“Stephen”.
I once watched SAS on Sports Reporters, and he was (loudly) saying that a football team should have attempted a last second field goal on third down, so that, if they missed, they could try again on fourth down. This is such a dumb statement, and a clear sign of ignorance about the sport of football, that I lost all respect for him. It’d be like saying the Knicks should have taken a 4 point shot to try and get back into the game; there’s no such thing, dumbass!
He only knows basketball, and, as has been said, his manner of speach is rather irritating, so I don’t even care what he has to say about that.
As for the Sean Salisbury “cryptkeeper” comments, I always thought the insults between him and John Clayton were an act. Admittedly, it was rather dumb, but I thought they were both trying to create some sort of television dynamic, rather than actually insulting each other (although Clayton, god bless him, was too dorky to play his part).
That was over a year ago; it wasn’t the proximate cause.
So (this is just off the top of my head):
Mark Schlereth, Michael Irvin, Keyshawn Johnson, Shannon Sharpe, Dan Marino, Steve Young, Emmitt Smith, Cris Collinsworth, Terry Bradshaw, Howie Long, and Boomer Esiason are all analysts not because they all had successful careers (Keyshawn probably was least successful, though he was a #1 overall pick) but were chosen because of their speaking prowess? I don’t agree with that at all.
Clayton didn’t look like he thought the joke was in fun, and the idiot studio guy who laughed at it and encouraged Sean to run with it should be disciplined as well- that frat boy shit may fly at Fox, but not ESPN. 
And if you allow that, what’s next- “back to bald fat-ass Berman in the studio!” Or “and now here’s Forest Gump’s intellectual superior, Emmitt Smith”. Or “up next, winner of the Sandy Duncan lookalike contest, Stuart A. Scott”?
Well, I didn’t say that, so it’s good you don’t agree with it. One doesn’t have to be a great athlete to be a good analyst and being a great athlete doesn’t guarantee being a good analyst.
You mean he didn’t get fired for THAT?
Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be to say, having playing expertise gets you in the door but doesn’t necessarily make a person a GOOD expert analyst.
One week suspension, IIRC, but it was never announced or explained.
Perhaps you misheard him? If a field goal is blocked (not missed), and the kicking team recovers, they can attempt a second fg if they still have a down left.
Obviously they can’t get back-to-back kicks, but teams will often attempt late game FG’s on 3rd down so that if there’s a bad snap, they can flop on the ball and line up again on 4th down. Maybe that’s what he meant.
I think the key to the phrase was this:
With no more time on the clock, a 4th down would be moot.
As far as being analyst vs. personal valour: Kenny Wallace & J. J. Yeley (the former never was a great driver; the latter hasn’t had time to prove himself) are both pretty good NASCAR analysts (When J.J. does a guest spot on SPEED).
Yes, I’m aware of the strategy, and that’s what the other reporters on Sports Reporters were saying (i.e. they should have tried the kick on third down, so if the snap was bad, they could get another snap). When it came time for SAS to add his two cents, he made the point that they should have tried the field goal on third down so they could re-kick on fourth down if they missed it.
I distinctly remember the comment, because it was so blatantly ignorant of the game of football. I’ve never heard him make an intelligent or insightful point about any sport except basketball, and his delivery is irritating enough that I don’t particularly enjoy his basketabll analysis, either.
ETA: And, for the record, I always thought the Sean Salisbury bully act was tacky; I just figured it was also a bit of a put-on, too.