Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Smitty's commentary


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Looking for opinions from those who saw it.

Smith was, as always, himself. His opinions were unfiltered, his stories were interesting and his football insights were... insightful.

On the downside, I'd like to think he had a roster sheet available to him but he kept getting player names wrong. Heck, he credited one play to Lano Hill (Hill was waived last Wednesday). Taylor Zarzour had to uncomfortably correct him a number of times.

Overall I'd say good, but also needs to work on a few things.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Looking for opinions from those who saw it.

Smith was, as always, himself. His opinions were unfiltered, his stories were interesting and his football insights were... insightful.

On the downside, I'd like to think he had a roster sheet available to him but he kept getting player names wrong. Heck, he credited one play to Lano Hill (Hill was waived last Wednesday). Taylor Zarzour had to uncomfortably correct him a number of times.

Overall I'd say good, but also needs to work on a few things.

Right before the game started he talked about the preseason practice and said we won on Wednesday and lost Thursday.  We lost on Thursday is correct but we won on Friday.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jgsaltwater said:

I enjoyed Steve #89 

looking forward to more air time with him, he gives a player perspective many broadcasters lack. 
 

his honesty is appreciated. 

And, other than getting some names wrong, he was crazy smart, and had insights all over the field, not just WR.

My favorite quote from yesterday, "that flag is for being stupid!", against a Colts DB.

Edited by shaqattaq
  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

On the downside, I'd like to think he had a roster sheet available to him but he kept getting player names wrong. Heck, he credited one play to Lano Hill (Hill was waived last Wednesday). Taylor Zarzour had to uncomfortably correct him a number of times.

 

Noticed this but overall this is acceptable (to me).  Would rather have the occasional mistake with brutal honesty than polished empty commentary. I thought his announcing was raw and honest.  Overall he gave praise and criticism when it was needed.  He does seem to have a soft spot for Grier which I found interesting.  I don’t think he went so far to make excuses but did go in-depth on occasion to not heap blame on him.   Overall very refreshing. 

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked it. A lot of of honesty. You could tell he had his roster favorites but that's alright.

Our broadcast was much better and much more honest than the Colts'. If you were Colts fan taking their commentary to heart you would expect a roster of all future HOFers and would experience grave disappointment at anything less than an undefeated SB season.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pejorative Miscreant said:

Noticed this but overall this is acceptable (to me).  Would rather have the occasional mistake with brutal honesty than polished empty commentary. I thought his announcing was raw and honest.  Overall he gave praise and criticism when it was needed.  He does seem to have a soft spot for Grier which I found interesting.  I don’t think he went so far to make excuses but did go in-depth on occasion to not heap blame on him.   Overall very refreshing. 

You also have to take into account that 2/3 of the players on the field yesterday don't even make the team, let alone get meaningful snaps.

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/19800000/-Two-Monkeys-a-Panda-Fanart-modern-family-19827078-500-564.jpg

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Looking for opinions from those who saw it.

Smith was, as always, himself. His opinions were unfiltered, his stories were interesting and his football insights were... insightful.

On the downside, I'd like to think he had a roster sheet available to him but he kept getting player names wrong. Heck, he credited one play to Lano Hill (Hill was waived last Wednesday). Taylor Zarzour had to uncomfortably correct him a number of times.

Overall I'd say good, but also needs to work on a few things.

I loved it.  All kinds of grace for whatever slip ups he had in the booth.  I think its a good omen that he's there and its just great to have him back in the Panther family where he belongs.

Good OP.

100.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The teams this 2nd year player (can’t really blame the years before he was drafted on him) was playing were going 100% as most do most weeks in the NFL. The whole argument is about his play during that period and how well was he actually playing. I’m with you on the winning though. Just start winning and fans will get excited. Start getting in the playoffs and winning and we won’t care how his PFF or box score stats look. 200 yards a game to 400 yards a game, start scoring and winning playoffs games and 99% of fans will buy in. 
    • Yeah, we are gonna be raw.  Wonnum, for the past 3 years, has been averaging 8 sacks a season (4 in one season when he missed half a season).  I am OK, but yes, they will be thrown to the fire.
    • I like this because it means one or both of the rookies will be thrust into a bigger role right away and we can see what they might be. I don't like this because it just makes our team that much younger and inexperienced.  You need vets to help the young guys learn, I just hope we aren't going too far in the opposite direction.  All our FA signings were guys just coming off their rookie deals too, I get why we're doing it, but having the savvy vets help in other ways too.
×
×
  • Create New...