OT: Willie, Won’t He

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Go for Sumlin, or go crazy and go for Leach or Kiffin.
 
BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94 said:
I think the bowl game will decide Cristobal's HC chances. He is a good recruiter.
Click to expand...

Good recruiting, but not a very good head coach. I'd rather get a Sumlin which has proven to be an above average coach at least. Kiffin seems like he still has potential, and I don't think he'd pull a leaving in one year again.
 
Mario Cristobal. Makes most sense. Great recruiter. HC experience. Players like him. And include a gigantic buyout. Enough of this stepping stone crap.
 
santeesioux said:
Good recruiting, but not a very good head coach. I'd rather get a Sumlin which has proven to be an above average coach at least. Kiffin seems like he still has potential, and I don't think he'd pull a leaving in one year again.
Click to expand...
Kiffin would probably stay at Oregon till he got fired, I honestly think he realizes his next P5 job will be his last.
 
RipCityDSCPL said:
This post is UNCALLED FOR! This is the kind of thing where a suspension should be dealt out.

@SlyPokerDog, don't be like the referee's in the Pittsburgh/Cincinnati game last night and not deal out penalties when their absolutely should be. This is heinous.
Click to expand...

Was the post edited? Not seeing anything bad.
 
riverman said:
Anybody who thinks Chip Kelly didn't field offers when he was coaching here is delusional....they all do if they're winning.....I think Duck fans overreact to everything...it's not a big deal to me if any coach moves on...yet some folks sure can hate on guys who want to stay here....(Stotts comes to mind)...
Click to expand...

This isn't even close to the NBA. The college head coach acts as both general manager and head coach in order to recruit 85 players, maintain their eligibility, and compete in a field of over 100 opponents. The effect of a coach leaving can be catostrophic to the trajectory of a program, especially when such a departure leaves the current recruiting class in limbo as the early signing period approaches. What is interesting is that all assistants will be coaching and recruiting until just after the bowl game, and only then will it start being revealed which coaches are staying and going. That date is Dec 16, the early signing period starts Dec 20. There are already MANY recruiting allotments that Taggart has used pitching himself as coach such as official visits and in-home visits that are effectively off the table for any future coach hired for this cycle. No, it's not even close to the same thing.
 
Bye Willie. Wish we could land Kelly again. I would think he still has something to prove, losing the National Championship game, and that being that HE is capable of leading any team, any college into the playoffs, and into a championship victory.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Was the post edited? Not seeing anything bad.
Click to expand...


You're not seeing anything bad?
raw


Are you fooled by what

Sinobas said:
[/QUOTE]

is referring to?

If you need help, ask @dviss1 or @BLAZINGGIANTS or really anyone for that matter for what he's really saying.

It's obvious.
Click to expand...
 
dviss1 said:
We know his nature. He'll be the first to say he's not tho.
Click to expand...

You can be upset that Taggert left your team high and dry but to call him that is crossing the line in my opinion.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Okay, original post and quotes of the post are edited. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Click to expand...

It seems like this is not gonna warrant even a small suspension so I have to ask, what does?
 
RipCityDSCPL said:
It seems like this is not gonna warrant even a small suspension so I have to ask, what does?
Click to expand...

Because he didn't actually post the word that we're both assuming that he did. Is that enough to suspend someone? I'm not sure it is. When I first saw that I didn't even catch it until you replied to me asking if the original post was edited. And even then I'm just assuming that was his original intent.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Because he didn't actually post the word that we're both assuming that he did. Is that enough to suspend someone? I'm not sure it is. When I first saw that I didn't even catch it until you replied to me asking if the original post was edited. And even then I'm just assuming that was his original intent.
Click to expand...

If you look at how the sentence is worded what else could he be saying if it's not that word? And if he was in fact using a different word why not just type out the word? Why use all @!$^& instead? Anything that he could have been saying is far less worse than saying that word, which I believe he did, hence the #!%&*$.

#deductivereasoning
 
RipCityDSCPL said:
If you look at how the sentence is worded what else could he be saying if it's not that word? And if he was in fact using a different word why not just type out the word? Why use all @!$^& instead? Anything that he could have been saying is far less worse than saying that word, which I believe he did, hence the #!%&*$.

#deductivereasoning
Click to expand...

Okay but there needs to be a set rule before we start banning or suspending people. Something that I can explain to everyone and teach to staff. What exactly would that rule be? If you see characters instead of letters you should assume the worst possible word based on the number of characters posted?

And seriously, I very much appreciate you bring this up to me and this conversation we're having. I just don't feel comfortable suspending or banning people for what something might or could be.

I try to make things as black and white as possible. Just tonight in one of the threads @Strenuus called @SportsAndWhine a son of a bitch. I knew he was kidding and no malice or insult was intended but it did violate the personal insult rule. So I edited the post. Not because @Strenuus did anything wrong but because as some have mentioned on here I can't selectively enforce the personal insult rule. If I were to suspend @Sinobas over the worst I can assume he meant by posting random characters then I would have to make that same assumption about all posts using random characters.

Being perfectly open about this @Sinobas has used the n word before in posts and has been warned by both myself and Denny that this is not acceptable. Because of that I am looking at this very closely and have given it careful consideration. Even using "deductive reasoning" I just don't feel there is enough there to suspend him.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Okay but there needs to be a set rule before we start banning or suspending people. Something that I can explain to everyone and teach to staff. What exactly would that rule be? If you see characters instead of letters you should assume the worst possible word based on the number of characters posted?

And seriously, I very much appreciate you bring this up to me and this conversation we're having. I just don't feel comfortable suspending or banning people for what something might or could be.

I try to make things as black and white as possible. Just tonight in one of the threads @Strenuus called @SportsAndWhine a son of a bitch. I knew he was kidding and no malice or insult was intended but it did violate the personal insult rule. So I edited the post. Not because @Strenuus did anything wrong but because as some have mentioned on here I can't selectively enforce the personal insult rule. If I were to suspend @Sinobas over the worst I can assume he meant by posting random characters then I would have to make that same assumption about all posts using random characters.

Being perfectly open about this @Sinobas has used the n word before in posts and has been warned by both myself and Denny that this is not acceptable. Because of that I am looking at this very closely and have given it careful consideration. Even using "deductive reasoning" I just don't feel there is enough there to suspend him.
Click to expand...

You just saved yourself a tersely worded PM, sir!
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Okay but there needs to be a set rule before we start banning or suspending people. Something that I can explain to everyone and teach to staff. What exactly would that rule be? If you see characters instead of letters you should assume the worst possible word based on the number of characters posted?

And seriously, I very much appreciate you bring this up to me and this conversation we're having. I just don't feel comfortable suspending or banning people for what something might or could be.

I try to make things as black and white as possible. Just tonight in one of the threads @Strenuus called @SportsAndWhine a son of a bitch. I knew he was kidding and no malice or insult was intended but it did violate the personal insult rule. So I edited the post. Not because @Strenuus did anything wrong but because as some have mentioned on here I can't selectively enforce the personal insult rule. If I were to suspend @Sinobas over the worst I can assume he meant by posting random characters then I would have to make that same assumption about all posts using random characters.

Being perfectly open about this @Sinobas has used the n word before in posts and has been warned by both myself and Denny that this is not acceptable. Because of that I am looking at this very closely and have given it careful consideration. Even using "deductive reasoning" I just don't feel there is enough there to suspend him.
Click to expand...

How about asking Sinobas what word he was actually saying and why it needed to be $&#*% instead of typed out?

If the word he says makes sense in the sentence and it warrants all the *%$#& then he shouldn't be suspended but if it doesn't and comes off as convoluted then you should suspend him cause he's lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top