Sign in to follow this  
jus2damcrazey219

Irvin out at ESPN

Recommended Posts

Guest

Halleluja! Too bad he got into the HOF. He is an a$$

You know this, how? :therock:

Bucfan has a lot to learn when it comes to choosing his battles. I mean, oof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a god!!! thank you thank you thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exert from ESPN user posts on "NFL analyst Michael Irvin no longer with ESPN" article (http://myespn.go.com/conversation/story?id=2769871)

Bro_Greg (2/20/2007 at 12:44 PM) Report

"Irvin should move to NFL Access.Irvin understood T.O. and if so many people weren't MEDIA DRIVEN they would too.I use to be one of those who believed T.O. was the issue.I didn't want my team to have anything to do with him.But I watched the media try to create tension between him and Parcells with each news conference.Perfect example was when Parcells was asked if he would start T.O. and Parcells said I don't know. I don't have any tape on him running our system to know what he can do. This was about the Cowboys routes and plays. But the media went to T.O. and said Parcells says he doesn't have any tape to go by to know what he is capable of doing. They also stated he Parcells never saw him play. It didn't work like so many and instead of admitting they were wrong they continue to blame the guy.Parcells left because of T.O.???? Give me a break folks. Not thee Parcells. But yet the media continues to push that idea out there.He is a good player and I've seen him interact with players and coaches during the game and he does nothing different then other players.One final word on it. Why does the media keep replaying him and McNabb on the sideline even after they both said it wasn't an argument and T.O. was actually encouraging McNabb???????They even went so far as to stage another one.Folks stop letting the media driver your perceptions and create your own.We are suppose to be a democracy remember??????"

Look I never said Irvin didn't talk too much or wasn't sometimes obnoxious, but you guys, just like the mass majority, have the same media-controlled views about Michael Irvin. The NFL shows w/o Irvin or a player of his type are completely boring. When you able to diverse point of views, it adds the needed flavor to a show. If have a bunch of analysts who repeatedly hop-off and on the bandwagon's of teams and then have us fans let them just feed their views to us w/ us clearly accepted them as fact, then none of those shows are going to improve.

In addition, I clearly agree w/ what Bro_Greg at ESPN.com said about the media's treatment of TO. Now how can you stand there, and call him a distraction when you are the ones who are always talking about him. By making response after response to his antics, they are only fueling his desire to be in the pubic eye. It is so sad to see what big corporations like ESPN are doing to control the mid of the sports fan just to make bucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is not "media controlled." As I stated in a previous post, I lived in the Dallas area from 1991-2001 and so had a front-row seat for all of Michael Irvin's antics. He's a selfish loudmouth who disrespected, over and over and over, his teammates, the fans, and the organization who paid him millions of dollars and gave him the opportunity to win 3 Super Bowl rings. So what's the difference between him and T.O.? The 3 Super Bowl rings I guess, because everything else I just wrote applies to both of them.

As for that post you agree with, it's tough to tell what the writer's point is, and tougher still to respect the opinion of anyone who uses 6 question marks. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is not "media controlled." As I stated in a previous post, I lived in the Dallas area from 1991-2001 and so had a front-row seat for all of Michael Irvin's antics. He's a selfish loudmouth who disrespected, over and over and over, his teammates, the fans, and the organization who paid him millions of dollars and gave him the opportunity to win 3 Super Bowl rings. So what's the difference between him and T.O.? The 3 Super Bowl rings I guess, because everything else I just wrote applies to both of them.

As for that post you agree with, it's tough to tell what the writer's point is, and tougher still to respect the opinion of anyone who uses 6 question marks. :wacko:

But as you said, that was from 1991-2001. You guys are judging him based on past events and not based what he does as an analyst. How could you ever like Irvin if you're holding to past perceptions of him against him. That's why most don't like him, not because he's a bad analyst but because of his past and the image giving to him by the media. It's like if someone like Bobby Brown or Michael Jackson comes on American idol to be a judge. People aren't going to take what they seriously, not because what they're isn't right, but because your blinded by the image giving to them by the media because of their past legally/moral issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is not "media controlled." As I stated in a previous post, I lived in the Dallas area from 1991-2001 and so had a front-row seat for all of Michael Irvin's antics. He's a selfish loudmouth who disrespected, over and over and over, his teammates, the fans, and the organization who paid him millions of dollars and gave him the opportunity to win 3 Super Bowl rings. So what's the difference between him and T.O.? The 3 Super Bowl rings I guess, because everything else I just wrote applies to both of them.

As for that post you agree with, it's tough to tell what the writer's point is, and tougher still to respect the opinion of anyone who uses 6 question marks. :wacko:

But as you said, that was from 1991-2001. You guys are judging him based on past events and not based what he does as an analyst. How could you ever like Irvin if you're holding to past perceptions of him against him. That's why most don't like him, not because he's a bad analyst but because of his past and the image giving to him by the media. It's like if someone like Bobby Brown or Michael Jackson comes on American idol to be a judge. People aren't going to take what they seriously, not because what they're isn't right, but because your blinded by the image giving to them by the media because of their past legally/moral issues.

You are correct but on top of all that he is a bad analyst. He is too close to the current players. Whenever a player he is close to does something stupid, plays bad, ect. he comes off as an apologist for the player because of the relationship he has with them. Not saying an analyst has to be negative all the time but don't just try to paint a rosy picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is not "media controlled." As I stated in a previous post, I lived in the Dallas area from 1991-2001 and so had a front-row seat for all of Michael Irvin's antics. He's a selfish loudmouth who disrespected, over and over and over, his teammates, the fans, and the organization who paid him millions of dollars and gave him the opportunity to win 3 Super Bowl rings. So what's the difference between him and T.O.? The 3 Super Bowl rings I guess, because everything else I just wrote applies to both of them.

As for that post you agree with, it's tough to tell what the writer's point is, and tougher still to respect the opinion of anyone who uses 6 question marks. :wacko:

But as you said, that was from 1991-2001. You guys are judging him based on past events and not based what he does as an analyst. How could you ever like Irvin if you're holding to past perceptions of him against him. That's why most don't like him, not because he's a bad analyst but because of his past and the image giving to him by the media. It's like if someone like Bobby Brown or Michael Jackson comes on American idol to be a judge. People aren't going to take what they seriously, not because what they're isn't right, but because your blinded by the image giving to them by the media because of their past legally/moral issues.

So you're saying he was told by his bosses at ESPN (the media) to be a poor, self-promoting analyst and generally make a complete a$$ of himself every time he went on camera? I DON'T THINK SO!! I made my own conclusions about him independently of his career as a player just watching him "discuss" the NFL on ESPN. Please take your crusade and soapbox elsewhere.

Oh...and I'm still, STILL waiting to hear how the Rams have a rivalry with Denver and Minnesota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, a pregame show without the incessant braying, idiotic yelling, and jock-speak would be highly refreshing.

Well said.

But as you said, that was from 1991-2001. You guys are judging him based on past events and not based what he does as an analyst. How could you ever like Irvin if you're holding to past perceptions of him against him. That's why most don't like him, not because he's a bad analyst but because of his past and the image giving to him by the media. It's like if someone like Bobby Brown or Michael Jackson comes on American idol to be a judge. People aren't going to take what they seriously, not because what they're isn't right, but because your blinded by the image giving to them by the media because of their past legally/moral issues.

Wow, you're right. Let's apply that logic some more. Too bad they executed Ted Bundy just because he murdered a few women way back when, I'm sure he would have changed into someone any guy would want for a buddy. :rolleyes:

Had Irvin changed his stripes, I'd be the first one to commend and defend him. He hasn't. I didn't say he WAS a selfish loudmouth, I said he IS. And he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ordinarily I listen to ESPN Radio at work during the day, however lately it's been very bad. It usually is pretty slow in February anyway, but when they kept talking ad nauseum about the basketball player who came out of the closet for 2 weeks, and to find out that it's published by ESPN Books, that left a very sour taste in my mouth.

That being said, I rarely listen to The Dan Patrick Show. He seems like a snivelling weasel. Anyhow, now that Irvin's been shown the door, I wonder if he'll still have him on as part of his stale recurring guests, including Rick Riley of Sports Illustrated, Reggie Miller, and Michael Wilbon. He has the same 4 or 5 bland blah guests all the time, and rarely it seems anybody fresh. His show has always been subpar compared to Colin Cowherd's The Herd & Mike and Mike in the morning.

Good riddance to the cowboy. I think they are fine as is. I don't miss having Steve Young in studio, he was boring to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outstanding as a player with UofMiami and w/ Dallas.

One of the worst analyst ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sportscenter is all weird now.... Stephen A Smith the asshat is on SC as is Tim Colishaw... and some young guys....

I hope Sean Salisbury shows Stephen A. how to use a camera phone soon. I would rather have 10 Michael Irvins on ESPN, as bad as he was, then one Stephen A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Irvin was a terrible Cowboys honk, who substituted outrageous commentary and outrageous suits for actual analysis and insight.

He couldn't hold Tom Jackson's jock in terms on-air poise and intelligent analysis. I say that as someone who loathes the Bronocs beyond all other hatreds.

For what its worth I'd take Stephen A, over Sean Salisbury any day. In fact if this news was coupled with the fact that Salisbury was *also* out on his rear end, it would be a happy day for me. I need to see less of Sean Salisbury slurping the latest "John Come Lately" and more of guys like John Clayton, who actually do research and have real contacts within the locker rooms.

I think Salisbury has "rubber-necked" on more teams, players and predictions than any analysis known to man. I have literally watched him change his opinion from week 1 to week 2 on certain players and teams.

Irvin was just a clown show in my view, more interested in his own voice and his own celebrity than providing me with any real information or insight. He belongs on the "World's Dumbest Sports Show" and the pablum that show vomits up as "infotainment".

This is what pro-sports has become, something much more akin to "Entertainment Tonight", mixed with a bad game show.

Maybe this is a sign ESPN is trying to become "serious" again, but given they plan to broadcast even more "hot dog" eating contests and poker tournaments, I highly doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird. I like Michael Irvin, Stephen A. Smith AND Sean Salisbury. I feel so alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird. I like Michael Irvin, Stephen A. Smith AND Sean Salisbury. I feel so alone.

As you should.

They're all asshats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is not "media controlled." As I stated in a previous post, I lived in the Dallas area from 1991-2001 and so had a front-row seat for all of Michael Irvin's antics. He's a selfish loudmouth who disrespected, over and over and over, his teammates, the fans, and the organization who paid him millions of dollars and gave him the opportunity to win 3 Super Bowl rings. So what's the difference between him and T.O.? The 3 Super Bowl rings I guess, because everything else I just wrote applies to both of them.

As for that post you agree with, it's tough to tell what the writer's point is, and tougher still to respect the opinion of anyone who uses 6 question marks. :wacko:

Im really suprised at that one. Ive met Michael Irvin several times and i have to say that hes probably one of the most personable and fan friendly guys ie ever met. Sure hes ahd some off the field issues but ive met players who ahve had worse off the fiel issues and who ahve been nothing but dicks. Irvin wasnt that way, at least to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who retired/got fired this year that doesn't have a job in TV yet? Let's see, there's Bill Parcells, Marty Schottenheimer etc. There's your primary reason for Irvin getting the boot. There are some "names" out there who will be a.) better analysts and b.) less trouble. Give it a week or two and they'll announce his replacement. Another possibility is they want Parcells for MNF. They move Thiesmann to Countdown and Parcells takes his spot. Whatever the scenario, Irvin's firing probably had less to do with his Tony Romo comments and high maintenance lifestyle than it did with "better names" (mostly Parcells) becoming available.

My money is on Parcells. ESPN thinks he's the greatest coach in the history of sports. They'd make Stu Scott blow Dan Patrick on Sportscenter if they thought it would get them Parcells either on MNF or Countdown.

Once again You are Correct

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2784578

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this