The Kevin Sheehan Show - 5-2 Redskins- Impressed Or Not?

Episode Date: October 30, 2018

How impressive was the Redskins' win over the Giants? Kevin and Thom discuss that and they look ahead to the Falcons game. They get to the World Series, Klay Thompson, and Bryce Harper's future. They finish up the show talking about the Redskins grievance win against their former GM, Scot McCloughan. <p> </p><p>Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a></p> Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You want it. You need it. It's what everyone's talking about. The Kevin Sheehan Show. Now here's Kevin. You're listening to The Sports Fix. Thank you, Tommy, for giving me fair warning. Tom's here. Aaron's here. This show's presented by Window Nation. Call 86690 Nation or go to Windonation.com if you're in the market for new windows. I promise you will be happy if you do that. How was your commute this morning, sir? Actually, today it was not as bad as it's been. It was about a half an hour less. Why? It was an hour and 30. Well, you didn't stop for... There's no rhyme or reason.

Well, you didn't stop for Antonin's coffee cakes this morning. No, well, actually, I had more time because I had to wait for you to get here. You know, I was here before you. So I walked around Safeway for a while, got a little milk, got a little... Hung out at the deli counter. Got a little roll for some eating and sat in the kitchen. You walked right by me. Didn't even notice me.

I can only imagine right now out in Frederick, out in the sticks where you live, when you're walking around Safeway or Giant and talking to the deli manager and the produce manager and everybody knows you and you're returning ham, half-eaten hams, and, ah, this turkey wasn't very good. Can I get the boars head instead? Oh, Jesus. I don't make it into the grocery store very often, okay? No, you're just feeding pigeons out by the pond. All right, let's start with the Redskins.

Let's start the show. Let's start the show with the Redskins win over the Giants. I read your column on Maryland's situation and calling out all of the Board of Regents. I don't know that I got your column on the Redskins Giants game. Did you write one? I didn't go. Oh, so you didn't write a column. I mean, look, generally, the rule is in journalism.

If you're not at an event, you can't write like you were at an event. You can't watch it on TV and act like you were there. Now, there's not many rules left in this business. And they disappear by the day. Do you want to call people out? People who write columns without going to games? No, no, no, no, no. You've got somebody in mind.

No, I don't. I'm just pointing out to you why I would not have written a column. Who do you have in mind? I have nobody in mind. Sally? No, she was there. I'm sure. But Sally writes columns all the time without going to events.

No, I'm not talking. And she's an excellent columnist. I'm not talking about, I'm going to that specific event. You can't write about that. Like, I can do a follow-up on the Redskins Giants, you know, after, like this week, if I want to. But you have somebody in mind. No, I don't. I'm serious.

You do. You got too much time on your hands. You definitely have somebody in mind. Overall, and I'm just, this is, I just put a poll out this morning. I was just thinking about, and the reason I put the poll out is I was thinking about how you and I would discuss the game. and I always think in terms of sort of how you view the game. And I was curious as to whether or not you thought the win over the Giants was impressive, was just okay and expected, was unimpressive,

or that you don't have a feel really one way or the other. You're not sure. You know, I felt better about it than I did the Carolina win. What about the Dallas win? Oh, and the Dallas win. I felt better about it. Did you just get confused thinking Carolina was last week? Yeah, yeah, I got confused a little.

bit. But no, but the Carolina win was more impressive than the Dallas win because they're a better team. So, but I thought this was, I thought, I thought, I thought they looked better, at least in the first half and, and other parts of the game. I thought Alex Smith looked just a little bit better. He was. Okay, well, that was my impression. I mean, I mean, they, he had a good rhythm. They moved the ball down the field at times. I mean, the cumulative, a total wasn't that much. But my impression was, while it was a win that they should have had, I would vote that, you know, it wasn't an impressive win, but it was, of the wins they've had recently, if I was a Redskins fan,

I'd feel better about this win, about them moving forward. There's sort of a lot that goes into that. You know, there's always just, you know, how do you feel? Like, what's your feeling right now after they just beat the Giants? And my feeling, and because you know the way I think about these. things. So I sort of felt going in that this was the proverbial trap game, NFL trap game, and that they've been prone to falling into that trap year after year after year. Any, you know, limited amount of success that they've had over the years has always been followed up with a massive

disappointment somewhere along the line in a game that you felt like they should have played much better in. So I did think going into this game that this one had sort of trap written all over it, Although, and you weren't here on Friday, you were here on Thursday, I did not give the Giants out as a smell test pick. And you know that should have been a guaranteed lock smell test pick. But I just thought it was almost too telegraphed. Like it was almost too much of a smell test. So I sort of started thinking, well, maybe the Redskins will win this game. But I came away thinking that it was an impressive win.

because I think if you really are an NFL consumer and you know how these things work, this was set up for them to go in and fail and to not play well and to lose to a 1 in 16. And they didn't. They actually played very well on defense, albeit against a dreadful giant team right now offensively along their offensive line.

They had an urgency to them. Yes. They, you know, Jay Gruden's team, teams and big spots like this have fallen flat in the past. They were ready for this game. They were energized for this game. They still have issues. I'm not naive offensively in terms of being able to actually move the ball via the forward pass. That's a problem right now for them. But I was really impressed. I think that is a significant signal of a win. I'm not suggesting that they're going to be an NFC contender. I don't believe that. They're not in the class of the Rams or the Saints.

I don't think they're in the class, quite honestly, of two or three other teams in the NFC, especially if they had to play those teams on the road in the postseason. You don't want to say to Vikings, do you? Oh, I would say the Vikings. I don't think the Redskins could go to Minnesota and win a playoff game if they had to. And I don't think that they could go to Lambo and win a playoff game if they had to. I think you wanted to say the word Vikings. I'll tell you what, Tommy.

I'll give you the teams right now in the NFC that I think, you know, are better, that will be better if they're not when we get to January. Philadelphia, potentially, in the division. Certainly the Saints, potentially a team like the Falcons. We'll see them Sunday. The Rams, definitely. The Vikings, Packers, I think the Seahawks might be a little bit underrated. You know, I'm anxious to see what they do this weekend at home against the Chargers.

That's a very interesting game this weekend. But I'm not saying that at the, while also, sort of trying to imply that I don't think the Redskins are a good team. I think they're on the verge of becoming a good team. They're very good defensively. They're much improved defensively. But back to the Giant game, I just think that that was an impressive win. It was an impressive win for the team, the coaching staff, the organization.

I think it's more impressive because of when it came on the schedule. If they had played that Giants game, that game by itself, I don't think, if it's stands alone is not that impressive. I don't disagree with you. It's the context of it. But, but it's, I mean, what you, what you feel is a Redskins team that is gaining a confidence, gaining a swagger, getting used to winning a little bit. I called it, I called it an identity. The identity of this team, this is something you and your columnist friends always need is some sort of identity. They run the ball and they stop the run. Yeah. That's their identity. Yeah. And, You know who one of the most remarkable players is for them,

one of the most valuable players is Tressway. Oh, yeah. He's a great day. He is so integral to the rest of that success. The way they've won the last three games? Yes, the special teams, the punting, the field flipping, Tressway's been an integral part of integral or integral part of the three wins during this three-game winning streak.

I've been very, very impressed. Why don't we do a poll on that? Integral or integral. But look, again, I think it was an expected win, so it's hard to say it was impressive, but I think it was a more impressive win than what they had, at least in terms of context,

over the previous two weeks. And, you know, I mean, I'm done. I am done second-guessing, Adrian Peterson being around in December. I'm done with that. From right now, until it happens, I'm going to say Adrian Peterson's going to be there in December. He's going to be running a ball 20 times a game,

getting 90 to 100 yards a game, because he's not like anybody we've seen in decades. I agree with that. It'd be silly at this point to question his ability to last another nine games. because he just had, you know, arguably his best game of the season in game seven. But I would just, you mentioned something, and I would disagree with it slightly. I don't think for me, and for my type, the people that have wagered on this sport for a long period of time, I don't think it was this lock expected win.

It just wasn't. I mean, the line was pick them. Redskins went to minus one at the kick. That's why I think it was a significant win. and it was impressive because it wasn't necessarily expected. In fact, you could argue that given their track record and this coaching staff's track record, it was unexpected for them to go up and play well and come away with a win. The Giants are a mess right now.

Yeah, they are. They are a mess. They're a self-inflicted mess as much as anything. Oh, my God. You talk about a self-inflicted loss, which now the Redskins have three in a row of those. Yes. Of the opponent essentially. And I give the Redskins credit for.

not being the ones that are, you know, inflicting damage on themselves, which they usually are. The legendary voice of Ken Beatrice in this town would say, Maugh games are lost than one. And it is an adage that has held up over time, meaning that if you don't beat yourself, you got a pretty good chance of winning the game. And the Giants had penalties, turnovers, dropped passes. They ran into a punner at the worst possible time.

It was self-inflicted, like the Cowboys had a self-inflicted loss. And like the Panthers the week before had a self-inflicted loss. But the Redskins get credit. Some of these self-inflictions really aren't. They are actually, you know, prompted by good defense or force. But some of them aren't. I know. I'll grant you that.

And like we just said, the identity, the momentum, I think that they, I think they know how to win at this point. It doesn't mean they'll win, but they know how. I don't think they'll fold like the cheap suit they usually fold in in years past. So, I mean, look, I thought the defense would give them a chance to win nine games this year at beginning of the year. I thought it would come more from the pass rush, the outside pass rush, more than the interior pass rush. And by the way, somebody was really, really, really right about Matt Ionitis, weren't they? Weren't they?

I mean, really right. You are just insufferable. I mean, so right about Matt Ionitis. As you started to say, I'm like, where are you going with that? And just big grin on your face. You couldn't wait to get that one out. What else do you have to get out about how you're right? That's it.

I don't need anything else. Because God knows before the end of this podcast, I got a big one that I was right about. see Scott McLuhan's grievance hearing. And we will get to that before the end of the podcast. Look, you know, this team last year, if it had stayed healthy on defense with Alan ionitis and Foster, the results of the season would have been better, much better. You know, you can also point to an offensive line that was ravaged more than any other area of the team last year.

This is why I always get into. I'm always amused by those that say, hey, next man up, no excuses. I mean, seven and nine is what they were. Well, actually, if they had stayed healthy relative to like somewhere in the middle of the league healthy, they would have been a nine or ten win team last year because the defense would have been significantly improved in terms of results because the only real difference between last year's defense and this year's defense, and it's a big difference. Don't get me wrong is Duran Payne.

Duran Payne is a force Already But Ionitis and Foster and Allen just the three of them Being healthy last year Would have been a big Difference in their season Last year

You've gone from one of the worst teams Defensively in the league And one of the worst run-stopping teams Defensively in the league last year To now the best I don't even know where they are ranked rush defense right now I'm assuming it's in the top two I didn't

I didn't look at it. We've talked for what? They're number two. Number two rush defense right now. And last year, where were they, 28th, 29th? It may have even been 32nd rush defense last year. We've talked for 20 minutes. Yeah, dead last.

Dead last. Let me just emphasize that point because I did not look it up before the show, but I was curious what the differences were. Dead last year, in the league, 32nd, and rush defense. And right now they are second in rush defense. Yeah. It's a big difference. And they've played some good backs, too.

20 minutes, and we haven't mentioned the quarterback. That's still a problem. That's a problem that we haven't mentioned the quarterback. No, we did mention him. We both said, you said you thought he played better, and I talked about it on the podcast yesterday. I thought it was a better game for him. We barely mentioned them.

And again, I mean, as much as we love their identity, as much as we may have, may say that, you know, they're learning how to win. they might not fold. They are still one pulled hamstring or groin injury with Adrian Peterson away from being in big trouble. For being completely locked down. Yes. Offensively.

So I thought he played better on Sunday. My specific grade was a C up from a C minus from last week. I could see that. The reason I thought he played better is I thought he showed more pitch. patience, waiting for plays, you know, against the pressure in particular, he had more patience. He didn't basically, once the pressure came or the perceived pressure came, bail on the play, which is what he did in the first six games, I think, in the seventh game against the Giants on Sunday. He was better at that.

He still is contributing in two ways. Number one, he's not turning the ball over, although he was lucky not to turn the ball over on Sunday. He had two, three passes that very easily could have been picked. But that's beside the point. he didn't turn the ball over, which is his MO. Yes. Okay, it is his MO. Throwing teams to victories in the postseason

or winning postseason games, that's not his MO. No. His MO is during the regular season, he's not going to be overly exciting from a throwing the football standpoint or a statistical standpoint, the statistic that everybody points to as if it's all on him is his record.

It's not, okay? That's a limited view. And those of you that think, oh, Alex Smith is five and two and another quarterback is four, three, and one. And that says that Alex Smith is so much better. No, it really doesn't. The team is so much better. The team was dead last, was dead last in rush defense a year ago, and now they're second. Last year they were porous as a run team.

This year, they're not. I don't even know where they are in rushing offense. It's got to be pretty impressive. Here I go, just looking up stuff during the show. Now, you know what's interesting. Last year, they were 28th in rush offense, and this year right now... 14th. They are...

No, they're 8th in rush offense right now. Eighth right now and... What did I say, 28th last year? Those are significant team upgrades. Yes, I say so. I mean, let's not act like Alex Smith not turning the ball over is the reason they're 5 and 2. They're number 2 in rush defense and they're number 8 in rushing offense. That's your story, right?

there. The turnover margin definitely is significant. I'm not minimizing it. And Alex Smith is a big part of that. So he is contributing from that standpoint. But they're five and two because they're running the ball and they're stopping the run more than anything else. Now, the Washington Times, the paper I work for, you could read my stuff in Washington Times. I read your Maryland column this morning. Washington Times.com. We had a story by our Redskins beatwriter, Matthew Paris, that basically said, even if Adrian Peterson hadn't come here, the plan was for the Redskins to run the ball this year. Now, I get that.

And that's in part because they had to because they traded for a quarterback that can't pass the ball, that can't pass them the victory. But who knew that it would take that for Jay Gruden to be forced to have a running attack? You had to take the quarterback position away from Jay Gruden to force him to run the ball. I don't, I know, I know that was the column you wrote last week.

No, but, but no, I'm saying. Was that the column? Because we sort of went through this last week. No. That Jay Gruden isn't happy running the football and he's not able to coach up his quarterback to take advantage of these wonderful past designs. Yeah, he's not as happy. And by the way, Tommy, people are open everywhere again this year.

So, no, it's not as much fun for him. I'm sure he's happy. It's just not as much fun for him. But I'm saying he has never, I mean, his reputation, his reputation, is to avoid the run, to give up on the run quick. And the only reason, the only way they forced them to do it was to give them a quarterback who can't throw the ball. Well, I will tell you this, that is another, and that was going to be the next thing I got

to. Okay, so I'm going to move to it now because I think, and I mentioned this on the podcast yesterday, that the organization gets some credit for where they are right now. The point you just made, I didn't make yesterday, which was recognizing, because I didn't think they knew what they had in Alex Smith because I thought maybe Bruce Allen sort of made this deal with Andy Reid sort of by himself to a certain extent. And I'm not necessarily totally confident in Bruce Allen's ability to sort of size up talent. So right when they made that trade, the first thing I said on the show, the next day to Cooley is they better run the ball next year. Understand what you're getting in a quarterback in Alex Smith.

You're getting a smart guy, doesn't turn it over, can make plays as a runner and a scrambler and extend the play type of quarterback, but you better have the ability to run the football or it will be a disaster. And good for them, the organization, to recognize that. They drafted Darius Geis in the second round. They had a plan to draft running back early. I wasn't even confident that they would have that plan. I knew they needed it, but that is one area. I'd give him credit for Tommy. And the other is this.

Like, it's hard to overlook the fact that for the, you know, over the last several years, they have added via the draft talented players in the trenches. For a decade and a half, they were allergic to drafting offensive and defensive linemen high. And when I say high, in the top four rounds, essentially. Starting in 2010, when Bruce got here, and I think that there was a cultural change from a fiscal standpoint,

from a roster management standpoint, and there was more emphasis put on drafting players. I'm not saying they got everybody right, and they haven't. They have failed on a lot of their second round picks over the last few years. But they have added up front, Brandon Sheriff, Trent Williams was added to be the draft.

Trent's getting now, believe it or not, up in age. I hope he's healthy. I hope this thumb doesn't really impact him. They need him. Morgan Moses. Morgan Moses in the draft in the fourth, round, and then defensively two first round picks on two Alabama interior defensive linemen. Back in the 2000s, that would have been nixed by management.

No, they don't sell tickets. They don't sell tickets. We're drafting other players, skill position players. We're acquiring skill position players, names. And John Allen, who, by the way, fell in that 2017. Because of the shoulder questions. Because of the arthritic concerns about his shoulder. Yes.

So they, right now, you got to, I'm asking you, I'm giving them some credit for developing a roster here. Do you give them the same? Well, yeah, you have to. I mean, I mean, they've basically created one of the better defenses in the league, particularly the interior through the draft. So you have to give them credit. We don't know who gets credit for that.

So everybody gets credit for that. McLuhan gets some of the credit for when he was here. He gets some of the credit. Brandon Sheriff was his. Yeah. And people say, well, you know, he's a guard and you drafted a guard number one, but he may be the best guard in the NFL. He also presided over the draft that landed Matt Ionitis.

Yes. Although I have heard that that was a Jay Gruden pick, that Gruden watched the film on Ionitis. Like I did. Fell in love with him. Like I did. Fell in love with him and said, I want that guy. and McLuhan drafted. You know, we used the cliche motor a lot,

but that's what you saw when you saw Matt Ionitis. The strength, though. Jay said he's the strongest guy in the team. And one of the smartest, too. Yeah. I asked JP yesterday on the podcast, because I can't figure it out right now. Seriously, it's a difficult question.

It's a good question, if you're a Redskins fan. Which of the three is the best player? Which of the three is having the most impact? Which of the three is most responsible? Because really, it comes from that group of three right now, in my view, as to why the defense is playing better. It's close. JP said he thinks it's pain.

I think I agree with him. I think pain has been incredible. First of all, they haven't had a nose tackle in years. No. They haven't had a true run stuffer in the middle in years. But he's also collapsing pockets, you know, game after game. Last week was easy.

He's creating the opportunities for the sacks by Matt Ionitis. No doubt. Absolutely. So it's hard to figure out who is, who's most responsive. among that three. But look, it was a good win. They've got a big game, I mean, a different test that they've had since.

They have a test now like they haven't had since the New Orleans game. Yes. This is the retake of the failed test at New Orleans. They're getting a chance to retake the test. The professor and you're won. The professor said, you clearly didn't study for that. But I'm going to give you a break and give you a chance to retake it. And that's this Sunday.

Yes. Because of the three, no team they faced during this three-game winning streak has the offensive potential of Atlanta. And the last time they faced a team with that kind of offensive potential, they got torched. Yes. They got torched up and down the field on Drew Brees night. And there was a lot going against them that night. On the road.

On the road. This one's at home. Yep. Now Atlanta's coming off a bye week. And Atlanta's, you know, I think Atlanta's won two in a row now to get back to three and four. Giants two weeks ago. Yeah, they beat the Giants on Monday night, and I think that's two wins in a row for the Falcons to get to, yeah, two wins in a row. They beat the Buccaneers and Giants. Neither one of those wins, very impressive. The giant win was less, you know, it's 23 to 20, but they are a capable offensive team. Very capable offensive team. Looking ahead to Sunday, it looks like a dry track, a decent day, you know, 50s, 60s kind of a day, so not a cold day, not a windy day. This is a real test. And we're going to learn all.

I said going into that New Orleans game, and I think you agreed with me, that we were going to learn more about the Redskins at two and one from this game than any other game. And it was a true signal game. And the signal it provided actually turned out to be a bit of a head fake because they've won three in a row. But it may not have been a head fake if they go out against Atlanta and get torched again. Then you'll have clear evidence who they are. Yes. And who they can beat and who they can't be.

I agree. Follow me on Twitter. Follow Tommy on Twitter at Tom Levero at Kevin Shee in D.C. I put up this poll. I'm going to read you the results right now. The poll's been up for about an hour and we've got over 500 votes. Describe the Redskins went over the Giants. 50% said, just okay, expected it. 21% were impressed, 15% unimpressed and 14% saying not really sure. And I put in that not really sure because I had a conversation with, two different people, friends of mine yesterday, who live outside the market, who called me to talk about the giant game, and they're like, I don't know what to make of it. The giants are really bad, but the Redskins are, they're really good on defense, aren't they? And I'm like, yeah, I think, here's what you can say definitively, and you could have said it last year had they stayed healthy on defense. They're much improved on defense. It's a completely different team defensively up front. Some of these numbers, because they played the Cardinals early, you know, could be potentially a misleading in terms of the ranking.

But here's not, here's what's not misleading, is that they completely shut down Zeke Elliott. That performance is the one out of all of them, where you look at them defensively as a run defense and you say legit. Yeah, because that's a guy who's run through this team. And it's an emphasis by that team to run the football. And the Redskins completely shut them down. I've seen the list, you know, McCaffrey and Barclay and Zeke Elliott and.

and going back to David Johnson in the opener, the most impressive was against Elliot, because that team has an offensive line, an emphasis to run the football, and they couldn't do it at all. All right, let me tell you... Yet they still barely won that game. Think about that.

I know. That's the frustrating... Well, they needed a defensive touchdown to win the game. That's the uncertain part. Everything you said is right. They did everything they wanted to do, and they still barely won. I am still glass half full on the Redskins getting better on offense,

other than being able to run the ball. I've seen Alex Smith. There was a time a few years ago where I was like, give me Alex Smith, give me Andy Dalton. I'll take either one of those guys. I just don't want Colt McCoy to be my starter when it was looking like there was a chance that they would go with Colt McCoy. And I like Alex Smith.

I've always been a fan of Alex Smith. I think he's a good quarterback, and he's a better quarterback than he's shown this year. I'm not going to get into comparing him. I've always felt like he is somewhere in the middle of the league of the starting quarterback, somewhere in that 14 to 18 range. He's right there, but you certainly can win with him if you've got the parts around him, and it looks like they've put the parts around him. I think it'll get better.

He's been really, really poor throwing. the football, his accuracy. That has not necessarily been his MO to be wildly inaccurate, to look like he's got the yips. I think that'll improve. I do. If you want to improve your home with new windows, call Window Nation. Harley and Aaron from Window Nation are believers in the podcast, in me and Tommy. I want you to trust in them if you need new windows. The temperatures, they're falling fast, although it's going to be warm this week. It's going to be beautiful today. And 70 for Halloween, which is nice. We'll pay for it later, but temperatures will fall fast, and that's a great reminder,

that your window, pun intended, for getting new windows installed before the holidays and snow hits, is closing. While most window companies are experiencing 12-week lead times, window nation can do it in less than half the time and save you half the money. Call today and get two free windows for every two you buy. Buy four, get four free, six, get six free, there's no limit. There's only one thing better than free windows. How about free financing? And for the next two weeks,

Wind Donation is offering no interest for five years. New windows now, no interest for 60 months. Call the Window Company that over 80,000 homeowners have already trusted to take advantage of this amazing offer now, get two windows for every two you buy for free, and zero percent interest for five full years. Visit Windonation.com. You'll save this winter and forever on your energy bills.

you'll eliminate those nasty drafts and start enjoying all the benefits of new windows do it today windownation.com or call 86690 nation and if you're just looking for a quote there's no risk you can get a free quote call them at 86690 nation today and they'll send somebody out to give you a free quote all right I wanted to talk I've got a bunch of topics here that we can just you know rip through real quickly and then I do want to get to the Scott McLuhan grievance I've got some topics okay No, I don't really. World Series. Can we start, please, with game four. And the decision by Dave Roberts to pull his starting pitcher, Rich Hill out, in the seventh inning as he had a one-hitter, he was in the midst of a one-hitter,

not a seven-hitter, a shutout one-hitter, he had just struck out the batter he faced, and he, a lefty, was about to face another lefty coming up. I know that apparently, Rich Hill gave indication to Dave Roberts to keep an eye on him. Yeah, I know, but all this is so murky and shows what a dysfunctional decision it was because everyone's looking for cover to try to protect themselves from it.

I mean, you have Rich Hill, I mean, you have people saying that Rich Hill told him, look at me, you know, keep an eye on me. But then you have Rich Hill saying that he didn't ask to come out. That didn't mean he wanted to come out. If anything, that meant that he wanted to stay in. So, I mean, Rich Hill has now said that that was an indication that they should take them out. He wanted them to make sure that they kept them in. I want to interrupt for one second.

Did Dave Roberts say that after the game? Was he the one that put it out there that Rich told me to keep an eye on it? I don't know where that came from. Okay, because that would be an incredibly defensive, and I think a little bit throwing Rich Hill under the bus in the moment in a series that wasn't over at that point. That's what everybody was doing at that point. Everyone was running for cover from a bad decision.

The analytics people don't think it was a bad decision. I know they don't because they don't understand the difference between information and knowledge. And, I mean, it doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge to know that you got to keep your pitcher on the mound in that situation. God, I thought so. Yeah, I mean, it's ridiculous. And again, I mean, nobody, I mean, the Astros do it too. But the Dodgers, the Dodgers tell. their manager, Dave Roberts, how to manage from the front office.

The nationals do not do that. They have an analytics department, but Mike Rizzo does not tell, did not tell Dusty how to manage, does not tell Dave Martinez how to manage. He gives them the information and the statistics, and then the manager makes the decision. And this is, this is so wrong that, you know, you've got front offices that want robots in the dugout to, you know, make push-button decisions in the middle of an important game like that. that. You know, the Red Sox would have won the series anyway. I mean, Red Sox are clearly one of the great teams

of all time, and the Dodgers were not as talented. And I picked the Dodgers because I thought their veteran experience of having been there last year would have helped them. I didn't know that they would make stupid decisions like Pullen Rich Hill. I don't know that the Red Sox

would have won that series, had they even that series up 2-2 with Kirschaw pitching on Sunday night. I don't know that for sure. And I think baseball is one of those random result sports sometimes. The Red Sox are clearly going to be viewed as one of the great teams in the history of the game, and I want your thoughts on that. But you said something real quickly, and I want to make sure I'm clear on it.

So when Dusty pulled Scherzer in game five against the Dodgers, that was what? That was Dusty feeling the moment? Was it an analytics thing? So you're saying that Dusty was able to manage and make his own decisions, even though the NACs were a heavy analytical? team. Absolutely. Absolutely 100%.

And by the way, a guy like, I always point to people like this, Scherzer's a very emotional guy, okay? He did not have a problem given Dusty that ball walking out. I know. You're right. You're right about that. So you are right. And he's made his, his voice heard when he wants to stay in a game.

Well, I. So that's, and I think that's the way it should be. I think managers should manage. You provide them with the information and then you let them, you let them run the team. I am I'm not an anti-analytics person like you but I'm not an anti-analytic person Okay, well you're you I have the same thought about you which is a lot of these people not all of them Don't really even understand how the numbers that they're viewing are even generated and there's Context and there's knowledge and all of that that plays into it I'm just sitting there watching this game

Thinking you've got to be kidding me yeah this dude is dealing he has has given up one hit. And his pitch count, Tommy, was like 90, I think, at the end of that. And there was a lefty coming up. He brought in another lefty to face a lefty, and that dude, Alexander promptly walked that guy in like five pitches. I mean, I just, and I know that people will say, and smart people out there will say,

you've got to pull him before, you know, he's about to damage your chances to win, not after. Well, I don't know what you would have looked at watching that game thinking that he was on the verge of damaging his chances, his team's chances of winning that game. He was dealing. If he'd walked the first batter? He did.

Okay. There was a batter on in that. He either walked or gave up a bait. No, he walked. He walked. The no-hitter was lost in the inning before that. He walked the first batter, but then struck out the next batter. Yes.

And was facing a lefty. That's what I mean. If he had walked that batter, then it ends out. If he had walked two in a row, totally different situation. No, it would have been two in a row. That would have been a walk, a strike out, and then a walk. No, what I'm saying to you is if he had walked the batter that he struck out, and it had been two walks to start the seventh, fine.

Right. But he struck out that batter, and you had another lefty. Now, if he had had a 15-pitch walk to the next batter, okay, fine. That's what I'm talking about. But in that moment, there was nothing, at least from my standpoint, I'm watching the game thinking that he's in trouble. Nothing. Now, here's part of what goes on to with managers.

They are susceptible to being, like, immortalized as goats. And you have the Grady little. Stop being fearful. You have the Grady little Pedro Martinez effect here. Where Grady went out to the mound in the 2003 playoffs against the Yankees and let Pedro stay in the game. and then Pedro eventually gave up the winning runs to tying runs at least in that game and a game that the Red Sox were winning.

So you have that effect as well. And people still talk about the Grady Little phenomenon and how it's impacted. Nobody wants to be a manager to be accused of keeping in the pitcher too long. So that's basically what's working here. And the other thing with the analytics, here's one of my biggest problems. with people who swear by analytics. It's a holy war for them. You know, I mean, I mean, I've had arguments with people about most valuable

player when like Miguel Cabrera won the MVP over Mike Trout. And for me, it was an argument about who was the MVP. For them, it wasn't arguing about the Ten Commandments. You know, I mean, it's a holy war for them. And you're an idiot if you don't think like them. So that's what we're facing here. And those people are in charge of baseball now. And it's helping to kill the game.

I don't have a problem with reasonable people who are into advanced statistics, who love the information. I go through all of that information. And sometimes it can really help you tell part of the story that in your gut you feel is true. The problem that I've always had is a lot of those people. cannot tell you why a team shot fewer threes versus shooting more threes. They don't understand the game. They can't tell you that this isn't a good screen the screener team, or this isn't a good transition team, or this isn't a team that has guys that you can create for or run plays

for to get open threes versus when they come sort of naturally in transition and they're wide open. You know, Clay Thompson last night set the record for 14 threes in a game. Do you know 13 of his threes, 13 of his 14 threes, one dribble or less. You talk about a team that can create and buckle a defense and then kick to wide open guys. When you play on those teams, you should shoot more threes. But anyway, I digress. I also would just say, make one other point. I also find it really hard for, it's hard for me to believe that some of these people are so

convinced that these numbers are so definitive. When in sports like basketball and football, I don't know what the percentage is, but I would guess that 50% of what happens in a football game or in a basketball game isn't even measurable. Like you have to know what you're watching to understand the value of what just happened there because there isn't a way to quantify it necessarily. So those are my issues. One last thing about baseball. Yes.

Okay. Well, I want to ask you whether or not you think this is the best team ever. Okay. Because some people are making that case because they be... I think it's second behind the 98 Yankees. in terms of baseball in the past 50 years. I actually think the 55 Brooklyn Dodgers were arguably the best team ever.

That's not on a lot of the lists that I've seen. The 98 Yankees, the 27 Yankees. Look at the Hall of Famers on the 55 Brooklyn Dodgers. The 86 Mets won 108 regular Deges. The big red machine of 75? I know. I think the 55 Brooklyn Dodgers get overlooked. You've got Jackie Robinson, Peeway Reese, Gil Hodges, Carl Ferrillo, Duke Snyder, Don Newcomb, Carl Ernstkin.

I mean, most of those guys are Hall of Famers, and I think they get overlooked. But among the past 50 years, I think it's a 98 Yankees, and I think you could argue these Red Sox are second. What about the 70 Orioles? 70 Orioles are up there as well. I mean, but it's the 71 Orioles that had 420 game winners. Oh, I thought it was the, okay, so that's the 70-1. Yeah, 71 Orioles had the 420 game winners and lost to the Pirates in a World Series. All right.

But the one thing about analytics, last thing. Oh, yeah, yeah. This is going to come up again in the Cy Young Award winning for the national, voting for the National League when they announced the winner of that. It'll probably be Jacob de Grom, whose win total doesn't even come close to what Max Scher had, but a lot of his other numbers are overwhelming, historic. And he's certainly a worthy Cy Young candidate and will probably win. but I guarantee you if anyone votes for Max Scherzer, who's also a worthy Cy Young candidate, and if he won would not be an injustice,

those people who vote for Max Scher will be vilified and crucified publicly by the lunatics with numbers. In other words, how could you possibly not think the way we think? It's not like you'll be giving the award to a guy who's not worthy of the Cy Young Award.

These are debates. You know, these are not absolutes. The one thing I will say, though, I've never understood, and I think you, I think I'm at odds with you on this. I just don't really get how people sort of hang on a pitcher's winning percentage is significant. It's not significant. Well, it's the same argument you have with quarterback. It's not, to me, it's even less, it's even less debatable.

I mean, a pitcher is out there. He can give up two earned runs on five hits and going eight and his team and, you know, and his team couldn't generate any offense in the process. Right. That could happen. But more often than that, it doesn't. Okay. More often than not, the pitcher who has the ball all the time has the impact on the win or the loss.

You think DeGrom's going to win it, though, don't you? Yeah, I do. And part of it is because of shame. I want to get to a couple of other things, too. the Bryce Harper story that Scott Boris went on the Michael Kay Show and said that the decision's already been made, it's already done. Apparently he came back after the fact and said he was just kidding. I'm just going to tell you this.

I've already told you this off the air and I'll, and I said it on the podcast. I have a very strong feeling based on, you know, a few conversations here and there that he's going to sign here, that he's going to remain a Washington national. That would be pretty good. That would be pretty cool, but that means, and that would mean that that Nats would have some ability to make some trades in the offseason, because they'll have a crowded outfield then.

Right. They'll have four outfielers for three positions. So who do they deal? Well, it could be Adam Eaton. You hope it's Adam Eaton. You hope it's not Victor Robles that they would be trading because an outfield of Soto Robles and Price Harfer would make your heart stop.

That's how good that would be. What I don't understand is, The whole time the nationals have had control of Bryce Harper, he has not signed with them. So why would he wait until free agency when everybody else can get into the bidding to then turn around and sign with Washington? Well, because maybe they're finding that the market that they hoped would exist doesn't exist. Well, but they don't know yet. Well, I'm not saying that this is going to be locked up here in the next few days. I know, but my point is the team that has control of him had the best operational.

to sign him and didn't when he wasn't a free agent. Now he's a free agent. I don't have all the details. That's okay. This is a strong feeling that I have. I wanted to get to what Clay Thompson did last night because I know you can't stand this and you tweeted something out that Popovich said after the Spurs game last night. It's only Greg Popovich.

It's only Greg Popovich. For those that missed it, Clay Thompson scored 52 points in 27 minutes last night. He was 14 of 24 from behind the arc, 18 of 29 from the field, also took a blow to the head and had two stitches that had to get stitched up during the game. Almost equally is remarkable and maybe, you know, completely overshadowed is that the Golden State Warriors scored 92 points in the first half of that game. I'm watching, like, I'm watching the football last night, and the crawl, you know, comes across and there was nothing about Thompson's performance. performance in the first half, but there was this blurb that said the Warriors just set a franchise record for scoring 92 points in a half. And I'm like, how could that be just a franchise record? 92 points in a half. They were on pace for 184 in the game. That's ABA numbers. Yes, it is.

That's Paul Westhead numbers. Right. Paul Westhead numbers from Loyola Marymount in particular. but I didn't see this game. It wasn't on, I don't think. I think the NBA TV game last night was the Lakers Timberwolves game. God, Jimmy Butler is good. That's for another time. Why can't the Wizards have Jimmy Butler? I'd give up the whole team for Jimmy Butler.

So would have given up the whole team for Kauai Leonard. I'd give up a lot for Jimmy Butler. But the Clay Thompson show, Tommy, he wasn't even shooting well this year, his numbers. but that is another thing where, you know, I don't want to get into the analytics thing, but someone who relies on just box score reading would say, Thompson's just not shooting it well. I can't go to him now.

I mean, he's not shooting it well. He was a very cold shooter here through the first, you know, seven, eight games, whatever it was. If you watch Clay Thompson shoot the ball, I would never, as a coach, ever encourage him to do anything but continue to shoot the ball. Okay? He's got a perfect,

release, a perfect stroke, a perfect release because it's, for a lot of reasons, but just like Steph Curry, it's so quick. And he's got different size than Curry, too. But it was an incredible shooting display. I mentioned this earlier. ESPN had this stat. I think that 13 of his 14 made threes were one dribble or less. In the highlights, you see something if you're watching that I've just, I've been so impressed with since the moment he came into the league. If you don't understand how great Draymond Green is as a basketball player, you don't really understand the game. He's one of the highest IQ players in the game.

He may be crazy to a certain degree. I don't know. I think last night he had 11 assists. He must have assisted on at least half of Thompson's threes. I love Draymond Green. He plays winning high IQ basketball. all of the time. But it's really a crime that those three players,

Curry, Thompson, Green are on a team with Kevin Duran. I know. It's almost criminal that that's a roster of one team. Let me just point out, I want you to talk about this seriously, okay? Greg Popovich on three-pointers, it's not real basketball. Let's have a four-point shot or a five-point shot and make it really fun for the fans. Let's make it a circus.

Now, this is Greg Popovich. Now, you know basketball more than anybody I deal with on a regular basis. He's right. No, he's not. Yes, he is. I mean, and you know people who you respect. He's exaggerating to try to make a point. You know people who you respect, like Gary Williams, feel the same way.

But look, I'm not completely disagreeing with this statement in terms of it's changed the game and the game isn't the same game anymore. It's not as good a game. It's a circus. Yeah, but that's subjective. The circus, the four and five point shot is just an exaggeration to make the point. They're never going to do that. I know. But the point is that this is not basketball.

This is not really basketball. It's a glorified horse. You know, look, the, the, did you think the ABA was basketball? Because you were a big ABA fan. But still, my favorite ABA players, including George McGinnis, who drove to the basket. Well, that's the way you played, too. I mean, except for that corner jumper that you had when you played for the Knicks.

I don't know how I feel about that. It's totally a subjective thing. It's just a different game over the last, you know, 10 to 12 years, I guess. one of the things, and I haven't really thought about this a lot, but which came first? The three point line or the distance that players today can now shoot it from? It's probably the three point line because without the three point line, you still are playing on teams where the object is to get as close to the basket as possible to make a shot. So I think that I just answered that question. But the shooting talent in today's players, it's incredible. And I'm not saying that there weren't great shooters back in, you know, the days of no three-pointer. There were. But the distance now, here's a perfect example, Tommy. Steph Curry and LeBron James, they don't heave the ball from half court. They shoot jump shots from half court. I know. But just inside it. So there's, there's a different type of shooter.

There's more strength. There's more, there's more feel from deeper range. But that's a product of the change of the game. That's not a product of the player. You're right. You're right. Maybe, you know, maybe Pistol Pete and maybe Reggie Miller and the great shooters, Paul Westfall and John Havlicek. And by the way. And Danny Aange was a great shooter. Michael Cooper was a great three-point shooter. Rick Barry. Rick Barry was a great shooter. Rick Barry averaged 40 points a game in the 67 NBA finals. But it wasn't the 75 NBA finals. I know. I told you it wasn't the 75 NBA. You were right about that, but I knew he averaged 40 points in a finals.

George Gervin in the 79 Eastern Conference finals when they were in the Eastern Conference and played the bullets in the Eastern Conference finals, I think averaged 42 for that series. Now, let me just point out, 42 for that series. That's really good. 40 points a game in the NBA finals in 67 on two-point shots. Two point shots. Okay? What's that number if there's a three-point shot?

You know what? come talk to me when Clay Thompson and Steph Curry averaged 60 points a game in the NBA finals. What did Will? You know what? I enjoy the NBA game. I hate the NBA. I hate it with a passion now. I love the NBA, but there was that stretch, Tommy, you know, the Pistons and the Spurs

and, you know, that ugly stretch in the early to mid-2000s before they relaxed the hand-checking, where they eliminated the hand-checking. And it did. It created a more free-flowing game, the game that we're now enjoying much more. I think it's a great product right now. Look, I am... All the kids love it. The kids love it.

They do love it. They do. They think it's great. Which to me is the absolute measure of how far the game is falling. Who is my favorite team? Who are my two favorite teams that I root for? Who are my two favorite teams in sports that I root for? I didn't know I was taking a quiz.

Who are my two favorite teams? You know the answer to this. you're just blanking. Okay. So I'm not going to unblank. Who are my two favorite teams? The teams that I care about and root for harder than any other? The Redskins and Wizards.

No. Redskins and Terps. Redskins and Maryland basketball. Okay. And the Wizards are just right behind it. After that, you know, I like that. I root for the Nats hard, but I'm lukewarm on anything else. I bring it up just to tell you that, you know, my kids were pushed on.

Maryland basketball. I took them to a lot of big games at Comcast Center. And they have great memories of some of those big games, Gary games, and even some of the big games of the last few years. You know what they love more than anything else? The NBA. They like the NBA more than college basketball. It's not even close. It's not even close. I still love college basketball, but I love the NBA too. I'm also someone who didn't play at a high level, but I played enough basketball, and I still have yet to sort of meet a jump shot that I didn't like. So I love watching shooters. I love watching shooters. I love watching smart shooters, guys who, you know, are able to set things up. And Steph Curry coming out, and I told you

this, we were doing the show. I said, that dude's got the quickest release, and he's going to be a really good NBA player. Didn't guess that he would be what he turned out to be. But remember, when Steph Curry came out, a lot of the discussion was, ah, you know, he played a Davidson, he's not overly athletic. He was skinny as a rail. Tommy, the biggest thing with a shooter at the college level as it relates to whether or not he will succeed at the NBA level is how quick he gets set up and gets it out of his hands. And Curry had a super quick release at Davidson.

You could see that. That always translates to the NBA. I don't know. You're right. It's a different game. It's a worst game. I don't necessarily think it is. I mean, it's a game that's betrayed me.

and now it's portrayed Greg Popovich, too, because there was nothing I loved more than basketball. I loved it more than baseball. I loved it more than anything. I'm not even joking about that. Do we have that sound somewhere, Aaron? Do we have the play-by-play of Tommy playing for the next? I'll have to pull it up, but yes.

But, I mean, it was nothing I loved more than basketball, nothing I loved more than the NBA in particular. And I feel it. The Nick teams that you love. It's abandoned me. But no, I love the Celtics and the Lakers are the 80s. I love the Bulls are the 90s. The 80s, I think, still for me is the heyday of the NBA.

The Lakers, Celtics, Sixers. Did you see the intro for Game 5 that Fox did with Magic and Bird of the World Series? I didn't. Oh, my gosh. You got to go back and watch it on YouTube. For the Sunday night game. Yeah, for the Sunday night game, they had Magic and Bird introduced Game 5. I will watch that.

So good. Let me make a note so I don't forget. Game 5 Magic Bird World Series. Yes, fabulous. You know, I mentioned this to you, I think on Thursday. I think I did. Have you watched any of that ESPN basketball love story thing? I wrote a note to myself to watch it.

Write it again so you don't forget. Tommy, it's so good. You know what? They take you deep into things that you wouldn't think in a series like this that they would take you deep into. And I mentioned this to you the other day, the 75 NBA finals, Golden State and Washington, because it really is, in terms of odds,

the biggest NBA upset of all time. The Warriors were like, I think they were like 30 to 1. The bullets were a massive favorite to win the 1975 finals after beating the Celtics in the Eastern Conference finals, and the Warriors came out of nowhere to get to those NBA Finals. The Warriors were seen as a one-man team, and that was Rick Barry. I mean, you know, like they had Keith, Keith Wilkes, who, you know. They had Keith Wilkes before Jamal.

They had Clifford Ray. They had Phil Smith who could really shoot it. But really, they were seen as a one-player team while the bullets were seen as an all-star team. Yeah. You know the other thing? And I forget whether or not this was a big deal. I was too young to remember. I remember the series, but you had two African-American head coaches,

Al Addles and Casey Jones in the NBA finals. Yeah. Was that a big, that had to have been a huge deal. You know, I don't remember. You would think it was. You would think it was. I don't remember being that big of a deal. And you know the thing I had forgotten?

Al Addles got kicked out of the game four, the clinching game at the Capitol Center. Because Mike Reardon punched Rick Barry from behind. You know, they had this thing going back and forth. And they sent Reardon out there, bags Reardon. That was his nickname. All right. I love Mike Reardon. If you want to see, if you want to see a slow,

white, left-handed small forward. Go watch highlights of Mike Reardon. He could play, though. He could really play. Yes, he could. He played for the Knicks. Play for the bullets. But he was for them. I mean, Wes Unseld was the enforcer, but they talked about this story about how Wes said, look, Mike, I've got your back if Addles comes out. And Adels apparently was a tough dude. Tough guy. A bad man. And Wes said, I got Adels. You got Rick Berry. And Wes, Wes was one of the most respected, simultaneous. feared players of his day. Yes, he was. He was a badass. There are other things on that series. I haven't seen the whole thing, but it's really well done. You know, Wes is like the badass that's in the NBA, what's his name? There are none.

That's right. There are none. All right. Ferrisch, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Fairfax should be on your list if you're considering something new. Go to Farish Cars.com right now. The website is so easy to navigate, and that's what makes them so good, is that Ralph Perkins, who I talk about all the time, Ralph is a good friend, and Ralph manages Ferrisch, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Fairfax. He's in the store virtually every day, so if you head out there, please ask for Ralph and tell him that you heard his name. I told you to go in there, and he will take good care of you. But Ralph and Kevin Ferris, they're smart. They know what their customers want, and they make everything easy for you. When you go to their web, site. You don't have to, you know, spend 15 minutes trying to find the best deals or trying to find

used cars or new cars or schedule a service. It's so well done. It's so intuitive. Same thing when you get there. They're going to take you through this in an easy process. Right now, there's plenty of inventory on their lot. I talked to Ralph the other day. They've got plenty of jeeps on their lot right now, Cherokees, Grand Cherokees, Wranglers, and good deals on all of them. If you're thinking about a minivan, Chrysler Pacifica right now, really good deals, maybe the best deals of the year on the Chrysler Pacifica. If you like this show and you've been thinking about buying something new, I give you my word that you will be taken care of if you head out to Farish and Fairfax.

Just ask for Ralph when you get there. They're located right there in Fairfax Circle. Ask for Ralph Perkins. Tell them I sent you. You can also find live inventory right now, live pricing at ferrish cars.com. All right, I wanted to get to this Scott McLuhan thing, not to, you know, congratulate myself on being right from the jump on this. But you should. But I, which I just did.

If you miss the story, Scott McLuhan lost his grievance against the organization. So the $2.8 million in remaining salary, which he was going after for. firing he thought that was not not just and without cause the arbitrator in this case backed it up that he was fired with cause and he's not going to get the $2.8 million and according to the story he can't even appeal the decision in this particular case uh look I I said this I've had these conversations with you off the air and I've had these conversations on the air multiple times Firing with cause isn't easy to prove. You know, the burden on the employer in most of these cases

to prove that the employee was actually fired with cause, it's very difficult more times than not. I felt from the beginning, because I knew a lot of things about what was going on in the organization at this point, I really felt that this was not going to be a very difficult case to prove. And that even though the burden on the employer is significant in most of these cases,

I really didn't think that he was going to win this grievance. In fact, if you recall, I was sort of surprised that ultimately he brought the grievance to them. Remember, for the first few months, I said, look, there's no bigger indication that the termination was just that he hasn't even gone after his money yet. And then he went after the money and, as it turns out, he lost. Now, I'm going to preface what I'm going to say with this. The way the team publicly humiliated him through that anonymous team executive leak to the post was as low road as anything I've seen the team do. And they've done a ton of low road things over the years. I mean, from a PR standpoint, some of the dumbest, meanest, poorly calculated stuff you'll ever see.

You could probably teach a class about it. and it would be titled, The Washington Redskins, Public Relations, What Not to Do. Yes. Because this is really the way they typically air. And I thought that that leaked to the post was mean, it was dumb, it was poorly calculated, and it backfired, which it did because the response from most people was like,

how could you be that mean to somebody who has a problem? Yes. You know? And so anyway, I preface that with, this was never this was never an issue of Bruce Allen being insecure

in wanting to run Scott McLuhanoff this guy had a problem he had the same issue in San Francisco and Seattle and by the way this is not a conversation about whether or not he should have been hired in the first place about whether or not Ashburn and this organization was the right place for him to work given his

past issues I'm not making judgment on that. In fact, I would probably lean towards the way you would lean, which is this wasn't the place for him to go to get his life together. All right, I'll grant you that. But this was in the moment for this team a necessary thing. Look, some people remember made the argument that they would still be better off with him loaded at work every day

than the other people making decisions. And he did, Tommy, Scott McLuhan's got an eye. for talent. He really does. He's got a talent and I hope he's gotten his life together. He's a really nice guy. He is a good guy. But the organization had gotten to the point

where they couldn't do this anymore with him. The last thing I'll just say about this is just the, I still can't believe that you and others consistently refer

to McClellan. Why would you do this? that. Why would you do that? Let me finish what I'm going to say because nobody knows what you're going to say. It's the thing about the whole McLuhan thing from a personal standpoint that still disappoints me. I'm just going to tell you this. Go ahead. Is that I told you over and over again that Chris Cooley never on the radio show that I did with him, never accused Scott McLuhan of relapsing or accused him of abusing alcohol before.

And yet you wrote it and everybody at the post continued to write it. It never happened. It's the big, now this is, we won't spend a lot of time on this because most of you don't care. But remember, the post consistently referred to the team-owned radio station accusing Scott McLuhan of abusing alcohol before and relapsing on the Cooley and Kevin show. It never happened. It was not discussed. It was a reference to his past as to why Bruce Allen wouldn't let him speak at the combine. Remember, that's what prompted the conversation.

Bruce Allen said he was at his grandmother's funeral, which was another PR blunder. But it had everybody in town speculating, why won't he let his general manager speak at the combine? Why isn't the general manager at the combine? And it was a throwaway line in a large discussion of, well, you know, One would probably think, if you're trying to come up with an answer as to why, you might consider his past. I wonder if there's anything going on that's related to his past. There was no accusation. There were no words like relapsed or alcohol abuse used.

Yet you and the other paper just kept referring to it that way. I still, you're one of my closest friends and I love you dearly. But why wouldn't you have believed me? when did I write this? You wrote it. When? Okay. You wrote it initially and then I said it and you didn't believe me.

You and I had an argument over this and you did not believe me. And whether it was on radio or in print, you constantly referred to the team that Cooley threw him under the bus. That somehow there was this agenda that the team was putting Cooley out there to let everybody know that this guy, McLuhan, had drinking problems again. And it never happened. Look, I- I believe you. I just don't recall writing about this. You talked about it on radio.

I did. Yes, you did. You talked about it on radio. I remember listening to it. And I remember calling you afterwards saying, Tommy, it never happened. And you're like, oh, okay, okay. I'm not really, you know what? Honestly, you know that I don't really care.

But you do care. No, I don't care about you. And I, you know, and there were, there's some baggage and backstory there with you and Cooley there. But I couldn't believe, I, do you know, I called every reporter and columnist that kept referring to it. I think I called three or four of them. And they continued to write it. I guess I just wasn't trustworthy. And maybe they just thought I was trying to protect Cooley.

But I told all of them, go listen to it. It's there on our website. And I don't think anybody listened to it. I think Scott McLuhan went and listened because Scott McLuhan eventually, I think said to Cooley, Got it. You didn't say it. You didn't say what was written. But anyway, I'm not surprised that the Redskins won this grievance against McClewine. Not surprised at all. Okay. Do I have something to say? You do. Okay. I want you to open up your case of Crayola crayons. Hold on. Okay. Open up the 64 pack with the Sharper because I just have the small pack here.

Because I want you to take. I've got midnight blue out. I want you to take notes and connect these dots because it's a little bit difficult. Okay. Bruce Allen, in the wake of a horrible season, held the postseason press conference where he declared they were winning off the field. And there was an unbelievable furor about what a disaster Bruce Allen's reign was. And inside the building and outside the building, there were calls to hire professionals, hire general manager. Now, Bruce Allen, if you didn't want, if you did not really want a real general manager to actually take your power away and take your glory away and have to deal with, who would you have hired? A guy who was unhireable. And that would be Scott McLuhan.

If you wanted to hire a general manager that you knew at some point would step on his own tail and force him. self out and that people would forget about this notion of having a real general manager because the one we had was a disaster. Who would you hire? Scott McLuhan. That's, I mean, of all the general manager candidates, they could have hired. They hired a guy who couldn't get hired anyplace else who had been, he'd run out of two organizations because of his personal problems.

And that's who they hired. Bruce, now, look, Bruce Allen may be a dumb. me in a lot of ways, but he's his old man's son. And the old man, George, was devious as devious could be. And the Prince of Darkness, it's perfectly capable for the Prince of Darkness to say, okay, you want a general manager? I'll give you a general manager, knowing that this guy within a year or two would do something that would force himself out, and Bruce would be back in the saddle.

Has he hired another general manager since? No. He promoted Doug Williams, gave him some kind of title and told him to stay all. the phone. Right. You're not involved in any of the big decisions. Right.

So I contend that this was all manufactured by the Prince of Darkness himself, knowing exactly what would happen at the end of this, knowing he hired a general manager who would set up the fail, particularly with this organization. Look, do you see me fighting back on this?

I'm taking notes, but I'm not going to argue that with you. I think it's a completely reasonable take. Of all the GM. I'm just telling you that ultimately, if that was the plan, it worked because Scott McLuhan did self-destruct. Yes, it did work. It did work. And no one's bringing up general manager anymore, you know?

Bruce is still taking the calls for the trades. You know, they're going to bring it up at the end of this year. But right now, things are going pretty well. Yes, they are. I'm not going to disagree with you. I mean, I think that that is, boy, that's a hell of a hell of a well-thought-out plan. Don't you think he's capable of it? I think that, look.

That's a simple logic. One simple phrase. If you didn't want a general manager, but you were being forced to hire one, would you hire one who you thought would be really good? Or would you hire one who you thought would basically self-destruct? Look, there are times where I would have said, I don't think that they really care what anybody thinks. but you're right, the winning off the field and that season-ending press conference where Jason Reed went after him.

Remember that? Yeah. In that press conference. And, you know, it was like all hell's breaking loose. And it's like, we got to hire a football person. Eight days later. We were all talking about it. Eight days later.

I mean, everybody wanted a real football person in the organization. And so, you know, the McLuhan situation was, look, McLuhan was. perhaps unhirable by most organizations, but he was still being used as a consultant. You know, and his, you know, the scouting service that he was running at the time was being used by teams. The Redskins could have just used that.

Yes, they could have. Right. Yes, they could have. But they didn't, did they? No, they hired the guy. Yeah, I don't, yes, it's completely plausible that this was like part of the master plan. That he knew that this guy was never going to supplant him

as a true general manager. Right. And at some point, look, I mean, people make decisions like this. Mike Rizzo, when he got hired as the assistant general manager for the nationals, he also was offered the same job with the Dodgers, a better organization. The Dodgers versus the nationals. He had his choice to be assistant GM for the Los Angeles Dodgers, assistant GM in Washington Nationals. He picked the nationals. Why?

Because Jim Bowden was the general manager, and he knew at some point, Bowden would step on his tail and be out of a job. People think like this, Kevin, in management. No, I mean, you should think this way. And look, this organization has always sort of, you know, not thought about just hiring the best and the brightest and the most secure and the most comfortable with themselves and the most self-aware people. They've hired the opposite, you know, along the way.

This is why, this is, again, why. Brian Lafamina should rent, not buy, because of everything you just said. Yeah. I just, yes, nothing you said would I disagree with. I think it's all plausible. I just was making the point, and you and I had had these arguments during the time, that they, this was a, this was a situation that had to end. He needed help.

And again, this is why it's one of the, it may have been more powerful. about this is anything I've ever been you know passionate about on the radio was that leak to the post that called him out as a drunk at work and a drunk on you know in game day that that was so mean and so low road and it backfired because remember the reaction from the fan base wasn't oh now we know why you guys are going to fire him because they fired him the next day was put out there the day of you know the day before they fired him. It made a sympathetic figure. To make the Redskins look like they had total reason for doing this. But what was typically the case is they didn't think this thing through from a PR standpoint. And the reaction from most people was, why would you do that to a guy that's sick that has a problem? And let's let's let's let's let the post off the hook. It was irresponsible for them to run it. Why? Well, because you're, I mean, obviously, the source is coming from Redskins management that hasn't axed to grind here. You need, you need, you. You need, you.

You need more credibility to print something like that, except the guy from inside the building. It was very irresponsible with the post to run the quote in the first place. I still, to this day, don't know who the leak was, and I've tried to find out. I have guesses, but I, you know, the guess that I made, I don't think I did this on the air because I think it was sort of passed, but maybe you and I had this conversation. But remember, the guy that wrote the story was a guy that. it was new to the post or was writing it as sort of a... He wasn't the beat, wanted to beat writers.

And he was from Tampa. Yeah. So, you know, you put that together with Bruce in Tampa. We don't know. I don't know that Bruce was the leak, but I bet Bruce knew who the leak was. Yeah, we don't know, but for that kind of statement, that kind of self-serving quote, you've got to have more, you've got to have more than a quote from inside the building. All right.

I'm going to do coaching blunders tomorrow. This is going along today. Yes. But this has been a fun show. It's an absolute. You know what this was? This is a steak dinner, baby. That's what this show was, a steak dinner.

Yeah, it was good. It was good ribby, medium rare with some good potatoes. And you don't eat anything green. I'd throw some asparagus on there. Ah, that's going to be dinner tonight, maybe. Maybe I haven't done steak on the grill in a while. So I've mentioned this a few times recently about rating and review. doing it on iTunes, the podcast.

And several of you, for whatever reason, yesterday, tweeted me saying, how do I do that? Once you subscribe, you will be given the opportunity to review. And if you click that review button, there's a little rating five-star rating there. And you don't have to write a review. The rating's good for us as well, as long as you rate it highly, like, you know, five stars. Like a good steak dinner. But the other thing, too, and I've mentioned this in the past, and it's a totally reasonable, you know, response and that is

people will say well I don't want to subscribe I just want to listen for free subscribe does not mean you pay for it it is free subscribe also on iTunes and the others these other podcast you know forums and platforms it doesn't mean you pay and it doesn't

mean you give any information it's the wrong verb in the podcast world to use subscribe as a way to get to a podcast they should that should be changed Like to friend. Changed a friend.

You should friend us. Just to listen. Subscribing in the podcast world does not mean you pay for anything and it doesn't mean you give any information. If you subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, if you're just like right now, if you're listening to this and the way you're listening to it is you just go to iTunes or you go to your podcast icon and you just search it and you listen to it every day or you go to the website, the Kevin Sheehan Show. and listen to it on the website, you're just making the decision every day to listen to it because maybe you feel like subscribing has a cost to it. It doesn't. If you hit that subscribe button, all it's going to do is in your podcast, you know, that purple podcast icon that you have on your iPhone. It's just going to send it there so that it's there for you

every day and you don't have to go through the search and download. You don't have to pay and you don't have to give any information. And then when you subscribe, that gives you the opportunity to rate and review. You know, you need to relax. People are listening to people are listening to this thing. I don't know about record numbers. I mean, people are coming in droves to listen to this. You just need to relax.

I'm very happy, and I've been told to be very happy with the response. But you know, I want more people, and I want the people that listen to the radio show, to you and I doing a radio show together, to Kooley and I doing a radio show together, that think that somehow it's really difficult, or you've got to pay. pay for it or you got to give information. You don't. It's really easy. And again, the easiest thing for people that are fearful that they're going to have to pay is just go to the website.

It's just simple. Kevin Sheenshow.com. And here's what's also easy. What? You can hear me on 106-7 a fan Saturday. Saturday with our good friend Andy Paul. You had me on Saturday, which is very nice. Yes, we did.

Wasn't my idea. I could tell you that. I know it wasn't. That's why I didn't tell you about it on Thursday. And you can listen to you every Wednesday with Chadd. Chad Dukes from four to six. Right, which is a good listen to. My column in Washington Times, Washington Times.com.

All right. Have a great day, everybody. Thanks to Aaron. I'll do coaching blunders tomorrow. A lot more on the Redskins, and definitely we'll get into the Falcons game and more sort of detailed discussion starting tomorrow.