Comcast SportsNet

Jamie Mottram & Dan Steinberg on the EaglesRedskins Game Tonight

Jamie Mottram & Dan Steinberg on the EaglesRedskins Game Tonight

With the Washington Redskins in town this evening for the Monday Night Football extravaganza, I thought I'd ask D.C.'s two brightest sports minds what they thought about the matchup.  Nope, not Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser.  We'll get plenty of Tony K. tonight.

An in depth look at the game tonight with these two television stars, after the jump.

Dan Steinberg and Jamie Mottram are the stars of Comcast's hit television show Blog Show!  You can watch past episodes here.  Dan and Jamie do their work at The Washington Post's D.C. Sports Bog and Mister Irrelevant, respectively.

Enrico: We Eagles fans are used to looking down towards the bottom of the
standings to see how the Redskins are doing.  Going into the Monday
Night Football game this week, the Birds are 0-1 while the Skins are
1-0.  I don't like it.  How do you feel about being tied for the NFC
East lead after one week of football?

Jamie: You Eagles fans are also used to looking around and seeing
a lot of insufferable assholes wearing green, so, all things
considered, I think you'll be just fine. Anyway, how do I feel about the
Skins being in first? I feel like they opened with a W over a five-win
team at home (in OT no less), but that won't diminish the rippling beer muscles
I'll be throwing around come Monday Night.

Dan: Oh snap! Except
I think the Dolphins had six wins last year. Maybe not.

Enrico: I couldn't agree more.  I really can't stand the Saint Patties day festivities in Philadelphia.

Dan: Anyhow, I'm not
a Redskins fan, despite the fact that I live in D.C., but living here
and interacting with the people with whom I interact, it's impossible
not to believe that the world will end if the Skins don't finish 16-0,
and that God is on their side.

Enrico: Now,
you guys actually have a decent quarterback for the first time in a few
years and Antwaan Randel El put up some huge numbers in week one.  With
Lito Sheppard going down and the weaker Will James stepping in, is that
something you expect the Skins to exploit?

Dan: The
odd thing no one's pointing out about Randle El is that his day went
from "above average" to "huge" because he caught a tipped hail mary at
the end of regulation. Also, that B-Lloyd was invisible, and that
Cooley and Moss didn't do much. This team won't succeed with Randle El
as its offensive weapon. I'm expecting a ton more Cooley this week, but
yeah, sure they'll test James. Wait, who am I, Mort? I have no idea.
I'm just trying to make fun of Eagles fans in the parking lot.

Jamie: JC 17 is the first QB in DC able to really throw the ball downfield
since a certain Super Bowl hero named Mark Rypien. The problem in Week 1,
however, is that Campbell was deadly inaccurate. Plus, 'Tana Moss dropped
two easy downfield passes and Captain Chaos stayed in to help on pass
protection after Jon Jansen went down in a twisted heap of agony early on. So,
yeah, McNabb won't be the only QB with something to prove on Monday Night,
and Sheppard being out will only help.

Enrico: Wow.  Mark Rypien.  I forgot about that guy.  So, big game Monday night
in Philly.  Would either of you two care to make a wager?  I was
thinking I could mail you a Geno's cheesesteak if the Skins win and you
guys could mail me... um?  A foreign diplomat? What are you guys famous
for in DC?  A Ben's Chili Bowl half smoke?  I hear Bill Cosby is a fan.  Seriously though, how bout
a ticket to the Nationals/Phils game this weekend?  Steinz prob gets
them for free anyway, that way if the Eagles win, I won't really have
to deliver.

Jamie: How about a Geno's cheesesteak vs. an Eagles visor (don't ask, but I have
one)?

Enrico: No.

Jamie: How about a cheesesteak vs. me not kicking your ass?  For real, Steinz and I will stomp the yard on that ass!

Enrico: Okay, Jamie's lost his marbles.  I'll end this weak attempt at football
analysis with my pick.  I'm predicting a huge night from McNabb, maybe
3 TD tosses.  Eagles 34 Redskins 13.  How do you like that beatdown?

Jamie: McNabb better have a huge night, or you know what time it is
... it's Kevin Kolb time.  Prediction: Redskins win a close one on the strength of their
running game and defense. Get ready for the grind, Philly. It's gonna be
like Eric Nies up in this bitch! 

Dan: As
the only impartial member of this email thread, I think I'm obviously
closest to the truth. Eagles win but, most importantly, do not cover.
Call it 20-19 or something like that. How 'bout the Eagles score on a
second-half turnover, just to get extra specific.

Enrico: Alright! Many thanks to the DC folk for sharing their thoughts.  Go Birds!

CSNPhilly Internship - Advertising/Sales

plain-peacock-logo.png

CSNPhilly Internship - Advertising/Sales

Position Title: Intern
Department: Advertising/Sales
Company: Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia
# of hours / week: 10 – 20 hours

Deadline: November 20

Basic Function

This position will work closely with the Vice President of Sales in generating revenue through commercial advertisements and sponsorship sales. The intern will gain first-hand sales experience through working with Sales Assistants and AEs on pitches, sales-calls and recapping material.

Duties and Responsibilities

• Assist Account Executive on preparation of Sales Presentations
• Cultivate new account leads for local sales
• Track sponsorships in specified programs
• Assist as point of contact with sponsors on game night set up and pre-game hospitality elements.
• Assist with collection of all proof of performance materials.
• Perform Competitive Network Analysis
• Update Customer database
• Other various projects as assigned

Requirements

1. Good oral and written communication skills.
2. Knowledge of sports.
3. Ability to work non-traditional hours, weekends & holidays
4. Ability to work in a fast-paced, high-pressure environment
5. Must be 19 years of age or older
6. Must be a student in pursuit of an Associate, Bachelor, Master or Juris Doctor degree
7. Must have unrestricted authorization to work in the US
8. Must have sophomore standing or above
9. Must have a 3.0 GPA

Interested students should apply here and specify they're interested in the ad/sales internship.

About NBC internships

Rating 5 changes the NHL made to its rulebook

usa-dave-hastol.jpg
USA Today Images

Rating 5 changes the NHL made to its rulebook

If you have witnessed preseason hockey this past week, you are well aware that the NHL is buckling down on its rulebook and even revising it. An excess of penalties and power plays have occurred as a result of these changes. Are they good for the game? I examine each of the five new rules or changes to the existing rulebook. 

Rule 78.7 (b) — A coach's challenge on an offside play — If the result of the challenge is that the play was “on-side,” the goal shall count and the team that issued the challenge shall be assessed a minor penalty for delaying the game.

In 2015, the NHL granted each coach a challenge they could utilize in the event of overturning an incorrect call on the ice. If the challenge failed and the original call stood, then the challenging coach would forfeit the team’s timeout. Starting this season, a failed challenge on an on-sides call in which there’s a goal will result in a two-minute minor penalty.   

By doing so, the NHL instituted a method to help maintain the game’s integrity in the event of a missed call by a linesman, as many coaches hold onto their challenge at a critical juncture — typically during the third period. Now with a two-minute penalty, it’s a way of reversing course without actually taking away the challenge. It's as if the league is saying we want you to have a challenge, but not really. The league is now discouraging teams from using it. As we’ve seen over the past few years, offsides calls can be measured in millimeters — that’s how arbitrary it’s become. But to penalize an entire team for a coaching staff’s misjudgment is excessive, and as we’ll see this season, it will sway the outcomes of a few games. Forfeiting a timeout for losing a challenge is acceptable, but killing a two-minute power play? Absurd, and for that I give it …

Two thumbs down   

Rule 61.1 — Slashing — Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on an opponent’s body, the opponent’s stick, or on or near the opponent’s hands that, in the judgement of the referee is not an attempt to play the puck, shall be penalized as slashing.

Flyers fans can call out Sidney Crosby for emphasizing this rule, which is not a rule change but simply the enforcement of an existing rule. Crosby violated this in the worst way when he performed a machete slice over the hands of Senators defenseman Mark Methot late in the season. The result was a broken finger, nearly severed from the tip, and the loss of one of Ottawa’s top defensemen for weeks. Watch the video and you can hear Methot scream in pain as Crosby took his whack.

In the preseason, we have seen more slashing than department store prices during Black Friday. It’s out of control, not the slashing itself, but the slashing calls. As the rule states, it’s a "forceful or powerful chop" which usually requires a two-handed grip. However, the referees have resorted to blowing the whistle for a one-handed love tap. As Shayne Gostisbehere said Wednesday, “When they blow the whistle and everyone’s like, ‘What just happened?’ That’s not a penalty.”  

I suspect come October when the regular season begins, the officials will ease up on their slashing calls, but it definitely creates a gray area, much like the interference call. Over the course of the season, some refs will whistle everything, while others will let stuff go. If it protects the league from injury, especially serious injury in cases like Methot and even Johnny Gaudreau, it can be beneficial, but I see some inconsistency from game-to-game and for that I give it ...

One thumb up ... my good, non-slashed thumb

Rule 76.4 — Faceoff positioning and procedure — The players taking part shall take their position so that they will stand squarely facing their opponent’s end of the rink and clear of the ice markings (where applicable).

Like the slashing penalty previously discussed, this is another enforcement of an existing rule. In other words, the league wants to cut down on cheating during faceoffs. You know when players began cheating on faceoffs? Since the inception of the faceoff. In fact, I can recall producing a three-minute story when I was working at a Nashville TV station on how players gain advantages and bend the rules on faceoffs. Three minutes. On cheating! 

Now, those L-shaped lines are no longer suggestions or recommendations, but strict guidelines of where the players should stand prior to a faceoff. If a team is caught twice during the same faceoff (and it doesn’t have to be the same player), the result is a two-minute minor penalty. The Islanders' Josh Ho-Sang was a guilty offender twice during Wednesday’s game in Allentown and the Flyers benefited with a power play in each instance. The league’s explanation states they want to protect players from banging heads, and more importantly, protect the linesman dropping the puck. 

Like the slashing penalty, I’m curious to see which linesmen strictly enforce this rule and which ones will be a little more lax. This is another one of those penalties (like the challenge call) that you certainly don’t want to impact the outcome of a game. The league has good intentions for enforcing Rule 76.4, but will they have consistent enforcement? And for that I give it …

One thumb up

Rule 87.1 — No timeout shall be granted to the defensive team following an icing.

Once again, here’s another example of a moment when a coach would intervene during a critical point of a hockey game (usually late during the third period). An attacking team is applying pressure in the offensive zone of a close game and the defensive team, obviously gassed, flips the puck out of the zone for an icing. That coach proceeds to call a timeout to allow his team to catch its breath and grab some water before the ensuing faceoff.

My take on the new rule: Love it! This rule should have been implemented years ago. You can penalize a team for icing without actually calling a penalty. Allowing a timeout does exactly the opposite and circumvents any drawbacks of icing. By forcing a tired group of guys to line up and take a faceoff right away is precisely the way it should be handled, and for that I give this new rule …

Two thumbs up

Eliminating Rule 80.4 — Numerical advantage on faceoffs — When a team on the power play high sticks the puck, the ensuing faceoff will be conducted at one of the two faceoff spots in their defending zone.

This is the abridged version of the rule that was roughly half a page long. Playing the puck with a high stick is instinctual and when the game is played at warp speed, a player’s natural inclination is to raise their stick in an attempt to knock the puck out of the air. When a player is guilty of a high stick, the whistle is blown and a faceoff occurs. Now that this rule has been eliminated entirely from the rulebook, the ensuing faceoff will take place in the zone in which the infraction was committed.

No team should be given territorial advantage as a result of a high stick. I’m surprised it’s taken this long to acknowledge the absurdity of Rule 80.4, and for finally acknowledging this, I give the elimination of this rule …

Two thumbs up