Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sky coverage of American Football

Options
  • 16-09-2019 7:33am
    #1
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,086 ✭✭✭✭


    I dislike the current coverage games on Sky with Neil Reynolds & guests.

    Very broken and clunky .

    Difficult to get the ‘run’ of the main game with all the breakaways to other games scores and incidents.

    Much preferred the late Kevin Cadles format,where you stuck to one game analyzed it and the Redzone was available if you wanted to jump all around the games in progress.

    Not a happy camper


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,458 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    I think anyone that's not Big Kev is going to find it hard to match that level of coverage.
    He did NFL and NBA very well on sky over the years

    Neil is too british toff for me to respect his opinion on football.


  • Options
    #3
    Optimus Caesar
    Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭Optimus Caesar


    I like Shaun Gayle when he’s on.

    Vince Young is pretty bad though.


  • Options
    #4
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,086 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Yes, agree with both views, however it’s not Neil Reynolds, per se ,I don’t like, it’s the format.

    The game is broken enough with ads, time outs, etc ,breaking it up further by going to non related events in my opinion is not a good product.

    For instance the Kevin King interception at the very end, the ball squirted out after he came down, sky went to another game, and when they came back to Lambeau the Packers were lined up on offense, no discussion about a possible incomplete, no replay and analysis.

    I don’t like it.


  • Options
    #5
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,144 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    I’m all in on redzone these days. For the playoffs I love the focus on one game but at that stage of the season you’re talking about real high quality fare. At this stage of the year I want a piece of everything, I wouldn’t want to be tethered to a single game.

    I think the market is moving that way generally and their main game coverage is reflective of it.


  • Options
    #6
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,458 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    I’m all in on redzone these days. For the playoffs I love the focus on one game but at that stage of the season you’re talking about real high quality fare. At this stage of the year I want a piece of everything, I wouldn’t want to be tethered to a single game.

    I think the market is moving that way generally and their main game coverage is reflective of it.


    Unless the pats are on I'm generally on redzone too


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,086 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Both of the points there are fair and reasonable, and it’s probably market driven

    I have to reiterate that I don’t like the lack of consistency with the ‘pundits’, not their input but their chopping and changing different personnel.

    I have Gamepass and find that more suitable for my tastes.

    I feel the current product would be like broadcasting a Premier League Game, but
    jumping all over to other games instead of doing replays and analysis on the game in progress.

    It would break up the current game into ‘chunks, without knitting the context together to give a smooth consistent product.

    I wouldn’t like that , but fully accept that that might be a bit of an old fashioned point of view, where folk seem to want instant reaction in bite sized chunks.


  • Options
    #8
    mooreman09
    Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭mooreman09


    Ah I haven't watch that Reynolds eejit in years. Despise his coverage. Also, his weird co hosts creep me out.. Particularly Reinbold - odd odd guy...

    I only watch the Redzone or US coverage on my ********* now. Same for the college stuff, great to have full US coverage.

    The BBC lads seem decent but theres no real room for a highlight show in todays world.

    Actually, lately as I've gotten older and have more work responsibilities on a Monday, I've really begun utilizing the YouTube highlights of 12mins or so. They are great for catching up on games you miss or haven't yet seen. No Nonsense and are up almost as soon as the game ends.


  • Options
    #9
    rebelyell99
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭rebelyell99


    Skys coverage is poor and why dont they be in studio for the late games.The two lads at the moment Vince Young and Blackmon are terrible.The U.s coverage is a different level with pundits who actually offer good insight and proper hosts aswell.Surely sky have a better presenter they can wheel out rather than Neil Reynolds.


  • Options
    #10
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,086 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    rebelyell99 wrote: »
    Skys coverage is poor and why dont they be in studio for the late games.The two lads at the moment Vince Young and Blackmon are terrible.The U.s coverage is a different level with pundits who actually offer good insight and proper hosts aswell.Surely sky have a better presenter they can wheel out rather than Neil Reynolds.

    9 straight hours might be a bit much in fairness.

    I think Sky have screwed up on this product.

    The format is not to my taste.


  • Options
    #11
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,029 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Am I the only one here that though Cadel was terrible as a host ?

    I though his delivery so so labored and ponderous.

    It was as if they just picked the first American guy they could find and used him because he was American.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,086 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Am I the only one here that though Cadel was terrible as a host ?

    I though his delivery so so labored and ponderous.

    It was as if they just picked the first American guy they could find and used him because he was American.

    Yes, good points there, but he had a broadcasting background in basketball.

    It’s more the format rather than the presenter I would not be happy with.

    Jumping around every game ongoing in the middle of a live game breaks it up too much for me, the redzone is there for that.

    And who are those two bell-whiffs who appear now and again from LA?

    Add nothing to the content other than breaking it up still more.


  • Options
    #13
    rebelyell99
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭rebelyell99


    Brendan Bendar wrote: »
    Yes, good points there, but he had a broadcasting background in basketball.

    It’s more the format rather than the presenter I would not be happy with.

    Jumping around every game ongoing in the middle of a live game breaks it up too much for me, the redzone is there for that.

    And who are those two bell-whiffs who appear now and again from LA?

    Add nothing to the content other than breaking it up still more.
    There the around the NFL podcast "heroes" .I dont really like them but Neil Reynolds seems to be mad about them so I'd say well see a lot more of them.


  • Options
    #14
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,086 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    rebelyell99 wrote: »
    There the around the NFL podcast "heroes" .I dont really like them but Neil Reynolds seems to be mad about them so I'd say well see a lot more of them.

    They, in my opinion, add nothing to the product.

    Very unimpressed with the Sky coverage and format.

    Getting gimps like ‘influencers and amateur goons’ is a mistake, I feel.

    Brace of arseholes with an idea that they know something about football would be my verdict.Brass necked whankers if you will.

    Can’t really understand why Sky latched onto them.


  • Options
    #15
    el Fenomeno
    Registered Users Posts: 3,113 ✭✭✭el Fenomeno


    The best thing they have going for them is that they are a light hearted podcast that you shouldn't take seriously.

    The fact that Sky invite them on as some sort of knowledgeable authority is pretty insulting, however.

    "Hey viewers, here's some AMERICANS! They know football..."


  • Options
    #16
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,086 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    el Fenomeno wrote: »
    The best thing they have going for them is that they are a light hearted podcast that you shouldn't take seriously.

    The fact that Sky invite them on as some sort of knowledgeable authority is pretty insulting, however.

    "Hey viewers, here's some AMERICANS! They know football..."

    Brace of idiots, in my opinion, Time mainstream media gave a robust shoe up the hole to these brass necked gimps who seem to think they are someway credible.

    I pay good dollah to get Sky, not to listen to jerks like those two chancers


  • Options
    #17
    rebelyell99
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭rebelyell99


    I think part of the problem with skys coverage is they seem to think most of there viewers have a very basic knowledge of the game .This is reflected with the quality of pundits they have on.It was mentioned earlier that just because there American they think they have a good knowledge of the game.


  • Options
    #18
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,086 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    rebelyell99 wrote: »
    I think part of the problem with skys coverage is they seem to think most of there viewers have a very basic knowledge of the game .This is reflected with the quality of pundits they have on.It was mentioned earlier that just because there American they think they have a good knowledge of the game.

    No wouldn’t agree, they seem to be going down the line that all people want is instant content.

    They seem to be going down the ‘social media’ track where unkept, uninformed,brass necked stults have a platform which they think that decent folk will pay to listen to bolloxology.

    They had a good product which the discerning informed viewer could watch and digest, and in my opinion, they ruined it.

    It’s like the rubbish going on on UTube where tools can interrogate folk but are almost untouchable themselves.

    Don’t like that transition.


  • Options
    #19
    Gregk961
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭Gregk961


    That "Around the NFL" segment is painful to watch, I remember hearing those guys years ago and wanting to rip my ears out- 4 Immature, clueless gob****es and yet sky decide to bring these guys in for "analysis"...

    I get the idea to add a bit of humour but it is bottom of the barrel stuff, something a young child MIGHT find funny but that age child should be in bed by the time of broadcast.


  • Options
    #20
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,086 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Gregk961 wrote: »
    That "Around the NFL" segment is painful to watch, I remember hearing those guys years ago and wanting to rip my ears out- 4 Immature, clueless gob****es and yet sky decide to bring these guys in for "analysis"...

    I get the idea to add a bit of humour but it is bottom of the barrel stuff, something a young child MIGHT find funny but that age child should be in bed by the time of broadcast.

    Good call G.

    Bottom of the barrel stuff, pandering to the lowest common denominator.

    Bunch of bell-whiffs trying to be ‘edgy’ .

    Hopefully things will improve.


  • Options
    #21
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,827 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    mooreman09 wrote: »
    I only watch the Redzone or US coverage on my ********* now. Same for the college stuff, great to have full US coverage.
    I'm so curious what weird, obscene object you are watching redzone on that it got bleeped.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement