I dont remember seeing a poll on this, and I'm curious because I got into an arguement with someone at the game the other day.
I have met him before, and he is very knowledgable and friendly. Back in his Islander days, I met him at the Colisuem and we talked for a while. Very, very nice guy and despite some of what I hear, really knows the sport.
Now my question is this- Do you like him as the Rangers color guy? I'm not asking you to compare him to JD or Sam, because that is not fair. All I'm asking is if you are happy with him as our announcer.
Keep in mind some other guys we could be stuck with.
__________________ "Matteau! Matteau! Matteau!"~H. Rose
His analysis could be a better... "so-and-so is having a strong game"... OK, please elaborate why. Using adjectives like "great" and "strong" are not very descriptive.
Another thing I noticed is that during the post-game show against the Flyers, he was more critical of the Rangers than he was while doing the live commentary for the game. I would like him a lot more if he could bring that type of objective analysis during the game. He praises the Rangers for the good things that they do but tends to overlook the mistakes that they make.
Can't stand him. A color guy is supposed to provide some insight into the game, not repeatedly ask rhetorical layup non answer questions questions all night. Coco the Gorilla could sign more insightful analysis than Michelletti, and I'd be willing to bet Coco has never even seen a hockey game.
When he incessantly praises Player X on the opposing team all game (e.g., Okposo against the Isles last week), he gets irritating - it gives me the impression that it's not natural, but a predetermined talking point. However, he is better than Jaffe and Chico in the local market.
Still would love to see a personable ex-Ranger in that role, a la Clyde with the NYK.
Joe makes my ears bleed. Sadly, Sam's really slipped in recent years as well. If he actually calls 10% of the play that goes on these days, that's a lot. The pair of them basically just chat back and forth throughout the game. Unfortunately, Joe's idea of chatting is "so-and-so is really skating well tonight, isn't he Sam?" or "so-and-so is getting better and better with each game".
What would you guys think about Duguay getting the color job? I've really enjoyed him in the between period segments. I'd be interested to see how he did in-game.
No. Duguay is a little too far back for my tastes. He looks like Keith Richards and even in his in studio work, he's a bit rough around the edges. I'd love to see Mike Richter, but I think he's got better things going on. Same with Leetch, but I don't thin he wants to go on the road all year when he's got little kids at home. Graves would be a natural, I don't think anyone could ever dislike him, but he might not dig the road either. You know who I bet would be a riot is Tie Domi, but I don't think he'd come back to the NY area. The guy most deserving is Dave Maloney. He does the job, he offers insight, he's got history with the team, and he's already willing to do the travel. I know he was teammates with Duguay, but he just doesn't come off as "studio 54" as Duguay does to me.
He's been bugging me for so long. I can't stand him. He's a bonehead. I can't stand his stupid John Maddenesque stuttering rip-offs and his complete lack of vocabulary. "So and so is GOOD". If I hear "good" one more time...Jeez...
I'm just curious, what about him makes you feel that way?
It's the whole package. The irrelevant talking points during play, the terrible joke attempts and the other things mentioned above and in other threads. Sometimes while watching the games I will literally cringe at some of the things he says (and repeats).
He just generally adds nothing to (and often subtracts from) the game commentary for me. This isn't to say he doesn't know hockey, and I'm also not saying that he never has good insights. To this viewer, I just dont enjoy his overall work.
Could be worse...he could devolve into self parody like Fischler has.