Kramerica Industries
Registered User
Dave Strader is legit. I think he's the best national broadcaster in the United States for the NHL.
Does the NHl have the worst national announcers in sports? I really only like hockey don't watch any other sports but Doc, Healy, Pierre etc are unbearable. Often have to mute my tv.
Hockey broadcasts tend to try to put at least one obnoxious guy on every panel. Milbury is probably the worst, followed closely by Healy. I have no idea why they let Healy be part of the actual game commentary. He's made me switch networks more than once. I guess they're looking for "personality" and not realizing they're airing "obnoxious."
With panels though, I find there's usually a good guy or two on all of them. Elliott Friedman, for instance, is a guy who I think has earned a lot of respect.
I think there's a desire to replicate Don Cherry. They've eased off directly trying to find someone (both Brett Hull and Mike Milbury have been fitted for the role) and just let them be *******s, which I don't think Don Cherry is. He's got his opinions sometimes, but he'll give criticism and credit where he feels it's due, when he's not doing his act purposely mispronouncing names. Not just attacking small market teams relentlessly to curry favor with large market viewers. DC will go against what the producers want, or at least make it appear he is, in order to champion the little guy.
example of NBC trying to make someone (Brett Hull in this case) into their Don Cherry.
totally random but seeing Heineken just reminded me that NBC and Versus aired the weirdest damned commercials seemingly every commercial break during that playoff year. Dunno if it was for Heineken or some kind of Russian vodka and I have no hope of remembering enough details to actually find the ads on YT (if they exist on there of course) but it just came rushing back to me there seeing that clip.
I partly agree. But you have to consider that in case of a 94 points season for example, those 10 points you didn't get somebody else actually did get. It's unlikely we would've ended up #2 then.I had no idea where to put this thought, but after thinking tonight that if say Stamkos and Bishop were healthy all year long and won maybe 5-6 more games, the Lightning would have been 2nd in the Conference with 111-113 points and STILL would have played Montreal. It seems as if being good doesn't even matter and you don't really get rewarded all that much. They could have had 94 points and still played Montreal if everything else stayed the same. Seems pointless to get as many points as possible. *edit* Therefore it seems better to rest your players as long as you stay above the 4th team in your division.
So basically I much prefer the old playoff system. If your team is good enough to be 2nd or 3rd, they should play the bottom teams.
/rant
The Caps have fired GMGM and Oates.
I partly agree. But you have to consider that in case of a 94 points season for example, those 10 points you didn't get somebody else actually did get. It's unlikely we would've ended up #2 then.
Today is the day. Team USA goes for #U18Worlds gold vs. Czech Republic at noon ET. Watch live for free on @FASTHOCKEY
#CBJ D James Wisniewski said #NHL expressed in a memo to playoff teams that officials would be cracking down on after-the-whistle activity.
https://twitter.com/tjohnny09/status/460440687087857667Tyler Johnson @tjohnny09
Wanted to say thank you to all you bolt fans for an amazing year! Not the end we wanted, but a year I'll never forget! You guys are awesome!