Commentator evaluation: Jack Edwards

[Conigliaro's Potential]

Switching gears from football, let's talk about the main play-by-play man for the Bruins - his name came up in the NHL forum not too long ago, I think, and it seems as though people have strong opinions about him. I first became aware of Edwards in the context of World Cup soccer, many years ago and he has called other sports in the past for ESPN, but since 2005-06 he's been pretty much exclusively focused on the Bruins. What do you think about him and his hockey shtick, if you want to call it that?

 

[BaseballJones]

He talks too much. TV play-by-play guys should talk less and let the action on the screen do most of the story-telling, while the color commentator says more (as compared to radio, where the PBP guy has to be the listener's "eyes").

But...

He is really entertaining. To me anyway. He broadcasts with such enthusiasm and energy...makes the game more enjoyable for me personally.

 

[ColdSoxPack]

I don't want to be a hater but he ruins every game. The nicest thing I can say is he is full of shit.

 

[cshea]

I can’t stand him. I watch games muted on my iPad mostly due to him. In the playoffs, when given the option, I choose the NBCSN broadcast. He’s too excitable and the histrionics have worn thin. A call or play will go against the Bruins and he will act like it is the greatest injustice in the history of the sport and not let it go for the remainder of the broadcast. He’s also narrow minded and an old school guy. Lots of “grit and heart” type talk. He’ll go on and on about zone time but scoff at analytics like corsi (shot attempts) which just is a different way of measuring zone time.

I gave him a 2 because I do genuinely believe he puts in the effort but he is too over the top. I think some of my dislike for him is that it is just getting old listening to the same histrionics game in and game out for 12 years. I liked him back when he started but the past 4-5 years he has started to really ruin the broadcast for me.

 

[tmracht]

. He’s too excitable and the histrionics have worn thin. A call or play will go against the Bruins and he will act like it is the greatest injustice in the history of the sport and not let it go for the remainder of the broadcast.

I gave him a 2 because I do genuinely believe he puts in the effort but he is too over the top. I think some of my dislike for him is that it is just getting old listening to the same histrionics game in and game out for 12 years. I liked him back when he started but the past 4-5 years he has started to really ruin the broadcast for me.

I think I'm almost there with you. I remember the chills from "Five Four BOSTON!" Or "GET UP!" But as you said those moments just kept occuring more and more often for innocuous plays. I think im a little higher than a 2 but a decade of Johnny Rockets is losing steam.

 

[Bergs]

I haven't watched enough of the "home" broadcasts (I'm in Chicago) to hit the tipping point cshea has, so I am still very much on team Jack. The guy cracks me up. "More moves than a monkey with 100 feet of rope" was one of the most nonsensical things I've ever heard, and I've been using it every since he said it.

That said, I don't *disagree* with the critiques. I just don't mind them (yet?).

 

[TFP]

I can’t stand him. I watch games muted on my iPad mostly due to him. In the playoffs, when given the option, I choose the NBCSN broadcast. He’s too excitable and the histrionics have worn thin. A call or play will go against the Bruins and he will act like it is the greatest injustice in the history of the sport and not let it go for the remainder of the broadcast. He’s also narrow minded and an old school guy. Lots of “grit and heart” type talk. He’ll go on and on about zone time but scoff at analytics like corsi (shot attempts) which just is a different way of measuring zone time.

I gave him a 2 because I do genuinely believe he puts in the effort but he is too over the top. I think some of my dislike for him is that it is just getting old listening to the same histrionics game in and game out for 12 years. I liked him back when he started but the past 4-5 years he has started to really ruin the broadcast for me.

Yep this about sums it up. I'm right here as well. I used to be a defender of his about 5+ years ago, but I mute the game more often than not. It's too bad, because he has the passion and energy and his actual PBP skills (when he focuses on that) are pretty solid.

But stop the over the top editorializing. Tell me what's happening, let one of the best color guys in the business talk more, and let the game speak for itself. Also - his goal calls are insane mouthful sentences that ruin the moment. Let the moment breathe, stop trying to finish two sentences after the puck goes in the net.

 

[nayrbrey]

I voted a 2. He steps all over the action with his play by play call and takes away from the joy of watching a game. Yes he can make some great calls still, but it’s almost like he is just trying to make every play epic, to the detriment of the on ice action.
I wish the Bruins would have gone the Red Sox route when their radio guy was in danger of leaving. Goucher is the type of talent you make that kind of move for.
Edit - added more.

 

[RIFan]

I generally don't mind Jack and I watch just about every game. I like that he is genuinely passionate about the team and hockey history. He is undoubtedly prepared and never mails it in. I'm also OK with a homer on the team broadcasts which will decidedly alter your view depending on what your expectations are there. The histrionics can definitely wear thin. Last year's diatribe about Dougie Hamilton wearing Pie McKenzie's number when they wore the Whalers throwbacks was ridiculous and he just wouldn't move on. Ultimately what makes him tolerable is that Brickley can rein him in and "nicely" call out his BS. Brickley is among the top color guys in hockey. I don't doubt that without him as a partner, Jack would probably annoy me considerably more.

 

[tmracht]

Ultimately what makes him tolerable is that Brickley can rein him in and "nicely" call out his BS. Brickley is among the top color guys in hockey. I don't doubt that without him as a partner, Jack would probably annoy me considerably more.

Agreed Brick is great.

 

[Maximus]

cshea and TFP nail it for me. I loved Fred Cusick, he was a pro, and Doc is enjoyable.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

I think this is by far the fastest one of these threads to pick up poll responses in every box from 1 to 5 stars. Which is interesting.

I tend to quite like Edwards on hockey, btw, particularly relative to most of the other home commentators I see and hear on the random games broadcast to me in the UK. But I take the point that over-exposure probably wouldn't be kind to him.

 

[SoxJox]

I don't mind him.

I think most of the older hockey play-by-players suffer from an technical deficiency affecting the quality of TV broadcasts: that the TV display left a lot to the imagination and the puck could not be easily followed (remember the old experiment with the digitally-imposed highlighted circle around the puck?). They felt it necessary, if not compelled, to give the viewer a vocal cue as to where the puck was and where it was headed, etc. HiDef TVs have placed that need in the distant rear view mirror. I think many, perhaps Edwards included, still carry this baggage.

Besides, there are only so many Mike Emricks and Gary Thornes around.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

I think most of the older hockey play-by-players suffer from an technical deficiency affecting the quality of TV broadcasts: that the TV display left a lot to the imagination and the puck could not be easily followed (remember the old experiment with the digitally-imposed highlighted circle around the puck?). They felt it necessary, if not compelled, to give the viewer a vocal cue as to where the puck was and where it was headed, etc. HiDef TVs have placed that need in the distant rear view mirror. I think many, perhaps Edwards included, still carry this baggage.

Besides, there are only so many Mike Emricks and Gary Thornes around.

This is a very interesting juxtaposition, given that Doc Emrick *absolutely* describes everything that's happening in a game as a radio commentator might. And insofar as Emrick is my role model as a hockey commentator, I very much use that style as well; my reasoning is that although some people have HD feeds and watch enough hockey to know where the puck is at all times, if your feed is less-than-stellar and/or you don't watch a lot of hockey, the audio cues will be appreciated. (Doc is also very poetic and often whimsical in the way he spells everything out, which for me keeps it entertaining and makes me want to hear the descriptiveness.) But it's an interesting dilemma for any commentator in any sport, knowing when to describe what the viewer can see and when not to.

By the by, do some of you have favorite play-by-play hockey commentators who you think very consciously go away from the overly descriptive narrative style?

 

[Ale Xander]

I can’t stand him. In the playoffs, when given the option, I choose the NBCSN broadcast. He’s too excitable and the histrionics have worn thin. A call or play will go against the Bruins and he will act like it is the greatest injustice in the history of the sport and not let it go for the remainder of the broadcast. He’s also narrow minded and an old school guy. Lots of “grit and heart” type talk. He’ll go on and on about zone time but scoff at analytics like corsi (shot attempts) which just is a different way of measuring zone time.

I gave him a 2 because I do genuinely believe he puts in the effort but he is too over the top. I think some of my dislike for him is that it is just getting old listening to the same histrionics game in and game out for 12 years. I liked him back when he started but the past 4-5 years he has started to really ruin the broadcast for me.

My thoughts, too.
1.5

 

[Haunted]

I voted 3 stars, but it's complicated.

As others have stated, he's prepared, generally quite competent and when he stops with the over-the-top homerism he's excellent at his job and can be - at times - a joy to listen to.

But them he gets excited about something... and he's just unlistenable.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

My issue is something that I have come to hate very recently. I understand the hometown bias. Whatever. I get the outrage at bad calls. What I can't stand is that he NEVER gives the opposing team any credit whatsoever...credit might be the wrong word, but he acts like everything the Bruins do is historic. Every minor check is a WOW moment when the Bruins do the checking and when they are on the receiving end, it is something like "And so and so just BOUNCES off of MacAvoy!!!!! Every move, every pass and every save is a game changer when listening to the broadcast.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

I still enjoy him. I like his passion and he seems to put in the time to prepare. My only real complaint is that if he'd talk less, Brick might talk more, and I think he's as good an analyst as there is in any sport.

 

[SoxJox]

Well, to be fair, they DO bounce off MacAvoy.

 

[RIFan]

My issue is something that I have come to hate very recently. I understand the hometown bias. Whatever. I get the outrage at bad calls. What I can't stand is that he NEVER gives the opposing team any credit whatsoever...credit might be the wrong word, but he acts like everything the Bruins do is historic. Every minor check is a WOW moment when the Bruins do the checking and when they are on the receiving end, it is something like "And so and so just BOUNCES off of MacAvoy!!!!! Every move, every pass and every save is a game changer when listening to the broadcast.

I don't find this to be completely true. He always is effusive of praise for the true stars and committed grinders. Certainly if it's someone out of conference like Kane or McDavid he'll sing their praises and give the a few "wows". He's a hockey fan so you can tell he's excited when they play the Devils for the 1st time and get to see Jack Hughes. You'll hear him call out the talent level of others, especially hometown boys like Eichel. Toronto and Montreal tend to be different cases. He reads the room a little and let's his homerism color it somewhat so Matthews probably won't get as much praise as a Mackinnon, although I've found him to like Marner's game. He also takes his shots at Bruins when they are earned and has certainly been critical of their ability to finish this year. No doubt he's a total homer and amplifies the Bruins, but it also comes through that he is a hockey fan and appreciates when other teams play a good game.

Tonight I bet he gives props to Stone, but not as much as ex-Hab Pacioretty. He'll probably point out how big and tough to play against their 4th line is with guys like Reaves and Carrier. He'll give Vegas more than their due.