Former Bruins player and coach Mike Milbury has become one of the most in-demand NHL analysts both locally and nationally.

The Massachusetts native has done Bruins studio analysis for NESN, as well as co-hosted the network’s show The Instigators. He has also been doing a weekly appearance on sports radio WEEI. Nationally, Milbury is the studio analyst for NBC’s NHL “Game of the Week,” and has been very visible during the Bruins postseason run. He also has done work as an analyst for TSN and CBC in Canada.

Milbury has made a name for himself with some of his very strong and sometimes outrageous opinions and rants, perhaps most famously last year during the Olympics, referring to the style of the Russia team as “Eurotrash.”


33 thoughts on “2011 Approval Ratings – Mike Milbury

  1. Mike is the real deal. People who like fake happy television don't like Mike's style but I think he is honest. His critics like to call him a career failure but he played in the NHL and coached a team to the Stanley Cup Finals so I think he knows what he is talking about.

  2. Beat Ranger fan with their own shoe… Approve!
    Quit on Boston College… Approve!
    Ruined the Islanders… Approve!
    His TV work… meh, he's ok.

  3. Approve, tells it like it is .. you are right on the money Tony, he doesn't engage in the fake happy talk. Even remember him sort of barking at Tappen once over something. No, he wasn't Bobby Orr but he was a decent "Defensive Defenseman" and a tough player.

  4. I approve of Mike. Do I think he sometimes toes the NHL line…sure. But for the most part each time he speaks he tells me something that either wasn't blatantly obvious or that I did not know.

  5. Loved how Milbury verbally tore a teary-eyed Jeremy Roenick a new one on live TV after the Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup last year, not to mention the way he tried knocking some sense into a NY sports fan thirty years ago using the guy’s own shoe. Approve!

  6. I really started following the Bruins in the early 80's so I have a soft spot for all the guys from those years. He certainly knows the game and is a no BS kind of guy. Even though he's not the eye candy that Barry Pederson is, I enjoy the broadcasts that Milbury does. Approve!

  7. <div class="idc-message" id="idc-comment-msg-div-160749658"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(160749658)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" onclick="IDC.ui.fb_wrapper(160749658)" href="javascript: void(null)" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(160749658)">Close MessageHe is simply as good as it gets. He pulls no punches and gives superb analysis. I truly believe he will replace Don Cherry on coaches corner when leaves.

  8. He is as good as it gets. He pulls no punches and gives superb analysis. I believe he will take over for Don Cherry on coaches corner when Cherry is done. Major Approve

  9. Approve, but he has some big negatives.

    1. He thought the Matt Cooke hit on Savard was clean.
    2. He may go down as being the worst GM in the history of the NHL. Seriously. 11 years for Alexei Yashin?
    3. His opinions on young player talent is "questionable" at best

    But, he looks like he's ready to punch anyone in the broadcast booth out at any moment, so that's pretty ok.

    1. Yest it was awesome – Awesomely STUPID, never mind sexist. It's obvious that you and Milbury never saw Thelma & Louise because I (and the two of you) would not "mess" with either one of them. But the remark is typical of Milbury's prejudice as he views women & Europeans as soft (which is of course, ridiculous).

      Finally, to Hoss, my guess is that he would be ready to punch anyone unless they decided to punch back and then I would like to see how "tough" he really was.

        1. Bet it took you a long time to come up with that comment.

          Not surprised. It's the old, I can dish it out, but I can't take it. Have a nice day!!!!!!!

          1. tl, I'm glad you brought your mother apizzi on board to the site. How are either one of you able to walk with your panties so far up your respective tushes? By the way apizzi, what's a yest?

          2. AAAWWWWWW did I hurt your itty bitty feewings? Go call you mom and tell her all about it. Hey apizzi have phone close by.

          3. Look who's talking about keeping it classy. What does the term DB stand for?

            Oh and by the way, when you are going to call me a DB, try to fool everyone on this site into thinking you have a brain and use the term, "stay classy". You see there is a y at the end. I'm just going to guess that you have not made it that far down the alphabet yet.

  10. The best sports media people are those who have played the game before; the worst are the 'hacks' who get CSOB 'degrees' and instantly act all full of themselves. We can tell one from the other when we see these ratings. Sadly, there are way too many of the latter and too few of the former.

    1. Chris:
      I can't think of a post I have disagreed with more in the past few years than yours. I don't think an ex athlete or coach or gm has any more or less insight into the game than than any other professional covering the team. The ones who are good are the ones who actually study, prepare and work at the their craft. Ron Jaworski is great at breaking down football because he studies hard and really works at broadcasting not because he was an ex-player. He has learned how to translate what he sees into words and ideas the "little people" can understand. No easy task, ask Joe Montana who failed miserably as an analyst. Bob Ryan, he of no basketball experience on the pro level, does basketball better than any ex player or coach. Sean McAdam does baseball better than Lou Merloni and almost any other ex player I have ever heard in the media. Would you rather listen to Joe morgan, Steve phillips and Orel Hershiser or Peter Gammons and Buster Olney?

      40 years ago Howard Cosell labeled the trend of putting ex-jocks behind the Mike the "jockocracy"…he mocked Roone Arledge's idea that because you did something you were by definition an expert to talk about it. Cosell was completely right about that. Whereas I agree with you most of the talking heads with a CSOB degree (CT School of Broadcasting) suck…it is because they do not do their home work or work at their craft. Chuck Wilson runs a better sports talk show, whether it is all guests or all callers or both than any ex jock in any market. He does so because he is prepared. Mike Reiss is the best discussing football in the Boston market…he did not play professionally. I would much prefer to listen to Dale Arnold break down a hockey game than Gord Klusak (and I like Klusak) because I think Dale knows just as much and can deliver that information to me, the fan in a better way.

      This is a great topic for Bruce to dive into some slow week in the summer (maybe around the all-star break…hint, hint).

      1. You don't think a GM or player has more insight or knowledge into a game than a microphone carrier? There is some validity to your contention that being able to convey the message is important, but the ability to convey the message shouldn't be confused with actual knowledge or insight.

        Bob Ryan has never been, and will never be qualified to coach or run an NBA franchise. Nor Peter Gammons or Sean McAdam with baseball. There's no comparison of the amount of knowledge each of these groups possess. The media know no more than fans – most of them actually significantly less than fans who actually pay attention. Ryan, Shaughnessy et. al are all of a sudden covering the Stanley Cup Finals and couldn't name 5 other players in the entire league or discuss for 30 seconds any semblance of hockey strategy, the salary cap or anything else. But they know more because they have a nominal talent for putting pen to paper?

        I'll stick with the people who were good enough to play and run teams, not the ones whose job is to chronicle the accomplishments of people with actual talent.

        1. Do I think a GM or coach might have more nominal knowledge than a beat writer. Sure…he was privy to more insider information while he was "inside" the game. Do I think a player does…not unless they studied the game and the way it is presented. In both cases do I think having knowledge translates into better media skills…absolutely not. The old adage is never truer than in sports media…those that do do…those that don't teach. Bill Belichick is the best coach ever…never played a down of NFL football. Likewise Peter Gammons is the most knowledgeable baseball reporter/commenter ever… I take his insights over Steve Phillips any time.

          Sports media is a job/profession just like playing the sport is a job/profession. I can write well but I could never be a professional journalist. The guys who are good at it really work at it. They talk to people, organize their thoughts, learn the nuances of the game they cover and become experts. I agree having Bob Ryan and Dan Shaughnessey cover hockey is silly. Neither is bringing an insight to the column they are writing. As such I do not take their hockey or in the case of Shaughnessey anything they write seriously. But that does not mean if you gave Ray Bourque or Bobby Orr a microphone or a pen they would instantly be better Hockey media people.

  11. Why are the comments so full of whiny vagingas? The Sedins absolutely, positively are soft. Charmin soft. Their talent speaks for itself but Boston has shown that if you get a little rough with them they will fold. So what's with the whining when that's pointed out?

    Grow a pair. Hockey is a tough guy sport. Hike up your skirt.

Comments are closed.