Last Night's Broadcast--The real Grant
- Thread starter Kingsin07
- Start date
While I respect your opinion, I disagree with your rating system. But then its subjective, so in reality there is no right or wrong. I happen to like Grant and Jerry's broadcasts. Living in Mexico I was forced for years to listen to the other teams announcers. I would rank Grant and Jerry in the top third to be fair.
As stated previously, Grant is a polarizing broadcaster. There's ususally no in between with him. You either like him or you don't. No big deal. Some people like spinich and some don't. Its all a matter of taste. My problems with Grant are on a more personal level. But I'm able to seperate the two. So I can't say your opinion is wrong. Its just different from mine..
Jeez. very confrontational, are we?
Nope, not new here. I usually dont keep track of who has what opinion though, so I suppose thats my bad? So to your challenge I'll have to decline.
Let me just say that color commentary in general doesnt appeal to me. I could care less what those guys bring to a game. Nearly every color guy is a homer, and I just dont need to hear that. I know what our players can and cannot do. They all do what Madden does - state the obvious. Thats fine for some people, but Im not even going to get into what color guys are good or bad, its just not worth it. I dont care what JR says, most of it is garbage anyways so whatever... hes ok.
Mike Gorman of the Celtics is an excellent play by play guy. You can ( and probly will ) call me a homer for that, but hes excellent. Obviously I dont know why you have the Celtics in your "worse than Grant and JR" list, but I hope its because of Tommy, hes a tool, but Gorman is fantastic.
I think its funny that your accusing me of overlooking the obvious - that you just dont think he's good at his job, but you decided to call me crazy for liking him like I cant have an opinion, and if my opinion is the opposite of yours, I must be crazy.
I 'like' Grant. And I use the word 'like' loosely. I think hes in the top 1/3, you dont. To each his own.
Nope, not new here. I usually dont keep track of who has what opinion though, so I suppose thats my bad? So to your challenge I'll have to decline.
Let me just say that color commentary in general doesnt appeal to me. I could care less what those guys bring to a game. Nearly every color guy is a homer, and I just dont need to hear that. I know what our players can and cannot do. They all do what Madden does - state the obvious. Thats fine for some people, but Im not even going to get into what color guys are good or bad, its just not worth it. I dont care what JR says, most of it is garbage anyways so whatever... hes ok.
Mike Gorman of the Celtics is an excellent play by play guy. You can ( and probly will ) call me a homer for that, but hes excellent. Obviously I dont know why you have the Celtics in your "worse than Grant and JR" list, but I hope its because of Tommy, hes a tool, but Gorman is fantastic.
I think its funny that your accusing me of overlooking the obvious - that you just dont think he's good at his job, but you decided to call me crazy for liking him like I cant have an opinion, and if my opinion is the opposite of yours, I must be crazy.
I 'like' Grant. And I use the word 'like' loosely. I think hes in the top 1/3, you dont. To each his own.
Yup!
You might want to re-read the original post that you made which I responded to: I didn't call you crazy for saying you liked Napear, I called you crazy for saying that he was one of the better guys in the business.
As far as play-by-play goes, I stand by the opinion that Napear is only the second-best NBA play-by-play man in Sacramento.
You might want to re-read the original post that you made which I responded to: I didn't call you crazy for saying you liked Napear, I called you crazy for saying that he was one of the better guys in the business.
As far as play-by-play goes, I stand by the opinion that Napear is only the second-best NBA play-by-play man in Sacramento.
What a cop-out.
There is good and bad, there is moderate and middle of the road, and Grant is bad. Separating success from quality is part of good criticism. If you are not able to divine true merit from the swampy glow of success then you aren't really looking.
His radio show is boring as hell, but if you talk Kings and run their games in this city you get ratings. Ask 1530. They had little sports care, but what they had did well in ratings. Grant's rating shot up once 1140 got the Kings, and then again when they became good. As long as he pushes the Kings agenda, he will succeed. It's when you have to listen to the show when the NBA season is over that you see how truly dull and non-dynamic he is. Just look at the co-hosts he has liked as opposed to those he has had short stints with. Compare Jerry/Lamb to Koz. Mike and Jerry play dumb, one the dumb jock, the other the dumb hick. Grant does not like a challenge, he doesn't like going outside his box. Someone spoke about him not liking Koz because Koz wasn't always prepared. Not buying that. Koz was entertaining. You don't need everything planned out if you can actually fill air space with good humor or discussion. Grant needs everything planned out because he can not do such a thing, he's dull as can be. If he has no guests then he has to talk. His talking is just reiterating company lines or parroting other common sports beliefs. If he gets tired of talking, he has to take phone calls and his phone audience is horrible. Let me tell you, phone audience quality is directly related to show quality. Grant gets terrible callers. "I think what you think Grant, thanks for taking my call." Rinse and repeat. He gets an occasional bumpkin which he berates, but note the pattern here; you either agree with Grant or you play dummy to set him up, to make him seem smart. Anything that has personality or wits does not co-exist with him. His show is full of these sort of crutches, the type you have to fall back on if you're a terrible entertainer. A talent like Kayte probably scares the crap out of him.
There is good and bad, there is moderate and middle of the road, and Grant is bad. Separating success from quality is part of good criticism. If you are not able to divine true merit from the swampy glow of success then you aren't really looking.
His radio show is boring as hell, but if you talk Kings and run their games in this city you get ratings. Ask 1530. They had little sports care, but what they had did well in ratings. Grant's rating shot up once 1140 got the Kings, and then again when they became good. As long as he pushes the Kings agenda, he will succeed. It's when you have to listen to the show when the NBA season is over that you see how truly dull and non-dynamic he is. Just look at the co-hosts he has liked as opposed to those he has had short stints with. Compare Jerry/Lamb to Koz. Mike and Jerry play dumb, one the dumb jock, the other the dumb hick. Grant does not like a challenge, he doesn't like going outside his box. Someone spoke about him not liking Koz because Koz wasn't always prepared. Not buying that. Koz was entertaining. You don't need everything planned out if you can actually fill air space with good humor or discussion. Grant needs everything planned out because he can not do such a thing, he's dull as can be. If he has no guests then he has to talk. His talking is just reiterating company lines or parroting other common sports beliefs. If he gets tired of talking, he has to take phone calls and his phone audience is horrible. Let me tell you, phone audience quality is directly related to show quality. Grant gets terrible callers. "I think what you think Grant, thanks for taking my call." Rinse and repeat. He gets an occasional bumpkin which he berates, but note the pattern here; you either agree with Grant or you play dummy to set him up, to make him seem smart. Anything that has personality or wits does not co-exist with him. His show is full of these sort of crutches, the type you have to fall back on if you're a terrible entertainer. A talent like Kayte probably scares the crap out of him.
I don't mind Grant as a play-by-play guy, I think he does a pretty good job of it overall. At least that's what I think now that I've heard a fair number of the other crews through league pass. (He does throw out that signature line a little too often for my liking, but I can deal with it.) However, I don't understand his obsession with play-through-injury macho toughness. Most of the time professional athletes shouldn't play through their injuries. At least not if they care about the future of their career. It took Mike Bibby a good year and a half to recover from playing through his hand injury and it hurt the team more than if he'd just done the smart thing and waited it out. Doug Christie played through foot problems for most of a season (the one when we traded him) and was never a solid starting player again.
But more than that -- if you have a point to make about players being soft, fine. That's your opinion. Just state it and move on. Why go on and on about it to the point where it looks like you've got a personal grudge rather than a professional opinion? That's unprofessional and embarrassing from a paid team employee. That's what irks me. If he just stuck to the play-by-play I wouldn't have a problem. No you don't need to baby professional athletes, but you don't need to disparage them constantly either. That doesn't make you tough, it just makes you a guy with a microphone. And the same for bad-mouthing players as soon as they leave town. What's the purpose of that? Let the fans vent all they want-- as a professional commentator you should know better.
I've sort of come to accept Jerry for what he is. Sometimes he's entertaining, sometimes he's a bit of a buffoon. As a TV personality, I've seen a lot worse. At least he doesn't embarrass our city by throwing out racial stereotypes or misidentifying players like some of the other guys. But it scares me that someone who seems that clueless about what actually happens on a basketball court still has the official title "director of player personnel" attached to his name. I don't even know what it means, but the thought of Geoff asking for Jerry's opinion before a trade or a draft scares me. I'm hoping they just do it to humor him.
But more than that -- if you have a point to make about players being soft, fine. That's your opinion. Just state it and move on. Why go on and on about it to the point where it looks like you've got a personal grudge rather than a professional opinion? That's unprofessional and embarrassing from a paid team employee. That's what irks me. If he just stuck to the play-by-play I wouldn't have a problem. No you don't need to baby professional athletes, but you don't need to disparage them constantly either. That doesn't make you tough, it just makes you a guy with a microphone. And the same for bad-mouthing players as soon as they leave town. What's the purpose of that? Let the fans vent all they want-- as a professional commentator you should know better.
I've sort of come to accept Jerry for what he is. Sometimes he's entertaining, sometimes he's a bit of a buffoon. As a TV personality, I've seen a lot worse. At least he doesn't embarrass our city by throwing out racial stereotypes or misidentifying players like some of the other guys. But it scares me that someone who seems that clueless about what actually happens on a basketball court still has the official title "director of player personnel" attached to his name. I don't even know what it means, but the thought of Geoff asking for Jerry's opinion before a trade or a draft scares me. I'm hoping they just do it to humor him.
Last edited:
Well, aren't you the most sophisticated judge of NBA announcing teams.
Funny how Grant is constantly invited to fill in for the Jim Rome show. You have to know your stuff to fill in for a national radio show. You'd better believe it. And Grant knows his stuff, better than the average announcer. If you haven't listened to Grant occasionally on radio for years, you simply do not have the knowledge to say if he sucks. This is aside from his temperamental personality.
I would rather he is fiery and occasionally rude than to be boring. He has a passion for doing what he does.
If you want to tear apart Grant for having a 'superiority complex', (apparently we have a psychoanalyst on the forum), then tear apart Jim Rome for his similar style. I'm personally not a fan of Rome, and he can be arrogant underneath it all, (check out the youtube video where he gets tackled) with a so-called superiority complex, and guess what: HE HAS NATIONAL APPEAL.
Funny how Grant is constantly invited to fill in for the Jim Rome show. You have to know your stuff to fill in for a national radio show. You'd better believe it. And Grant knows his stuff, better than the average announcer. If you haven't listened to Grant occasionally on radio for years, you simply do not have the knowledge to say if he sucks. This is aside from his temperamental personality.
I would rather he is fiery and occasionally rude than to be boring. He has a passion for doing what he does.
If you want to tear apart Grant for having a 'superiority complex', (apparently we have a psychoanalyst on the forum), then tear apart Jim Rome for his similar style. I'm personally not a fan of Rome, and he can be arrogant underneath it all, (check out the youtube video where he gets tackled) with a so-called superiority complex, and guess what: HE HAS NATIONAL APPEAL.
Having had the misfortune to accidentally tune into Rome's radio show a few times before, I can honestly say that I consider Napear to be utterly qualified to guest host Rome's show. I would not consider this to be a compliment.
Incidentally, ten seconds on Google has also revealed to me that Skip Bayless has also been a frequent guest host on Rome's radio show. Raise you're hand if you're in the "Skip Bayless is alright" camp? If I hadn't listened to enough of Rome's show to decide for myself that it is terrible, his choice in guests hosts would tell me all I needed to know about his taste in "talent," as well as the relative "quality" of his radio show.
Incidentally, ten seconds on Google has also revealed to me that Skip Bayless has also been a frequent guest host on Rome's radio show. Raise you're hand if you're in the "Skip Bayless is alright" camp? If I hadn't listened to enough of Rome's show to decide for myself that it is terrible, his choice in guests hosts would tell me all I needed to know about his taste in "talent," as well as the relative "quality" of his radio show.
As someone who really dislikes Grant (both on his radio show and his broadcasting) I would say this more has to do with the fact that Grant's show is the only one that really discusses Kings basketball. I definitely prefer the Razor and Mr. T, but I am more inclined to listen to Grant (unless 49er football is being discussed on KNBR) due to the Kings coverage, and even then I will often switch back and forth to KNBR. With the Kings essentially being the only draw in town, the bulk of the talk on the show centers around the Kings. I would venture to say that if there was an alternative show that discussed Kings basketball, the ratings would be much different. I would assume that is a major factor in why so many so many native Sacramentans as well as bay area Kings fans tune in. This could just be my personal bias against Grant though.
Obviously I don't subscribe to that school of thought for this instance. There's a big difference between arguing an objective position and making a statement of subjective preference. And there's no point in arguing the latter; nobody's opinion changes, and this has been the case for well over 2000 years. "De gustibus non est disputandum", and all.
I do, however, subscribe to the school of thought that it's pretty rude to insult somebody after they express a willingness to tolerate alternate opinions. It looks like swisshh might not.
I do, however, subscribe to the school of thought that it's pretty rude to insult somebody after they express a willingness to tolerate alternate opinions. It looks like swisshh might not.
However there are no merits to discuss here. Its all a matter of taste. Its like having an argument about rock 'n roll vs. jazz, kate beckinsale vs. megan fox etc. Its all just taste, so at a certain point there really is nothing other than either agree to disagree or squabble eternally.
As an aside, Grant's longevity is no particular indication of merit -- in the world of local broadcasting familiarity is everything. All kinds of untalented hacks hang on forever for no greater reason that they are "the voice of" whatever, and that a change would sound strange to listeners. Its not as if there are open tryouts every season or whatever, nor is there a feeder system, nor are there multiple channels competing with each other to put on the best broadcast. Its a monopoly. There's never a competitor to take the job. The closest thing we have had to that was what happened last year where Katie showed up and was clearly a superior analyst to either of our normal boobs. It opened the door for the first time to the idea that hey, maybe she could replace one of them, until the Maloofs coopted her, and put her into the nice safe traditional female role of sideline reporter (which actually I don't think she is as good at as she is as an analyst) . A situation like that is about the only way a local guy gets canned for anything short of gross incompetence, conflict with management, or personal failings however.
Last edited:
I didn't miss your point. That was just my roundabout way of saying that big numbers doesn't mean that he's any good, it just means that there's a market for his brand of terrible. Howard Stern gets huge national numbers, too, and he is terrible. Same for Mike & Mike, same for Cowherd, same for Rush Limbaugh, same for American Idol, same for Survivor, et cetera.
Grant's play-by-play isn't all that bad for a guy who doesn't know much about basketball. He's pretty good at telling what foul was called on whom, sometimes. He's also good at watching the ball go into or not go into the basket and can tell us if it was a 2 or a 3. As for the defensive scheme, he can usually pick out of it's a zone or man-to-man. For anything too technical, that's what Jerry is there for.
As for the radio show, he's a perfect fill in for Jim Rome. One a-hole replacing another who will say anything to get callers.
Ah, Skip Bayless! HA! I can't forget his big "news break" insisting that Troy Aikman was gay. Yep, such journalism and integrity is hard to come by!
As for the radio show, he's a perfect fill in for Jim Rome. One a-hole replacing another who will say anything to get callers.
Ah, Skip Bayless! HA! I can't forget his big "news break" insisting that Troy Aikman was gay. Yep, such journalism and integrity is hard to come by!
Well you can process it anyway you want, but the bottom line for a radio station is ratings. Why preytell, would you fire the broadcaster thats getting you the highest ratings. Regardless of the reasons, more people are listening to him than anyone else. That equals sponsers and that equals money for the station.
There is no cop out. I happen to disagree with your opinion of Grant. You don't like him, I do. You think he's boring, I don't. My opinion is just as good as your opinion. Your problem is that you don't respect anyone else's opinion but your own, or those that agree with you. I do!!!!!! So I don't call your opinion a cop out.
You want to fight over this. I could care less. You want to be right and you want everyone to admit that your right. Sorry, as I said, its subjective. Some people like reality TV. Some don't!!!!! There is no right or wrong when it comes to the media, unless their lying to you. And if they are, don't listen!! Its real simple.
You want to fight over this. I could care less. You want to be right and you want everyone to admit that your right. Sorry, as I said, its subjective. Some people like reality TV. Some don't!!!!! There is no right or wrong when it comes to the media, unless their lying to you. And if they are, don't listen!! Its real simple.
I am going to disagree with you on this portion of your post. I actually feel that Grant is not very in tune with what is going on in the game. So many times something will happen in the game, like a foul for instance. It is clear from the couch what the foul was and who it was on, yet Grant will continually make the wrong call on what the foul was and who on. One example off of the top of my head was the game in PHX the other night. Lopez barreled over Thompson for a layup, then as Thompson went to the ground Lopez flips ball to him in what should have been a T. Thompson responds by throwing the ball back down the court at Lopez and hits Amare, who then responds by throwing the ball back at JT. Well Thompson gets the T and Grant and Jerry spend the next minute trying to figure out why JT got the T. They then come to the conclusion after watching replays (while a potential confrontation between Amare and JT is brewing. This should be another thread, the horrible camera work and timing on the broadcasts) that the T was issued because he must have complained when it was clear to everyone watching that it happened because he threw the ball at Lopez. Not one mention of this was made. It's stuff like that that irritates me to no end watching his broadcasts. How come I can tell what’s going on from my home while he has the luxury of a front row seat and a monitor and still can't get the correct calls or be able pick up on the details of the game.
Hey, I find Bayless very interesting to listen to. I just don't believe anything he says. I'm not a big Jim Rome fan. But he must be doing something right. He continues to get ratings.
Look, this whole conservation, if thats what it is, is an exercise in futility. As long as Grant gets ratings, he's not going anywhere. That includes both his radio show and his Kings broadcasts. Some may not like that and want it changed. Thats life in the big city folks. It is what it is. If you don't like it, don't listen. I believe in freedom of speech. I don't believe in censorship. I don't want a select few deciding what I can or can not listen to. Therefore at times there are people on the airwaves that I can't stand. You've got to take the bad with the good. Or vice-versa.
I also like playing devils advocate....
Look, this whole conservation, if thats what it is, is an exercise in futility. As long as Grant gets ratings, he's not going anywhere. That includes both his radio show and his Kings broadcasts. Some may not like that and want it changed. Thats life in the big city folks. It is what it is. If you don't like it, don't listen. I believe in freedom of speech. I don't believe in censorship. I don't want a select few deciding what I can or can not listen to. Therefore at times there are people on the airwaves that I can't stand. You've got to take the bad with the good. Or vice-versa.
I also like playing devils advocate....