March 4, 2025 • 32 mins
Minnesota Tim discusses the Minnesota Vikings' decision regarding Sam Darnold, the implications of that decision, the ongoing issues with NBA officiating, and the controversial topic of transgender athletes competing in women's sports. The conversation highlights the complexities of sports management, officiating challenges, and societal debates surrounding gender and competition
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome into the show today. Thank you for taking time
throughout your day and week to make it this podcast
part of your day. If you're watching on YouTube or
listening on app or Spotify, hit that subscribe button so
this podcast will show up in your feed Monday through Saturday.
(00:27):
On yesterday's podcast had some interesting follow up comments. When
I posted these reels and when I checked out the
video myself, I noticed like this white gunk all over
my lips, and I even got comments across the Instagram,
Facebook and YouTube page.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Someone said, holy crap.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Man with an shiit instead of crap says wipe your
lips and drink some water. You're foaming at the mouth
the entire video and you have not seen that. Check
out my Instagram reels or yesterday's video. There's like this
white line across my lips, And I guess that's what
happens when you record at five thirty in the morning.
(01:05):
Sometimes you wake up with some gun kind of lips
that it looked like I was a crackhead for a moment.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Now, one thing I'm really proud.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Of in my life is never smoking anything, not a cigarette,
not a cigar, not any sort of drug. And another
thing I'm proud of is not having a single drink
of alcohol underage and without a certain responsibility.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Meaning everyone's had a little sip.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Of their dad's drink when they're like twelve to thirteen
years old, Right, that's not good.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
That's not only me.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
When my dad's in the room, when he pours himself
a beer, can I try a sip?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Sure?
Speaker 1 (01:49):
So that's the only time that I had an underage
drink is a sip of my dad's beer.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
And I didn't like then. I still don't drink. I'm
thirty three years old, and I.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Like to say I have about a quarter of a
beer a year, and there's a certain time of year
for me to do that. A certain time of year
is a summer day in ninety five degrees. You're planting
grass in your lawn or mowing grass, or doing some
heavy work outside, and you're just exhausted, you're sweaty, and
(02:20):
the only thing that can satisfy is just like a
nice cold beer. And I never drink the whole thing.
I drink like a sip or two, and then I'm like, Okay,
I'm satisfied. I just needed a nice cold beer. You
walk in talking about being the man of the house
after working a long day outside sweating and you just
want to beer.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
It's the only time I have a beer a year.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
All Right, lots of Minnesota Vikings talk this morning because
there was some breaking news that happened overnight, and I
don't know if it was necessarily as breaking as it
would have been if this came out two weeks ago,
because this has been basically the momentum or the temperature
(03:06):
in the room for a few weeks pretty much all
off season. Keviit Olcolin has said countless times that Sam
Donald was going to basically be allowed to test the
free agent market. Is earn the right, he said multiple times,
to be the marquee free agent as free agency approaches
(03:31):
later on this week, and the breaking news is that
the Minnesota Vikings are deciding not to take Sam Donald,
which will give him an unimpeded path to the free
agent market. Now, this has been the debate all off
(03:52):
season because there are hungry quarterback teams like the Raiders, Jets,
Titans that need a quarterback if they want to compete
next year, and especially if you're a guy like Pete
Carroll that's already seventy years old, and you're stepping into
a situation like the Raiders with a new general manager
(04:14):
and with Tom Brady becoming an owner. You want to
have stability at the quarterback position, and right now the
Raiders do not have that, and it appears that Sam
Darnold seems to be the most likely option to fit
that role since Sam Matthew Stafford was able to come
(04:39):
to terms with another contract with the Los Angeles Rams.
So the question that needs to be answered is was
this a catastrophic failure by the Minnesota Vikings organization. There's
a few things that we need to discuss, because I
(05:02):
don't think this is a simple blacker white answer. The
first thing that I think needs to be discussed is is.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
JJ McCarthy going to be.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
A franchise quarterback for the Vikings next season or this
season after that for the next ten to fifteen years.
Because if that is true and he is a franchise
quarterback now, that has nothing to do with Sam Donald
being tagged or not. But what it does have to
(05:36):
do with is we are going to forget really really
really quickly about Sam Donald's tag and why didn't they
tag him and they should have tagged them We're gonna
forget about that really quickly. We're not even gonna care
in a year. If JJ McCarthy proves to be an
(05:57):
elite level quarterback in the NFL.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Right now, it's a debate.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Right now, it's a was this a catastrophic failure? Right now, it's, oh,
why didn't Quessey get anything for Donald? Who's the marquis
free agent quarterback that quarterback needy teams want.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
And that's a fair discussion to have.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
It's it's it's it's a discussion that needs to be
discussed because with Sam Donald being the top quarterback available
to quarterback needy teams, why didn't Quessey get.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Anything for him at this point in time?
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Why was he unable to pull off a Tagan trade
which we've seen throughout the NFL for years.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
But my point being is this.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
We are going to forget really quickly about this whole
Tagan trade thing. If McCarthy proves to be the guy
in Minnesota, we will be they reforgiving of Quessey if
McCarthy is the guy. That's my first point, point number two,
(07:11):
and this is the catastrophic failure point.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
It's not like Quessey.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Was sitting at the table with the Raiders GM and
they were discussing bits and trades and tagging trades and
all these things. It's not like the Raiders said to Quessey, Okay,
you know what we're gonna do. We're gonna give you
the number one overall picking this year's draft, whatever selection
(07:40):
that is, and I want Sam Donald. And it's not
like Quesse rejected that deal. Okay, It's not like he
had this massive trade on the table for Sam Donald
and passed up the opportunity.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Because as much as.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
We want Donald to be tagged in trade, so does
the Vikings organization. Because the Vikings general manager, Quessi.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
A Doufo Mensa.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Is also in negotiations for a contract extension. And when
you're in negotiations for a contract extension, then then the
then you're gonna do everything in your power to make
sure that you can get the highest amount of dollars
(08:31):
you can get. And the way to do that is
to tag and trade Donald. And I don't know if
you just fail for the bs crap that teams and
agents and general managers throw and hope sticks, because the
(08:53):
Vikings are not gonna get anything for Donald unless they
resign them to a multi year deal and it's like
a resign and trade, a sign and trade and instead
of a tag and trade. Maybe that's a possibility, but
it seems like it's not. I mean, why would a
team agree to assign and trade when Donald's entering free agency?
Speaker 2 (09:11):
So I get.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Why it appears to be a massive failure from the
Viking standpoint. You're already not loaded in draft picks. You
gave up a bunch of mid round picks to move
up last year.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
You have the.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
Number one overall quarterback on the market, and you're just
gonna let him walk for free. When you have an
asset like Donald and you have the ability to tag
and trade him, which we've seen before in the league
at different positions, then the hope would be that you
(09:55):
would get something back. And maybe this was a catastrophic
failure from the Vikings. Maybe they should have called out
the bs bluffs from other organizations and Donald's agent.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
But I go back to what I said earlier.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
It's not like Quesse had this massive offer on the
table for Donald and he rejected it.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
My theory is that Donald's.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Market was not as hot as we anticipated it would be.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
On paper. Donald might be the.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Number one quarterback available this offseason. But Donald also has
a past, and it's a sketchy past. Okay, it's a
sketchy past, and maybe there were a lot of teams
hesitant to sign Donald or trade for Donald and give
(10:59):
him a second or third round pick. Maybe that's not
something the Raiders were willing to depart with, because I
think that's realistic. It's not like Donald, It's not like
this is the Vikings situation. It's not like Donald had
six great seasons with the Vikings and with other organizations
and he's on his way to be this Hall of
Fame quarterback and he's one of the top five quarterbacks
(11:21):
in the league, and the Vikings couldn't get.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Anything for him.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
This is a guy that had six sketchy NFL seasons
and then came to Minnesota and played out of his
mind thirty five touchdowns, twelve picks. So I don't think
it's ridiculous that the Vikings weren't able to get anything
for Donald because of his past, because of all sketchy
(11:47):
his first six NFL seasons were. So people are gonna
call this a catastrophic failure, and it's ridiculous that the
Vikings didn't get him. But I'm gonna push back against
that because Donald's past is real. Okay, if if you
(12:09):
throw this situation in any part of life, if someone
that you knew had one good year of life or
they put it all the other but had six sketchy
years of doing dope and meth and drugs and being
an alcoholic, would you trust that guy for the rest
of your life or would you maybe talk to him
(12:33):
with severe reservations?
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Because that's Donald.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Donald was a bust for six years in his NFL
career and then he had one good year.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
I don't think that one good year means that the.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
NFL flock of teams is just gonna come charging after him.
I think there's a lot of reservations, and I think
that these NFL teams we're not willing to depart with
a top pick to get Donald. As hungry and as
starving as they were, they realize Darnald has a past.
(13:13):
That's my take, Okay. So moving on to a different topic. Yesterday,
I really went around the horn. I opened up with
the Vikings because this is a Vikings podcast. I went
to the Golden Gophers, talked about Ben Johnson, I talked
about the Timberwolves, and I really enjoyed that. So this
podcast is going to branch out more and discuss other
(13:35):
topics besides the Vikings, even though this is predominantly a
Minnesota Vikings podcast. Something I saw the other day came
from Layton Glowik on X and he's got a YouTube.
He's got like forty two hundred followers on X and
(13:58):
he posted a video of Anthony Edwards and other NFL, NFL,
NBA players and he's talking about the NBA officiating problem
because there was a play where Anthony Edwards went up
against the Phoenix Suns would have been the dunk of
the year. Dante de Vincenzo slammed the ball on the
(14:21):
floor for an oop for Edwards as a two on
zero fast break, and then Bradley Bill pushed Edwards from
behind and launched him out of bounds, and the official
didn't call it one of the head scratching miscalls of
the year because Bradley Bill two headed shoved Anthony Edwards
out of bounds. The Vikings had a review available, they
(14:42):
reviewed it. They called the flagrant and everything kind of
corrected itself. But what it was posting that the NBA
has an officiating problem. And we've seen Anthony Edwards get
teed up sixteen times this year and get ejected and
get suspended because he re to that plateau. Now, the
(15:02):
question that everyone is discussing is the NBA's officiating problem
and Anthony Edwards and and why is he not getting
calls like Shay gilgis Alexander And here's the truth about
the situation. The NBA, this officiating problem, as well as
(15:26):
the NFL, as well as any sports league, has always
had this quote unquote officiating problem. Anthony Edwards is not
a victim of poor NBA officiating, and neither are the
Minnesota Timberwolves. Have you ever watched Lebron James' play in
(15:52):
his prime, particularly, and have ever watched how he was
officiated Lebron James. Every time he went to the rack,
he would get hammered. And the amount of miscalls the
officials missed on Lebron James was outlandish. Nobody has ever
been fouled more in the NBA, and had it not
(16:16):
called them Lebron James. And what we are seeing as
Minnesota Timberwolves fans is an elite player like Anthony Edwards
attacking the rim and be given this same treatment as
a player like Lebron James. Meaning when players attack the
(16:41):
rim like in Anthony Edwards, that is the toughest play
to officiate because there's a lot of contact, there's a
lot of physicality, and when Edwards is in the air,
you can't really tell if his arm got hit, how
much of the contact is exaggerated, if it was straight
(17:04):
up verticality. And this NBA officiating problem is also more
relevant because anytime there's a foul or a miscall, it
immediately gets posted on social media for everybody to criticize
(17:29):
and say, how did you miss that call? And what's
so interesting about it is that these people that are
complaining about NBA officiating have never officiated a basketball game
in their life, have never officiated middle school basketball because
(17:50):
they don't know how to and as easy as it
looks to officiate in slow motion, you put yourself out
on that court and they have no idea. So Anthony Edwards, Yeah,
did they miss the call. Yes, but they've been missing
calls forever. Look at how Lebron James was getting officiated
(18:14):
throughout his prime, always hacked, always fouled as he drove
through the paint. And there's nothing different about today's league
except for the fact that players have made it more
challenging for NBA officials to call play, to call fouls
(18:39):
because of the way that they play.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
So much of the.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Contact that is exaggerated. You know, you get a little
touch on the fingernail or on the fingertips and players
go flying five feet.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Out of bounds.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
And how is an official supposed to interpret whether a
player was flopping or whether a player was actually hit
Because you see it all the time in the league,
where guys are flopping and and and really taking contact
(19:16):
and exaggerating it to another level. And NBA officials, players
watch tape, coaches watch tape. NBA officials also watch tape.
NBA officials also look at players and their tendencies and say,
you know what, this guy likes to complain after calls,
(19:37):
and I just watched the replay.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
There was not a foul there that was clean.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
So next time I'm officiating this player, I am not
going to trust every single thing that he says to
me because of his tendencies while he's on the basketball court.
So as much as Edwards complains and as much as
Minnesota Timberwolves fans want to complain about the lack of
fouls that Edwards has received from the crew this year.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
You need to you need to take a break.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
From that ridiculous banter because the NBA officiating has always
been this way.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
They're not going to get every single call right.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
The one of the toughest games to officiate, just like
the NFL, and you really slow it down. These guys
are the most athletic players in the world. And when
you slow it down to slow motion, and you've got
millions of people watching the game, and you slow down
(20:43):
a passion inference non caller or passing interference, call it
to slow motion, and everybody on the couch is all
of a sudden an expert and being an NFL ref
or an NBA official.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
It's ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Anyway, all right, one last topic to dive into, and
this one's a controversial one.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
The Minnesota.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
Out Congress voters, Republicans and Democrats, just on Monday or Sunday,
Sunday or Monday, they had an opportunity to vote against
transgender men playing against women.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
In sports in Minnesota.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
This is every single Democrat in Minnesota House voted for
biological men that became trans to continue competing against biological women,
(21:56):
and Minnesota Republicans voted sixty seven yes to banning it.
Democrats voted sixty six no to stopping it, and all
they needed was one vote sixty eight. All they needed
(22:17):
was sixty eight votes to ban this, and now women
in middle school, high school, probably college two in Minnesota.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Now have to compete.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Against biological men dressing up as women.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
In sports.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Because Democrats refused to ban it. And I was watching
the news last night, the local Fox nine news with
Random Meyer and Casey Carlos and Ian Leonard. I was
watching the story about this, and they went to their son,
Young Kim, reporter live at the Minnesota Capital, and she
(23:08):
said that all they needed was one more vote for
this to pass. And they also went to clips from
Congress from whoever's voting Democrats and Republicans that I don't
have the right terminology there, but you guys get the point,
and the point is that the Democrats voted no to
(23:29):
banning this, and they went to one of the members
that were voting and they said.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Sports has such a.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Physical and mental advantage to so and so that we
cannot ban them from participating in sports. Excuse me, we
are not trying to ban them from participating in sports.
(23:59):
If you want to become a transgender.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
A man.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
Who if you're a biological man and you want to
become a transgender and become a woman, I'm not trying
to ban you from playing sports. You could continue to
play against the mental for all I care. But what
I am going to stop you from is competing with
(24:27):
a clear physical advantage against women. And also to that
person's point, I don't even I didn't know his name.
The physical advantages and the and the mental advantage, it's
so good for the health. I think there's a lot
(24:49):
more problems going on here. If you are a biological
man dressing up and changing your gender to become a woman,
then a physical and mental advantage by playing sports, there's
a lot more problems going on here. And this person
was from Eatan Prairie, a democrat from Eating Prairie. And
(25:12):
they were talking about how they were a coach, they
coached and they were a part of it, and they
coached a transgender and and it was it was such
a good thing for that transgender to be.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
On the floor.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
Let me ask you in a reverse role, because this
is what they are refusing to answer or refusing to
think about, because they are so lined with their party. Hey,
this is a hypothetical, but it's really not. This is truth.
If your daughter was competing and dedicated their life to
(25:52):
sports and to becoming a better athlete, practicing in the driveway, sweating,
going to camps and practices, and aau basketball and had
an opportunity to play against competition in high school basketball,
(26:13):
reached the championship game, but then got obliterated, maybe even injured,
because a biological man decided to dress up as a
woman and defeated your daughter. How would you feel about that?
(26:36):
How would you feel about your own daughter going against
a biological man.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
In a regular season game, in a state final.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
And getting injured because that biological man had an unfair
physical and competitive advantage because they were a man. That's
a question that I did not see answered or asked
at that meeting with the Democrats.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Because.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
It just really grinds my gears. There's not much that
makes my blood boil. There's not much that really just
ticks me off, because I'm a very composed and poised person.
Just naturally I process.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
I think.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
But when I see every single Democrat voting no to
banning transgender people, a biological man competing versus women because
they want to pretend that they're a woman, is atrocious
(27:52):
and absolutely ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
If you want to compete, compete with.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Your biological gender, why are you so obsessed with competing
against a gender that's clearly not going to be as
competitive as you are.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
You immediately step on that floor and you're the best player.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
It's it's it's it's flat out ridiculous to me.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
And what's so like my numbing about this whole ordeal.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Is that Democrats speak out both sides of their mouth
in this situation. And I'm not rah rah rah Republicans
all the time either, Like don't get don't get me
confused for a guy that's gonna wear a mega hat everywhere.
I voted for Trump, But I'm not I'm not raw
rah rah rah Republicans, like I'm not ever. Republicans do
everything right, like like they're the they're the party that's
(28:51):
that's one hundred percent right all the time. But what's
so my numbing about the Democrats in this situation is
that they're all about equal rights between men and women.
They're all about women getting the same opportunities as men,
and women being paid the same as men regardless of
(29:16):
the situation.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
And they're about.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
Diversity and di and all of this other stuff. But
they're speaking out of both sides of their mouth, because
as soon as a biological man wants to dress up
as a woman and pretend they're a woman, then all
of this, all of the stuff that they were shouting
(29:38):
on top of rooftops before, just goes completely out the window.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
And it's absurd. It's absurd. You know what you call that?
Speaker 1 (29:51):
You call that people speaking of both sides of their mouth.
You call that hypocrisy, And that's exactly what that is.
So I see this, and my daughter is only two
years old, and I suppose the odds of a transgender
(30:11):
athlete taking down one of my daughters in a sporting
event or whatever the case may be, is probably low.
But the fact that it's an opportunity, the fact that
I have to at least think about it being an opportunity,
is dumb. And if it's not happening to my daughter
is probably happening somewhere in Minnesota, It's probably happening somewhere
(30:39):
to someone's daughter where they're competing against a biological man,
and it's not even about competing against a biological man,
but it is about that biological man being in this
same dressing room as some of the female athlete fleets
(31:00):
on that team.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
It's flat out ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
I just, oh my word, I see some of this
garbage and it just pisses me off because the logic
behind it there is none, none, whatsoever. And this is
a topic that after I'm done recording, I'm still gonna
be pissed off about. This is not some antic that
I'm fired up about because I got a microphone in
(31:27):
my hand. This is some stupid decision by the Democratic
Party to continue to allow women to be put in
terrible situations and dressing rooms and on the court or
field or wherever.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
It just it's dumb. It's stupid, dumb.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Oh wow, all right, everyone, thank you for watching, and
thank you for making this podcast Privy Day. Hit the
subscribe button if you're watching on YouTube or listening on
Apple or Spotify.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Have a good one.
Welcome into the show today. Thank you for taking time
throughout your day and week to make it this podcast
part of your day. If you're watching on YouTube or
listening on app or Spotify, hit that subscribe button so
this podcast will show up in your feed Monday through Saturday.
(00:27):
On yesterday's podcast had some interesting follow up comments. When
I posted these reels and when I checked out the
video myself, I noticed like this white gunk all over
my lips, and I even got comments across the Instagram,
Facebook and YouTube page.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Someone said, holy crap.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Man with an shiit instead of crap says wipe your
lips and drink some water. You're foaming at the mouth
the entire video and you have not seen that. Check
out my Instagram reels or yesterday's video. There's like this
white line across my lips, And I guess that's what
happens when you record at five thirty in the morning.
(01:05):
Sometimes you wake up with some gun kind of lips
that it looked like I was a crackhead for a moment.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Now, one thing I'm really proud.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Of in my life is never smoking anything, not a cigarette,
not a cigar, not any sort of drug. And another
thing I'm proud of is not having a single drink
of alcohol underage and without a certain responsibility.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Meaning everyone's had a little sip.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Of their dad's drink when they're like twelve to thirteen
years old, Right, that's not good.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
That's not only me.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
When my dad's in the room, when he pours himself
a beer, can I try a sip?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Sure?
Speaker 1 (01:49):
So that's the only time that I had an underage
drink is a sip of my dad's beer.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
And I didn't like then. I still don't drink. I'm
thirty three years old, and I.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Like to say I have about a quarter of a
beer a year, and there's a certain time of year
for me to do that. A certain time of year
is a summer day in ninety five degrees. You're planting
grass in your lawn or mowing grass, or doing some
heavy work outside, and you're just exhausted, you're sweaty, and
(02:20):
the only thing that can satisfy is just like a
nice cold beer. And I never drink the whole thing.
I drink like a sip or two, and then I'm like, Okay,
I'm satisfied. I just needed a nice cold beer. You
walk in talking about being the man of the house
after working a long day outside sweating and you just
want to beer.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
It's the only time I have a beer a year.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
All Right, lots of Minnesota Vikings talk this morning because
there was some breaking news that happened overnight, and I
don't know if it was necessarily as breaking as it
would have been if this came out two weeks ago,
because this has been basically the momentum or the temperature
(03:06):
in the room for a few weeks pretty much all
off season. Keviit Olcolin has said countless times that Sam
Donald was going to basically be allowed to test the
free agent market. Is earn the right, he said multiple times,
to be the marquee free agent as free agency approaches
(03:31):
later on this week, and the breaking news is that
the Minnesota Vikings are deciding not to take Sam Donald,
which will give him an unimpeded path to the free
agent market. Now, this has been the debate all off
(03:52):
season because there are hungry quarterback teams like the Raiders, Jets,
Titans that need a quarterback if they want to compete
next year, and especially if you're a guy like Pete
Carroll that's already seventy years old, and you're stepping into
a situation like the Raiders with a new general manager
(04:14):
and with Tom Brady becoming an owner. You want to
have stability at the quarterback position, and right now the
Raiders do not have that, and it appears that Sam
Darnold seems to be the most likely option to fit
that role since Sam Matthew Stafford was able to come
(04:39):
to terms with another contract with the Los Angeles Rams.
So the question that needs to be answered is was
this a catastrophic failure by the Minnesota Vikings organization. There's
a few things that we need to discuss, because I
(05:02):
don't think this is a simple blacker white answer. The
first thing that I think needs to be discussed is is.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
JJ McCarthy going to be.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
A franchise quarterback for the Vikings next season or this
season after that for the next ten to fifteen years.
Because if that is true and he is a franchise
quarterback now, that has nothing to do with Sam Donald
being tagged or not. But what it does have to
(05:36):
do with is we are going to forget really really
really quickly about Sam Donald's tag and why didn't they
tag him and they should have tagged them We're gonna
forget about that really quickly. We're not even gonna care
in a year. If JJ McCarthy proves to be an
(05:57):
elite level quarterback in the NFL.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Right now, it's a debate.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Right now, it's a was this a catastrophic failure? Right now, it's, oh,
why didn't Quessey get anything for Donald? Who's the marquis
free agent quarterback that quarterback needy teams want.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
And that's a fair discussion to have.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
It's it's it's it's a discussion that needs to be
discussed because with Sam Donald being the top quarterback available
to quarterback needy teams, why didn't Quessey get.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Anything for him at this point in time?
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Why was he unable to pull off a Tagan trade
which we've seen throughout the NFL for years.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
But my point being is this.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
We are going to forget really quickly about this whole
Tagan trade thing. If McCarthy proves to be the guy
in Minnesota, we will be they reforgiving of Quessey if
McCarthy is the guy. That's my first point, point number two,
(07:11):
and this is the catastrophic failure point.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
It's not like Quessey.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Was sitting at the table with the Raiders GM and
they were discussing bits and trades and tagging trades and
all these things. It's not like the Raiders said to Quessey, Okay,
you know what we're gonna do. We're gonna give you
the number one overall picking this year's draft, whatever selection
(07:40):
that is, and I want Sam Donald. And it's not
like Quesse rejected that deal. Okay, It's not like he
had this massive trade on the table for Sam Donald
and passed up the opportunity.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Because as much as.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
We want Donald to be tagged in trade, so does
the Vikings organization. Because the Vikings general manager, Quessi.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
A Doufo Mensa.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Is also in negotiations for a contract extension. And when
you're in negotiations for a contract extension, then then the
then you're gonna do everything in your power to make
sure that you can get the highest amount of dollars
(08:31):
you can get. And the way to do that is
to tag and trade Donald. And I don't know if
you just fail for the bs crap that teams and
agents and general managers throw and hope sticks, because the
(08:53):
Vikings are not gonna get anything for Donald unless they
resign them to a multi year deal and it's like
a resign and trade, a sign and trade and instead
of a tag and trade. Maybe that's a possibility, but
it seems like it's not. I mean, why would a
team agree to assign and trade when Donald's entering free agency?
Speaker 2 (09:11):
So I get.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Why it appears to be a massive failure from the
Viking standpoint. You're already not loaded in draft picks. You
gave up a bunch of mid round picks to move
up last year.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
You have the.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
Number one overall quarterback on the market, and you're just
gonna let him walk for free. When you have an
asset like Donald and you have the ability to tag
and trade him, which we've seen before in the league
at different positions, then the hope would be that you
(09:55):
would get something back. And maybe this was a catastrophic
failure from the Vikings. Maybe they should have called out
the bs bluffs from other organizations and Donald's agent.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
But I go back to what I said earlier.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
It's not like Quesse had this massive offer on the
table for Donald and he rejected it.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
My theory is that Donald's.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Market was not as hot as we anticipated it would be.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
On paper. Donald might be the.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Number one quarterback available this offseason. But Donald also has
a past, and it's a sketchy past. Okay, it's a
sketchy past, and maybe there were a lot of teams
hesitant to sign Donald or trade for Donald and give
(10:59):
him a second or third round pick. Maybe that's not
something the Raiders were willing to depart with, because I
think that's realistic. It's not like Donald, It's not like
this is the Vikings situation. It's not like Donald had
six great seasons with the Vikings and with other organizations
and he's on his way to be this Hall of
Fame quarterback and he's one of the top five quarterbacks
(11:21):
in the league, and the Vikings couldn't get.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Anything for him.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
This is a guy that had six sketchy NFL seasons
and then came to Minnesota and played out of his
mind thirty five touchdowns, twelve picks. So I don't think
it's ridiculous that the Vikings weren't able to get anything
for Donald because of his past, because of all sketchy
(11:47):
his first six NFL seasons were. So people are gonna
call this a catastrophic failure, and it's ridiculous that the
Vikings didn't get him. But I'm gonna push back against
that because Donald's past is real. Okay, if if you
(12:09):
throw this situation in any part of life, if someone
that you knew had one good year of life or
they put it all the other but had six sketchy
years of doing dope and meth and drugs and being
an alcoholic, would you trust that guy for the rest
of your life or would you maybe talk to him
(12:33):
with severe reservations?
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Because that's Donald.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Donald was a bust for six years in his NFL
career and then he had one good year.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
I don't think that one good year means that the.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
NFL flock of teams is just gonna come charging after him.
I think there's a lot of reservations, and I think
that these NFL teams we're not willing to depart with
a top pick to get Donald. As hungry and as
starving as they were, they realize Darnald has a past.
(13:13):
That's my take, Okay. So moving on to a different topic. Yesterday,
I really went around the horn. I opened up with
the Vikings because this is a Vikings podcast. I went
to the Golden Gophers, talked about Ben Johnson, I talked
about the Timberwolves, and I really enjoyed that. So this
podcast is going to branch out more and discuss other
(13:35):
topics besides the Vikings, even though this is predominantly a
Minnesota Vikings podcast. Something I saw the other day came
from Layton Glowik on X and he's got a YouTube.
He's got like forty two hundred followers on X and
(13:58):
he posted a video of Anthony Edwards and other NFL, NFL,
NBA players and he's talking about the NBA officiating problem
because there was a play where Anthony Edwards went up
against the Phoenix Suns would have been the dunk of
the year. Dante de Vincenzo slammed the ball on the
(14:21):
floor for an oop for Edwards as a two on
zero fast break, and then Bradley Bill pushed Edwards from
behind and launched him out of bounds, and the official
didn't call it one of the head scratching miscalls of
the year because Bradley Bill two headed shoved Anthony Edwards
out of bounds. The Vikings had a review available, they
(14:42):
reviewed it. They called the flagrant and everything kind of
corrected itself. But what it was posting that the NBA
has an officiating problem. And we've seen Anthony Edwards get
teed up sixteen times this year and get ejected and
get suspended because he re to that plateau. Now, the
(15:02):
question that everyone is discussing is the NBA's officiating problem
and Anthony Edwards and and why is he not getting
calls like Shay gilgis Alexander And here's the truth about
the situation. The NBA, this officiating problem, as well as
(15:26):
the NFL, as well as any sports league, has always
had this quote unquote officiating problem. Anthony Edwards is not
a victim of poor NBA officiating, and neither are the
Minnesota Timberwolves. Have you ever watched Lebron James' play in
(15:52):
his prime, particularly, and have ever watched how he was
officiated Lebron James. Every time he went to the rack,
he would get hammered. And the amount of miscalls the
officials missed on Lebron James was outlandish. Nobody has ever
been fouled more in the NBA, and had it not
(16:16):
called them Lebron James. And what we are seeing as
Minnesota Timberwolves fans is an elite player like Anthony Edwards
attacking the rim and be given this same treatment as
a player like Lebron James. Meaning when players attack the
(16:41):
rim like in Anthony Edwards, that is the toughest play
to officiate because there's a lot of contact, there's a
lot of physicality, and when Edwards is in the air,
you can't really tell if his arm got hit, how
much of the contact is exaggerated, if it was straight
(17:04):
up verticality. And this NBA officiating problem is also more
relevant because anytime there's a foul or a miscall, it
immediately gets posted on social media for everybody to criticize
(17:29):
and say, how did you miss that call? And what's
so interesting about it is that these people that are
complaining about NBA officiating have never officiated a basketball game
in their life, have never officiated middle school basketball because
(17:50):
they don't know how to and as easy as it
looks to officiate in slow motion, you put yourself out
on that court and they have no idea. So Anthony Edwards, Yeah,
did they miss the call. Yes, but they've been missing
calls forever. Look at how Lebron James was getting officiated
(18:14):
throughout his prime, always hacked, always fouled as he drove
through the paint. And there's nothing different about today's league
except for the fact that players have made it more
challenging for NBA officials to call play, to call fouls
(18:39):
because of the way that they play.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
So much of the.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Contact that is exaggerated. You know, you get a little
touch on the fingernail or on the fingertips and players
go flying five feet.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Out of bounds.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
And how is an official supposed to interpret whether a
player was flopping or whether a player was actually hit
Because you see it all the time in the league,
where guys are flopping and and and really taking contact
(19:16):
and exaggerating it to another level. And NBA officials, players
watch tape, coaches watch tape. NBA officials also watch tape.
NBA officials also look at players and their tendencies and say,
you know what, this guy likes to complain after calls,
(19:37):
and I just watched the replay.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
There was not a foul there that was clean.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
So next time I'm officiating this player, I am not
going to trust every single thing that he says to
me because of his tendencies while he's on the basketball court.
So as much as Edwards complains and as much as
Minnesota Timberwolves fans want to complain about the lack of
fouls that Edwards has received from the crew this year.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
You need to you need to take a break.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
From that ridiculous banter because the NBA officiating has always
been this way.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
They're not going to get every single call right.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
The one of the toughest games to officiate, just like
the NFL, and you really slow it down. These guys
are the most athletic players in the world. And when
you slow it down to slow motion, and you've got
millions of people watching the game, and you slow down
(20:43):
a passion inference non caller or passing interference, call it
to slow motion, and everybody on the couch is all
of a sudden an expert and being an NFL ref
or an NBA official.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
It's ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Anyway, all right, one last topic to dive into, and
this one's a controversial one.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
The Minnesota.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
Out Congress voters, Republicans and Democrats, just on Monday or Sunday,
Sunday or Monday, they had an opportunity to vote against
transgender men playing against women.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
In sports in Minnesota.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
This is every single Democrat in Minnesota House voted for
biological men that became trans to continue competing against biological women,
(21:56):
and Minnesota Republicans voted sixty seven yes to banning it.
Democrats voted sixty six no to stopping it, and all
they needed was one vote sixty eight. All they needed
(22:17):
was sixty eight votes to ban this, and now women
in middle school, high school, probably college two in Minnesota.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Now have to compete.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Against biological men dressing up as women.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
In sports.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Because Democrats refused to ban it. And I was watching
the news last night, the local Fox nine news with
Random Meyer and Casey Carlos and Ian Leonard. I was
watching the story about this, and they went to their son,
Young Kim, reporter live at the Minnesota Capital, and she
(23:08):
said that all they needed was one more vote for
this to pass. And they also went to clips from
Congress from whoever's voting Democrats and Republicans that I don't
have the right terminology there, but you guys get the point,
and the point is that the Democrats voted no to
(23:29):
banning this, and they went to one of the members
that were voting and they said.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Sports has such a.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Physical and mental advantage to so and so that we
cannot ban them from participating in sports. Excuse me, we
are not trying to ban them from participating in sports.
(23:59):
If you want to become a transgender.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
A man.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
Who if you're a biological man and you want to
become a transgender and become a woman, I'm not trying
to ban you from playing sports. You could continue to
play against the mental for all I care. But what
I am going to stop you from is competing with
(24:27):
a clear physical advantage against women. And also to that
person's point, I don't even I didn't know his name.
The physical advantages and the and the mental advantage, it's
so good for the health. I think there's a lot
(24:49):
more problems going on here. If you are a biological
man dressing up and changing your gender to become a woman,
then a physical and mental advantage by playing sports, there's
a lot more problems going on here. And this person
was from Eatan Prairie, a democrat from Eating Prairie. And
(25:12):
they were talking about how they were a coach, they
coached and they were a part of it, and they
coached a transgender and and it was it was such
a good thing for that transgender to be.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
On the floor.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
Let me ask you in a reverse role, because this
is what they are refusing to answer or refusing to
think about, because they are so lined with their party. Hey,
this is a hypothetical, but it's really not. This is truth.
If your daughter was competing and dedicated their life to
(25:52):
sports and to becoming a better athlete, practicing in the driveway, sweating,
going to camps and practices, and aau basketball and had
an opportunity to play against competition in high school basketball,
(26:13):
reached the championship game, but then got obliterated, maybe even injured,
because a biological man decided to dress up as a
woman and defeated your daughter. How would you feel about that?
(26:36):
How would you feel about your own daughter going against
a biological man.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
In a regular season game, in a state final.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
And getting injured because that biological man had an unfair
physical and competitive advantage because they were a man. That's
a question that I did not see answered or asked
at that meeting with the Democrats.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Because.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
It just really grinds my gears. There's not much that
makes my blood boil. There's not much that really just
ticks me off, because I'm a very composed and poised person.
Just naturally I process.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
I think.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
But when I see every single Democrat voting no to
banning transgender people, a biological man competing versus women because
they want to pretend that they're a woman, is atrocious
(27:52):
and absolutely ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
If you want to compete, compete with.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Your biological gender, why are you so obsessed with competing
against a gender that's clearly not going to be as
competitive as you are.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
You immediately step on that floor and you're the best player.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
It's it's it's it's flat out ridiculous to me.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
And what's so like my numbing about this whole ordeal.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Is that Democrats speak out both sides of their mouth
in this situation. And I'm not rah rah rah Republicans
all the time either, Like don't get don't get me
confused for a guy that's gonna wear a mega hat everywhere.
I voted for Trump, But I'm not I'm not raw
rah rah rah Republicans, like I'm not ever. Republicans do
everything right, like like they're the they're the party that's
(28:51):
that's one hundred percent right all the time. But what's
so my numbing about the Democrats in this situation is
that they're all about equal rights between men and women.
They're all about women getting the same opportunities as men,
and women being paid the same as men regardless of
(29:16):
the situation.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
And they're about.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
Diversity and di and all of this other stuff. But
they're speaking out of both sides of their mouth, because
as soon as a biological man wants to dress up
as a woman and pretend they're a woman, then all
of this, all of the stuff that they were shouting
(29:38):
on top of rooftops before, just goes completely out the window.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
And it's absurd. It's absurd. You know what you call that?
Speaker 1 (29:51):
You call that people speaking of both sides of their mouth.
You call that hypocrisy, And that's exactly what that is.
So I see this, and my daughter is only two
years old, and I suppose the odds of a transgender
(30:11):
athlete taking down one of my daughters in a sporting
event or whatever the case may be, is probably low.
But the fact that it's an opportunity, the fact that
I have to at least think about it being an opportunity,
is dumb. And if it's not happening to my daughter
is probably happening somewhere in Minnesota, It's probably happening somewhere
(30:39):
to someone's daughter where they're competing against a biological man,
and it's not even about competing against a biological man,
but it is about that biological man being in this
same dressing room as some of the female athlete fleets
(31:00):
on that team.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
It's flat out ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
I just, oh my word, I see some of this
garbage and it just pisses me off because the logic
behind it there is none, none, whatsoever. And this is
a topic that after I'm done recording, I'm still gonna
be pissed off about. This is not some antic that
I'm fired up about because I got a microphone in
(31:27):
my hand. This is some stupid decision by the Democratic
Party to continue to allow women to be put in
terrible situations and dressing rooms and on the court or
field or wherever.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
It just it's dumb. It's stupid, dumb.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Oh wow, all right, everyone, thank you for watching, and
thank you for making this podcast Privy Day. Hit the
subscribe button if you're watching on YouTube or listening on
Apple or Spotify.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Have a good one.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.