The Herd with Colin Cowherd - Saturday Special - Colin Talks With Ron Insana & Warren Sharp

Episode Date: July 25, 2020

In this exclusive podcast, Colin talks first with Ron Insana, CNBC Commentator and Contributor about the stock market reacting to the Covid-19 pandemic. They talk about what could happen financially after the next election and he talks about growing up across the street from John ElwayThen, Colin talks with football Analyst Warren Sharp. Warren puts together an in depth season preview every year using advanced analytics that people in the NFL don't pay enough attention to. They talk about the Seahawks not having enough trust in Russell Wilson, the Packers use of Aaron Rodgers and which AFC team will be disappointing in 2020 Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year.

Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the Look Back at it podcast. For 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it.

With our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. 84 was a wild year. It was a wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, what's good, y'all? You're listening to Learn the Hardway with your favorite therapist and host Kear Games.

This space is about black men's experiences, having honest conversations that it's really not safe to have anywhere, but you're having them with a licensed professional who knows what he's doing. How many men carry a suit or armor. It signals to the world that you're not to be played with. And just because you have the capability that doesn't. not mean that you need to. Listen to learn the hard way on the AHA radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Hi, everybody, and welcome to our Saturday podcast,

where we often take a exit off the interstate and talk about stuff, frankly, I just like and stuff I'm interested in. And we've had chefs, movie producers, and we have two guests this Saturday. And my first is Ron Insana. And he's a senior analyst and commentator for CNN. NBC has been for years. He's written four books on Wall Street and always has a common sense approach to investing in an unstable world. He is a stable, smart, common sense voice.

And he is joining us on Saturdays. So I want to, Ron, I want to start with this premise is in my life, every five or six years, we would have a pullback economically, a recession. We had a bull market post-2008 for about double that, 10 to 12 years. So let's start wrong with this. Why did we have an extension of a bull market for so long? International money? Was it money being poured in by the government? Were we less chaotic than the rest of the world's markets?

How do you explain a bull market that lasted twice as long as the average bull market, probably since World War II? Well, the answer is yes to everything that you put forward. And thanks for having me on the show, a longtime fan, first-time caller. So listen, as we came out of the great financial crisis, you know, a lot of things happened from a policy perspective that never took place before. The Federal Reserve took interest rates to zero. The Fed and the federal government launched a wide variety of support programs to prop up the economy. And we were digging ourselves out of a pretty big hole.

So against that backdrop, the economy never caught fire, never overworked. overheated and never really forced the Federal Reserve to jack up interest rates the way they have towards the end of other business cycles to cool things down. So we had, you know, kind of muddle through growth for a dozen, almost a dozen years, 10 years, 11 years at around 2%. And so inflation never picked up. The Fed in late 2016 started to raise interest rates a little bit. They found they couldn't do much of that. And they went back to keeping rates on an even keel. And the economy just grew and expanded nicely. And there were, for us anyway, a very few bumps along the road. Overseas, as you mentioned, you had the European sovereign debt crisis in 2011. You had other concerns along the way,

but they were not our concerns. And the U.S. economy just grew well, relatively evenly, even though income inequality grew, we did see record low unemployment at 3.5% or near record low unemployment, and we saw decent growth. And there were a wide variety of policies that helped us get there. And then we ran into this. brick wall at the beginning of this year. Had we not run into COVID-19? You know, the market was at, I think, 29,000. Yeah, yeah.

I had, for the previous 18 months, I would call my broker, who I've had since college at Morgan Stanley, and I would say, should we, you know, cash out in a lot of this stuff? And he'd be like, no, it's, it is, it looks good for the foreseeable future, six to 12 months. Do you agree with that assessment? If not for COVID, the, the, economy was really humming with no foreseeable date or stoppage? Yeah, I think that's pretty true. I mean, as I said, the Fed tried to raise interest rates.

There wasn't much room for them to maneuver. So we had a couple of corrections along the way in the stock market. The Fed found that it was going to have to leave rates low for an extended period of time. And then when COVID hit, it had to lower them even further and then engage in all this additional activity that we've seen in the last three months, which has been historic. But the economy was pretty even-keel. You know, we had more job openings than we had workers available, even with the tax cut, which I don't think accomplished what many said it might, which would be to raise wages

or increase employment or increased capital spending on new planted equipment here in the United States. It still gave corporations a huge profitability cushion. And so the stock market was likely destined to continue going higher, you know, even if it plateaued a little bit for a while. we were in pretty good economic shape, and then the virus hit. Now, there were some signs that the economy was beginning to slow prior to that, both domestically and globally, but nothing like what we've seen in the last, well, let's say, since March. Is, I've never felt the stock market is the economy.

Correct. I don't believe that to be true. But to what degree is it part of the economy, in your opinion? So there have been a lot of ways that it's been described, a barometer, a thermometer. It's reflective of the composition of the economy, investors reward companies that are growing and creating new industries. And never has that been more true, I think, than during this period of lockdown, where we've seen a radical shift in what investors have been willing to buy. They've been buying the stocks of those companies that have not only survived, but thrive during this work from home, shelter in place, lockdown period. are the Amazon's of the world. Microsoft, which is big in cloud computing and supports these activities,

as does Amazon's web services, Zoom, Walmart and Costco have done a great job. Companies that have allowed us to continue our lives in more of a virtual manner have done extremely well. And those that are really high-touch consumer hospitality-type companies, restaurants have gotten crushed, airlines, transportation, all of that stuff's really gotten hammered. So the stock market is a barometer of economic health, sometimes social and political health, but only rarely. Most of the time, though, it's allocating capital to companies and industry groups that are going to win in the longer term. And that's what we've seen. Now, whether or not we've gotten ahead of ourselves, here's another question, but that's what's happened since the coronavirus hit. I do feel like we're in a

bubble. I'll get to that in a second. But there is a level of anxiety created when you see double-digit unemployment currently, no vaccine on the horizon, and yet the market, you know, obviously there are exception days like Thursday, but the market is moving up. That to me, that to me for the first time and a long time, combined with the government relief bill, you know, those are running out now, those stimulus checks are ending. I do believe right now we are looking at a major pullback. Your thoughts on my current opinions? I don't disagree with you. I mean, and I think we'll have to define major. I mean, I think it's maybe, you know, 15 to 20 percent as opposed to something more cataclysmic. And I do think the market's out over its skis. We're already getting indications that the economy is beginning to slow with the state with states like California, where you are Arizona, Texas, Florida, and others beginning to end their reopening process and actually go in reverse. Those are huge GDP states.

And so the job was claims number on Thursday, which was higher than expected was the first indication that the labor market started to cool. Maybe we get a negative jobs number next month. We'll have to wait and see. Airlines are saying that just as they were starting to open up new flights, consumer demand has fallen off. So with this reemergence, or let's say with the extended first wave of the virus, we're starting to see a slowdown in the economy. So I do think the markets overestimated the speed with which we'll recover. And they may also be overestimating the amount of stimulus we're going to get from the federal government as they engage in these new conversations. Republicans want to cut what was a $600 a week enhanced unemployment benefit to individuals who are out of work down to $100 a week. Now, that would be a real blow to the consumer.

And given that we're not out of the woods, you know, these are the things where I think the market's going to have some trouble going forward. Plus, the market is extremely rich by historic standards. as simply as you can and perhaps this this is mostly a sports audience my entire life we have had debt it now grows at a much faster rate explain to people i know in my personal life i don't carry a great deal of debt i'm very fortunate i have an income which allows me to buy most things cash and i'm not i don't consider myself i've never had a second car i'm not a big consumer that way But where would debt hurt the average person in Indianapolis, wife's a schoolteacher, he's got a solid job, they make $92,000 combined, and he doesn't know what the debt means for him. He knows what his personal debt means, but what is the federal debt mean going forward? Right now, we don't know. I mean, at the moment, really, whether you like or dislike this administration, this Congress, this government, whatever, however you want to characterize it, they were between a rock and a hard place. Once we started locking down the economy, the deficit was going to explode because businesses were shutting down, tax revenues were going to zero effectively, you know, for individuals and corporations. So they had to go out and spend money to support the economy and keep people running in place. So that was a $3 trillion dollar program.

the national debt is now approaching, what, $27 trillion, it was $21 trillion just not too long ago. We've spent a lot of money and have to spend more just to keep the economy from falling off a cliff. Now, we have the luxury of borrowing in our own currency, which is a good thing. When you can borrow in your own currency, if the currency goes down, it's actually the bondholders who may be overseas investors who actually lose money. And it's actually a benefit to our government. So for now, the world seems to be able to absorb the amount of death that's being issued by governments around the world. All of governments are doing what we're doing. Corporations are borrowing because interest rates are at zero.

I mean, Apple is borrowing at 2%, you know, and even companies that are cash-strapped and not great-quality companies have been able to tap the markets for debt as well. So at the moment, it doesn't mean much. It may mean something down the road if we don't come out of this in a way where we can, grow fast enough to start, well, first of all, to stop growing the deficits annually, it's going to be $4 trillion this year alone, and then start to work on getting the debt down to a manageable level. We're not there yet. So at the moment, it doesn't mean much, but it may mean something somewhere in the future. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential.

Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Do you remember when Diana Ross double-tapped Little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people.

I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George Bush? We've got to do a little kill. Well, you can find out on the Look Back at it podcast. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick it here, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill, waxing all about crack in the 80s.

To be clear, 84 is big to me, not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack on day, but just so y'all know. I mean, at this point, Mark, this is the second episode where we've discussed crack. So I'm starting to see that there's a through line. We also have AIDS on the table right now. Thank you for finishing that sentence. Yes. I don't think there's a more important year for black people.

Really? Yeah. For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to my new podcast, Learn the Hard Way with me, your host, and your favorite therapist, Kear Games. And in recognition of Mental Health Awareness Month, I'm bringing over a decade. of my own experience in the mental health field and conversations with so many incredible guests.

I'm talking. Trip Fontaine, Ryan Clark. Sometimes when we're in the pursuit of the thing, we get so wrapped up in the chase that we don't realize that we are in possession of the thing. And we're still chasing it. And we don't know when we've done enough. Because people scoreboard watch.

Life becomes about wins and losses. Steve Burns, Dustin Ross. Because you find it important to be a good person while you hear on earth. Are you a good person? because you're afraid. Because that's two different intentions, bro. Absolutely.

And that's two different levels of trust. I want you to just really be a good person. Join me, Kear Gaines, as we have real conversations about healing, growth, fatherhood, pressure, and purpose on my new podcast, learn the hard way. Open your free iHeartRadio app.

Search, learn the hard way and listen now. What's up, guys? This is Cliver Taylor the 4th. And on my podcast, The Cliverts Show, I'm bringing you conversations about all kinds of stuff. Like being an internet famous. Miss referee. We're in the middle of a game.

This linebacker walks up to me, he goes, hey, ref, my mom wants you to wave at her. What? Time out. Quarterback on office blue 42. Hey, rec, my mama want you to wave at her. What? Hey, Miss Parker.

Listen to the Clifford show on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. I'll simplify this. I don't know the. the connection between president and economy. Jimmy Carter was not much of one. Yeah, Jimmy Carter wasn't great for it. Reagan was better for it, but I don't think it's Democrat or conservative.

Both Obama, Clinton, the market was fine. It's fine with Trump, who I don't think the most stable president, most stable, the most instable White House of my life. That said, there's always been a sense among my business friends. Oh, these Democrats are bad for the economy. it's regulations. But I watched Clinton for eight years during dot com. I've watched Obama take, we were on the precipice of a depression, and I saw eight years

where the market went up. Is there, when I look at Biden, what the market doesn't like is unknown. So Trump may be pro-business, but he is so chaotic. You know, the fear of the unknown with Trump day to day is significant. I think Biden. Yeah, I won't disagree with you on that. So to me, Biden, Ron, I think, oh, it'll be very low energy. It will not be chaotic.

It will be a very soothing presidency. That feels like if I was an investor, I could really use, I could really use waking up twice a week and not having a headline scare the hell out of me. I look at Biden as good for the market. Yeah, it's kind of like having, you know, Mr. Rogers in the White House to a certain extent of his granddad, you know, who's got some experience. He's got his gray hair. He's calm. He's been there before. He's done it.

Look, what Wall Street, more than I would say the economy or Main Street would fear, is that corporate taxes, which went from 35% down to 21%, Joe Biden says he's going to raise him to 28%. That he's going to raise capital gains taxes, the taxes that you pay on, the gains that you make. in stock market, real estate, or other investments, up to ordinary income, which would be 37% at the top rate. It's currently 23%. And so the market fears that, but they feared that with President Obama, as you said. So I was at a, and because after I left CNBC on a full-time basis, if I wanted to encounter any candidates, whether it was Rudy Giuliani in 2008 or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, I had to pay my way in to see these people. So I did. I went to fundraisers. So Obama walks into a room full of hedge fund managers and lawyers and says, I'm going to raise your tax.

you guys can afford it too bad. Wasn't the most graceful way to say it? You didn't say, listen, we have some really exciting programs we'd like to get off the ground and help people and we think you guys can help out, not the way he approached it. Everybody was freaking out that he was going to raise taxes. Well, what happened, as you said, walks in during the middle of a great financial crisis, a great recession, on the brink of depression, and he extends the Bush tax cuts. So I think Wall Street may be overestimating the risk that Joe Biden, with an environment like this,

is going to walk into the White House if he wins. raise taxes across the board and crush the economy. We may not be able to have that happen unless we are fully out of this thing. There's a vaccine. We're back to normal. And we're growing at rates that are faster than we've seen for the last dozen years. So he may not have the flexibility to do it even if he wants to. And so I think to that end, you know, Wall Street business types and others may be a little too fearful.

And on the regulatory side, I think he's probably going to restore some common sense regulation. Again, I'll be giving away a slight political bias of my own. I think this president has rolled back far too many environmental regulations. I'm not a tree hugger or anything, but, you know, letting stuff spill into the water and rolling back these regulations just for the sake of doing it is not wise, either in the short run or in the long time. And I think President Biden, if he were to be elected, would probably, I think, be more cognizant of the risks that comes with that kind of deregulation. Yeah, I'm not a tree hugger either, but I agree on the regulation. Congratulations. Ron Ansona is joining a senior analyst, commentator for CNBC, written four books on Wall Street, and I've always already thought of them as a common... I've also sold four books on Wall Street.

Oh. It was a sum total of all four. Yeah, it was great. How about that? You know, I've always thought of you as a common sense guy, so I'm going to throw a theory out to you. Okay. And I do this from time to time in sports. There's something called the Pitchfork Society when you have such a divide between the haves and the have-nots. And in most of my lifetime, technology has eliminated time and space, 24-7 my money grows now.

You know, it used to be you could be in the 60s, Warren Buffett, but when you got in your car, you couldn't make deals. You're in your car. Now it's never-ending. And here's what I worry about in America. That technology, we have people making $13 billion a day. the gap between not just the poor, the gap between the middle class and the wealthy is now creating almost a second gap. We always talked about rich and poor. Now it's a gap between poor and middle class, middle class and wealthy and then wealthy and $13 billion a day, Jeff Bezos.

What concerns me about this, and my solution would be to have some sort of alliance, a silicon, Valley Alliance, where they do start on certain big days for the market two to three times a year. We set aside money that becomes stipends for the poorest Americans. Now, again, that makes me sound, you know, very liberal. But I think we have a problem that emerged probably 10 years ago with the growth of tech. And is this fearmongering, or is it something that's discussed in your circles? Well, I mean, I think if you look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and others who have taken the pledge to give anywhere from 50% to 100% of their wealth to the Gates Foundation or to other charitable causes, some of that's already underway. And I think Bill Gates has done a remarkable job, you know, and I know Warren Buffett pretty well.

And, you know, he hasn't given everything away yet. He's, you know, pushing 90 years old, and he's got $70-some-odd billion to give away that's going to go to the Gates Foundation. And those people do a lot of good. I'm intrigued by your idea. Now, there is a certain fickle nature to this. So, yes, Jeff Bezos, wealth grew by $13 billion in a single day, but that's because the stock went up. It's not his liquid network. So he can't just sell $13 billion one day and one not crush his own stock and send a message to the markets that he suddenly lost confidence in the company or something like that. And so it takes rather extensive planning. But I do agree that among the super-rich,

And remember, on an inflation-adjusted basis, there's still no one wealthier than Mr. Rockefeller. So those folks are actually wealthier than Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos if you adjust for inflation. So, yes, they are super rich, and many have taken steps towards helping either to ameliorate diseases, as Bill Gates has done in Africa and other parts of the world, and as the Robin Hood Foundation has done with respect to hunger and education. Look, I think what we really need is a domestic policy that focuses on equality of opportunity that makes sure that disadvantaged individuals, particularly kids who are coming up, have adequate access to nutrition, health care, and education. And if you can get those kids who are economically and in some cases socially disadvantaged into programs where the equality of opportunity is at least close to equal,

we will ultimately solve this problem. And we still haven't had a cogent, coherent conversation about how we get there. Stock market gains are what they are in a certain sense. And my colleague and I, Jim Kramer, may have approached this differently, but he's right in the sense that the stock market on its own is amoral. It doesn't view the price of a stock as good or bad. What investors are really doing is paying X amount of dollars for a future stream of earnings. So if Amazon's going to win, if Microsoft's going to win,

if Apple's going to win, they pay a lot of money for that. And that's how they get their returns. And the founder of the company, like a Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg or somebody like that, you know, reap the benefits. And that's how capitalism has worked. I believe, and Joe Biden has mentioned this, I wish he would be more explicit about it, that we need to focus on stakeholder capitalism, that the world, the capitalist world has to look at all the constituents of the industrial society in which we live. That's not just shareholders. It's, employees, its consumers. Henry Ford and Milton Hershey were very good at this decades ago. They wanted to make sure that their workers were paid adequately so they could buy the goods

they were producing. And that's, you know, the type of enlightened, you know, self-interest that Adam Smith talked about, the early, you know, economists who focused on capitalist systems, that you want people to make enough money for no other reason than to be able to buy your stuff. but you also want them to have access to health care, and that there have been industrialists in the past who focus on that, and there are some today who do it. I would agree, though, it needs to be a much broader initiative, and I do think the government has a role to play here as well.

My sense of a bubble, and again, as a novice, I've been investing since 1989. My dad was a, he used to have a lot of Washington Mutual. I remember that. That was his number one stop. Guamu, yes. Yes, yeah. He was a Northwest optometrist and didn't make a huge living,

but my dad invested in. And so I started investing in 1989. And to this day, dollar cost average, do it every month, write a check. And I would never give a stock tip ever on the air. I gave you two the other day that I've done well with, but I think those are understood kind of by, you know, Morgan Stanley gives me a tip. I go in four years ago. But I would say this. Well, they don't give you a tip.

They give you advice. Yeah, they give me advice. But let me ask you this. So I won't ask for a tip. but I'll ask for a to analyze a sector. Is there a sector that you really like feel very confident about

economically and ethically? If I said to you, Ron, Silicon Valley's not going anywhere, but in the next five years, keep your eye on this sector. What would it be? I would imagine health sciences and things that are focused on longevity, cancer cures, and, you know, biotechnology.

I think that's where a lot of growth is going to come. I am worried that technology writ large has gone way beyond its ability to grow in the short run. I mean, for the first time, really, since 2000, the five biggest market cap companies comprise over 22% of the waiting in the S&P 500. Now, they have cash flow that's equal to their weighting. So it's different than 1999 and 2000 because a lot of those companies didn't necessarily have the same type of of business operations that the Apples and the Microsofts and the Amazon's have today. But I'm worried that they're topy, and I'm worried that it is a little bubble-like. What I would really warn people against because there's been such a surge in individuals

who have no experience in the market day trading on these various platforms, buying penny stocks and listening to Internet gurus talk about how, you know, stocks only go up. Again, as you suggested, a disciplined approach, you know, buying a mix of individuals, Dexes that are likely to be higher five, 10, or 15 years from now is a smart thing to do. Picking stocks and day trading them is, you may as well be gambling, right? You may as well just go bet on the Washington football team, as I believe it's not. The Washington football. Dan Snyder's got, I mean, it's just so absurd.

I mean, it's just so transparent. Yeah, I mean, I think personally at this point they should just leave it that way. You know, what's the difference, right? I mean, but no, I think, you know, discipline helps, dollar cost averaging helps, not, you know, not chasing fads obviously helps. But we are seeing, we're seeing a compositional shift in the economy because I do think over the long run, all this work from home stuff, and you know this as well as anybody, it can be done now. And, you know, whether I'm affiliated with a financial firm on the one side or CNBC on the other, everything I do now is from home. Everything is virtual. And I don't mind it, actually. I've been home.

I've been working from home for a dozen years, but I don't have to get on a plane again. So, I mean, it's not like I go out and buy airlines and hope that they're going to be back at 50% capacity in the next six months at 100% capacity in two or three years. That's a tough trade. But I would, you know, a cutting edge of technology has always done people reasonably well. You do have to get some advice. You do have to know what you're doing. You can buy a technology or a biotechnology index, which is diversified, and that's a way to go about it. but it should also be part of a hub and spoke type investment process where, let's say,

you own an inexpensive S&P 500 index fund, and then you can put technology and biotech around it and create a portfolio that has exposure to those areas, but doesn't leave you hanging on a single stock. What a pleasure for me, Ron Insana. And for me, absolutely. Well, I'm just a sports guy. I mean, you're in an industry that feeds America. I just have opinions on sports. And Washington football teams.

What you have to understand. When I was 18-17 years old, I was playing as a backup quarterback at Shamanad College Prep in Kenoga Park, California. Oh. Number seven. Across the street from my house was another number seven playing for Granada Hills High School by the name of John Elway. My age, my year, my position, my number. He stole all of my press. And I have been bitter ever since 1978 and 79.

What was he like in high school? I mean, they'd just take my back. Tell him, he played literally across the street from my house, and I never met him. And I played, you know, in those days, Shamanad, which is actually now in Southern California, powerhouse in sports, was a 1A-C-I-F school, Catholic Inter-School Federation. So we were a step above eight-man. They were a step below pro. So we never really crossed paths. And had we, I would have just had cleat marks all over me.

So what wildly different experience back then? Well, it's great. It's great to finally talk, though. We've texted before. And I would love to use you regularly. I think you have a real common sense approach. I always trust what comes out of your mouth. I think we're kind of politically aligned as well,

which does know what's matter. Bill Maher's more liberal than me. I absolutely love Bill Maher, and I've actually listened to Ben Shapiro a few times and agreed with him. Yeah. I used to see Bill Maher at the improv in the late 80s in L.A. And my favorite joke of his was, you know,

in the year one, did everybody keep signing their checks, zero? That's the one that's stuck with me for the longest time. Ron and Sonna. What a pleasure. And by the way, I'll give you my favorite joke. My favorite joke is one that sounds like it's going to be awful. It was by Jeff Stilson, a Seattle comic. And this joke sounds like I'm going to say something inappropriate, and it lands.

It's one of my favorite jokes that I really remember. He says, you know, I like my women like I like my coffee, bitter. and I've always loved that joke by Jeff Stilson. I love that. If you're a Stephen Wright fan, my personal favorite, I know I'm probably taking you over time, but my favorite was I bought some batteries, but they weren't included.

That is great. My friend, thank you so much, Ron. Thank you. We will talk again. Thank you. Thanks. Look forward to it. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged.

It's the end. enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth.

Listen to Superhuman on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Do you remember when Diana Ross double-tapped Little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people. I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George Bush got to do with a little Kim? Well, you can find out on the Look Back at it podcast. I'm Sam J.

And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick it here, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill, waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84 is big to me, not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack on day, but just a lot of it. Literally, but just so y'all know.

I mean, at this point, this is the second episode where we've discussed, correct. So I'm starting to see that there's a through line. We also have AIDS on the table right now. Thank you for finishing that sentence. Yes. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Really? Yeah.

For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to my new podcast, Learn the Hard Way with me. your host and your favorite therapist, Kear Games. And in recognition of Mental Health Awareness Month, I'm bringing over a decade of my own experience in the mental health field and conversations with so many incredible guests. I'm talking, Tripp Fontaine, Ryan Clark.

Sometimes when we're in the pursuit of the thing, we get so wrapped up in the chase that we don't realize that we are in possession of the thing. And we're still chasing it, and we don't know when we've done enough. Because people scoreboard watch. Life becomes about wins and losses. Steve Burns, Dustin Ross, because you find it important to be a good person while you hear on earth?

Are you a good person because you're afraid? Because that's two different intentions, bro. Absolutely. And that's two different levels of trust. I want you to just really be a good person. Join me, Kear Gaines, is we have real conversations about healing, growth, fatherhood, pressure, and purpose on my new podcast. Learn the Hardway. Open your free iHeartRadio app.

Search Learn the Hardway and listen now. What's up, guys? This is Clever Taylor the Fourth. And on my podcast, The Clifford Show, I'm bringing you conversations about all kinds of stuff. Like being an internet famous referee. We're in the middle of a game. This linebacker walks up to me, he goes, hey, ref, my mom wants you to wave at her. What?

Time out. Quarterback on office blue 42. Hey, rec, my mama want you to wave at her. What? Where's she at? Hey, Miss Parker. Listen to the Clippers show on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Our second guest on the Saturday podcast, I believe this is Warren Sharp's second visit.

He's just released his 350 page 2020 preview book. He is, in my opinion, kind of the leader in football analytics and analysis right now in his space. and Warren is joining us again. Last time we had Yon, we got huge feedback on this. So I'll start with this. I'm going to start with something close to my heart, Russell Wilson. I watch the offense and it feels outdated. It feels like they rely on a running game

behind a below-average O line and then need Russell to save them on third down. What does your analysis? What do the numbers? What do the tendencies say about that Seahawk offense? Correct in that presumption in terms of what they're relying upon. This is a team that has arguably one of the best quarterbacks that we've seen over

the last five years in terms of what Russell Wilson has been able to do. And yet in early downs in the first half in 2018, they had a 60% run rate, the most run heavy offense in the NFL. Wow. Last season, that improved a little bit. But they were still running the ball three percent more than average. They were the 10th most run heavy offense on early downs in the last. the first half of games.

And we know what happened to their running back core. They got completely blown up injuries all over the place. And as a result of their reliance upon these running backs that aren't being productive enough, they trailed in 10 of their first 12 games. They needed Russell Wilson to come back. Somehow they won 10 of those 12 games. They were trailing at various different points in those games. Russell Wilson had to will them back.

He constantly is bringing this team. back from first half deficits where they're leading entering the locker room. They led in the locker room entering only six of their games last season. And he had to bring them back and win a lot of these games in the second half. Number one, very difficult for a quarterback to do that. It's not typical that a quarterback is going to be able to post double-digit win seasons when they're only winning at halftime in so few games. They absolutely must get more aggressive earlier on in games and become more pass-heavy.

Russell Wilson was the number two most efficient passer, whether you're looking at EPA, which is expected points added, success rate, yards per attempt. He was number two across the board on early downs in the first half, yet they're one of the most run heavy teams in the NFL on these downs and keep falling behind on the scoreboard. I believe if they put more on his shoulders, let him have more influence over the team in the first half of games. They will be leading a lot more at halftime. and this is so important because teams that are up at halftime win 80% of the games, number one. And number two, this is not the same type of defense they had in 2013, 2014. They're much, much worse. They've gone out and paid Russell Wilson, so they don't have as much money to go around.

They don't have as much talent. They had ridiculous draft classes on the defensive side of the football. They haven't had such draft luck lately. They don't have a talented defense. They cannot rely on that defense to be able to get the ball back for the football. the offense in the second half and let Russ work his magic. They need to have leads so that life is easier on that defense so that the opposing offense has to throw the ball. That makes things more predictable when that opposing offense is down at halftime. The defense where Seattle knows

they're going to come out past the football is easier on the pass rush. It's easier on the secondary because things are more predictable and then they can get the ball back and let Russell and continue to grow the lead. I want to segue because Russell Wilson now gets compared often to Aaron Rogers. So the feeling has been Russell's had great support through the years. And Aaron, they've got no owner, free agents don't like Green Bay. He doesn't have any support. But if I look at the offensive and defensive lines of Green Bay entering this year,

they feel significantly more trustable than Russell Wilson's O&D lines. Then I watched Matt LaFleur in the front office of Green Bay go with a blocking tight end a running back and three interior offensive linemen and a backup quarterback, telling me they're going to change the offense in Green Bay. My question to you, how good is Aaron Rogers support? How good was it last year? Because Russell has had the tag. He's got a surplus of credits.

And Aaron's dealing with debits here. When you look at Green Bay's overall talent, should they become more run-centric? Has Aaron Rogers eroded? What's your take on what the numbers say? Any team in the NFL should become more run-centric. So just right off the board, I can tell you that no team should become more run-centric. Now, should you be more diverse when you choose to run the ball and have less predictability when you run the football?

And so you can use a little bit more heavier groupings and make it look like run and then throw the ball out of that and occasionally run out of those heavier groupings. Yes, you can do all of those things, but you absolutely shouldn't become more run-centric with the rules construct that you have in the NFL right now. But the fact that they didn't go out and improve the receiving core of the Green Bay Packers is problematic to me. That being said, I do think top the bottom, the Green Bay Packers do have more talent on their roster. But the one thing that I think a lot of people, when they're looking at Green Bay and they're forecasting them for this year and they're

seeing what Aaron Rogers is surrounded with, people see this team that improved from 6 and 10 to 3 to 13 and 3 last year. And they think, wow, Matt LaFleur made this team significantly better. This is a great football team. But the reality is if you look at this offense, an offense that got Mike McCarthy fired in 2018, but obviously made things look really good for Matt LaFleur last season, this team played in the same number of games in 2019 as he did in 2018 that were decided by one score.

But the 2019 Packers won nine of those 10 games, the 2018 Packers, only won three of those 10 games. The real difference was not offensively. The offense in 2019 was actually worse in terms of their production on early downs, their ability to skip third down, and their distance to go when they were forced into third downs. They had fewer less distance to go in 2018 than they had in 2019 when faced with third down. This was a better club in 2018 offensively than what they did in 2019. But the real difference was the luck in terms of.

their schedule. This defense faced a ridiculous schedule of opposing quarterback. They play Mitchell Trubisky through the ball 54 times against these guys. The next closest quarterback was down at 59. So they're getting a ton of attempts against Mitchell Trubisky. They're playing guys like Kyle Allen and Daniel Jones and Matt Moore and David Blow and Dwayne Haskins, all these backups and Joe Flacco, guys who aren't starting this upcoming season, they're going to be challenged a lot more on the defensive side of the ball. I think that overall is going to make their team look worse because the defense isn't going to post these top 15, top 10 metrics across the board like

they did last year. That's going to put more pressure on Aaron Rogers and this Green Bay Packers' offense to throw the ball more to stay in these games. And I think that's where we're going to start to see more problems because they're not going to have as many leads against better offense. Warren Sharp is joining us. We talk both the Seahawks and the Packers. There's some revelations in there if you're a sports better perhaps.

Maybe we're a little high on Green Bay. He just released his 350-page 2020 preview book. Now I'm going to go to a couple teams. One, I think, is going to be significantly better. Now, their record won't be. I think Denver is going to win two to three more games. I watched at the end of last year with Drew Locke. They added in the draft of their wide receiving core.

I think Noah Fant has a chance to be really good. They bring in Melvin Gordon, and we know they have two good rush ends, and Vic Fangio is an excellent defensive mind. I think Drew Locke's going to work. I think Denver is underrated going into the season. You tell me you're the expert on this. Am I nuts? What do you like?

What concerns you about the Broncos going forward? Well, my concerns with the Broncos, number one, if we look at what their schedule ends up looking like. I mean, I agree with you. When I looked at this team on the surface, heading down, the stretch and I thought when I was sitting down to start writing their chapter in this book, that I was going to write a lot of positive things about Drew Locke because they had a good record down the stretch. He looked pretty good, I thought, you know, and they ended up producing

pretty well in those games down the stretch with he was taking control four and one in their last five games. But then I went back and I looked at the teams they played, the past defenses that they faced, and then actually how he performed in these games. And in the book, we showcase a completion percentage over expectation by depth of target. And you can see in a couple of those graphics, like Drew Locke was really good within 10 yards of the line of scrimmage. But beyond that, he struggled tremendously. And the question becomes, will these new receiving weapons help assist him in completing

some of those balls down the field? Or you can look at it from the contrasting perspective of they face a much difficult, much more difficult schedule this upcoming season. I've got them playing the 11th toughest schedule of defenses against the past. this upcoming year, a big jump from what Drew Locke was facing at the end of last season. Number one and number two, this is an off season of change of question marks. We haven't had the ability for him to start working with a new offensive coordinator in Pat Shermer. So they don't have that experience going.

He's working in new weapons. So we may not see those guys flourish, especially early on, in terms of these younger guys trying to fit in and do things with this offense. So while I was expecting to be a little bit higher on Drew Locke, I actually found myself a little bit lower on Drew Locke. And this is a difficult division that they're in first and foremost. And their schedule isn't going to be very easy. So I'm not saying that he can't be a long-term solution,

but I'm not as eager to jump on the 2020 bandwagon of Drew Locke because there's a lot of question marks. And I saw enough things that concerned me out of his game when I dug into it last year to be a little bit more so. I'm sitting this one out. I'm not going to judge Drew Locke. I'm not going to get on his bandwagon just yet. I think we need to see more out of him before I'm going to make an educated decision on whether or not I think this guy could be the future long-term franchise quarterback of the Broncos.

Quick break back with a team and a quarterback that totally confuses me, the New York Giants. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds.

I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Do you remember when Diana Ross double-tap Little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people. I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George? George Bush got to do a little kill.

Well, you can find out on the Look Back at it podcast. I'm Sam Jett. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick it here, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill, waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84 is big to me, not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack on day, but just so you all know. I mean, at this point, Mark, this is the second episode where we've discussed crack.

So I'm starting to see that there's a through line. We also have AIDS on the table right now. Thank you for finishing that sentence. Yes. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Really? Yeah. For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history.

Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to my new podcast, Learn the Hard Way with me, your host, and your favorite therapist, Kear Games. And in recognition of mental health awareness month, I'm bringing over a decade. of my own experience in the mental health field and conversations with so many incredible guests. I'm talking. Trip Fontaine, Ryan Clark. Sometimes when we're in the pursuit of the thing,

we get so wrapped up in the chase that we don't realize that we are in possession of the thing. And we're still chasing it. And we don't know when we've done enough. Because people scoreboard watch. Life becomes about wins and losses. Steve Burns, Dustin Ross. Because you find it important to be a good person

while you hear on earth. Are you a good person? because you're afraid. Because that's two different intentions, bro. Absolutely. And that's two different levels of trust. I want you to just really be a good person. Join me, Kear Gaines,

as we have real conversations about healing, growth, fatherhood, pressure, and purpose on my new podcast, learn the hard way. Open your free iHeartRadio app. Search, learn the hard way and listen now. What's up, guys? This is Clever Taylor the 4th.

And on my podcast, The Cliverts Show, I'm bringing you conversations about all kinds of stuff. Like being an internet famous. Miss referee. We're in the middle of a game. This linebacker walks up to me, he goes, hey, ref, my mom wants you to wave at her. What?

Quarterback on office blue 42. Hey, ref, my mama want you to wave at her. What? Hey, Miss Parker. Listen to the Clifford show on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Warren Sharp back. sharp football analysis just released his 350 page 220 preview book.

All right, let's get to the New York Giants. I did not. I watched Daniel Jones, enough of him in college. I didn't see the arm strength, and that was with David Cutcliffe, who's a very smart offensive mind. And I thought he's erratic. I don't see the arm. The ACC sees a watered down, perhaps the weakest outside of Clemson College Football

Conference. Then he walks into the New York Giants, and I watch him last year. And there were three or four games where I, I thought Warren, I whiffed. He is way better than I thought. There's an Alex Smith quality athletically, good straight line speed. He made good enough throws. And I do think Dave Gettleman had a pretty darn good draft this year by any standard. Daniel Jones, what is the truth serum on this? Did I completely miss? Or again, is it fooling me because he was good against bad teams and struggled against good defenses?

Well, he does move from a below-average schedule of opposing past defenses to a top-tenth schedule this season. So he's going to be going up in general against more difficult past defenses. But the one thing that I think that we may see here is a little bit more intelligence from a play-calling perspective as to how they're utilizing Daniel Jones. I could see looking at this from the outside that the New York Giants and Dave Gettleman made no secret about this, that he didn't really have these, quote, analytics folk in the building.

But I could tell that they were not utilizing analytics when they were figuring out how they're going to utilize Daniel Jones. And that's why I think maybe if they start incorporating that a little bit more, Daniel Jones would look even better. One key example, he was much better with play action than without a lot of quarterbacks are. But this was just a night and day difference. They were moving from like six yards per kent up to nine, a 43% success up to 59%.

But the big difference for them is it wasn't, just any play action, it was play action from shotgun. Because when Daniel Jones was under center and think about it, you're taking a staff from under center, you're turning your back on the defense to stick the ball in the belly of Seypon Barkley or another running back. Then you're facing back up to the offensive line, the pass rush, and where your receivers are down the field. He was very poor when he had to turn his back on the defense to do play action from under center. But he was much better, averaged nearly 11 yards per attempt and a 67% success. rate when he was using play action out of shotgun.

But they used about equivalent amounts of play action from under center as they did from play action in shotgun. So it's just one example of I think you can make Daniel Jones look even better when you're giving him better play calls and you're analyzing his data in better context. And so I think that you can improve upon his production. Two areas that I'm still kind of shocked this to they didn't get higher production out of. Number one, Evan Ingram. Evan Ingram is a matchup nightmare.

He had a great season in 2018. In 2019, he was terrible. If you look at his counting stats, like his total yards, his total catches, et cetera, it looked okay. But if you're looking at his efficiency metrics, terrible last season. And so they need to improve that. He's a matchup nightmare skill sets much better than any defender would be against him. And then number two is just better incorporation of Seekle and Barclay. I know that Jason Garrett's there, so they may start to run the football even more so on early downs,

which is going to be bad for the New York Giants. They've got to figure out how to utilize him even more efficiently, and I detail that, how they can do so in the book. But they need to get a better sense of passing to Barclay when and where they're actually passing him the ball out of the backfield to increase the efficiency of those targets. But in general, I think there's a lot that you can work with with Daniel Jones here. And I agree.

I think maybe his feeling's higher than we thought entering last season if he gets the proper coaching and play calling and system there. Another team that I find intriguing. I don't have them winning a ton of games is the Las Vegas Raiders. But Mayok has shown an ability to deliver in the draft. I do think Gruden has always been pretty good running the football, and they've got a nice set of running backs I like, and their O-line, to me, feels like at times a very effective O-line.

I like Derek Carr more than John Gruden, but I do feel like sometimes he just won't let it rip. he tends to be a little Kirk Cousins to me a little safe. But the Raiders are in a tough division. But I start to watch them last year, and they were very hot and cold. You know, they go to London, and they're great against the Bears. They come home and they can get doused. Where do you fall on the Raiders going forward?

What do you like? What do you not like? Because I just think between Gruden's personality, the kind of a unique rub with he and Derek Carr, I think they're offensive pieces. Hunter Renfro has been a wonderful find. where do you go with the Raiders going forward? Well, I think John Gruden is a very good in-game coach. And he did a lot of things that enabled this Raiders team to get leaded at halftime.

They led at nine games at halftime, which is very high. They ended up only winning seven of those. But my issues really start with Derek Carr. And then you talk about the defense, which was very bad last season. I am not very high on Derek Carr. like you mentioned in one of your talking points there, he tends to bail too often. I mean, there's a famous play where it's fourth and goal and he throws the ball out of bounce.

Like he just throws it away. There are situations where under pressure he does not do very well. I know they got new pieces this season, but I like Gruden more as an in-game coach than I do as influencing the general manager. But I just think that this is a team that has too much variance for me to be confident. I really do not like just how they are up and down far too often. And I think that they do a lot of things from a coaching perspective to make life easier on Derek Carr. But then he makes things more difficult and unraveled at the same time.

And we also have to consider the fact that this season, I'm currently projecting them to play the number two most difficult schedule of opposing past defenses. They played an average schedule last year. So an increased difficulty in schedule, a tendency not to be able to hold on to leads late in games, and then just the overall fact that I don't love Derek Carr in a division that has some other good quarterback. I think that I'm not jumping on board with the L.A. Raiders anytime soon. Yeah, no, I think you're right. Warren Sharp is joining us, and I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am, starting with the Seahawks,

into the Packers, the Broncos, the Giants, the Raiders. Now Baker Mayfield. I did not think he was a number one pick. I look pretty smart today. But I could also say Freddie Kitchens was completely over his skis. He'd never been interviewed for a coordinator job and was handed kind of a chaotic situation with Baker Mayfield. I do think Baker has talent. I've always said he reminds me a Case Keenham with a big-time arm.

Size, athleticism, very average. But I think he can sling it. I think he plays aggressively and with confidence. And I'm going to say that Freddie Kitchens was a majority of the problems last year. Is that fair? But I will say that there's a public narrative out there that, oh, if only we used more of Todd Monkin last year, who was the offensive coordinator who came out after the season and said this was a disaster and I didn't get along well with Freddie Kitchens.

However, there's a narrative that if we used more Todd Monkyn, everything would have been fine. But the reality is this team used a lot of Todd Monkyn's ideas early on in the season. Todd Monkin is an air raid coordinator. He likes to spread the field with wide receivers and attack the defense. They used a ton of 11 personnel. Weeks 1 to 9, 84% of their passes came from 11 personnel. So they were at one of the highest rates in the NFL in terms of using 11 personnel. But what's the problem?

The problem is they aren't looking at analytics because they would have seen that in 2018 and then into 2019, Baker Mayfield is terrible with 11 personnel, with only having five guys typically protecting him in front of him, he was much better when they utilize heavier sets, 12 personnel, which is two tight ends or 21 personnel, where they're having a couple of backs out on the field. And giving the defense, first of all, the idea that, okay, this really could be a run play.

And number two, when he drops back, he's terrible with pressure. So we need to keep Baker clean and give him this confidence before the snap that we're going to have things bolted down and pressure is not going to leak to you. when he got those situations, he was actually very good, well above average when he was passing ball. In comes Kevin Stefanski. Kevin Stefansky is a guy who used a ton of 12 and 21 and even 13.

That's his reputation, yep. Exactly. The least amount of 11 personnel of any team in the NFL last season. So he comes in the door, and what do they do? Well, you need personnel to be able to operate this office. You can't just say, I'm going to start using this. So what do they do? They get very aggressive.

They go out and trade with the Broncos to bring in Andy Janovich, a fullback. They go out in free agency and acquire Austin Hooper, another tight end. They go out and draft a tight end in Harrison Bryant. So now we're getting the pieces. We can use more 12 and 21, 13 even. Now we go out and we acquire tackles. We've got to protect Baker and get the edges squared down. We go out and we get Jack Cochlin at Wright tackle.

We draft Judge Wills from Alabama, number 10 overall. Now we're getting our tackles to help ensure. that our offensive line can help support Baker Mayfield. This team in the off season, in my opinion, did more to help their quarterback than any team in the NFL did. And their scheme is going to be more set up with the coaching staff to help Baker Mayfield than I think any scheme change in the NFL is going to help that particular quarterback. So I think we've got massive upside from a scheme perspective that's new, from a roster

perspective that's improved and they're going to be able to use a lot more 12 and 21 where Baker shines. And then the last piece of the puzzle call on is the defensive schedule. Baker Mayfield and the Cleveland Brown's last season played the number one overall most difficult schedule by my metrics of opposing defenses, the number three most difficult schedule of opposing past defenses. I have them forecast to face the number one easiest schedule of opposing past defenses in 2020, moving from number three hardest to number one easiest. obviously that's the biggest jump in the NFL. I think we're going to have a Baker Mayfield who everybody expects a jump in quarterbacks from

year one production to year two. That's when they tend to make their big jump. We didn't see that from Baker last year. We got down on Baker. The narrative shifted to the other quarterbacks because Patrick Mahomes is ridiculous. Lamar Jackson had such a great season. Baker Mayfield is lost in the distance. I think this season, if Baker Mayfield doesn't perform in this situation,

that you got real big problems that can shine the spotlight directly on Baker but I think last season's problem he obviously plays a role but there were a lot of other things going on that were problematic around him in addition to the team not utilizing analytics and not surrounding him with the right players

and the roster and the coaching stuff this year all those other things have been squared away I think year three the guy nobody's talking about is Baker their forecast to win only what eight and a half games finished at third in the AFC North I think Baker makes a tremendous jump this upcoming season.

What a pleasure for the audience. I am not done bringing you on. I would love to bring you on regularly at some point during the NFL season. I think you add such value. It's called Sharp Football Analysis. He just released a 350 page 2020 preview book. He texted me the other night. Are you reading it?

And I said, yeah, Warren, give me a couple weeks here. I just love bringing you on, respect you so much, and my audience just gobbles up your stuff. So I'm not going to ask anymore, because I want to save some stuff before the season starts. I'm going to bring you back on in another month if you have time. But you just wet our appetite here on a Saturday morning podcast. Warren, thank you so much.

I'm going to join you again, Colin. Thanks for having me on. Love talking with you. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends, me and hilarious guests, from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman,

help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter.

Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all,

embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the Look Back at it podcast. From 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me.

I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex Eagre. Each episode, we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it, with our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. Before it was a wild year. It was a wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people.

Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, what's good, y'all? You're listening to Learn the Hardway with your favorite therapist and host Kier Games. This space is about black men. experiences, having honest conversations that's really not safe to have anywhere, but you're having them with a licensed professional who knows what he's doing. How many men carry a suit or armor. It signals to the world that you're not to be played with. And just because you have the capability that does not mean that you need to, listen to learn the hard way on the IHard radio

app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHart podcast.