Jeremy Crawford’s unanimous blindside makes him the next subject of our Survivor: David vs. Goliath placement player comparisons.
I was once again quite surprised by the latest Survivor boot. Just like with Jessica Peet, if you had told me a week ago that Jeremy was the next one out, I would have been shocked. The entire episode showed the entirety of his riveting downfall.
He compared himself to: Jeremy Collins
Jeremy compared himself to another Jeremy in his bio. Jeremy Collins is a winner who was very well liked throughout San Juan del Sur and Cambodia. In addition to his elite social game, he was also a solid strategist. For Jeremy Crawford, we did not get to see if he had any strategic strength after he tanked his own game.
Crawford felt like his honesty would help him advance in the game, but his honesty went way too far. There is a huge difference between being honest and brutally honest in Survivor. Being honest might make others respect you while being brutally honest will send you packing.
Jeremy acknowledged that his personality would not allow him to fly under the radar, but flying under the radar allowed Collins to win the game in the first place. He identifies himself with someone that has a calm demeanor but was quite erratic in the game. Even though Collins did not go super far in his first season, you could tell there was untapped potential. With Jeremy, last week’s episode convinces me that his winning potential was never there. He is more of a character than a contender.
Comparing him to past Survivor 18th placers
Betsided
The first of my 3 contenders is to Cagayan’s David Samson. On his tribe, you had someone who would usually be an early boot like Kass, and someone who was absolutely crazy in J’Tia. Unlike Jeremy, David’s downfall takes place over the entirety of his short three days in the game. David tried to make a big move as early as Day 1.
Jeremy was not playing as hard early but still came across as over the top for sure. Jeremy was not able to keep his mouth shut against Natalie Cole when her boot seemed imminent. David similarly bragged about how his decision that Garrett was the weakest was already setting up his “endgame.” Both of them are playing too hard, too fast, when in present-day Survivor you should mostly focus on self-preservation before a swap.
Next, I am going to look at Jolanda Jones from Palau. These comparisons are not restricted by gender lines; it is more about the way their game went down. Jolanda also appeared to be one of the strongest assets on her tribe early on. While Jeremy was over the top, Jolanda also came across as very overbearing and bossy to her tribe.
Jolanda’s leadership caused them to lose the first challenge, and Jolanda quickly went from immune on Day 1 to on the outs. Just like Jeremy had Natalie, Jolanda had Angie as a clear target. Jeremy saw Angelina lead a big move to take him out, Palau’s Angelina was Steph LaGrossa. They both saw an early opportunity to take out a big personality that they did not get along well with.
For the second consecutive week I am going back to Fiji for a comparison, this week it is Erica Durousseau. A common theme for these compared players is that they went home over a far more likely boot. For Fiji, this is Sylvia Kwan. As soon as she returned from Exile Island, Sylvia was immediately targeted in a similar fashion to Natalie over the first six or seven days of the game. Erica had an outburst at her tribe during the challenge, putting her on the chopping block. She still thought she was safe at tribal, only to be blindsided 6-2.
Jeremy did not have one huge outburst, but a series of many social errors such as not allowing Natalie to talk to her tribemates and basically everything he said at Tribal Council. For both of them, I believe that if they would have done nothing an just kept their mouths shut they would have easily survived the vote.
The verdict: Erica Durousseau
This one was extremely challenging. I kept going back and forth between her and Jolanda. While I compared Angelina organizing Jeremy’s boot to Steph organizing Jolanda’s, I believe that Steph could have wanted Jolanda out regardless of her actions. Even if Jolanda was a good social player, I could see Steph going after her, and wanting to be the lone alpha female on her tribe. Angelina would never go after Jeremy without good reason.
With Erica, Sylvia was just such an obvious choice, and she found a way to tank her game. This is so similar to having Natalie Cole on your tribe. Both Jeremy and Erica could have easily avoided conflict but chose not to. They both led their own downfall, leading Erica to be this week’s compared player.