Kings Broadcast Team Tabbed League’s Best. (In case you missed it.)

[carmichaeldave]

Not actually referring to anything he's said on air post trade. Beyond that, you have to be deaf or in denial not to have heard him harp on Cousins incessantly during game broadcasts over the years. He had an obvious agenda. I've never heard G-Man do that. I've never heard Jerry Reynolds really do that, other than when Grant puts him on point live on air and asks him, and even then it's typically pretty tame and not repeated ad nauseam. Grant seems to believe his soapbox extends to the booth. When he refrains from doing that, he's actually pretty good. I actually enjoy his over-the-top calls and calling card phrases when the team is going really good.

Oddly, his boorish behaviour often times isn't too different from what he blames Cousins for -- especially how he behaves on radio. But that's an altogether different topic for a different day.

95% of his criticisms of DMC during the games have been about:

-not running back on D
-yelling at refs
-getting techs

I'm an obvious DMC homer but I don't want to live in an echo chamber. Or be in denial. Are those criticisms not extremely valid? Were most of not all of us frustrated?

Would you rather hear:

"Kings down 1, 37 second left.......Russell drives and Cousins with the personal......oh and he's not happy with the refs....TECHNICAL FOUL......well, that certainly will make it more difficult for the Kings......SAY IF YOU HAVENT CHECKED OUT THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF CSN INSIDER, MAKE SURE YOU TUNE IN......"


Not me. I like that my announcers are emotionally involved. All of them.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I think you're overreacting. Yes, it was pretty clear that he wasn't a DeMarcus fan, so what?

That's precisely the point and the problem. You shouldn't be able to discern that from his play-by-play broadcast. As far as we all know, G-Man may not care for Cousins either but you don't hear that in his play-by-play call. Vin Scully may not like Yasiel Puig, but, if he doesn't, I can't pick that up in his TV/radio call. That's how a true professional works.

As ESP47 points out, we're watching the broadcast for the team, not to hear Grant's blowhard opinions. Call the action and provide a little insight, but beyond that shut the hell up.

Also, I love G-Man too but it's not like he doesn't ever have any distain in his voice when doing his broadcast. How could he not after dealing with this poopoo show for so many years?

What your referencing from Gary Gerould is completely different than what we hear out of Grant Napear. They are two different things. Of course I hear a little emotion from Gary when a ref makes a really bad call or when the Kings are turning he ball over incessantly and playing poorly. But he doesn't overstate blowhard opinions and harp on players/coaches as if he has a personal agenda.

 

[whozit]

If you're criticizing him as an ANNOUNCER, then the criticism should be leveled at his comments while announcing. Otherwise it's a different conversation altogether.

I was under the assumption the debate here was about his play by play. Like I said, if you don't listen to his show or read his twitter, your opinion is likely different.

He has two different jobs. Announcer, and radio host.

Stripper by night, teacher by day. Two different jobs. But could you see how one might affect the other? If there is bleed-over adversely affecting the image of the organization perhaps it should be one or the other.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

95% of his criticisms of DMC during the games have been about:

-not running back on D
-yelling at refs
-getting techs

I'm an obvious DMC homer but I don't want to live in an echo chamber. Or be in denial. Are those criticisms not extremely valid? Were most of not all of us frustrated?

Would you rather hear:

"Kings down 1, 37 second left.......Russell drives and Cousins with the personal......oh and he's not happy with the refs....TECHNICAL FOUL......well, that certainly will make it more difficult for the Kings......SAY IF YOU HAVENT CHECKED OUT THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF CSN INSIDER, MAKE SURE YOU TUNE IN......"


Not me. I like that my announcers are emotionally involved. All of them.

Dave, let me just say that while we do not fully agree, I do respect that you take the time to come here and banter with us. You do bring a different perspective to the game and that's really cool.

 

[allrightythen]

If you're criticizing him as an ANNOUNCER, then the criticism should be leveled at his comments while announcing. Otherwise it's a different conversation altogether.

I was under the assumption the debate here was about his play by play. Like I said, if you don't listen to his show or read his twitter, your opinion is likely different.

He has two different jobs. Announcer, and radio host.

That's fair. But if someone listens to him in all settings it would seem unrealistic to expect them to separate one Grant Napear from the other. He isn't forced to carry all those jobs or share all those opinions. It's realistic for radio and twitter Grant's personality to affect the perception of TV Grant since they are in fact the same person. If I know someone doesn't like another person I'm not going to forget that simply because the location of the conversation has changed. When Grant shares his real opinions on the radio or twitter his followers will see through that prism whether he wants them to or not.

 

[Cecil]

I hear Gerald describe horrible plays just as much as Grant when listening in my car. "What was that?" "What a horrible pass." "What was McLemore thinking." "Get out of the officials ear and hustle back Boogie." I hear that from Gerald more than Grant, from memory. I love them both, among the best in the league.

As far as missing a point, I never heard Grant go off on Cousins on TV other than describing his behavior on the court. Usually stating 'play the game and stop arguing.' He did it to all players that hurt their team by worrying about a non-call rather than worrying about the next play. Jerry does it as well.

On radio, I only heard Grant state that Cousins had to be more professional, support his teammates better, be a better leader, and that the Kings gave him too much power - which led to chaos early on. When Cousins deserved praise, Grant gave it to him. If you didn't hear that, you weren't listening or you weren't listening with an open mind.

I just think some fans cared about Cousins more than the Kings and couldn't accept that the only common denominator the past 7 years was Cousins. People love to blame everyone else, but he was the only constant variable the past 7 years. More things have leaked about how he treated others in the locker room, practice, airports, and on the road. Look them up and he can see the dark side of him. Granted, he did a lot of great things for the community, just not the Sac Kings basketball family.

 

[carmichaeldave]

Dave, let me just say that while we do not fully agree, I do respect that you take the time to come here and banter with us. You do bring a different perspective to the game and that's really cool.

I love this place. I love the conversation. It's fascinating and love being surrounded by kick ass passionate fans like me. Can't get enough

 

[carmichaeldave]

That's fair. But if someone listens to him in all settings it would seem unrealistic to expect them to separate one Grant Napear from the other. He isn't forced to carry all those jobs or share all those opinions. It's realistic for radio and twitter Grant's personality to affect the perception of TV Grant since they are in fact the same person. If I know someone doesn't like another person I'm not going to forget that simply because the location of the conversation has changed. When Grant shares his real opinions on the radio or twitter his followers will see through that prism whether he wants them to or not.

Also completely fair

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I love this place. I love the conversation. It's fascinating and love being surrounded by kick ass passionate fans like me. Can't get enough

This is certainly something I believe we can all agree upon. Thanks for hanging out with us knuckleheads.

 

[New Era]

That's precisely the point and the problem. You shouldn't be able to discern that from his play-by-play broadcast. As far as we all know, G-Man may not care for Cousins either but you don't hear that in his play-by-play call. Vin Scully may not like Yasiel Puig, but, if he doesn't, I can't pick that up in his TV/radio call. That's how a true professional works.

As ESP47 points out, we're watching the broadcast for the team, not to hear Grant's blowhard opinions. Call the action and provide a little insight, but beyond that shut the hell up.



What your referencing from Gary Gerould is completely different than what we hear out of Grant Napear. They are two different things. Of course I hear a little emotion from Gary when a ref makes a really bad call or when the Kings are turning he ball over incessantly and playing poorly. But he doesn't overstate blowhard opinions and harp on players/coaches as if he has a personal agenda.

Why does it bother you so much if his "opinion" shows a bit during the broadcast? Because you don't agree with it?

 

[VF21]

If you're criticizing him as an ANNOUNCER, then the criticism should be leveled at his comments while announcing. Otherwise it's a different conversation altogether.

I was under the assumption the debate here was about his play by play. Like I said, if you don't listen to his show or read his twitter, your opinion is likely different.

He has two different jobs. Announcer, and radio host.

He's one person. He may have "two different jobs" but they both involve the Sacramento Kings. You may see the distinction but there are a lot who don't...I think he is way over the top on his radio show and it definitely impacts how I perceive him during game broadcasts. How can it not? HE'S THE SAME PERSON.

 

[allrightythen]

I hear Gerald describe horrible plays just as much as Grant when listening in my car. "What was that?" "What a horrible pass." "What was McLemore thinking." "Get out of the officials ear and hustle back Boogie." I hear that from Gerald more than Grant, from memory. I love them both, among the best in the league.

As far as missing a point, I never heard Grant go off on Cousins on TV other than describing his behavior on the court. Usually stating 'play the game and stop arguing.' He did it to all players that hurt their team by worrying about a non-call rather than worrying about the next play. Jerry does it as well.

On radio, I only heard Grant state that Cousins had to be more professional, support his teammates better, be a better leader, and that the Kings gave him too much power - which led to chaos early on. When Cousins deserved praise, Grant gave it to him. If you didn't hear that, you weren't listening or you weren't listening with an open mind.

I just think some fans cared about Cousins more than the Kings and couldn't accept that the only common denominator the past 7 years was Cousins. People love to blame everyone else, but he was the only constant variable the past 7 years. More things have leaked about how he treated others in the locker room, practice, airports, and on the road. Look them up and he can see the dark side of him. Granted, he did a lot of great things for the community, just not the Sac Kings basketball family.

So if a fan doesn't agree with you that Grant was fair about Cousins that fan doesn't have an open mind? Is that an open minded perspective?

I disagree on Grant but I can understand your perspective. Grant says things that shouldn't be said. I won't disagree that Cousins had issues and was even a bad teammate, but Grant said he was toxic and had no value. Neither one of those comments are appropriate in my opinion. I'm a Kings fan and I probably always will be and while I had issues with how Cousins was traded I think it was probably time. Grant didn't have to say some of the stuff he did in order to agree with the trade or believe that the Kings are better off without Cousins.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Why does it bother you so much if his "opinion" shows a bit during the broadcast? Because you don't agree with it?

I thought that had already been made clear by myself and others (and it's not a "a bit", not by a longshot). Grant's radio show is the proper forum for his blowhard opinions. 99.9% of fans don't tune into Kings games to hear Grant as they do when they tune into his radio show. They tune in to watch the team. His job is to describe the action, not harp on players or tell us how someone should or shouldn't behave. We're all adults and capable of deciding whether we like or dislike what we're seeing. Offering some insight is fine, but he crosses over that fine line all the time. I gave you several examples of respected play-by-play announcers that don't habitually cross that line.

 

[funkykingston]

Respectfully- I think YOU are missing the point.

When does he do that on the game broadcast? I've watched every minute of every game on TV, and I don't remember him ranting about DMC post-trade on the broadcast at all. Sure, he's definitely excited about the youth and maybe code words talk about the "bright future", but his most incendiary comments about DMC were on twitter and his radio show, which is in fact exactly what his job is.

First off, I don't mind Grant as the play-by-play man. Some of his catchphrases have worn slightly thin but they are also familiar and identifiable. I'm expecting a "If you don't like that, you don't like NBA basketball" at times and I generally get it. And Slim is right that it's somewhat inertia based. It's a comfortable and expected part of the experience. And in general I think he does a good job calling games.

Where I've always struggled is separating Grant Napear the play-by-play man with Grant Napear the somewhat combative and definitely opinionated sports talk host. And when those roles overlap it can be grating. Case in point, Grant HAS rarely addressed Cousins during telecasts but all the hype for Skal, the "playing like a team", "everyone hustling back on defense", "no arguing with referees" are not code, they're almost outright digs and attempts to prove his point that the team needed to move Cousins to move forward. Until that gets dialed back I'll continue to watch the games on mute with a radio tuned to Gman's call of the game.

Lol such a great point about G-Man. If you haven't picked up on his disdain and frustration at times during his broadcasts, I can't help you. Especially over the last few years. Which again, I think it's fine.

Broadcasters are around the team. They travel with them. They are our only window into these guys around the edges, and as a fan I WANT their opinions and insight.

I truly think people combine radio, twitter, AND TV Grant into one person.

I submit that if he only did TV, and didn't do a radio show or tweet, about 90% of the critical comments would be gone.

The difference is that Gman has (to my ears) always called things fairly as he sees them and not injected personal biases. Or maybe he has and we simply don't know it because he doesn't do a talk show 3 hours a night where he espouses those opinions. Again, Grant has two roles and it is hard to separate them.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

He's one person. He may have "two different jobs" but they both involve the Sacramento Kings. You may see the distinction but there are a lot who don't...I think he is way over the top on his radio show and it definitely impacts how I perceive him during game broadcasts. How can it not? HE'S THE SAME PERSON.

Another reason I see things the way I do is because I know several -- shall we say -- casual Kings fans that simply don't know any better and buy whatever Grant sells to them. Unlike many of us here, they don't have a long history following the Kings or sports in general. They are still learning the game and team so to speak. I've had numerous conversations with them over the past few years and their opinions are often so influenced by what they hear from Grant both on his radio show and as PbP announcer. Some fans just don't know any better.

And I dislike that, more so in recent years, he's used his PbP platform to further whatever agenda he may have. Whether some choose to believe it or not, it has at times influenced public opinion on matters related to the team. He tried like hell to paint the Maloofs as good guys all while they tried like hell to backdoor the team out of town. And he's done it to players like CWebb, BoJax and now Cousins. There's lots of easily impressionable fans that buy into his one-sided take on all of those things because he's the "voice of the Kings". He's so much more visible to the public than say Gary Gerould is.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Case in point, Grant HAS rarely addressed Cousins during telecasts but all the hype for Skal, the "playing like a team", "everyone hustling back on defense", "no arguing with referees" are not code, they're almost outright digs and attempts to prove his point that the team needed to move Cousins to move forward. Until that gets dialed back I'll continue to watch the games on mute with a radio tuned to Gman's call of the game.

These are great examples of his passive aggressive approach. And it does make an impression upon the easily influenced.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'm intrigued by the notion that people who hate Napear only hate him because he says **** **** about Cousins. Napear has been on my FYF list for a decade and a half, and the only reason he wasn't on there any earlier is because I don't live in Northern California, and I didn't get the chance to listen to local Kings broadcasts until League Pass was invented.

WRT the premise of compartmentalizing Grant Napear the play-by-play announcer and Grant Napear the radio host, I strongly disagree with the idea that people have any sort of obligation, or even expectation, to consume their entertainment like that. Like, maybe you can enjoy Roman Polanski and Woody Allen's movies, because you can compartmentalize whom they are as people from their roles as entertainers, but I reject the notion that that's a reasonable thing to expect from other people. Besides which, it's not like he's playing a character when he's on the radio; it's not "The Grant Napear Show, starring Orson Welles as Grant Napear," he's his actual self. And who is he when he's doing play-by-play? His actual self. Miss me with that "two different roles" stuff.

 

[allrightythen]

I'm intrigued by the notion that people who hate Napear only hate him because he says **** **** about Cousins. Napear has been on my FYF list for a decade and a half, and the only reason he wasn't on there any earlier is because I don't live in Northern California, and I didn't get the chance to listen to local Kings broadcasts until League Pass was invented.

WRT the premise of compartmentalizing Grant Napear the play-by-play announcer and Grant Napear the radio host, I strongly disagree with the idea that people have any sort of obligation, or even expectation, to consume their entertainment like that. Like, maybe you can enjoy Roman Polanski and Woody Allen's movies, because you can compartmentalize whom they are as people from their roles as entertainers, but I reject the notion that that's a reasonable thing to expect from other people. Besides which, it's not like he's playing a character when he's on the radio; it's not "The Grant Napear Show, starring Orson Welles as Grant Napear," he's his actual self. And who is he when he's doing play-by-play? His actual self. Miss me with that "two different roles" stuff.

I've been critical of Grant and his comments about Cousins but I don't hate him. I think he's wrong and a jerk and wildly hypocritical at times. I've felt this way about him for at least a decade. I kinda go through cycles where sometimes I can handle him and sometimes I can't. I don't wish any ill on him I just don't think he brings much of value to either the radio or TV broadcast.

 

[carmichaeldave]

I too have been intrigued by the notion that people like Napear because they have an agenda or hated Demarcus Cousins. I've been a fan of his for over two decades, and became an even bigger fan after I got to know the guy personally.


I strongly disagree as well with the idea that people are too thin skinned, or easily influenced by the two difffrent roles Grant plays. Certainly with my children I have to make sure they can differentiate between two separate things, but in my experience with the vast majority of Kings fans, they have the ability to consume their radio show "schtick" as entertainment in one capacity, and the play by play as the other.

Of course it's fair to ask me to back this up with evidence, so I would ask that the following be considered:

1. His radio employers are separate from his tv employers.

2. Both have full rights to terminate him as they see fit.

3. He has held both jobs for over two decades.

4. We have already covered the success of the tv broadcast as a whole, both with length of employment and numerous awards.

5. Certainly those awards also belong to the broadcast colleagues he has, but he is the dominant voice on said broadcasts.

6. His drive time radio show is regularly and dare I say perennially tremendously received in the ratings.

7. The large majority of his sponsors on his show have been sponsors for the bulk of his tenure, which would certainly not be the case if:

A. His show wasn't popular

B. He didn't produce results for them that reflected a positive relationship with his audience.


Also, the notion that adults of their own free will, who say that they have a liking to his play by play but cannot seperate in good conscience from his show and twitter creates two conundrums I have a hard time accepting:

1. That they are somehow forced to listen to his radio show and/or read his tweets, when both are clearly opt-in

2. That perhaps, due to the amount of conversation he engenders, longevity of his career, success of his career, and local, internal NBA, and national accolades......the logical conclusion is that perhaps people enjoy that which stokes the fire of conversation and debate, of which no doubt he is very talented.

Now: perhaps if there was a running feed of his tweets during a broadcast, combined with alternating audio during games of both his pbp call AND his hot takes on his show I would understand better, but unless Comcast has started a feed that I'm not aware of, we both know that's not the case.

None of the points I've stated above should make someone like or dislike him any more than they already do. As we've said, like music, it's a matter of personal taste, and personal taste is never wrong (except ketchup on a steak).

But again, the idea that feeling good or bad towards an individual based on their tastes in regards to a play by play voice even exists? Nah, I have much more confidence in the innate decision making processes of my fellow human beings.

Miss me with all that.

 

[dude12]

First off, I don't mind Grant as the play-by-play man. Some of his catchphrases have worn slightly thin but they are also familiar and identifiable. I'm expecting a "If you don't like that, you don't like NBA basketball" at times and I generally get it. And Slim is right that it's somewhat inertia based. It's a comfortable and expected part of the experience. And in general I think he does a good job calling games.

Where I've always struggled is separating Grant Napear the play-by-play man with Grant Napear the somewhat combative and definitely opinionated sports talk host. And when those roles overlap it can be grating. Case in point, Grant HAS rarely addressed Cousins during telecasts but all the hype for Skal, the "playing like a team", "everyone hustling back on defense", "no arguing with referees" are not code, they're almost outright digs and attempts to prove his point that the team needed to move Cousins to move forward. Until that gets dialed back I'll continue to watch the games on mute with a radio tuned to Gman's call of the game.




The difference is that Gman has (to my ears) always called things fairly as he sees them and not injected personal biases. Or maybe he has and we simply don't know it because he doesn't do a talk show 3 hours a night where he espouses those opinions. Again, Grant has two roles and it is hard to separate them.

This is about what I said earlier in the thread. Pre-trade disdain for one of our own in Cousins, post -trade glee and as funky says, they sound like personal digs. Very, very obvious if you have listened to every telecast for decades. I mean, his post trade comments on his radio show about how the franchise was freed from tyranny or something like that was a rather big clue that he had disdain. Of course, that was radio Grant and not telecast Grant.......wish I had a sarcasm emoji.

 

[carmichaeldave]

This is about what I said earlier in the thread. Pre-trade disdain for one of our own in Cousins, post -trade glee and as funky says, they sound like personal digs. Very, very obvious if you have listened to every telecast for decades. I mean, his post trade comments on his radio show about how the franchise was freed from tyranny or something like that was a rather big clue that he had disdain. Of course, that was radio Grant and not telecast Grant.......wish I had a sarcasm emoji.

Lol. So his comment "this franchise will never win with Demarcus Cousins" made BEFORE the trade (on his radio show) wasn't a hint?

He never hid it. Ever.

 

[pshn80]

He's one person. He may have "two different jobs" but they both involve the Sacramento Kings. You may see the distinction but there are a lot who don't...I think he is way over the top on his radio show and it definitely impacts how I perceive him during game broadcasts. How can it not? HE'S THE SAME PERSON.

I don't have this same view. As a sports commntator in general and speificully for the Kings I would expect him to have oplnion about players, positive and negative, which he shares with his listeners, and he has and does. And as CD pointed out above, Napear critical comments about Cuz were mostly quite legit. So I don't have to love Grant but I do think he s and always has been a very good game broadcaster. VF21, I respect your view but I don't agree (as you already know.) Keep the cards and letters coming.

 

[dude12]

Lol. So his comment "this franchise will never win with Demarcus Cousins" made BEFORE the trade (on his radio show) wasn't a hint?

He never hid it. Ever.

Yes....part of the point.....that opinion bled into the TV gig. I'm not sure I've ever heard that type of broadcast behavior from the home teams announcer for one of their own. Can't say I've listened to every broadcaster but for the area franchises in all sports....don't recall.

 

[carmichaeldave]

Yes....part of the point.....that opinion bled into the TV gig. I'm not sure I've ever heard that type of broadcast behavior from the home teams announcer for one of their own. Can't say I've listened to every broadcaster but for the area franchises in all sports....don't recall.

If you don't mind me asking- how did it bleed into the broadcast? I don't remember him saying anything near that during a game

 

[funkykingston]

If you don't mind me asking- how did it bleed into the broadcast? I don't remember him saying anything near that during a game

It does all the time. Go back and listen to Grant on that first game after the trade. He was as excited as a kid on Christmas. And while he's dialed it back a bit his telecast is littered with thinly veiled digs like the ones I mentioned above. "You know what I love Jerry? Nobody is arguing with the refs. Just getting back on defense" He's said that over and over.

He said on his radio show that he thought the Kings would be better when DeMarcus was traded. And that after the trade a "black cloud" had been lifted. Then while doing play-by-play he's over hyping every little thing in an effort to make the situation better than it is - a rebuild, albeit with more hope that last season with Rondo, Belinelli etc

 

[carmichaeldave]

It does all the time. Go back and listen to Grant on that first game after the trade. He was as excited as a kid on Christmas. And while he's dialed it back a bit his telecast is littered with thinly veiled digs like the ones I mentioned above. "You know what I love Jerry? Nobody is arguing with the refs. Just getting back on defense" He's said that over and over.

He said on his radio show that he thought the Kings would be better when DeMarcus was traded. And that after the trade a "black cloud" had been lifted. Then while doing play-by-play he's over hyping every little thing in an effort to make the situation better than it is - a rebuild, albeit with more hope that last season with Rondo, Belinelli etc

I absolutely remember those comments on the air. So let me ask you:

Have you noticed there's less sniping at the refs? And do you, as a Kings fan, enjoy it? Are they getting back more on defense?

While it would be disingenuous of me not to link his disdain for DMC to the comments, at the same time I don't find them untruthful or inappropriate.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I too have been intrigued by the notion that people like Napear because they have an agenda or hated Demarcus Cousins. I've been a fan of his for over two decades, and became an even bigger fan after I got to know the guy personally.

That's weird, because I've read people on this message board suggest that people don't like Napear because he's hard on Cousins, but I haven't actually seen the other thing.

I strongly disagree as well with the idea that people are too thin skinned, or easily influenced by the two difffrent roles Grant plays...

Where's a "side eye" emoji, when you need one?

But, aiight, then. If not being willing to compartmentalize, if not being willing to say, "Okay, this guy may be a douchecanoe on the radio, but I won't let that influence how I think of his work on television" makes me "thin skinned... fine, I'll bee dat. Seems odd, from my point of view, to use that as a defense of a person who doesn't let that stop him from trashing the players he covers, but whatever. Just because I am "thin skinned" doesn't mean I am wrong, though.

... Certainly with my children I have to make sure they can differentiate between two separate things...

Was I just insulted here?

... but in my experience with the vast majority of Kings fans, they have the ability to consume their radio show "schtick" as entertainment in one capacity, and the play by play as the other.

Of course it's fair to ask me to back this up with evidence, so I would ask that the following be considered:

1. His radio employers are separate from his tv employers.

2. Both have full rights to terminate him as they see fit.

3. He has held both jobs for over two decades.

4. We have already covered the success of the tv broadcast as a whole, both with length of employment and numerous awards.

5. Certainly those awards also belong to the broadcast colleagues he has, but he is the dominant voice on said broadcasts.

6. His drive time radio show is regularly and dare I say perennially tremendously received in the ratings.

7. The large majority of his sponsors on his show have been sponsors for the bulk of his tenure, which would certainly not be the case if:

A. His show wasn't popular

B. He didn't produce results for them that reflected a positive relationship with his audience.

I'm trying really hard not to make this about Cousins, so I'll keep this general: if you went on the air and said that a player was this, that, and a third, and one of your listeners called in and said, "But, stats, though", would you accept that as an adequate rebuttal? If somebody tried to tell you that one of the tentpole movies was the best movie that came out last year, because "Look at all the money it made!", or that NCIS was the best show on television, because "It's been on for thirteen years!", would you accept that as an adequate rebuttal? Longevity does not prove quality. Ratings don't prove quality. Mike Francesa has been on the air since the Roosevelt Administration: I think he took over the Fireside Chats from FDR. His show is trash, too.

Also, the notion that adults of their own free will, who say that they have a liking to his play by play but cannot seperate in good conscience from his show and twitter creates two conundrums I have a hard time accepting:

1. That they are somehow forced to listen to his radio show and/or read his tweets, when both are clearly opt-in

2. That perhaps, due to the amount of conversation he engenders, longevity of his career, success of his career, and local, internal NBA, and national accolades......the logical conclusion is that perhaps people enjoy that which stokes the fire of conversation and debate, of which no doubt he is very talented.

Now: perhaps if there was a running feed of his tweets during a broadcast, combined with alternating audio during games of both his pbp call AND his hot takes on his show I would understand better, but unless Comcast has started a feed that I'm not aware of, we both know that's not the case.

None of the points I've stated above should make someone like or dislike him any more than they already do. As we've said, like music, it's a matter of personal taste, and personal taste is never wrong (except ketchup on a steak).

You'll have to ask the people who still listen to his show: I don't. I tried it, I decided it was trash, and I stopped. The national programming on ESPN Radio during that timeslot is way more relevant to my interests. I feel quite comfortable judging Napear as not good, based solely on his play-by-play.

But again, the idea that feeling good or bad towards an individual based on their tastes in regards to a play by play voice even exists? Nah, I have much more confidence in the innate decision making processes of my fellow human beings.

Miss me with all that.

Uh-huh. So... what did you think of Café Society?

 

[funkykingston]

I absolutely remember those comments on the air. So let me ask you:

Have you noticed there's less sniping at the refs? And do you, as a Kings fan, enjoy it? Are they getting back more on defense?

While it would be disingenuous of me not to link his disdain for DMC to the comments, at the same time I don't find them untruthful or inappropriate.

I think we've all been tired of the constant arguing with the officials. It was also part of why I wasn't all that sad to see JT go but he didn't get nearly as much grief for his constant sniping. But I digress.

I never argued that what Grant said wasn't true. I'm simply stating that it's a clear way that his agenda as a talk show host has carried over to his telecast.

Here's another example from the opposite side of things. The Kings recently snapped an 8 game losing streak. How much did Grant criticize the team during that stretch? And how often did he mention it while doing play-by-play? The answers are none and only during his voiceover to start games.

I like Grant as a play-by-play guy but clearly there's obvious bleed through from his two roles. I also wouldn't call his comments untruthful or inappropriate (just strangely enthusiastic given the circumstances) but that's moving the goalposts a bit in this discussion.

Clearly Grant pushes an agenda on his radio show and uses his position as a broadcaster to reinforce it. Maybe that's more of an argument against having one guy fill both roles generally than against Grant specifically but either way it's the case. He'll, he even takes time during telecasts to mention that Cousins picked up another technical foul or got fined by the league. Again, it's true and can be chalked up as "league news" if one desires but it's clearly part of pushing an agenda as well.

 

[carmichaeldave]

I think we've all been tired of the constant arguing with the officials. It was also part of why I wasn't all that said to see JT go but he didn't get nearly as much grief for his constant sniping. But I digress.

I never argued that what Grant said wasn't true. I'm simply stating that it's a clear way that his agenda as a talk show host has carried over to his telecast.

Here's another example from the opposite side of things. The Kings recently snapped an 8 game losing streak. How much did Grant criticize the team during that stretch? And how often did he mention it while doing play-by-play? The answers are none and only during his voiceover to start games.

I like Grant as a play-by-play guy but clearly there's obvious bleed through from his two roles. I also wouldn't call his comments untruthful or inappropriate (just strangely enthusiastic given the circumstances) but that's moving the goalposts a bit in this discussion.

Clearly Grant pushes an agenda on his radio show and uses his position as a broadcaster to reinforce it. Maybe that's more of an argument against having one guy fill both roles generally than against Grant specifically but either way it's the case. He'll, he even takes time during telecasts to mention that Cousins picked up another technical foul or got fined by the league. Again, it's true and can be chalked up as "league news" if one desires but it's clearly part of pushing an agenda as well.

I can't really take issue with anything you said there. Some of it is absolute irrefutable fact, I would argue some is based on perception, but that's really what we are talking about- opinions and perceptions. And you and everyone else is most certainly entitled to that and I respect it 100%, not that you're asking for validation.

I think I've said my peace. Good discussion.

 

[carmichaeldave]

That's weird, because I've read people on this message board suggest that people don't like Napear because he's hard on Cousins, but I haven't actually seen the other thing.


Where's a "side eye" emoji, when you need one?

But, aiight, then. If not being willing to compartmentalize, if not being willing to say, "Okay, this guy may be a douchecanoe on the radio, but I won't let that influence how I think of his work on television" makes me "thin skinned... fine, I'll bee dat. Seems odd, from my point of view, to use that as a defense of a person who doesn't let that stop him from trashing the players he covers, but whatever. Just because I am "thin skinned" doesn't mean I am wrong, though.


Was I just insulted here?



I'm trying really hard not to make this about Cousins, so I'll keep this general: if you went on the air and said that a player was this, that, and a third, and one of your listeners called in and said, "But, stats, though", would you accept that as an adequate rebuttal? If somebody tried to tell you that one of the tentpole movies was the best movie that came out last year, because "Look at all the money it made!", or that NCIS was the best show on television, because "It's been on for thirteen years!", would you accept that as an adequate rebuttal? Longevity does not prove quality. Ratings don't prove quality. Mike Francesa has been on the air since the Roosevelt Administration: I think he took over the Fireside Chats from FDR. His show is trash, too.


You'll have to ask the people who still listen to his show: I don't. I tried it, I decided it was trash, and I stopped. The national programming on ESPN Radio during that timeslot is way more relevant to my interests. I feel quite comfortable judging Napear as not good, based solely on his play-by-play.


Uh-huh. So... what did you think of Café Society?

See my reply to Funky, which is pretty much applicable in response to your post. I'm mainly replying because I can see how you could perceive that line earlier as an insult, that's was not my intention.