John Skipper

Because I... It's just an honorable poetic word, sort of meaning a big hunk. He's a Mohunk. I might have made it up even. Then it's not a word. No, no, you can make up a word. No. I thought it was a galoot. It was like in the galoot coaching. It is in the galoot family, I think. I think the galoots and the moth hunks were like the Hatfields and the McCoys.

I'm not sure it's any more complicated than if a team wins consistently, it means every other team is not winning. And I have to say I'm mad every year when my team does not win at the team that does win.

I'm not sure it's any more complicated than if a team wins consistently, it means every other team is not winning. And I have to say I'm mad every year when my team does not win at the team that does win.

I'm not sure it's any more complicated than if a team wins consistently, it means every other team is not winning. And I have to say I'm mad every year when my team does not win at the team that does win.

Does it bother me? It bothers me that these salaries are that high for a position that makes no financial difference in the game. I don't believe that 50... 3 million people would have watched instead of 57 million people if Tom Brady wasn't in the booth. I don't know if he was in the booth for that game. He was not.

Does it bother me? It bothers me that these salaries are that high for a position that makes no financial difference in the game. I don't believe that 50... 3 million people would have watched instead of 57 million people if Tom Brady wasn't in the booth. I don't know if he was in the booth for that game. He was not.

Does it bother me? It bothers me that these salaries are that high for a position that makes no financial difference in the game. I don't believe that 50... 3 million people would have watched instead of 57 million people if Tom Brady wasn't in the booth. I don't know if he was in the booth for that game. He was not.

So does it bother me? I do believe there's a conflict, and the conflict should probably be resolved. I don't know why he's allowed to continue to have that conflict. And he probably brings more value, though I doubt Mark Davis is going to pay him $37.5 million, though his stake in the team may be well worth more than that. He should make a decision about which one he wants to do.

So does it bother me? I do believe there's a conflict, and the conflict should probably be resolved. I don't know why he's allowed to continue to have that conflict. And he probably brings more value, though I doubt Mark Davis is going to pay him $37.5 million, though his stake in the team may be well worth more than that. He should make a decision about which one he wants to do.

So does it bother me? I do believe there's a conflict, and the conflict should probably be resolved. I don't know why he's allowed to continue to have that conflict. And he probably brings more value, though I doubt Mark Davis is going to pay him $37.5 million, though his stake in the team may be well worth more than that. He should make a decision about which one he wants to do.

Somebody should do the real test, and that is to have the Manning cast be the only cast. I mean, what do we think?

Somebody should do the real test, and that is to have the Manning cast be the only cast. I mean, what do we think?

Somebody should do the real test, and that is to have the Manning cast be the only cast. I mean, what do we think?

No, no, no. No, just take the announcers away and have it just be them. That's all you can do. The Manning cast is on linear. What would happen if on a Monday night football broadcast, your only choice was to cut on and watch the Mannings? Do we believe more or less people would tune in?

No, no, no. No, just take the announcers away and have it just be them. That's all you can do. The Manning cast is on linear. What would happen if on a Monday night football broadcast, your only choice was to cut on and watch the Mannings? Do we believe more or less people would tune in?

No, no, no. No, just take the announcers away and have it just be them. That's all you can do. The Manning cast is on linear. What would happen if on a Monday night football broadcast, your only choice was to cut on and watch the Mannings? Do we believe more or less people would tune in?

I don't think that's a big factor. I'd like to go back to and put everybody on the spot. I watched several Monday Night Football broadcasts this year, almost all of them with my son, Clay. And we chose the Manning cast every time. And we did not miss the old school, hey, so-and-so turns around, he hands the ball off, he goes for three yards, second seven. I don't miss it at all.

I don't think that's a big factor. I'd like to go back to and put everybody on the spot. I watched several Monday Night Football broadcasts this year, almost all of them with my son, Clay. And we chose the Manning cast every time. And we did not miss the old school, hey, so-and-so turns around, he hands the ball off, he goes for three yards, second seven. I don't miss it at all.

I don't think that's a big factor. I'd like to go back to and put everybody on the spot. I watched several Monday Night Football broadcasts this year, almost all of them with my son, Clay. And we chose the Manning cast every time. And we did not miss the old school, hey, so-and-so turns around, he hands the ball off, he goes for three yards, second seven. I don't miss it at all.

I would prefer that people would get more experimental and get more interesting. All they're doing is continuing to do radio on television. They're calling a game as though I can't see what's going on. The Manning cast is entertaining in itself. I don't find it. Have you watched the Manning cast for a full game? I've sampled it, but I've not watched it for a full game.