Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Why the Redskins don't need a G.M. - Essay


Recommended Posts

I agree with everyone else's response to this one. To go back to my prior comments about doing something differently to get different results, Snyderatto are the constants and Gibbs and Co. are the variables that have been changed. Now to what would you attribute the change in results, the constant or the variables that have changed?

Well, Vinny wasn't here when Marty was here, and it certainly wasn't much of an improvement.

Also, I don't see many defending Spurrier's performance here (As seen in the previous Spurrier thread.)

We know about Norv. He was a tease before Vinny, and that didn't change.

Looks like the wrong coaches to me...

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are you saying that you know what Gibbs wants better than Gibbs? :silly:

Remember, Gibbs is Team President, and has the support of Snyder. If Gibbs wanted to get rid of Vinny, he would have done it.

I also don't think Vinny is an "empty suit". One thing that has been proven in the past, no head coach can also do the job of GM and all that entails.

Jason

Three silly statements in a row. You might be out of your depth here. But let's go line by line:

The first one deserves no response.

The second one is true, but you don't know why Gibbs keeps Vinny. You assume it's because of his deep respect for Vinny's talents. Yusuf thinks it's because Gibbs recognizes that having a weak guy in the role is in his best interest.

The third one is a non sequitur. No one suggested that the Skins fire Vinny and just give the job to Gibbs. The truth is we're closer to that situation now, with Vinny, than with a strong independent GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're falling back on straw men, MADD. Not a good sign. :)

Oh, sure. It's a team sport. You need strong ownership, a strong front office, and strong coaching to succeed.

But that's my argument, not yours. I'm saying that Gibbs deserves a stronger partner than Vinny. You're arguing that we should settle for a weak guy -- Vinny -- because he's now surrounded by a Hall of Fame coach and a free-spending owner. Sure, he'll absorb some reflected glory when they win the Superbowl, but does he really deserve credit? He couldn't get it done without Gibbs. The teams he built could barely crack .500 (and yes, that's the whole organization's fault too). Gibbs is possibly the best coach ever in the history of the NFL. You should be able to succeed in football with Gibbs helping you out.

Now, Joe Gibbs said he only need to win two out of three facets of the game (offense, defense, special teams), so maybe the Skins can succeed with only two of the three management facets (ownership, front office, and coaching). But... and this has been my position from the start... why wouldn't you shore up that weakness? Why not win three out of three? Just saying that you'd prefer continuity is ridiculous -- at this point of the year, you could replace Vinny and no one would notice.

Om... you're the world's only Millen fan. But it all makes sense to me now! If you like Millen, you LOVE Vinny.

1) You're stating as fact your unsupported opinion that Vinny's "weak."

2) You continue still to oversimplify success in the NFL to how one guy, a personnel guy, couldn't "get it done" by himself. Well ... duh.

3) Again with the "weakness" thing. As a debate tactic, that IS weak, given the lack of support.

4) No, what's ridiculous is scoffing at the notion that continuity---especially given a successful trend---isn't something to be sought and nurtured very carefully in today's NFL.

5) For your sake as credible in this thread at this point, I hope nobody goes back and reads what I actually wrote, which you've now tried to pretzel into my being a "Millen fan." That's more than a staw man, that's a stretch worthy of Mr. Fantastic, much less MR MADD. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second one is true, but you don't know why Gibbs keeps Vinny. You assume it's because of his deep respect for Vinny's talents. Yusuf thinks it's because Gibbs recognizes that having a weak guy in the role is in his best interest.

Neither do you, or Yusuf. Thing is, if he was weak, or an empty suit, would Williams go out of his way to complement Vinnie and his department?

The third one is a non sequitur. No one suggested that the Skins fire Vinny and just give the job to Gibbs. The truth is we're closer to that situation now, with Vinny, than with a strong independent GM.

I guess I was too subtle with my point. To be more blunt, the personnel department would have to be pretty good to find some of the guys we have, and build up to where we are now. That isn't something that Gibbs is going to be able to do on his own. He needs someone capable to gather the information required to get these players. That's Vinny's job.

You suggested that no one was going to hire Vinny as a GM. That may be true, but that's not what he's doing right now. I think we are working to his strengths as a personnel man. You suggest a strong GM would be better, but I don't think so with the way this organization is run, where everyone has a share in personnel decisions.

Now, as I've said before, the weakness in this is not having a strong head coach who knows what he wants to do. That's why I don't think a college guy would ever work under this system. You need an experienced NFL guy who knows the league. Guess what? That's what Williams is.

So, I still don't see a reason for change.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Vinny wasn't here when Marty was here, and it certainly wasn't much of an improvement.

Also, I don't see many defending Spurrier's performance here (As seen in the previous Spurrier thread.)

We know about Norv. He was a tease before Vinny, and that didn't change.

Looks like the wrong coaches to me...

Jason

I disagree with the Marty assessment. Marty pretty clearly had the team going in the right direction at the end of the first season. The fact that he went 8-8 with Tony Banks at QB is a testament to what he was doing. In fact, it was the Vinny/Danny holdovers that killed that team - the Jeff Georges and Bruce Smiths.

The Spurrier years are testament - in my eyes - to Vinny's incompetence. Spurrier had no interest in the personell at first and was utterly hopeless when he did get involved. A real NFL personnel guy would have said, "Look, college boy, you are getting paid a lot of money to coach this team. Here are the players you need. Go win with them."

Instead, he actually went along with Plan Wuerfell and Plan Cheap and Available. And then - when it was obvious that the team needed a talent boost - he went out and got Trung Canidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) You're stating as fact your unsupported opinion that Vinny's "weak."

2) You continue still to oversimplify success in the NFL to how one guy, a personnel guy, couldn't "get it done" by himself. Well ... duh.

3) Again with the "weakness" thing. As a debate tactic, that IS weak, given the lack of support.

1) Funny, I think the evidence is conclusive that Vinny is weak. The draft record, his acquiesence to weak coaches, the scumbag free agents, the boot-licking ties to the owner... the whole record adds up to the very definition of weakness. Do you have any evidence that he's strong?

2) Hardly. I never said, nor would I expect, Vinny to get it done alone. My point is that he never demonstrated that he could even do his job well, much less anyone else's job. It's not like Spurrier had a talented squad but bungled the coaching. Vinny brought in some bums, but worse, he allowed Spurrier to run the show without even bothering to point out that Spurrier didn't even have a QB on the roster. That's weakness. A strong, independent GM would have had the balls to say to Spurrier, "Look, you're brand new to the league. You've admitted you're going to leave the talent acquisition to others. I'll go get you the QB and receivers you need to run your brand of offense. You just concentrate on coaching." But Vinny was way too weak, and Spurrier just got guys he knew: Wuerffel and Jacobs. The results speak volumes.

3) Again, please show some support for the wild notion that Vinny is strong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Cerrato's "usefulness" to Gibbs, I've covered that before. All I'll say again is that if you examine Cerrato's track record and his close relationship with Snyder it doesn't take a genius to figure out that given his prior butting of heads with Beathard, Gibbs did the math and decided that Cerrato would be a lot more useful if kept around rather than having to deal with a credible "GM". Given this scenario, Gibbs is of course not going to bad mouth the guy...after all, his inertness is useful. I realize this is conjecture but it sounds a lot more credible to me than Vinny making a rapid turnaround in competence overnight.

You’re right, to reach that conclusion, based on what we as fans can actually know, doesn’t take a genius -- it takes someone willing to jump to some pretty heavy conclusions.

This really is a very valid point. However, in cases like this where someone has underperformed in the past, I'll go with the risk inherent in the change rather than the risk of doing nothing and getting the same results. After all, organizational change can be managed by controlling what is changed and how the change is implemented etc. Sorry, but I'm a big believer in the old adage that "If you keep doing what you've always done you're gonna get what you've always had".

I was with you right up until the end. You’re ignoring that what we have NOW is a very good thing. But I like the thought … if we keep doing what we’re doing now, given the trend, we’re gonna be some tough mofo’s to beat over the next few years. :)

Not an either/or question. Ignores 1) the possibility that, over time, Snyder (how’d he get into this?) and Cerrato, like anyone else, might actually grown into a job, and 2) that given a better platform (Gibbs) from which to work, a guy like Cerrato might well flourish and become the perfect fit if the chemistry between him and the coaching staff is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the other argument that I make about the front office. Gibbs clearly knows talent. He knew that Brunnel had something left in the tank. That's good for him.

My questions is: Why was he the one negotiating the contract and making the trade? Couldn't Vinny have stepped in and said. "Joe, you are the best. If you want him, we'll get him. But the league has changed a lot and you simply don't offer that high a draft pick and pay that much for a back-up QB at his age. I'll get him for you, but give me a week."

To this day, I am befuddled by that entire series of events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Vinny wasn't here when Marty was here, and it certainly wasn't much of an improvement.

Jason

You really think so? You don't think Marty was an improvement? He only got one year, but let's look at that year:

He started out 0-5, and then finished the season 8-3. That's a pretty strong finish. Interestingly, it's exactly how Gibbs started his career in '81. His reward? Fired in favor of Spurrier. Remember, if Schotty had just stopped that fourth-quarter Bears comeback, he'd have made the playoffs and history would be wildly different. He would have stayed (you can't fire a playoff coach, no matter how much you hate him) and Spurrier would have taken the Bucs job. And Joe Gibbs might still be racing.

So thank Schotty and his control freak nature for where we are!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Funny, I think the evidence is conclusive that Vinny is weak. The draft record, his acquiesence to weak coaches, the scumbag free agents, the boot-licking ties to the owner... the whole record adds up to the very definition of weakness. Do you have any evidence that he's strong?

2) Hardly. I never said, nor would I expect, Vinny to get it done alone. My point is that he never demonstrated that he could even do his job well, much less anyone else's job. It's not like Spurrier had a talented squad but bungled the coaching. Vinny brought in some bums, but worse, he allowed Spurrier to run the show without even bothering to point out that Spurrier didn't even have a QB on the roster. That's weakness. A strong, independent GM would have had the balls to say to Spurrier, "Look, you're brand new to the league. You've admitted you're going to leave the talent acquisition to others. I'll go get you the QB and receivers you need to run your brand of offense. You just concentrate on coaching." But Vinny was way too weak, and Spurrier just got guys he knew: Wuerffel and Jacobs. The results speak volumes.

3) Again, please show some support for the wild notion that Vinny is strong?

Sorry counselor. You came before this court taking the position that Vincent Cerrato should be relieved from his current position with the Washington Redskins. Your evidence, to date, has been sketchy and circumstantial at best.

This court would still ask you to provide credible evidence that the free agent and draft work done by Vincent Cerrato since January of 2004 (assuming you have meaningful knowledge to proffer as to his actual involvement in performance of said duties)---the time period of actual relevance and interest to this court---has been so deficient as to warrant his dismissal, even in a time of institutional success.

Absent such compelling evidence, this case will be summarily dismissed. The court will recess temporarily now while I pretend to do my day job for at least a little while.

Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Om, come one, that's the whole arguement. Is Vinny doing a better job, or is Gibbs making him look better? The data we have from before Gibbs is over-whelmingly negative. The data with Gibbs is very positive, but how much is attributable to Vinny?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry counselor. You came before this court taking the position that Vincent Cerrato should be relieved from his current position with the Washington Redskins. Your evidence, to date, has been sketchy and circumstantial at best.

This court would still ask you to provide credible evidence that the free agent and draft work done by Vincent Cerrato since January of 2004 (assuming you have meaningful knowledge to proffer as to his actual involvement in performance of said duties)---the time period of actual relevance and interest to this court---has been so deficient as to warrant his dismissal, even in a time of institutional success.

Absent such compelling evidence, this case will be summarily dismissed. The court will recess temporarily now while I pretend to do my day job for at least a little while.

Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

Aren't you always in favor of the status quo though? I seem to recall you arguing for more time for Spurrier at the end of that reign. Though, it seems, back then you weren't much the Vinny fan.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42979

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41904

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41593

The evidence suggests bias on the part of the judge. He has shown a recalcitrance in the face of any criticism of the Redskins organization - despite strong evidence to the contrary - for a period of years. It is my contention that the judge is incapable of seeing beyond his pre-conceived biases on the subject at hand. Any suggestion of organization change is anathema to the judge. Therefore, he is incapable of being a fair arbitrator in the above dispute and should be summarily dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry counselor. You came before this court taking the position that Vincent Cerrato should be relieved from his current position with the Washington Redskins. Your evidence, to date, has been sketchy and circumstantial at best.

This court would still ask you to provide credible evidence that the free agent and draft work done by Vincent Cerrato since January of 2004 (assuming you have meaningful knowledge to proffer as to his actual involvement in performance of said duties)---the time period of actual relevance and interest to this court---has been so deficient as to warrant his dismissal, even in a time of institutional success.

Absent such compelling evidence, this case will be summarily dismissed. The court will recess temporarily now while I pretend to do my day job for at least a little while.

Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

Nice try. You can't simply say that the only relevant data to judge Vinny is from after Gibbs has arrived. We all know that Gibbs took firm control of the talent acquisition and ditched almost all of Vinny's roster in two years. So you have two problems: you're ignoring Vinny's very relevant history, and you're giving him credit for Joe's hard work.

And you're not the judge in this case. You're acting more like the defendant's girlfriend!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the Marty assessment. Marty pretty clearly had the team going in the right direction at the end of the first season. The fact that he went 8-8 with Tony Banks at QB is a testament to what he was doing. In fact' date=' it was the Vinny/Danny holdovers that killed that team - the Jeff Georges and Bruce Smiths.[/quote']

You are confusing Marty the coach with Marty the GM. Marty the GM was the guy who decided to pay George his roster bonus and keep him on the roster, and cut him in the middle of the season, rather than get someone competent (not Tony Banks) to actually lead this team.

He's also the guy who got rid of Larry Centers because of a personal problem, and ended up very productive with Buffalo.

The Spurrier years are testament - in my eyes - to Vinny's incompetence. Spurrier had no interest in the personell at first and was utterly hopeless when he did get involved. A real NFL personnel guy would have said, "Look, college boy, you are getting paid a lot of money to coach this team. Here are the players you need. Go win with them."

Instead, he actually went along with Plan Wuerfell and Plan Cheap and Available. And then - when it was obvious that the team needed a talent boost - he went out and got Trung Canidate.

As I said, the system breaks down when you got a guy who doesn't know what he's doing.

But, even if you get Spurrier better players (which you forget to mention guys like Coles and Randy Thomas.), he doesn't perform all that much better.

Hey, wouldn't you know? Maybe coaching has something to do with it! :silly:

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try. You can't simply say that the only relevant data to judge Vinny is from after Gibbs has arrived. We all know that Gibbs took firm control of the talent acquisition and ditched almost all of Vinny's roster in two years. So you have two problems: you're ignoring Vinny's very relevant history, and you're giving him credit for Joe's hard work.

Or, maybe the two actually work well together?

Hey, what a concept!

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try. You can't simply say that the only relevant data to judge Vinny is from after Gibbs has arrived. We all know that Gibbs took firm control of the talent acquisition and ditched almost all of Vinny's roster in two years. So you have two problems: you're ignoring Vinny's very relevant history, and you're giving him credit for Joe's hard work.

And you're not the judge in this case. You're acting more like the defendant's girlfriend!

Just happened to overhear this (there's an airduct in my chamber's restroom that carries sound from the witness room). If you're hoping to turn this case by claiming the inside track on "what we all know" and continuing to build your straw army, this case probably won't survive the afternoon.

I'll let the "girlfriend" thing slide. Desperate people say desperate things. :)

Big evidentiary mountain still to climb here, counselor. Better get crackin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence suggests bias on the part of the judge. He has shown a recalcitrance in the face of any criticism of the Redskins organization - despite strong evidence to the contrary - for a period of years. It is my contention that the judge is incapable of seeing beyond his pre-conceived biases on the subject at hand. Any suggestion of organization change is anathema to the judge. Therefore' date=' he is incapable of being a fair arbitrator in the above dispute and should be summarily dismissed.[/quote']

Actually LKB I suspect the judge is just preoccupied with the DJ business he runs on the side. :silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just happened to overhear this (there's an airduct in my chamber's restroom that carries sound from the witness room). If you're hoping to turn this case by claiming the inside track on "what we all know" and continuing to build your straw army, this case probably won't survive the afternoon.

I'll let the "girlfriend" thing slide. Desperate people say desperate things. :)

Big evidentiary mountain still to climb here, counselor. Better get crackin'.

Me? Counselor? I'm the bail bondsman. You should have known by the tattoos. I'm just sitting in the back of the courtroom to make sure Vinny doesn't jump bail!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some people here are miscasting Vinnie. I keep hearing the word 'strong' being thrown around. Is he 'strong'? His job isn't to be strong, his job is to go out and scout players, and he, the coaches, and Snyder sit down and make decisions on these players.

So, does that make Vinnie an 'empty suit'? Not at all. His job is very important to Gibbs, and one Gibbs, or any other head coach, can't live without.

Really, Vinnie is a level lower than what you are critisizing. Where the problem as probably been in the past is with Snyder and the fact that he was pretty much the defacto Team President. While Snyder is a strong presence, he isn't really a knowledgable one. This is why he mostly let Spurrier have his way in his first year, and in the second try to influence things a bit more. I'm sure if Spurrier stayed, Snyder probably would have forced Spurrier to make some changes in his assistants.

I think in the selection of Gibbs, he learned something: to have a strong football guy that you can live with, and name him Team President to make sure things run smoothly. Snyder still wants to be involved, but he needed a strong football guy to run the football team.

If Gibbs goes upstairs, that doesn't change the status quo and I expect that the successes we see now will continue. Vinny doesn't need to be strong. That's not his job.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some people here are miscasting Vinnie. I keep hearing the word 'strong' being thrown around. Is he 'strong'? His job isn't to be strong, his job is to go out and scout players, and he, the coaches, and Snyder sit down and make decisions on these players.

So, does that make Vinnie an 'empty suit'? Not at all. His job is very important to Gibbs, and one Gibbs, or any other head coach, can't live without.

Really, Vinnie is a level lower than what you are critisizing. Where the problem as probably been in the past is with Snyder and the fact that he was pretty much the defacto Team President. While Snyder is a strong presence, he isn't really a knowledgable one. This is why he mostly let Spurrier have his way in his first year, and in the second try to influence things a bit more. I'm sure if Spurrier stayed, Snyder probably would have forced Spurrier to make some changes in his assistants.

I think in the selection of Gibbs, he learned something: to have a strong football guy that you can live with, and name him Team President to make sure things run smoothly. Snyder still wants to be involved, but he needed a strong football guy to run the football team.

If Gibbs goes upstairs, that doesn't change the status quo and I expect that the successes we see now will continue. Vinny doesn't need to be strong. That's not his job.

Jason

Then he's an overpaid scout. And a poor one at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't you always in favor of the status quo though? I seem to recall you arguing for more time for Spurrier at the end of that reign. Though' date=' it seems, back then you weren't much the Vinny fan.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42979

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41904

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41593

The evidence suggests bias on the part of the judge. He has shown a recalcitrance in the face of any criticism of the Redskins organization - despite strong evidence to the contrary - for a period of years. It is my contention that the judge is incapable of seeing beyond his pre-conceived biases on the subject at hand. Any suggestion of organization change is anathema to the judge. Therefore, he is incapable of being a fair arbitrator in the above dispute and should be summarily dismissed.

Ah. The peanut gallery chimes in. :)

I am absolutely in favor of the status quo when the status quo is kicking ass, yes. Why aren't you?

Tell me ... are you capable of seeing any differences between the circumstances I wrote of then, and the circumstances we're dealing with now? Are you capable of grasping the simple concepts laid out now multiple times in this very thread of things beyond the most simplistic Airchair GM reactionary silliness of "fire the guy now" crowd?

And you speak of "pre-conceived biases" on the part of others with a straight face, all the while repeating much of the very same tired, oversimplified misinformation, half- and flat out UNtruths about Vinny Cerrato---most LONG dispproved or discredited among other than the torch and pitchfork crowd--and fail to see the pure irony?

That's okay. I've been aorund mobs before. I've seen how easily otherwise thinking people can be led astray.

No, let him stay, bailiff. Maybe others can learn from his mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me? Counselor? I'm the bail bondsman. You should have known by the tattoos. I'm just sitting in the back of the courtroom to make sure Vinny doesn't jump bail!

My bad. I thought those were henna tats and you were off to RenFest after court or something.

I do wonder, though, given your stance in this matter, why you'd want to keep the man from jumping bail. I'd have thought you'd offer him a freaking ride. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. The peanut gallery chimes in. :)

I am absolutely in favor of the status quo when the status quo is kicking ass, yes. Why aren't you?

Tell me ... are you capable of seeing any differences between the circumstances I wrote of then, and the circumstances we're dealing with now? Are you capable of grasping the simple concepts laid out now multiple times in this very thread of things beyond the most simplistic Airchair GM reactionary silliness of "fire the guy now" crowd?

And you speak of "pre-conceived biases" on the part of others with a straight face, all the while repeating much of the very same tired, oversimplified misinformation, half- and flat out UNtruths about Vinny Cerrato---most LONG dispproved or discredited among other than the torch and pitchfork crowd--and fail to see the pure irony?

That's okay. I've been aorund mobs before. I've seen how easily otherwise thinking people can be led astray.

No, let him stay, bailiff. Maybe others can learn from his mistakes.

For the record, your honor, I am not in the fire the guy now, crowd. I was in the fire the guy in 2001 (which was heeded), 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 crowd. I've never understood what Vinny brings to the table. I have years worth of bad drafts as my evidence. You have "He works well with Gibbs" as yours.

I counter with, "I personally think I could work well with Gibbs. I mean, I have some involvement with football at a college level and a pretty good understanding of the game. Put me in a room with one of the five greatest football minds of all-time and an unlimited budget and I could probably accomplish a thing or two."

And I do see the differences between then and now. In 2003, the organization was in shambles and you thought nothing should change. In 2004, the team went 6-10 and you thought nothing should change. In 2005, the team finally went to the playoffs. This year, I grant you, there is finally an argument for the status quo.

But don't act like the Fire Vinny brigades are the only ones with patterns of behavior and personal agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record' date=' your honor, I am not in the fire the guy now, crowd. I was in the fire the guy in 2001 (which was heeded), 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 crowd. I've never understood what Vinny brings to the table. I have years worth of bad drafts as my evidence. You have "He works well with Gibbs" as yours.[/quote']

Actually, I and several others have offered considerably more that just “he works well with Gibbs.” You’ve simply chosen to ignore it.

I counter with, "I personally think I could work well with Gibbs. I mean, I have some involvement with football at a college level and a pretty good understanding of the game. Put me in a room with one of the five greatest football minds of all-time and an unlimited budget and I could probably accomplish a thing or two."

My friend, thank you. This says more than anything I could possibly add here.

And I do see the differences between then and now. In 2003, the organization was in shambles and you thought nothing should change. In 2004, the team went 6-10 and you thought nothing should change. In 2005, the team finally went to the playoffs. This year, I grant you, there is finally an argument for the status quo.

I guess you think those old links you dug up support this drivel. That’s your right, certainly. Me, I’ll assume anyone who bothers to actually read them, has the capacity to understand context (not to mention selective use of “evidence”) and has been around here long enough to have any familiarity at all about my posting style and history will see through that fairly easily.

Glad to see, at least, that we finally got you to admit that as of right now, which is what we’re actually talking about, the status quo is the right way to go. Court Reporter, please make a note.

But don't act like the Fire Vinny brigades are the only ones with patterns of behavior and personal agendas.

Okay. I was just following your lead, but okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...