Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

top dawg

Jonathan Stewart does NOT have cancer. Weird report I knew nothing about.

21 posts in this topic

Wow, I don't know how I missed this one, but apparently there was a report that J-Stew had cancer. Well, now we know he doesn't have it.  Talk about under the radar.  This apparently is not a case of "where there's smoke, there's fire".  Just thought it was odd.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random. I've never heard of this "Sporting News" before. What a bunch of incompetent assholes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random. I've never heard of this "Sporting News" before. What a bunch of incompetent assholes.

 

Well, I've heard of them, and thought they were one of the run-of-the-mill publications, but you'd think they'd do their due diligence before coming out with something like that. But, being that most of us are learning after the fact, I guess you can say, "No harm, no foul." I thought that perhaps maybe I was slipping, or the Huddle was slipping, but I'm glad that there was nothing to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random. I've never heard of this "Sporting News" before. What a bunch of incompetent assholes.

 

You never heard of The Sporting News? Really?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to post this earlier and then thought "surely its already been posted".  It hadn't been posted and don't call me Shirley.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I didn't know about it till it was a non issue. Our team has had enough cancer victims.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never heard of The Sporting News? Really?

I may have seen the name before but I've never read anything of theirs. Didn't know they were Charlotte based.

With blunders like this it's no wonder they switched from print to digital only this year.

Important to note, I've never been a magazine reader.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i saw this earlier on the charlotte observer's website, but was too lazy to post it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to post this earlier and then thought "surely its already been posted".  It hadn't been posted and don't call me Shirley.

same here

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so relieved that someting I had no idea about, and all reported instances of which have been purged from the web, turned out to be false. So...meh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Same people defending Hillary a few months ago are now drawing the conclusion that Flynn... and by association Trump... must be guilty of something because Flynn is getting immunity from the FBI. Works both ways. For the record... IMHO both Hillary and Trump are crooks.  If justice in this nation were truly blind these two politicians and their henchmen would be doing a long stretch in prison by now.
    • Slot receivers don't exist in 2 TE sets unless we're lining a TE on the outside which I haven't seen much out of the currently constructed Panthers. Maybe McCaffrey if he were to be split out wide but the Panthers usually keep a RB with Cam in-case Cam needs the extra protection and audibles the RB to block.  The Panthers would be best suited pairing KB with a speedster such as Charles Johnson, who's adept at running deep routes. Keep Howard and possible the RB (if not blocking) on short routes, KB on working the intermediate routes, Olsen running intermediate/deep routes, and Johnson running deep routes. That way Cam has a receiver on every level. All of this assumes Shula constructs a properly worked passing attack. 
    • Yes, that is correct. My point being Clinton was impeached and stayed in office. Almost everyone calling for impeachment of Trump thinks it means to remove him from office. He would have to be impeached and then found guilty to do that. The impeachment alone does not remove him. And my original point, no one was bringing up the electoral college back then. It makes no sense. Because the popular would surely rid us of corrupt politicians, right?