Lamar vs. Vermont. Sounds tough for one guy to play an entire team
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=128&t=68245 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Mr Jason George Goff and Uncle Teary's 2 favorite words in radio, "Law Home" are in today. Expect a lot of football talk. Laurence talks to his radio doppleganger in Miami. Greatest show ever. |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Interesting that when discussing the Brandon Marshall incident they both allowed for the fact that Marshall may in fact be innocent ( and he might be) and that sometimes women will fabricate stories when high profile athletes are involved. True enough. Wonder if they allowed for the same possibility where Roethlisberger is concerned. Maybe I need to go back and READ.THE. REPORT |
|
| Author: | Krazy Ivan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
sjboyd0137 wrote: Greatest show ever. indeed... |
|
| Author: | Northside_Dan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Good listen so far |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
badrogue17 wrote: Interesting that when discussing the Brandon Marshall incident they both allowed for the fact that Marshall may in fact be innocent ( and he might be) and that sometimes women will fabricate stories when high profile athletes are involved. True enough. Wonder if they allowed for the same possibility where Roethlisberger is concerned. Maybe I need to go back and READ.THE. REPORT Are you insinuating that black athlete's get the benefit of the doubt? Or is it just Goff and Laurence you're referring to? |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Real solid so far. |
|
| Author: | Northside_Dan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Lamar vs. Vermont. Sounds tough for one guy to play an entire team
|
|
| Author: | 312player [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Terry's Peeps wrote: Real solid so far. have to take your word for it...was thinking it would be diarrhea then a solid deuce |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
rogers park bryan wrote: badrogue17 wrote: Interesting that when discussing the Brandon Marshall incident they both allowed for the fact that Marshall may in fact be innocent ( and he might be) and that sometimes women will fabricate stories when high profile athletes are involved. True enough. Wonder if they allowed for the same possibility where Roethlisberger is concerned. Maybe I need to go back and READ.THE. REPORT Are you insinuating that black athlete's get the benefit of the doubt? Or is it just Goff and Laurence you're referring to? Not at all. Just stating that in this case, Goff and Larry seemed to give the benefit of the doubt to Marshall and allow for the fact that the incident may have not have gone down as is being reported which is fine. I don't recall Roethlisberger being given the same accord, the " lets not rush to judge" routine that they gave Marshall today. If you're going to make the statement that women sometimes fabricate stories when high profile athletes are involved, why couldn't the same be true in Roethlisbergers case? I don't recall anyone at the station even allowing for that possibility when Large Ben's incident became public. |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Because Roethlisberger already had a sexual assault charge prior? He got the benefit of the doubt the first time |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
rogers park bryan wrote: Because Roethlisberger already had a sexual assault charge prior? He got the benefit of the doubt the first time As opposed to the clean slate that Marshall has?
|
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
badrogue17 wrote: rogers park bryan wrote: Because Roethlisberger already had a sexual assault charge prior? He got the benefit of the doubt the first time As opposed to the clean slate that Marshall has?Thats true, Id have to hear what theyre saying. I mean if they just mentioned that its possibly exaggerated Im sure Roethlisberger got that disclaimer when the news was breaking |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
rogers park bryan wrote: badrogue17 wrote: rogers park bryan wrote: Because Roethlisberger already had a sexual assault charge prior? He got the benefit of the doubt the first time As opposed to the clean slate that Marshall has?Thats true, Id have to hear what theyre saying. I mean if they just mentioned that its possibly exaggerated Im sure Roethlisberger got that disclaimer when the news was breaking Thats pretty much all they did say Bryan that there may just be more than meets the eye. I just remember it being a different story with Roethlisbergers bar incident, and as you say it may very well have been because of the prior charge. |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
I think they both are just victims of circumstance and coincidence...repeatedly |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
rogers park bryan wrote: I think they both are just victims of circumstance and coincidence...repeatedly Well I think they're both dirtier than shit, just not all the time.
|
|
| Author: | spmack [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
While you guys are slobbing over Goff and Holmes, Silvy and Waddle just had Jay Cutler on to talk about Brandon Marshall. And I missed it. |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Athlete interviews suck. |
|
| Author: | spanky [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
badrogue17 wrote: rogers park bryan wrote: badrogue17 wrote: Interesting that when discussing the Brandon Marshall incident they both allowed for the fact that Marshall may in fact be innocent ( and he might be) and that sometimes women will fabricate stories when high profile athletes are involved. True enough. Wonder if they allowed for the same possibility where Roethlisberger is concerned. Maybe I need to go back and READ.THE. REPORT Are you insinuating that black athlete's get the benefit of the doubt? Or is it just Goff and Laurence you're referring to? Not at all. Just stating that in this case, Goff and Larry seemed to give the benefit of the doubt to Marshall and allow for the fact that the incident may have not have gone down as is being reported which is fine. I don't recall Roethlisberger being given the same accord, the " lets not rush to judge" routine that they gave Marshall today. If you're going to make the statement that women sometimes fabricate stories when high profile athletes are involved, why couldn't the same be true in Roethlisbergers case? I don't recall anyone at the station even allowing for that possibility when Large Ben's incident became public. Has nothing to do with race. Bernstein hasn't been on yet to tell them which way they should go with this one. They're playing it safe. |
|
| Author: | Krazy Ivan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
spmack wrote: While you guys are slobbing over Goff and Holmes, Silvy and Waddle just had Jay Cutler on to talk about Brandon Marshall. And I missed it. I'll listen to the S&W podcast later. Problem solved... |
|
| Author: | spmack [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Terry's Peeps wrote: Athlete interviews suck. True but Jay Cutler likes these guys, so he's a lot more engaging than he is with other media. |
|
| Author: | spmack [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
spanky wrote: Has nothing to do with race. Bernstein hasn't been on yet to tell them which way they should go with this one. They're playing it safe.
|
|
| Author: | Krazy Ivan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Good Dez Clark interview. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Come on Goff, get your wrestling thoughts together. Ric Flair does not do the hand to the ear thing
|
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
spmack wrote: While you guys are slobbing over Goff and Holmes, Silvy and Waddle just had Jay Cutler on to talk about Brandon Marshall. They just replayed this, it was a good interview.
And I missed it. |
|
| Author: | Krazy Ivan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Goff & Holmes putting Mac and Speigs on notice. Your spot can be tooken... |
|
| Author: | Vincent Antonelli [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Krazy Ivan wrote: Goff & Holmes putting Mac and Speigs on notice. Your spot can be tooken... Token Huh? What do you mean YOU people? Sexist bastard. |
|
| Author: | Northside_Dan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Wow Zach. Brutal. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
Krazy Ivan wrote: Goff & Holmes putting Mac and Speigs on notice. Your spot can be tooken... Pump the brakes on that big man. Let's not pretend it is Matty and Goff on the air today. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
LoHo's next car is going to be an Audi A5. Those run about $50k. He's got 2 homes. Just sayin'. #275k |
|
| Author: | Krazy Ivan [ Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3/14 Elmhurst Steve does not approve |
RFDC wrote: Krazy Ivan wrote: Goff & Holmes putting Mac and Speigs on notice. Your spot can be tooken... Pump the brakes on that big man. Let's not pretend it is Matty and Goff on the air today. I don't base my opinions off silly board memes like "LoHo is bad". All you have to do is listen to today's show....it's spectacular. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|