Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

All things Sports Talk Radio - DMV (met)


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Here's a hint: It wasn't the "bad skin tone" comment that did him in. It was the ignorant, bigoted stereotypes he listed off that did it. It was that ignorance that put the "bad skin tone" comment in bad context.

 

In context, the "bad skin tone" comment refers to stupid people who dislike people because of the color of their skin. That's the context. I didn't agree with his opinion about people kneeling and don't agree with him about social justice warriors shouting everyone down and not allowing an opposing opinion. But there's no racism in this segment. I think there's gotta be more. You can't just fire someone who holds a different political opinion than you.

 

Really, the only complaints I even seen in this thread of people who generally don't like Dukes is that he was mean to them in some fashion or that he wasn't their taste or that they didn't like him as a broadcaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Grumpy Vet said:

 

I so wish I could find the Cameo that the Junks Producers did that showed the two stages to EB - beginning and then "middle" phase of Covid.  It was so spot on and true.  Brilliant Cameo.  Really funny.  Never listed to Chad.  Just wasn't my cup of tea.

 

Cameo Video

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

In context, the "bad skin tone" comment refers to stupid people who dislike people because of the color of their skin. That's the context. I didn't agree with his opinion about people kneeling and don't agree with him about social justice warriors shouting everyone down and not allowing an opposing opinion. But there's no racism in this segment. I think there's gotta be more. You can't just fire someone who holds a different political opinion than you.

 

Really, the only complaints I even seen in this thread of people who generally don't like Dukes is that he was mean to them in some fashion or that he wasn't their taste or that they didn't like him as a broadcaster.

We don't know if that is why he is fired.  It literally came about from some twitter poster saying that was probably the reason.

 

I personally enjoyed his show a lot even though.  Yeah he is a douchebag sometimes but he's still entertaining and he has some great guests on.  His douchebag attitude was all part of his schtick.  He clearly played into it as CDVTW went on longer.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I think that everyone's opinion of the virus has changed since the very beginning. Otherwise, we'd still be holed up in our homes only leaving once every two weeks for food.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, purbeast said:

We don't know if that is why he is fired.  It literally came about from some twitter poster saying that was probably the reason.

 

I personally enjoyed his show a lot even though.  Yeah he is a douchebag sometimes but he's still entertaining and he has some great guests on.  His douchebag attitude was all part of his schtick.  He clearly played into it as CDVTW went on longer.  

 

Yeah, that's why I think there's gotta be more to it. I've listened to pretty much every Big O and Dukes podcast and Reloaded episode since they came back to podcasting after WJFK switched formats to sports. What I heard just wasn't racist.

Edited by Springfield
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

In context, the "bad skin tone" comment refers to stupid people who dislike people because of the color of their skin. That's the context. I didn't agree with his opinion about people kneeling and don't agree with him about social justice warriors shouting everyone down and not allowing an opposing opinion. But there's no racism in this segment. I think there's gotta be more. You can't just fire someone who holds a different political opinion than you.


Yea, I don’t see how this was a fireable comment. But we also don’t know about this history with his employer. Could have been put on notice for other things. 
 

Either way, this certainly won’t help his embittered nature. It’s no surprise that he latches on to broken people, attacks and supports them, then violently turns on them when they pull away. Dude should spend some of his new free time with a therapist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheDoyler23 said:


Yea, I don’t see how this was a fireable comment. But we also don’t know about this history with his employer. Could have been put on notice for other things. 
 

Either way, this certainly won’t help his embittered nature. It’s no surprise that he latches on to broken people, attacks and supports them, then violently turns on them when they pull away. Dude should spend some of his new free time with a therapist. 

 

I mean I feel bad for the guy. I think his persona was largely schtick. Maybe he read his own press a little and started to buy in. He had a Veterans Day event coming up to support stop soldier suicide, he had an active relationship with the radio station where he had a painting commissioned for one of the Junkies. He was a hallmark of that place.

 

Perhaps it's just my own bias. He grew up and went to school just a couple miles from where I did. He often references places that I frequent and stuff that I grew up with. He knows late 90's and early 00's hip hop and throws that into his schtick randomly. He likes hip cool things like records, craft sodas, trendy **** that I like. I relate to him, other than my politics.

 

I hate to see him go down over some BS. Maybe we'll get a better explanation. Probably not though, because the company that he worked for was an absolute joke. You wanna talk about the demise of radio, thank companies like Entercom. It's their fault that I haven't purposefully listened to the radio in my own car in years, probably over a decade at least. So now that I think about it, it's no surprise that a bull**** company comes up with a bull**** reason to fire a controversial (and I use controversial in the weakest of manners) radio host.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

In context, the "bad skin tone" comment refers to stupid people who dislike people because of the color of their skin. That's the context. I didn't agree with his opinion about people kneeling and don't agree with him about social justice warriors shouting everyone down and not allowing an opposing opinion. But there's no racism in this segment. I think there's gotta be more. You can't just fire someone who holds a different political opinion than you.

 

Really, the only complaints I even seen in this thread of people who generally don't like Dukes is that he was mean to them in some fashion or that he wasn't their taste or that they didn't like him as a broadcaster.

 

Seems you need it spelled out for you.

 

Dukes basically said "The reason so many blacks end up shot or killed by the police is because so many more blacks do illegal things than whites and the police are needed for them more than for whites. They don't have fathers, they don't take personal responsibility, they just blame whites for all their problems due to thinking they have a bad skin tone. But you can't say any of that, you can only say 'Down with whitey! Black lives matter!' "

 

That will never, EVER, be an acceptable stance any employer would want representing their company, directly or indirectly. To focus on the "bad skin tone" part as if that's the only issue in what he was saying is...naive, to be generous...or extremely ignorant to the effect of negative racial stereotypes on society, to be more blunt. That last part, trust me, I know just a ****-ton about...my brother was a psych professor at Fordham University, has been published numerous times, has done studies on the damaging effects of racial stereotypes on society and how it strengthens the hold of institutionalized racism...his findings were used to overhaul the governmental mental healthcare system in Canada about 20 years ago. He and I have had more lengthy, heated, detailed discussions on this matter over the decades than I could possibly remember.

 

There was a newscaster in Pennsylvania (I think) years ago who said something extremely similar to what Dukes said after a murder took place...that we "all knew" the person(s) who commited the crime were likely black males in their late teens/early 20s, didn't have fathers, had numerous children with numerous women, no responsibility, etc, etc. She said it on her facebook page I believe...she got fired almost immediately. People supported her, claiming that what she said wasn't racist, it was based on facts and crime stats, etc, etc...we all know the drill. Later,two suspects were arrested--both black men. Her supporters said "See? She was right! She wasn't being racist!"...only to find out that one of the guys had all charges dropped a week or so later, and the other guy had his case dismissed due to evidence of his innocence that was never considered or investigated before bringing charges against him. To this day they still do not know who committed the murder. The reporter who was fired? She became a talk show host and a few years later was on the hot seat again for other racist comments she made on her radio program. Turns out that after being fired as a reporter she went full-on right-wing commentator on the radio...she may have been fired from that position as well.

 

People who are not racist don't make the type of comments Dukes made or that the reporter I mentioned made. The overly-simplistic narratives of "no fathers/no personal responsibility/baby mamas galore/look at the crime stats" is used to justify the assumption that blacks (specifically black men) "must" have done something wrong to deserve being beaten/kicked/shot by the police. it's used to try and de-legitimize the BLM movement and what it's about. And the "we can't talk about anything other than how racist police are" rhetoric is so ****ing disingenuous and devoid of logic that it causes migraine-inducing eyerolls whenever I read it.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dukes was never mean to me nor did I ever engage with him to block me on social media.  I just always thought he was a dork that tries to act like a hard ass and against the grain but is really soft as baby poo.  Him getting his own show after Lavar left was one of the more mind boggling things to happen in DC sports radio.  I honesty don’t know anyone who likes him or finds him entertaining.

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Seems you need it spelled out for you.

 

Dukes basically said "The reason so many blacks end up shot or killed by the police is because so many more blacks do illegal things than whites and the police are needed for them more than for whites. They don't have fathers, they don't take personal responsibility, they just blame whites for all their problems due to thinking they have a bad skin tone. But you can't say any of that, you can only say 'Down with whitey! Black lives matter!' "

 

That will never, EVER, be an acceptable stance any employer would want representing their company, directly or indirectly. To focus on the "bad skin tone" part as if that's the only issue in what he was saying is...naive, to be generous...or extremely ignorant to the effect of negative racial stereotypes on society, to be more blunt. That last part, trust me, I know just a ****-ton about...my brother was a psych professor at Fordham University, has been published numerous times, has done studies on the damaging effects of racial stereotypes on society and how it strengthens the hold of institutionalized racism...his findings were used to overhaul the governmental mental healthcare system in Canada about 20 years ago. He and I have had more lengthy, heated, detailed discussions on this matter over the decades than I could possibly remember.

 

There was a newscaster in Pennsylvania (I think) years ago who said something extremely similar to what Dukes said after a murder took place...that we "all knew" the person(s) who commited the crime were likely black males in their late teens/early 20s, didn't have fathers, had numerous children with numerous women, no responsibility, etc, etc. She said it on her facebook page I believe...she got fired almost immediately. People supported her, claiming that what she said wasn't racist, it was based on facts and crime stats, etc, etc...we all know the drill. Later,two suspects were arrested--both black men. Her supporters said "See? She was right! She wasn't being racist!"...only to find out that one of the guys had all charges dropped a week or so later, and the other guy had his case dismissed due to evidence of his innocence that was never considered or investigated before bringing charges against him. To this day they still do not know who committed the murder. The reporter who was fired? She became a talk show host and a few years later was on the hot seat again for other racist comments she made on her radio program. Turns out that after being fired as a reporter she went full-on right-wing commentator on the radio...she may have been fired from that position as well.

 

People who are not racist don't make the type of comments Dukes made or that the reporter I mentioned made. The overly-simplistic narratives of "no fathers/no personal responsibility/baby mamas galore/look at the crime stats" is used to justify the assumption that blacks (specifically black men) "must" have done something wrong to deserve being beaten/kicked/shot by the police. it's used to try and de-legitimize the BLM movement and what it's about. And the "we can't talk about anything other than how racist police are" rhetoric is so ****ing disingenuous and devoid of logic that it causes migraine-inducing eyerolls whenever I read it.

 

I mean, that's not really what I got from his comments in that segment. What I did get, is that if you try to have a conversation about the nuance of race relations then you will get shouted down by people who try to disagree with you and may even call you a racist because you were trying to present the other side of the coin. Something that you're doing with Dukes in this very thread. Like, he literally called his shot.

 

Look, there are plenty of people who agree with Black Lives Matter but don't want the NFL to be focused on players kneeling or don't go to protests or don't assign every bit of their social media to addressing these things or will still stand up and put their hands over their heart during sports games (if we ever have them again). Just like there are plenty of people who hate Trump who don't want to go on and on about it in their daily lives or on social media.

 

Literally no one was asking Dukes to get fired for racism. There was no public outcry. He was simply fired for it and there was no explanation from his employer. Just a bunch of yes men saying "Wow they fired him for racism so he must have been a racist" and people going back to try and assign racism where there wasn't any in the first place.

 

Democrats are going to lose people if they keep pulling **** like this.

  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

I mean, that's not really what I got from his comments in that segment. What I did get, is that if you try to have a conversation about the nuance of race relations then you will get shouted down by people who try to disagree with you and may even call you a racist because you were trying to present the other side of the coin. Something that you're doing with Dukes in this very thread. Like, he literally called his shot.

 

Look, there are plenty of people who agree with Black Lives Matter but don't want the NFL to be focused on players kneeling or don't go to protests or don't assign every bit of their social media to addressing these things or will still stand up and put their hands over their heart during sports games (if we ever have them again). Just like there are plenty of people who hate Trump who don't want to go on and on about it in their daily lives or on social media.

 

Literally no one was asking Dukes to get fired for racism. There was no public outcry. He was simply fired for it and there was no explanation from his employer. Just a bunch of yes men saying "Wow they fired him for racism so he must have been a racist" and people going back to try and assign racism where there wasn't any in the first place.

 

Democrats are going to lose people if they keep pulling **** like this.

 

His comments:

 

"There are real, legitimate concerns that people have that have nothing to do with the fact that they're against people with bad skin tone."

 

Translation: people (ie: whites) have issues with the black community that are not due to being racist towards blacks, but rather are based on "facts."

 

"There's personal accountability issues, there's family structure issues..."

 

Translation: too many blacks don't take personal responsibility for their actions, many blacks come from fatherless homes.

 

"There's the fact that communities with more violence and crime need to be policed more so they have higher interactions with police officers"

 

Translation: Blacks commit more crime and violence, so that's why they get beaten, shot, and killed so much. If they wouldn't commit so many crimes there wouldn't be a problem. Look at the crime stats, people!

 

"None of that can be spoken about. it's 'this person killed this person and now we burn down the city'."

 

Translation: People keep saying comments with racist stereotypes are racist and won't be tolerated in a discussion about systemic racism, but they have no problem tolerating rioters and looters--and make no mistake, that's what "protesters" are.

 

"There's a lot of people that are smart enough to know that there's a more nuanced conversation, but they're not allowed to talk about it."

 

Translation: The smart people in all of this are the ones who feel the way I do, and we smart people are being excluded from the conversation simply due to not being politically correct.

 

"So what you're talking about is, you're like, 'This is great. We're having a conversation.' No we're not. We're continuing to allow one group to speak and silencing the other one and castigating them."

 

Translation: There are two sides to the anti-racism discussion...no, really, there is...and the side that says "institutionalized racism among the police does not really exist, it's just that blacks are more prone to committing violent crimes" isn't being given the same props or air time as the side that's saying "institutionalized racism is indeed a problem and has been a problem for decades, only nobody would listen to us." It's not fair that they're now getting their turn to speak and I can't interrupt.

 

**************

 

For the record, nobody needs to demand Dukes (or anyone) to be fired for racism, there didn't need to be a public outcry...that's the beauty of the private sector. Private business owners can make that decision based on their own judgement of what they want for their business. As long as it doesn't break any civil rights laws.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

His comments:

 

"There are real, legitimate concerns that people have that have nothing to do with the fact that they're against people with bad skin tone."

———


Hey @Califan007 - thank you for your perspective on this. I remembered rolling my eyes during that - and just tuning out his tantrum of people being “silenced” or whatever and didn’t give it a second thought. Probably why I wasn’t initially that moved by the “wrong skin tone” reference. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Califan007

 

I think that we are too far apart on this one. It’s Entercom’s prerogative to do what they decided. While I don’t really agree with a lot of what he said, I find none of it to be racist. I really wish that they provide the reasoning.

 

What I can say I don’t like, is the microanalysis of someone’s stream of consciousness. You can do that with anyone and make something that’s rather innate seem like a big deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is my first time seeing those comments. And those are damaging, racist comments. 

 

But that's the problem with a lot of these growing white movements and the ignorance surrounding its pervasiveness. 

 

"It's not racist because no one said the N-word."

 

There is no "Discussion"  to be had, talking like this. That was pretty messed up.

Edited by Mr. Sinister
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

 

And of course, the amount of vitriol in this thread kinda matches what he was talking about in that very segment.

 

Dude lost his career and all you all can do is pile on and get mad at him cause he blocked you on social media.

 

Also sports talk radio ****ing blows and people who obsess about it are losers.

 

I don't agree with your opinion of what he said but I will acknowledge that I feel like I've heard worse on the actual station at times so am a bit perplexed that this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I suspect you're correct in that there was more going on behind the scenes that wasn't public knowledge.

 

With that said, I understand you are apparently a fan of his and are more upset about this than most here. However, I'm not sure how it is "piling on" to point out that he was extremely hostile with a large portion of his audience and I know many people have also found him to be a dick in real life outside of his on air persona. I'd imagine he will be able to continue his podcast career along with whatever else and that you will be able to continue listening to him there. I'm also not sure who is "obsessed" with sports radio in this thread. I would have listened to him regardless of topics but I usually found him too abrasive with no actual sports knowledge despite having a show on a sports station during some of the most coveted hours of the day in a major market.

 

I eagerly await his response to what happened.

 

EDIT: I also just remembered I had heard a quote from one of his podcasts in the last few months where he was joking about Fran's wife giving birth to a baby that was mixed race and used a term that rhymes with "gelato" to describe it. I'm pretty sure that word is considered a slur but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited by Heisenberg
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Heisenberg said:

 

I don't agree with your opinion of what he said but I will acknowledge that I feel like I've heard worse on the actual station at times so am a bit perplexed that this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I suspect you're correct in that there was more going on behind the scenes that wasn't public knowledge.

 

With that said, I understand you are apparently a fan of his and are more upset about this than most here. However, I'm not sure how it is "piling on" to point out that he was extremely hostile with a large portion of his audience and I know many people have also found him to be a dick in real life outside of his on air persona. I'd imagine he will be able to continue his podcast career along with whatever else and that you will be able to continue listening to him there. I'm also not sure who is "obsessed" with sports radio in this thread. I would have listened to him regardless of topics but I usually found him too abrasive with no actual sports knowledge despite having a show on a sports station during some of the most coveted hours of the day in a major market.

 

I eagerly await his response to what happened.

 

EDIT: I also just remembered I had heard a quote from one of his podcasts in the last few months where he was joking about Fran's wife giving birth to a baby that was mixed race and used a term that rhymes with "gelato" to describe it. I'm pretty sure that word is considered a slur but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Yeah, I do think that I'm more upset than most here and it certainly does have to do with the fact that the Podcast that he, Oscar Santana and Drab T Shirt built (based on a radio show that aired on 106.7)  was my favorite listen each week. I get that I'm coming across as probably irrational to many posters here. I never really tried to be friends with Chad on any social media and was happy to just listen to all of the hijinks. I did meet him once, strangely at a Mike O'Meara Show live event, took a quick pic and was done with it. I was highly intoxicated when it happened so I have no idea if he was a dick or not, nor did I care.

 

I hope that the podcast will continue, but as of now, it's completely dark. You can't listen to any old episodes and the feed of Reloaded episodes (paid content) is gone as well. Everything that he's associated with is scrubbed.

 

Big O and Dukes have a pretty long history of racial humor and stuff that was considered off-limits, as did the Don and Mike Show, Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony, Ron and Fez and all of the other "Guy Talk" shows. When they were on the air, broadcasting for 106.7 BOAD used to commonly joke that "Drab is gay" or that their weekly guest movie reviewer Mike Bracken's x-wife was "Mike Tyson/50 Cent/Samuel L Jackson/any other prominent black person)" (Mike Bracken had been married to a black woman at some point). In podcast form, there was a running joke about Drab's wife being infatuated with black men. Apparently there were photos from their honeymoon in Jamaica that sparked this. None of it was ever serious and surely just schtick for the air, but obviously like any running bit it kept going. That's where you get the bit about Drab's wife giving birth to a mixed race baby. I didn't get the impression that it was hate filled and to me enters some sort of gray area where someone can interpret it as racist and others won't.

 

 

Anyhow. I'm just rambling. I don't like the sentiment that he should just move to Alaska where nobody's ever heard of him. The guy built a career pretty much out of nothing. Him and Oscar Santana formed a show with a strong niche following out of nothing and got an afternoon show on the once prestigious 106.7. If it weren't for them then Drab wouldn't have been able to move into the position that he's in now. Chad loves radio and broadcasting, which is kind of a testament to why he was able to run an afternoon drive show all by himself on a subject that he largely doesn't even care about. Hate him or not, dude has talent.

 

That's all I think.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care how long BMitch played, or who he played for, sometimes he really is a moron.  He's so blinded by his support for Haskins, he doesn't think through the stuff he says.  So I happen to catch him today trying to mount another Haskins defense with the dumbest arguments. 

 

First, the topic of Rivera not being married to Haskins because he didn't pick him came up.  So BMitch goes on a rant about coaching up a guy, yada, yada.  But to support his argument, he makes the case that because Joe Judge hasn't decided to cut bait with Daniel Jones, Rivera should follow his example.  Completely ignoring the possibility that maybe Judge should follow Rivera's example.  Or that Judge is misevaluating his player.  But beyond all that, who cares what Joe Judge does?  They're1-7 and there's no evidence he really even knows what he's doing.

 

Second, he made the argument that Tua didn't look good on Sunday and yet nobody was trying to trade him away......after his first start.  I just shook my head at this line of thinking.  Don't need to say much more about that.

 

Then the third thing that caught my ear was, Scott Linn was making the point that two different regimes have decided Haskins didn't have it.  BMitch's response was to ignore Gruden's opinion out of hand because he was out on Haskins from the beginning.  Again ignoring possibilities, this time that Gruden as an offensive guy and former QB, might know what he's looking at and actually know this guy wasn't that great.  Sure, Gruden in a make or break year probably didn't want a rookie QB, but that doesn't automatically mean he wasn't legitimately concerned about this player.  There were legit questions on Haskins coming out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Brian Mitchell needs somebody like a Fred Smoot to balance him out. Linn is a cool person, but he's too passive when Brian gets onto one of his rants. Fred is a guy that will correct him and not even think about maybe making Brian mad. I think that's what they did with Galdi and Doc and I really like it. Sometimes I actually find myself siding with Doc because he's more intutitively right, whereas Galdi is saying "well the numbers say" ... But in general I think Galdi is a nice balance to him. But Galdi is sometimes too passive whereas Doc will just start screaming to get his point across - makes for a hard listen. But Brian needs a cohost who disagrees with him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like BMitch but yeah when he started going on his Haskins rants since he got benched he became hard to listen to. And yeah Linn annoys me too when he just gets passive and agrees with BMitch on his rants. Then I can’t take Linn serious when he’s ranting and raving like he cares about the Redskins or the direction they’re headed when he’s a damn eagles fan. Lol sit down and worry about your own team.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I think Brian Mitchell needs somebody like a Fred Smoot to balance him out. Linn is a cool person, but he's too passive when Brian gets onto one of his rants. Fred is a guy that will correct him and not even think about maybe making Brian mad. I think that's what they did with Galdi and Doc and I really like it. Sometimes I actually find myself siding with Doc because he's more intutitively right, whereas Galdi is saying "well the numbers say" ... But in general I think Galdi is a nice balance to him. But Galdi is sometimes too passive whereas Doc will just start screaming to get his point across - makes for a hard listen. But Brian needs a cohost who disagrees with him. 

 

I remember back in ~2006 or so Bram Weinstein (of all people) was BMitch's co-host and basically exactly what you're asking for. It quickly became apparent that BMitch despised Bram for daring to go against his opinion and the show had a very uncomfortable vibe until they finally pulled the plug, which I believe didn't take too long. I think BMitch is just one of those people that will form an opinion and it will be impossible to compel him to change it. I also fully believe BMitch despised Gruden so much, that he automatically became married to the idea that Haskins was "the guy" simply because Gruden didn't want him and Gruden absolutely had to be wrong about everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Heisenberg said:

 

I remember back in ~2006 or so Bram Weinstein (of all people) was BMitch's co-host and basically exactly what you're asking for. It quickly became apparent that BMitch despised Bram for daring to go against his opinion and the show had a very uncomfortable vibe until they finally pulled the plug, which I believe didn't take too long. I think BMitch is just one of those people that will form an opinion and it will be impossible to compel him to change it. I also fully believe BMitch despised Gruden so much, that he automatically became married to the idea that Haskins was "the guy" simply because Gruden didn't want him and Gruden absolutely had to be wrong about everything.

Thats interesting. I knew he had Doc as a cohost and before that Coach Thompson, but both of those (Thompson less so) was so much agreement that it was sometimes hard to listen. Its kinda the same problem with Grant and Danny (other than Danny's jokes and their overhyping anything anti-Skins). But when they first started (G&D), there was good disagreement. Now it seems fake and seldom. But I haven't listented to them in at least two years when they threw one too many statements out there that sounded too racist for my liking. 

In some ways Brian Mitchell reminds me of Joe Madison, who I'm not a fan of either. Very knowledgeable on the subjects, but its call in radio. People are going to call in and disagree with you. It doesn't make them horrible people or stupid infadels, just people with differing opinions. But its hard to find hosts with that balance. 

 

That's one of the reasons I liked the Junkies (after Ken Beatrice retired). At least there were going to be up to 4 opinions on a topic. One is likely to be valid, right. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Thats interesting. I knew he had Doc as a cohost and before that Coach Thompson, but both of those (Thompson less so) was so much agreement that it was sometimes hard to listen. Its kinda the same problem with Grant and Danny (other than Danny's jokes and their overhyping anything anti-Skins). But when they first started (G&D), there was good disagreement. Now it seems fake and seldom. But I haven't listented to them in at least two years when they threw one too many statements out there that sounded too racist for my liking. 

In some ways Brian Mitchell reminds me of Joe Madison, who I'm not a fan of either. Very knowledgeable on the subjects, but its call in radio. People are going to call in and disagree with you. It doesn't make them horrible people or stupid infadels, just people with differing opinions. But its hard to find hosts with that balance. 

 

That's one of the reasons I liked the Junkies (after Ken Beatrice retired). At least there were going to be up to 4 opinions on a topic. One is likely to be valid, right. 

 

I have never been a huge fan of Grand and Danny, but am surprised to hear they made statements that could be considered racist. I just always thought "Funny" Danny was a misnomer and that Grant was a very good beat reporter who should have stayed in that role. Disappointed to hear if they actually made statements like that. I think the Junkies put on an entertaining show for the most part, just wish they hadn't shown their asses so much since COVID started.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

 

I have never been a huge fan of Grand and Danny, but am surprised to hear they made statements that could be considered racist. I just always thought "Funny" Danny was a misnomer and that Grant was a very good beat reporter who should have stayed in that role. Disappointed to hear if they actually made statements like that. I think the Junkies put on an entertaining show for the most part, just wish they hadn't shown their asses so much since COVID started.

Yeah G&D pushed my buttons quite a few times. At first it was with their DJax reporting, with the initial reports out of Philly when he was cut, with the jokes about him not getting his workout bonus money and just the general jokes about him being in a gang. I honestly don't remember what the final straw was though. It was probably Haskins related and may not have been as big of a deal, but I posted why I have problems with people questioning a Black QBs intelligence without sources and that may have been the final straw (I'm talking pre-draft 2019 or shortly post draft) and that may have been it.

 

But honestly I know that they were just super negative and bringing me down to the point where it didn't brighten my day or give me things to talk about in the office. If anything I'd listen to them and have to talk to a friend to calm me down about how negative they were being. So I kinda just said I'd rather listen to Czabe talk about lawns (I was listening to podcasts) than them. I think I wound up listening to some podcasts that discussed tv shows I was binge watching (Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, and Arrow) and I may have listened to some audio books and just silence instead of them. They were really getting to me. 

 

And whats funny is that they were my favorites pre Cousins. When Cousins emerged and they were fan boys it grew tiresome. Then when he left they just became Anti-Skins and I couldn't take it. I was glad to see that others on twitter had the same feeling about how that station depicts the team because I was wondering if I was just being sensitive. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...