Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CR91

Robert Mathis on the Pat Mcafee Show

Recommended Posts

 

 

Be warned there is colorful language. The interview starts at 1:05:45

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, McAfee is pushing to get himself on MNF crew.  I think he would be fun there combined with Booger inside the booth.  Two Colts would be fun as well for us and the first Punter to be on a National broadcast team I believe.   But he may be too controversial and not PC enough for ESPN.  Part of me would hate to see him have to bend the knee to their insane politics.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Yeah, McAfee is pushing to get himself on MNF crew.  I think he would be fun there combined with Booger inside the booth.  Two Colts would be fun as well for us and the first Punter to be on a National broadcast team I believe.   But he may be too controversial and not PC enough for ESPN.  Part of me would hate to see him have to bend the knee to their insane politics.  

Paul Maguire was a punter

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question I would have like to have heard is “did any of the Colts staff ask for his personal evaluation the the pass rushers in the draft?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat is always entertaining his podcast are hilarious. Louder with Crowder is a close second 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Paul Maguire was a punter

Yep, you got me.. I even thought about Paul but mistakenly thought he was a kicker.  Thanks for the correction.  Ironically, Pat might be a modern day version of Paul if I remember him correctly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yep. Up until that neck injury I don’t think manning missed a snap his entire career here.
    • Andrew has had 3 maybe 4 injuries since the beginning of his career, manning only missed one season here. So no worries the bad luck was all Bob's. 
    • that guy is too short, has no wheels, and has to take a time out after every 6 attempts. will never make it.. nice jugs though
    • The facts.. a hung jury (twice) mistrial with most voters having sided for the alleged accuser/victim... both times.     She (prosecution) didn't drop the charges, the school (judge/jury) did.  She wanted round 3.  She wanted a full yes or no vote (4-1 or 5-0) either way, not we're split 3-2 so we'll just call it against the majority vote and designate as "Not Responsible" because it isn't 4 or more votes either way. - 'Case closed'.     There were questions (and other items) from the accuser that were never allowed in or asked in follow up questioning.  I think one of the changes to the Stanford Title IX hearing rules is to also allow an attorney to be not only in attendance but to also perform all duties of representation.  And an outside group determines what is admissible as questions/evidence, follow questions, etc...     At some level, it did, and many things at Stanford were changed after. At the  minimum, it was a mistrial x2, with no conclusive verdict either way. Then school (not prosecution) drops the case.   So she really needed to report this to both the school, and also the Police.  But with what evidence does she have to convince the LEO?  Guess the gals need some hidden body cam w/audio these days, like many folks do with dash cams (like me and my wife's cars...) and be their own TMZ...   Video, apparently the only way things get rectified anymore...     No worries, at least we know each others positions.  All is good.     Except to have (at some level) differing story from a another high achieving Stanford student about another high achieving Stanford student-   https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/california/stanford-university/admission/     We don't even know for certain they ever got the FULL story, but articles I've read suggest that the Stanford Panel repressed/disallowed many/most of her interrogating questions and supplemental follow up inquiries to be asked of the accused.  Unless someone directly asks her directly, how could you answer as to whether her whole story was even heard or not?   If you are not truly interested to fully know those answers, then you don't ask.  At least, that's my perspective.  
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...