It would seem to me, the last time I checked, Scott is over 21. Therefore, he is perfectly capable of defending his own writings--which so far he has chosen not to do in any detail-except slide a comment or two into a thread here and there.By the same token a poster named Vin, has chosen to take on himself the job of defending Scott in numerous or any posts or any topic in the last three or four months or so.I for one, have had enough, to the point I will no longer read any post from Vin as it could be very well another post in defense of Scott., no matter what he writes anymore, Vin follows him around like after a little puppy dog to clean up the mess. Wonder how much he is paying you to do his dirty work. Is so strong, its sickening!!!
It would seem to me, the last time I checked, Scott is over 21. Therefore, he is perfectly capable of defending his own writings--which so far he has chosen not to do in any detail-except slide a comment or two into a thread here and there.By the same token a poster named Vin, has chosen to take on himself the job of defending Scott in numerous or any posts or any topic in the last three or four months or so.I for one, have had enough, to the point I will no longer read any post from Vin as it could be very well another post in defense of Scott., no matter what he writes anymore, Vin follows him around like after a little puppy dog to clean up the mess. Wonder how much he is paying you to do his dirty work. Is so strong, its sickening!!!
Stan, I am not defending anyone, I am offering my opinion just like you except I am not impugning your integrity. Post all you want Stan. I enjoy reading your posts even if you think I am a dishonest puppy dog. Lol. Maybe you're having a bad day, sorry. Btw, was I a dishonest puppy dog when I criticized PR and SR for the person tone of anti-Schiano articles? I guess I was an honest puppy them because you agreed. Now you disagree so I am dishonest. Lol
Stan, I am not defending anyone, I am offering my opinion just like you except I am not impugning your integrity. But your opinion seems to be like every 5 minutes or so after any post by Scott for which the majority of the boards seem to disagree with him. They want to hear DIRECTLY FROM HIM and he has chosen not to, (for whatever his reasoning might be) so the criticism of him will probably continue and then you follow right behind to defend him. He is the chief honcho of this site and he can't just go and hide from something he did very wrong and now won't talk about it. FWIW, his articles ratings have gone down since he got on his hate campaign and went after Schiano. You can't try to repair that. Post all you want Stan. I enjoy reading your posts even if you think I am a dishonest puppy dog. Lol. Maybe you're having a bad day, sorry. If it was one day, it wouldn't be a problem for me. But this has been going on for weeks.Btw, was I a dishonest puppy dog when I criticized PR and SR for the person tone of anti-Schiano articles? I guess I was an honest puppy them because you agreed. Now you disagree so I am dishonest. Lol" You weren't defending him then on almost every post he made, regardless of the topic.Let him explain, to all at one time, why he won't respond to members questions. Unless you have a license as a professional, your myriad of comments about what he might be thinking and/or why he shouldn't respond is not at all relevant, IMO. Methinks you have gone far beyond what most posters do with their opinions. Many will post multiple times on the same subject in the same thread, (I've done that) but that's not what am seeing in your multiple comments in a variety of threads all seemingly in defense of something Scott wrote. It's almost to the point of you arguing for arguments sake.Think you might want to let it rest and see if he ever does respond. If he does, it great for him and the members. If he doesn't, it's his reputation that will still be on the line and that won't change the present.Don't think I can make my point any clearer-good or bad as you choose to see it.
Unc, Vince just seems to have this compulsion to protect. A while back it was the Glazers. Any and every time anyone posted anything with the SLIGHTEST criticism of them, there was Vince right behind their posts. I eventually got so fed up with it I got out of line myself and had to pull in the reins before I REALLY lost it. Thereafter I simply ignored ALL his posts for a while until I got control of myself and could read them without responding other than to SMH.
So you're mad at Scott but taking it out on me? Yeah, that makes sense. Stan, I have nothing to do with PR, I am just posting my opinion. Further, my posts are not replacements for Scott, he can post or not it has NOTHING .... Nothing....to do with me posting my opinion. Nothing. Lol. If you're frustrated with SR take it to him, but don't come on here and attack me just because you dislike my point of view. It's a message board.
Unc, Vince just seems to have this compulsion to protect. A while back it was the Glazers. Any and every time anyone posted anything with the SLIGHTEST criticism of them, there was Vince right behind their posts. I eventually got so fed up with it I got out of line myself and had to pull in the reins before I REALLY lost it. Thereafter I simply ignored ALL his posts for a while until I got control of myself and could read them without responding other than to SMH.
Lol at the hypocrisy. You guys talk a big game until someone posts things you don't like. I once referred to that behavior as Animal Farm because to you guys all opinions are created equal but some are more equal than others. LolThe ironic thing is I am one of the very few posters who defends Stan's right to post numerous rants about PR. Lol. You guys crack me up. Not only does my opinion apparently bother you but it bothers you so much that you feel the need to announce on the board that you have decided to ignore me. Lmao ... Man that is funny Free speech ....the right to post your opinion ...unless Stan and Joe disagree. Lol
Hey Stan and Joe, this thread is about the Fab 5. I think I was the fourth or fifth poster in the thread, all before me discussing Freeman. I look forward to both if you announcing that you're ignoring all who posted before me too. Lol. Free speech.
Hey Stan and Joe, this thread is about the Fab 5. I think I was the fourth or fifth poster in the thread, all before me discussing Freeman. I look forward to both if you announcing that you're ignoring all who posted before me too. Lol. Free speech.
I don't care if you were the first or the fiftieth, your verbiage and style remains the same. As usual you are missing the overall point and are responding wit comments that contribute nothing to the point being raised. You throw those other useless comments taht have nothing to do with the point raised.Defending SR.I'm done with this.
Unc, Vince just seems to have this compulsion to protect.
I don't know why he would feel he's protecting anybody. I think he's just a world-class butt kisser that needs approval.
Unc, Vince just seems to have this compulsion to protect.
I don't know why he would feel he's protecting anybody. I think he's just a world-class butt kisser that needs approval.
Daily dose of confidence building Buggsy?
Hey Stan and Joe, this thread is about the Fab 5. I think I was the fourth or fifth poster in the thread, all before me discussing Freeman. I look forward to both if you announcing that you're ignoring all who posted before me too. Lol. Free speech.
I don't care if you were the first or the fiftieth, your verbiage and style remains the same. As usual you are missing the overall point and are responding wit comments that contribute nothing to the point being raised. You throw those other useless comments taht have nothing to do with the point raised.Defending SR.I'm done with this.
Stan, read your own comment before the one I quoted above. You are operating under a completely false premise: my voicing my opinion does not prevent SR from responding. I am not posting as a surrogate for SR, I don't know SR, have never spoken to SR ..,nothing, nada, zilch. I just offered my OWN opinion. It's a message board. Even accepting your false premise to make this point, why is a so-called defense invalid but an attack valid? Because you agree with the attack but not the defense.
I believe that everyone should be allowed their opinions and I have no problems if someone wants to defend or object to a particular subject as long as it is civil and doesn't attack the person personally.
"Heck, Schiano even got rid of starting quarterback Josh Freeman, who turned his partying up a notch to a point where it negatively affected his game"Have you ever reported this before? Jeez, SR, you can't just throw a one-liner in like that. Are you reporting that Freeman's three game performances this year were negatively impacted due to his partying? Because while I've read a lot of that from board posters, I surely haven't read anything like that from PR.
Bump for a response from SR on this insider board. Vin, I've already got your perspective, thanks much.
Don't know what people expect at this point (or why they care). Clearly, Freeman had off-field issues. Likely "partying", but it's unclear what exactly that means. Had the same problems with the Vikings. SR's not going to say any more than he's said. Been pages and pages and pages dedicated to this already.More interestingly, I'm very skeptical of Revis "thriving" in Lovie's "Cover 2" as it's been explained by ex-players and Lovie himself so far (I think his defence will likely be very different than he's talking about now). The difference between Donnie Abraham (what awesome stats!) and Revis is that Revis hasn't grown up in zone and is maybe the only shutdown corner in the NFL (when healthy). Using him in any significant amount of zone is a waste.I also found SR's support for the idea that the players will miss Schiano to be weak. Not to say that the idea is wrong (no idea) but he provides quotes from two players. McCoys is very clearly positive, but all Clayborn says is this:
“It’s not for me to say, but I would like him back,” Clayborn said. “He’s a good coach. Everyone has gotten accustomed to his offense and his defense and I think it could only get better.”
Don't know what people expect at this point (or why they care). Clearly, Freeman had off-field issues. Likely "partying", but it's unclear what exactly that means. Had the same problems with the Vikings. SR's not going to say any more than he's said. Been pages and pages and pages dedicated to this already.
As I said, I care less about the issue now that Freeman is off the team. However, this is the first time I have seen PR reporting as fact that Freeman's partying led to his performance issues on the field. I had heard a lot of rumors (mostly from posters) before, but PR appears to be endorsing this as fact. I just wanted to highlight that point and then ask PR why they didn't report it earlier. And this issue will die down, not to put too fine a point on it, once SR stops dropping throwaway lines like this one and the "sworn to secrecy" in the chat. People are only talking about Freeman because these nuggets keep getting dropped.
