Are you OK with Grant and Jerry seeming to favor the other team and the refs over the Kings?

What do you think of Grant and Jerry's announcing?

  • Yeah, I think they're pretty objective and try to accurately describe what is going on

    Votes: 34 77.3%
  • No, I think they favor the other team and refs too much and I wish they'd be a bit more "homer"

    Votes: 10 22.7%

  • Total voters
    44
#32
Not buying it. Again, it doesn't explain how other announcers manage to "call it like it is" without making the fans feel like they're foolish for watching, and they can't.
Maybe they don't. Announcers are better when teams are better. I've never cringed with our guys. I like listening to Garry Gerould, Jerry Reynolds, Grant Napear and Kayte Christianson. However they all sound better when we win. I use up most of my cringes watching the Kings play.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#33
I think we can all agree that announcers sound better when the teams they cover win. But I still need announcers that, when the team isn't winning, isn't going to cause me to get up from in front of my TV after the game, feeling like I was a sucker for wasting my time.
 
#36
I think we can all agree that announcers sound better when the teams they cover win. But I still need announcers that, when the team isn't winning, isn't going to cause me to get up from in front of my TV after the game, feeling like I was a sucker for wasting my time.
Maybe I should suggest to them learning to juggle or learning to impersonate presidential candidates or telling us how much wood could a woodchuck chuck f a woodchuck could chuck wood, something anyway.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#37
Maybe I should suggest to them learning to juggle or learning to impersonate presidential candidates or telling us how much wood could a woodchuck chuck f a woodchuck could chuck wood, something anyway.
I feel like you're trying to frame the conversation in such a way as to make it sound like the only two choices are to do what Napear and Reynolds do, or else be a clown show.

Please tell me that I'm just misunderstanding you?
 
#38
I feel like you're trying to frame the conversation in such a way as to make it sound like the only two choices are to do what Napear and Reynolds do, or else be a clown show.

Please tell me that I'm just misunderstanding you?
You're not misunderstanding me. Let's agree that neither one of us is likely to change our view. I would, however, like to leave communications open. Let's both listen again tonight. It's closer to Jerry's home land. Frenchlick.
 
#40
I think this is the thread I should add this observation to:

After tonight's Bulls game, Grant Napear chose to make his post-game comment about how (paraphrased) "the big problem with this team is that it never fails - just like in the last 3 minutes of the game, Demarcus got the ball and was immediately double-teamed and couldn't make the play and was forced to turn the ball over - he's got to find a way to deal with that double-team and get the ball to his teammates, or they'll continue to lose games like this."

Problem - Napear was wrong: During the last 3 minutes, the plays went to other people, or Demarcus passed it and they did nothing with it. Demarcus didn;t get one double-team in the last 3 minutes, in fact, he only got the ball once (he missed the 20-foot jumper at the top of the circle).

But the reality of the game didn;t intrude on Napear's ranting - he was determined to make the narrative that Demarcus blew it down the stretch "in the last 3 minutes" and that cost them the game (and has been all season).

I do not have a problem when Grant is objective and accurate in his criticisms of Demarcus or this team - however, when he is wrong or misrepresenting or biased in his negative statements, I have a HUGE problem with it, sicne he is actively doing HARM to the team, by causing the fanbase to believe more negative memories about the players and the team then is true.
 
#41
I think this is the thread I should add this observation to:

After tonight's Bulls game, Grant Napear chose to make his post-game comment about how (paraphrased) "the big problem with this team is that it never fails - just like in the last 3 minutes of the game, Demarcus got the ball and was immediately double-teamed and couldn't make the play and was forced to turn the ball over - he's got to find a way to deal with that double-team and get the ball to his teammates, or they'll continue to lose games like this."

Problem - Napear was wrong: During the last 3 minutes, the plays went to other people, or Demarcus passed it and they did nothing with it. Demarcus didn;t get one double-team in the last 3 minutes, in fact, he only got the ball once (he missed the 20-foot jumper at the top of the circle).

But the reality of the game didn;t intrude on Napear's ranting - he was determined to make the narrative that Demarcus blew it down the stretch "in the last 3 minutes" and that cost them the game (and has been all season).

I do not have a problem when Grant is objective and accurate in his criticisms of Demarcus or this team - however, when he is wrong or misrepresenting or biased in his negative statements, I have a HUGE problem with it, sicne he is actively doing HARM to the team, by causing the fanbase to believe more negative memories about the players and the team then is true.
I didn't take Grant as signing out Cousins as much as the team and coaching staff. And, as has been discussed in a number of threads today, the team doesn't have a system where it can just dump the ball inside to Cousins and trust that something good will happen. Can't argue with that!

Grant said something along the lines that Cousins can't trust his teammates to be in the right spot to cut or shoot--and that's right! And the team faltered down the stretch last night partially as a result. Now, was it the last 6 minutes rather than the last three? That might be more accurate. The general concept, though, is something that we've all seen. I don't think saying three minutes instead of six minutes makes it part of some conspiracy narrative.
 
#42
I despise homer announcers.

The Clippers' announcers are some of the worst [homer] announcers in all of sports. The Chicago White Sox have had some homer announcers, too, through the years like Ken Harrelson.
 
#43
Not buying it. Again, it doesn't explain how other announcers manage to "call it like it is" without making the fans feel like they're foolish for watching, and they can't.
Not buying that either. I haven't heard many people saying that Grant and Jerry make them feel foolish for watching. Pretty much every Kings fan is pissed off at the ownership, coaches and players. Grant and Jerry share that same sentiment with their call of the game. After a decade of incompetence, it's refreshing to hear the on air guys feel the same frustrations that we feel.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#44
Not buying that either. I haven't heard many people saying that Grant and Jerry make them feel foolish for watching...
That just means that they're articulating it differently than I am. Doesn't mean they don't think it, just means they might not put it like that.