The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

I've been gone awhile...... have I missed anything?

We lost to the Texans.

[SirClintonPortis]

There was a thread that derailed into jokes regarding having sex with male sheep.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

It took a new GM, and a new coach to realize that Cambell wasnt the teams best option. And as soon as a new QB was brought in, Jason sulked, wouldnt talk to the media, wouldn't workout, etc...

Now hes doing the same thing in Oakland....

There are maybe 4-5 teams in the entire NFL where McNabb isn't a better option.
Point of fact.
JC was asked not come to the work outs.
He did talk to the media.

I know a lot of people don't like the guy but at least be accurate.

[JoeRedskin]

Wow. Everybody needs to find their happy place and have no more dreams or nightmares about JC.

For the smug, good on ya' - feeling better about yourselves? great!!!

For the apologists/supporters/still like the guy folks - doesn't appear JC is going to pan out. Oh well, seemed like a good enough guy when he was here. Now's the time to wish him well, nod knowingly to the aforementioned smug and dream of 60 yard McNabb thrown bombs arcing through the air.

Folks - let it gooooo.

[GusFrerotte]

I agree, kill off all JC threads. It is over. The other dethroned Skins Qbs never received this amount of lingering disgust.

[DynamiteRave]

lol I haven't looked at this thread since late last night and whoever changed the thread title to this deserves a free beer and a pat on the back. Awesomely named thread.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Um...then don't look at your previous post then.

I don't have the time nor the inclination nor,lol, can i find my sophmore year philosophy text book to quible with you about SFCS.

It appears all you want to do is quible and that's exactly what i wanted to avoid.
I'm not playing any word games nor was i trying to get you to agree to anything you don't.
I asked you simple direct questions to figure out how you saw the issue.
The 1st was this:
And you went sideways on me:


Nice try? "Ha"?
I asked a simple question and you are trying to view it as some sort of word game trap?

If you don't agree its cool.
But, to be clear YOU read something into the question that simply wasn't there.



Again huh?
I gather, lol, your response to this is also no?
Cool.


Do you always post like this or are you upset?
Right, right i've been insulting you?
Well by that same token you're insulting me by overcomplicating my posts and you're wasting my time with a lesson in philosophy. (Which is actually quite funny b/c after you rightly call yourself a hypocrite for your own logical fallacious argument you then correct it to make it logical which we both know doesn't make it true. And since you didn't even watch the games you have no idea how Jackson actually played.)

You seem bent on turning this discussion into something its not.
Its like you are having a pre-arranged argument with yourself and trying to tie me in.
It would be alot simpler to just read my post without your pre-arranged argument in mind.


You're so bent on having an argument that you glossed right over it.
My statement does not preclude that there could be a plethora of reasons related to each situation that may rightly or wrongly explain the decisions.

------------------------------------------------
"Got that?" is a rude form of "do you understand?"
That does not make any of my other statments statements false.
Pseudo-intellecutals make false statements.
"Got that" is a question that neither be characterized as true or false.

So, your standards behind labeling me as a pseudo-intellectual apparently needs some work.
You already know that ad hominem fallacy though, so I have to conclude that your emotions tell the truth.

-----------------------------------------------------
The article writer is ambiguous on his use of quick. He APPARENTLY uses "quicker" in the sense of 'time has passed before benching'(2 weeks before benching) in the main article, not a "faster rate"(3 black/wk vs 2 whites/wk) as his title implies.

Sure, if he means that from this offseason, black qbs are being benched "quicker" by white head coaches, while other different white head coaches allow white qbs to stay on, then that would be a yes.


-------------------------------------------

Nice try? "Ha"?
I asked a simple question and you are trying to view it as some sort of word game trap?

If you don't agree its cool.
But, to be clear YOU read something into the question that simply wasn't there.

You oversimplified the definition of a "bad game" to just many(3 or more) INTs.
Even if I don't have access to tape, if the QB also led one or two scoring drives, then he could be said to have a so-so game or even a good game with a couple costly mistakes.
That's my "no" answer. Incidentally, Favre had such a game with the Jets.

Also, the article writer was the one who brought up Favre and his interceptions streak and why he hasn't been benched through his race paradigm.
----------------------

Of course, the article writer's point kind of died due to his supporting arguments dying. Now, he's saying that Hue Jackson shouldn't have done it because it divided the locker room even though Gradkowski played better.

And the Iggles are rumored to be entertaining trade offers for Kolb. Rumored, sure; but I can see the incentive to get value before Kolb embarrasses himself further.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

There was a thread that derailed into jokes regarding having sex with male sheep.

And who started that derail?

Personally I would never joke about buffin' a mutton.

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wow. Everybody needs to find their happy place and have no more dreams or nightmares about JC.

For the smug, good on ya' - feeling better about yourselves? great!!!

For the apologists/supporters/still like the guy folks - doesn't appear JC is going to pan out. Oh well, seemed like a good enough guy when he was here. Now's the time to wish him well, nod knowingly to the aforementioned smug and dream of 60 yard McNabb thrown bombs arcing through the air.

Folks - let it gooooo.

:headbange:thumb:

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

There was a thread that derailed into jokes regarding having sex with male sheep.

What's wrong wi.......oh MALE sheep. Baaaa.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wow. Everybody needs to find their happy place and have no more dreams or nightmares about JC.

For the smug, good on ya' - feeling better about yourselves? great!!!

For the apologists/supporters/still like the guy folks - doesn't appear JC is going to pan out. Oh well, seemed like a good enough guy when he was here. Now's the time to wish him well, nod knowingly to the aforementioned smug and dream of 60 yard McNabb thrown bombs arcing through the air.

Folks - let it gooooo.

Preach brotha!

Great advice for the remaining JC apologists like me out there. I wanted him to do good and still hope that in the right place at the right time with the right supporting cast he can still be a good quarterback, but for now we're gonna have to settle with what we've seen. Oh well. Like Joe said, it's time to just sit back and watch McNabb play good football.

[30gut]

So after all that bluster and condescension this?

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Sure, if he means that from this offseason, black qbs are being benched "quicker" by white head coaches, while other different white head coaches allow white qbs to stay on, then that would be a yes.

Did it finally dawn on you that you were arguing against points i wasn't making?

-BTW you're the one mentioning the race of the HC not the author.
Which renders your point about Hue Jackson being black as another strawman:

Of course, the article writer's point kind of died due to his supporting arguments dying. Now, he's saying that Hue Jackson shouldn't have done it because it divided the locker room even though Gradkowski played better.

SCP-
I try to post in conversational manner.
Like 2 guys sitting in a bar drinking a beer, shooting the breeze talking football.
I would like to keep my conversations in this forum at that level.
Even if we disagree, which will happen theres no reason we should repeat our past discourse.

HTTR!

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Lotus

And who started that derail?

Personally I would never joke about buffin' a mutton.

Naturally, it was I.

However, I'm innocent as all I was doing was stating the obvious. "F'ing Rams week".

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

So after all that bluster and condescension this?


Did it finally dawn on you that you were arguing against points i wasn't making?

-BTW you're the one mentioning the race of the HC not the author.
Which renders your point about Hue Jackson being black as another strawman:

Yeah, I'll admit specifically where I'm wrong, but will continue to duke it out on points I still deem debatable. I bungled up on your questions and simply answered them, although I still will not back down from that pseudo-intellectual comment.
----------------
Moving on...

The author not very precise with his position to begin with, although that's forgivable because it's a blog post and not a hardcore paper meant to be read by academia.

However, he did mention that there appears to be an "awful trend" and he hoped it wouldn't continue. He may not have mentioned the race HC's race explicitly, but it's implied. The coaches were white guys. The "victim" QBs were black. The "entitled" QBs were white. If one assumes that he believes there was some "tribalism" going on in the coaches' mind, then based on that assumption, then one can definitely think that he believes a racist double standard is being applied by coaches.

I do not see what is really awful pattern about a black coach benching or asking for a benching of a black qb for a white qb, unless it's about black coaches having no guts to stand up to a white guy or something like that. However, there are no examples of such that I can think of at the moment, hence I don't think he really considered that line of thought when posting his blog post.

Even if it's assumed that he includes coaches of whatever color, it's still implies that there is race is affecting decisions made about who is qb. If it's a white coach doing the benching, it could be tribalism at work. If it's a black coach, then could be not standing up for your own race.

After Jackson talks, he does write a post about the situation in response to that. He says that Jackson made the right decision on a technical level but not "politically", and by that he meant locker room politics. Not a single mention of race or it being a part of an "awful trend". It was all about the move forming divisions in the locker room.

SCP-
I try to post in conversational manner.
Like 2 guys sitting in a bar drinking a beer, shooting the breeze talking football.
I would like to keep my conversations in this forum at that level.
Even if we disagree, which will happen theres no reason we should repeat are past discourse.

HTTR!

I'm aware that I go into "checking liner" mode often. You just met the very tamed down version of it. A few years back and it would have been uglier(and likely more embarrassing on my end).

That said, I'm one of those guys who also have nerd tendencies, hence, I might seem anal retentive to details and such.

In short, I guess you can call me a mean nerd.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

lol I haven't looked at this thread since late last night and whoever changed the thread title to this deserves a free beer and a pat on the back. Awesomely named thread.

I'll take a Guinness please