The Kevin Sheehan Show - Kerrigan + Commanders' Camp

Episode Date: July 31, 2022

Kevin is back after a few days off. He shared his thoughts about Ryan Kerrigan's retirement and his career in Washington. Kevin had three main takeaways from the first few days of Commanders' camp. Additionally, Howard Gutman jumped on to recap Snyder's voluntary testimony from the other day. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You don't want it. You don't need it. But you're going to get it anyway. The Kevin Cheon Show. Here's Kevin. Rings up third down and 11. This one batted into the air. The rookie Kerrigan for the touchdown.

That was Ryan Carrigan's very first game as a Washington Redskin. It was 9-11, 2011. It was the 10-year anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The NFL scheduled Washington and New York, the two most impacted cities from 9-11, on that particular anniversary date to open up against each other in the second half of the Fox doubleheader. Skins-Griots FedEx Field, the debut of Ryan Carrigan, and there he was early in the third quarter in a 14-14 game, doing what we would eventually understand was something that he did really well, which is anticipate plays.

He anticipated wide receiver quick throw. He felt the cut block by the right tackle, got his hands up in the air, deflected it to himself, returned it for a touchdown. Washington took a 21-14 lead, went on to win that opener, 28 to 14. It's interesting, Ryan Kerrigan, during the course of his career, had just three interceptions. All of them returned for touchdowns. The following year in 2012, he anticipated a screen out of the backfield to a running back,

and Matt Ryan threw it right to him. I mean, but he did a great job of rushing and then stopping and getting his hands up in the air, and he had really good hands and caught it, returned that for a touchdown. And then in the 2017 opener against Carson Wentz and the Eagles, in coverage where we didn't necessarily love to see him all the time, he caught a deflected pass at the line of scrimmage, picked it off and returned that for touchdown. Three career interceptions, all of them for touchdowns, but really that anticipation of plays and feel, football feel, is something we saw over and over again.

There were others that were so close to being picks, so close to being big plays. He deflected, he got his hands on a lot of balls. You know, the day he got drafted in 2011, I remember Bill Parcells was working for either the NFL network or ESPN. And he said when the skins took Carrigan in that draft at 16 overall, Ryan Carrigan out of Purdue is my favorite player in the draft. And he talked about what a playmaker he had been, how strong he was, but what a nose for the ball he had. He had, I think, led the nation or was way up there and forced fumbles, and he had 26 forced fumbles during his career here in D.C. But I think more than just a pure pass rusher,

I think his greatest strength during his career was just anticipating and having a feel and a knack for the ball and being able to create either turnovers or near turnovers. Ryan Carrigan retired as a Washington player signing one of those honorary one-day contracts so that he could retire as a Washington player. Got a great response from his teammates, especially some of the young players that got one year or two years with him here. And I think it also says something that he wanted to do this. I know that this was where he played the majority of his career, played one year in Philadelphia last year and wasn't much of a year. year for him in Philly. But I think it says something, too, about, you know, the way he feels about

the current football regime, Ron Rivera and company. Ryan Kerrigan was a really, really good player. He really was. He's going to be in the Ring of Honor. He will be, you know, he's obviously going to be one of the next 10 picked that will add to the list of the 90 greatest Redskins to celebrate the 90 greatest in Washington history. He played, you know, 10 years here in his 11-year career, played 156 games here. At one point, 139 consecutively over his first nine years didn't miss a game. He was really reliable. He holds the franchise record for sacks with 95 and a half career sacks.

I don't consider him to be the greatest pass rusher in franchise history. That designation goes to, you know, one Dexter Manly. and then, you know, certainly a guy like Charles Mann would be in consideration for number two. Kerrigan had 457 tackles, 120 for loss. I mentioned the three interceptions, all return for touchdowns and the 26 forced fumbles. He really was an excellent player for this franchise. And one of the guys that if you had had more like Ryan Carrigan in the locker room, natural, you know, show me leaders, action leaders,

you would have had many more wins to show for it. And he would have been, you know, potentially a part of a bigger winner in town while he was here. He's not a player that, in my estimation, should ever be considered for Jersey retirement. He just isn't at the level of those players. He didn't have that kind of career. And it's not just about the winning necessarily. Ryan Kerrigan was an excellent player. But he was not, you know, a dominant. kind of pass rushing force, a fear-inducing game-wrecking kind of player. Washington had a chance, let's not forget, in the 2011 draft, they traded back from number 10 overall with Jacksonville to 16, allowing Jacksonville to come up to take Blaine Gabbard. And with the next pick, the 11th overall, Houston selected J.J. Watt. J.J. Watt is a Hall of Famer. Washington had a chance

to take J.J. Watt at 10. They were in the business of looking for a big-time pass rusher. As was, by the way, you know, a few other teams in that draft. You can go back in that draft. Von Miller was taken second in that draft. But San Francisco took Alden Smith in that draft at number seven. Obviously, he had some really good moments, but, you know, had a troubled career. But, you know, if Washington had to do it over again, obviously you select J.J. Watt, and you don't trade back. But Kerrigan, I don't want to diminish. Great career. Outstanding career he had. And, you know, while Cameron Jordan was taken, you know, eight spots after him and has, you know, 12 more career sacks than Ryan Carrigan.

Ryan Carrigan was an A selection at 16 in a draft. We know the draft is not produced many A players during the course of, you know, the last 25 to 30 years. Kerrigan was a first-rate player and a first-rate teammate and locker room guy. Again, a lock for the Ring of Fame, a Ring of Honor, a lock for the next 10 as they move towards the 90 greatest, but not a Jersey retirement conversation. No, not in my opinion anyway. But a terrific player, Ryan Kerrigan, done with his football career. I think without the injuries, and he talked about this, without the knee injury in particular, that, you know, he's really battled with. He may have had a longer career. Obviously, players at his position have had longer careers than 11 seasons, but a really, really good career for the kid out of Purdue, who was a playmaker there and became a playmaker in the NFL as well, four-time pro bowler, Ryan Carrigan.

And again, you know, for what has been, you know, a period of time where there has been slim pickings in terms of positives, Ryan Kerrigan was certainly one of the positives. On the show today, Howard Gutman will join me. I was away for the last few days. I will be taking a few more days off between now and Labor Day weekend. but I didn't have a chance to weigh in on the Snyder testimony, voluntary testimony from Israel on Thursday morning. Howard will jump on with me to kind of recap what he thought of that particular day, why it happened, and then what's next as well. So the team is a few days into training camp, and there are three pieces of news that I think are substantial.

I will get to those three pieces of training camp news when we come back after these messages from a few of our sponsors. Three pieces of news that have come out of the first few days of training camp that I will get to here momentarily. I'm not going to do, and I've mentioned this for several years running, I'm not going to do the thing where I, you know, go through a lot of the highlights of the training camp practices. I'll leave that up to the people that are there that are watching it. A lot of them are friends of mine. And they, you know, they're there. And they're tweeting out what they see, and there are people that enjoy that. I personally don't think most of it foretells what's to come.

On occasion, you get pieces of information. You know, a year ago to the day, our good friend Ben Standing observed that Sam Cosme was lining up as the first team right tackle. We weren't sure at that point in time if Sam was going to be the first team. the right tackle or first team right tackle. We mentioned Sadiq Charles was getting reps there, but that, you know, that Sam Cosme, it looks like they believe, based on the first few days of practice,

is they're penciled in starting right tackle. So you get things like that that come out of it. But you get a lot of, you know, Stephen Sims Jr. Drag Route over the middle, accelerates, still super fast and hard to cover. AGG is coming at you. By the way, he retired the other day. Kelvin Harmon looking particularly strong today.

Sims Jr., another catch on a low ball over the middle. Stephen Sims, Jr., there were a lot of tweets from a year ago early on in camp. He was released on August 23rd. Lamar Miller not even touched on a great run up the middle. And then the next play from the gun, another big run. where he wasn't close to being touched. So there's a lot of that. And look, there are people that enjoy that.

I don't really care. I think the important things to follow are the tidbits that you get. And, you know, from Ben and JP and Nikki and some of the people and John, and I'm, you know, all of them do a great job. Michael Phillips, you know, Matt Paris, Sam 48, they all do a really good job. But occasionally you'll hear, you'll read something, or you'll hear it more likely than not in an interview with, you know, one of the players or one of the coaches. And I think a lot of the stuff that comes out of that is important.

And then, of course, the real news, the injury news, ends up being something that is definite. But no, you will read a lot if you are one of those that enjoys the play-by-play of training camp. You will read a lot that really won't tell you much about what you're going to see. in the opener against Jacksonville or even in some cases the pre-season games. And then again, you'll be able to find a few tidbits after the fact that, hey, you know, Ben was on to it, or all of them were on to the fact that Sam Cosmy was going to be the right tackle. Now, I will just tell you, and I'll pat myself on the back for this, I knew that Sam Cosmy was a target of theirs. I said it before the draft, before day two of the draft.

I knew that Scott Turner and others really liked him and thought that he could be an immediate starter in the NFL. Now, some were thinking left tackle, but not everybody was convinced, but anyway, enough of that. Let me focus in on three pieces of news that have come out in the first few days of training camp that I think are significant. Number one, and it's a clear cut number one, is that Chase Young's going to miss at least the season opener. and possibly more because of the knee injury that he suffered last year. Ron Rivera said that publicly for the first time on Thursday, and this may have been part of an interview that he did with the junkies on 106-7 the fan, that he's going to miss the first regular season game against Jacksonville on September 11th,

and said Young, you know, at one point, apparently Rivera did say that Young would open the season on the Pupp list, which would mean he would miss at least four games, but he later amended that to say he knew only that Young will not play in the first game. However, I think if you're reading the T leaves here, there is a growing possibility that Chase Young isn't going to be available to the team in the early portion of the season. Now, it would be great if they were playing a little bit of possum here and that they really have higher expectations about an earlier return. Ron Rivera said, quote,

You guys want me to give you a number. I can't give you a number. I don't want to put the pressure on the young man to try to hit a number that I can't give you. It just depends on where he is. The doctor is the only one that can tell you that, closed quote. You know, Young's ACL injury was a little bit more than your run-of-the-mill ACL injury, ACL injury, as we've talked about before. He needed a graft from his left knee.

help totally reconstruct the ACL, and that lengthened his recovery timetable. Rivera said, quote, it was a serious injury. He's doing everything he's supposed to do. He's on time as far as where the doctors think he should be, and as he gets better and better, we can update you, but right now he's right where he needs to be, closed quote. But right where he needs to be, it's clear now that it's not ready for the season opener. I would suggest that, again, the odds are increasing that he misses the early portion of the schedule. I don't know if that's one game or five games, but I bet you it's more than one.

And that is a big miss on this team. I know that they played at times well without him after his injury last year. I recognize that. But, you know, going beyond just this year, what will Chase Young's? overall physical ability be when he is 100%? Will he be back to what he was pre-injury? That's now a question that you have to wonder what the answer is. Did this injury ultimately have a career impact on his incredible physical talent?

I don't know the answer to that. We won't know until he's back. The doctors say he's 100% ready to go, and maybe it gets discussed as if there's a new 100% for him. There are players that will tell you, once you've had major surgery, you just recalibrate on what 100% means. It's not the same 100% anymore. It doesn't mean, by the way, they can't figure out how to be as productive or more productive, but it just means that physically it's a new, level in terms of what 100% means.

But that news on Chase Young is, you know, I don't want to say it's super surprising, but it is disappointing for me. I was hoping that we would be able to see Chase Young at some point during training camp, certainly, you know, physically recovered and rehab to the point where they are ready to turn them loose and that that would happen before the season opener. But it doesn't look like that. And I think also, as I've discussed many times, I think that this is, you know, a pressure year for Chase Young after the disappointing, you know, eight games that he played in and then having the injury, but that it's unfair in many ways for this to be a pressure year for Chase Young because he hasn't had an offseason. He has not had an offseason.

He will not have had a training camp, any preseason games. the first time we see him on a field competitively in a game will be a regular season game after the opener. And we don't know, you know, at what level he will be relative to his previous physical best. I hope he's fully recovered, back to where he was. He's a young player with unbelievable potential. And I now think that this year is a year, I don't want to take him off the hook, but I think it's going to be one of those years where you have to say, look, he's came off a serious ACL injury, more serious than usual. And we have to let him work his way back on his own timetable, on the doctor's timetable, and we should lower our expectations for him.

And we should not feel, you know, that he has to prove a hell of a lot here in year three. You know, maybe we'll feel that way about the back half of the schedule, but it may be work in progress on the first half of the schedule. News item number two from the first few days of training camp. Curtis Samuel. There's no reported injury for Curtis Samuel, but he has been a limited participant at times through the first few days of camp. Rivera saying that the training staff is taking precautions to avoid last year's issues.

You know, the coach has said that they may have rushed Samuel back last year, but that was coming off an injury. Is he not fully recovered at this point? Why are they being cautious? Look, they know what they're doing, but what this says is that there is still some concern. Rivera said, we're trying to prevent it from becoming a lingering thing. We're trying to do is be smart. And when the trainer comes to me and says, hey, he's looking good.

He's had a couple of really good days. Let's just get him through this and then move on. Yeah, okay, I'm fine with that. Now, he has apparently, in a couple of the play-by-play reports, provided a couple of big-time plays. And he has said he feels good, he feels fast. He said, I'm flying around out there. I'm able to do the stuff that I used to do, so I'm excited about that. But to me, the fact that they are, you know, essentially treating him very with kid gloves very carefully is a bit of a red flag.

We'll see. Hopefully not a big issue. But an item worth acknowledging that a year later and at a point in which, you know, you would have hoped. they could turn them loose without any concern, they are concerned enough to limit some of his participation here early in camp. The third and final item from the first few days of camp that I think is important isn't Sam Howe potentially pushing Taylor Heineckee for a backup role, although it's something to, you know, pay attention to.

I mean, we'll learn probably as much from what the coaches say about that as from the play-by-play from training camp, unless I guess Sam Howell is going to. consistently working with the second team and Taylor Heineke's off, you know, doing something else. And we may learn something about that from the preseason games. But the coaches will get asked about that at some point if it becomes obvious that Sam Howell's getting more reps and they'll answer that question. But the third and final item for me is the offensive line here early in camp. Now, the good news is that, you know, Chase Ruey came off the Pupplist almost immediately. That's good news.

You want him to be healthy. You want him back at center, even though you've got some flexibility with West Schweitzer, who can play some center and was taking his early spot in some of the early drills. But you also have Cornelius Lucas on the non-football illness list for a few days. And you've got some reshuffling going on in camp. Trey Turner banged up a little bit here early in camp. mispractice with an injury that, you know, according to reports is minor. This is, you know,

with a new quarterback, you know, especially in the 11-on-11 work, you'd like to see them, you know, develop some cohesive offensive line play. Now, it is the area of the team, as I've mentioned before, that I think if, you know, you had the chance to talk to some of the people out there, they're most confident in the coach's ability, the position coach's ability to really coach up anybody that's out there. But I think the idea of Leno, Norwell, Ruey, either Turner or Schweitzer and Sam Cosme, you know, with depth players like, you know, Larson and Charles and Lucas, you know, those were like the eight guys, right? You know, eight to nine guys. And you'd like to see them figure out, you know, earlier than later who the starters are going to be and get them

into, you know, kind of a rhythm with the new quarterback. You know, you don't want to see day one September 11th against Jacksonville them going with, you know, a lineup that they haven't spent a lot of time in camp with. So just something, I'm not concerned about it necessarily, but, you know, you first had Rueh on the Pup list, then he came off of it. We certainly have learned now that West Schweitzer is his backup, you know, for now anyway, with Tyler Larson on the Pupp list. They signed a player, Rashad Hill,

who was just God-awful in Minnesota as a backup tackle. You know, they brought him in here in the last 24 hours. And, you know, they're obviously bringing him in because they need more players that are healthy and upright to have, you know, a camp. I mean, when you're going up against Duran Payne and John Allen and Montez Sweat, even without Chase Young out there, it's an opportunity.

It's an opportunity for the offensive line, the starting offensive line, to really grow. I mean, it should be one of the advantages that this team has is their offensive lines going against one of the more talented defensive fronts in the league every day in practice. So you'd like to see some cohesiveness and some real health come back to that offensive line. Plenty of time for that to turn around.

But those were three things that I jotted down over the last couple of days that I thought were of significance. All right. When we come back, Howard Gutman will help recap the Snyder testimony, voluntary testimony the other day in front of Congress. We'll get to that right after these words from a few of our sponsors. All right, let's welcome on to the podcast. Howard Gutman, of course, longtime prominent D.C. attorney, the former Belgian ambassador, a friend of the show. And I was away for a couple days.

I was following what was going on. You know, it did surprise me to a certain degree, even though I had Neil and Rockville on the radio show last week. And we talked about the possibility that Thursday, July 28th might produce something if the House Oversight and Reform Committee bent over, basically, which is what they did. So why did they do it? And then what happened? So why they did it is still mystifying.

It will be less mystifying if we see if somewhere in the questioning they had something in their, you know, up their sleeve that they thought would surprise Dan Snyder that he couldn't get out and they just needed to get him. But from what I knew, it made no sense why Dan did this was pretty easy. There were two reasons why Dan did this. First of all, he won. He got a format that he could get through. and let me cover that in a minute. But second, we had talked previously. He really couldn't come home until January if he didn't get this by him. Now, they can still subpoena him. They will still subpoena him.

I'm sure there's things they said he didn't answer that they want to subpoena him. But his lawyer will be able to move to quash it saying he's already testified for 10 hours, 11 hours, voluntarily. That won't get rushed through and the Republicans will control Congress. So one, Dan thought he could get by this, but two, he was faced with being basically an international fugitive. I suspect Tanya finally said, I want to go home. You know, owning this team, that's your dream, that you're this, that, you're that, but we can't even go to our home anymore. Enough of this already. So Dan probably had the personal pressure that if he could find a way to win, which is how the question, now, why is it a win? Because, first of all, he's already

testified and there was nothing. We didn't get any of that videotape, any of that live, but even videotape of Carol Maloney glowering at Dan Snyder and saying, how could you not known about the calendar or aren't you ashamed of yourself? You've got none of the scolding, none of the show that occurred. The transcript will read as lifeless as possible. Even if the guy says, happy Thanksgiving and you're scratching your head, it doesn't do anything on a transcript. You need that voice of him coming in saying, happy Thanksgiving. So he got that, and second, I suspect, there will have been no answer. There will have been three answers.

One answer will have been, I think you need to ask Bruce Allen about it. So basically he would have put everything off on someone else, even though we both know a lot of this was before Bruce's watch. It was him and Serato, it was him generally. He will have said you've got to ask someone else. questions like will you release a Beth Wilkinson report. He will say, you've got to ask my lawyer. And everything that he doesn't answer, you better ask Larry Michael or Bruce Allen or someone else.

Or you better ask my lawyer. He will say, I don't remember. So this he could get through because they didn't subpoena him. They couldn't force it. And at the same time, look, he was all over your croissons for great, but eventually someone wanted a bagel. He had to come home for Tanya and him. This at least gets him to watch his team or else he would have been home for the Super Bowl.

So why did they let him win, though? You haven't answered that part? Right. So I think the question is they knew they would not get him. I believe they knew that he would not bend, that he would stay to the Super Bowl if needed. So they would be forced with basically saying, well, we tried, we lost to the Republicans, we never got Dan Snyder. So could they then let him create the win? So that way they would have punished them.

They would have at least kept them out of the country to January. They would have had the empty seat, and they would have embarrassed him. But if they really thought there was something they would like to know. Now, I can't think of much they would know, but maybe they had a smoking gun that they thought this is one he can't get out of those three ways. And we'll see what we thought it was. They would have been pelting him on this question. If he was a decent witness, he stuck to those three answers.

We got nothing. We learned nothing. I would be shocked if there's any part of the transcript. I tend to think that it was, you know, the ability to say we've done all, you know, we took it all I can, but they had no choice. He had won the match as long as he was willing to be in Europe until January. Yeah, I just think, you know, we're a couple of days removed from his 11 plus hours of reported testimony. Eleanor Holmes Norton came out and said the hour of the 11 that she watched, he did okay.

I mean, I'm paraphrasing there. But, you know, I would think that if they had some sort of bombshell question that they thought they could get them on in a voluntary environment without the deposition, without the subpoena, excuse me, being served, we would have heard about it by now. So, I mean, you agree with that, right, or not? Or is there still a chance that, you know, the transcripts come out and there's something there that really makes them look awful? I cannot imagine that.

I don't think anyone will have anything to report when the transcript comes out other than he could be cruelest, he blamed. others, this we know, and he wasn't particularly responsive. But I don't think they got anything. They were forced to either decide, well, we'll just keep him at sea and claim that victory, or let's at least try to get him in, and there's some risk. But we'll see, I tend to think there's nothing because we would have heard it. uh... the you know i've said both sides will immediately declare victory really

the only one who declared victory was danny but said i testified fully i was able to tell them about uh... the improvements we made remember he will start with his statement his prepared statement was written by the lawyer and it will talk about all the great things that happened at the commanders that we've they've been wearing on their sleeve for quite a while uh... you know the black gams the women in the highest women in office Blank, blank, blank, blank.

You know, that he will have gotten out. That's the clip suit he will show. And the rest of it will be total tedium of a lawyer. Pulling teeth being said, I don't know you've got to ask my lawyer, or I suspect you should ask Bruce Allen or I don't remember. Before the testimony on Thursday morning, the report was that staffers, legal staffers were going to pose the questions to Snyder, that it wasn't going to be, you know, Maloney and Raskin and all the different people that questioned Goodell.

Why do you think they took that particular tact? So I suspect Jamie Raskin probably did because he's a pretty good lawyer. But otherwise, the politicians are there for the clip. They're there for them talking at the witness. That's on their website. That's on their campaign trail. That's on their ads. That's what Maloney was doing.

she's trying to be not Dan Snyder, but Jerry Nadler in the election. So that's what that does. Once you don't have that, once you have a transcript, I assure you you you'd rather have a 27-year Williams and Connolly partner trying to pin a witness down than Carol Lone. And that's so once it was transcript, that was the biggest win. The biggest win by it being not subpoenaed is, we will not show if it's subpoenaed so he can get avid.

But second, we will not show if you videotaped it. You can videotape a Zoom. And if it had been videotaped, the Congresspeople would have been yelling at, Dan, and that stuff would have been released. But what good is it of a transcript where Maloney drones on about, aren't you ashamed of yourself? Think of how that looks in a black and white paper. It doesn't get you anything.

It doesn't have what we got with Goodell, where, you know, there was drama and he had to be contriot at times. He had to be angry at other times, but contrite. Contrition won't come off this paper. Nothing comes off this paper. The transcript will be boring of lawyers fighting with lawyers. Yeah, that makes total sense. And the other thing, as we talked about after the Goodell testimony,

was just how completely unprepared so many of those politicians were. And they missed out on a dozen obfuscary. questions that should have been asked of him. So you mentioned that, you know, you think when he comes back that they will serve him with a subpoena, but that it'll be easier to quash. Now, before we get too easier to quash and why, why do you think they'll serve him a subpoena now? He testified for 11 hours.

It's probably going to be a topic where he said, you'll have to ask my lawyer or his lawyer instruct him not to answer. Would it be about the airplane or would it be about the finances, I suspect not the finances, but there probably will be a topic where they will say Dan was not cooperative. And therefore we want him under oath. They either have to do that or they have to admit defeat. I don't really know. Well, could there have been a quid pro quo? I'll do this and I'll do this this morning, but you're not going to serve me a subpoena when I get back and I'll be there for as many hours as you want? No, they expressly reserved the right because here's what they tried to claim they got

the house. They said, we've agreed not to subpoena him, but he's agreed not to hide behind the NDAs and to answer things fully. So we've reserved our subpoena power if he does not fully answer the question. questions. That was the agreement. So they either say, Dan fully answered the questions, and they got nothing, or they say, well, he showed for 11 hours, but you'll see it was not productive. He avoided the questions, and we still need to get to the truth. And what's happening right now is Deborah Katz, the plaintiff's lawyers, the woman representing the 20-something

plaintiffs, females who are claiming sexual harassment, she's pouring over those transcripts trying to figure out where the holes are, where he kind of got out of it, because she has clients who have told her A, B, or C, and then they may now be today. We don't know. If I were them, now the problem is they did it right on the recess, and these guys have to go out in campaign. But if I were them, I would have had Larry Michael on stand. and Alex Santos on standby and Bruce Allen on standby. And when he said, I never saw this calendar or Larry Michael never told me this or Bruce Allen never told me that, I would have those witnesses in there to say, you heard Mr. Snyder say this?

Is that true? And have Bruce Allen say, no, I told him that on March 3rd. Yeah. But of course, it would just continue to emphasize and reveal that this entire committee was never about, you know, better HR, you know, procedures in corporate America that it was always about getting Dan Snyder, which, you know, they never really hid the fact during all of these months, that this is what they wanted more than anything, even though the state admission was something other than that. Now, you said that if they, well, before you explain why it would now be easier to quash the subpoena if he comes home. Is there any chance, and I'm not giving it a very high chance, just based on what I witnessed on June 22nd among the group that was doing the questioning, is there any chance that they somehow created an okie-doke? You know, we got it, we got him voluntarily, and we acted as if he did a really good job. And, you know, Eleanor Holmes Norton said, you know, she observed about an hour,

and it was important to hear his rendition, and he didn't seem like he was trying to hide something. This is her quote, during the time I was listening. You know, there were some times he said he didn't remember things. Get him to come back, serve him with the subpoena, and then hammer him with the hard questions. Is there any chance this is an okey-doke? They could try to do that, but that's where the lawyer, the lawyer has protect him. Because now when they, if they serve him with a subpoena, the lawyer's going to say we sat there as long as they wanted. He went, he answered every

question. He didn't assert the Fifth Amendment. He didn't, he answered every question accurately and truthfully to the best of his ability. There is no reason to grant the subpoena to go forward. and there's no reason whether or not he wins that or loses that. There's no reason to expedite this on a calendar. There's no reason for a judge to set everything aside for the critical issue because the guy did just testify. So it's never 100% safe to say come home, but he couldn't have come home before.

He was in, you know, he was in Portofino. Portofino, I was there three weeks ago. It's lovely. Yeah. It's a little small. You can't spend too long. in Portofino. You know, he could have gone to Egypt after Israel and okay and maybe take a Nile Cruz, but then he wants to come home eventually and Tanya does. This is safe enough that

I would tell him, we got through it, we're there, they'll probably continue to give you a hard time on A, B, or C, but let me handle it. You come home, you say, you've testified fully, and now you're turning to the issues of running the commanders. By the way, that was the statement they made and that that statement flew in the face of the suspension. If you look at the statement that the commanders released, that Dan and Tanya look forward to the job of running the commanders, there goes to suspension. Yeah. Well, it's funny how they just kind of can't read the room. It was like, you know, during the weeks following the initial post stories, somehow they thought the press release suggesting that Dan needed to be more involved than he's been would actually

be received favorably. And this is the part that they just, I mean, I think they understand how despised he is and how much people want him gone. But it's amazing in their own minds how they've created this world in which everybody will understand that Dan really didn't have much to do with this other than just hiring some really bad people. By the way, why haven't they subpoenaed some of the people you suggested they subpoena? Alex Santos, Larry Michael, Bruce Allen.

If this is all about getting Snyder, which it's become very clear that it is, why haven't they subpoenaed those people? First of all, we don't know that they haven't spoken to them. We don't know what they've learned. They've probably interviewed them informally, but we don't know where it is at what stage with who. And so we don't know. But now, certainly if they've got Dan to commit to certain things, it's a lot better time to get them to come back. So they may have wanted to see to pin Dan down on the record. Remember, his attorney, Dan's attorney said, we want to know everyone you've spoken to what documents you've gotten because they're worried about.

They don't know have they spoken to Bruce Allen. They don't know if they've spoken to Harry Santos or Ari Michael. They don't know if those people are cooperating with Lisa Banks if she's spoken to them in exchange for not being sued. We don't know where it is. The one thing we can know for sure is this didn't end. This didn't end. This circus will go on. And by the way, even when the Republicans come in and Carol Maloney's no longer to carry the water,

Lisa Banks, the plaintiff's lawyers will continue to try to do it. and see what they can get. But we don't know that, Kevin. So I have no idea what he says about what he knew about calendars or what he knew about asking cheerleaders to serve as hostesses for rich businessmen on trips and what that involved. And whether they ever shared new pictures of the cheerleers changing.

I have no idea what he said, but I suspect the committee has spoken to everyone who would have information about that. Yeah, well, I mean, we can say right now, know, that this certainly appears to have been a win for Dan and the current. But as my good friend and, you know, often co-host on this podcast says, the passage of time has never helped Mr. Snyder, you know, so there's always going to be something else down the road. All right.

And there's three, Kevin, there's three juries. None of this, the only juries that matter are the 32 owners of whom we need 24 for him to lose it. And that's two moves. It's not like people say, I decided at one point to throw him out, but now I've changed in my mind. I really like Dan. Once someone says, if I had the chance, if we had 24, I'd vote to throw him out,

every time they add another vote to that, so was another vote added, I don't know, and I don't know how close we are. That's number one. Number two, the second jury is the state legislatures in Maryland and in Virginia about the stadium deal. And, you know, he had a stadium deal and all of this got in the way, and then Jack Del Rio got in the way. And so the question is, does it just blow over enough at some point where he can get a stadium deal on the third one of the fans? I was in a restaurant in Marbea.

It has a two-star Michelin restaurant. It has five tables. Five tables. Where's Marbella? Is that Port-Urbay in the south of San? the south of Spain. So of Spain, okay. And in the five tables,

one of the people were clearly speaking, Norwegian, there was us. And then I hear from the corner, it's a small restaurant, a woman said, I used to be a commander's fan, but I'm going to root for the Browns this year. Yeah.

So that's the third jury. Yeah, but that jury's, that jury came back with their verdicts several years ago. And that's been reflected in, everything from, you know, attendance to television numbers to true interest. I mean, I say this all the time. We in this, you know, weird world of covering and talking about this team,

sometimes I think we really, really misrepresent the size of the bubble. Now, I know how many people listen to this podcast. I know how many followers, a lot of the beat reporters and a lot of us that talk about the team have. But really at the end of the day, and it's true, many people enjoy the conversation about the team more than the team itself. And, you know, I can tell you that is, there are audiences for podcasts like mine that are bigger than the crowds they got in some of their games last year. So, yeah, so anyway, you know, one of the things I also just wanted to mention because I did see this very early this morning before. Howard and I recorded this interview, just so everybody understands this. You know, because I had a couple of people reach out to me to say,

oh, between Neil and Howard, I mean, they said it would never happen. No, no, no. They said that under subpoena in front of the public, televised, would never happen. Although I remember it very early on, you gave it a higher percentage than most if he would do it quickly. I mean, I kind of agreed with you in the moment. But no, what he did the other day is not something that anybody on this show, Howard or Neil, ever said couldn't happen. In fact, I think the idea was that wouldn't be, you know, the surprise would be that Congress would give in and do it that way. Exactly. Look, I think I've listened to Neels and I don't need to vouch for my own, but I think we've hit this right on, which is Dan Snyder was not going to do what Roger Goodell did, which is,

sit there, be compelled to answer with the camera on him. If he could get by on three answers with a lawyer sitting next to him in Israel on a transcript and get to come home, then he would come home. So this round has gone to Dan Snyder, but it is not that Dan Snyder has now testified fully, fairly and cooperatively to Congress, and I wouldn't have had him do so if I was his lawyer. I'm not criticizing, you know, the legal strategy, but that's exactly what we expected to happen. So I guess the next time we talk about this, not that we won't have other things to talk to each other about, but the next time we talk about this will be either the day that the transcripts are released. By the way, what do you think the chances are that they release the transcripts?

I think parts will leak out. And I think Dan's side. if I'm betting what it looks like, we'll try to get him out, because it will be the most boring. There was no there there. There was 11 hours fighting about whether this is a proper question, arguing about whether they had gotten this exhibit, whether they were given their notice, and people who are going to be looking for what did we learn? I would be shocked if the answer was, here's what we learned. If there was anything there. I'd be shocked.

Certainly had he done it under subpoena and with a live television, you know, stream, et cetera. Who knows? I mean, the bottom line is, and I felt the same way you did, that Goodell held up. And in part, it was just because of the buffoonery of many of the questioners on that Wednesday, June 22nd. And maybe Snyder would have come out of that looking better than most of us anticipated if he had gone that route. But anyway, back to the next time we talk. Let's think about the question, even on something as simple as Tiffany Johnson, the difference. On Tiffany Johnson, he is going to say now, she reported, I touched her under the leg, under the table on her leg,

I don't remember any such thing. If he's under oath on TV, you then say, given that Tiffany Johnson has testified under oath as to that, are you willing to testify right now under oath that Tiffany Johnson is wrong or lying? Right. And then you've got that gulp. Because we did touch her leg.

It's easy not under subpoena at this to just say, I don't remember any such infant. but if you're then there where you have to answer and you put it the other way and if he's saying, well, I can't say she's lying then he's admitting he might well have touched her under and then, well, I can tell you if it was me, she'd be lying, I didn't touch her under.

Like I don't touch women under the table. You've got to be able to say she's lying if she said it or she's misremembering and if you say that under oath, now you're in a big situation whereas if you say it in a transcript where you have to tell the truth, yes, but you don't have to answer directly. You know, the second time they asked that question,

the lawyer said you're badgering the witness move on. I think that given that when that accusation was made, the team jumped at the chance to handle the investigation, promised transparency was a big tell that they thought that this, you know, accusation either couldn't be proven or wasn't true. And if that's the case, and by the way, you've discussed this many times, really hard to prove that specific accusation. I'm talking about the hand on the leg underneath a table at a meeting.

But Dan may have been safe in saying she's lying and saying it emphatically and speaking to, you know, just how, you know, outrageous that claim was. I mean, I'm not saying that you would recommend that of him, but, you know, the opportunity, not that he'd be good at this, this is the problem, right, Howard, is that he's not good in these situations. There are certain people you could put up there that would be able to really sell it and be convincing in that situation and change sort of the way people viewed the overall, you know, situation. but I think this was probably best for him. But there are questions that clearly, I hope were asked. I'd like to see the answers to those questions. I don't know whether they will be.

I mean, look, you were the first one to bring up the fact that he really wasn't fined $10 million. You know, they just made a $10 million. They just shifted their charitable donations for that particular thing. I mean, so really the punishment of him for the result. of the Wilkinson investigation were zero. I mean, I would have loved to of, you know, well, Goodell needed to answer some of those things. And they did say that they were going to, that some of the questions asked were going to be about this parallel shadow investigation, which, you know, may not have resulted in anything impactful in the Wilkinson investigation, but the intent seemed to be for him to intimidate some of these potential witnesses. But anyway.

That one I think is a pretty easy one. That one, I know exactly what he said. All he would have said is I didn't order an investigation of anything shadow or otherwise. My defense lawyers are the ones who decide who they should question, who they have to find out, who's been saying what. You've got to just talk to my lawyers. Because I assure you, Dan Snyder isn't. isn't the architect, he asked when they go around and say, we will be on top of it, we'll be out ahead of it, we will know what they're going to say before they say it. That's fine,

but that's a defense lawyer strategy. So that one, Dan's going to walk away with answer number two. You've got to ask my lawyer. Every single question is going to be either ask Bruce Allen or and Michael, or a third party substantively. You got to ask my lawyer or I don't remember. I would have at least gotten to, are you familiar with the accusations of some 42 plus women about your workplace culture? Yes. Are you familiar? No, that doesn't get answered. Kevin, that doesn't get answered.

The lawyer said that's a compound question. Do you want to ask about each one? Because you can't ask about 42. Okay. Let's ask him one at a time then. How does he answer? That's 11 hours. How does he answer each one?

Does he say he is familiar? with those accusations or not? He has to be familiar with him. Here's how you do as a lawyer. Are you familiar with the 42 accusations? Objection, that's a compound. Hey, you got it. Okay, let's do it one by one.

Are you familiar with Mary A's accusations? I don't really remember Mary A specifically. Are you familiar with Candy B? I don't really remember Candy B specifically, so I guess I don't remember. So once they break it down, he doesn't remember one from the other. Once they do it as a whole, it's compound and vague because it refers to everybody. This is the tedium that you will see in that transcript.

And none of that could have happened under subpoena. But when you take his comments, the statements from the team, from him, about a workplace culture that they apologized for, you know, What specifically then were you apologizing for? I had heard that there are Lisa Banks, and there's a bunch of women who are upset that there were pictures and some other things. Look, we responsibly fired Alex Santos and Larry Michael where they had to step down, but you have to ask my lawyer about exactly what that was about. Right.

but he specifically pointed to the fact that he wasn't as involved during the time of these accusations and that he needs to get more involved. What I'm driving at is this is for you, this isn't for me. How do you get him to acknowledge that the time in which he's referring to not being involved enough and things got away from him pinning it on Bruce, essentially, blaming Bruce Allen was not, does not sync up with the majority of these accusations. Bruce wasn't there. The way you get him there is you don't agree to a procedure where he's not subpoenaed and it's

not videotape. Okay. So, understood. So like I said, the next time we're talking about this will be after the transcripts are released, after he is subpoenaed, which could. Okay, so the subpoena may or may not happen, but you think that there's a pretty good chance now, a very good chance that his attorneys can quash it.

And maybe we'll have something to discuss after the Mary Joe White investigation, right? Am I missing anything? So the Mary Joe White is the real one of, does she in the context of Tiffany Johnson rehearse all of, Beth's report. View it is valid to go back and look at it. And Mary Jo White is the one person who could tell the Beth could have done as well, but she didn't get the opportunity.

Mary Jo White, if Goodell doesn't have the Cajonis to tell her, stay within your lanes, Mary Jo White could actually be the only person to tell us the story about sexual harassment and oversight and who was responsible at the commanders, because she will have talked to Santos, and she will have talked to Larry Michael, and she will have talked to each of the former cheerleers, and she would, and she could actually document it. That is the, that is the more likely place we'll see it,

and then possibly a civil deposition. And financial improprieties, of course, too, which she's investigating as well. So. Yeah, although none of those truck us is likely to have happened. I agree. I agree. Okay. Did I miss anything?

We'll know when we see the transcript. Thank you for doing this. As always, it's always an interesting conversation. Hope you're well. Terrific. Thanks so much, Kevin. All the best. Howard Gutman, everybody. At the Howard Gutman on Twitter. He also hosts a radio showdown in Richmond as I see it on WRVA Radio on Saturday mornings.

And you can hear that via the Odyssey app. as well. All right, that's it for the show today, back on Monday.