"For my money, Dustin Nielsen and Duane Forde are TSN’s best play-by-play crew. Their mix of enthusiasm, passion for the Canadian game and ability to know when to let the play and crowd reaction speak for itself is second to none." (3DownNation)

TSN media staff appears to be relatively the same as last year. Are you happy about that?

Personally, I know that announcers and commentators are going to be noticeably similar to Captain Obvious and I do not think that can be changed much. I like Steagall's courage to speak his mind. The rest of the panel seems scripted with talking points. Sharp criticism is seldom seen.

But I am happy. Rod Black is gone and that's all that matters on this topic. I am even able to put up with "homer" Glenn Suiter. I thought he was rather restrained during the Regina game. He seldom foamed at the mouth AND he did not harp on  just one player's hilites all game. So growth is possible even in the face of entrenched personality.

Your thoughts on the TSN crew?

 

21 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

It’s funny that the same criticisms that people have of Suitor (or Rod Black) that they harp on over and over could just as easily be applied to Dunigan if people chose to watch with the same “let’s pick apart everything he says and spin it to the negative” eye. 

Not the same at all.  Black was not interested in actually doing play by play which was his g*d damned job!  Black also had a poor vocabulary which led him to develop some really annoying nicknames and terms. 

Suitor's lack of personality means he has to resort to repeating himself.  It's also super obvious when he's referring to his minimally prepped information.  It might just be me, but also find Suitor to consistently speak from a place of cynicism, which really isn't helpful when trying to sell the game.  I also find him inauthentic.

Dunigan brings enthusiasm and knowledge delivered in a hodgepodge way, but he has the personality and authenticity to pull it off.

13 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Not the same at all.  Black was not interested in actually doing play by play which was his g*d damned job!  Black also had a poor vocabulary which led him to develop some really annoying nicknames and terms. 

Suitor's lack of personality means he has to resort to repeating himself.  It's also super obvious when he's referring to his minimally prepped information.  It might just be me, but also find Suitor to consistently speak from a place of cynicism, which really isn't helpful when trying to sell the game.  I also find him inauthentic.

Dunigan brings enthusiasm and knowledge delivered in a hodgepodge way, but he has the personality and authenticity to pull it off

Could be exactly the same sending on how you want to spin it, depending on your pre-conceived bias. Let’s try this shall we?

”Poor vocabulary” - Dunigan is hardly Shakespearean. People say watching him is like having the drunk uncle broadcast (and that’s meant as a compliment), so you can’t tell me he is more articulate than Black was. His replay “analysis” often consisted of “ooh, ahh, bam, Gettin’ er done” and assorted grunts. As was once said of tennis analyst Bud Collins “is he commenting on the match or having a baby?” 

“Nicknames” - I heard “Kadeem Cash ‘n’ Carey” from Matt at least 4 times during the game. It’s not just a Rod Black trait. 

“Repeating himself” - At one point Matt said the same thing 3 times on one play. “Middle was blocked so he’s trying to bounce outside, because he couldn’t go up the middle, all blocked up so he takes it outside, see how he goes outside after the middle got blocked up?” My brother watching with me (he’s a hard core CFL critic) literally said to the TV “yeah, we got it the first two times”. Matt will grab a narrative and follow it as much as any other broadcaster. People just go out of their way to cherry pick what Suitor says and make it like that’s all he does, and ignore Dunigan when he does the same thing. Again, easy enough to cherry pick and find the flaws. 

“Homerism” - People will dump on Suitor as an ex-Rider for any good strokes he gives Saskatchewan, and because of the Rider hatred here I feel they will ascribe that as homerism rather than simply giving props to the team that we loathe. I think he tries to hard at times to deny when responding to the haters, and that does not help his cause. But I have heard him give lots of credit to the Bombers too (he was gushing about Collaros in the BC game in particular) but that seems to go less noticed. Dunigan is a huge rah rah guy in the booth, let’s not pretend he isn’t. He’s the biggest fan boy amongst the analysts out there, but he gets a pass for it because he’s folksy, or has “personality”, or because he’s an ex-Bomber as there is a pro-Dunigan bias here, but I think it’s dead wrong to say he doesn’t do it too. 

I will agree that the Suitor time can come off as cynical, and I think that’s based on his tone. But I’d hardly call him ill-prepared. He has a narrative he follows, and if people don’t like it, they call it ignorance rather than respectful disagreement. And Matt’s “enthusiasm” and “authenticity” could just as easily be called “unprofessional” if you are looking for solid analysis instead of cheerleading. Like I said, I think during the live pace of the game his hodgepodge style takes over. When he is in studio and he has time to break down a play and script a response, he is excellent at that. But my original point stands that people who pick on Suitor and Black for their perceived faults give Dunigan a pass for doing some of the exact same thing, and I suspect that the ex-Bomber and Rider passports of the respective broadcasters have a lot more to do with it than people would care to admit. 

13 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Could be exactly the same sending on how you want to spin it, depending on your pre-conceived bias. Let’s try this shall we?

”Poor vocabulary” - Dunigan is hardly Shakespearean. People say watching him is like having the drunk uncle broadcast (and that’s meant as a compliment), so you can’t tell me he is more articulate than Black was. His replay “analysis” often consisted of “ooh, ahh, bam, Gettin’ er done” and assorted grunts. As was once said of tennis analyst Bud Collins “is he commenting on the match or having a baby?” 

“Nicknames” - I heard “Kadeem Cash ‘n’ Carey” from Matt at least 4 times during the game. It’s not just a Rod Black trait. 

“Repeating himself” - At one point Matt said the same thing 3 times on one play. “Middle was blocked so he’s trying to bounce outside, because he couldn’t go up the middle, all blocked up so he takes it outside, see how he goes outside after the middle got blocked up?” My brother watching with me (he’s a hard core CFL critic) literally said to the TV “yeah, we got it the first two times”. Matt will grab a narrative and follow it as much as any other broadcaster. People just go out of their way to cherry pick what Suitor says and make it like that’s all he does, and ignore Dunigan when he does the same thing. Again, easy enough to cherry pick and find the flaws. 

“Homerism” - People will dump on Suitor as an ex-Rider for any good strokes he gives Saskatchewan, and because of the Rider hatred here I feel they will ascribe that as homerism rather than simply giving props to the team that we loathe. I think he tries to hard at times to deny when responding to the haters, and that does not help his cause. But I have heard him give lots of credit to the Bombers too (he was gushing about Collaros in the BC game in particular) but that seems to go less noticed. Dunigan is a huge rah rah guy in the booth, let’s not pretend he isn’t. He’s the biggest fan boy amongst the analysts out there, but he gets a pass for it because he’s folksy, or has “personality”, or because he’s an ex-Bomber as there is a pro-Dunigan bias here, but I think it’s dead wrong to say he doesn’t do it too. 

I will agree that the Suitor time can come off as cynical, and I think that’s based on his tone. But I’d hardly call him ill-prepared. He has a narrative he follows, and if people don’t like it, they call it ignorance rather than respectful disagreement. And Matt’s “enthusiasm” and “authenticity” could just as easily be called “unprofessional” if you are looking for solid analysis instead of cheerleading. Like I said, I think during the live pace of the game his hodgepodge style takes over. When he is in studio and he has time to break down a play and script a response, he is excellent at that. But my original point stands that people who pick on Suitor and Black for their perceived faults give Dunigan a pass for doing some of the exact same thing, and I suspect that the ex-Bomber and Rider passports of the respective broadcasters have a lot more to do with it than people would care to admit. 

You can't compare a play by play announcer (Black) with a colour commentator (Dunigan/Suitor).  They have totally different roles and duties.

Dunnigan has issues where he has trouble getting the words out sometimes, probably related to his mushy head from all the concussions. 

But basically he is awesome simply because of the genuine enthusiasm he brings. 

Polished and professional? Not even close. Excited about the game? 100%.

56 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Dunnigan has issues where he has trouble getting the words out sometimes, probably related to his mushy head from all the concussions. 

But basically he is awesome simply because of the genuine enthusiasm he brings. 

Polished and professional? Not even close. Excited about the game? 100%.

Exactly this. 

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Dunnigan has issues where he has trouble getting the words out sometimes, probably related to his mushy head from all the concussions. 

But basically he is awesome simply because of the genuine enthusiasm he brings. 

Polished and professional? Not even close. Excited about the game? 100%.

He brings great energy and people are way more likely to tune in with that.  

 

5 minutes ago, Brandon said:

He brings great energy and people are way more likely to tune in with that.  

 

His bellowing “get offa me” is the best. 
I first remember hearing it when he was referring to a long Streveler run during the 2019 B. Bowl.  

A third person in the booth would be good imo

7 hours ago, Brandon said:

He brings great energy and people are way more likely to tune in with that.  

 

Turned people off when Black exuded excitement. Guess it comes down to style as opposed to ability. 

8 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Turned people off when Black exuded excitement. Guess it comes down to style as opposed to ability. 

No idea why you continue to defend Rod Black. He was the worst football announcer who ever lived. No one came close to being as incompetent as Black was on TSN.

Honestly Rod Black wasn't as bad as people made him out to be, but comparing play by play guys to colour commentators is the stupidest thing people do. 

 

21 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Honestly Rod Black wasn't as bad as people made him out to be, but comparing play by play guys to colour commentators is the stupidest thing people do. 

 

What do you see as the requirements for a play-by-play guy vs an analyst? Can a play-by-play guy not be enthusiastic? Should they all be Pat Summerall clones? CN they offer any opinion on the game or just stick to rigidly calling the play between the whistles and nothing more? Should an analyst be allowed to be a cheerleader, or should they be limited to breaking down what happened on a play? What kind of personality should each have?

Edited July 19, 20223 yr by TrueBlue4ever

32 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

What do you see as the requirements for a play-by-play guy vs an analyst? Can a play-by-play guy not be enthusiastic? Should they all be Pat Summerall clones? CN they offer any opinion on the game or just stick to rigidly calling the play between the whistles and nothing more? Should an analyst be allowed to be a cheerleader, or should they be limited to breaking down what happened on a play? What kind of personality should each have?

They are 2 different jobs that's why you can't compare them. You need different skill sets to be good each position.

1 hour ago, Squeakers and Skippy said:

A third person in the booth would be good imo

Walby or we riot... 

2 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Turned people off when Black exuded excitement. Guess it comes down to style as opposed to ability. 

I think the issue was excitement over non important to the game things such as Sam Giguere catching one ball and him talking about him 20 times a game.   

Matt gets excited with the action on the field in the moment.   Very different thing. 

7 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Honestly Rod Black wasn't as bad as people made him out to be, but comparing play by play guys to colour commentators is the stupidest thing people do. 

 

He did the job for far too long to be as bad as he was.  I'll never understand how he kept getting the prime gigs.

Tenure

I like Matty ...his excitement and goofy things make it fun and entertaining...and he tries to explain and get points across in a way I much prefer to Suitors holier than tho approach and his at times bs opinion or flat out contradicting comments week in and week out

Matty just let's it flow out and at times is all over map...less than polished..buts it's real and the action on field brings it out of him...and If sometimes he whips out his pom poms for a player or team...so be it...at least it's entertaining and passionate ..I'd take his color and insight every week and not tire of it

 

9 hours ago, 17to85 said:

They are 2 different jobs that's why you can't compare them. You need different skill sets to be good each position.

Not looking for a comparison. Asking you for your requirements in your mind. What do you look for in each? 

2 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Not looking for a comparison. Asking you for your requirements in your mind. What do you look for in each? 

Play by play 

• Accuracy
  • Get the players' names right
  • Get the penalty calls right
  • Describe what the radio or TV audience cannot see or hear (wind, crowd noise etc)
• Attentiveness/Focus
  • Describe the play as it happens.  Don't ignore an active play.
• Skill & knowledge
  • Has a strong vocabulary so they don't need to describe a similar play the same way twice.
  • Ability to control the broadcast.  Skillfully throws to the colour commentator and is willing to cut them off when a new play begins.
  • Ability to perform a concise interview.
• Impartiality

*Just think about what made Bob Irving great.

Colour commentary

• Knowledge of the game
  • Ability to break down a play
    • Explain why it did or didn't work
• Storytelling ability
• Enthusiasm for the game
• Intelligence
  • Don't have to be Einstein, but should have a decent grasp of the language.
• Discipline
  • Know when to shut up.
    • Ability to tell a tale relevant to a current game situation
• Authenticity

Feel free to add.

Edited July 19, 20223 yr by Wideleft

6 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Play by play 

• Accuracy
  • Get the players' names right
  • Get the penalty calls right
  • Describe what the radio or TV audience cannot see or hear (wind, crowd noise etc)
• Attentiveness/Focus
  • Describe the play as it happens.  Don't ignore an active play.
• Skill & knowledge
  • Has a strong vocabulary so they don't need to describe a similar play the same way twice.
  • Ability to control the broadcast.  Skillfully throws to the colour commentator and is willing to cut them off when a new play begins.
  • Ability to perform a concise interview.
• Impartiality

*Just think about what made Bob Irving great.

Colour commentary

• Knowledge of the game
  • Ability to break down a play
    • Explain why it did or didn't work
• Storytelling ability
• Enthusiasm for the game
• Intelligence
  • Don't have to be Einstein, but should have a decent grasp of the language.
• Discipline
  • Know when to shut up.
    • Ability to tell a tale relevant to a current game situation

Feel free to add.

Great thanks. Are there any “don’ts” in your mind for either job, as it seems that is what upsets people the most - things that are done that shouldn’t be rather than not done? Like the “holier than thou” comment made about Suitor (not by you), what is that about? Just trying to get a picture of people’s preferences to understand why every Suitor game brings such outrage as to make half the game comments about him and not the teams, and why Dunigan’s gaffes are lovable while other broadcasters get picked apart, and why some actually seem to prefer to complain about a broadcaster and be angry rather than just tune them out and focus on the game itself. 

12 hours ago, Squeakers and Skippy said:

A third person in the booth would be good imo

What's Dennis Miller up to these days? 😜

Don't mind Nielson, he is articulate and (for the most part) accurately reads and describes the unfolding plays. I'm willing to let occasional name gaffes go, as the game is fast, and players are constantly being shifted on and off the field. It happens.

Suitor is mostly okay, however occasionally he'll go full Rider-homer which is an instant turn-off, or start rambling about plays he obviously doesn't know enough about. Could be worse I suppose. 

Stegall can be the same for us, as he'll occasionally go full Bomber-homer as well, and it can be embarrassing at times. It's not as bad as it used to be, however I'm hoping he continues to become more objective with time as he is a good face for the league.

Similar situation to Sanchez as well - when he first started he was almost unwatchable, however with time he's mellowed out a lot and is more tolerable. Not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer though.

Forde is pretty consistent - I appreciate that he tries to inject as much Canadian college content into a broadcast, however sometimes this borders into rambling and as a result we'll miss a play which can be pretty frustrating.

Rod Smith is pretty even keel, he'll stay focused on the play, and is also very articulate. Occasionally he and Forde will get caught up in an anecdote and start rambling though, and I feel this has been getting worse the past couple of years.

What I find so interesting about this season is that I'm sensing Beirness really doesn't want to be involved with the CFL show any longer - that she comes across as a reluctant participant. There was that incident the other week where all of the panelists were trying to talk over one another and she said 'I don't want to do this anymore' or something to that effect, and it seemed genuine. That would be a significant loss to the show as Kate's a great host.

Sarah is Sarah. Occasionally fumbles her words (probably nerves), however she's always professional and consistent.

Lastly, Dunnigan. I love the guy, and obviously he was a special player for us, and is such a likeable personality, but he struggles with the panel and commentary more often than not. It's so obvious he has severe CTE and struggles so much with articulating his thoughts as his brain is so damaged. Whenever I hear him call a game or if he's having a bad day on the panel it makes me feel terrible, because he has sacrificed too much for the game, and football is the only reason as to why this is happening to him. I don't know if the crew or the players ever read these forums, but if they do, I want them to know that I am sorry for every player that has had to deal with CTE as a result of football. That is a price that is simply too high for anyone to ever have to pay.

As for radio... Bob - there will never ever be anyone like him. We were lucky to have him, and I personally consider myself so lucky to have had the pleasure of listening to him call the game for so many years. Enjoy your so well-earned retirement! We miss you!

Every time Milt panders to Rider fans he slips farther down my favourite Bomber list. 
 

 

29 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

Every time Milt panders to Rider fans he slips farther down my favourite Bomber list. 
 

 

Milt has always loved attention so he just knows how to make the trained seals clap.

I still hate it