"Take that Calgary Puck!" — SN960 and Calgary sports media discussion

[Strange Brew]

Darryl Reaugh is one of the best on color IMO. He is on Stars broadcasts. He used to fill in on HNIC but it has been a long time.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's nice to see more women on panels these days. Meaghan Mikkelson has some great insight and her knowledge shines. Her family has been involved in high levels of hockey for generations and it really shows. I also really enjoy Jennifer Botterill who seems like real natural on camera. But man, I would love to get Leah Hextall back on Canadian broadcasts.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by mhsyyc

Not listening to Boomer in the morning this last week and having to listen to CBS Sports Radio makes me realize how bad in general sports radio is and that maybe, just maybe, our local team isn't as bad as we sometimes think

The first half of the afternoons sure as hell are.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Are there any good Flames-related podcasts?

[mhsyyc]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Are there any good Flames-related podcasts?

Shifts and Pucks does a lot of Flames stuff

[mhsyyc]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's nice to see more women on panels these days. Meaghan Mikkelson has some great insight and her knowledge shines. Her family has been involved in high levels of hockey for generations and it really shows. I also really enjoy Jennifer Botterill who seems like real natural on camera. But man, I would love to get Leah Hextall back on Canadian broadcasts.

Agreed. I also find Jennifer Botterill very professional and insightful

[SutterBrother]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

The concern over Cassie being married to the Flames AGM is just unfounded - maybe if she only got the job for that reason, but she played the game at the highest level and won Olympic gold. It’s not like you can question her credentials.

Disagree, and that’s part of the problem. She doesn’t share the experience of a former player, or anything close to it. Which would be fine if she was humorous, insightful, or otherwise engaging. But she lacks both sides of that equation.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

^I agree re. Ball. I view him amongst the very best. Elite. I don't think that's being over complimentary. He's that damn good.

I find it weird that Sportsnet doesn’t elevate him to doing more national level stuff, as he clearly deserves it. That’s as big an indictment on SN as anything, and I’d be curious why that is.

To be clear, as a Flames fan I’m very happy with that, but I feel for him that he is so good at his job and doesn’t seem to get the recognition from his employer.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Color commentary is meant to fill the air with talk to give the pbp person a rest and to add a perspective to what has just happened.

This is why Hrudey AND Cassie are really poor at the color side of things while both being great as panelists. They both go on incessantly about things that ARE NOT happening while play is going on. They should rarely be heard except between whistles as it is, but for sure at least be relevant to what is occurring on the ice. Its actually infuriating to me when the rambling goes non stop ...sometimes for 10 seconds while play is underway.

Harry Neale ranted about this recently.

Play-by-play callers should be enhancing the drama of the action with their voices. Colour commentators should fill the stoppages in play with insights about what’s happening, maybe throwing in the occasional brief anecdote.

It’s a simple formula. But it has been largely abandoned by modern broadcasters, who sound like a couple of knowledgeable but slightly bored insiders having a private one-on-one conversation. Too often it saps the life out of the game.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by SutterBrother

Disagree, and that’s part of the problem. She doesn’t share the experience of a former player, or anything close to it. Which would be fine if she was humorous, insightful, or otherwise engaging. But she lacks both sides of that equation.

This is a ridiculous take, since CCP has played elite-level hockey for her entire life, and has been very successful at the highest acheivable level. She clearly knows the game extremely well; none of this is an issue at all.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

SutterBrother obviously meant NHL experience, but it is not a good argument, IMO. CCP does have national team and Olympic experience, which are just as valid and interesting, and are a nice change from the usual stories from ex-NHLers.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by SutterBrother

Disagree, and that’s part of the problem. She doesn’t share the experience of a former player, or anything close to it. Which would be fine if she was humorous, insightful, or otherwise engaging. But she lacks both sides of that equation.

I don't disagree with that assessment of her personal traits - all I'm trying to say is that it has nothing to do with her being married to the Flames AGM, or being a woman. I don't find that the colour role is a good fit for her personality, but you can't claim that she doesn't understand the game or know what it takes to win - she just can't effectively translate that into the role they've given her.

What I think gets lost sometimes is that not just anyone that used to play can be a good colour commentator - it takes unique skills on top of playing ability. Not everyone can be like Troy Aikman or Ray Ferraro. To be honest, I'd rather a good colour person that wasn't a former player than someone that used to play doing a bad job.

[TheSquatch]

I think there's an obvious push from the bosses to have all the commentators act as though every play of every game is the best thing all season. There's a pseudo-excitement being pushed down our throats about how great the product is, how lucky we are to be watching these generational players.

The crowd of commentators who want to see "no defense" are part of this, mistaking scoring for good hockey.

And I think Cassie has been told to make the colour about this stuff. Last Flames/Oilers game, Gudbranson smashed McDavid pretty good behind the Flames net. Cassie pointed it out, they had a replay of it, and her narrative was like, "Watch Connor the warrior here, he skates back up the ice looking for some retribution, and Gudbrandson doesn't see him coming."

Except Gudbrandson DID see him coming, and gave him a sly elbow for his troubles.

And Cassie's commentary, watching the replay, just died off, cuz it was just.... wrong. It was surreal. Like, someone whispered in her ear "Talk up this play by McDavid".

While I don't love her voice or her style, I think she knows tons about hockey. But I think the issue that this all revolves around is that we have network and hockey executives trying to build excitement and attract new viewers, and it's somewhat at the expense of the existing educated viewers. There's narrative building going on big time. It's not enough to watch a great player, we have to be told a hundred times that we are witnessing history. Takes the fun out. And I'm sure it's driving a lot of these educated intelligent broadcasters a little batty too.

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is a ridiculous take, since CCP has played elite-level hockey for her entire life, and has been very successful at the highest acheivable level. She clearly knows the game extremely well; none of this is an issue at all.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

I think what they meant was Cassie doesn’t offer the insights of someone that has played high level hockey, like why a certain player made certain moves or why the coach is making this line matchup or etc. Something more added than someone who hasn’t played the game.

I don’t pay enough attention to Cassie to know if she adds that sort of info or not.

[Toonage]

How is an Olympic gold medalist, at hockey, not a high level?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

I think what they meant was Cassie doesn’t offer the insights of someone that has played high level hockey, like why a certain player made certain moves or why the coach is making this line matchup or etc. Something more added than someone who hasn’t played the game.

I don’t pay enough attention to Cassie to know if she adds that sort of info or not.

She didn't play high level hockey?

She played for the ####ing national team multiple years.

She knows the game, to say otherwise really has a misogynistic twinge.

You can dislike how she presents, but I don't think you can argue she doesn't know the game.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Toonage

How is an Olympic multiplegold medalist, at hockey, not a high level?

added.

It really blows my mind

[N-E-B]

Yeah, Cassie's problem has never been her knowledge. It's 100% in her presentation. She's not dumb.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

She didn't play high level hockey?

Not to put words in someone else's mouth (or post), but I interpreted SutterBrother and bigrangy's posts as saying that Cassie's insights don't come across as those of someone who played high-level hockey, even though she did.

They're not saying she doesn't have the experience, just that her commentary doesn't relay that experience to the audience. It's the same criticism as has been said about Simmer and Peplinski when they did colour.

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

She didn't play high level hockey?

She played for the ####ing national team multiple years.

She knows the game, to say otherwise really has a misogynistic twinge.

You can dislike how she presents, but I don't think you can argue she doesn't know the game.

I don’t think you are understanding what the post says.

Cassie 100% is an experienced high level hockey person. But does she actually commentate on hockey and add to the analysis with her high-level hockey knowledge? Or is her commentary just surface level “oh my god can you believe mcdavid” stuff that doesn’t add anything that someone who hasn’t played at a high level could add?

You always hear from Hrudey for example on why a goalie was doing what he was doing or if a goal looked worse than it actually was etc.