Maybe he does tell it like it is, but he is definitely uneven in how he does it. Peter Taglianetti also told it like it was and wasn't as well spoken as some other guys, but I enjoyed his work.
For example, I don't think he's missed a single opportunity to get on Fleury for a a mistake all season and is never shy about making sure everyone knows it.
On the other hand, if a goal is scored because Mark Recchi stood there and watched a guy get two whacks at a rebound or because John LeClair was late getting back or missed his man outright, he gives it cursory mention.
The biggest irritant of Errey's work to me is how reactionary he is. Something will happen and he'll be very quick to comment on it and in very strong terms, leaving no doubt about what happened and why. Then he'll see a replay and do a complete 180. It doesn't happen every game, but it happens more than it should. There's nothing wrong with saying "did this" or "I think that," and waiting to see a replay before shooting your mouth off.
I will grant you Errey supporters that part of the problem is that the Pens stink and that another part of it is there are those of us (myself included) that know they stink and do not need a constant reminder. I am sure Errey would be easier to take if the Pens win/loss total was reversed.
However, on the occiasions I have listened to part of a radio feed and I have never found Paul Steigerwald and Phil Bourque to annoy me as much. Maybe that's because they focuse more on descibing the game to the audience because of the different broadcast medium or maybe they are just better.