Wheel o' Stephanie (formerly Shanny)

I had the opposite take on him in 08 through the 09' season. I wanted him out of Chicago, badly. I thought he was rah rah and fluff and gaurded. I didn't like him until fall 2009. I thought he dropped off in 2012 and 2013 but I thought he was very good overall this year.

I get what you're saying, I see it different that's all.

The principle difference, and the most important thing I care about, is the context and content of a broadcast. When I complain about the broadcasters, it starts there. He doesn't re frame the context of the game about goalie play, the officials, on team doing good or the other doing bad, etc. unless there is a solid basis for that analysis.
I thought the minute after the Seabrook his was awesome. They nailed the penalty and put the play in an accurate context within a minute of the scrum being cleared. CBC sat on their ass for a minute or more for the same play, some may have preferred it, I thought it was pretty much useless.

I'm also influenced from literally hundreds of Olczyk interviews (opposite problem with some of my criticisms of others perhaps). I've never had the feeling, even when I wanted him off of the air, that he puts emphasis on officiating framing the context of a contest. When he whines about the wings interfering (which is accurate imo), he's giving the wings a backhand compliment more than whining about the officials in my opinion. If I ever consider Edzo to be reframing the context of the game I wouldn't like him. Neither Edzo or Engblom has an overly impressive delivery to me, but that's not a big deal to me either.

With the Toews call, I don't recall all the specifics outside of describing the play but he also made specific references to 2 previous Hawks penalties as being bad decisions that can't happen and at least one Blues penalty. I don't think game 1 was the Hawks feed nationally but there were many similar examples in there. If some picked up a homer vibe, that's fair and I don't recall it specifically and I didn't think the context of the game was influenced I could be wrong there, I wasn't paying much attention by that time.

I'm guessing our perception of what he's saying is much different and I think we've already established that we have different preferences for a broadcasts.

 

The only reason I was torn was because I don't think a team that misses on 2 5 on 3s deserves to win either. I was pleased they got the call right on the ice.

 

bob, there were countless things he COULD have picked to talk about - instead, he chose to try to mitigate the act in a manner only a lawyer would, yes, his right skate was still on the ice - letter of the law. it was equally clear to me that he was in the process of jumping into the hit. his left was already off the ice and his right was coming up. but it was a bad hit, period. we all know there are plenty of bad hits delivered with both skates firmly anchored and no upward momentum, yet his instinct was to say hey it wasn't THAT bad. and let's ignore all the other factors that made it a bad hit.

to me, that reads like a rationalization. "it's ok when i do it, cuz i got a good reason to, but u don't." as for the other stuff u mention there, i'm talking about calling out officiating. that's it, not sure why those other things were included.

 

ps: in case anyone wondered, i'm not a fan of backes. everybody on his team sucks, as my boy VJ would say. i assume this is on hitch.

 

at least Eddie let Mad Mike nail this gem: "He was screened by his stick."

here's a question. WHY THE F**K is NOBODY talking about Perry's Nutcracker Suite performance? i know the finish was more grand at the Garden and Benn didn't drop, but the act was similar. is Looch such a toolbag that it steals ALL of the thunder, even when the same act is committed? i know Matty brought it up here earlier, but it was rarely even discussed.
EC is DOMINATE.

 

as u said - instant classic

perry? i didn't see the incident, but i have no need. i'm perfectly willing to stipulate perry is an alimentary canal exit and any other derogatory reference of your choosing.

 

its an age old question frank. many think the answer is yes, I'm still not sure.

lol

 

haha...he said alimentary canal.
...ya...and exit.

 

credit where credit is due. i'm pretty sure i stole alimentary canal exit from NFL-Solomon.

 

He took the lead from his partner about the implications of the impending call and was mitigating what it takes for a charging call (which he turned out to be dead right on when picking a spot to analyze) Edzo did it just like he breaks down what goes into plenty of calls or plays on either side of his annoying "right there" line during a replay of a hold or hook or one of a dozen other penalties, passes, backchecks, or other plays.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSNtMDkRjBA[/video]
He never said if Seabrook made or didn't make contact with the head. He mentioned Backes on the ice laying down which explains why no arm may have gone up (refs watch players first then worry about arms and Edzo will bring that up when it happens since it drives fans nuts to see) and he rightly went straight into the major factors considered for the refs to make a charging call. He cleared one detail up. I think the perception was worse because Edzo said he didn't see a penalty called initially on the ice right after specifying the major question that remained (arm position, implying as it relates to potential head contact). Engblom said exactly what it was and made it clear the preceeding comment about the skates doesn't matter. Edzo didn't say anything else. I think people had a problem with Edzo (which is fine) or his tone/phrasing as opposed to his actual content.

When did he call out officiating as opposed to saying what they did and what he saw them do?
The other stuff has everything to do on how much slack I give a broadcast crew before I label them a suck.

 

The same reason Niemi finished 3rd in Vezina voting last year, few watched and all the writers turned it in for the night. By the time they found out they missed, it was too late in the day.

 

that was a reference to his comment a couple weeks ago about how the wings get away with stuff (a comment u defended ), not about the backes thing.

as for his backes comments, no sale. his first instinct was to defend a bad hit. at the risk of hyperbole, he watched a guy pull out a gun and shoot someone, and his first comment was "hey, the gun was registered." long after the fact, in an at-length discussion of the incident, what he said was a valid observation, altho, for reasons i've pointed out, crap anyway. to make it the first thing u say about it and to do so at length is, in my opinion, a bad choice on his part. why is the issue here whether or not it's charging and charging alone - an infraction which is rarely enforced by the book and can be caused by factors other than leaving your skates? i'm sorry, but his comments were as useful as him saying "if u look, he never crosschecks him."

 

this is what happened to Perry after his ball shot.

 

3 games for seabrook, let's see where the wheel lands on cooke, considering the injury, I'm thinking he'll get 5 games.

 

Perry deserved that beating by Daley. Looch shoulda got some too, but the Wings have limited resources in that department.

 

now that Matt Cooke doesn't play for Pittsburgh anymore... FINISH HIM! just kidding... FINISH HIM ANYWAYS!!!

 

Got me there.
I don't recall the exact exchange, but I know I've defended a number of similar comments. Last night he talked about a blown call on a high stick for a home broadcast committed against Oduya. He was clear, broke it down, called it a blown call but didn't say anything else about. He was describing what happened as far as I'm concerned, I never get the idea he's trying to direct the conversation on the officials being biased. Foley and Edzo also went out of their way to say how the officials broke off to discuss a call that went against the Hawks but they ended up nailing the call even though somebody else made a mistake and they slowed the game down. The Hawks gained nothing from it.

Probably just my perception, I just take those comments about people getting away with things as comments about what happened, not a bias or an idea that one team gets favorable treatment or tilted ice or something. Again, this probably goes back to hearing him do so many interviews over the years, he tries to get a huge amount of content out in a very short time. I think he's exceptional at it compared to his peers

I think you have a fair opinion that many will agree with. I thought he was racing to nail the analysis ahead of anybody else (which is a sore spot with me and any 3 man team for a broadcast) like he and Pierre do to each other and he didn't see clear head contact initially. He went straight to the right area breaking down a charge, because lunges upward don't matter as it relates to charging calls without head contact. The problem was not seeing the head contact and that was corrected quickly. We'll agree to disagree about what he was doing.

I've gone back and forth on him over the last few years, so I can't fault anybody for not liking the guy.

 

FUCK COOKE!!!!!

Lennie should go to the box of shame for propping up that "changed game" bullshit.

I'm even more aggravated for being sympathetic to Roy, Sherman, Avs fans, etc. It's not fair. He should be sent to a labor camp. Colorado in the drivers' seat for the series and Cooke completely fucks up everything...again...because he's cooke.

Disgusting. Fuck Fletcher for signing the guy too.

Did I talk about Garbutt or Roussel yet?