Gumbel was a big name but he never made his mark as a play-by-play guy. His first big job was the studio guy for NBC's pregame show long ago before going to Today. He had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by taking this job and he's obviously overmatched. I actually thought about feeling bad for him for a second, then I remembered he's a multi-millionaire.Norman Stansfield said:Every bad feeling I had about Bryant Gumbel as a play-by-play guy heading into the evening has already been confirmed 10 times over.
The guy is ****ing brutal.
amraeder said:hockeybeat said:Two very big losses for the Pack. Woodson could have shut down Crayton while Harris manned up against Owens. And Gbaja-Biamila might have been able to get after Romo.old_tony said:Just reported on NFL Network: Woodson and Gbaja-Biamila out as inactives tonight for the Packers.
Not having Woodson will hurt. Their backup sucks giant hairy monkey balls.
old_tony said:Gumbel was a big name but he never made his mark as a play-by-play guy. His first big job was the studio guy for NBC's pregame show long ago before going to Today. He had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by taking this job and he's obviously overmatched. I actually thought about feeling bad for him for a second, then I remembered he's a multi-millionaire.Norman Stansfield said:Every bad feeling I had about Bryant Gumbel as a play-by-play guy heading into the evening has already been confirmed 10 times over.
The guy is ****ing brutal.
2muchcoffeeman said:amraeder said:hockeybeat said:Two very big losses for the Pack. Woodson could have shut down Crayton while Harris manned up against Owens. And Gbaja-Biamila might have been able to get after Romo.old_tony said:Just reported on NFL Network: Woodson and Gbaja-Biamila out as inactives tonight for the Packers.
Not having Woodson will hurt. Their backup sucks giant hairy monkey balls.
I was at the bar watching until Dallas went up 27-10, and Woodson's presence wasn't going to be a make-or-break issue for the Packers unless Woodson was planning to go in and block on offensive plays. Woodson would have been useful against Owens, but he wasn't going to keep Favre off his ass.
BYH said:he's also an insufferable ***** who let his mom live in squalor in the slums of Chicago. C'mon, anyone else subscribe to SI in 1988?
Oz said:BYH said:he's also an insufferable ***** who let his mom live in squalor in the slums of Chicago. C'mon, anyone else subscribe to SI in 1988?
So did he write about it in SI? What's the story there?
Norman Stansfield said:2muchcoffeeman said:amraeder said:hockeybeat said:Two very big losses for the Pack. Woodson could have shut down Crayton while Harris manned up against Owens. And Gbaja-Biamila might have been able to get after Romo.old_tony said:Just reported on NFL Network: Woodson and Gbaja-Biamila out as inactives tonight for the Packers.
Not having Woodson will hurt. Their backup sucks giant hairy monkey balls.
I was at the bar watching until Dallas went up 27-10, and Woodson's presence wasn't going to be a make-or-break issue for the Packers unless Woodson was planning to go in and block on offensive plays. Woodson would have been useful against Owens, but he wasn't going to keep Favre off his ass.
Woodson's replacement has given up two TDs. I'd say that is a make-or-break issue.
Even if Woodson gives up just one, the complexion of this game is still much different.