Big Brother 19 debate: If Paul Abrahamian wins, what’s his legacy?
From a standpoint of average finish alone, it’s hard to argue this. It seems like close to a lock at this point that he will be in the final two for the second straight year, and you are looking at a very small list of people to have made two final two appearances in their two times on the show — namely, you’re looking at Dan Gheesling. The difference is that Dan won his first season, whereas Paul didn’t and there is no guarantee that he will win this time, either.
Regardless of whether Paul wins or loses, and regardless of him being declared safe for three weeks here, he still should be considered one of the fifteen best players of all time. What he’s done this season, manipulating almost everyone in the house beyond Jessica and Cody and getting people to throw competitions to his specifications, is among the most impressive stuff that we’ve seen in the recent history of the show. He’s great at demonizing his opponents, winning competitions when he needs to, and also getting allies to work with him and trust him.
His biggest weak point is that he doesn’t have the foresight sometimes to think about people in the jury house. Paul knew there would be no buyback this season, but still didn’t use his goodbye messages as a way to explain his game and his moves. That is a chance to be real with people, and he’s blowing that just as he blew it with Da’Vonne last year. Remember, if Paul had Da’Vonne’s voteat the end he would’ve won that season. He doesn’t own his game for people going out of the house as much as he should, and he doesn’t try to stroke any of their egos.
Beyond that, you do have to think about Paul through the lens of luck. Victor coming back repeatedly was a benefit to him the first season that he was on the show; meanwhile, him having that Pendant of Protection this time around was huge. While we think that he would’ve been safe week 1 even if he didn’t have the Pendant, you never know for sure and that taints a tiny degree of success.
We do think that Dan is a better player than Paul, and the same goes for Dr. Will and Derrick. We also think that Danielle Reyes is better, given that she was massively screwed by the jury in season 3 being able to watch the show back before voting. If Paul wins, we would say that he’s better than several recent winners, but the comparison to people like Andy and Ian is interesting. Paul has made it to the end twice, but we’d still argue that if he were to play a hundred times, he’s probably making it far a smaller percent of the time than either one of those guys. The same can probably be said for Nicole, but we don’t necessarily think that her win was flawless. The Corey of it all should’ve cost her the title had Paul done a better job with the jury.
Do you think Paul Abrahamian should be considered one of the best Big Brother 19 players in the recent history of the show? Share in the comments! (Photo: CBS.)
Kregg
September 21, 2017 @ 1:18 pm
Hands down Paul is one of the best players of all time. Personally I feel Paul was even better than Derrick. Unlike Derrick, Paul didn’t have the luxury of laying back all season while he orchestrated his moves. Paul ran the house in BB19 in openness and never touched the block once. He had an amazing web of alliances and lies that he weaved to get him that far. Remember that Paul won his way into the final 2 in BB18 and Josh took Paul to final 2 in BB19 because he thought the jury disliked Paul more than him (which this pathetic jury did) and he would win, while Derrick had to rely on Cody’s loyalty to him to even get picked for final 2. Cody’s loyalty is admirable, but we all know if he chose Victoria then he would have won BB16 9-0. In my eyes Paul is above Derrick and even makes an argument to be in conversation with Dan Gheesling. Very strong point in this article about Paul’s weakness with the goodbye messages, I hadn’t considered that before reading, and this clearly cost him his game.