Falcons Assistant to draft prospect: 'So do you like men?'

Marquand Manuel worked as an assistant with the Seahawks from 2012-14 before joining Dan Quinn's staff.

Secondary coach Marquand Manuel asked draft prospect Eli Apple about his sexual orientation while at the combine. A second combine incident involved defensive line coach Bryan Cox shoving an Arizona Cardinals scout during an informal interview session

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15045 ... ct-combine

Click to expand...

It's a dumb question in today's cultural climate, and totally irrelevant.

But it's also a dumb cultural climate that makes a demon out of a man for asking a dumb question .

Marquand Manuel now has something to be remembered for other than getting injured in SBXL.

To which Apple replied "Like Like? Or just like?"

Intolerance will not be tolerated on this board.

In jest, or in seriousness. Posts crossing this line have been removed and a user with them.

Discuss this as news, keeping it ambiguous from your point of view, or lose your posting privileges.

HH

His injury in XL may have changed the game's outcome.

Etric Pruitt man, Etric fekin' Pruitt.

Should have just asked if he liked movies about gladiators.

FlyHawksFly":ufw2c2e0 said:

Ridiculous. Nobody should have their sexual preference impacting their job opportunities.

Click to expand...

There is a growing group of people who are taking this very idea to a different place. It gets more difficult when talking about less socially acceptable sexual preferences.

NFL combine interviews are full of curve ball questions asked for no reason other than to see how a player responds to something they could not have prepared for. There's a pretty good article that covers some of these odd (and often offensive) lines of questioning.

http://www.tntradioempire.com/news/nati ... -prospects

As far as asking players if they are gay, this has probably gone on for decades, but has only had a spotlight shown on it in recent times thanks to social media and a recent uptick in social justice. Geno Atkins says the question was asked of him at the 2010 combine, and it likely goes way back before that.

kearly":lw4xax0y said:

NFL combine interviews are full of curve ball questions asked for no reason other than to see how a player responds to something they could not have prepared for. There's a pretty good article that covers some of these odd (and often offensive) lines of questioning.

http://www.tntradioempire.com/news/nati ... -prospects

As far as asking players if they are gay, this has probably gone on for decades, but has only had a spotlight shown on it in recent times thanks to social media and a recent uptick in social justice. Geno Atkins says the question was asked of him at the 2010 combine, and it likely goes way back before that.

Click to expand...

Sso did not allowing women to vote, slavery, child labor etc, something changed everyone of those things and something is changing now as far as sexual orientation bias.

Asking a question is never a bad thing. Ever.

FlyHawksFly":2olr4jnl said:

kearly":2olr4jnl said:

NFL combine interviews are full of curve ball questions asked for no reason other than to see how a player responds to something they could not have prepared for. There's a pretty good article that covers some of these odd (and often offensive) lines of questioning.

http://www.tntradioempire.com/news/nati ... -prospects

As far as asking players if they are gay, this has probably gone on for decades, but has only had a spotlight shown on it in recent times thanks to social media and a recent uptick in social justice. Geno Atkins says the question was asked of him at the 2010 combine, and it likely goes way back before that.

Click to expand...

Doesn't make it right.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that was NOT his point. Kearly was making a statement, not a judgement.

This is in no way directed at you FHF, but it seems that people everywhere are just looking for a topic or statement that they can jump on, while feigning self-righteous indignation without allowing the other party to clarify their point.

It's easy to throw Manuel's comment out there and tear him to pieces over it while insinuating Marquand's intent. What Eli Apple said was that what Marquand said was along the lines of "Certain areas of Georgia can be unaccepting of different lifestyles, so be careful."

And most pundits ignored the facts in order to make the biggest splash, It's like those article "John Doe BLASTS Jane Doe" when in actuality "John" said something like "I'm having a difficult time with Jane at the moment."

All the ones that I heard ignored the fact that MM was a former player, instead framing it as "NFL Coach asks homophobic question."

I don't know MM personally, but from watching him as a Seahawk, and considering he was a player for years, I'm sure he knew other players that were gay and had no problem with the. Dan Quinn knows him well and I can't see Dan associating with anyone that is homophobic.

So while the question probably comes off sounding worse than it was, it still should not have been asked. No matter what MM's intentions were, in this day and age, it will be blown out of proportion for the sake of clicks.

FlyHawksFly":26b4kz5g said:

Doesn't make it right.

Click to expand...

chris98251":26b4kz5g said:

Sso did not allowing women to vote, slavery, child labor etc, something changed everyone of those things and something is changing now as far as sexual orientation bias.

Click to expand...

Correct.

FlyHawksFly":ow40goln said:

To be honest that comment from Kearly reads like, it has always been done this way, not that big of a deal.

I am not the only one that took it that way. It is a VERY common reaction against socially progressive movements made in order to undercut the severity of the offense.

You will see very similar remarks made about the Redskins, to put it in perspective.

The problem is you are misrepresenting the issue. I do not believe this is a homophobic question. I think it is an honest question, one that belies the culture around us. When singling out people's sexual preference during a job interview, the interviewer is tacitly making a judgement call, why else would he ask the question? Or do you think that MM was favorably looking upon those that answered yes?

This isn't jumping on an issue to make a stink, this is identifying those gaps in our social IQ that have become common place. In order to change those ways of thinking, people have to challenge those ideas.

Click to expand...

No, you passed judgement on someone's post that you did not understand, and turned the information they provided in to opportunity to demonstrate how indignant you were on the topic.

You should have posted what you wrote in your response. Much more informative and engaging. Otherwise you come across as determining that someone else's post looks like they were justifying something. There was nothing there that did so.

Did you read the part that said "thanks to social media and a recent uptick in social justice." ?

So next time, think it through, or ask a question. PM the poster and ask them if they meant it the way you read it. Not everybody on here is an English Major and people do sometimes struggle getting their point across. So instead of being judgemental, talk to them. Otherwise you derail a perfectly good discussion with your 4 word condemnation.

I guess I run in weird circles where "social justice" is pretty much always a positive term . . .

I can't imagine anyone with a sound mind and reasonable conscience thinking that the question itself is reasonable and justified in a job interview.

I just don't think it warrants the witch hunt against Manuel that ensued. Neither is reasonable or justifiable.

I guess my concern is this:

Prior to this blunder, Marquardt was on the fast track to a head coaching job in the NFL. How much will this effect his future, and is it just that he will be branded because of it?

One injustice doesn't justify another . . .

Marquand Manuel is the reason the Seahawks lost SBXL, even more than the refs.

Dude was key to our defense and we had man-off-the-street depth behind him. Etric Pruitt, all-star. Right.

When Manuel got injured and the Steelers saw he was out and targeted his replacement on their trick play TD.
Debatable whether the Willie Parker long TD run would have happened if Manuel had been in. Likely not, but unknowable.

Manuel was actually 2nd string to barfight hothead Ken Hamlin. So at that point Seattle was down to 3rd string Free Safety.

Now Manuel has something else to be famous for, all of 15 minutes worth. Can't see it impacting his future opportunities. Don't see it as anything other than a random unexpected question to see how an interviewee responds, can he think on his feet?

Some can have a "social justice warrior" fit over it, just remember that there are very different ideas of what "social justice" is. He/she who screams loudest is "right"? Whatever our billionaire-agenda-driven propaganda "free press" media decides to focus on is a party line all of us must now accept and support, to the exclusion of honest discussion of other views, to the exclusion of attention on discussing bigger issues that affect us all?

Imagine if this question was asked of Russell Wilson, pre-draft, and hypothically, was single/unattached at the time. How would he have responded? He might have talked about all the men who have been important in his life, starting with his father, and ignored the sexual connotation. Just because the bait is out there doesn't mean you have to jump at it.

Remember the presidential debate where Bernard Shaw asking Michael Dukakis the question about his wife being raped and murdered, if he would support the death penalty for the murderer? http://content.time.com/time/specials/p ... 12,00.html

It was a horrible, tasteless question, but Dukakis tone-deaf response was like a kiss of death for his presidential hopes, treating it as a cold, intellectual matter, with little emotion. Dukakis and his team failed to anticipate and prepare for Bush's strategy to "Make Willie Horton his (Dukakis') running mate, and Dukakis himself was not quick enough on his feet to respond in a way that connected with anyone, and in fact his cold response turned off nearly everyone.

So it might be reasonable to ask such "disruptive questions" particularly of QB prospects, who will constantly have to face and adjust to opponents' efforts to distract, confuse, and trick him, and think on his feet and respond in real time, make adjustments, and communicate those adjustments to his team.

Maybe Marquand was just looking for a date?

FlyHawksFly":1y7wv97c said:

McGruff":1y7wv97c said:

I guess I run in weird circles where "social justice" is pretty much always a positive term . . .

Click to expand...

Case in point:

Some can have a "social justice warrior" fit over it, just remember that there are very different ideas of what "social justice" is. He/she who screams loudest is "right"? Whatever our billionaire-agenda-driven propaganda "free press" media decides to focus on is a party line all of us must now accept and support, to the exclusion of honest discussion of other views, to the exclusion of attention on discussing bigger issues that affect us all?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

"Social Justice Warrior" is a pejorative term, that is correct.

However, the term does not apply to social justice causes or the majority of people who support them, but merely to a handful of douchebags who abuse righteous causes to attack others or to puff up their own egos. They certainly exist, though I don't see any of them in this thread or in the Manuel story itself, and it's not something I ever mentioned in my posts above.

In case there was any confusion, I strongly believe that Social Justice advocacy is a good thing. It creates public pressure with the goal of bringing about positive changes.

In this case, it is shining a spotlight on a homophobic workplace environment. This environment has been homophobic for decades, but only just recently people started paying attention and caring. And it's a good thing that people are paying attention and speaking out. It's only a matter of time before this attention from the public leads to positive changes.

FlyHawksFly":v3kbwgrp said:

fenderbender123":v3kbwgrp said:

Asking a question is never a bad thing. Ever.

Click to expand...

When it comes to a job interview, you are incorrect.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I'd say it's a bad thing to make hiring decisions based on certain things but never to ask a question. The two are separate.