1 hour ago, ManchesterEagle said:

Just to break down my current thoughts.

1) Mahomes deserves the MVP.

2) Hurts was ahead marginally before he got hurt, I don’t know if he would have kept it.

3) There are still people throwing shade at Hurts at every opportunity, even if they try and gaslight or claim they are objective.

4) Hurts is getting an extension in all likelihood regardless of what happens in the Super Bowl.

5) I’m nervous for Sunday. But come what may I believe Hurts is the franchise.

Lol @TorontoEagle using a confused emoji instead of just replying and saying what he thinks of the above post. 

26 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Lol @TorontoEagle using a confused emoji instead of just replying and saying what he thinks of the above post. 

They use it as a thumbs down since there is no thumbs down reaction

16 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

They use it as a thumbs down since there is no thumbs down reaction

They - 1

2 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

They - 1

Good job Karen, you got him banned! You cried enough to the manager I guess

22 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

They use it as a thumbs down since there is no thumbs down reaction

Well thats stupid. If you disagree say why. 

2 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Good job Karen, you got him banned! You cried enough to the manager I guess

Who got banned? I only half pay attention and prefer to shoot from the hip.

Just now, Boogyman said:

Who got banned? I only half pay attention and prefer to shoot from the hip.

One of my clones apparently

Just now, TorontoEagle said:

Good job Karen, you got him banned! You cried enough to the manager I guess

If I ever reported him it was once and months ago. I doubt that I did. I often respond to his personal attacks and insults.

He earned what he got 5x over for what he did to 20+ people.

I am now officially telling you to stop bothering me and to stop calling me names.

Read the rules again and continue to harass me and others at your own peril.

Just now, SkippyX said:

If I ever reported him it was once and months ago. I doubt that I did. I often respond to his personal attacks and insults.

He earned what he got 5x over for what he did to 20+ people.

I am now officially telling you to stop bothering me and to stop calling me names.

Read the rules again and continue to harass me and others at your own peril.

 

You constantly take veiled shots at posters all the time. At least 4for4 had the integrity to insult somebody directly 

2 minutes ago, downundermike said:

One of my clones apparently

That could be so many accounts though. Which one, the loud idiot, who seemed mildly retarded, who just showed up?

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

 

You constantly take veiled shots at posters all the time. At least 4for4 had the integrity to insult somebody directly 

Oh snap, that moron? Lmao...that's hilarious 

2 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Oh snap, that moron? Lmao...that's hilarious 

I am not amused.  

Just now, downundermike said:

I am not amused.  

Oh. OK. 

 

 

 

Bwahahahhahhahahhaha

3 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

That could be so many accounts though. Which one, the loud idiot, who seemed mildly retarded, who just showed up?

If you mean the KC fan who called himself an Eagle fan and was making racist remarks about anniversaries and black QBs, HJ something, he is still here but now has a new role of Ranter. He can only post in rant and rave.

One EMB regular was set to that rule today as well.

Just now, Boogyman said:

Oh. OK. 

 

 

 

Bwahahahhahhahahhaha

 

Just now, SkippyX said:

If you mean the KC fan who called himself an Eagle fan and was making racist remarks about anniversaries and black QBs, HJ something, he is still here but now has a new role of Ranter. He can only post in rant and rave.

One EMB regular was set to that rule today as well.

Yeah, I thought that may have been the guy to get banned. Reality is so much more entertaining lmao.

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

 

But how about that season Jalen Hurts has had? I would have never thought it possible this time last year.

3 hours ago, Swoop said:

I think you need to first understand what the word detrimental means

Hurts was sacked 38 times and we only lost 1 game that he played. In that loss, he was sacked just 1 time for a 5 yard loss. 

37 out of 38 sacks were not detrimental. 2 out of 2 sacks in the playoffs were not detrimental. I think you guys need to find a different word. I know the definition of detrimental. 

5 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

Hurts was sacked 38 times and we only lost 1 game that he played. In that loss, he was sacked just 1 time for a 5 yard loss. 

37 out of 38 sacks were not detrimental. 2 out of 2 sacks in the playoffs were not detrimental. I think you guys need to find a different word. I know the definition of detrimental. 

Interceptions aren’t detrimental either. Fumbles lost? Get outta here, we’re in the Super Bowl!!! How could anything be detrimental in my Pollyanna world? Grow up man

13 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

Hurts was sacked 38 times and we only lost 1 game that he played. In that loss, he was sacked just 1 time for a 5 yard loss. 

37 out of 38 sacks were not detrimental. 2 out of 2 sacks in the playoffs were not detrimental. I think you guys need to find a different word. I know the definition of detrimental. 

I think its a debate about the degrees of detriment and or the specific definition of the word at its lowest possible threshold. Losing 2 yards can be bad but not terrible but still meet their definition of detrimental in context of the game where a fumble or a pressure throw leading to a pick hits your definition of detrimental.

I agree with spirit of your position but if they are wordsmithing then they can be technically right as well. Sounds like an agree to disagree thing to me.

3 hours ago, TorontoEagle said:

Interceptions aren’t detrimental either. Fumbles lost? Get outta here, we’re in the Super Bowl!!! How could anything be detrimental in my Pollyanna world? Grow up man

Don't forget tackles and sidelines! They both prevent plays from being touchdowns! Clearly detrimental!

Hmmmm.

5 hours ago, brkmsn said:

Don't forget tackles and sidelines! They both prevent plays from being touchdowns! Clearly detrimental!

So then nothing is detrimental in football? What a concept!!

4 hours ago, TorontoEagle said:

So then nothing is detrimental in football? What a concept!!

One play is not detrimental if it doesn't cause harm. If you take a sack on 1st down, lose 7 yards and on the next two plays get enough yards to convert a 1st down, that sack was not detrimental. It's that simple. Can a sack be detrimental? Absolutely (see Purdy in the NFCCG). But a sack is not detrimental if it ends up being harmless. 

Feel free to keep doubling down on the narrative. 

Here's a sack from the NFCCG: