RealGM

A few things going for him, and a bunch of key factors that i think makes him a great analyst, arguably the best in the business currently, and perhaps an all-timer when all is said and done.

Depth in his takes - Being a former player and specifically being a role player but also a key starter in some of his stints when he played, he understands the nuances of being both.

In-game analysis on point, relevant - He can identify plays immediately, in-game and live game adjustments; recognizes those changes and explains the implications

Broad audience appeal - He can talk to both the casuals and fans with deeper understanding of the game

Humor - this one is obvious.

Chemistry with fellow commentators - He can be paired with anyone and consistently shows respect to his peers but not afraid to sarcastically call them out/be a contrarian.

Good relationship with players - this one is great for preparation; he can pick the brains of players before the games and mention these little details throughout the game

I think he's pretty good. Definitely better than Reggie, I still don't understand how Reggie is so popular with some.

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:I think he's pretty good. Definitely better than Reggie, I still don't understand how Reggie is so popular with some.

Can’t even listen to that guy

Did you know he went to Arizona?

He just has no chemistry with Mike Breen nor Doris. I liked him better with Ruoco or Dave Pasch. Maybe Breen is a part of the problem, alongside the three man booth? Breen seems to be fine with Clyde Frazier when I watch Knicks games on MSG.

I've always enjoyed RJ. He's made for TV and gives great analysis breakdowns

Sent from my Pixel 6 using RealGM mobile app

Chuck Everett wrote:He just has no chemistry with Mike Breen nor Doris. I liked him better with Ruoco or Dave Pasch. Maybe Breen is a part of the problem, alongside the three man booth? Breen seems to be fine with Clyde Frazier when I watch Knicks games on MSG.

Breen and Clyde are amazing together. Theirs is a labor of love.

RJ is probably too snarky to mix well with Breen, who's an exceptionally earnest guy. I like RJ as a commentator though.

Capn'O wrote:

Chuck Everett wrote:He just has no chemistry with Mike Breen nor Doris. I liked him better with Ruoco or Dave Pasch. Maybe Breen is a part of the problem, alongside the three man booth? Breen seems to be fine with Clyde Frazier when I watch Knicks games on MSG.

Breen and Clyde are amazing together. Theirs is a labor of love.

RJ is probably too snarky to mix well with Breen, who's an exceptionally earnest guy. I like RJ as a commentator though.

I'm not a huge RJ fan but he would have worked much better with Marv due to Marv's lack of earnestness.

durden_tyler wrote:A few things going for him, and a bunch of key factors that i think makes him a great analyst, arguably the best in the business currently, and perhaps an all-timer when all is said and done.

Depth in his takes - Being a former player and specifically being a role player but also a key starter in some of his stints when he played, he understands the nuances of being both.

In-game analysis on point, relevant - He can identify plays immediately, in-game and live game adjustments; recognizes those changes and explains the implications

Broad audience appeal - He can talk to both the casuals and fans with deeper understanding of the game

Humor - this one is obvious.

Chemistry with fellow commentators - He can be paired with anyone and consistently shows respect to his peers but not afraid to sarcastically call them out/be a contrarian.

Good relationship with players - this one is great for preparation; he can pick the brains of players before the games and mention these little details throughout the game

Impressive use of the green checkmarks. Never seen anything like that done before on here

azcatz11 wrote:

durden_tyler wrote:A few things going for him, and a bunch of key factors that i think makes him a great analyst, arguably the best in the business currently, and perhaps an all-timer when all is said and done.

Depth in his takes - Being a former player and specifically being a role player but also a key starter in some of his stints when he played, he understands the nuances of being both.

In-game analysis on point, relevant - He can identify plays immediately, in-game and live game adjustments; recognizes those changes and explains the implications

Broad audience appeal - He can talk to both the casuals and fans with deeper understanding of the game

Humor - this one is obvious.

Chemistry with fellow commentators - He can be paired with anyone and consistently shows respect to his peers but not afraid to sarcastically call them out/be a contrarian.

Good relationship with players - this one is great for preparation; he can pick the brains of players before the games and mention these little details throughout the game

Impressive use of the green checkmarks. Never seen anything like that done before on here

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

he's funny, quick, and listenable

Lalouie wrote:he's funny, quick, and listenable

Surprised you like him

azcatz11 wrote:

Lalouie wrote:he's funny, quick, and listenable

Surprised you like him

and i don't even care for him cuz he's a cat - go figure

the only cat i like is jennie finch

Reggie Miller has never bothered me. He isnt great or anything, but i appear to be immune to whatever it us people cant stand. Mark Jackson, though…. Arghh.

Yeah he's funny and interesting to listen to.

Sorry I don't like him (and not because of his feud with Paul Pierce a few years ago either)

His voice really grates and he seems to enjoy talking over his co-callers..

The best analyst in the business is Brian Scalabrine. In all seriousness, the guy's understanding of the modern game is absolutely incredible.
Next time your team plays the Celtics, tune in and listen to him.

robbie84 wrote:The best analyst in the business is Brian Scalabrine. In all seriousness, the guy's understanding of the modern game is absolutely incredible.
Next time your team plays the Celtics, tune in and listen to him.

i do like him, he's not as biased as your previous one so big change to that. (i forgot the old guy's name)

RJ sucks! too much bias towards the popular teams. Not just this series but every series he calls.

fanofthegreats wrote:

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:I think he's pretty good. Definitely better than Reggie, I still don't understand how Reggie is so popular with some.

Can’t even listen to that guy

That’s the key compared to the rest of the national broadcasts it’s not hard to stand apart