Jump to content

AKAChip

Members
  • Posts

    2,495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by AKAChip

  1. 17 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

    Because it was meant as a compliment. Not a racial slur. The name Eskimo was never meant to be a bad thing. My point is why should a minority get to change things? Or white folks who have never even  visited the North? Why should they have a say? They have no right to be dictating anything to the Inuit community. Just like Belair Direct or Pizza Hut. The last time I looked, white folks in a lot warmer climates ran those companies. I can say with confidence that no senior company executives from either  companies have spent ay time in Canada's far north. Yet here they are lecturing.  Another example of white entitlement thinking they know better than the Inuit community? How many offices does Belair Direct have in Nunavut or Inuvik? Or Boston Pizza  restaurants? Let the Inuit community figure it out for themselves & then go from there.

    Again, I'm not against the Eskimos renaming their team. I just want to see proof that an overwhelming amount of Inuit find the name offensive, first. 

    Perhaps the onus should be on the team to prove that the overwhelming majority do NOT find it offensive rather than the other way around. 

  2. 1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

    What difference does that make? Run game is a team effort. Not one guy. If there's no hole then there's little or no gain. 

    I normally agree but they were starting Ante Milanovic-Litre and clearly had no interest in running the ball in either of their matchups. The Bombers knew it too which in a way makes it all the more impressive that they allowed a combined one sack. 

  3. 51 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

    I've no idea how guys like Davis keep getting opportunity after opportunity.

    It's simple, really. Most pro teams would rather have a guy with "experience" as the backup rather than an unknown commodity. Even if the guy with experience mostly has experience being terrible. I don't necessarily agree with the strategy but head coaches are extremely risk averse in that regard. 

  4. 10 hours ago, JCon said:

    Drop off in stats does not mean drop off in performance. To keep his performance level high, the Bombers may wish to give him fewer touches, so each time he does touch the ball, he has the same impact. 

    He seems ageless but at some point, the miles will catch up with him. 

    It’s a sad thought but if we’re realistic, the fall off a cliff production-wise is coming at some point in the relatively near future for Harris. 33-year old running backs that are even remotely productive are extremely rare. Not saying it’s a certainty but I think every good performance we get from Harris from here on out is a bonus. 

  5. 1 hour ago, Noeller said:

    Established means who's been around longer... Who's been a starter longer. It doesn't mean "who's been established in my mind as the better player..." 

    I vehemently disagree that Masoli is held in higher regard than Nichols by anyone who matters... 

    I don't know when the definition of "established" changed to solely mean "who's been around longer". Even if you leave Masoli out of the equation, Collaros has been around essentially as long and has objectively had far more success in the CFL than Nichols has. 

  6. 14 hours ago, Noeller said:

    Well all of that aside, the key word is "established".... By definition, Nichols is the most established. 

    Regardless of what we as individuals think of Masoli, he's much more highly regarded as a QB than Nichols is. And if you're going by what they've accomplished over their careers to this point, Collaros has a Grey Cup and an MOP with similar to slightly better numbers than Nichols. By either definition Nichols is cleraly not the most "established" QB on the market. 

×
×
  • Create New...