flexxskins Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 ok...I've had it...time to turn this thread in a very nasty direction...Let's talk about Lavar! It's funny that you brought that up. I just found out this past weekend that I live next door to LaVar's wifes aunt. I'm not going to even get into the rumor that my neighbor layed on me. Lets just say that I don't believe it one bit. I was going to start a rumor thread, but I was meeting my neighbor for the very first time and he's got to earn my trust first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Here, I just ran the stats real quick. The Redskins did in fact face much tougher offenses in 2005. However, while the Redskins can't control the schedule, they can control what they do on the field, and I think the last number is what's most important. Washington Redskins 2004 Rank Yds/G 2005 Rank Yds/G Green Bay 3 397.3 Kansas City 1 387.0 Minnesota 4 396.2 Seattle 2 369.7 Philadelphia 9 351.1 New York (N) 4 361.7 Philadelphia 9 351.1 New York (N) 4 361.7 Dallas 14 324.8 Denver 5 360.4 Dallas 14 324.8 Arizona 8 348.4 Pittsburgh 16 324.0 St. Louis 9 348.2 Cincinnati 18 321.2 San Diego 10 347.9 Tampa Bay 22 310.2 Dallas 13 325.1 New York (N) 23 295.1 Dallas 13 325.1 New York (N) 23 295.1 Philadelphia 19 319.3 Detroit 24 293.3 Philadelphia 19 319.3 San Francisco 26 286.6 Oakland 21 309.4 Cleveland 28 280.1 Tampa Bay 23 294.8 Baltimore 31 273.4 Chicago 29 256.3 Chicago 32 238.5 San Francisco 32 224.2 Average 18.5 316.4 Average 13.25 328.7 Defense 3 267.6 Defense 9 297.9 % Held To 84.57% % Held To 90.64% 2004 Opponent Record:122-134 47% winning percentage 2005 Opponent Record: 138-118 54% wnning percentage Pretty big jump...and definitely NOT a "wash" as you thought it to be. 7% isnt a "pretty big jump" to me. Morne,You didn't prove anything beyond our defensive statistical ranking was worse in 2005 than in 2004, which no one suggested otherwise. The question asked of you was whether we played better offenses in 2004 or 2005. Was it significant or not. Say, as an example, the offenses we played in 2004 averaged 300 yards per game and we gave up 280. And in 2005 the offenses we played averaged 320 yards, and we gave up 290. Which is better overall in terms of performance? I'm merely asking that you consider that. You don't have to prove it, but, I think you probably know the answer. We played better offensive teams in 2005 than in 2004. Our defensive ranking could be weaker year over next and yet not actually have a weaker defense based on that external fact. Or do you disagree with that premise? Se above. Teams were 12 yards better in 05 on average. We were 30 yards better in 04. And much better as a scoring defence in 04. No one might have suggested otherwise, but no one brought anything to back up what they said. At least I do that. I'll also add this to the equation, since no one else has mentioned it. Our offence went from 30th in 04 to 11th in 05. Huge difference. If the 05 unit had the 04 offence, I think you see the numbers much worse, and if the 04 unit had the 05 offence? probalby a 4th SB trophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailSkinz1 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I'm still wondering what MRMADD lied about. You know what, so far two people have been "Read Only'd" in this thread. Personally, I'd leave it to Art and MRMADD to work out. Just my way of helping out! Hail, H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I'm still wondering what MRMADD lied about.OMG, let it go already. Who the hell cares? Are you guys related to him? Is he a member of your lodge? Damn. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 First, Our stats with the stats of our opponents against us. 2004 Won 6, Lost 10 Team Stats Redskins Opponents TOTAL FIRST DOWNS 269 251 FIRST DOWNS (Rushing-Passing-By Penalty) 91 - 156 - 22 67 - 153 - 31 THIRD DOWN CONVERSIONS 70/221 70/226 FOURTH DOWN CONVERSIONS 4/11 7/17 TOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS 4397 4281 OFFENSE (Plays-Average Yards) 1023 - 4.3 974 - 4.4 TOTAL RUSHING YARDS 1765 1304 RUSHING (Plays-Average Yards) 471 - 3.7 419 - 3.1 TOTAL PASSING YARDS 2632 2977 PASSING (Comp-Att-Int-Avg) 288 - 514 - 17 - 5.59 294 - 515 - 18 - 6.26 SACKS 40 38 FIELD GOALS 19/27 17/20 TOUCHDOWNS 26 30 (Rushing-Passing-Returns-Defensive) 6 - 18 - 1 - 1 7 - 17 - 1 - 4 TIME OF POSSESSION 31:19 28:41 2005 10 wins 6 losses TOTAL FIRST DOWNS 301 258 FIRST DOWNS (Rushing-Passing-By Penalty) 114 - 166 - 21 74 - 158 - 26 THIRD DOWN CONVERSIONS 97/230 81/222 FOURTH DOWN CONVERSIONS 6/11 5/13 TOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS 5289 4767 OFFENSE (Plays-Average Yards) 1037 - 5.1 981 - 4.9 TOTAL RUSHING YARDS 2183 1686 RUSHING (Plays-Average Yards) 525 - 4.2 411 - 4.1 TOTAL PASSING YARDS 3106 3081 PASSING (Comp-Att-Int-Avg) 278 - 481 - 11 - 6.96 291 - 535 - 16 - 6.20 SACKS 35 31 FIELD GOALS 17/21 22/31 TOUCHDOWNS 44 32 (Rushing-Passing-Returns-Defensive) 15 - 25 - 0 - 2 15 - 15 - 2 - 2 TIME OF POSSESSION 31:33 28:27 Second, Teams Total Offense for that season: TB TOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS4963 NYGTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS4722DALTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5197CLETOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS4481BALTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS4375CHITOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS3816GBTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS6357DETTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS4693CINTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5140PHITOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5618PITTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS 5814 SFTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS4585MINTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS6339 Total Yrds. 66100 AVG. Yrds. 5084.62 2005 CHITOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS4101 DALTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5202 SEATOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5915 DENTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5766 KCTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS6192 SFTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS3587 NYGTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5787 PHITOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5109 TBTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS4716 OAKTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS4951 SDTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5567 STLTOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5571 ARITOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS5575 Total Yrds. 68039 AVG. Yrds. 5233.77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 25, 2007 Author Share Posted April 25, 2007 Here, I just ran the stats real quick. The Redskins did in fact face much tougher offenses in 2005. However, while the Redskins can't control the schedule, they can control what they do on the field, and I think the last number is what's most important. Washington Redskins 2004 Rank Yds/G 2005 Rank Yds/G Green Bay 3 397.3 Kansas City 1 387.0 Minnesota 4 396.2 Seattle 2 369.7 Philadelphia 9 351.1 New York (N) 4 361.7 Philadelphia 9 351.1 New York (N) 4 361.7 Dallas 14 324.8 Denver 5 360.4 Dallas 14 324.8 Arizona 8 348.4 Pittsburgh 16 324.0 St. Louis 9 348.2 Cincinnati 18 321.2 San Diego 10 347.9 Tampa Bay 22 310.2 Dallas 13 325.1 New York (N) 23 295.1 Dallas 13 325.1 New York (N) 23 295.1 Philadelphia 19 319.3 Detroit 24 293.3 Philadelphia 19 319.3 San Francisco 26 286.6 Oakland 21 309.4 Cleveland 28 280.1 Tampa Bay 23 294.8 Baltimore 31 273.4 Chicago 29 256.3 Chicago 32 238.5 San Francisco 32 224.2 Average 18.5 316.4 Average 13.25 328.7 Defense 3 267.6 Defense 9 297.9 % Held To 84.57% % Held To 90.64% Thanks for posting that MYU. I'd done that same thing a while back, but didn't have time to do it again. We played a number more games against better offenses -- in terms of rankings -- and generally played better rated offenses on average. We did worse overall defensively, and from a strict numbers standpoint, we dropped more than the offenses we played improved, but, where in 2004 we had a lot of irregular offenses to play and get fat on, in 2005, the teams we played were more stable and efficient. I think this is an interesting look at the differences between the two years. We were, doubtless, a great defense in 2004. And we were a great defense in 2005. And, in 2006, we were, well, horrid . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 25, 2007 Author Share Posted April 25, 2007 You know what, so far two people have been "Read Only'd" in this thread. Personally, I'd leave it to Art and MRMADD to work out. Just my way of helping out! Hail, H Not up to me to work out with Madd. Up to Madd to keep to his word. He returned making a promise. And he broke it on an entirely different topic than Snyder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 7% isnt a "pretty big jump" to me. It's huge considering that it's rare for a team to have an opponent schedule with a winning percentage rate that much higher than what the Skins had in 2005. Jumping 7 percentage points in the "strength of schedule" catagory is DEFINITELY a huge jump. Not to mention that it was shown that the Skins played 8 of their 16 games in 2005 against top 10 offenses, while they only played 4 games against top 10 offenses in 2004. Again, that's significant. That's huge. But I guess you can try to minimize it by saying "I don't consider 4 games to be huge". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F Landry Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Madd, both those statements are reinforced as true today. Snyder's not making football decisions. Gibbs is. Snyder's certainly asked if the direction set is the direction he'll provide support for, and can it get done financially. Snyder certainly provides his input given the vast data he has at his fingertips. No one has ever said otherwise. We've all always told you, the decisions are made by Gibbs. As Gibbs told you, again today, everyone in the organization has a part in all the decisions. But, we have shown you all this weekly for three years. Our guess is you simply don't care to believe. As I said in the other thread, you are the person who's shifted, not me. I've always rejected YOUR assertion that anyone OTHER than Gibbs was in charge. See the thread about Who's in charge and the thread about ESPN's version of who's in charge. Snyder absolutely is part of the organization. He's just not in charge. And, that is undeniably the conversation we've had, right up until TODAY when you've falsely characterized it as something else. I know you got busted being a loon for a long time. But, I'm not going to let you out of your past stupidity of denying Gibbs is in charge by pretending we were talking about something else. How do YOU know? Snyder can say one thing then do something completely different. It is called a lie, and every human being on the earth is capable of saying something false. Both you and Madd have no proof one way or the other, neither of you are a part of the Redskins Front Office, or the Coaching Staff. Therefore, both of you are wasting your breath as you have no actual first-person experience to prove one way or the other. I'm sorry, but I just had to say it, as I feel you both are making yourselves look silly. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkforhall Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Man, Snyder's decision making is a real sensitive subject. I just told a friend that people would be banned on extremeskins if they said that Snyder made the final decisions again. LOL. That sounds pretty hilarious. This has been quite an entertaining thread. Looks like it's going back to normal now. X's and O's. Stats, blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 25, 2007 Author Share Posted April 25, 2007 How do YOU know?Snyder can say one thing then do something completely different. It is called a lie, and every human being on the earth is capable of saying something false. Both you and Madd have no proof one way or the other, neither of you are a part of the Redskins Front Office, or the Coaching Staff. Therefore, both of you are wasting your breath as you have no actual first-person experience to prove one way or the other. I'm sorry, but I just had to say it, as I feel you both are making yourselves look silly. :2cents: Are you saying there's no proof that Gibbs is the final decision maker? Can you explain how you missed that very proof from the mouths of Gibbs, Snyder, Cerrato and others, routinely over the last three years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 25, 2007 Author Share Posted April 25, 2007 Man, Snyder's decision making is a real sensitive subject. I just told a friend that people would be banned on extremeskins if they said that Snyder made the final decisions again. LOL. That sounds pretty hilarious. This has been quite an entertaining thread. Looks like it's going back to normal now. X's and O's. Stats, blah. No it doesn't. But, thanks for playing. Now it looks like someone WAS banned for not reading that no one here has been banned, though, the option is available to any who'd like. My hope is Monk's two day ban leads to a number of folks who want to go for more . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Just another update to the table, this time with Yds/P. The difference is more dramatic here. Washington Redskins 2004 Rank Yds/G Yds/P 2005 Rank Yds/G Yds/P Green Bay 3 397.3 6 Kansas City 1 387.0 5.8 Minnesota 4 396.2 6.4 Seattle 2 369.7 5.8 Philadelphia 9 351.1 5.9 New York (N) 4 361.7 5.5 Philadelphia 9 351.1 5.9 New York (N) 4 361.7 5.5 Dallas 14 324.8 5.2 Denver 5 360.4 5.6 Dallas 14 324.8 5.2 Arizona 8 348.4 5.2 Pittsburgh 16 324.0 5.1 St. Louis 9 348.2 5.4 Cincinnati 18 321.2 5.1 San Diego 10 347.9 5.4 Tampa Bay 22 310.2 5.2 Dallas 13 325.1 4.9 New York (N) 23 295.1 5 Dallas 13 325.1 4.9 New York (N) 23 295.1 5 Philadelphia 19 319.3 5 Detroit 24 293.3 4.9 Philadelphia 19 319.3 5 San Francisco 26 286.6 4.5 Oakland 21 309.4 5 Cleveland 28 280.1 4.9 Tampa Bay 23 294.8 4.8 Baltimore 31 273.4 4.4 Chicago 29 256.3 4.4 Chicago 32 238.5 3.9 San Francisco 32 224.2 4.1 Average 18.5 316.4 5.2 Average 13.25 328.7 5.1 Defense 3 267.6 4.4 Defense 9 297.9 4.9 % Held To 84.57% 85.23% % Held To 90.64% 95.26% Other variables to keep in mind: Teams in 2004 are on the record as saying that they played conservatively against the Redskins because they believed the Redskins offense would be unable to beat them. The 2005 Redskins defense had 981 plays and played on average 28:27. The 2004 Redskins defense had 974 plays and played on average 28:41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It's huge considering that it's rare for a team to have an opponent schedule with a winning percentage rate that much higher than what the Skins had in 2005. Jumping 7 percentage points in the "strength of schedule" catagory is DEFINITELY a huge jump. Not to mention that it was shown that the Skins played 8 of their 16 games in 2005 against top 10 offenses, while they only played 4 games against top 10 offenses in 2004. Again, that's significant. That's huge. But I guess you can try to minimize it by saying "I don't consider 4 games to be huge". Nope. I'd say something along the lines of: "That's a pretty big jump. And no, I did not realize that. Nice find" However, I'll add that we had absolutely no offence in 04, and had a pretty decent on in 05. You know, going from 30th to 11th. Or will that get minimized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 One guy who can't face reality and one guy who can't count. You guys make a hell of a team. :laugh: :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer is Food Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Running a message board requires some belief the people having conversations are going to have them honestly. Madd typically doesn't. He makes statements that are untrue, like Snyder makes the decisions over Gibbs head. He gets comments back that Snyder doesn't, Gibbs makes the decisions. He then changes his words to read, "Everyone knows Snyder's involved," and from that acknowledged agreement, turns, "involved" to "meddles". Then, suggests those rejecting his initial and core premise that Gibbs isn't the authority on such moves is suggesting Snyder is sipping pina coladas. And, unfortunately, a number of people seem to think this is so. It's a strange thing, but, that doesn't alter the foundation of the conversation. Madd doesn't believe Gibbs makes the decision. Madd does believe Snyder does, often over Gibbs' wishes. I don't believe that. I believe Gibbs makes the decisions. I believe he does so, as he's said, with input from everyone in the organization who all have responsibilities and roles. And though Snyder says no decision was made under Gibbs he has disagreed with, citing Moss as the only time it has happened under Marty, I bet there are times Snyder would prefer another path but yields to Gibbs, as he should given Gibbs is the face and central figure for the organization. Rejecting Madd's premise doesn't mean anyone believes Snyder lives in Arizona. It merely means Snyder isn't making the decisions. Gibbs is. And that's been shown time and again. Like blind men and the elephant… or is it just a strawman? I reject premise that Mr. Madd has been inconsistent with his position. I think you are being nit picky… “involved”, “meddles”, and his universal statement “Everyone knows” C’mon? You don't really consider this lying do you? Agree or disagree, Mr. Madd has consistently argued that Snyder plays a big role in operational decision making. And, yes he has taken the leap and believes Snyder has already undermined Gibbs authority with regards to the Duckett trade. And, you have made it absolutely clear, that you find this assumption about Snyder’s operational decision making role absurd because the Redskins organization has come out and said on multiple occasions that Gibb’s is the guy who makes the final call. Snyder himself even touched upon this during the press conference, mentioning Moss... So what? How is Mr. Madd being inconsistent? And, is it possible that the Redskins organization can say one thing and in reality do another? As I mentioned earlier, the Briggs trade talks gave us as fans a glimpse of the real decision making process. Snyder does seem to have much more influence than writing the checks considering he worked out the parameters of the Briggs deal, before he even mentioned it to Gibbs. When these talks became public, the rumors of Snyder’s meddling transformed to more than rumor. Now, you can legitimately question who really is making the operational decisions. Did Gibbs voluntarily give up the offense? Did Gibbs really pull the trigger with Duckett? We don’t know… but asking the questions are legitimate. The Redskins organization maintains that Snyder is more in the background. Snyder's actions run contrary to this putting him in the forefront of trade talks. The only reason we question the Redskins decision making process is because the Redskins actions speak louder than words. Do we know for sure? NO! Are you sure that Gibbs makes all the decisions- time and time again? Just like Mr. Madd you are taking a leap of faith... Regardless... Why did you Ban Mr. Madd? Let the man defend himself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 25, 2007 Author Share Posted April 25, 2007 Beer, I didn't ban Mr. Madd as has been repeatedly stated in this thread, including in a reply you made QUOTING me. So you read it. And you read the reason why. So, I'll ask why you're asking a question you've had answered. Tell me in 4 days. That's now TWO people who've been banned for asking why someone who wasn't banned was banned and not reading why he was put on read-only with every opportunity to come back the second he wishes. Please, more would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 fair enough, i just happen to think the secondary and LB struggled greatly in part due to the line. no doubt that all the units were bad, but with the ages currently on our Dline and injury concerns, its hopefully what were addressing in the draft. if you have evidence that suggests mont is ready to go, i feel much better because he wasnt at all last season. You don't have to backtrack. The same organization that may have graded the DL as the best unit on a near league worst defense, are the same guys who: Evaluated AA the as worthy of being the highest paid safety in league history, then played to his weaknesses for half a season before benching him and trading him for nothing; opted to surrender 3rd and 4th round picks for TJ Duckett, and then failed to activate (much less properly utilize him) for 75%+ of the season; opted to let guys who were proven productive within the system like Pierce, Smoot and Clark walk over monetary discrepancies, while lavishing ungodly sums upon guys who they'd never seen firsthand in our system, who ultimately failed miserably; have continued the previous "regimes" folly of failing to spend a single first day draft pick on *either* OL or DL for 7 years running, only to see the DL grow utterly unproductive, and the OL all reach an age of 30+ simultaneously with no backup/heirs in place; spent 3 picks to move up and draft McIntosh (robbing us of the #37 pick this year - where likely a starting caliber LG or Safety or DE will reside), only to let Rocky sit behind arguably the league's worst WLB for 14+ games, even once the season was irretrievably lost etc... and some would argue that those are the tip of the iceberg of dubious decision making in the immediate past... Conversely, this staff has also made some *fantastic* personnel decisions, which I think outweigh the negatives, but the idea that they are beyond reproof in evaluation matters is silly. Look, I literally almost worship Joe Gibbs, and unlike many I am a big supporter of GW and Al Saunders, and like our Front Office and Ownership a great deal (minus Cerrato)... However, if your eyes lead you to believe that this DL was not only the worst unit on the team, but also likely the worst DL unit in the NFC, odds are you are accurate (as all empirical and statistical criteria supports that contention), and as this staff has proven more than capable of misevaluating their own personnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Beer,I didn't ban Mr. Madd as has been repeatedly stated in this thread, including in a reply you made QUOTING me. So you read it. And you read the reason why. So, I'll ask why you're asking a question you've had answered. Tell me in 4 days. That's now TWO people who've been banned for asking why someone who wasn't banned was banned and not reading why he was put on read-only with every opportunity to come back the second he wishes. Please, more would be appreciated. C'mon who will be next to poke at the bear with a stick? :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 25, 2007 Author Share Posted April 25, 2007 C'mon who will be next to poke at the bear with a stick? :munchout: Come on Dan. You know you want to . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boofMcboof Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 You don't have to backtrack. The same organization that may have graded the DL as the best unit on a near league worst defense, are the same guys who: Evaluated AA the as worthy of being the highest paid safety in league history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If there was a :homerun: smilie, I'd use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Other variables to keep in mind: Teams in 2004 are on the record as saying that they played conservatively against the Redskins because they believed the Redskins offense would be unable to beat them. That doesn't explain why those same teams's offenses didn't play any better in their other 15 games during the 2004 season. Only four of our opponents that year had top 10 offenses. Most ranked in the bottom half. That's not due to playing conservatively against the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Nope. I'd say something along the lines of:"That's a pretty big jump. And no, I did not realize that. Nice find" However, I'll add that we had absolutely no offence in 04, and had a pretty decent on in 05. You know, going from 30th to 11th. Or will that get minimized? Not sure what that has to do with the topic we were discussing, but ok lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spizzunk Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 C'mon who will be next to poke at the bear with a stick? Is there a reason you guys put up with this garbage treatment? In any forum, the posters make the forum, not the moderators - everytime I visit here it seems the posters are treated like second class citizens who should thank god that they have the privilege to make this board what it is - and they are the ones who make it what it is, for better or worse. Never seen such a little amount of power (being a forum moderator) go to someone's head so much - it's pathetic. This guy should be bowing down to you guys for putting up with him and indulging his fancies, and responding to pathetic call-out threads.... instead it's "Look how big my e-penis is. I am arguing semantics and looking like a fool." Is it really worth it? There are other Redskins forums out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Is there a reason you guys put up with this garbage treatment? In any forum, the posters make the forum, not the moderators - everytime I visit here it seems the posters are treated like second class citizens who should thank god that they have the privilege to make this board what it is - and they are the ones who make it what it is, for better or worse. Never seen such a little amount of power (being a forum moderator) go to someone's head so much - it's pathetic. This guy should be bowing down to you guys for putting up with him and indulging his fancies, and responding to pathetic call-out threads.... instead it's "Look how big my e-penis is. I am arguing semantics and looking like a fool."Is it really worth it? There are other Redskins forums out there. Just like you said, the posters make the forum, and though a lot of people like to complain about the deteriorating quality of the posts here.. This forum has both: quantity and quality. Two things that help make a slow day at work go faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.