How can they possibly come to that conclusion? There were on-air moments when his fellow hosts either looked at him as if he was insane or basically said as much. No, the bottom line is that he was awkward on-air, made unsupportable statements and represented enough of a risk that ESPN wanted to part ways.
Bottom line: Irvin was good on ESPN. If his was often the loudest voice at the table, that's the role he was cast to play. The studios at CBS and NBC are full. Fox doesn't appear to have much interest even though its football lineup could use a boost. Irvin's best immediate hope, should he want to keep a television presence, might be at the Los Angeles-based NFL Network, close to the movie studios where he hopes to work.
Thanks for the post, Redskin1 - I also thought that he was not very good on ESPN and Sharpe for some reason looks like a horses head
I think Gumbel and Colinsworthless are the bottom of the barrel as far as announcers go and this guy can only help make it worse - I doubt that the NFL will hire a low life like this.
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
