Kane and Toews Extension - 8 Years $88 Million?

It has nothing to do with small details. You miss out on half the game listening to it on the radio. The play away from the puck is just as important and there's just no way to convey it, as it happens, over the radio, no matter how good you are.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="234753" data-time="1405453218">
<div>


It has nothing to do with small details. You miss out on half the game listening to it on the radio. The play away from the puck is just as important and there's just no way to convey it, as it happens, over the radio, no matter how good you are.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Nope.</p>


 </p>


Radio PBP can give you the away from the puck action better then tv. Most of the time the camera stays on the puck. If something happens away from the puck, they might switch the view. With radio, if there is a dust up, or a player is having trouble with something, or Q is making an obscene gesture, the colour guy usually lets the listener know. TV might get around to it after a break or what have you.</p>


 </p>


I am not saying I would rather all the games be on the radio exclusively, just that radio is a great tool for using your imagination. Honestly, the picture in my head I get from the radio is better then what my eyes actually see.</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jakobeast" data-cid="234759" data-time="1405462104">
<div>


Nope.</p>


 </p>


Radio PBP can give you the away from the puck action better then tv. Most of the time the camera stays on the puck. If something happens away from the puck, they might switch the view. With radio, if there is a dust up, or a player is having trouble with something, or Q is making an obscene gesture, the colour guy usually lets the listener know. TV might get around to it after a break or what have you.</p>


 </p>


I am not saying I would rather all the games be on the radio exclusively, just that radio is a great tool for using your imagination. Honestly, the picture in my head I get from the radio is better then what my eyes actually see.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I've found this to be true.  If you can visualize hockey play in your head, a good radiocast will be able to give you a good experience.  John & Troy definitly fit that bill.</p>


 </p>


Video or live is definitly better, but a good radio crew paints a good picture if you can use your imagination.</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jakobeast" data-cid="234759" data-time="1405462104">
<div>


Nope.</p>


 </p>


Radio PBP can give you the away from the puck action better then tv. Most of the time the camera stays on the puck. If something happens away from the puck, they might switch the view. With radio, if there is a dust up, or a player is having trouble with something, or Q is making an obscene gesture, the colour guy usually lets the listener know. TV might get around to it after a break or what have you.</p>


 </p>


I am not saying I would rather all the games be on the radio exclusively, just that radio is a great tool for using your imagination. Honestly, the picture in my head I get from the radio is better then what my eyes actually see.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


We're just going to have to agree to disagree because that sort of stuff isn't what I'm talking about. It's more player positioning/reactions away from the puck which you can see in an instant and see the potential  impact of and  then the actual impact of (if there is one)  where on radio everything is after the fact with stuff like that. That has nothing to do with a lack of imagination, it's just lack of information, there's no way you could've known. And there's no way for them to possibly inform listeners of everything like that.  More often than not there's just too much going on to be spending too much time describing anything other than what's happening with the puck alone at that given second. It just doesn't translate well when compared to other sports, you lose too much. You can get away with it in all the other major sports because the pace is so much slower or different, with lots of stoppages within play, timeouts etc. Not to mention much more predictable, whereas in hockey insane randomness is rampant at times. It's just night and day between watching or only listening to hockey.</p>

I don't think anyone is suggesting that radio is better than live/tv.</p>


 </p>


However, John and Troy do a remarkable job of "painting the picture" for listeners. They are true and through hockey announcers, it's a shame they are buried on WGN radio.</p>


 </p>


I definitely prefer them over Foley and Olczyk. If there's ever a moment I can't watch the game, I have no problems tuning into the radio. For the most part, that crew is spot on. Simulcasting the games would work wonders for actually having a crew that cares about calling the game.</p>

Not saying they are.


But if John and Troy are the best, I'd hate to hear an average hockey radio broadcast.</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="234767" data-time="1405468264">
<div>


I don't think anyone is suggesting that radio is better than live/tv.</p>


 </p>


However, John and Troy do a remarkable job of "painting the picture" for listeners. They are true and through hockey announcers, it's a shame they are buried on WGN radio.</p>


 </p>


I definitely prefer them over Foley and Olczyk. If there's ever a moment I can't watch the game, I have no problems tuning into the radio. For the most part, that crew is spot on. Simulcasting the games would work wonders for actually having a crew that cares about calling the game.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


This x10. When Foley was simulcast with Tallon, those were some classic broadcasts. Foley actually paid attention to the games back then.</p>

So since this thread got derailed by Variable again... should I change the thread title?</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimdust" data-cid="234772" data-time="1405475423">
<div>


So since this thread got derailed by Variable again... should I change the thread title?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


In the title, put "another Variable train wreck" in parenthesis.</p>

I'm not the one who brought up hockey broadcasts...</p>

Threads here tend to get derailed regardless in this place.</p>

</p>


</p>


 </p>


Troy Murray...no visor</p>


 </p>


it all makes sense now!</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rex" data-cid="234814" data-time="1405611762">
<div>


</p>


</p>


 </p>


Troy Murray...no visor</p>


 </p>


it all makes sense now!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


That and the P"i"MP stick!</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tater" data-cid="234775" data-time="1405476025">
<div>


In the title, put "another Variable train wreck" in parenthesis.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


As opposed to endless Mike Ribeiro references.</p>


 </p>


Oh wait, I forgot.  Those are funny.</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="puckjim" data-cid="234833" data-time="1405629069">

As opposed to endless Mike Ribeiro references.

 

Oh wait, I forgot.  Those are funny.</p></blockquote>


Mrs. Ribeiro thinks they're funny.