Earlier this decade my favourite TSN studio panel was Dave Randorf, Jock Climie, Matt Dunigan, and Chris Schultz.
I like Rod now too, but I think every other seat is up for grabs. Or where is Dave Randorf?
So who should fill the four seats now at TSN for a better studio panel?
Dave Randorf has been doing NHL hockey games for the past year or two with Rogers.
They’re all pretty awful now IMO. The content has dipped to near-zero. You watch a three-minute clip of them, they’re not saying anything the average fan couldn’t notice and say after a game. No real analysis, no Xs and Os (apart from Benevides), nothing. Climie and Schultz were solid when they were around. Dunigan used to be better; now he’s just mailing it in. Stegall is horrible in front of the camera, has no natural ability. Burris is OK. None of them say anything substantive so they’re best ignored.
Suitor has gone downhill fast too.
I love the current panel and look forward to listening to them and watching them, in fact I make a point of taping SC for the sole purpose of listeniing to they guys and their analysis. Burris, simply my favourite, the guy is pure gold but they are all gold IMHO. Henry, you rock my friend! Milt a close second and well, I love you all and your insights and your reflections. Simply great stuff!!!
Love 'em. Don’t understand the negativity towards them but this discussion forum is basically negative I find which is why I go on hiatus from this discussion forum to clean my mind. Eventually I get back but CFL forum posters tend to be negatrons. IMHO. Don’t need this crap for the most part albeit at least I know a very large percentage of posters here are actual CFL fans. And that’s what brings me back here despite the real “negative vibe” I feel from this discussion forum. Weird.
It has improved a lot. The atmosphere is more relaxed, more natural. Seeing the old man of the group Dunigan with his feet on the desk tweeting was hella funny.
Seeing the old man of the group Dunigan with his feet on the desk tweeting was hella funny.Exactly Hf.?
I’d prefer to see the same group every week.
I do not care for Stegall.
I do like Dunigan still and Burris too. I’d leave Dunigan off game broadcasts.
Sanchez is improving and should talk more about coverages.
Fantuz might be a good addition. He does a good job with his receiving analytics job on tape.
On announcers I think Suitor is having a great season. Much more comfortable labeling things as a bad call, or no calls etc.
I think having access to a retired official would be beneficial now and again.
So in short, I’d dump Stegall and add Fantuz and add an official spot now and again. So Burris, Dunigan and Fantuz.
I’d try Sanchez as a color guy on game broadcasts. I’d replace Forde-he’s too guarded as far as rendering an opinion.
Collectively, they are awful, as much as it might bother some of you to hear. Don’t worry, I know the drill: when someone disagrees with you, call them negative. It’s a great way to shut down discussion and spare you the discomfort of confronting differing viewpoints.
Three-minute recap of the Montreal-Calgary game, what do they say?
Vernon Adams is great, finds a way to get it done.
That Calgary receiver who had 4 TDs is great.
Y’all seriously think that’s worthy of praise? You need a panel to tell you those things? What is the point of a football panel? Is it just to feature four middle-aged guys in suits making lame jokes? Or should there be, I don’t know, actual analysis? Something you couldn’t hear if you went to a bar and polled any CFL fan, even after a few drinks?
Climie drew on his experience to talk about receivers and coverage.
Schultz drew on his experience to talk about blocking and protection, although his content went south the longer he stayed on.
Dunigan used to be better. Now he’s just all filler.
The best person they ever had on the panel was Paul LaPolice. His segments were informative and concise. He broke down football concepts and showed you how they were executed or defended on certain plays. You left his segments knowing more about the game than you did before. That’s kind of the point of journalism.
oh …I didn’t know we are not allowed to like the panel. Silly me.
Bang on accurate. In the old days (Climie/Dunigan/Schultz), the half time panel was must-watch TV; you actually learned a thing or two. Now? Meh. Time to head to the fridge, the bathroom, check out what else is on the tube, post comments on CFL forums, anything to kill time until 2nd half starts.
I’m glad Thursday nights are over, as the panel was actually worse on Thursday than otherwise. All they seemed to want to do was talk about some no-name ‘band’ playing at halftime, silly ‘interviews’ by some dumb blonde, riotous laughing at non-funny ‘jokes’ and just generally dumbing things down to allegedly pander to a younger audience.
Agree with you D/P about LaPolice when he was on. I enjoyed his segment, breaking down points of the game and what was going on.
A little more than to chew on than the “rah rah” that often seems to go on.
Who said you aren’t allowed? We are all allowed to hold our own opinions.
Oh good then.
The tone of the post by Discipline suggested that maybe he was shutting down the possibility that anybody who like the panel were wrong headed. Must just be me.
I’ll re-read then.
No, I suspect his comments were in response to what Aerial had to say about negativity. That’s the inference I drew, anyway. I could be wrong. It’s happened before. . .
They're all pretty awful now IMO. The content has dipped to near-zero. You watch a three-minute clip of them, they're not saying anything the average fan couldn't notice and say after a game. No real analysis, no Xs and Os (apart from Benevides), nothing. Climie and Schultz were solid when they were around. Dunigan used to be better; now he's just mailing it in. Stegall is horrible in front of the camera, has no natural ability. Burris is OK. None of them say anything substantive so they're best ignored.Suitor has gone downhill fast too.
I really enjoy the current panel, especially Milt Stegall and Matt Dunigan. I deliberately tune in to see them. Quite simply they’re entertaining.
If I made any change, it would be to replace Henry Burris with Chris Schultz to get more of the “analysis/content” thing. But like I say, I view the panel as entertainment first and foremost and the current members deliver.
I like the combo of Schultz, Dunigan and Climie the best, with Burris as alternate.
I also like Dunigan best in the booth these days, although nobody compare to Lancaster.
Ahh the good ole days.
I dislike Stegall the most.
Maybe go back to the days of Tillman and Marty York, ehh
Oh it’s not only you and this is a matter often not on this civil forum.
Instead of making a point in simple disagreement, some smug and sanctimonious types will go with “oh you’re so negative” so as to commence character assassination along with disagreement with an opinion. It’s not accidental. One who writes something has thought about it unlike when someone says something with a poor choice of words.
Anyway everybody here is stating their opinion on the topic just fine. The last thing we want is yet another internet echo chamber, which is the norm any more.
For sure that panel needs a coach or a former player with plenty of broadcasting experience (other than only Dunigan) who brings deeper analysis to segments, which is enjoyed by fans of football of all ages who also study the game.
That Thursday night production appears to have been some attempt to go for younger including with that tired song, but it came off too often as hokey cheeseball.
Young people definitely aren’t going for 40-somethings trying to act hip and if you remember when you were young, you hated when parents or their friends tried to do that.
They might be hip for others near their age, but not to 20-somethings when trying way too hard like on that Thursday night near-abomination this year.
I certainly hope they regroup for next season. The cheesy highlights segment had the feel of a going-away party, so good-bye!
Totally agree Paolo. The Thursday night broadcasts are just downright silly.