HNIC Colour Commentators

[Goal:thecup]

6 hours ago, rekker said:

That, and the stupid, baby blue bandanna Hrudey wore were his claim to fame. Now, just another Flames homer. Ironic that it was Hrudey who said that Markstrom will never be a starter. I mean, who the hell says that! On National TV no doubt. It was just after that Markstrom went on to establish himself as one of the NHLs best.

Yeah, him and "Mrs Premiere Vander Holland Gardens or whatever his name was, handing off paper bags full of US$ to Faye Leuong (sp?)(the'Realtor in the Hat'??) at the Bayshore Hotel at 3 o'clock in the morning and stupid enough to FILM IT!

Zalm.  That's it.  Mr. Fan-Tas-Tik!  

 

Enough blow and hundreds, who cared if his wife was screw'n 'round more than her own headband...

Ron Dipshirt loved Hrudy-Toot's 'baby blue bandana' (didn't you, slimey?)

 

Bad times; bad actors; yet Rotton Ronnie lives on; I'd like to see him have Burr on as a guest.

One wrong move and KB3 Bam!  Superman Punch:

 

 Hrudy knows schite; that much is evident every time he smiles.

 

Does anybody else remember those exercize shows with mrs zalm and her head band.

(Not Hedwig and the Angry Inch) ... Butt WTH:

 

 

[iceman64]

10 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

Is there anybody else out there who is fed up with the likes of Garry Galley, Craig Simpson and Cassie Campbell-Pascall? It used to be that the colour person spoke during stoppages in play and offered brief comments that supported the play-by-play. In recent years, though, the trend is for the colour people to offer instant analysis of plays we have just witnessed with our own eyes. Simpson talks for easily a full minute every time Toronto scores, endlessly dissecting a play that took maybe four seconds to develop. He also is a walking encyclopedia of everything every Leafs says, does or thinks and he shares them with his captive audience, most of whom exercise their mute button every time he opens his mouth to glory in his beloved Leafs.

 

Galley is the king of woulda, shoulda, coulda as he critiques every play that results in a chance or a goal. He also projects what he thinks the players are thinking, as if he had a direct line into their brains. "Matthews is thinking here that Marner is open, but he knew he was being checked so he slid it to the open man." How does Galley know what Matthews is thinking, if, indeed, Matthews is even thinking at all. Most of all he loves the sound of his own voice and I'd be willing to bet his commentary takes up far more time than the actual play-by-play.

 

Campell-Pascall, who lives in Calgary and who is the wife of Calgary's AGM, sees the world from only a Calgary perspective. No matter what happens on the ice we are subjected to an interpretation from a Calgary viewpoint. If Horvat scores, then the talk is about how Markstrom made a valiant effort to stave off the lucky goal. If a Flame elbows MccDavid in the head, well, you have to play him tough. If Johnny Gaudreau didn't actually invent hockey, he was surely in on it. I wonder what she'll say when Markstrom is injured late in the season because of, you know, overwork?

 

Now, I have no problem with these folks doing their regional broadcast to disciples of the home team, but they all need to understand that their role on a national broadcast is to err on the side of neutrality. I would also be critical of John Garrett, who is an unapologetic homer, but he rarely gets a national broadcast. He is perfectly suited to covering Canucks games for Canucks fans. I guess I am becoming more like my dad all the time; for years he simply muted the whole game because he couldn't stand the mindless chatter that hockey broadcasts have become.

 

Last year I wrote to Sportsnet, telling them pretty much everything I have said here. I got a nice "Thanks for sharing" type of response, so I am sharing their contact email here: feedback@sportsnet.rogers.com 

 

Maybe more of us should make it known that regional colour commentators (read: homers) are fine for regional broadcasts, but that national broadcasts require a more equitable approach.

 

Rant over.

Well it's a toss up between that bunch opposed to Garrett Shorty and Smurf.. 

 I'm really not sure which is worse and there have been discussions about it but it's 50/50 I think.. or 60-40 in favour of the ultimate goofy twit Garrett, omfg he is soooo bad but both are bush league and that's what we're stuck with. 

I usually just have it on mute most of the time

Edited March 28, 2022 by iceman64

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

TBH I hate when some of them are homers especially when its against us, makes me roll my eyes. 

 

However, I can understand that a lot of them are drawing upon their expertise due to the frequent exposure to a particular market. To me it makes sense that Cassie Campbell heavy relies on her expertise on the Flames. Same with Simpson. Its obvious their bias, which gets periodically irritating, borderline overwhelming, but they are good hockey colour commentators.

 

Garry Galey just talks a lot, which IMO isn't all that bad, he seems very knowledgable about the game, especially as a lay fan who pretends to think he knows how the game works haha.

 

Yes they are irritating, but all the more makes me appreciate John Shorthouse, John Garrett,Brendan Bachelor, and Corey Hirsch.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

You could always skip the actual hockey games and only watch the intermissions when Juice is on.

[Industrious1]

Back in the day my brother would turn the sound off on the TV and put the radio commentator on.  

 

Was a bit of disjointedness but overall it wasn't too bad.  Not sure if this is even possible anymore.