Stevedude530
Registered User
- Dec 21, 2005
- 1,941
- 1
It's been reported in the Dallas Morning News, New York Post and Toronto Globe & Mail that Hull will replace Eddie Olczyk in the studio as Edzo replaces JD in the booth.
Let me guess, he applied to CBC but they rejected him so he chose to accept NBCs offer
Good move. We need recognizable people in the booths with strong opinions. It also helps that Hull is "American" (hey, he played for Team USA). I would like to see Keith Jones out and guys like Chelios, Roenick, and Ferraro in. Ferraro isn't as recognizable, but he is a pretty good analyst IMO.
Everyone on these shows is too nice. Nobody says anything that controversial. Look at Don Cherry, half of Canada can't stand the guy but they'll watch him every week just to see if he'll say something that will piss them off.
Let me guess, he applied to CBC but they rejected him so he chose to accept NBCs offer
Well he certainly is a strong personality. Should be interesting to hear him during games. Though I am sure they could have picked someone who would have done a better job.
Let me guess, he applied to CBC but they rejected him so he chose to accept NBCs offer
Still doesn't compare to the NFL. With names like Bradshaw, Long, Young, Irvin, Johnson the NBC hockey team is still lacking that name recognition.
The way I look at it, the NHL's tv men are all guys who were not the top 2 or 3 guys on their team. Ferarro had a very good career, but never was he the top 2 or 3 guy on his team. NHL needs guys who had careers like Yzerman, Messier, Francis, Stevens, Bourque, Roy, etc. to be their tv guys. But, all of these guys either have other plans like coaching or front office or are simply too nice and bland to be good on tv.
I'd rather have Mike Ritcher tell me what it takes to win a cup that listen to Healy's nonsense. How bad is it that the 2 backup goalies who were part of the great 94 cup final are the ones on tv, in Healy and Whitmore, while the starters are not for their reasons.
A good analyst is like Bradshaw, be funny, have charisma, but be able to analyze the game film and give an opinion of what the team needs to do. Obviously, it's easier in football, as you can break down each play and say the team needs to run, pass protect, go deep, etc. While in hockey, it's more about flow than set plays.
We just need to wait for Roenick and Shanahan to retire. They'd be excellent on TV.Still doesn't compare to the NFL. With names like Bradshaw, Long, Young, Irvin, Johnson the NBC hockey team is still lacking that name recognition.
The way I look at it, the NHL's tv men are all guys who were not the top 2 or 3 guys on their team. Ferarro had a very good career, but never was he the top 2 or 3 guy on his team. NHL needs guys who had careers like Yzerman, Messier, Francis, Stevens, Bourque, Roy, etc. to be their tv guys. But, all of these guys either have other plans like coaching or front office or are simply too nice and bland to be good on tv.
I'd rather have Mike Ritcher tell me what it takes to win a cup that listen to Healy's nonsense. How bad is it that the 2 backup goalies who were part of the great 94 cup final are the ones on tv, in Healy and Whitmore, while the starters are not for their reasons.
A good analyst is like Bradshaw, be funny, have charisma, but be able to analyze the game film and give an opinion of what the team needs to do. Obviously, it's easier in football, as you can break down each play and say the team needs to run, pass protect, go deep, etc. While in hockey, it's more about flow than set plays.
Let me guess, he applied to CBC but they rejected him so he chose to accept NBCs offer
I'm calling it right now, this move isn't going to help out the Ratings.