The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[Peregrine]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I know.  Because you are part of the target audience.  

 

I, on the other hand, finds it exhausting that literally every segment I've listened to Sheehan for the past 6 months has reverted in some way to Dan.  Even the Terry McLaurin signing turned into a Dan Rant.  Literally, every time I turn on anything, good or bad, it's all about Dan.  Dan destroyed this, Dan destroyed that, Dan is awful, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan.  Always Dan.  

 

There is a crowd, and you are one of them, where this resonates. 

 

It doesn't resonate to me.  

 

Which is absolutely, totally, and completely fine.  Different strokes for different folks. 

 

I might tune in more once the season starts just to see if he can go an entire football segment without it becoming about Dan. If he can, I might start tuning in more.  

 

I used to really like Sheehan.  I've been listening to him for the better part of 20 years.  

I mean, if you have issues with everything being about Dan, you're following the wrong franchise, because Dan has been making everything about Dan since the start and has caused the problem.  And the news wont stop being about Dan every single week with something new while hes the owner.

 

Wait till he fires Ron and restarts.

[Voice_of_Reason]

12 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

I mean, if you have issues with everything being about Dan, you're following the wrong franchise, because Dan has been making everything about Dan since the start and has caused the problem.  And the news wont stop being about Dan every single week with something new while hes the owner.

 

Wait till he fires Ron and restarts.

I disagree.  I think there are plenty of things you can discuss about this team without making it all about Dan. 

 

Shrug.

[Bifflog]

58 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

I mean, if you have issues with everything being about Dan, you're following the wrong franchise, because Dan has been making everything about Dan since the start and has caused the problem.  And the news wont stop being about Dan every single week with something new while hes the owner.

 

Something new, is one thing, that's actual news.

 

Rehashing that Dan is, in fact, bad, especially in the context of other team happenings that aren't directly tied to the owner, is kinda like a reporter coming on air to remind us that the sky is blue.  It's completely true, but it's also a pointless contention.

[FootballZombie]

3 hours ago, Bifflog said:

Something new, is one thing, that's actual news.

 

 

But the man brings in new problems every 3 weeks. You could devote a whole radio channel to just the new stuff.

 

-Cruising around on his yacht

-Testifying to the committee

-Getting dunked on by multiple politicians about not getting a stadium in their neck of the woods

-Ducking the first hearing by hiding behind Goodell

-Having Congressional hearings about your team in general

-More info on shadow investigations

-New Reports about his behavior in 2009 on the team plane

-Getting investigated by Virginia's and DC's AGs for financial practices

 

 

 

I don't listen to any of these radio shows but even if you only cover the new stuff any station or podcast that follows this team is gonna be talking about Snyder a metric ton. If they are not then they are choosing to ignore the subject. I'm sure there are podcasts or stations that only focus on the player and coach stuff, but if something is covering this team its hard to fault them for talking about Snyder when he is always in the news.

[Thinking Skins]

9 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Sheehan is going to Sheehan.  He needs Wentz to suck so he can pea**** around and say how smart he was to have hated the trade from the beginning.  And he's going to stretch the "he sucks" narrative as far as he can without being called an absolute fool by everybody.

 

I think he has his audience who basically are former Redskins fans who hate everything, and he likes to toss red meat at them.  Frankly, if the team starts to do well, I wonder what he's going to do.  He wont be able to turn every segment into a Dan segment, and every show into a "it sucks" show.

 

Question: did you listen to the podcast where Thom apparently had a "Wentz Bold Prediction?"  It was a couple of days ago.  Was it the same as before, he is predicting the team and locker room are going to turn on Wentz by Halloween and everybody, team and fans are going to be screaming for TH?  I haven't (and really don't plan to) listen, but he's made that prediction on Galdi's podcast, and I'm betting it's the same drivel.  

Thom's latest prediction is that Wentz is benched by week 10. Now saying TH or SH but just saying not Wentz. 

8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

If we had to win the 15th game of the season (whatever that is), I actually think Howell gives us a better shot than TH.  They would implement the exact same game plan for both QBs: Run the stuffing out of the ball.  It would make @TradeTheBeal!'s day.

 

And I would say, in that game plan, Howell actually gives them a few more things than TH does, because he CAN stretch the field, and he CAN hit the quick-outs which TH just doesn't have the arm to do.

 

Now, I think Ron would go with TH.  Because that's the safe, known commodity.

 

But I would take my shot with Howell.  I think the odds are you lose the game either way.  I'd like my chances with the guy who can do more.  

The elephant in the room is that I still don't trust TH to stay healthy. So if Wentz goes down long term I think TH goes down too and we see Howell. 

[Thinking Skins]

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think in a weird way Sheehan's segments with Cooley over the years has gotten to his head because Cooley would do evaluations so then Sheehan would try, too.  And as I pointed out previously, Sheehan has been wrong about a bunch of his evaluations and he only owns up to some of the ones he got wrong.   I don't really care about his or any radio hosts evaluations of players and what they get right ot wrong.  Sheehan has enough stuff going for him -- where i don't get why he's become a bit fixated on "getting things right."  Old school Sheehan didn't really delve into that stuff much.  He's become like Skip Balyess on that front -- obsessed with being proven right.  Sheehan is entertaining and informative IMO -- he needs to let go of his "evaluations" and playing scout IMO or if he sticks to doing it -- let it go or at a minimum be honest about it.  His go to tactic is if he gets 5 things royally wrong, he will own up to 2 of them.  And then go on and on about what he got right.  He ironically also scolds his callers when they say they got this or that right.    

 

 

I don't mind his Dan rants.  I think it reflects well some of the fan base which is that Dan has killed some of their fandom.  With Sheehan it comes off sincere on that front.  So it doesn't bother me -- instead it makes me a little said because I recall how enthusiastic he once was for the team.  to me that's on Dan.  I don't blame Sheehan for feeling the way he does.

 

 

I didn't.   But I'll say Sheehan, Thom and to some extext Hoffman stick out as the local media guys who seem to refuse to buy into Wentz.  Even Russell, who I know you don't like, has backed off and has said some good things about Wentz.

 

The question I have is why did Dan ruin fandom ? The sexual harrassment only came out 2 years ago. THere's the GM stuff which I hate and there's the Kirk dealings / picking Haskins / RG3 and CP treatment, etc. But those are alll based on Winning. so if the anti Dan sentiment is because we "can't win with Dan" which is what Thom believes, then I understand, but I think those fans will be back if we're winning again. LIke they were back in 2012. Things have changed since then but Cleveland is rooting for Watson, I don't believe that loyal fans won't root for this team when we're winning 13 games. SO that's what's needed a big year. IN a lot of ways if we can have a double digit win season with exciting offense it will sure up a lot of things like a new stadium and sponsors too. 

[Thinking Skins]

9 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think in a weird way Sheehan's segments with Cooley over the years has gotten to his head because Cooley would do evaluations so then Sheehan would try, too.  And as I pointed out previously, Sheehan has been wrong about a bunch of his evaluations and he only owns up to some of the ones he got wrong.   I don't really care about his or any radio hosts evaluations of players and what they get right ot wrong.  Sheehan has enough stuff going for him -- where i don't get why he's become a bit fixated on "getting things right."  Old school Sheehan didn't really delve into that stuff much.  He's become like Skip Balyess on that front -- obsessed with being proven right.  Sheehan is entertaining and informative IMO -- he needs to let go of his "evaluations" and playing scout IMO or if he sticks to doing it -- let it go or at a minimum be honest about it.  His go to tactic is if he gets 5 things royally wrong, he will own up to 2 of them.  And then go on and on about what he got right.  He ironically also scolds his callers when they say they got this or that right.    

 

 

I don't mind his Dan rants.  I think it reflects well some of the fan base which is that Dan has killed some of their fandom.  With Sheehan it comes off sincere on that front.  So it doesn't bother me -- instead it makes me a little said because I recall how enthusiastic he once was for the team.  to me that's on Dan.  I don't blame Sheehan for feeling the way he does.

 

 

I didn't.   But I'll say Sheehan, Thom and to some extext Hoffman stick out as the local media guys who seem to refuse to buy into Wentz.  Even Russell, who I know you don't like, has backed off and has said some good things about Wentz.

So Sheehan criticized is good not passing enough, but Wentz passed it 13 times. He was happy with Carolina for passing it...13 times. Our starters stayed in for 3 drives. He said he wanted 4. Interesting

[Skinsinparadise]

9 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I'm not sure where 5% came from, I'd think it would be closer to .000001%.  Literally, I can't think of anybody who really "approves" of the job he's doing or has done.  There was that one caller, Ian? Ivan?  or something who moved to Florida who would defend Dan.  Who else?  

 

I dunno, I stopped because I just couldn't hear about Dan in every segment of literally every show. I get it.  He's terrible.  I've lived through it for the past 30 years also.  I don't need to hear about it for 1.5 hours a day in addition.  Granted, I listen to his podcast more than the radio show.  So maybe there is a difference there.  

 

And btw, it's not just me, a few others have posted that all he can talk about is Dan and gambling.  Maybe it's that I don't bet on sports (never have) so even though I also don't approve of Dan, I just don't care to hear about Dan all the time.  I think the Terry McLaurin thing really rubbed me the wrong way.  Literally the day after we signed Terry, he turned the "hey, we signed Terry" in his Podcast into a referendum on Dan.  I mean, one day, one piece of good news, and he couldn't even run with it being a good day and having good news without ****ing about Dan.  

 

 

I dabble with polls in what I do but its not what I major in.  Really any even villain type of person would get a nominal amount of votes in a poll, just by the nature of how people are.  95% negative isn't something i've ever seen even close and that's from polling some nefarious people.    So Dan's numbers (Bruce too) according to Sheehan as to what he heard of their internal polls -- are insanely bad.   But yeah you are always going to get stragglers on everything.  As to the board, there have been Dan defenders aplenty.  It was never a larger number but it was some.  I recall it well because I spent time debating them.  That number is hardly anything now.  Ditto Bruce.  There was one dude, who I don't see post anymore who even used to say to me, @BatteredFanSyndrome, @goskins10 among others were bad fans for not getting behind ownership and Bruce.  

 

Yes Ivan would be one of those people on the radio. He like you also complains that Sheehan is obsessed with Dan.  But he's a unicorn on that front as to complaining about it on the radio.  I don't hear too many others complain that Sheehan is all about Dan, Sheehan himself shoots Ivan down on that point.  You generalize that you are anti-Dan.  And I do believe you are genuinely so.  But you are also one of the bigger defenders of him, relatively speaking, from the perspective of giving him the benefit of the doubt on a number of fronts as I pointed out in another thread on a number of issues. And you want the WP to backoff and the stories to go away.   So I think you might be more sensitive on the Dan issue than most for that reason to the criticism in your mind being too much since you feel that way on other fronts. 

 

Bring this back on point, Sheehan IMO is far from making every story or even most of his stories about Dan.  But specifically to your point of his fandom, when he references why its not the same, it goes to Dan. 

 

And clearly I am not afraid to call out Sheehan.  I do it all the time.  but I think the every story is about Dan is far from true, or even most of his segments are about him.  I listen to him every day just about including now.  I'd guess maybe 5% or so of his segments are about Dan if that.  

 

But Sheehan IMO has been unfair IMO and sometimes even dishonest about Wentz.  When he rehashes interviews on his own show and mischarterizes the Philly reporter interview and flat gets wrong a stat that a PFF guy gave him on his show -- where the dude said Wentz was middle of the pack in interceptable passes and Sheehan said the dude said he was dead last -- that IMO takes it too far.  I don't think Sheehan even knows he's doing it.  I think once his mind is made up -- its believing is seeing with him. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

The question I have is why did Dan ruin fandom ? The sexual harrassment only came out 2 years ago. THere's the GM stuff which I hate and there's the Kirk dealings / picking Haskins / RG3 and CP treatment, etc. But those are alll based on Winning. so if the anti Dan sentiment is because we "can't win with Dan" which is what Thom believes, then I understand, but I think those fans will be back if we're winning again. LIke they were back in 2012. Things have changed since then but Cleveland is rooting for Watson, I don't believe that loyal fans won't root for this team when we're winning 13 games. SO that's what's needed a big year. IN a lot of ways if we can have a double digit win season with exciting offense it will sure up a lot of things like a new stadium and sponsors too. 

It's really more of a question for the FO thread than here.  Plenty of people there have posted about how it effected their fandom.

 

I am still here.  i am still passionate.  My only debate with your post is you seemed centered purely on the on the field stuff.  Reading some of the posts its deeper than on the field for some. 

 

But for me I've practiced comparmentalizing Dan and thinking of my own reasons for my fandom that run deep.  But that's me. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[mhd24]

Sheehan wasn’t even his typical negative Wentz self LOL.  He said he was so-so from what I remember (which is praise from him on his scale with respect to Wentz).  

[DJHJR86]

Sheehan has every right to make everything about Dan...because it's always been about him.  Sheehan lived through the glory years and has seen what was once an NFL Dynasty turn into a complete dumpster fire ever since Snyder owned the team.  He's also 100% right to be skeptical about Wentz, and going 10/13 in one preseason game doesn't change that either.  The elephant in the room that we aren't supposed to point out (especially if you are in the media and don't want your press credentials revoked by the current president) is that Indy was going to cut him after a 9-8 season with a good season statistically.  That is a huge red flag.  I am glad that they pulled the trigger and traded for him because I think he was the best of the realistic options that we could get.  But I am not sold on him being the guy.  At this point he's a one year rental.

[Koolblue13]

There is a Dan thread y'all. This one is for ****ing about QBs.

 

[HigSkin]

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

41 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

The elephant in the room that we aren't supposed to point out (especially if you are in the media and don't want your press credentials revoked by the current president) is that Indy was going to cut him after a 9-8 season with a good season statistically. 

I don't get this part of your post.  Every single reporter from across the globe has pointed out that both Philly and Indy "didn't want him".  It's been covered at length by virtually every reporter/journalist with any semblance of a platform.  Carson himself has answered questions about it over and over and over again.  In fact, he answered questions on it during his original press conference several months back, and the question came from the same dude from Channel 7 that went out of his way to ask them AGAIN in a dickish way when he was given special access for a one-on-one with Wentz.  

 

Again, I understand the history here - of ownership and his right hand man crying and whining about the media coverage.  Historically, they have always deserved the negative coverage they've received.  I don't think this scenario with Scott Abraham is apples to apples on that front.  Abraham was given special access to interview the starting QB, one-on-one, and chose to use that time to repeat the same question he asked in March, only in a much more 'look at me, I'm trying to be Jim Rome' way.  It's not only a question he's asked himself and already been given an answer to, but it's been asked and answered on numerous occasions.  There was literally zero point to ask it again, other than for the reporter to have a 'look at me' moment.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

30 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

There is a Dan thread y'all. This one is for ****ing about QBs.

 

There are a lot of parallels with Wentz and Cousins.

 

Both overly conservative wholesome dudes, that lack charisma, who put up good stats with big contracts but aren't seen as good enough.

[Warhead36]

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

There are a lot of parallels with Wentz and Cousins.

 

Both overly conservative wholesome dudes, that lack charisma, who put up good stats with big contracts but aren't seen as good enough.

Cousins is much better. He's a fringe top 10-12 QB and has been for like five years. 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

9 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Cousins is much better. He's a fringe top 10-12 QB and has been for like five years. 

 

 

This is true, but they still have a lot in common from a narrative standpoint.

[HigSkin]

 

[DJHJR86]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I don't get this part of your post.  Every single reporter from across the globe has pointed out that both Philly and Indy "didn't want him".  It's been covered at length by virtually every reporter/journalist with any semblance of a platform.  Carson himself has answered questions about it over and over and over again.  In fact, he answered questions on it during his original press conference several months back, and the question came from the same dude from Channel 7 that went out of his way to ask them AGAIN in a dickish way when he was given special access for a one-on-one with Wentz.

 

There is a very real pile-on when it comes to Wentz in the national media...which at times feels harsher than the way certain national figures cover (or carry water) for Watson, and I have no idea why that is.  The local media, which is not in any way, shape, or form "tough", has to tiptoe around this by having beat reporters from Philly or Indy come on to rehash said narratives.  I have not seen one local person rip Wentz the way he is ripped nationally.  They are much more fair, IMO.  

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, mhd24 said:

Sheehan wasn’t even his typical negative Wentz self LOL.  He said he was so-so from what I remember (which is praise from him on his scale with respect to Wentz).  

 

I'll give him he has backed off on the personality aspect of Wentz and praised how he's handled his interviews.   Other beat guys seemed to learn fast that Wentz isn't a bad dude.  Sheehan is late to that party but I think he's arrived on that point. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

13 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

The local media, which is not in any way, shape, or form "tough", has to tiptoe around this by having beat reporters from Philly or Indy come on to rehash said narratives.  I have not seen one local person rip Wentz the way he is ripped nationally.  They are much more fair, IMO.  

I don’t think they are bringing on outside beat reporters to tiptoe at all.  While most of the local media hasn’t been ripping Wentz, they certainly haven’t been overly positive as they’ve been in the past with other acquisitions as well- McNabb, Griffin, Smith, even Fitz.  
 

Wright also didn’t go in on the local media as a whole, he called out one specific guy that ultimately deserved to be called out.  Dude really doesn’t carry enough weight to get the access he got and then squanders it by rehashing the only topic he appears to care about in douchebag fashion.  
 

Again, Wright probably could have just told dude personally vs. on social media— but he’s not wrong in his assessment that dude was being a punk.

Edited August 15, 2022 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[DJHJR86]

I'll say this...I am really glad that they didn't draft Corral.  He looked completely unprepared on an NFL level.

[EmirOfShmo]

Sorry if this was already posted...

 

 

[Peregrine]

18 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I disagree.  I think there are plenty of things you can discuss about this team without making it all about Dan. 

 

Shrug.

Dan wont allow it.

 

When congress asked Dan to come speak to them he literally Dan'ed it up and put himself in the news for months while everyone thought he was trying to dodge them and subpoenas.  In the end, he came to speak with them, just as they asked.  It wouldnt have been a long story but Dan literally put himself in the news in a bad way for two extra months to end up doing EXACTLY what he could have just done the first time they asked.  He chose two months of bad press all about him and his issues that wouldnt have existed otherwise.

 

And he will always do that.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

Dan wont allow it.

 

When congress asked Dan to come speak to them he literally Dan'ed it up and put himself in the news for months while everyone thought he was trying to dodge them and subpoenas.  In the end, he came to speak with them, just as they asked.  It wouldnt have been a long story but Dan literally put himself in the news in a bad way for two extra months to end up doing EXACTLY what he could have just done the first time they asked.  He chose two months of bad press all about him and his issues that wouldnt have existed otherwise.

 

And he will always do that.

Well, he didn't do exactly what they wanted in the first place.  What they wanted is to drag him in front of the media for a public scolding and congressional grandstanding.  And he said no to that.

 

Which put the ball in Congress' court, and they issued a subpoena.  Ok, he dodged that long enough for the lawyers to work out a closed-door, voluntary session without being under subpoena. 

 

So, yeah, he could have gone in front of Congress with Rodger and gotten his ass chewed.  Which would have been fun for everybody to watch.  Maybe he should have done that, and it would have ended there. But instead, he got a closed-door, voluntary appearance conducted by staffers and not congressional members.

 

Was it worth the extra 2 months?  Eh, debatable. I could see the logic of just going and taking your medicine and getting the story done with earlier.  But I can also see the logic of waiting it out to get a better scenario. 

 

Again, shrug.  I didn't really care about any of that because I knew and have known the end result for months: nothing was going to change. 

 

EDIT: This is my last post on this in this thread.  If you want to continue debating it, let's move it to the Snyder thread and get it out of the way of actual football, which is interesting, while this dribble is really not.  

 

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Voice_of_Reason