The Bruce Allen/GM Thread

[HardcoreZorn]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/eagles-doug-pederson-criticism-michael-lombardi-colin-cowherd-20180115.html%3famphtml=y

 

Quote

 

Of course, not everyone has been on board with the Eagles’ decision to hire Pederson, who had limited coaching experience in the NFL and was criticized for some of his play-calling as the offensive coordinator for the Kansas City Chiefs under former Eagles head coach Andy Reid.

Among the loudest critics was Michael Lombardi, a former NFL general manager and NFL Network analyst who now works for The Ringer. Lombardi, who once worked for the Eagles under former team president Joe Banner, compared Pederson to former Sixers head coach Roy Rubin, who was fired after just 51 games when his team went 4-47.

“He might be less qualified to coach a team than anyone I’ve ever seen in my 30-plus years in the NFL,” Lombardi said of Pederson in September.

 

 

Lombardi on Doug Pederson before the season. Now the Eagles are regularly cited as a model franchise with a dynamic young coach yada yada yada. What about during the Chip Kelly years? Were the Eagles high and mighty then and some great franchise? They were a laughing stock that blew up an elite young nucleus of talent on offense.

 

FYI I realize the Eagles have had way more recent success than we and are a better franchise than the Redskins currently. This is strictly to illustrate the vast sway that can occur in sports media, and quickly. Winning. Cures. All.  

[Thinking Skins]

There are a few reasons I post here, but one thing in general is that I feel that the local media often ignores a lot of things and focuses on emotion driven convent than detailed analysis.

 - @HardcoreZorn just brought up 2012. I remember the 2011 year when the whole "suck for Luck" was being talked about. I remember listening to Chad Dukes on the drive home from work and hearing him go off on callers, I mean calling them stupid and hanging up on them for suggesting that RG3 could be better than Luck and that they wanted RG3 over Luck. We saw how that rookie year went and suddenly Dukes had changed his tune.

 - There was the Kirk Cousins debate and how Grant and Danny always discussed it, just about drawing a line in the sand saying "we will not talk to callers who judge a QB by wins". So callers would try to speak of the complex situation of grading a QB and how wins mattered, and it was always reduced to a sarcastic "its all about the wins though" and they'd be quickly dismissed.

 

This is not to say that hosts are always wrong and callers are always right, or even that I'm some guy who thinks he's always right even with the benefit of hindsight. But I do get frustrated when I see what I deem as complex issues simplified to basic things. A basic example is Ernie with the Wizards. People (myself included) have wanted him gone since the Eddie Jordan days, but I'm not as vocal about him being fired because the team is winning right now. He has made more than his share of mistakes and seems to be extremely good at digging himself out of his self dug holes, but he may not be the guy to bring us a NBA Championship. That said, I don't think we can just say "Jan Vessley thoooooough" and dismiss the excitement of the John Wall era.

 

I look at Bruce in a similar light. I don't know the person so I'm not going to do a lot of talking about him as a man / father / brother / son etc. I have never negotiated with him (or any other NFL GMs) so I don't know how typical his tactics are compared to others. But I do see some things that I complained about during the Shanny / Shotty / Gibbs / Zorn / Spurrier years - namely an investment in the NFL draft and developing players. I understand that this is not a universal philosophy and some (many, especially those in local sports media and a lot of fans) get more excited about the big name in free agency. I understand that with a lot of fans there's a philosophy of "its not your money so why do you care about how much a player makes".

 

But when I listen to a Podcast like "NFL Draft Geek" and they say something like "the Redskins should select Vita Vea, but with Bruce Allen running the show who knows what they'll do", I take it as a simple cheap shot and lazy analysts. People were (are) actually criticizing Bruce Allen for selecting Johnathan Allen last year because "well if the rest of the league passed on him, what makes Bruce Allen think he's smarter than the rest of the league" ignoring the fact that he was the best or second best defensive player in most rankings all year long. Or players like Moreau who had a first round grade until he got hurt. Or players like Nicholson who our scouts found despite him not being ranked highly in most scouting reports.

 

But this stuff isn't talked about. There can be no positivity with "Goose". So his name is only mentioned in local media as a punchline. But as much as I'm willing to criticize Grunfield, I'm willing to give him credit for Oubre which was a risky pick and a player the team had to develop. Similar situation for Otto. And that's one of the problems I tend to have with this forum, the detailed discussions have seemed to go away for twitter-style "gotcha" zings where a thread will look like a call in segment on local radio where they're just making fun of Bruce. And maybe that's what this place has turned into, or maybe that's what Bruce deserves. I just think that this board can handle more detailed discussions than local radio, and that trying to engage in such a discussion shouldn't make you a blind homer or someone who is ignoring all criticism.

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

 

Sure, media can use creative polling to fit their narrative and garner clicks.  But I  at the notion that was done here as a means to discredit poor Bruce Allen.

 

 

Just having some fun.  This isn't pointed at anyone.  

 

The witch hunt is getting out of hand.  Bruce's competence and character is as pristine as it gets -- that's why what's going on has to be the most confounding thing I've seen in sports in a long time.  It would be interesting when we find out who the leader was of the conspiracy because they really cooked up an intricate plot. The number of people they got involved in this -- it must have cost a fortune to put together.  I know W. Buffet is supposedly a Redskins fan.  He has the resources and connections to do this.  I'll think about other suspects. 

 

A. You got both the local and national media for some reason liking certain people around the Redskins but not Bruce.  I am gathering it just happened randomly when some local media guy said, look Schaffer, Jay, Kirk, Bruce a lot of these guys who are centered around stories relating to the Redskins are all great guys.  Wouldn't it be funny though if we just cherry picked one of them and turned around their reputation to the opposite of what it really is.  Maybe inspired by the classic movie Trading Places from the 80s?  They found backers to finance the plot and the rest is history.

 

B.  The level of detail it took though to get people from competing radio stations to be involved and get them on the same page.  Then the newspaper guys.  Then, national guys.  Heck now they are even getting rival beat reporters from other teams goofing on Bruce.

 

C.  Getting agents in on the act, too was a stroke of brilliance.  Who saw that coming?

 

D.  Those national types ranking Bruce as one of the worst GMs in their surveys.  They are in on it, too.  Even the draft geeks who do mocks.

 

E.  Getting someone from Redskins Park to leak things about Bruce, too that hits the radio and the WP.   Guys there that know only good things about Bruce but are in on the joke and saying the opposite out of sheer vindictiveness.

 

F.  Somehow getting to both Scot's camp and Kirk's camp and getting them to say nice things about everyone save Bruce.

 

G.  The press release about Kirk, leaks about Scot -- normally fans would embrace. But the evil media made us see something that looked classy-competent as something that isn't.       This plot goes so deep and so wide with so many players involved its going to be one heck of a story when the plot is finally unraveled. 

 

 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Is Doug Williams holding a presser at noon today re the draft? Heard about it on the radio but dont see anything on redskins.com

 

Seems like Doug is becoming the face of the Skins over Bruce. Not mad at it. Seeing Doug makes me feel all warm and fuzzy from fond SB memories. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

Seems like Doug is becoming the face of the Skins over Bruce. Not mad at it. Seeing Doug makes me feel all warm and fuzzy from fond SB memories. 

That was actually the entire point of promoting Doug.  Mission accomplished.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

7 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

That was actually the entire point of promoting Doug.  Mission accomplished.

 

Oh I know Im the mouse enjoying the cheese specially laid out for him. 

[HardcoreZorn]

LOL deaf ears is an understatement. @Skinsinparadise re read the part of my post that specifically says a lot of what is said about Bruce is probably true. I will say it again. A lot of what is said is probably true. Now repeat after me. A lot of what is said about Bruce is probably true.

 

Did that really evoke some sarcastic response about conspiracy theorists all joining in one big bowl of soup making up ways to take down Bruce? As if that was the gist of what I was saying? Having fun or not, at least attempt to comprehend the point of the post. C'mon man.

 

There are some who recognize and appreciate how the Redskins operate now is completely different than say about 10-15 years ago. They now seem to be following a model that has benefited and brought long term success to franchises like the Ravens, Steelers, Packers, Patriots, etc. And Bruce is a part of that. The winning seasons aren't quite there yet but the last three years suggest we are trending upward. And the negativity, and constantly piling on would make you think we are back in the Zorn era. That is what bothers some people and makes them appear "pro bruce" or whatever you want to say. If you can't see a clear difference in how we are operating for the better, I just don't know what to tell you.

 

Whether Schaeffer's voice is getting louder, or Bruce is still the main guy, or if somehow the team of Gruden/Doug/Bruce/Kyle Smith/Schaeffer is operating smoothly together, it doesn't matter to me. What matters is the process, and the process tells me they are operating like a legitimate NFL franchise. The media narrative doesn't align, but trust me when I say if the Redskins win 10+ games next year, there will be no more posting Eagles beat writers tweeting garbage about the Redskins on these boards. Grant and Danny will go back to talking about Grunfeld or whoever the next loser of the town is.

 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

40 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

The media narrative doesn't align, but trust me when I say if the Redskins win 10+ games next year, there will be no more posting Eagles beat writers tweeting garbage about the Redskins on these boards. Grant and Danny will go back to talking about Grunfeld or whoever the next loser of the town is.

That's a bold statement.  Winning 10 games is not going to buy a lot of goodwill for Bruce unless they at minimum play in the NFCC game.

 

What gets missed here is that we do judge Bruce on the moves he makes and the way he handles business.  The media polls and the like are merely the cherry on top of the dung sundae that is Bruce Allen.  I don't think myself or SIP or anyone needed to see that poll to realize that Bruce isn't remotely awesome.  We came to this conclusion by judging the moves he's made and the way he handles business now for going on a decade here.

 

It would seem you want to give too much credit to Bruce because things aren't as bad as they were before under Vinny.  Sure, Bruce places greater emphasis on the draft and that's a good thing.  But there is a lot more to the dish than simply valuing draft picks and not blowing big money on wack free agents.  Does the organization better resemble a professional football outfit under Bruce than Vinny? Sure.  But it still hasn't equated to jack **** in the win column and has it's fair share of mishandling and costly gaffes.

[Peregrine]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

LOL deaf ears is an understatement. @Skinsinparadise re read the part of my post that specifically says a lot of what is said about Bruce is probably true. I will say it again. A lot of what is said is probably true. Now repeat after me. A lot of what is said about Bruce is probably true....

 

There are some who recognize and appreciate how the Redskins operate now is completely different than say about 10-15 years ago. They now seem to be following a model that has benefited and brought long term success to franchises like the Ravens, Steelers, Packers, Patriots, etc. And Bruce is a part of that. The winning seasons aren't quite there yet but the last three years suggest we are trending upward.

 

 

 

Really?

 

Really?

 

15 years ago was 2002, where the Redskins had gone, over the previous 4 seasons, 10-6, 8-8, 8-8. and 7-9.  The last 4 seasons under Bruce? 4-12, 9-7. 8-7-1, 7-9.  Maybe im old fashioned, but I happen to think bigger win numbers are better, so that means we have actually been worse than we were 15 years ago.

 

Secondly, "The last three years suggest we are trending upward"?  They literally suggest we are trending downward.  Again, perhaps Im just old fashioned, but when I think of trending upward, I think of the team producing more wins every year, not less and less.  3 years ago we had 9 wins, the next year 8, last year 7.  The actual trend says this year we should hit 6.  Perhaps the only thing you got right there is that "Bruce is a part of that".

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, Peregrine said:

Really?

 

Really?

 

15 years ago was 2002, where the Redskins had gone, over the previous 4 seasons, 10-6, 8-8, 8-8. and 7-9.  The last 4 seasons under Bruce? 4-12, 9-7. 8-7-1, 7-9.  Maybe im old fashioned, but I happen to think bigger win numbers are better, so that means we have actually been worse than we were 15 years ago.

 

Secondly, "The last three years suggest we are trending upward"?  They literally suggest we are trending downward.  Again, perhaps Im just old fashioned, but when I think of trending upward, I think of the team producing more wins every year, not less and less.  3 years ago we had 9 wins, the next year 8, last year 7.  The actual trend says this year we should hit 6.  Perhaps the only thing you got right there is that "Bruce is a part of that".

 

 

I kind of addressed that in my last post as well.

 

I was looking at it from the angle that Bruce actually values the draft and won't make embarrassing splashes like signing Haynesworth for 100M.  That we 'look' more professional.  To your point though, while we may 'look' more competent from a strategy perspective, the win column provides another view.

[Skinsinparadise]

6 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I understand that this is not a universal philosophy and some (many, especially those in local sports media and a lot of fans) get more excited about the big name in free agency. I understand that with a lot of fans there's a philosophy of "its not your money so why do you care about how much a player makes".

 

This point

 

6 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I just think that this board can handle more detailed discussions than local radio, and that trying to engage in such a discussion shouldn't make you a blind homer or someone who is ignoring all criticism.

 

Added to that point above.  And both points are made by you in the mix of you highlighting nuance and things can be grey versus extremes.  I don't know if its intentional but you at times generalize the FA (Bruce) critics as simpletons (here you did it lighter than other times) who just want big names in FA and don't have regard for the cap and or the draft. You've done it multiple times in the FA thread.  The whole generalization somewhat patronizes the critic in the debate.  Even though most of the critics have given plenty of nuanced-specific points made about the subject with a ton of detail -- comparisons, the whole 9 yards. 

 

You complain about people on the other side of this debate getting in gotcha zings -- but with all respect both sides of the argument do it.  You like to call people out on it.  I don't unless its an obvious straw man point that's specifically directed to me.  But when you call people out for that behavior.  I've called you out on the same thing.   I don't think its about bad intentions on either side -- I think its just raw emotion in the heat of a discussion.  Human nature. 

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

LOL deaf ears is an understatement. @Skinsinparadise re read the part of my post that specifically says a lot of what is said about Bruce is probably true. I will say it again. A lot of what is said is probably true. Now repeat after me. A lot of what is said about Bruce is probably true.

 

Did that really evoke some sarcastic response about conspiracy theorists all joining in one big bowl of soup making up ways to take down Bruce?

 

 

I meant what I said and that was the post wasn't directed at anyone.  Most people here know that if I want to point an argument towards one person specifically, I am not shy from doing it. The last post before mine that related to Bruce and the media wasn't even yours -- so not sure why you want to take ownership that I must be aiming it your way. 

 

To your point, I got no problem having fun with talking up a conspiracy theory.  To me its mega on point as to discussions over the years as to the back and forth on Bruce.  Some would say Dan, too.   But you specifically weren't crossing my mind when writing that post. I wasn't really thinking of anyone but just the sea of arguments that have been thrown back and forth by multiple people.   I felt like writing it and I just ran with that feeling.  

[HardcoreZorn]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

Really?

 

Really?

 

15 years ago was 2002, where the Redskins had gone, over the previous 4 seasons, 10-6, 8-8, 8-8. and 7-9.  The last 4 seasons under Bruce? 4-12, 9-7. 8-7-1, 7-9.  Maybe im old fashioned, but I happen to think bigger win numbers are better, so that means we have actually been worse than we were 15 years ago.

 

Secondly, "The last three years suggest we are trending upward"?  They literally suggest we are trending downward.  Again, perhaps Im just old fashioned, but when I think of trending upward, I think of the team producing more wins every year, not less and less.  3 years ago we had 9 wins, the next year 8, last year 7.  The actual trend says this year we should hit 6.  Perhaps the only thing you got right there is that "Bruce is a part of that".

 

 

 

You are going back further than 15 years. I am referencing the way we operated 2000 on. Jeff George>Brad Johnson, old FA's, Marty, Spurrier, Cerrato, letting Pierce walk, letting Clark walk, Haynesworth, Duckett trade, Lloyd trade, Archuletta, Zorn, Sherm the Bingo Caller, Griffin trade, ALL of that. And I missed so much more. You can cherry pick records all you want to fit your narrative. And Gibbs II was a good enough football coach still to mask a lot of personnel deficiencies. But yes, from a pure roster construction standpoint we almost did a 180, and for the better IMO. At the very least, if another shakeup occurs, the next guy will have a much clearer path forward to success.

 

We were a better football team in 2017 than 2015. You are lacking context, like so many on here seem to do. 2015 was a very down year for the NFC East and we ended up winning the division. We were a more talented, more competitive, and just better overall roster than 2015.

 

And this isn't aimed at you but perhaps the general disagreement stems from how I view the roster as opposed to others. From top to bottom, I think we have an above average roster. General media consensus and fan reaction would lead you to believe otherwise. Agree to disagree. Let's call it a day and leave it at that.

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Combining different narratives of Chris Russell said in the past and Grant Paulsen said today.

 

A.  Bruce wants to be known now as a football guy -- hates the rep of being deemed a nonfootball guy. So he's watching film this off season and wants to be acknowledged for it.

 

B.  Today Grant shared a story from someone who works there, goofing on the new film guy rep that Bruce wants -- saying Bruce likes to show on his personal TV in his office that he watches tape so he leaves film on pause so you can see it when you go to his office.  This person walked into Bruce's office a day or so later and noticed Bruce left the exact same frame on his TV on pause from the other day.  And they thought it was funny.

 

I'll say at the very least between Russell, Paulsen and Brewer they all tell different versions of the tale that there are some people at Redskins Park who don't care for Bruce.  Whether they are right or wrong, you got me.  Interesting, though.

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Every true slacker knows you have to regularly change what’s on your monitor to look busy.  Damn, Bruce can’t even slack properly.

[bobandweave]

 

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Combining different narratives of Chris Russell said in the past and Grant Paulsen said today.

 

A.  Bruce wants to be known now as a football guy -- hates the rep of being deemed a nonfootball guy. So he's watching film this off season and wants to be acknowledged for it.

 

So the guy at the head of the organization responsible since 2009, the guy who's job it is to know football guys is finally watching film? If Dan thinks this report is meaningful then he's a bigger joke then we should take him for. Seriously how could anyone post that and not shake his head and wonder there is something fundamentally seriously wrong with this. Fire Bruce Allen now. How many more embarrassing points have to be made to show Bruce Allen is a joke and never should be in charge of GM'ing a professional NFL team ever again?

 

 

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

B.  Today Grant shared a story from someone who works there, goofing on the new film guy rep that Bruce wants -- saying Bruce likes to show on his personal TV in his office that he watches tape so he leaves film on pause so you can see it when you go to his office.  This person walked into Bruce's office a day or so later and noticed Bruce left the exact same frame on his TV on pause from the other day.  And they thought it was funny.

 

I'll say at the very least between Russell, Paulsen and Brewer they all tell different versions of the tale that there are some people at Redskins Park who don't care for Bruce.  Whether they are right or wrong, you got me.  Interesting, though.

 

 

Not interesting this is an embarrassment of epic proportions. If Dan was in any way involved he would put a stop to this immediately. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

If you can stomach it, read this:

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/36360/doug-williams-says-new-role-has-been-a-smooth-transition

 

Yikes.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Every true slacker knows you have to regularly change what’s on your monitor to look busy.  Damn, Bruce can’t even slack properly.

 

Bruce should pick up some tips as to how to look busy from Costanza. Like the episode where he left his car in the parking lot overnight so it looked like he was always there.  

 

 

[bobandweave]

5 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

If you can stomach it, read this:

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/36360/doug-williams-says-new-role-has-been-a-smooth-transition

 

Yikes.

 

 

 

So based on that they all started watching film one week ago for the draft that’s happening this week.

 

This is far worse then I thought. Anyone who endorses this sort of team readiness for an NFL draft should have their heads examined. 

 

I honestly never imagined it was this bad

[Voice_of_Reason]

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I'll say at the very least between Russell, Paulsen and Brewer they all tell different versions of the tale that there are some people at Redskins Park who don't care for Bruce.  Whether they are right or wrong, you got me.  Interesting, though.

I gotta say, Bruce has got to be completely deaf to all the noise, otherwise the leads from within Redskins Park would drive him crazy.

 

[bedlamVR]

6 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

So based on that they all started watching film one week ago for the draft that’s happening this week.

 

This is far worse then I thought. Anyone who endorses this sort of team readiness for an NFL draft should have their heads examined. 

 

I honestly never imagined it was this bad

 

 

Well actually what they said article is they go back and watch more film two weeks before the draft where there is disagreement about players in the larger context of the board is never set ... so they have an initial  board from the scouts reports ... then they go into the combine and look at the players they like then go back into discussions and where there is no agreement they all sit around and watch more tape prior to the draft when they have the whole picture on a player then they make their final board but even that can change .. 

 

I mean there is actual dysfunctional things at Redskins park - so there is no need to make things up to freak out about .. 

[SkinsGuy]

8 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

So based on that they all started watching film one week ago for the draft that’s happening this week.

 

This is far worse then I thought. Anyone who endorses this sort of team readiness for an NFL draft should have their heads examined. 

 

I honestly never imagined it was this bad

 

That's not what the article said.

 

Your hatred of the Redskins'front office is making you irrational, Bob.  

 

This is what is said in the article:

 

Quote

 

At the combine in March, Williams laid out the plan. Starting two weeks before the draft, they’d watch more tape on players where there was such a difference in opinion. They spend the rest of that time configuring their board.
 

 

As you can see in the article, it says they watch MORE tape to make final preparations before the draft. It doesn't say they just start watching tape right before the draft.

 

As Bedlam said, there are things to not like about this front office. There is no reason to make things up to seethe at them.

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Did you guys defending the article actually read it?

 

The explanation for how things are done sounds like a chaotic clustereff.

 

The part about watching two minutes more of tape while on the clock was also interesting.  I'm now curious if that's how it goes down in other draft rooms.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

15 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Did you guys defending the article actually read it?

 

The explanation for how things are done sounds like a chaotic clustereff.

 

The part about watching two minutes more of tape while on the clock was also interesting.  I'm now curious if that's how it goes down in other draft rooms.

 

Defending the arti...(sigh)

 

Did you actually read bobandweave's post?

[Thinking Skins]

19 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I don't know if its intentional but you at times generalize the FA (Bruce) critics as simpletons (here you did it lighter than other times) who just want big names in FA and don't have regard for the cap and or the draft.

 

You've never seen me generalize the Bruce critics as simpletons or if you have I'd like you to pull the receipts. What frustrates me is that Its always an either or thing. Either you love the front office or you hate them. You love calling me a Bruce supporter or Bruce defender or these labels that I never give myself.

 

I think the problem is that you read my posts and immediately think I'm talking about you, when in reality I think you're one of the more logical posters on the board. Its posts like @bobandweave just made that I'm talking about. Or The one two posts later by @BatteredFanSyndrome. Or since you bring it up, the joke you made yesterday that paints the picture of anybody who doesn't believe these stories coming out attacking Bruce as basically the equivalent of Flat Earthers who are denying all types of evidence. I know it was a joke but it does get tiresome. For you though, the thing is that you generally reply and we can have the discussions, so a post like yesterday's "conspiracy theory" can just be ignored and then I can read the place where we disagree. This is not true for a lot of other posters and it seems like the hatred for Bruce is so deep that anything and everything he touches will get criticism from them, many times with little to no explanation other than "Bruuuuuce"

 

19 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

You've done it multiple times in the FA thread.  The whole generalization somewhat patronizes the critic in the debate.  Even though most of the critics have given plenty of nuanced-specific points made about the subject with a ton of detail -- comparisons, the whole 9 yards. 

 

I don't have a problem with critics who bring up "nuanced-specific points". Those are points I will discuss and have open dialogue about, as you and I often do. But there are also those people who are Redskins fans who seem to be the most pessimistic people on earth and act like the fact that I see positive things in this team makes me an irrational person. Its not something I'm making up. Just look at the posts in this thread. Just look at the FA thread where I'm attacked for saying that I like our philosophy.

 

19 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

You complain about people on the other side of this debate getting in gotcha zings -- but with all respect both sides of the argument do it.  You like to call people out on it.  I don't unless its an obvious straw man point that's specifically directed to me.  But when you call people out for that behavior.  I've called you out on the same thing.   I don't think its about bad intentions on either side -- I think its just raw emotion in the heat of a discussion.  Human nature. 

 

Maybe I don't have a sense of humor but I'm not one for zings. I'm not saying that they should stop but I am saying that when one side is looking for discussion and the other side wants to just dismiss the argument and laugh, it gets frustrating. I notice it from my angle because I see it happen a lot from the pessimistic crowd. But if it happens on both sides that's not good either. The whole point of my post was (really something I've been saying for about 5 years here) that this place can handle deep discussions and we're seeing fewer and fewer of them. And its not that I want the humor to stop, but if one side gives a serious reply, it shouldn't be just dismissed with a clown gif (not saying I've actually seen too many clown gifs)

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

What frustrates me is that Its always an either or thing. Either you love the front office or you hate them. You love calling me a Bruce supporter or Bruce defender or these labels that I never give myself.

 

1

 

That's it in a nutshell, yep...

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Would love more educated debates and discussions here, but a lot of people are unable to entertain thoughts and viewpoints that run contrary to theirs. But to do so means to consider the validity of those viewpoints, to whatever degree it exists. 

 

And off topic, but for as many times as I've heard that me typing "lol" is condescending, how is using a laughing emoticon any less condescending? lol...I see those being used all over the damn place and not a single person responds with accusations of the poster being condescending. Heathens.