Talkin Cowboys or The Break?

[PJTHEDOORS]

Ah, so you won't answer my simple question because you know it will make you look a tad silly due to your unusual standards for beauty and the snarky attitude you had towards those who - like the strong majority of people - consider Taylor to be attractive. Merry Christmas!

The guy who can't accept people's idea of beauty isn't yours, talk about attitude. You won't let this die. Her face, hair, eyes, nose, body isn't attractive to me. A V E R A G E.

 

[Nav22]

The guy who can't accept people's idea of beauty isn't yours, talk about attitude. You won't let this die. Her face, hair, eyes, nose, body isn't attractive to me. A V E R A G E.

My question wasn't about YOUR taste. Go back and re-read it if you're still confused.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

My question wasn't about YOUR taste. Go back and re-read it if you're still confused.

I have told you a million times beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You asked me why other people like her, and why I don't accept it. Do I care? Reply all you want, I have better things in my life than your philosophy on beauty. You're better off on ignore. Do the same for me.

 

[Philmonroe]

Ah, so you won't answer my simple question because you know it will make you look a tad silly due to your unusual standards for beauty and the snarky attitude you had towards those who - like the strong majority of people - consider Taylor to be attractive. Merry Christmas!

In fairness what do you want from the guy you are quoting? He obviously thinks Taylor is avg. He is entitled to that just like you are to your opinion. I don't think we should think someone's preference/standards are unusual just because they don't agree with us.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cool story bro

Using big words won't help with the fact you aren't making sense and its clear to see. I said where I got the line from. People happy they got a rap reference. I said or implied you are exaggerating how Im using it to only act like it means literally that. Its not a thing coy about saying you're being obtuse about how the saying is used. SMh at you.



Lol I don't feel attacked tbh. I feel nothing but difference of opinion and people exaggerating rap lyrics to put me in a negative light in their eyes lol. That's what happens when people can't see you so I take it for what it is and keep on enjoying this fun posting

What doesn't make sense and why? You have nothing but assertion without substance.

And I said epistemology because it is more efficient than 'the proven way one gains knowledge.' Frankly complaining about someone's word choice when you are on the interwebs is sad.

So again.

You have no rebuttal to the examples of unequal treatment.

You have no proof of your assertion that Broaddus feeds her her takes.

All you do is repeat your assertion.

 

[TheCount]

lol, I was wondering what type of interesting stuff must be going on in here to have a 12 page thread about The Break bs Talkin'.

I should have known.

 

[Nav22]

I have told you a million times beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You asked me why other people like her, and why I don't accept it. Do I care? Reply all you want, I have better things in my life than your philosophy on beauty. You're better off on ignore. Do the same for me.

LOL. That's not what I asked you. You're just too stubborn to answer the question, and the reason is pretty clear.

Like it or not, Taylor is what the strong majority of people in this society consider to be attractive. That means that you KNOW that your snarky attitude about her looks is JUST YOU.

If you like fat chicks or something, that's fine. But if you start telling all your buddies about how hot your fat girlfriend is, you should know that they'll be snickering behind your back.

 

[Nav22]

In fairness what do you want from the guy you are quoting? He obviously thinks Taylor is avg. He is entitled to that just like you are to your opinion. I don't think we should think someone's preference/standards are unusual just because they don't agree with us.

Actually, it is unusual, because the strong majority of people in this society would find Taylor to be very attractive.

If he doesn't find her attractive, that's fine. But he's clearly in the minority, and he's simply too stubborn to admit that.

 

[Philmonroe]

Actually, it is unusual, because the strong majority of people in this society would find Taylor to be very attractive.

If he doesn't find her attractive, that's fine. But he's clearly in the minority, and he's simply too stubborn to admit that.

To be honest I think it matters where you're at, racial preference for those that have those, etc. I think she avg too but its not a bad thing IMO because most people are. She isn't I have to talk to her or else I feel I'm missing out attractive. Those are few and far between anyway but I've saw some (pretty sure we all have at least in our own minds) and she isn't one of those to me. Avg online also seems to mean you see girls like her looks wise all the time where you're at. I don't really know he can speak for himself on that if he so chooses.

What doesn't make sense and why? You have nothing but assertion without substance.

And I said epistemology because it is more efficient than 'the proven way one gains knowledge.' Frankly complaining about someone's word choice when you are on the interwebs is sad.

So again.

You have no rebuttal to the examples of unequal treatment.

You have no proof of your assertion that Broaddus feeds her her takes.

All you do is repeat your assertion.

Taylor is this you? I'm sorry. If you're not Taylor cool story bro anymore to tell?

 

[Dundalis]

The Break easily over Talkin' Cowboys. I want intelligent, football specific discussion, not stories about what and why things were done a certain way 20+ years ago and how they relate to current happenings. I would hazard a guess Talkin' Cowboys probably rate better with the older generation. Listening to Nate Newton makes me want to take a nap. There is a reason great players don't always make good coaches, and the same goes for broadcasting. Coaching and broadcasting require their own individual skillset that have nothing to do with how well a person played the game. It's why I get sick of the deferring done when great players are brought onto football related broadcasts across all networks, because playing the game to an elite level does not automatically give that person a special insight into the game others do not have. It might give them certain experiences others don't have, but it doesn't give their opinion on all things football any more weight IMO than someone who played the game at a lesser level, or someone who's been a broadcaster and studied the game for a long time.

Have to love men who look for any mistake or stupid thing a woman says to judge her completely on and give a pass for a man doing the same thing.

If people held Broaddus to the same standard he would have a built in dunce cap.

I also love how people insist that a man, in this case Broaddus, is feeding her any info she says.

Sexism on exhibit.

This is just ignorant. There are plenty of people pointing out Broaddus' flaws in this thread, and he has plenty. What is also clear is that he is absolutely the most knowledgable person on either show when it comes to the ins and outs of football. Forgiving a person's flaws when they bring other things to the table is the way the world works. People will forgive a QB who throws boneheaded INT's if he's talented enough to throw bombs that win the team games. This occurs in any pretty much any environment and is not gender specific.

What is more sexist here is forgiving a female for mistakes just because she's female. I don't even mind Taylor being on the show, but she simply does not contribute to proper football discussions as much as the other three. Her role is very much replaceable and probably rather easily with someone who can bring the same little inside snippets she does about players and coaches, while also being able to contribute much more to the football specific discussions. She occasionally has some interesting things to say about certain players and coaches which show that she talks to football people behind the scenes. She doesn't bring them out enough to offset the fact that she often makes odd statements that take the discussion off track while the rest of the time contributes nothing. This to me makes her the weak link on that particular show, but I don't find her to be a bad host or anything, and she doesn't turn me off watching. She's just replacement level. I can absolutely see why people will call her out more than they would Broaddus however, because as many flaws as he has, he brings things to the football discussion that Taylor cannot. He's probably the primary reason I listen to the Break as much as I do, despite the fact I get as annoyed by his delivery at times as everyone else does.

How does me saying you are insecure mean that I am playing the victim? Are you just going for whatever inflammatory, demeaning retort that you can think of? Generally speaking if you want to insult me and have it actually hit home it helps to actually make sense.

You have a strange notion of what a hero does if you think that is what I am trying to do. You can quadruple down on it if it makes you feel better. You don't even argue what I am claiming directly; instead you try and discredit what I say passively by attacking my character or baseless dismissals. It is getting you nowhere. You should eat your feedback.

Again, there is no basis that Stern gets fed her takes from Bryan. The notion that a woman gets anything good she comes up with from a man is a sexist cliche.

Again, David Helman and Rowan Kavner before him came directly out of LSU and Missouri respectively and no one criticized them for not deserving their spots. Claiming a woman does not deserve her place is a sexist cliche.

Broaddus, Mickey, Nate, Nick, Derek, etc say stupid inane things all the time. Stern says stumbles over a line and she is painted as inept. Claiming a woman is stupid or lacking talent is a sexist cliche.

You have tripled down on me. How about you single down on the matter at hand. It's called arguing on merit. Are you capable?

Except when it's true (re: the bolded). These blanket statements don't help your case, if you are in fact attempting to act like you are not another one of those feminazi's. I think you are trying to make these statements specific to the scenario's you mentioned, but they are in fact blanket statements. These statements are also inherently sexist, because they imply that they can be used as a claim against men by exclusion.

I personally think everyone is sexist to an extent on both sides. It's unavoidable because women will never be equal to men, the way an apple will never be equal to an orange. You will always treat them different because they are, and sexism can always be found when you treat someone differently, even if your treatment is fair (something which can almost never be equitably measured in all people's eyes).

Am I sexist if I say I enjoy pornography? Probably. Then so are plenty of other men and women. It might also make me sexist when I say when I first saw Taylor Stern, I was wondering what the hell Natasha Nice is doing on a Dallas Cowboys podcast. And the fact that I will sometimes watch the Break rather than just listen because I still have it at the back of my mind that there is a pornstar talking about the Dallas Cowboys, and it amuses me. I also find her somewhat attractive, though she is not a patch on that latino female presenter that covers the Cowboys for the spanish speaking audience. She is absolutely stunning, anyone know her name?

 

[Wolf2k5]

Lmao at the immediate turn this thread took when you go from page 1 to page 12. A+ for Cowboyszone. Good lord...

 

[Philmonroe]

The Break easily over Talkin' Cowboys. I want intelligent, football specific discussion, not stories about what and why things were done a certain way 20+ years ago and how they relate to current happenings. I would hazard a guess Talkin' Cowboys probably rate better with the older generation. Listening to Nate Newton makes me want to take a nap. There is a reason great players don't always make good coaches, and the same goes for broadcasting. Coaching and broadcasting require their own individual skillset that have nothing to do with how well a person played the game. It's why I get sick of the deferring done when great players are brought onto football related broadcasts across all networks, because playing the game to an elite level does not automatically give that person a special insight into the game others do not have. It might give them certain experiences others don't have, but it doesn't give their opinion on all things football any more weight IMO than someone who played the game at a lesser level, or someone who's been a broadcaster and studied the game for a long time.

This is just ignorant. There are plenty of people pointing out Broaddus' flaws in this thread, and he has plenty. What is also clear is that he is absolutely the most knowledgable person on either show when it comes to the ins and outs of football. Forgiving a person's flaws when they bring other things to the table is the way the world works. People will forgive a QB who throws boneheaded INT's if he's talented enough to throw bombs that win the team games. This occurs in any pretty much any environment and is not gender specific.

What is more sexist here is forgiving a female for mistakes just because she's female. I don't even mind Taylor being on the show, but she simply does not contribute to proper football discussions as much as the other three. Her role is very much replaceable and probably rather easily with someone who can bring the same little inside snippets she does about players and coaches, while also being able to contribute much more to the football specific discussions. She occasionally has some interesting things to say about certain players and coaches which show that she talks to football people behind the scenes. She doesn't bring them out enough to offset the fact that she often makes odd statements that take the discussion off track while the rest of the time contributes nothing. This to me makes her the weak link on that particular show, but I don't find her to be a bad host or anything, and she doesn't turn me off watching. She's just replacement level. I can absolutely see why people will call her out more than they would Broaddus however, because as many flaws as he has, he brings things to the football discussion that Taylor cannot. He's probably the primary reason I listen to the Break as much as I do, despite the fact I get as annoyed by his delivery at times as everyone else does.

Except when it's true (re: the bolded). These blanket statements don't help your case, if you are in fact attempting to act like you are not another one of those feminazi's. I think you are trying to make these statements specific to the scenario's you mentioned, but they are in fact blanket statements. These statements are also inherently sexist, because they imply that they can be used as a claim against men by exclusion.

I personally think everyone is sexist to an extent on both sides. It's unavoidable because women will never be equal to men, the way an apple will never be equal to an orange. You will always treat them different because they are, and sexism can always be found when you treat someone differently, even if your treatment is fair (something which can almost never be equitably measured in all people's eyes).

Am I sexist if I say I enjoy pornography? Probably. Then so are plenty of other men and women. It might also make me sexist when I say when I first saw Taylor Stern, I was wondering what the hell Natasha Nice is doing on a Dallas Cowboys podcast. And the fact that I will sometimes watch the Break rather than just listen because I still have it at the back of my mind that there is a pornstar talking about the Dallas Cowboys, and it amuses me. I also find her somewhat attractive, though she is not a patch on that latino female presenter that covers the Cowboys for the spanish speaking audience. She is absolutely stunning, anyone know her name?

Ambar Garcia

 

[Thomas82]

The Break

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Break easily over Talkin' Cowboys. I want intelligent, football specific discussion, not stories about what and why things were done a certain way 20+ years ago and how they relate to current happenings. I would hazard a guess Talkin' Cowboys probably rate better with the older generation. Listening to Nate Newton makes me want to take a nap. There is a reason great players don't always make good coaches, and the same goes for broadcasting. Coaching and broadcasting require their own individual skillset that have nothing to do with how well a person played the game. It's why I get sick of the deferring done when great players are brought onto football related broadcasts across all networks, because playing the game to an elite level does not automatically give that person a special insight into the game others do not have. It might give them certain experiences others don't have, but it doesn't give their opinion on all things football any more weight IMO than someone who played the game at a lesser level, or someone who's been a broadcaster and studied the game for a long time.

This is just ignorant. There are plenty of people pointing out Broaddus' flaws in this thread, and he has plenty. What is also clear is that he is absolutely the most knowledgable person on either show when it comes to the ins and outs of football. Forgiving a person's flaws when they bring other things to the table is the way the world works. People will forgive a QB who throws boneheaded INT's if he's talented enough to throw bombs that win the team games. This occurs in any pretty much any environment and is not gender specific.

What is more sexist here is forgiving a female for mistakes just because she's female. I don't even mind Taylor being on the show, but she simply does not contribute to proper football discussions as much as the other three. Her role is very much replaceable and probably rather easily with someone who can bring the same little inside snippets she does about players and coaches, while also being able to contribute much more to the football specific discussions. She occasionally has some interesting things to say about certain players and coaches which show that she talks to football people behind the scenes. She doesn't bring them out enough to offset the fact that she often makes odd statements that take the discussion off track while the rest of the time contributes nothing. This to me makes her the weak link on that particular show, but I don't find her to be a bad host or anything, and she doesn't turn me off watching. She's just replacement level. I can absolutely see why people will call her out more than they would Broaddus however, because as many flaws as he has, he brings things to the football discussion that Taylor cannot. He's probably the primary reason I listen to the Break as much as I do, despite the fact I get as annoyed by his delivery at times as everyone else does.

Except when it's true (re: the bolded). These blanket statements don't help your case, if you are in fact attempting to act like you are not another one of those feminazi's. I think you are trying to make these statements specific to the scenario's you mentioned, but they are in fact blanket statements. These statements are also inherently sexist, because they imply that they can be used as a claim against men by exclusion.

I personally think everyone is sexist to an extent on both sides. It's unavoidable because women will never be equal to men, the way an apple will never be equal to an orange. You will always treat them different because they are, and sexism can always be found when you treat someone differently, even if your treatment is fair (something which can almost never be equitably measured in all people's eyes).

Am I sexist if I say I enjoy pornography? Probably. Then so are plenty of other men and women. It might also make me sexist when I say when I first saw Taylor Stern, I was wondering what the hell Natasha Nice is doing on a Dallas Cowboys podcast. And the fact that I will sometimes watch the Break rather than just listen because I still have it at the back of my mind that there is a pornstar talking about the Dallas Cowboys, and it amuses me. I also find her somewhat attractive, though she is not a patch on that latino female presenter that covers the Cowboys for the spanish speaking audience. She is absolutely stunning, anyone know her name?

Feminazi? Really?

I didn't read most of this but it boils down to this. There is no male consciousness that I am arguing against. Every person has free will to think and act as they choose. While some men are certainly not sexist, if you hold her to a different standard as I have pointed out then that is gender bias. Some other man not being so does not change that.

For example, please point to the guys calling for Helman or any of the new guys jobs saying he doesn't deserve it like they are here with Stern.

Point out to me the individual that is ridiculing Stern over ambiguous accusations or condemning her over an individual mistake. That holds the men to the same standard. I see people criticizing everyone but not on the same level to the same standard.

And you don't seem to understand what a blanket statement is. I am very specific in saying that I call no one out. My statements are simple conditionals that apply only on a case by case basis. All you do here is like the rest is the blanket dismissal.

You have any proof that a man is feeding Stern her takes?

Broaddus cannot write. He has admitted it publicly. He has Helman transcribe his dictation. It's why his copy is so disjointed. People criticize him for being grumpy. It's not remotely the same standard.

Proper football discussions? Ever heard of the true scotsman? She is not Durso who talked about clothing and shopping. She has a little more bent towards college football because of her background but she talks about roster construction, scheme, technique, and all of that with an emphasis on the players because she works with them daily. You may not think it proper but it is undeniably football-centric.

 

[_sturt_]

I don't even mind Taylor being on the show, but she simply does not contribute to proper football discussions as much as the other three. Her role is very much replaceable and probably rather easily with someone who can bring the same little inside snippets she does about players and coaches, while also being able to contribute much more to the football specific discussions. She occasionally has some interesting things to say about certain players and coaches which show that she talks to football people behind the scenes. She doesn't bring them out enough to offset the fact that she often makes odd statements that take the discussion off track while the rest of the time contributes nothing. This to me makes her the weak link on that particular show, but I don't find her to be a bad host or anything, and she doesn't turn me off watching. She's just replacement level.

(Thought I was done with this thread, but like others evidently, was chuckling to myself that it went on as long as it did, and had to re-visit this a.m.)

Fwiw, I agree with almost all of this. She is very much replaceable. I especially, though, appreciate the statement that "her role" is very much replaceable. That's key here.

That is...

1. Many people, male or female, could fill her role.

2. Her role is different from any of the other 3 on the panel... her role as far as can be deduced... is purposely to be that "lighter side" person, who while she is contributes to the overall, is the only one who has her own segment which is, indeed, practically always something that is off-field related to the team.

So, we can have another discussion as to whether that role is one that you want as an element to the show. But given that the role is there and that decision is made... you could do a whole lot worse than Taylor Sterns... again... ***in that role***.

Thus, I do not find her to be replacement level ***for that role***. She's solid. Not spectacular. But then, I don't really care to have anyone spectacular for what is, by design, a sidelight to the real guts of the show.

Could a male fill that role as well as a female? Sure. It's not really a role for which one sex is necessarily more likely than the other to be competent in it... but for the same reasons that we often see female sideline reporters, it IS a natural place to draft into the production some variety/diversity.

And I am one of those who is all-good with that.

 

[Idgit]

Let's be careful with the direction of the thread here, guys. There's not reason for a thread like this to even skirt the edges of a political debate.

As for the sexism talk, it's obvious to me that they want at least one female in a prominent position in the team media department, and the reason for it is they're conscious of growing the audience for the sport and girls and women are a fairly dramatically underrepresented demo in the NFL. Hence the networks having more female sideline reporters, the breast cancer awareness campaigns, the strong (and appropriate) stand against domestic violence. The Cowboys media team has made a point of having a woman involved in their shows for years now, ostensibly for the same reasons.

Some of those women are absolutely on-point with their football knowledge. It's great. Taylor Stern was not in that boat. She was flat out awful at the start. And while there's no proving she was fed lines, it didn't take much horsepower to hear Broaddus ask an obviously scripted question with that hint condescension (that means 'talking down to stupid people'), her fumbling through papers and stuttering, and then reading a reply that had the sorts of grammar tells and pronoun reference errors that made it obvious she didn't really understand what she was saying. They clearly groomed her for the role in a way they've never had to groom a male contributor (in my memory, at least). To her credit, a year and a half later she was on top of her screws. She even references moderately-obscure NFL games from way before her time now, and can chip in re: some college players and college football history. It's pretty impressive. It's also pretty clear she's good at getting access to players and not shy about digging around for tidbits.

I believe she was a go-getter that was willing to take a low-paying but prominent position and grow into it. She's gone from really bad to 'not good, but tolerable' in a fairly short amount of time. And she's gotten more comfortable on camera. I got nothing against her other than I think her presence somehow makes Broaddus a little bit creepier, but that's not really fair to put on her.

And anybody who thinks she's of average attractiveness clearly hasn't seen a statistically relevant number of human females, by the way. She's not a stunner, but she's far from average, even accounting for the fact that there's no accounting for taste.

 

[_sturt_]

Can't speak to how she was before this year... admittedly, I couldn't stomach listening nor to give my time to podcasts for a team whose season was in the dumpster last year. So, I grant the benefit of a doubt that she could have been pretty bad before.

Beyond that, I can agree with most of your post, ldgit.

 

[TheHerd]

LOL at those saying Taylor's not a hottie.

I forgot that this is the internet, where every guy dates a supermodel and drives a Ferrari.

uh uh, I drive a Bentley and date a playmate.

 

[BAZ]

but she's far from average

Sir, I'm gonna need you to calm down.

 

[Philmonroe]

Let's be careful with the direction of the thread here, guys. There's not reason for a thread like this to even skirt the edges of a political debate.

As for the sexism talk, it's obvious to me that they want at least one female in a prominent position in the team media department, and the reason for it is they're conscious of growing the audience for the sport and girls and women are a fairly dramatically underrepresented demo in the NFL. Hence the networks having more female sideline reporters, the breast cancer awareness campaigns, the strong (and appropriate) stand against domestic violence. The Cowboys media team has made a point of having a woman involved in their shows for years now, ostensibly for the same reasons.

Some of those women are absolutely on-point with their football knowledge. It's great. Taylor Stern was not in that boat. She was flat out awful at the start. And while there's no proving she was fed lines, it didn't take much horsepower to hear Broaddus ask an obviously scripted question with that hint condescension (that means 'talking down to stupid people'), her fumbling through papers and stuttering, and then reading a reply that had the sorts of grammar tells and pronoun reference errors that made it obvious she didn't really understand what she was saying. They clearly groomed her for the role in a way they've never had to groom a male contributor (in my memory, at least). To her credit, a year and a half later she was on top of her screws. She even references moderately-obscure NFL games from way before her time now, and can chip in re: some college players and college football history. It's pretty impressive. It's also pretty clear she's good at getting access to players and not shy about digging around for tidbits.

I believe she was a go-getter that was willing to take a low-paying but prominent position and grow into it. She's gone from really bad to 'not good, but tolerable' in a fairly short amount of time. And she's gotten more comfortable on camera. I got nothing against her other than I think her presence somehow makes Broaddus a little bit creepier, but that's not really fair to put on her.

And anybody who thinks she's of average attractiveness clearly hasn't seen a statistically relevant number of human females, by the way. She's not a stunner, but she's far from average, even accounting for the fact that there's no accounting for taste.

As for first bold I think they want a women for the men not women tbh. This is purely anecdotal but I'd be willing to bet the majority of my money that its not many women in the demos they looking for listening to these types of podcast tbh. Its very few women that are hype about the team and why IMO some guys go over the top when there is a Taylor on the scene. They are on their don't challenge her you'll drive her away vibe that doesn't happen with men. I know guys that are big fans and don't listen to their teams podcast and the like too. If they aren't I know unscientifically of course that women aren't either in any real numbers.

Regarding the Bryan point thank you. Some of these people act like I made up what I said out of thin air even though others have said similar things. I don't understand how many different people that have never meet can say the same thing basically but they all most be lying and or some woman hating person. That stuff is annoying.

Second bold is so subjective and I don't really get into it. It is many reasons and I'm sure we all know the biggest one that may have different members looking at different women like nah she isn't avg or whatever you think of her. Not just you but in general people can't seem to understand we have different taste lol. IRL guys will say whats wrong with you on certain women we disagree with looks wise. Its not an diss to your taste it's we all have our styles on everything that are sometimes divergent from others.