Dan Dunleavy popular among fanbase?

[Pimlach]

Just now, Taro T said:

To the bolded, pretty sure we all are.  But take it up with people that have some say in the matter. 😉 

This board is a place to share my opinions and thoughts and even to vent a bit.  I try to be fair about it.  

I would be happy to share my thoughts on how this team is run directly with Kevyn Adams and Terry Pegula.   They are men deserving of respect and I could do it in the respectful way.   But my message would be critical one that sticks to past performance as measured by this teams record on the ice and in the box office.   There is a reason players don't want to be traded to Buffalo, and it is not the city or the weather.   

I won't get that opportunity.  Since I will be spending most of my summer in Buffalo, I will get to see a few past employees and alumni and venting to them will not help.  That is just being a pain and they all feel the same way anyway.   Everyone wants to see this teams fortunes change.  

Lindy is carrying a big load.  

[Broken Ankles]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

I like Dan. He’s better than mediocre. I don’t know how much out of market hockey people watch here, but I watch a lot. There are only a handful of broadcast teams around the league that I think are better. 

Definitely bottom half.  I’d say only a handful of teams I don’t listen too when given the option.  As an out of market viewer, given the options of both, I usually select the opponents broadcast.  Although I have been known to switch back to listen to Marty in between periods, then forget to go back.  Ray is also a contributor to my low rating. 

[SwampD]

23 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

Definitely bottom half.  I’d say only a handful of teams I don’t listen too when given the option.  As an out of market viewer, given the options of both, I usually select the opponents broadcast.  Although I have been known to switch back to listen to Marty in between periods, then forget to go back.  Ray is also a contributor to my low rating. 

But do you listen when other teams are not playing the Sabres?

The color guys especially. They. Are. Terrible. Most of them make Rob sound like a Rhodes scholar.

[Pimlach]

9 hours ago, CallawaySabres said:

He is as bad as this team is right now. Other than the uniforms, this whole franchise pretty much stinks from A-Z (ownership, roster, coaches, in-game experience, broadcasting.) 

i actually believe the glass is half full.  The roster is very correctable.   The talent pipeline is very good too.  The team just needs the right leadership on top.  The problem has been Terry’s choices for who that is.  

Winning will fix the in game experience.  Buffalo is less about the piped in noise and distractions and more about the on ice hockey.   (It was a generation ago anyway).  

Edited June 11 by Pimlach

[PASabreFan]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Dan is absolutely not a radio guy and it's a shame that the 2 roles don't get broken back out to being separate roles.  (Totally get why they don't go back to that (don't want to spend money on separate announcers and crews for providing commentary for the same event), but it is still a shame they don't.

That said, through the years, TV broadcasts of NHL games across the board has moved away from true PBP into more of an NFL style TV broadcast where they PBP guy and the color guy end up talking about a lot of other stuff than just the game action.  It works in NFL broadcasts because they have 20 seconds or more to kill after every single play.  It doesn't work with end to end action sports like hockey.  But, not completely convinced that Dunleavy couldn't do a very good TV broadcast; at times he does, particularly when the Sabres are in the mix for being relevant.  But he's never going to give you the true PBP that you're looking for.  That, unfortunately is no longer in the job description.

It's puzzling to me why the broadcasts have changed in that way. If you're into the game, you don't want to hear the banter. If you're new to the game or just tuning in for a minute, you really don't want to hear the banter. Who wants to hear it? I don't get it. Does anyone really listen to it, much less enjoy. And if you're trying to use the broadcast to sell the sport, what does it say to the listener that even the announcers aren't interested in what's happening on the ice?

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, inkman said:

He’s never going to fill RJ’s shoes adequately for most here.  I understand it but don’t really agree.  RJ is a legend but his hysterical screaming was a bit much.  It was cool getting caught up in the moment but he was super over the top. Anyone who followed was going to be cast in his shadow and never live up to the legend. It’s ok.  He’s fine.  Would I like some improvements, sure.  Is he as good as most teams PBP announcers? Certainly.  

True that RJ will not be matched, and no one is going to come in and copy him.  His hysterics were not for everyone but they became legendary, and his knowledge of the game was right up there. 

But just get someone that keeps up with the play, knows how to communicate puck position, knows the player names on both teams, gets more excited for our team than the opponent, and knows how to make a great call on a big play.  

[Rasmus_]

He's average at best.  I'm with most.  Win games, then write puff pieces about mediocre cover analysts.  

[That Aud Smell]

13 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It's puzzling to me why the broadcasts have changed in that way. If you're into the game, you don't want to hear the banter. If you're new to the game or just tuning in for a minute, you really don't want to hear the banter. Who wants to hear it? I don't get it. Does anyone really listen to it, much less enjoy. And if you're trying to use the broadcast to sell the sport, what does it say to the listener that even the announcers aren't interested in what's happening on the ice?

They're selling stories (narratives!) as much as (more than?) they're selling the on-ice activity.

We see this marketing philosophy writ large for things like the Super Bowl -- with hours of pre-game coverage and dozens of stories.

Not just sports. Sports entertainment.

I've said it here a dozen times, so I apologize for repeating myself: Vince McMahon (gross as he is) understood this better and far earlier than any pro sports league commissioner.

[msw2112]

When he first started calling games, I could not stand Dunleavy.  He seemed to be at about ECHL level.  He's improved and has grown on me a little bit.  I'd say he's now tolerable and average.  I might prefer someone else, but I don't think that's going to happen, so I can live with Dunleavy.  My opinion has nothing to do with following RJ.  RJ was an all-time great and a true unicorn and it would not be fair to Dunleavy to compare him.  To his credit, Dunleavy comes across as genuine and a good guy.  I'd guess that most of the fanbase sees it like I do:  good guy, OK broadcaster, probably not "popular."

Edited June 10 by msw2112

[Taro T]

25 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It's puzzling to me why the broadcasts have changed in that way. If you're into the game, you don't want to hear the banter. If you're new to the game or just tuning in for a minute, you really don't want to hear the banter. Who wants to hear it? I don't get it. Does anyone really listen to it, much less enjoy. And if you're trying to use the broadcast to sell the sport, what does it say to the listener that even the announcers aren't interested in what's happening on the ice?

Was saying this back when the league came out of the lockout and still expect they should do this: pay Syracuse U (or any other school with a truly top notch Communications Department) to develop the optimal way to broadcast the game.  Getting 4K &  8K HDTVs out there means not being able to see the puck should NEVER be a reason for people to not watch games.  

Be innovative, but intelligent about the way they do so.  (This isn't directed at the Sabres but the league as a whole.)  Heck, they actually DID do something innovative on Saturday.  They broadcast the game with an ASL interpreter doing the play by play on one of the alternate ESPN channels.  Didn't watch it or even know about it before it happened, but THAT is innovative.  No idea if they did anything to highlight where the puck was as watching the announcer would necessarily distract from following the play on ice (tough to watch 2 things closely at once).  But for once, the league was thinking outside the box.  (It was likely ESPN's idea and not the league's so they could test it out on a sport that gets lower ratings and work out the bugs there before implementing it in NFL coverage.)

[dudacek]

11 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

They're selling stories (narratives!) as much as (more than?) they're selling the on-ice activity.

We see this marketing philosophy writ large for things like the Super Bowl -- with hours of pre-game coverage and dozens of stories.

Not just sports. Sports entertainment.

I've said it here a dozen times, so I apologize for repeating myself: Vince McMahon (gross as he is) understood this better and far earlier than any pro sports league commissioner.

But they’re just so bad at adapting.

The American national hockey broadcasts are the worst: so often, they tell the pre-scripted story regardless of what’s going on on the ice.

Be prepared enough that you can react to the story the game is telling.

[LTS]

57 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It's puzzling to me why the broadcasts have changed in that way. If you're into the game, you don't want to hear the banter. If you're new to the game or just tuning in for a minute, you really don't want to hear the banter. Who wants to hear it? I don't get it. Does anyone really listen to it, much less enjoy. And if you're trying to use the broadcast to sell the sport, what does it say to the listener that even the announcers aren't interested in what's happening on the ice?

You are certainly representing one segment of the sports watching public.  Another segment loves that ESPN has the Manningcast for football. It's so popular that alternate broadcasts are popping up in other places.  There are segments of society who don't want the play by play or the carefully (or not carefully) crafted story telling.

That segment enjoys what people can comment on about the sport happening, not so much describing the play itself. This is very apparent with the growth of content creators who spend most of their time story telling and interacting with viewers.  There is a change in society.

20 minutes ago, dudacek said:

But they’re just so bad at adapting.

The American national hockey broadcasts are the worst: so often, they tell the pre-scripted story regardless of what’s going on on the ice.

Be prepared enough that you can react to the story the game is telling.

It's not just hockey.  Football is absolutely awful at the pre-scripted story.  This is what old school marketers feel will sell the game. It appeals to some groups I guess.

[That Aud Smell]

27 minutes ago, dudacek said:

But they’re just so bad at adapting.

The American national hockey broadcasts are the worst: so often, they tell the pre-scripted story regardless of what’s going on on the ice.

Be prepared enough that you can react to the story the game is telling.

2 minutes ago, LTS said:

It's not just hockey.  Football is absolutely awful at the pre-scripted story.  This is what old school marketers feel will sell the game. It appeals to some groups I guess.

Jeeeebus, is this ever true.

There are two prime examples of this: (1) Commentators awkwardly drop in some angle/theory that doesn't fit with the flow of the game. (2) Commentators awkwardly rush to introduce some angle/theory that hadn't been fitting the flow of the game but perhaps very suddenly is fitting that flow given a momentum shift or a huge play.

The commentators wear headsets. I infer that they have varying levels of chatter in their ears as they're calling the game -- from producers, spotters (football), statisticians, etc. This of course depends on the size of the production crew -- which, not for nothing, is negligible when it comes to ESPN+ -- that's a 3-person crew on site and the lone producer is in Bristol, CT!

Anyhoo. The producers are the ones pushing the narratives.

[Taro T]

16 minutes ago, LTS said:

You are certainly representing one segment of the sports watching public.  Another segment loves that ESPN has the Manningcast for football. It's so popular that alternate broadcasts are popping up in other places.  There are segments of society who don't want the play by play or the carefully (or not carefully) crafted story telling.

That segment enjoys what people can comment on about the sport happening, not so much describing the play itself. This is very apparent with the growth of content creators who spend most of their time story telling and interacting with viewers.  There is a change in society.

It's not just hockey.  Football is absolutely awful at the pre-scripted story.  This is what old school marketers feel will sell the game. It appeals to some groups I guess.

But the Manningcast is VERY unique in that though it isn't giving the pbp, it also isn't telling those carefully crafted stories about the players.  They're telling stories, but they're watching the game and actually ENJOYING it.  (Doesn't hurt that they're up against the insufferable Joe Buck and Troy Aikman either.  If the networks never hire another legendary announcer's kid again, it'll still be too soon.)  And though they are bantering throughout the game, the game is actually the centerpiece of the banter.  It isn't about what Pat Mahomes HS Shop Teacher's favorite lunch item happens to be or some other equally unrelated item.  It might be about something the guest fan of the quarter they brought in did but it still ends up in relation to THEIR fanhood.  

Would actually probably be pretty entertaining to have a couple of former player brothers banter completely for the full game.  (Think the Hunter brothers could take a couple hours per week out of their schedule of running an OHL team to do so?  That could be fun as heck.)

Go full on Manningcast or go to Danny Gallivan Dick Irvin, Ted Darling Pat Hannigan, RJ Lorentz.  But enough of this mushy middle that comes across as not caring about the game itself and is purely pandering to somehow get people that don't follow hockey to like it by not paying attention to it NOR enjoying it.

And one more item that helps the Manningcast's popularity.  There is ONE football game each week that gets that treatment.  If they ALL did, it'd likely get old quickly.  (So that suggestion to have the Huntercast was strictly to do ONE game per week (or even 1 every 2 - 3 weeks), not to make that the regular primary broadcast of YOUR Buffalo Sabres.)

Edited June 10 by Taro T

[Jorcus]

I have not thought of Dan Dunleavy of being bad enough to bother me. The one good thing about combined radio TV broadcast is it forces him to call the game and not discuss stupid stuff like they do on the national broadcast networks. Rob Ray will lead him astray at times but he does try to get back to calling the game most of the time. I could live without Rob Ray. He is not the most insightful color man. I think it would be better if he or someone else was up in the press box next to Dan.

[pi2000]

Dunleavy is OK, but they need a better color guy.

[K-9]

3 hours ago, inkman said:

He’s never going to fill RJ’s shoes adequately for most here.  I understand it but don’t really agree.  RJ is a legend but his hysterical screaming was a bit much.  It was cool getting caught up in the moment but he was super over the top. Anyone who followed was going to be cast in his shadow and never live up to the legend. It’s ok.  He’s fine.  Would I like some improvements, sure.  Is he as good as most teams PBP announcers? Certainly.  

My dislike of Dunleavy has absolutely nothing to do with RJ in the least. And the fact that other PBP guys around the league are just as bad as Dunleavy doesn’t elevate him in the least, either. It seems radio play by play is a lost art. Much to the detriment of the audience. 

[TheAud]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

It's not just hockey.  Football is absolutely awful at the pre-scripted story.  This is what old school marketers feel will sell the game. It appeals to some groups I guess.

I believe this is called the Mike Tirico Syndrome. For a football fan with at least half a brain, it can be fatal over time. The only cure is turning off the sound on the broadcast or going the bathroom when it starts picking up, usually with canned, gaudy graphics. 

[K-9]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

True that RJ will not be matched, and no one is going to come in and copy him.  His hysterics were not for everyone but they became legendary, and his knowledge of the game was right up there. 

But just get someone that keeps up with the play, knows how to communicate puck position, knows the player names on both teams, gets more excited for our team than the opponent, and knows how to make a great call on a big play.  

Remember when we heard, “Perreault winding up behind his own net … “ and we could follow that radio call all the way down the ice? Lost art indeed. 

[SwampD]

I miss the French broadcasts that NHL.TV would show. Even though I don't speak French, I would often have those on while doing other stuff. You get the energy of the game and know when to look, and you could ignore the mindless sports drivel.

[IKnowPhysics]

Living in Rick's shadow is an impossible task.  Calling play-by-play radio style, instead of television style with endless irrelevant yammering; see also Emerick, et al, is also a rarity now.  Most Buffalo fans would haaaate TV style, especially after Rick.  We're lucky that the Sabres broadcast team didn't change over.

Dan's better than many.  He's also a bit like dry toast, which makes the banter with a silly Rayzor warmly welcomed to me.

[Weave]

34 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

Living in Rick's shadow is an impossible task.  Calling play-by-play radio style, instead of television style with endless irrelevant yammering; see also Emerick, et al, is also a rarity now.  Most Buffalo fans would haaaate TV style, especially after Rick.  We're lucky that the Sabres broadcast team didn't change over.

Dan's better than many.  He's also a bit like dry toast, which makes the banter with a silly Rayzor warmly welcomed to me.

Rayzor is a bit of orange marmalade.  Most folks want strawberry jam.

[IKnowPhysics]

5 minutes ago, Weave said:

Rayzor is a bit of orange marmalade.  Most folks want strawberry jam.

I get it, I do.  But if I have to eat orange marmalade to flavor up my dry toast, I prefer that to the ***** sandwich that is a handful of Pierre McGuires blubbering about the big-body-big-stick of the best player of his birth-year-month.  Hell, I would take Jack Edwards over that *****, and I hate Jack Edwards.

 

 

[Porous Five Hole]

4 hours ago, Pimlach said:

I am tired of the "don't want to spend the money bullcrap" with this team.  

We once had great TV and Radio coverage back when everybody, in every job within the organization, made way less money.   If money is the reason then get guys that can do justice to both TV and radio.   

I am tired of settling for whatever we get with this team.  Bigger than that, I am tired of the lower standards that have become a part of our world today.  

While I totally agree with you, who is listening to the local radio station as their primary source of the broadcast in 2024?

Maybe for 15 min in the car on a random night? Most people just check their yahoo/espn app for a score update when they’re not home. I haven’t seen Nielsen ratings, but they most be very low.

I get it, most of the rest of the league still has two broadcast teams—one for tv and one for radio…so why shouldn’t we also have that?  

But in reality, it doesn’t make a whole lot of financial sense to invest money in a radio only broadcast team.  It is a dying entity (and this is coming from someone who worked in radio).  

[Taro T]

23 minutes ago, Weave said:

Rayzor is a bit of orange marmalade.  Most folks want strawberry jam.

They both have their place.