Who is the Worst ESPN Analyst?

[Alk]

I don't think he means "die" in a true sense but rather "die" in a stupid, opinionated football analyst kind of way. It's a metaphor.

I thought our offensive linemen were metaphors.

 

[hallfamebrady]

Where is Chris Mortensen

 

[Keegs]

i forgot Mortenson and Eric Allen.

But i read a name earlier in there that should win it even though he is more of an announcer and not on ESPN. Paul McGuire. All this guy does is rant and rave about Manning and Favre and its very annoying. He is terrible.

 

[Keegs]

i forgot Mike Golic too but he's one of the better in my opinion. Also, i didn't feel like Berman deserves to even be put on the list.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

I voted for Irvin.

If the forum software enabled me to. I'd vote for him again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again...

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I agree it's Irvin. What does this guy bring to the table, except the ability to sort all the lines off the ESPN mini field and the dandruff from what's left of grossly overweight Chris Berman's hair.

How does EPSN afford him. After all they have to change the microphones at every break, pay for new clothes for the co-hosts, and disinfect the entire sound stage after every show because he's sloberred them up with his heavy tongue and flapping gums.

Can you imagine Irvin and Madden in the same booth analyzing a game together? That's just so nasty.

 

[Kdo5]

I have to say Jaws is weird, but he is the best analyst on ESPN for the NFL period. Irvin is by far the worst followed by Merril Hodge.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I so want to vote for Irvin because he is clearly the least intelligent (probably because of all the drugs over the years)

... but I expect Irvin to stay stupid crap, so I tend to write off what he says as Irvin just being himself. He dresses funny, touches people too much, and I think he fills the role of "interesting" character... not always in a good way though.

So I have to give the award to Hodge, followed closely by Salsburry. Those two jackA$$ES think they are smart but say the most annoying, ridiculous, and totally wrong BS. They infuriate me.

I'd rather watch Terry Glanville... and that is saying something!!!

 

[Keegs]

I still can't beleive Jaws didn't get a vote. He talks way too much and tries to use "tenacious" voices for certain words. Watch him closely next time he talks it's funny. Usually when he says "tough" or something along those lines. His face will change and his voice will drop and it will sound stupid, guaranteed.

I chose Merril Hodge because i have never heard him say one thing that i agreed on or that was correct. Also his last quote during the draft put him over the top against Salisbury for me

"Offense doesn't win championships, defense doesn't win championships, teams win championships".....

He said this when it had absolutely nothing to do with what the other analysts were talking about. He just threw it out there out of nowhere and you could tell he thought it up and had been saving it for the right time (in his eyes).

 

[marty]

As an analysis it's Irving hands down. But as I suspect his only true function is to make all the others look and sound good...he does a pretty good job of it!!! He even puts a little shine to Hodge!

 

[milwaukeebeers44]

Michael Irvin is a moron. . .Merril Hoge is just a meathead.

ESPN sure does employ a bunch of pompous morons. . .Erik Kuselias anyone??

 

[Keegs]

this hasn't been up in a while

vote if you haven't yet.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

Hard to choose...

Irvin is nothing but a one man laugh track.

Schlareth and Hodge bring little to the table in terms of football knowledge though I think both must have some in their collective heads.

Ditka's outright hatred of Bill Belichick, while unexplained, is an annoyance. The rants he went on after the SD game were embarrassing. More and more he has let his personal feelings for particular players, coaches, executives, and teams cloud his analysis. This is why I voted for him over the rest.

Salisbury is treated like he is a multiple time super bowl champion and league MVP. He put up very pedestrian numbers in his career as mostly a back up.

Clayton, as others have said, should stick to reporting the news. He isn't bad at that. However in analyzing the game, he is below average.

Tom Jackson is boomer's sidekick and that is about it at this point. He was very knowledgeable at one time. He provided information about particular plays that an average fan may not pick up on (I'm talking mid 90's TJ here). However since they expanded their shows and brought in more former players, he has tried to be more entertaining and be more judgemental about things (see the Randy Moss comment a few weeks back). I think I'd rather him go back to analyzing, it would have saved him a lot of embarrassment after SB38.

Jaws I think does a great job breaking down the game and is one of the few who can back up his arguments with video evidence. How many other guys on ESPN can do this? Hodge, Schlareth, and maybe even Salisbury should be able to do it but they don't.

Lastly, someone mentioned Chavous. He has been on both ESPN and NFL-N has a draft analyst. I think he does his homework, not something we can say for everyone on tv, and he would take the high road when the time came for his team to pick, saying all the right things.

 

[BAM!]

I think all of the above with the exception of Jaws. I choose Ditka though because I think he provides absolutely nothing. At least some of these guys provide some laughs for me but Ditka is just ridiculous with his statements. He may know a thing or two on coaching football but he knows nothing about analyzing it without any bias.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Espn is what Mtv has become, loud and obnoxious... It used to be about Sports, but its more loud statements, and who can hear themselves talk..

If I had to vote again, since Irvin is out.. It would be Sailsberry, but Emmit Smith has been added, Im sure he is bound to say something dumb.. Oh wait he did with Mike Vick..

 

[rabthepat]

Irvin takes the cake. He is always shouting and interrupting the others. He also can't keep his hands to himself.

 

[amazinPats]

Irvin is entertaining but talks as if he's got a mouth full of marbles.

This poll is negatively oriented. The subject should be about favorite ESPN analysts, not worst!

 

[belichickaholic]

I voted Ditka, the guy contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth. I think he's half senile.

 

[captain stone]

I didn't vote for Irvin, because he no longer works at the 4-letter network.

I know these two are not analysts, but I want to give a dishonorable mention to Mike Greenberg ant Stuart Scott. As soon as I hear the first syllable from the pieholes of either of them, I make a mad dash for the mute button.

And what's with these new, Title IX-grabbing, Equal Opportunity women on the sportcenters lately? They are teleprompter-reading pretty-faces who know nothing about Real Sports, i.e.: Football, Hockey, Boxing and Horse Racing. They may know a little something about baseball and basketball, because those sports are populated by espn's favorite people: overpaid, narcissistic egomaniacs on the fringes of decency.

 

[SVN]

i find clayton the most useless of the lot