching the SB 45 NFL Films Presents. I only caught the second half, but for those that didn't see it, they basically cut between players and coaches talking on the sidelines and showing plays, with a narrator helping us along. They like to build up drama, which is fine. It's reducing a whole Super Bowl into 20 minutes or so, so they gotta do what they gotta do.

But then the following scenario happens: they show Clay Matthews boldly predicting that the Steelers will do a running play to the offensive right side (gee, just like the other 90% of their running plays) and then forcing the fumble on Mendenhall. Alright, I think they played that up a bit, making Matthews look like a psychic, but that's the kind of stuff they do. Fine. Then they transition by saying that Matthews was the DPOY runner-up to Troy Polamalu. I can tell from the slow motion and dramatic music that the implication is going to be that Matthews is playing better, Troy is struggling, maybe Matthews deserved it, etc. That's fine too. We all know that Troy was never the same in 2010 after hurting his achilles, and not only couldn't play like himself, but was basically playing a different position, with Clark taking on Troy's normal stuff and Troy playing deeper. I don't expect them to go into that. I'm fine with the drama. The narrator says the Packers will try to exploit Troy's aggressive play. They show Jennings on the sideline saying that when Troy flies up, they should go vertical over the top because no one will be able to keep up.

Cut to the very next play that they show. Slow motion Rodgers taking the snap, slow motion Troy beginning his backpedal. The play is that long completion to Jordy Nelson, like 40 something yards on a crossing pattern, ending with Troy pushing him out of bounds. I recall the play clearly. McFadden blitzed and Clark took over man coverage on Nelson (what??). Clark was of course beaten, Nelson made a move across the field and was eventually tracked down and forced out by Troy, who was probably 15-20 yards away at the time of completion and not responsible at all. Another shot of Troy's face, close up. The implication is clear: they took advantage of Troy and beat him. You can look at it like maybe he's not so good after all, or yes he's amazing but they slayed the dragon, but they are clearly implying that Jennings' prophecy came true and Nelson and Rodgers beat Troy. And in case that wasn't clear enough, they play a clip from an announcer that says, "Polamalu was beaten on the play!" I'm not sure if that announcer was retarded or if they lifted it from another play (or another game?).

Why do this? I don't take a thing away from the Packers and their win. Troy didn't play his best, I believe largely due to injury, and I don't deny it. The play led to a TD where he was much closer to being the one that was beaten (but I don't know for sure since it was a busted coverage -- it easily could have been someone else and he just happened to be closest. He clearly let the guy go on purpose originally). But if they wanted to rag on Troy, they could have used that play. It's way more plausible at least. Why make stuff up? This is supposed to be like a historical document, isn't it? Can I trust all the stuff I've seen about Super Bowl IX? Now I'm not so sure. Maybe it depends on the producer or director?

Lame.

 

I probably owe a lot of my early interest in the game to NFL Films. But sometimes they strecth "narrative" beyond the pale.

There is an episode of America's Game that does something similar - not quite as blatant in re-writing the events, but still irritating. It's Ben's first season, when the Patriots won. There's the game where we ended their longest-ever winning streak, and the film basically makes out that the Steelers are behving very 'arrogantly' and rubbing the Pats face in it and so on. Which is apparently very poor showmanship (after all, we'd only just ended one of, if not the, longest winning streak in NFL history. With a rookie QB. So obviously, we shouldn't celebrate that at all.)

But basically, it's all set up so that the AFC championship game can come out as a "revenge" match where the loudmouth bragging Steelers are put in their place by the righteous and noble Patriots.

However, as I say, I don't think that's as bad as what you've described, because obiovusly American's Game is meant to be from th eperspective of the winning team.

 

Hmm, I don't remember any rubbing it in at the time, and I am huge on sportsmanship. But that was 8 years ago. What I remember is the huge media coverage and the shock by everyone that we won (and kinda easily). I'd love to see what they were talking about.

I don't know how teams get some reputations. The Cowboys are America's team? How'd they land that crap? Everyone I know hates them, even in the non-football team having Texas city where I live. The Patriots are squeaky clean and noble and don't do that immature bad sportsmanship stuff? PLEASE they're as bad as everyone else, and that reputation still somehow hasn't gone away, even after spygate. The Steelers don't tolerate off the field behavior problems? Yeah, if the guy also sucks at football. If he's crucial to our winning he will stick around.

A lot of reputations are deserved. The Steelers have an amazing traveling fan base. The Raiders and Bengals and Cowboys have no problems with criminals and seem eager to snatch them up when other teams pass. I don't know why we have to make them up when there are plenty of real ones

 

You're making too big of a deal out of this I think. Any of the mini-series that follow the Steelers SB wins also create drama out of nothing. Drama creates ratings. Without drama, less people would watch. It's not an anti-Steelers spin, they're just trying to create more of a story line.

 

I'm not saying it's anti-Steelers, it's just made up. It's more dramatic to pick on Polamalu than it is Clark or McFadden, so they just make it up? That's ridiculous. If I was the Packers I'd want it to be accurate, too.

 

It's more dramatic as Troy is one of the best players in the league. It's not even worth mentioning that Jennings beat McFadden.

 

I guess when it comes to adding drama, I'm more a fan of adding it without changing the history of what happened.

 

NFL Films does like to play things up. Remember in Super Bowl 40 when their was a little smack talk between Joey Porter and Jeremy Stevens? That was THE lamest so called feud I've ever seen. Yet when they made the America's Game for that year they mentioned it as though it was some huge part of Super Bowl lore. I think we all know it hardly rises to the level of Bradshaw and Hollywood Henderson.

 

To take this thought a step further... Isn't there enough "real" drama in this type of game to play on rather than having to create it? This is the kind of stuff that upsets me, also. There are so many real aspects and storylines that could be ran with rather than forcing ones that aren't even there. I guess if it was left up to me you would have one boring story being told. Besides, if I was telling the story, even if the Steelers weren't playing I would find a way to turn the story into a Steelers documentary...that's just the way I roll!

 

Ha, it would be like Monty Python's News for Parrots. "No Steelers were involved in the game between the Ravens and the Browns today. A spokesman for the Steelers said he was glad that no Steelers were injured in the game..."

On a different note, storylines are a huge part of the game itself; it guides loads of the live commentary. Far more in the NFL than other sports, perhaps.

 

I'm watching this right now and just don't see the issue at all.

 

Look, I love NFL Films as much as the next person, but they do tend to edit video in a way to structure the narrative the way they want. In almost every Super Bowl highlight, I have noticed parts of the game merged with other parts. One example, after Willie Parker's 75-yd TD run in SB XL, you see a reaction from Cowher. Problem is, Cowher is looking at the wrong end zone. It's obviously a reaction to a different part of the game. Same thing with the SB IX highights, where we see and hear Andy Russel say, "This is a touchdown here," as the Steelers drive for the game clincher. Again, he's looking in the wrong direction. Plus, night had fallen by the time Bradshaw threw the TD to Larry Brown. When Russell says this, the overcast sky is still a lughter shade of gray. Then there's SB X, when John Facenda talks about Lambert going on a rampage after his run-in with Cliff Harris, and one of the immediate highlights is his crushing hit on Preston Pearson--but the hit on Pearson occurred in the first quarter; the confrontation with Harris happened in the third.

There are many, many more examples of this. My favorite is the "C'MON!" angry fan from the 70s wearing the knit hat. Any time NFL films is charting Bradshaw's "rocky start to his career" this guy shows up. Heck, they even pulled him out of the archives to illustrate booing fans in the 1982 AFC playoff against the Chargers. LOL

 

Do you not understand what I'm talking about, how they manipulate the audio and video to make it appear that Jordy Nelson beat Troy Polamalu? Or do you see it and just not think it's an issue?

Interesting stuff. Thanks for all that. I have seen smaller examples like those, like incorrect reactions on the sidelines, and those irritate me every time too, even when it's not against the Steelers in any way, or even enhancing our image. It's still just wrong.

For whatever reason, they feel the need to turn it from a story about a game into a storytelling event, like a movie. I suppose it's to make that particular show better. I'm okay with that (music, slow motion, narration, editing to just keep the best stuff in half an hour)... I just wish they wouldn't altar the facts to do it. Using different reactions is harmless in a way, but it also makes the moment false. Cowher didn't react the way you want for that play, so you find a better one? If I was the guy doing the editing, that would definitely cause me to wonder what I was even doing there.

 

LOL...This isn't the guy I am thinking of, but he is most definitely another one who shows up over and over again in anything NFL Films does on the Steelers.

 

Here's the "C'MON" guy ...

[attachment=0:2titgwu6]Steeler fan 02.JPG[/attachment:2titgwu6]

 

He is clearly the projection of our collective consciousness, embodying everything we all want to be...

 

there was alot of that going on in the stands back then. noll used to get pissed at bradshaw all the time and yank him. hanratty was like a yo-yo. LOL it was a far different crowd in the stands then as opposed to nowdays. alot more bluecollar. each player had his fan clubs with their banners and signs. it was a rough crowd then. we liked to think we were an extension of the defense. this team was a jugernaut on both sides of the ball. when the O would mess up, they let em know it. we knew and they knew , they were better than that and it wasen't the norm. that's why bradshaw had a sore spot for us for years, but it really wasen't personal. i don't remember too many opposing fans ever being in 3 rivers, they at least were smart enough not to let it be known. unless we were up by 30 we hated everything. we knew they were better then any team out there and that's how they should play every down. is that a bad thing? LOL i think those fans shown are just a sentiment of the overall feeling of the fans when they messed up. it fits.

 

I didn't even notice that... I should have clarified with: :shots:

 

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's an issue at all. Nelson is on offence, Troy is on defence. GB's offence beat our defence on that play. Whether or not Troy was supposed to cover Nelson on that play isn't really an issue for me, nor do I see it as a big issue that the NFL network implied Nelson beat Troy. Guess I just don't see the big deal.

 

Hmm, I disagree with that fundamentally. By that logic, Ike Taylor could have lockdown man coverage on Greg Jennings, Rodgers could throw a TD to Nelson who drew single coverage by Gay, and you could say Rodgers and Nelson beat Taylor for the TD, when in fact Taylor had perfect coverage and was 40 yards away from the action. It'd be true that the Packer offense beat the Steeler defense on that play, which includes all of those players, but to say Nelson beat Taylor would be completely false. It might as well be a fantasy game between the 1974 Steelers and 1988 49ers.

I suppose if you're looking at it as pure entertainment it's not a big deal. But people rely on this stuff for their NFL history, which is no accident. That's what the NFL wants, and it's the best source for it. I wish they wouldn't mess it up for zero reason.