The 2024 Awful Announcing NFL announcer rankings

15. Rich Eisen, Kurt Warner (NFL Network): 2.16

Most common grade: B (33.0 percent of votes)
Percentage of A/B/C grades: 71.7 percent

NFL Network’s top and most-frequent team did the best out of their pairings (not counting Kevin Harlan and Trent Green, the normal CBS team that called one NFLN game during their tripleheader Saturday), and improved significantly from the 1.89 (16 of 17 booths) they received last year. They called three games together this year, two from London in October and then Cardinals-Rams to cap off that tripleheader on Saturday, Dec. 28. They drew massive numbers of Bs (661) and Cs (498), and received 2,006 votes overall.

Many of the comments drawing a distinction between these two were more positive about Warner than Eisen. That included lines like “Like Warner, could do without Eisen (who feels like a hack 1950s comic),” “Eisen in the booth is horrendous. Kurt is excellent at breaking down plays and deserves much better,” “I like Warner, but can’t do Eisen as play-by-play,” and “Kurt is an A. Rich a C.” And there were others still who preferred Eisen in his other NFL Network roles, from pregame host to studio host, and had lines like “a great host, a good pxp he is not,” “should stick to the studio,” and “not a play-by-play guy at all.” (And there were a lot of further comments along those lines.)

While Warner did draw a lot of individual praise (“so good,” “terrific in-game analyst,” “excellent”), he took some flak as well. One person said he “breaks down plays as good as anyone in the game, although he’s got the personality of a wet rag,” while another said “Rich is an “A”… Kurt is historically bad at his job.” But there were a lot of people who liked this pairing overall, with lines like “always pleasantly surprised by this team,” “Both these guys have been doing commentary for so long and it shows; they are the best duo, in my opinion” and “I like their style and chemistry.” And keeping them together and giving them more reps does seem to be improving their grades year-over-year.

14. Kevin Burkhardt, Tom Brady (Fox): 2.17

Most common grade: B (30.7 percent of votes)
Percentage of A/B/C grades: 71.6 percent

Fox’s No. 1 booth has been by far the most-discussed NFL booth out there this season, but their eventual grade here is rather middle of the pack. It’s a big drop from the 3.26 Burkhardt got with Greg Olsen (fourth of 17 booths) last season, but it’s way above what we’ve seen for some other hotly debated booths over the years, such as the Joe Tessitore, Jason Witten, Booger McFarland Monday Night Football one in 2018 (which got a 1.08, still a record-low for any of our ratings).

And while Fox undoubtedly would prefer a higher ranking for their new “A” booth in the first year of Brady’s 10-year, $375 million contract and ahead of their broadcast of Super Bowl LIX in February, a middling grade (and third of six Fox teams) certainly isn’t bad considering all the sturm and drang about Brady, his inexperience, the NFL restrictions on him considering his ownership stake in the Las Vegas Raiders, and so forth. They also only got 290 Fs, significantly better than several other teams despite a higher overall number of grades (2,271).

In the comments, unsurprisingly, there was plenty of praise for Burkhardt relative to Brady. That included “Burkhardt is top. Brady is very solid but far from being a real No. 1,” “Brady isn’t good, Kevin is great,” “Burkhardt is phenomenal but Brady is clearly struggling and is overpaid,” and “Burkhardt is a fantastic PBP guy and is deserving of the A-team. Brady, however, is awful; he provides nothing other than stuttering and monotone screaming (that is somehow quiet) about nothing that Burkhardt didn’t already say. I don’t understand how anyone could listen to his lifeless podcast and think he’d be good at this; he displayed zero excitement when Michigan ended their losing streak to Ohio State or when they won the natty. There’s a reason Brady mostly did print ads during his playing days.”

There was also a lot of individual heat for Brady, from “looks like a guy that didn’t prep” to “tries too hard to add something…sounds more anxious than informative,” “has about as much charisma as a broomstick,” “looks and sounds like he should be in a silent movie,” and “I almost feel insulted by his commentary, like I’ve never seen a football game before.” And many took particular exception to his voice, and noted he needs work on other broadcast mechanics such as inflection. But Burkhardt took some criticism too, including “is a studio host” and “rather bland and forgettable,” and one respondent even said, “Brady > Burkhardt, and that’s saying something.”

Overall, though, while there was a lot of heavy criticism here, perhaps the most notable repeated theme was the number of people saying Brady has improved over the course of the season. Those included lines like “You can tell Brady is putting in the work as the season progresses,” “Brady got better but went from a F to C-,” “Brady has gotten better throughout,” and “getting better every game.” Not everyone agreed with that, and many wanted this booth blown up, but while this is a very low grade for an “A” booth, at least some think this is trending in the right direction. We’ll see if Brady does indeed stay in game broadcasting, though.

13. Chris Fowler, Louis Riddick, Dan Orlovsky (ESPN/ABC): 2.17

Most common grade: B (34.4 percent of votes)
Percentage of A/B/C grades: 73.9 percent

ESPN’s Monday Night Football “B” team has been getting more work recently with their increased number of games (four this year), and they saw a bit of a bump from their debut last year (where they got a 2.11). This is more in line with the 2.18 Steve Levy, Riddick, and Orlovsky got in 2022. The grade here was driven by them getting almost as many Cs (556) as Bs (684). They received 1,991 grades overall.

In the comments, each of these booth members took some praise and criticism, but Orlovsky got the harshest flak. That included “Orlovsky acts like he is the world’s greatest authority,” “Dan is a know-it-all. It gives condescension,” “Fowler A. Riddick B. Orlovsky F-,” and “[A] for Chris and Louis, not for Dan Orlovsky.”

However, while Fowler got a lot of praise overall, some of his critics (many who noted they preferred him on college games and/or tennis) had higher praise for Orlovsky than him. That included “Only a B because of Riddick and Orlovsky. They’re great. Fowler sucks.” And Riddick took some of his own fire, including “tries too hard,” “worst analyst in football,” and “team would be great without Riddick,” but drew some of the strongest praise, such as “a masterclass talent,” “exceptional,” and “so good at evaluating talent.”

The reactions to this booth overall were mixed. Some didn’t find it of a high enough level for national games, with notes like “ESPN and ABC don’t have the bench strength for MNF doubleheaders.” Others questioned the three-person booth approach and the particular chemistry here with lines like “They need more reps together. This in principle should work with an excellent PxP guy in Fowler and two brilliant football minds in Riddick and Orlovsky, but it just doesn’t because they keep stepping on each other throughout the broadcast,” “Combined, they feel a bit thrown together,” “Not enough games to bond,” and “One of those deals where everyone is really good, but better with other people, and still lack a little cohesion with one another.”

But there were some who liked the overall package, with one respondent even saying “Best crew out there” and another adding “This second team broadcast on a whole is done better than the first team Buck/Aikman one.”

12. Noah Eagle, Todd Blackledge (Peacock): 2.51

Most common grade: B (36.4 percent of votes)
Percentage of A/B/C grades: 79.1 percent

This is another team that only worked one game, Peacock’s Week 1 Eagles-Packers game from Brazil. But they had a season of working together on NBC’s college football package under their belts at that point (where they were graded fifth of 20 teams with a 2.89), plus last year’s Peacock-exclusive NFL playoff game, giving them some advantages over many special-event booths. And they’re well ahead of the No. 13 booth in average numerical grade.

The Eagle-Blackledge chemistry seems to have continued to grow on the college side since then, with them placing third of 25 teams with a 3.12 this year. But our responding group of NFL viewers didn’t enjoy them as much this year as our responding group of CFB viewers did. While their second-most common grade was an A (499 votes), they received 291 Fs, enough to keep them from rising further. They got 1,994 grades overall, ahead of many single-event teams and some lower-down season-long teams, but less than the numbers seen for more prominent booths.

The comments saw a lot of references to Noah’s dad Ian, but most (but not all) concluded the younger Eagle has done well in this role despite some being upset about how he got it. Indeed, where there were comments with different opinions of the two broadcasters, they were usually higher on Eagle than Blackledge, with praise like “the future,” “a rising star,” and “perhaps the breakout star of the year in a crowded field.” One commenter had “Noah cromulent, Blackledge sucks,” our second cromulent of these rankings, and the first one not about the Simpsons altcast.

Some did criticize Eagle for his family connections, but those numbers were smaller than those who liked him despite or regardless of that. There were also some who stood up for Blackledge alone as “a real pro” and “the most undervalued analyst in the business,” with even one suggestion he “carries Eagle.”

All in all, though, the dominant theme of these comments was praise for this duo. From “great chemistry” to “great pairing” to “excellent college booth, excellent NFL booth,” there were a lot of people expressing how much they liked this booth. Indeed, the comments were more positive in tone than the place in the rankings might suggest, again showing a divide between those who voted and commented and those who just voted. A lot of their Fs carried no accompanying comment.

11. Kevin Kugler, Daryl Johnston (Fox): 2.70

Most common grade: B (35.6 percent of votes)
Percentage of A/B/C grades: 90.6 percent

This team stands out for receiving the fifth-highest percentage of passing grades despite their overall 11th rank. Very few people strongly disliked them: they received just 38 Fs (second-lowest, and only two back of the leader) and 150 Ds. However, their 644 Cs versus 466 As is why they’re not higher. They received 2,006 grades. Last year, Kugler got a 2.52 with Mark Sanchez (eighth of 17 booths), while Johnston got a 2.74 with Joe Davis (seventh).

A repeated comment here was “underrated” and suggestions the duo deserved better games, with that comment especially heard for Kugler. Johnston saw more individual criticism, with several suggesting the veteran analyst has “lost a step” or is “getting further out of touch with the game.” However, there are a lot of people who really liked him, from “one of the best ex-players/analysts there is in football” to “my favorite color analyst.” Overall, this team got a lot of “really solid and professional” comments, and the comments seemed to align with the overall numerical grade.

10. Ian Eagle, Nate Burleson, JJ Watt (Netflix): 2.71 

Most common grade: B (36.9 percent of votes)
Percentage of A/B/C grades: 84.0 percent

The booth for Netflix’s first Christmas Day game (Chiefs-Steelers) was perhaps more unusual than their Noah Eagle/Greg Olsen pairing for the second game (Ravens-Texans). Yes, these three all work on CBS’ NFL coverage, but Burleson and Watt are usually in the studio on The NFL Today: Burleson does have some in-game color commentary experience on the Nickelodeon altcasts, though. At any rate, this unconventional three-person booth went over reasonably well with respondents, but not as well as the booth for the second Netflix game.

The second-most common grade for this booth was an A, with them getting 536 of those (to 708 Bs). It’s also notable that they got the ninth-most passing grades, above the other Netflix booth despite its placement ahead of them. They received 1,918 grades, which was ahead of the NFLN single-game booths, the MaddenCast, and the Simpsons altcast, but below the Peacock-exclusive booth and the other Netflix booth.

A lot of the comments had criticism for Burleson, from “talking over everyone” to “just talking to air,” “tries to be too cool,” “too much Nate,” “JJ is a gem. Nate is terrible,” and “dump Burleson and give JJ the color.” However, others praised Burleson over Watt, from “Eagle and Nate work well, JJ needs more reps” to “Watt isn’t bad, but he took an A away from Eagle and Burleson,” and “Take away Watt and the mentions of his brother, this was an A group” (on a B grade). Many didn’t like the three-person booth here overall, and some noted a “very apparent” lack of chemistry.

There was also a lot of praise here, though, especially for Eagle. He drew lines like “could call an amazing game with a soccer analyst working American football,” “did his best to carry Burleson and Watt,” and “as good as ever.” Quite a few people liked the group overall, from “very solid for a one-shot deal” to “Eagle great with anyone, as shown here…Watt and Burleson chipped in with valuable contributions throughout a blowout game on the world stage. Netflix all of a sudden gets credibility in live sports.” (Speaking of that blowout game, with the Chiefs winning 29-10, many noted that as a challenge, but most who discussed it thought the booth handled it pretty well.)

It’s also worth mentioning that there were a couple of comments citing just this being on Netflix as a reason for a low grade rather than anything about the announcers.

9. Peyton Manning, Eli Manning (ESPN2/ESPN+): 2.71

Most common grade: B (32.4 percent of votes)
Percentage of A/B/C grades: 82.8 percent

This is the first time we’ve asked readers for ManningCast grades, and the Mannings’ ESPN/Omaha Productions/NFL Films altcast (which will finish up its fourth season with a broadcast for Monday’s Vikings-Rams Wild Card game) placed in the top 10 of all booths. (They beat out the Eagle/Burleson/Watt Netflix broadcast with a 2.713 versus a 2.710.) They received almost as many A grades (619) as Bs (629), and 1,943 grades overall, the highest for any of the altcasts we considered.

The ManningCast formula remains a big hit for many viewers. Some of the notable comments on them included “A+++,” “Great insight and humor,” These guys are so entertaining,” “My preferred way to watch Monday Night Football,” “Love this show,” “Never miss them when they’re on,” and “A great alternative.” But some people don’t like the concept or the Mannings at all; the F grades here (146) were the highest number for any top-ten booth, and there were plenty of comments along those lines, from “Literally do not need more Eli and Peyton screen time” to “Make the national nightmare stop.”

Some particularly interesting comments here were ones on the year-over-year changes to the ManningCast. The big one this year was the addition of Bill Belichick as an early-game guest on each broadcast. That sparked some praise, including “Better first half with Belichick,” “Together (and with Belichick) they’re a treat,” “Loved the two of them with Belichick,” and “Belichick was a great addition.” But some disliked his recurring appearances, including “Less Belichick would have made it better, but having that energy vampire for the first half killed it,” “The ManningCast was better before Belichick,” and “Belichick’s weekly appearance made me turn the channel.”

Belichick is expected to continue on the altcast through at least the rest of this season despite taking the North Carolina job. And he could potentially keep doing it next season given the support Tar Heels’ AD Bubba Cunningham expressed for his media appearances. If he does want to stick with that, and if the Mannings want him back each broadcast, that will have its supporters and detractors.

Another area of comments worth discussing is on the guests. Some respondents liked specific guests but not others (“The guest makes or breaks it,” “Can be great, often depends on the guest”), especially football-focused guests (“they need to only bring on guests who are actually fans of the teams playing and not celebrities on their PR tours,” “It’s more like an A for when Peyton and Eli have actual football conversations/analysis and a F- when they have to interview some random celebrity like it’s a late night promotional tour” (on a C grade), and “I want to hear the Mannings talk football, not be set-up men for comedians and celebrities.”) And there were quite a few respondents who wanted the show to have fewer guests overall. But some praised the broadcast’s evolution over time there, with lines like “Better job getting away from inane interviews this year.”

The last point worth discussing with the ManningCast comments is the staying power. There were several comments from those who had watched it in early seasons, but are over it now, with lines like “the shine has worn off.” Some noted that they enjoy this altcast if their team isn’t playing, while others said they don’t watch the whole broadcast but consume its highlights on social media. Others noted that this is a less compelling alternative following ESPN’s 2023 move to bring in Joe Buck and Troy Aikman (the top booth in our rankings last year, and a team that will appear high on this year’s list as well) as their main MNF booth. But there are still a lot of people who have this as “My preferred way to watch Monday Night Football,” and a top-10 numerical grade reinforces that (and is worth consideration around debates on the ongoing value of altcasts).

8. Al Michaels, Kirk Herbstreit (Prime Video): 2.77

Most common grade: B (35.8 percent of votes)
Percentage of A/B/C grades: 86.1 percent

This was a massive numerical grade year-over-year improvement for this team in their third season together on Thursday Night Football. They pulled in a 2.50 in their 2022 debut but slumped to 2.29 last year. However, while they’re ahead of more teams due to us considering more booths, there are still a similar number of crews ahead of them; they were eighth of 17 teams in both 2022 and 2023.

In the comments, most of those who differentiated between this team had more praise for Michaels than Herbstreit. That came with lines like “Al is a B, Kirk is a D” (on a C grade), “Al Michaels is the far better half of this duo. Prime Video can find someone much better than Herbie,” and “Al is the man; Herbstreit is good, but just stretched way too thin and is not as knowledgeable as others in NFL booths.” (And an interesting part of this: Michaels’ disdain for bad games sometimes gets criticized, but multiple respondents appreciated the honesty and snark, with lines like “Letting Al say whatever he wants makes these games a blast.”)

There were many who argued that Herbstreit should stick to college football and some who noted that much of his NFL analysis appears based on what players have done in college. However, there were some “lost his fastball” and “time to go” comments on Michaels as well. And there were some people who had Herbstreit as “great juggling two different sports” or “a top-level color analyst.”

Overall, there were a lot of people noting improvement with this team this year, matching the numerical grades. Some of that was ascribed to better games that kept Michaels interested, while some of it was put down to their increased reps together (but many still cited “No chemistry” or something similar). And it is definitely interesting to see their year-over-year rise, one of the biggest numerical jumps in these rankings.

7. Noah Eagle, Greg Olsen (Netflix): 2.92

Most common grade: A (47.7 percent of votes)
Percentage of A/B/C grades: 82.0 percent

We have our first result with A as the most common grade. It’s interesting to see this one come in significantly (0.21 in grades, three spots in rankings) ahead of Netflix’s other Christmas booth with Noah’s father Ian. Some of that may be about the disdain for three-person booths, while some may be about the enjoyment of these particular voices (Olsen also appears higher up this list in his main role for Fox).

But it’s not about this team getting a better game, as theirs was even a larger blowout (a 31-2 Ravens win over the Texans). And they received 1,996 grades, the most for any single-game booth. (They received 201 Fs, high for this position, but as with the other Netflix booth, some gave Fs and noted the reason why as a complaint about the game being on that service rather than anything about the announcers.)

Some respondents preferred one or the other of these voices and offered criticisms of the other, such as “Eagle is good, but has a tendency to push a narrative and not the gameplay. Olsen is fantastic” and “Noah raised Olsen’s game.” But the majority of the comments here were highly positive towards the booth’s chemistry (notable with this being the only game they worked and the only time they’d worked together) and their ability to keep the broadcast interesting during a blowout.

There were also a lot of people lobbying for this to be a permanent team going forward, with everything from future Netflix broadcasts to Thursday Night Football and Sunday Night Football mentioned. There were several comments along the lines of “This was the top duo for the entire season” and “I could listen to this booth for the next 25 years. Someone needs to make it happen.” 

6. Jim Nantz, Tony Romo (CBS): 2.98

Most common grade: B (38.3 percent of votes)
Percentage of A/B/C grades: 90.0 percent

We’re back down to a B as the most common grade, but this booth beat out Eagle/Olsen due to a higher percentage of passing grades. And this team holds their No. 6 ranking from last year but posts a notable numerical jump from their 2.82 in 2023. (This is, however, well down from their results from 2018-20, when they placed first in each of those rankings.) Their second-most common grade was an A, with 811 A results, and they only got 75 Fs. They received 2,229 grades.

A lot of the comments that differentiated between these voices saw more praise for Nantz (“rock solid,” “carries,” “great, Romo not so much,” “would have graded it higher if Nantz only”) than Romo, but many of those also noted year-over-year improvement from Romo (“much better this year, feel like messages are sinking in” “arrested his decline,” “bounce-back year”). One notable line there was “I want to hate Romo, but he’s really good.” And there were several who thought the booth overall was improved and had “recovered after tough seasons.” (Indeed, there’s been a lot less negative media discussion of Romo this year than we saw in 2022 and 2023, but some of that may be about an easy new top booth target in Tom Brady.)

There were some criticisms for this booth still, including “Way too biased toward placating the egos of the top talent and top coaches of the NFL” and “Nantz has always been overbearing and now he needs to compete with Romo, making this an obnoxious booth.” Several people argued that Ian Eagle and Charles Davis should have the top CBS booth over them (but one respondent, who also gave As to Eagle and Davis and Kevin Harlan and Trent Green, noted “CBS is blessed to have three A-rated crews”). But the chemistry here drew praise (“great synergy,” “very good chemistry,”), and there are several who had comments along the lines of “best duo in football.”

Read on for the top five booths!