Pretty much everyone agreed and any logical giants fan thought so. But keep trying that was a good start. Good Job
Only in your mind. 17 pOiNts ShOuld'Ve beEn eNoUgh tO wIN.
Not really into 2 guys at one time but I like it. Eagles offense sucked 17 points should have won. Thanks
It wasn't, and you said Eli played well, when he was a 50% passer and we didn't get more points. Should've doesn't mean shit. We got 1 half of offense out of him and then a lot of punting. You don't win in the NFL playing 1 half of football.
All star you’re being fresh! I said he played good football. No turnovers and 2 tds. He wasn’t Eli 2011 but the eagles offense was terrible and still terrible today. We got beat with 3 tight ends. So I apologize that my opinion is that we should have won with 17 points
Art Stapleton
@art_stapleton
·
5m
Pat Shurmur says Janoris Jenkins should not be tweeting during practice. He just learned of his series of tweets earlier coming off the practice field.
ever did was not to get Twitter. Generally speaking, most of these guys have social media managers or interns who handle what they post. You can usually tell when that person has the day off and the player responds directly.
The risks outweigh the rewards in having one while being an active player.
The guys cares about stats and not winning. A fan asked about many wins did the stats translate to.
I don’t take offense to the word but people will and especially when you’re 2-11 as a team. Not a good look
Football is a team sport. Jackrabbit can be very good at his job and still not be the cause for the defense falling apart. You can’t judge 1 player for a team collapse.
Art Stapleton
@art_stapleton
·
5m
Pat Shurmur says Janoris Jenkins should not be tweeting during practice. He just learned of his series of tweets earlier coming off the practice field.
What a disciplined, well coached team DG has put together.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I can help start the list for FMIC if he wants help Â
Pretty much everyone agreed and any logical giants fan thought so. But keep trying that was a good start. Good Job
Only in your mind. 17 pOiNts ShOuld'Ve beEn eNoUgh tO wIN.
Not really into 2 guys at one time but I like it. Eagles offense sucked 17 points should have won. Thanks
It wasn't, and you said Eli played well, when he was a 50% passer and we didn't get more points. Should've doesn't mean shit. We got 1 half of offense out of him and then a lot of punting. You don't win in the NFL playing 1 half of football.
All star you’re being fresh! I said he played good football. No turnovers and 2 tds. He wasn’t Eli 2011 but the eagles offense was terrible and still terrible today. We got beat with 3 tight ends. So I apologize that my opinion is that we should have won with 17 points
The personnel the Eagles had on the field on offense has nothing to do with Eli's performance. He did not play well. He had multiple chances to put the game away and failed. This is why he's no longer the starter...we didn't score enough points. We went something like 2 plus seasons without scoring at least 30 points with Eli at QB. Didn't win a lot of games in that span. This game was a microcosm of why Eli, despite not playing winning football, held his job longer than he should've. And I love me some Eli, and it was an absolute joy to watch him throw those 2 TD passes to Slayton. But you said he played well. He didn't. He didn't play well enough to win, because we didn't win despite many chances to win. Doesn't matter that the Eagles RB was Boston Scott, or some WR named Ward made plays for the Eagles. These are still NFL players. Eli needed to make more plays happen and have at least one drive in the 2nd half result in points. Pretty low bar and it didn't happen, and a 50% completion rate is very poor as well.
he should have called him an idiot, ignorant, uneducated, etc anything except that .... I am offended ...
People can say oh the world is soft or too PC but how about simple using your brain before speaking/typing ... can get the same message/point out and not broad stroke and bring in others it is that simple.
So I don't like the word, I have been careful to not use it, but if someone does use the word, I don't get offended because I'm an adult who doesn't get offended by petty shit that doesn't matter.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I can help start the list for FMIC if he wants help Â
Pretty much everyone agreed and any logical giants fan thought so. But keep trying that was a good start. Good Job
Only in your mind. 17 pOiNts ShOuld'Ve beEn eNoUgh tO wIN.
Not really into 2 guys at one time but I like it. Eagles offense sucked 17 points should have won. Thanks
It wasn't, and you said Eli played well, when he was a 50% passer and we didn't get more points. Should've doesn't mean shit. We got 1 half of offense out of him and then a lot of punting. You don't win in the NFL playing 1 half of football.
All star you’re being fresh! I said he played good football. No turnovers and 2 tds. He wasn’t Eli 2011 but the eagles offense was terrible and still terrible today. We got beat with 3 tight ends. So I apologize that my opinion is that we should have won with 17 points
The personnel the Eagles had on the field on offense has nothing to do with Eli's performance. He did not play well. He had multiple chances to put the game away and failed. This is why he's no longer the starter...we didn't score enough points. We went something like 2 plus seasons without scoring at least 30 points with Eli at QB. Didn't win a lot of games in that span. This game was a microcosm of why Eli, despite not playing winning football, held his job longer than he should've. And I love me some Eli, and it was an absolute joy to watch him throw those 2 TD passes to Slayton. But you said he played well. He didn't. He didn't play well enough to win, because we didn't win despite many chances to win. Doesn't matter that the Eagles RB was Boston Scott, or some WR named Ward made plays for the Eagles. These are still NFL players. Eli needed to make more plays happen and have at least one drive in the 2nd half result in points. Pretty low bar and it didn't happen, and a 50% completion rate is very poor as well.
But we’re talking two separate points. You’re saying Eli didn’t play well. I’m saying 17 points should have won the game because the eagles offense is absolutely terrible. I understand your point that if Eli has a somewhat decent 2nd half they never would have tied us.
My point is that we should never have allowed 14 points in 17 minutes to an offense that is terrible
Pretty much everyone agreed and any logical giants fan thought so. But keep trying that was a good start. Good Job
Only in your mind. 17 pOiNts ShOuld'Ve beEn eNoUgh tO wIN.
Not really into 2 guys at one time but I like it. Eagles offense sucked 17 points should have won. Thanks
It wasn't, and you said Eli played well, when he was a 50% passer and we didn't get more points. Should've doesn't mean shit. We got 1 half of offense out of him and then a lot of punting. You don't win in the NFL playing 1 half of football.
All star you’re being fresh! I said he played good football. No turnovers and 2 tds. He wasn’t Eli 2011 but the eagles offense was terrible and still terrible today. We got beat with 3 tight ends. So I apologize that my opinion is that we should have won with 17 points
The personnel the Eagles had on the field on offense has nothing to do with Eli's performance. He did not play well. He had multiple chances to put the game away and failed. This is why he's no longer the starter...we didn't score enough points. We went something like 2 plus seasons without scoring at least 30 points with Eli at QB. Didn't win a lot of games in that span. This game was a microcosm of why Eli, despite not playing winning football, held his job longer than he should've. And I love me some Eli, and it was an absolute joy to watch him throw those 2 TD passes to Slayton. But you said he played well. He didn't. He didn't play well enough to win, because we didn't win despite many chances to win. Doesn't matter that the Eagles RB was Boston Scott, or some WR named Ward made plays for the Eagles. These are still NFL players. Eli needed to make more plays happen and have at least one drive in the 2nd half result in points. Pretty low bar and it didn't happen, and a 50% completion rate is very poor as well.
But we’re talking two separate points. You’re saying Eli didn’t play well. I’m saying 17 points should have won the game because the eagles offense is absolutely terrible. I understand your point that if Eli has a somewhat decent 2nd half they never would have tied us.
My point is that we should never have allowed 14 points in 17 minutes to an offense that is terrible
No we're not: "Eli played good football." - BeckShepEli
He did not.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I can help start the list for FMIC if he wants help Â
Pretty much everyone agreed and any logical giants fan thought so. But keep trying that was a good start. Good Job
Only in your mind. 17 pOiNts ShOuld'Ve beEn eNoUgh tO wIN.
Not really into 2 guys at one time but I like it. Eagles offense sucked 17 points should have won. Thanks
It wasn't, and you said Eli played well, when he was a 50% passer and we didn't get more points. Should've doesn't mean shit. We got 1 half of offense out of him and then a lot of punting. You don't win in the NFL playing 1 half of football.
All star you’re being fresh! I said he played good football. No turnovers and 2 tds. He wasn’t Eli 2011 but the eagles offense was terrible and still terrible today. We got beat with 3 tight ends. So I apologize that my opinion is that we should have won with 17 points
The personnel the Eagles had on the field on offense has nothing to do with Eli's performance. He did not play well. He had multiple chances to put the game away and failed. This is why he's no longer the starter...we didn't score enough points. We went something like 2 plus seasons without scoring at least 30 points with Eli at QB. Didn't win a lot of games in that span. This game was a microcosm of why Eli, despite not playing winning football, held his job longer than he should've. And I love me some Eli, and it was an absolute joy to watch him throw those 2 TD passes to Slayton. But you said he played well. He didn't. He didn't play well enough to win, because we didn't win despite many chances to win. Doesn't matter that the Eagles RB was Boston Scott, or some WR named Ward made plays for the Eagles. These are still NFL players. Eli needed to make more plays happen and have at least one drive in the 2nd half result in points. Pretty low bar and it didn't happen, and a 50% completion rate is very poor as well.
But we’re talking two separate points. You’re saying Eli didn’t play well. I’m saying 17 points should have won the game because the eagles offense is absolutely terrible. I understand your point that if Eli has a somewhat decent 2nd half they never would have tied us.
My point is that we should never have allowed 14 points in 17 minutes to an offense that is terrible
No we're not: "Eli played good football." - BeckShepEli
He did not.
Okay we will agree to disagree. If you told me prior to the game Eli would have had 2 touchdowns, 0 turnovers and 94 passer rating after being off 10 games I would say that’s a good game. Because someone doesn’t agree with your opinion doesn’t make them an idiot
Art Stapleton
@art_stapleton
·
5m
Pat Shurmur says Janoris Jenkins should not be tweeting during practice. He just learned of his series of tweets earlier coming off the practice field.
What a disciplined, well coached team DG has put together.
Who cares what JR does in off time. But the problem is doing this during practice time? Whoa boy that's the problem
...someone's feelings are about to get hurt...SJW's, AWAY!!!
This is such a shitty, lazy take and it's fully unsurprising where it's coming from. Hardly worth taking the time to explain this to you or those with a similarly vapid worldview, but:
The idea that we shouldn't casually employ a slur for the disabled isn't being a "social justice warrior", nor is it calling for sanctimonious "outrage".
It's just being decent. A notion which seemingly eludes you based on past, decidedly indecent actions you've copped to.
wrong side of 30 (which fast catches up to a CB) and the Giants are years away from competing. He's gone as a UFA after 2020 and should be traded before then if the take is worthwhile.
...someone's feelings are about to get hurt...SJW's, AWAY!!!
This is such a shitty, lazy take and it's fully unsurprising where it's coming from. Hardly worth taking the time to explain this to you or those with a similarly vapid worldview, but:
The idea that we shouldn't casually employ a slur for the disabled isn't being a "social justice warrior", nor is it calling for sanctimonious "outrage".
It's just being decent. A notion which seemingly eludes you based on past, decidedly indecent actions you've copped to.
No, it's actually being the social justice police because it looks at the word and not the intention. Jackrabbit clearly did not mean to denigrate people who are "disabled."
But the PC police have decided "retard" is forbidden. To me,the word "disabled" is just as bad as the R word because it implies that people with lower IQs are somehow lesser or "not able" when in fact they often have different abilities, such as mechanical aptitude. I know plenty of people with PhDs or MDs who can't figure out how to use a smart TV or even a smart phone. But my cousin, who has an IQ below 90 can figure that stuff out in a heartbeat and is incredibly mechanically inclined.
So, bottom line is calling Jackrabbit out is completely PC. It's not like telling a friend in private, "Hey, you know you shouldn't use that word because some people find it offense." It is not about teaching Jackrabbit courtesy. It is about attacking someone publicly to show how superior you are morally and ethically.
...someone's feelings are about to get hurt...SJW's, AWAY!!!
This is such a shitty, lazy take and it's fully unsurprising where it's coming from. Hardly worth taking the time to explain this to you or those with a similarly vapid worldview, but:
The idea that we shouldn't casually employ a slur for the disabled isn't being a "social justice warrior", nor is it calling for sanctimonious "outrage".
It's just being decent. A notion which seemingly eludes you based on past, decidedly indecent actions you've copped to.
No, it's actually being the social justice police because it looks at the word and not the intention. Jackrabbit clearly did not mean to denigrate people who are "disabled."
But the PC police have decided "retard" is forbidden. To me,the word "disabled" is just as bad as the R word because it implies that people with lower IQs are somehow lesser or "not able" when in fact they often have different abilities, such as mechanical aptitude. I know plenty of people with PhDs or MDs who can't figure out how to use a smart TV or even a smart phone. But my cousin, who has an IQ below 90 can figure that stuff out in a heartbeat and is incredibly mechanically inclined.
So, bottom line is calling Jackrabbit out is completely PC. It's not like telling a friend in private, "Hey, you know you shouldn't use that word because some people find it offense." It is not about teaching Jackrabbit courtesy. It is about attacking someone publicly to show how superior you are morally and ethically.
Let’s move away from the word for a second. This team lost 9 games in a row. We are 2-11. You’re okay with Jenkins tweeting during practice(treatment)? While you’re in that building focus on winning on Sunday and how to play as a team. When you leave the building tweet away
is he supposed to just sit there and focus on "treatment"??
Most of these guys are being worked on and have their phones in hand. It's his idle time.
Is your stance that no player should tweet while on team property? (Replied to from likely a place of work)....
Focus on winning. It’s my stance that no player should tweet while practice is going on. We have a great culture and that doesn’t represent it. Jenkins has 35k followers. Someone was bound to pick up on it but I think you’re missing the point as always Mr. Perfect
No, it's actually being the social justice police because it looks at the word and not the intention. Jackrabbit clearly did not mean to denigrate people who are "disabled."
But the PC police have decided "retard" is forbidden. To me,the word "disabled" is just as bad as the R word because it implies that people with lower IQs are somehow lesser or "not able" when in fact they often have different abilities, such as mechanical aptitude. I know plenty of people with PhDs or MDs who can't figure out how to use a smart TV or even a smart phone. But my cousin, who has an IQ below 90 can figure that stuff out in a heartbeat and is incredibly mechanically inclined.
So, bottom line is calling Jackrabbit out is completely PC. It's not like telling a friend in private, "Hey, you know you shouldn't use that word because some people find it offense." It is not about teaching Jackrabbit courtesy. It is about attacking someone publicly to show how superior you are morally and ethically.
You’re conflating “attacking” the individual with just asking for decency (appropriate). No one has the pitchforks out and he won’t/shouldn’t have to affect a forced, tearful apology in front of advocacy groups (excessive). It’s just a nasty word we should move past and it’s not #SJW to advocate as much.
Following this (bizarre) logic:
Quote:
No, it's actually being the social justice police because it looks at the word and not the intention. Jackrabbit clearly did not mean to denigrate people who are "disabled."
Are you in the habit, for instance, of impugning the parsimonious around you as “Jew-y”? You are, after all, not meaning to sound anti-semitic or to denigrate Jews. Your “intention” is merely to characterize their spending habits…
No, it's actually being the social justice police because it looks at the word and not the intention. Jackrabbit clearly did not mean to denigrate people who are "disabled."
But the PC police have decided "retard" is forbidden. To me,the word "disabled" is just as bad as the R word because it implies that people with lower IQs are somehow lesser or "not able" when in fact they often have different abilities, such as mechanical aptitude. I know plenty of people with PhDs or MDs who can't figure out how to use a smart TV or even a smart phone. But my cousin, who has an IQ below 90 can figure that stuff out in a heartbeat and is incredibly mechanically inclined.
So, bottom line is calling Jackrabbit out is completely PC. It's not like telling a friend in private, "Hey, you know you shouldn't use that word because some people find it offense." It is not about teaching Jackrabbit courtesy. It is about attacking someone publicly to show how superior you are morally and ethically.
You’re conflating “attacking” the individual with just asking for decency (appropriate). No one has the pitchforks out and he won’t/shouldn’t have to affect a forced, tearful apology in front of advocacy groups (excessive). It’s just a nasty word we should move past and it’s not #SJW to advocate as much.
Following this (bizarre) logic:
Quote:
No, it's actually being the social justice police because it looks at the word and not the intention. Jackrabbit clearly did not mean to denigrate people who are "disabled."
Are you in the habit, for instance, of impugning the parsimonious around you as “Jew-y”? You are, after all, not meaning to sound anti-semitic or to denigrate Jews. Your “intention” is merely to characterize their spending habits…
Are you really trying to claim that people just want Jackrabbit to be decent? C'mon, dude, that is so Polly Annish. People on social media want to one-up others and bash others to feed their anger and their self-righteous sense of superiority.
In other words, people on social media bash other people for the same reason that posters on BBI bash other posters. It has nothing to do with wanting others to be "decent" or educate them. It is driven and fueled by anger, frustration and other petty emotions. .
I'm speaking for myself. And as someone with special needs individuals in his immediate circle, I despise that word. And I certainly do not feel like a #SJW needler as I fervently denounce it. With frustration, indeed.
You didn't answer the question. Do you believe it innocuous to use "Jew-y" as a synonym for "cheap"? So long as one's "intentions" are confined to characterizing spending habits?
When Larry David et al skillfully mocks such a stereotype, it’s funny, yeah.
Michael J Fox can land a joke about his disease. Ditto Chappelle about black stereotypes. Or John Waters about gay stereotypes. Etc etc
But when slurs are blithely employed in everyday vernacular as vehicles to denigrate, they promote bigotry.
Jenkins is 100% not anti-“special needs”. Of course not. But it’s also not #SJW or promoting fake outrage to advocate avoiding such language. My original point on this thread.
You’re equating a bit by a skilled comedian (I love Patrice O'neal) with everyday people using epithets meant to denigrate?
So if one advocates the voluntary cessation of [insert hateful slur] in everyday language (my position), then they’re “language policing”?
The David Dukes of America would no doubt rejoice in your view.
i don't consider "retard" or "retarded" to be a hateful slur.
Japanhead, you are wrong and overseer is right. Retard is a slur, and you don't get to decide for yourself what a slur is. I think you should just move on...
Sounds like a juvenile thing that he said, but he doesn't appear Â
That said I hope the people outraged by the word "retard" realize that it's random what words cause outrage. I remember some years ago Chris Berman saying that a game between two consistent teams was the "Schizophrenic Bowl". Which not only the incorrect definition of Schizophrenia but is also making light of a debilitation mental illness. I hear that used quite a bit (albeit not as often as "retard" used to be used). So, no there's no greater good or social justice for making that word taboo. Just a relatively randomly selected word that people don't realize is relatively randomly selected because they're sheep.
But it is probably the one area where I do wish people would appreciate the sensitivities a little more. Not a PC guy by any means and I understand that over the years it has become ingrained as an insult and not something overtly insulting folks with mental impairments. But if you really think about it this is the one set of folks who really don’t have the ability to always then defend themselves. If you say the n-word, call someone a f-word, or use some other crazy insult, the reality is someone at the other end of that can either insult you back or take you to task. That’s frankly not the case with that word. I get some people completely dislike the thought of any changes to their insult vocab and are quick to point to outrage culture but try and take a step back here and really think about the usage.
Quote:
In comment 14714544 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14714541 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714537 allstarjim said:
Quote:
1. https://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=591541
Pretty much everyone agreed and any logical giants fan thought so. But keep trying that was a good start. Good Job
Only in your mind. 17 pOiNts ShOuld'Ve beEn eNoUgh tO wIN.
Not really into 2 guys at one time but I like it. Eagles offense sucked 17 points should have won. Thanks
It wasn't, and you said Eli played well, when he was a 50% passer and we didn't get more points. Should've doesn't mean shit. We got 1 half of offense out of him and then a lot of punting. You don't win in the NFL playing 1 half of football.
All star you’re being fresh! I said he played good football. No turnovers and 2 tds. He wasn’t Eli 2011 but the eagles offense was terrible and still terrible today. We got beat with 3 tight ends. So I apologize that my opinion is that we should have won with 17 points
"Thats a dumb hat?"
No. You wouldn't.
"Thats a dumb hat?"
No. You wouldn't.
If the fan told you your ice cream sucked you might.
People really need to second guess why they need social media.
and get off my lawn...
+1
@art_stapleton
·
5m
Pat Shurmur says Janoris Jenkins should not be tweeting during practice. He just learned of his series of tweets earlier coming off the practice field.
The risks outweigh the rewards in having one while being an active player.
I don’t take offense to the word but people will and especially when you’re 2-11 as a team. Not a good look
Football is a team sport. Jackrabbit can be very good at his job and still not be the cause for the defense falling apart. You can’t judge 1 player for a team collapse.
They might even find a different way to refer to said loved one.
Quote:
Art Stapleton
@art_stapleton
·
5m
Pat Shurmur says Janoris Jenkins should not be tweeting during practice. He just learned of his series of tweets earlier coming off the practice field.
What a disciplined, well coached team DG has put together.
Quote:
In comment 14714547 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714544 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14714541 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714537 allstarjim said:
Quote:
1. https://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=591541
Pretty much everyone agreed and any logical giants fan thought so. But keep trying that was a good start. Good Job
Only in your mind. 17 pOiNts ShOuld'Ve beEn eNoUgh tO wIN.
Not really into 2 guys at one time but I like it. Eagles offense sucked 17 points should have won. Thanks
It wasn't, and you said Eli played well, when he was a 50% passer and we didn't get more points. Should've doesn't mean shit. We got 1 half of offense out of him and then a lot of punting. You don't win in the NFL playing 1 half of football.
All star you’re being fresh! I said he played good football. No turnovers and 2 tds. He wasn’t Eli 2011 but the eagles offense was terrible and still terrible today. We got beat with 3 tight ends. So I apologize that my opinion is that we should have won with 17 points
The personnel the Eagles had on the field on offense has nothing to do with Eli's performance. He did not play well. He had multiple chances to put the game away and failed. This is why he's no longer the starter...we didn't score enough points. We went something like 2 plus seasons without scoring at least 30 points with Eli at QB. Didn't win a lot of games in that span. This game was a microcosm of why Eli, despite not playing winning football, held his job longer than he should've. And I love me some Eli, and it was an absolute joy to watch him throw those 2 TD passes to Slayton. But you said he played well. He didn't. He didn't play well enough to win, because we didn't win despite many chances to win. Doesn't matter that the Eagles RB was Boston Scott, or some WR named Ward made plays for the Eagles. These are still NFL players. Eli needed to make more plays happen and have at least one drive in the 2nd half result in points. Pretty low bar and it didn't happen, and a 50% completion rate is very poor as well.
People can say oh the world is soft or too PC but how about simple using your brain before speaking/typing ... can get the same message/point out and not broad stroke and bring in others it is that simple.
So I don't like the word, I have been careful to not use it, but if someone does use the word, I don't get offended because I'm an adult who doesn't get offended by petty shit that doesn't matter.
Quote:
In comment 14714557 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14714547 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714544 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14714541 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714537 allstarjim said:
Quote:
1. https://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=591541
Pretty much everyone agreed and any logical giants fan thought so. But keep trying that was a good start. Good Job
Only in your mind. 17 pOiNts ShOuld'Ve beEn eNoUgh tO wIN.
Not really into 2 guys at one time but I like it. Eagles offense sucked 17 points should have won. Thanks
It wasn't, and you said Eli played well, when he was a 50% passer and we didn't get more points. Should've doesn't mean shit. We got 1 half of offense out of him and then a lot of punting. You don't win in the NFL playing 1 half of football.
All star you’re being fresh! I said he played good football. No turnovers and 2 tds. He wasn’t Eli 2011 but the eagles offense was terrible and still terrible today. We got beat with 3 tight ends. So I apologize that my opinion is that we should have won with 17 points
The personnel the Eagles had on the field on offense has nothing to do with Eli's performance. He did not play well. He had multiple chances to put the game away and failed. This is why he's no longer the starter...we didn't score enough points. We went something like 2 plus seasons without scoring at least 30 points with Eli at QB. Didn't win a lot of games in that span. This game was a microcosm of why Eli, despite not playing winning football, held his job longer than he should've. And I love me some Eli, and it was an absolute joy to watch him throw those 2 TD passes to Slayton. But you said he played well. He didn't. He didn't play well enough to win, because we didn't win despite many chances to win. Doesn't matter that the Eagles RB was Boston Scott, or some WR named Ward made plays for the Eagles. These are still NFL players. Eli needed to make more plays happen and have at least one drive in the 2nd half result in points. Pretty low bar and it didn't happen, and a 50% completion rate is very poor as well.
But we’re talking two separate points. You’re saying Eli didn’t play well. I’m saying 17 points should have won the game because the eagles offense is absolutely terrible. I understand your point that if Eli has a somewhat decent 2nd half they never would have tied us.
My point is that we should never have allowed 14 points in 17 minutes to an offense that is terrible
He could have used 15 other words as a comeback to the idiot fan.
It’s a shitty word to describe someone. I can see why people get offended and not offended but he needed to use common sense and he didn’t.
Quote:
In comment 14714568 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714557 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14714547 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714544 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14714541 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714537 allstarjim said:
Quote:
1. https://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=591541
Pretty much everyone agreed and any logical giants fan thought so. But keep trying that was a good start. Good Job
Only in your mind. 17 pOiNts ShOuld'Ve beEn eNoUgh tO wIN.
Not really into 2 guys at one time but I like it. Eagles offense sucked 17 points should have won. Thanks
It wasn't, and you said Eli played well, when he was a 50% passer and we didn't get more points. Should've doesn't mean shit. We got 1 half of offense out of him and then a lot of punting. You don't win in the NFL playing 1 half of football.
All star you’re being fresh! I said he played good football. No turnovers and 2 tds. He wasn’t Eli 2011 but the eagles offense was terrible and still terrible today. We got beat with 3 tight ends. So I apologize that my opinion is that we should have won with 17 points
The personnel the Eagles had on the field on offense has nothing to do with Eli's performance. He did not play well. He had multiple chances to put the game away and failed. This is why he's no longer the starter...we didn't score enough points. We went something like 2 plus seasons without scoring at least 30 points with Eli at QB. Didn't win a lot of games in that span. This game was a microcosm of why Eli, despite not playing winning football, held his job longer than he should've. And I love me some Eli, and it was an absolute joy to watch him throw those 2 TD passes to Slayton. But you said he played well. He didn't. He didn't play well enough to win, because we didn't win despite many chances to win. Doesn't matter that the Eagles RB was Boston Scott, or some WR named Ward made plays for the Eagles. These are still NFL players. Eli needed to make more plays happen and have at least one drive in the 2nd half result in points. Pretty low bar and it didn't happen, and a 50% completion rate is very poor as well.
But we’re talking two separate points. You’re saying Eli didn’t play well. I’m saying 17 points should have won the game because the eagles offense is absolutely terrible. I understand your point that if Eli has a somewhat decent 2nd half they never would have tied us.
My point is that we should never have allowed 14 points in 17 minutes to an offense that is terrible
No we're not: "Eli played good football." - BeckShepEli
He did not.
Quote:
In comment 14714639 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14714568 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714557 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14714547 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714544 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14714541 BeckShepEli said:
Quote:
In comment 14714537 allstarjim said:
Quote:
1. https://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=591541
Pretty much everyone agreed and any logical giants fan thought so. But keep trying that was a good start. Good Job
Only in your mind. 17 pOiNts ShOuld'Ve beEn eNoUgh tO wIN.
Not really into 2 guys at one time but I like it. Eagles offense sucked 17 points should have won. Thanks
It wasn't, and you said Eli played well, when he was a 50% passer and we didn't get more points. Should've doesn't mean shit. We got 1 half of offense out of him and then a lot of punting. You don't win in the NFL playing 1 half of football.
All star you’re being fresh! I said he played good football. No turnovers and 2 tds. He wasn’t Eli 2011 but the eagles offense was terrible and still terrible today. We got beat with 3 tight ends. So I apologize that my opinion is that we should have won with 17 points
The personnel the Eagles had on the field on offense has nothing to do with Eli's performance. He did not play well. He had multiple chances to put the game away and failed. This is why he's no longer the starter...we didn't score enough points. We went something like 2 plus seasons without scoring at least 30 points with Eli at QB. Didn't win a lot of games in that span. This game was a microcosm of why Eli, despite not playing winning football, held his job longer than he should've. And I love me some Eli, and it was an absolute joy to watch him throw those 2 TD passes to Slayton. But you said he played well. He didn't. He didn't play well enough to win, because we didn't win despite many chances to win. Doesn't matter that the Eagles RB was Boston Scott, or some WR named Ward made plays for the Eagles. These are still NFL players. Eli needed to make more plays happen and have at least one drive in the 2nd half result in points. Pretty low bar and it didn't happen, and a 50% completion rate is very poor as well.
But we’re talking two separate points. You’re saying Eli didn’t play well. I’m saying 17 points should have won the game because the eagles offense is absolutely terrible. I understand your point that if Eli has a somewhat decent 2nd half they never would have tied us.
My point is that we should never have allowed 14 points in 17 minutes to an offense that is terrible
No we're not: "Eli played good football." - BeckShepEli
He did not.
Okay we will agree to disagree. If you told me prior to the game Eli would have had 2 touchdowns, 0 turnovers and 94 passer rating after being off 10 games I would say that’s a good game. Because someone doesn’t agree with your opinion doesn’t make them an idiot
Continuing to defend indefensible positions one might say makes one look like an idiot.
He could have used 15 other words as a comeback to the idiot fan.
It’s a shitty word to describe someone. I can see why people get offended and not offended but he needed to use common sense and he didn’t.
This right here!
Continuing to defend indefensible positions one might say makes one look like an idiot.
Sounds good bud
Yeah, that's really the problem here.
Go on another hiatus.
in general i applaud jenkins for his use of the term retard and i look forward to seeing the word retard brought back into mainstream slang
Quote:
this was during practice?
Quote:
Art Stapleton
@art_stapleton
·
5m
Pat Shurmur says Janoris Jenkins should not be tweeting during practice. He just learned of his series of tweets earlier coming off the practice field.
What a disciplined, well coached team DG has put together.
Who cares what JR does in off time. But the problem is doing this during practice time? Whoa boy that's the problem
This is such a shitty, lazy take and it's fully unsurprising where it's coming from. Hardly worth taking the time to explain this to you or those with a similarly vapid worldview, but:
The idea that we shouldn't casually employ a slur for the disabled isn't being a "social justice warrior", nor is it calling for sanctimonious "outrage".
It's just being decent. A notion which seemingly eludes you based on past, decidedly indecent actions you've copped to.
Quote:
...someone's feelings are about to get hurt...SJW's, AWAY!!!
This is such a shitty, lazy take and it's fully unsurprising where it's coming from. Hardly worth taking the time to explain this to you or those with a similarly vapid worldview, but:
The idea that we shouldn't casually employ a slur for the disabled isn't being a "social justice warrior", nor is it calling for sanctimonious "outrage".
It's just being decent. A notion which seemingly eludes you based on past, decidedly indecent actions you've copped to.
No, it's actually being the social justice police because it looks at the word and not the intention. Jackrabbit clearly did not mean to denigrate people who are "disabled."
But the PC police have decided "retard" is forbidden. To me,the word "disabled" is just as bad as the R word because it implies that people with lower IQs are somehow lesser or "not able" when in fact they often have different abilities, such as mechanical aptitude. I know plenty of people with PhDs or MDs who can't figure out how to use a smart TV or even a smart phone. But my cousin, who has an IQ below 90 can figure that stuff out in a heartbeat and is incredibly mechanically inclined.
So, bottom line is calling Jackrabbit out is completely PC. It's not like telling a friend in private, "Hey, you know you shouldn't use that word because some people find it offense." It is not about teaching Jackrabbit courtesy. It is about attacking someone publicly to show how superior you are morally and ethically.
Quote:
In comment 14714432 rnargi said:
Quote:
...someone's feelings are about to get hurt...SJW's, AWAY!!!
This is such a shitty, lazy take and it's fully unsurprising where it's coming from. Hardly worth taking the time to explain this to you or those with a similarly vapid worldview, but:
The idea that we shouldn't casually employ a slur for the disabled isn't being a "social justice warrior", nor is it calling for sanctimonious "outrage".
It's just being decent. A notion which seemingly eludes you based on past, decidedly indecent actions you've copped to.
No, it's actually being the social justice police because it looks at the word and not the intention. Jackrabbit clearly did not mean to denigrate people who are "disabled."
But the PC police have decided "retard" is forbidden. To me,the word "disabled" is just as bad as the R word because it implies that people with lower IQs are somehow lesser or "not able" when in fact they often have different abilities, such as mechanical aptitude. I know plenty of people with PhDs or MDs who can't figure out how to use a smart TV or even a smart phone. But my cousin, who has an IQ below 90 can figure that stuff out in a heartbeat and is incredibly mechanically inclined.
So, bottom line is calling Jackrabbit out is completely PC. It's not like telling a friend in private, "Hey, you know you shouldn't use that word because some people find it offense." It is not about teaching Jackrabbit courtesy. It is about attacking someone publicly to show how superior you are morally and ethically.
Let’s move away from the word for a second. This team lost 9 games in a row. We are 2-11. You’re okay with Jenkins tweeting during practice(treatment)? While you’re in that building focus on winning on Sunday and how to play as a team. When you leave the building tweet away
Most of these guys are being worked on and have their phones in hand. It's his idle time.
Is your stance that no player should tweet while on team property? (Replied to from likely a place of work)....
Most of these guys are being worked on and have their phones in hand. It's his idle time.
Is your stance that no player should tweet while on team property? (Replied to from likely a place of work)....
Focus on winning. It’s my stance that no player should tweet while practice is going on. We have a great culture and that doesn’t represent it. Jenkins has 35k followers. Someone was bound to pick up on it but I think you’re missing the point as always Mr. Perfect
But the PC police have decided "retard" is forbidden. To me,the word "disabled" is just as bad as the R word because it implies that people with lower IQs are somehow lesser or "not able" when in fact they often have different abilities, such as mechanical aptitude. I know plenty of people with PhDs or MDs who can't figure out how to use a smart TV or even a smart phone. But my cousin, who has an IQ below 90 can figure that stuff out in a heartbeat and is incredibly mechanically inclined.
So, bottom line is calling Jackrabbit out is completely PC. It's not like telling a friend in private, "Hey, you know you shouldn't use that word because some people find it offense." It is not about teaching Jackrabbit courtesy. It is about attacking someone publicly to show how superior you are morally and ethically.
You’re conflating “attacking” the individual with just asking for decency (appropriate). No one has the pitchforks out and he won’t/shouldn’t have to affect a forced, tearful apology in front of advocacy groups (excessive). It’s just a nasty word we should move past and it’s not #SJW to advocate as much.
Following this (bizarre) logic:
Are you in the habit, for instance, of impugning the parsimonious around you as “Jew-y”? You are, after all, not meaning to sound anti-semitic or to denigrate Jews. Your “intention” is merely to characterize their spending habits…
Thanks
Quote:
No, it's actually being the social justice police because it looks at the word and not the intention. Jackrabbit clearly did not mean to denigrate people who are "disabled."
But the PC police have decided "retard" is forbidden. To me,the word "disabled" is just as bad as the R word because it implies that people with lower IQs are somehow lesser or "not able" when in fact they often have different abilities, such as mechanical aptitude. I know plenty of people with PhDs or MDs who can't figure out how to use a smart TV or even a smart phone. But my cousin, who has an IQ below 90 can figure that stuff out in a heartbeat and is incredibly mechanically inclined.
So, bottom line is calling Jackrabbit out is completely PC. It's not like telling a friend in private, "Hey, you know you shouldn't use that word because some people find it offense." It is not about teaching Jackrabbit courtesy. It is about attacking someone publicly to show how superior you are morally and ethically.
You’re conflating “attacking” the individual with just asking for decency (appropriate). No one has the pitchforks out and he won’t/shouldn’t have to affect a forced, tearful apology in front of advocacy groups (excessive). It’s just a nasty word we should move past and it’s not #SJW to advocate as much.
Following this (bizarre) logic:
Quote:
No, it's actually being the social justice police because it looks at the word and not the intention. Jackrabbit clearly did not mean to denigrate people who are "disabled."
Are you in the habit, for instance, of impugning the parsimonious around you as “Jew-y”? You are, after all, not meaning to sound anti-semitic or to denigrate Jews. Your “intention” is merely to characterize their spending habits…
Are you really trying to claim that people just want Jackrabbit to be decent? C'mon, dude, that is so Polly Annish. People on social media want to one-up others and bash others to feed their anger and their self-righteous sense of superiority.
In other words, people on social media bash other people for the same reason that posters on BBI bash other posters. It has nothing to do with wanting others to be "decent" or educate them. It is driven and fueled by anger, frustration and other petty emotions. .
You didn't answer the question. Do you believe it innocuous to use "Jew-y" as a synonym for "cheap"? So long as one's "intentions" are confined to characterizing spending habits?
Michael J Fox can land a joke about his disease. Ditto Chappelle about black stereotypes. Or John Waters about gay stereotypes. Etc etc
But when slurs are blithely employed in everyday vernacular as vehicles to denigrate, they promote bigotry.
Jenkins is 100% not anti-“special needs”. Of course not. But it’s also not #SJW or promoting fake outrage to advocate avoiding such language. My original point on this thread.
language policing is tiring and no one likes it.
did you ever hear the late patrice o'neal riffing on asians, for example? fucking hilarious, and precisely because he's not asian.
So if one advocates the voluntary cessation of [insert hateful slur] in everyday language (my position), then they’re “language policing”?
The David Dukes of America would no doubt rejoice in your view.
So if one advocates the voluntary cessation of [insert hateful slur] in everyday language (my position), then they’re “language policing”?
The David Dukes of America would no doubt rejoice in your view.
i don't consider "retard" or "retarded" to be a hateful slur.
Hard to believe there would be anyone low-intelligence on Twitter!
Quote:
You’re equating a bit by a skilled comedian (I love Patrice O'neal) with everyday people using epithets meant to denigrate?
So if one advocates the voluntary cessation of [insert hateful slur] in everyday language (my position), then they’re “language policing”?
The David Dukes of America would no doubt rejoice in your view.
i don't consider "retard" or "retarded" to be a hateful slur.
Japanhead, you are wrong and overseer is right. Retard is a slur, and you don't get to decide for yourself what a slur is. I think you should just move on...
That said I hope the people outraged by the word "retard" realize that it's random what words cause outrage. I remember some years ago Chris Berman saying that a game between two consistent teams was the "Schizophrenic Bowl". Which not only the incorrect definition of Schizophrenia but is also making light of a debilitation mental illness. I hear that used quite a bit (albeit not as often as "retard" used to be used). So, no there's no greater good or social justice for making that word taboo. Just a relatively randomly selected word that people don't realize is relatively randomly selected because they're sheep.
15h
My apology for the word I used earlier, really didn’t mean no “HARM”. #RabbitLoveEverybody