Here's the way I see it.
We started with Jeff, Ryan, Vinny and Brad. That's a pretty firm base right there, and it was proven by years of incredible content aided by a wealth of experience to back it up. Ryan died. To say absolutely nothing of the unfathomable tragedy of the situation, we were one core member down. Vinny had a child and, more than understandably, moved back to New York to raise his child near his family. We go one more core member down.
We're left with Jeff and Brad as the only "core members" left in San Francisco. It's easy to see Jeff's priority as re-establishing a base of experience and knowledge, rather than taking a risk, especially with so few "veterans" that Jeff was as comfortable with.
In my mind, Dan is almost designed to take the place of a new Ryan (it felt horrible to type that). An experienced co-host that can bounce off Jeff and serve as a constant, known quantity. With a base of Jeff, Dan and Brad, they can build off of that in the future with "riskier" hires, they've done it before, I mean years ago when we had our "core group" of 4 and a growing site, they hired Patrick. He was pretty fresh-faced compared to what we were used to, but he added a new flavour that, while met with opposition, was far from a safe choice.
I realise I may have been very blunt/morbid here (obviously Ryan's death was much more than just "one man down", it broke all of our hearts) but I just think maybe people are reading into this decision the wrong way.
All that being said, the bigger conversation this has triggered is an important one. I fully admit, I'm not well-versed enough on that topic to contribute to it, but on the subject of the new GB hires, I do see more than 1 side to the story, I just kinda wish more people did too.
Log in to comment