huntinwabbits's picture


Myrtle Beach, SC (via Columbus, OH)

MEMBER SINCE   November 21, 2014

Recent Activity

Comment 28 Jun 2018

It's not like he was even 80% correct. He was 180 miles away from Worthington, in another state, and didn't have a gun. Also said the info would be released at some point 4 days ago. 

This is what 11W is devolving in to? The guy was told something that is of rather importance to the members of this site and passed on what he heard, explicitly stating he was not guarenteeing its accuracy. And now we are down to judging the number of miles off an incident happened and what percentage was correct? This article's comments are an embarrassment. It was posted in a message board forum for crying out loud. It's not like Jeremiah is a grand jury issuing verdict on Hooker's case. He gave a heads up on what he heard and turns out that someone actually did get in trouble. He even withheld a name in order to save the player in case it turned out to be completely false. I am not sure what more you could ask for. 

Comment 22 Jun 2018
In 2018 you can believe whatever ever you want until it's different than my belief.
Comment 22 May 2018

The coach from the team up north being on the list at all is pretty baffling to me. I will certainly say the B1G as a whole has been significantly better the last 5 years than the previous 5+ but holding down the 3rd and 4th spot in their own division is hardly worthy of any accolades. I am not sure what empirical evidence exists to rank Jimmy at 13th in the country. Jimmy seems to have a reputation proceed him that is more worthy than the actual results. He has lost nearly every big game. He is the QB whisperer who can't seem to get a QB. He has only beat MSU once and has never beat Ohio State. He is 1-2 in bowl games with his most recent season ending at 8-5. We all know Jimmy's name, but is there actual evidence to suggest he is top 13 coach? Could only 12 other coaches in the country manage an 8-5 or better season last year? I am not sure what I am missing, other than results, that remotely suggest Jimmy is the 13th best coach in the country. 

Comment 21 May 2018

Born, raised and spent a quarter century in Columbus. For me the biggest issue with Columbus is the lack of palm trees, sun, sand, seashells and ocean. I fixed the problem for myself years ago and I don't know about the future of Columbus, but I am confident my future is bright, literally and figuratively.

Comment 25 Apr 2018

ESPN isn't airing "Get Up" because they think you want to watch it. They are here to correct your thinking.

ESPN isn't counting on these kind of shows to bring in the cash. If ratings and viewership were the only motivators, then rated R movies would rarely exist as G/PG movies vastly outpace them. If ratings and viewership were the driving force for a show, then other big networks like MSNBC would have filed bankruptcy long ago as they routinely pulled in viewership counts that could fit inside The Shoe. ESPN will get their money (see football season). This show is just an example of when the ends justify the means.

Comment 04 Apr 2018

1) Go listen to LBJ last night after their game discuss the issue. It was far from a "no comment." 

2) See number 1. Pretending like LBJ is some innocent little fairy who knows nothing about what goes on intellectually dishonest. The guy literally runs the Cavs organization and you think he is just a victim of his "network" wanting to pursue legal course? 

3) If you are going to enter an area in which you are not an expert in, you best be prepared and well-versed so you don't look like an idiot. LBJ is clearly not a lawyer and thrusting himself into the legality of this copyright battle is just dumb and numerous actual lawyers have stated so. This is also my favorite argument of yours: LBJ does good things for some kids therefore he is free from criticism? I disagree with the very premise and I also never suggested he was a menace to society.  

Comment 04 Apr 2018

LBJ thinking he owns the copyright to sports talk in a barbershop is just absurd. I do not take LeBron for a fool nor do I completely agree with Laura Ingraham's comments, but LBJ is certainly not doing himself any favors when he steps outside the sports arena. Worst of all, he is forcing me to agree with Saban and Alabama here. Don't make me feel so dirty LeBron!

Comment 23 Mar 2018

I wonder how much web traffic 247 has lost since their decision to throw [most] of the crystal ball picks behind the paywall. What used to be a site I visited daily is now one I cannot even remember the last time I logged on to. Surely, there are many, many others like me who no longer have a use for the site.

Comment 09 Mar 2018

I have to disagree with the first part of your assessment. Once again, this subject is brought down only to the level of sexual orientation. I am trying to do the opposite. I am trying to elevate the conversation to the point that sexual orientation is not the focus, but that ALL discriminatory questions are. Wasn't that the point of the laws in the first place? To treat it equally? 10 years ago sexual orientation may not have been labeled discriminatory, but you bet your bottom dollar that race, religion and political affiliations were off-limits, yet those questions still persisted without the outrage of the public. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act "prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."  So I stand by my statement. If what the NFL does is illegal, it most certainly has been illegal for a long time; at least since 1964. 

Comment 09 Mar 2018

I am not sure what kind of response you were hoping to solicit. They said (in the first part) that there are inappropriate questions being asked at the combine and change should happen. I am fine with that if that is how they feel. I am not sure what kind of box you are hoping to paint me in there. I would agree that there are vasts amount of inappropriate questions being asked. Whether it is legal or not seems to be more a gray area that I haven't dived into in any of my comments. My only response to that part of the video (as repeated above) is what is it about the homosexual question that made them finally start caring about inappropriate questions. Years and years of so-called discriminatory questions have been asked over and over and yet there was no HQonESPN video on those. There was no 11W post crying foul. There was no social media hastags and outrage. I have no issue with them feeling this question was inappropriate. What I do take issue on is the lack of true principles and selective outrage that this question caused that no one cared about before. If discriminatory questions are wrong, then they are wrong. They are not just wrong when it comes to sexual orientation. They are wrong across the board. I would tend to think most of you agree with that. And that is the essence of my argument on this thread yet I am getting labeled. The original article in this post didn't even mention that the same player was asked if mom was a prostitute. It made no mention of the political or religious affiliations questions asked. If we want to have an honest discussion on "BS questions at the combine" then let's have it. But let's have it about ALL inappropriate questions; not just virtue signaling about sexual orientation.

The second part of the video is really cherry picked. I understand what he is saying and can follow his logic if his cherry picked questions were the only ones asked. His entire premise is that the question is lumped in with "is your mother a prostitute" giving an implied negativity towards the question. But that is a faulty premise because for one, other inappropriate questions have been asked (that don't imply negativity) and secondly, it was not the same person who asked. He is judging motives and character of entire separate groups of people he doesn't know nor has he spent any time with. I can't take that part very seriously because of that. The implication of gay being bad came from this guys mouth, not the guy asking the question. Let the questioner speak for himself. I am not going to take an outside person's word on motive shaming.

I am not sure how the NFL gets away with all this in the first place. I do not know the legal grounds on which they claim to stand. Perhaps it is because the literal answer to any of the inappropriate questions is irrelevant to their employment. My best guess would be similarly to how a prosecutor asks a series of [seemingly unrelated] questions to get to a certain point. What I do know is that the NFL has been doing this for many, many years and thus far, no legal action has been taken. Does that mean what they are doing is fine or ethical? No. But for the purpose of what they are hoping to accomplish, I find the inappropriate question of sexual orientation to be just as fair as the other inappropriate questions being asked that no one cared about. I also find it rather odd that my opinion of "the same standard should be applied evenly across the board" is interpreted to be a defense of the NFL. Ironically, it is the same opinion and complaint I have stated on here over and over about the College Football Playoff: the same criteria should be applied to every team. If I am wrong and a bad person for expecting the same standard of determining inappropriate questions to be applied to every question, then I happily sit in that chair. I also believe justice is supposed to be blind and that there is no such thing as Oprah's "your truth" but that there is The truth and your opinion.  - Now I am painting myself into a box I suppose and I will allow you slam me for that if you wish :)

Comment 08 Mar 2018

Yes. That is how is should be and I applaud you on that. My last point was that this question would have never been asked had the level of societal outrage to the numerous 'discriminatory' questions been equal before as to what we see to today. This same player was told by another team that "they heard his mother sells her body, how do you feel about that" and you can't even find that information in the article presented. For years players have been subjective to 'discriminatory' questions but no one seemed to care before until this particular question started being asked. I am not attacking anyone personally here. I am just saying that collectively, out-of-bounds questions were largely ignored until someone brought sexual orientation in the mix. That I find selective, hypocritical and if we're honest, contrary to the idea of equality in the first place. Perhaps that is why the question was asked in the first place - because people stopped caring about discriminatory questions unless you are tagged with a special label, so they decided to poke the bear. I am not suggesting they are right or wrong in doing it, just trying to provide alternative viewpoints.

Comment 08 Mar 2018

I'm not here to argue the legality of such practices. That is for someone else to decide and take action. And I can appreciate your thoughtfulness to include all types of such questions rather than the selective outrage shown here over this particular question when dozens just as personal have been asked. If you think what they are doing is illegal, go get em. I don't care.

In the spirit of what actually is actually trying to be accomplished by the questioners, I find it just as fair a question as the others that have been asked. If it were illegal, then it has been illegal for a long time. I wonder why only now that someone asked a sexual orientation question does any one start to care. Did people care all along or is it just virtue signaling? Fair question I think.

Comment 08 Mar 2018

That's fair. The only relevance I find is how a given person reacts to those questions that push the boundaries. But, I think that is the whole point.

Comment 08 Mar 2018

I know very little about it as well. Closest experience I've had is counseling middle schoolers for a brief time. However, I don't feel there should be boundaries. These teams are going to be paying you millions of dollars and from a business standpoint, they are putting a huge liability on you as a prospective player. As a player, if you think it crosses the line, walk out. Sure it may ding you a bit but this is not communistic China where you are unable to leave and find work elsewhere. If you were to buy a house, would you not want to know everything about that house, the past history, changes and maintenance made... now what if it were a multi-million dollar house. This whole thing is a business risk and STX said it well up above: you want to know how these players, that you invested heavily in, will react off the field. The relevance of the question to football is irrelevant. A staring contest does not win you football games. Your politics and feelings towards Kaep do not win you games. As Will Cain said, the fact that there is an 11W post on this subject proves the value of the question. Asking about someones sexuality will be quite polite compared to some of the situations and comments any given player is going to hear over the course of their career. If you can't respond appropriately in that setting, how would you respond on social media or the bar when not just your brand, but the entire business brand is at stake?

If this one question was the only personal question asked, then you would have a good argument for boundaries. But the fact there is [selective] outrage (i.e. an 11W post) of this question, but not about marriage or Kaep or politics, is very telling in my opinion and exposes the validity of the question.

Comment 08 Mar 2018

I don't mind the question. If you actually take the time to read beyond that article and look at the host of questions asked at combines, you recognize that there is more of a psychological evaluation going on then just football IQ. Corey Elliot was asked if he is getting married to Charlie Strong's daughter in the next 6 months. The Seahawks had a Texas punter do a staring contest. Another guy was asked if he were a fruit, what kind of fruit what he be. Last year, players were questioned about politics because of the Kaepernick situation. They were also asked where they would be sitting on a bus if it crashed.

Bottom line, this post and article associated makes it seem like the "screening" is about X's and O's and they randomly went off on a do you like men tangent. The reality is the screening is a non-football related psych evaluation.

Comment 22 Feb 2018

Last year's committee gave me as much faith in the current playoff system as I have in the media. I was given no other choice but to stop caring about what happens after the first week of December. It's subjective trash and I'd rather us just play USC in the Rose Bowl every year, letting every outlet and poll can deem their own champions. The current playoff system is not an advancement or progress in collegiate football so let Alabama schedule Mercer for every game. I am apathetic now. My motivation to watch such games is equivalent to the motor city bowl or little caesars bowl or pick your favorite company name bowl - i.e. if I am that bored I will tune in.

Comment 09 Feb 2018

This seems to be the game everyone I know plays when Fortnite servers are down. And since that happens quite a bit, they have all gotten into it a lot. I tried to watch someone stream it to get a flavor for it but after 20min of her deciding on how her character should look I gave up.