Elliotte puts out a weekly column of everything he hears, Bob or anyone definitely doesn't report more than he does. Which doesn't mean he's better by any means, but he easily puts himself out there the most(and he probably has to).
Why does he stink? Why did Bob have a tough year? Those kind of comments, with nothing to really support them, baffle me.
Because they're regarded as "Analysts" and put in mainstream moments like NHL playoff game intermissions when they literally add no advanced knowledge to the game. To the casual fan, they might be fine, but they have a disgustingly low level knowledge of the game compared to say NFL panel analysts who usually have tons of depth to discuss.
If they were called "Reporters" and employed as such by TSN and Sportsnet etc, no one would have an issue with them.
But they are heralded as both, reporters, analysts, heroes, almost gods of the sport. When in reality, they have really limited technical knowledge of the game and it shows when they speculate rumors that don't make sense, or simply fail to make anything other than overly safe statements on TV.
And that's the thing with these fake analysts, they do nothing but add "analysis" that is very weak in argument but very low-risk, they discuss glaringly obvious results and making overly vague statements such as "he played great".
There is no specificity or depth when Mckenzie or Friedman is analyzing a NHL playoff game.
They're good because they have sources and they are reporters who can report the news adequately. They were given analyst positions very haphazardly, as with the rest of the sport itself.
I swear, NFL people in the same role add SO much more depth to the game than these glorified journalists, and I'd imagine other pro sports are similar. Ian Rappoport handles all the rumors, and they hire actual analysts to fill the panels.
