Rematch: Message Board Vs. Staff Survivor (1 Viewer)

[Winston Wolfe]

Survivor 2004

1. Unlucky

2. Couch Potato

3. bostonfred

4. joffer

5. sandbagger

6. rebel34

7. Twilight

8. Joe T

9. Fullback Fro

10. Grouse

11. Mr. Pickles

12. Sinrman

 

[Tick]

Survivor 2004

1. Unlucky

2. Couch Potato

3. bostonfred

4. joffer

5. sandbagger

6. rebel34

7. Twilight

8. Joe T

9. Fullback Fro

10. Grouse

11. Mr. Pickles

12. Sinrman

05: BassNBrew

Evilgrin 72

Family Matters

Iwannabeacowboybaby

JoeT

Ken Maxwell

LHUCKS

Ministry Of Pain

radballs

Tick

Unlucky

Overlap: bagger (returning captain), JoeT. Not that bad IMO.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If only that QB Squeeze had included Craig Nall, the staff MAY have had a chance.

 

[Family Matters]

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but:

I think we are going to bail on using message board people for the Survivor stuff.

These issues have led to this decision:

1. People complained that everyone deserved a fair shot to earn a spot to play in one of these. We made Survivor I open to all and made it a series of writing contests (haiku, funny story) so that we would get good writers for the commentary piece. The contests were fun and people put out a great effort to earn a spot.

2. One of the Survivor I winners then turned in garbage writeups for his picks. He said he wasn't an expert and he didn't know enough to write about the players. But he demanded he get paid and compete for the $1,000 as he won the Haiku contests, etc to get a chance. Clayton and I did the writeups for his team (and we left out all strategy talks regarding his roster). This is the number one reason we have these commentary drafts (to get insight and learn more about the players). Having Clayton and I do these writeups defeated the whole purpose of this thing for us. Our goal is to end with quality commentary.

2. The Survivor I winner won a free article in the magazine. He failed to ever turn one in so we made other arrangements.

3. The MB team (Survivor II) was essentially the same between the two years. This resulted in a ton of complaints by people that wanted a fair shot at playing against us instead of the same team getting to compete every year.

In all fairness, the message board team for Survivor II submitted great writeups which resulted in excellent content. So that's where I sit. I don't feel like begging people to turn in the writeups anymore. I don't feel like answering why the MB team always is the same people.

We will still have a Survivor Commentary draft, but the plan is to use staff to accomplish it. This way I can maintain control of getting the content in.

Maybe something will change in the next month, but this is where I am at right now.

David,It's very disappointing to hear that a couple of guys let us all down. I would of thought they felt it a privilege to be a part of this rather than the way they handled it.

OTOH-I'm even more disappointed to learn that 2 people can stop what has been a great process. 2 people basically have prevented this from continuing. Maybe posting this at the time would of inspired these 2 to get it together. It would be embarrassing to have "no comments" from an owner about their draft. I'm pretty sure the remaining board members would've made their powers of persuasion known and taken care of the problem(s) that happened.

I respect your decision but I am very disappointed that 2 people can bring this down. I feel like we're all paying a penalty for what these 2 have done.

 

[radballs]

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but:

I think we are going to bail on using message board people for the Survivor stuff. 

These issues have led to this decision:

1. People complained that everyone deserved a fair shot to earn a spot to play in one of these.  We made Survivor I open to all and made it a series of writing contests (haiku, funny story) so that we would get good writers for the commentary piece.  The contests were fun and people put out a great effort to earn a spot.

2.  One of the Survivor I winners then turned in garbage writeups for his picks. He said he wasn't an expert and he didn't know enough to write about the players.  But he demanded he get paid and compete for the $1,000 as he won the Haiku contests, etc to get a chance. Clayton and I did the writeups for his team (and we left out all strategy talks regarding his roster).  This is the number one reason we have these commentary drafts (to get insight and learn more about the players).  Having Clayton and I do these writeups defeated the whole purpose of this thing for us.  Our goal is to end with quality commentary.

2.  The Survivor I winner won a free article in the magazine.  He failed to ever turn one in so we made other arrangements.

3.  The MB team (Survivor II) was essentially the same between the two years.  This resulted in a ton of complaints by people that wanted a fair shot at playing against us instead of the same team getting to compete every year.

In all fairness, the message board team for Survivor II submitted great writeups which resulted in excellent content.  So that's where I sit.  I don't feel like begging people to turn in the writeups anymore.  I don't feel like answering why the MB team always is the same people. 

We will still have a Survivor Commentary draft, but the plan is to use staff to accomplish it.  This way I can maintain control of getting the content in. 

Maybe something will change in the next month, but this is where I am at right now.

Let me get this straight,Surivor I, which was made up of members who were determined via Haikus ( ), had people who were flakey and didn't take responsibility for explaining their drafting opinions and strategy.

Survivor II, which was made up of members whom BostonFred (an extremely knowledgeable and respected board member) selected (based on their qualifications of putting together a good survivor team as well as having the time to do a write up on their strategy) was successful.

Why nix both? Just get rid of haikus, right? There are always people that feel like they were left out just like I did in '04. Hopefully, there's some kind of competition that involves MBers vs. Staff going forward. In any case, it's always a good time playing against experts and staff members. Let's keep some kind of friendly rivalry alive.

That said, I would be more than upset if someone didn't live up to their responsibilities and put more work on my plate. Damn, I can't even remember if I did my write up, lol.

 

[Sinrman]

Funny... I don't remember even having to do a haiku to get onto the '04 team. Only thing I remember was Unlucky picking the team.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but:

I think we are going to bail on using message board people for the Survivor stuff. 

These issues have led to this decision:

1. The messageboard routed the staff at their own game and the infamous QB squeeze didn't reflect favorably on us

2.  Despite acquiring the best and brightest of the messageboard contestants from the previous year, team staff went down in flames for a second consecutive year to a superior messageboard team.

3.  Fast forward to 2006.  Really the only chance a staff team would have is for FBG.com to go on another hiring spree ala the NY Yankees.  Given the fact that FBG.com already generates more content then it's humanly possible to read, we can't justify add'l staff to breakdown the impact of late September coldfronts on cheerleader attire and how this effects Brady's stats during home games.

Edited for accuracy.In Dodds' defense, it's crap that a couple of people screwed this up for the rest of the people here that would put forth a solid effort to compete and contribute with content. I hope those folks are ashamed of themselves and their behavior. I hope that FBGs revisits this decision and doesn't take the public school approach of dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. That said, I can understand why running the business would come before taking on something like this if people are going to make it a hassle for the mgt here.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Overlap: baggerbostonfred (returning captain), JoeT. Not that bad IMO.

looks like overlap was actually bostonfred (won his way onto year 2), unlucky (first year captain), JoeT, and Maxwell (was staff first year, message board guy the next).

 

[radballs]

Overlap: baggerbostonfred (returning captain), JoeT.  Not that bad IMO.

looks like overlap was actually bostonfred (won his way onto year 2), unlucky (first year captain), JoeT, and Maxwell (was staff first year, message board guy the next).

Ken's demotion wasn't due to poor performance was it?

 

[rzrback77]

There isn't nearly enough Tick ###kissing going on in this thread.

First in to say that Tick is the Man and I would love to have a chance to help the Message Board continue dominance over the staff.

I know that this contest is looked forward to and enjoyed way too much to be dropped.

 

[joffer]

Why nix both? Just get rid of haikus, right?

the harmony and equilibrium of the message board is not at peace unless the posters are o\/\/ning the staff in a survivor.

 

[LHUCKS]

Fellas,

I'll get together with Tick and organize a MB/Staff survivor draft once we get the final word from Joe and David that they wont be doing this. I know a lot of the staff looks forward to this draft and obviously you guys are looking forward to it.

Nobody participated for the prize money in the first place...it's always been about bragging rights and the competition.

Let me put my head together with Tick and see what we can do.

 

[Fullback Fro]

Fellas,

I'll get together with Tick and organize a MB/Staff survivor draft once we get the final word from Joe and David that they wont be doing this. I know a lot of the staff looks forward to this draft and obviously you guys are looking forward to it.

Nobody participated for the prize money in the first place...it's always been about bragging rights and the competition.

Let me put my head together with Tick and see what we can do.

We don't have to have it santioned by the bigboys do we. Hopefully the staff will will face us regardless.

 

[LHUCKS]

Fellas,

I'll get together with Tick and organize a MB/Staff survivor draft once we get the final word from Joe and David that they wont be doing this.  I know a lot of the staff looks forward to this draft and obviously you guys are looking forward to it.

Nobody participated for the prize money in the first place...it's always been about bragging rights and the competition. 

Let me put my head together with Tick and see what we can do.

Hopefully the staff will will face us regardless.

they will

 

[radballs]

Fellas,

I'll get together with Tick and organize a MB/Staff survivor draft once we get the final word from Joe and David that they wont be doing this.  I know a lot of the staff looks forward to this draft and obviously you guys are looking forward to it.

Nobody participated for the prize money in the first place...it's always been about bragging rights and the competition. 

Let me put my head together with Tick and see what we can do.

We don't have to have it santioned by the bigboys do we. Hopefully the staff will will face us regardless.

"We"? Who said you made the team?

 

[Fullback Fro]

Fellas,

I'll get together with Tick and organize a MB/Staff survivor draft once we get the final word from Joe and David that they wont be doing this.  I know a lot of the staff looks forward to this draft and obviously you guys are looking forward to it.

Nobody participated for the prize money in the first place...it's always been about bragging rights and the competition. 

Let me put my head together with Tick and see what we can do.

We don't have to have it santioned by the bigboys do we. Hopefully the staff will will face us regardless.

"We"? Who said you made the team?

last time i checked i was not staff and still a message boarderwe have been in talks of me joining the staff though

they need a Jimmy Kimmel type - you know . . .a funnyman

 

[bostonfred]

I was just curious how many were on the team last year (either as a staff member or MB)?

Three. Myself, as team captain, because I had the second highest scoring team last year, and the highest belonged to Cecil Lammey who is now staff. Unlucky, the previous year's team captain, adds a lot to the boards, provides an excellent complete alternate source of projections, and has a long standing tradition with the board. And JoeT, who is a solid drafter and writes the most entertaining pick commentaries out there. I deliberately avoided picking guys who were on it last year, which is why guys like Fro, joffer and Sinrman didn't make it again, despite being excellent posters. Some of the other guys I picked have done other survivor drafts with the board before, which I think is valuable experience for this. Others are just top posters who I wanted to have on the team. There were so many good posters to pick from it was really a lot harder than you'd think.

bump

 

[bostonfred]

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but:

I think we are going to bail on using message board people for the Survivor stuff. 

These issues have led to this decision:

1. People complained that everyone deserved a fair shot to earn a spot to play in one of these.  We made Survivor I open to all and made it a series of writing contests (haiku, funny story) so that we would get good writers for the commentary piece.  The contests were fun and people put out a great effort to earn a spot.

2.  One of the Survivor I winners then turned in garbage writeups for his picks. He said he wasn't an expert and he didn't know enough to write about the players.  But he demanded he get paid and compete for the $1,000 as he won the Haiku contests, etc to get a chance. Clayton and I did the writeups for his team (and we left out all strategy talks regarding his roster).  This is the number one reason we have these commentary drafts (to get insight and learn more about the players).  Having Clayton and I do these writeups defeated the whole purpose of this thing for us.  Our goal is to end with quality commentary.

2.  The Survivor I winner won a free article in the magazine.  He failed to ever turn one in so we made other arrangements.

3.  The MB team (Survivor II) was essentially the same between the two years.  This resulted in a ton of complaints by people that wanted a fair shot at playing against us instead of the same team getting to compete every year.

In all fairness, the message board team for Survivor II submitted great writeups which resulted in excellent content.  So that's where I sit.  I don't feel like begging people to turn in the writeups anymore.  I don't feel like answering why the MB team always is the same people. 

We will still have a Survivor Commentary draft, but the plan is to use staff to accomplish it.  This way I can maintain control of getting the content in. 

Maybe something will change in the next month, but this is where I am at right now.

Does anyone have a list of the message board team from survivor 2 in 04? I thought I remembered that there wasn't any overlap other than bostonfred, who was returning captain.

Tick - Once Cecil became staff last year, I was the highest scoring message board team member from two years ago, so I became message board captain. I took Unlucky, who was the previous year's captain, and JoeT, because he has good writeups, and like Dodds said, that's the whole point of this thing. Other than that, I looked for posters who would give good writeups. Tick is a smart poster who sometimes writes a three page response to an otherwise dull thread that really makes you think. Ministry of Pain has a completely different style from the rest of the message boarders; his annual bucket article is always a good read. LHUCKS is, well, LHUCKS. And so on.

I agree with Dodds that this involves more work for them, and puts him in the uncomfortable position of relying on non-employees to do work for him. In the case of the haiku contest, I think a lot of the contestants only played for a chance at the money, while a lot of subscribers would have ignored the content even if they'd written it because they didn't know these guys. I think we can all agree that the haiku contest should not be repeated (and that BassNBrew is a chump for not winning it).

I can also see why people would be frustrated that the same guys they recognize from the shark pool and from previous drafts are also competing in a commentary draft. I think the idea that the top message board posters were rewarded with a chance at making money is a good one, but there are people who complained that they were top message board posters, they just didn't post here that much. That sounds like an issue with how the idea was presented, which is my bad. If it were run again, it would need to be presented as a reward for the top posters.

If you guys don't want to run this this year, so be it. I would just point out that it seems like most of the complaints are around Survivor I, and the haiku fiasco, not this message board vs staff competition.

If you still have some interest in doing it, maybe we can remove the monetary aspect of it, and just make it a fun competition. I think the type of guys Tick would pick to be on the message board team - and I hope he looks at Diesel7982, for example, who didn't apply last year - would give good writeups regardless of any compensation.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I had to let my GF draft my team last year while I called in from Tropicana Field, where I was entertaining clients, every other inning.  It sucked because I couldn't get a feel for the draft, how position runs were going, etc...  She made mistakes I wouldn't have made like not dropping Reggie Brown after it became clear that T.O. was going to play from week 1 on, drafting two defenses with the same bye week, etc.  She did a damned good job for a girl, but that and Ahman Green going down doomed me from the start.

Sounds like you should've of dropped out a gave your spot to a more commited contestant. Your greed hurt the Message Boarders. I pray for your soul.

EvilGrin shouldn't be invited back if he can't even be a team player and have a girlfriend draft for him.

"My girlfriend drafted for me."

It's definitely but I couldn't help it, it was a freak last-second thing. If I weren't a team player, I wouldn't have been on the phone every 20 minutes from the other side of the state trying to run the draft. People in my company thought I was insane, but I took it very seriously.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Wow - I just read the Dodds post and the rest.

I could care less about the money. I will do the draft and the write-ups for free, and do it gladly, if it means another shot. If not, so be it.

 

[Winston Wolfe]

Overlap: baggerbostonfred (returning captain), JoeT. Not that bad IMO.

looks like overlap was actually bostonfred (won his way onto year 2), unlucky (first year captain), JoeT, and Maxwell (was staff first year, message board guy the next).

I did not participate vs the Message Board in '04, but was involved with the Survivior Auction League.3 years, 3 straight championship appearances. The results speak for themselves. It is all luck with Survivor.

I'm surprised that I made it that far consider I lost TO, and had to use 2 of my first 5 picks to secure the KC running game.

 

[David Dodds]

I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday. Let me think harder on all of this over the weekend. I agree that we got great content both years against the Message Board.

We will do something here I am sure.

 

[radballs]

I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday. Let me think harder on all of this over the weekend. I agree that we got great content both years against the Message Board.

We will do something here I am sure.

 

[John Mamula]

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but:

I think we are going to bail on using message board people for the Survivor stuff.

These issues have led to this decision:

1. People complained that everyone deserved a fair shot to earn a spot to play in one of these. We made Survivor I open to all and made it a series of writing contests (haiku, funny story) so that we would get good writers for the commentary piece. The contests were fun and people put out a great effort to earn a spot.

2. One of the Survivor I winners then turned in garbage writeups for his picks. He said he wasn't an expert and he didn't know enough to write about the players. But he demanded he get paid and compete for the $1,000 as he won the Haiku contests, etc to get a chance. Clayton and I did the writeups for his team (and we left out all strategy talks regarding his roster). This is the number one reason we have these commentary drafts (to get insight and learn more about the players). Having Clayton and I do these writeups defeated the whole purpose of this thing for us. Our goal is to end with quality commentary.

2. The Survivor I winner won a free article in the magazine. He failed to ever turn one in so we made other arrangements.

3. The MB team (Survivor II) was essentially the same between the two years. This resulted in a ton of complaints by people that wanted a fair shot at playing against us instead of the same team getting to compete every year.

In all fairness, the message board team for Survivor II submitted great writeups which resulted in excellent content. So that's where I sit. I don't feel like begging people to turn in the writeups anymore. I don't feel like answering why the MB team always is the same people.

We will still have a Survivor Commentary draft, but the plan is to use staff to accomplish it. This way I can maintain control of getting the content in.

Maybe something will change in the next month, but this is where I am at right now.

Between people who don't have their heart in it and the whiny tools that complain about not getting in, it is a shame such a great thing was ruined.

Hopefully we can wait a year and have the Survivor II group battle it out again with the staff and provide some excellent content once again.

 

[Couch Potato]

I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday. Let me think harder on all of this over the weekend. I agree that we got great content both years against the Message Board.

We will do something here I am sure.

This isn't to kiss butt, but one of the reasons I really like Footballguys.com is that both David and Joe have a real respect for their customer base. I think it's cool of David to read the responses since his last post and then come on here to say he'd rethink it. Regardless of his final decision, I know it'll be a thoughtful one and not one of those 'I already said no so I can't change my mind now' sorts of things.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday. Let me think harder on all of this over the weekend. I agree that we got great content both years against the Message Board.

We will do something here I am sure.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I agree that we got great content both years against the Message Board.

We will do something here I am sure.

Great content, but not so great results.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

question about the QB squeeze did the staff make an effort to take as many QB's as a group in both leagues, in an effort to have some MB's team get stuck with very poor or no option at QB??

 

[BassNBrew]

Is this does get a rebirth, who ever is selecting the participants needs to make it extremely clear that anyone tossing their hat in needs to make it a priority. If you can't get the write-ups done on time or keep a schedule that only allows you to draft every third Wednesday afternoon over lunch break, then don't volunteer.

 

[BassNBrew]

question about the QB squeeze did the staff make an effort to take as many QB's as a group in both leagues, in an effort to have some MB's team get stuck with very poor or no option at QB??

Yup, but the better messageboarders stocked up on WR talent during those rounds. The STAFF grossly overestimated the importance of the QB position.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

question about the QB squeeze did the staff make an effort to take as many  QB's as a  group in both leagues, in  an effort to have some MB's team get stuck with very poor or no option at QB??

Yup, but the better messageboarders stocked up on WR talent during those rounds. The STAFF grossly overestimated the importance of the QB position.

sounds like classic over thinking it. In a 16 teamer that might have worked not in a 12 man league though.

 

[BassNBrew]

question about the QB squeeze did the staff make an effort to take as many  QB's as a  group in both leagues, in  an effort to have some MB's team get stuck with very poor or no option at QB??

Yup, but the better messageboarders stocked up on WR talent during those rounds. The STAFF grossly overestimated the importance of the QB position.

sounds like classic over thinking it. In a 16 teamer that might have worked not in a 12 man league though.

The only way it would have worked would be if the individual teams weren't playing for an overall prize. While the staff chewed up the QB ranks to an extent, they couldn't completely deplete it as it would have required taking guys like this year's Harrington and Nall in the 9th and 10th rounds. Some of the staff teams would have had to completely tank their individual chances to really shut out the messageboard as a group.

 

[Hear-the-Footsteps]

I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday. Let me think harder on all of this over the weekend. I agree that we got great content both years against the Message Board.

We will do something here I am sure.

Glad to hear you're coming around!

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

question about the QB squeeze did the staff make an effort to take as many  QB's as a  group in both leagues, in  an effort to have some MB's team get stuck with very poor or no option at QB??

Yup, but the better messageboarders stocked up on WR talent during those rounds. The STAFF grossly overestimated the importance of the QB position.

sounds like classic over thinking it. In a 16 teamer that might have worked not in a 12 man league though.

The only way it would have worked would be if the individual teams weren't playing for an overall prize. While the staff chewed up the QB ranks to an extent, they couldn't completely deplete it as it would have required taking guys like this year's Harrington and Nall in the 9th and 10th rounds. Some of the staff teams would have had to completely tank their individual chances to really shut out the messageboard as a group.

Love how you worked Nall in there.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

question about the QB squeeze did the staff make an effort to take as many QB's as a group in both leagues, in an effort to have some MB's team get stuck with very poor or no option at QB??

Yup, but the better messageboarders stocked up on WR talent during those rounds. The STAFF grossly overestimated the importance of the QB position.

sounds like classic over thinking it. In a 16 teamer that might have worked not in a 12 man league though.

The only way it would have worked would be if the individual teams weren't playing for an overall prize. While the staff chewed up the QB ranks to an extent, they couldn't completely deplete it as it would have required taking guys like this year's Harrington and Nall in the 9th and 10th rounds. Some of the staff teams would have had to completely tank their individual chances to really shut out the messageboard as a group.

Love how you worked Nall in there.

Bass has my back.

 

[ravnzfan]

I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday. Let me think harder on all of this over the weekend. I agree that we got great content both years against the Message Board.

We will do something here I am sure.

let me be the first to buy you a cold one, David

swill a couple of those puppies, while re-reading some of the threads regarding these drafts and hopefully you'll see there are many of us who do view this opportunity very seriously, and would act accordingly

 

[joffer]

question about the QB squeeze did the staff make an effort to take as many QB's as a group in both leagues, in an effort to have some MB's team get stuck with very poor or no option at QB??

I ended up with Collins/Gannon and Eli Manning. So basically I only had the Raiders's starting QB all year, and I still did pretty well.

 

[Unlucky]

I'm glad to have been a part of this, and I understand the reasons for not continuing. I'm sure there will be an opportunity for non-sanctioned staff vs. board competition.

 

[Tick]

I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday. Let me think harder on all of this over the weekend. I agree that we got great content both years against the Message Board.

We will do something here I am sure.

This isn't to kiss butt, but one of the reasons I really like Footballguys.com is that both David and Joe have a real respect for their customer base. I think it's cool of David to read the responses since his last post and then come on here to say he'd rethink it. Regardless of his final decision, I know it'll be a thoughtful one and not one of those 'I already said no so I can't change my mind now' sorts of things.

My reaction exactly. Whatever they come up with, I'm fine with.If it doesn't happen through an official thing, I'm willing to do it for free.

 

[Family Matters]

I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday. Let me think harder on all of this over the weekend. I agree that we got great content both years against the Message Board.

We will do something here I am sure.

Glad to see you're keeping an open mind about this. Most of us here will always do our part to honor our commitments and deliver at or above expectations. While it's disappointing to know there are some losers amung us, I welcome the opportunity to explore alternative means to handle problem posters in the future. Don't let it be your problem Daivd. We can make sure it gets done. Thanks again for reconsidering!

 

[Couch Potato]

I welcome the opportunity to explore alternative means to handle problem posters in the future. Don't let it be your problem Daivd. We can make sure it gets done.

As a viewer of "The Sopranos" I've got a few ideas how to handle this. Maybe a little whacking and spring cleaning is in order here.I've learned a few things from "24" too. Jack Bauer would get things done.

 

[Bri]

these kinda things can be "clicky" and I could see how that would annoy some folks.

David,

Without saying who was the bad apple is it possible you could say if post counts=good # of contributions to the writing process?

Wonderring if it's as simple as someone spends a zillion hours posting already and has the habit of writing about FF. That might favor the regulars but IMO there's nothing wrong with that

 

[wannabee]

these kinda things can be "clicky" and I could see how that would annoy some folks.

David,

Without saying who was the bad apple is it possible you could say if post counts=good # of contributions to the writing process?

Wonderring if it's as simple as someone spends a zillion hours posting already and has the habit of writing about FF. That might favor the regulars but IMO there's nothing wrong with that

Wow, Bri, you are a prolific poster. In a little over three years, you have almost 14,500 posts. That is impressive. You are averaging a good number of posts a day, each and every day. WOW!

 

[Bri]

these kinda things can be "clicky" and I could see how that would annoy some folks.

David,

Without saying who was the bad apple is it possible you could say if post counts=good # of contributions to the writing process?

Wonderring if it's as simple as someone spends a zillion hours posting already and has the habit of writing about FF. That might favor the regulars but IMO there's nothing wrong with that

Wow, Bri, you are a prolific poster. In a little over three years, you have almost 14,500 posts. That is impressive. You are averaging a good number of posts a day, each and every day. WOW!

I didn't know we could see. I thought only mods could.I'd bet there's others significantly higher esp in the FFA.

14.5k? WOW would I be slapped for not taking enough turns watching the baby if she saw that

 

[rzrback77]

I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday.  Let me think harder on all of this over the weekend.  I agree that we got great content both years against the Message Board. 

We will do something here I am sure.

This isn't to kiss butt, but one of the reasons I really like Footballguys.com is that both David and Joe have a real respect for their customer base. I think it's cool of David to read the responses since his last post and then come on here to say he'd rethink it. Regardless of his final decision, I know it'll be a thoughtful one and not one of those 'I already said no so I can't change my mind now' sorts of things.

My reaction exactly. Whatever they come up with, I'm fine with.Totally agree with Tick and CP's assessment. I too am confident that this will come about. Seeing as how the main complaint is that one or two slackers shirked their obligations after the draft, if Tick doesn't pick me as a participant, I would like to volunteer to be a substitute willing to document a team's picks after their draft, if that should happen again (it won't though by Tick's selected team).

If it doesn't happen through an official thing, I'm willing to do it for free.

 

[Tick]

these kinda things can be "clicky" and I could see how that would annoy some folks.

I think bostonfred did a good job with that last year.BassNBrew - don't think he's a clique guy

Evilgrin 72 - wasn't a clique guy at the time

Family Matters - non-shukie

Iwannabeacowboybaby - non-shukie

JoeT - clique guy

Ken Maxwell - not sure

LHUCKS - non-shukie

Ministry Of Pain - non-shukie

radballs - dunno

Tick - non-shukie

Unlucky - non-shukie

Not bad, really. They're well-known names around here and there's definitely some inbreeding there between No Mercy, Zealots, MOX, and the message board survivor leagues, but it's not a clique thing, I'd say.

 

[LHUCKS]

As far as I know I'm not a member of a clique. As a matter of fact I piss a lot of people off with my blunt style at times.

 

[Winning IS Everything]

I will be keeping an eye on this thread and would be interested in this. I have done some MBSL and was a contributer to the book/CD done a couple of years ago.

As far as the clique comments, I see what Bri is saying but that does not seem to be the case. The people that have been in on this are real quality posters.

 

[Sinrman]

these kinda things can be "clicky" and I could see how that would annoy some folks.

I think bostonfred did a good job with that last year.BassNBrew - don't think he's a clique guy

Evilgrin 72 - wasn't a clique guy at the time

Family Matters - non-shukie

Iwannabeacowboybaby - non-shukie

JoeT - clique guy

Ken Maxwell - not sure

LHUCKS - non-shukie

Ministry Of Pain - non-shukie

radballs - dunno

Tick - non-shukie

Unlucky - non-shukie

Not bad, really. They're well-known names around here and there's definitely some inbreeding there between No Mercy, Zealots, MOX, and the message board survivor leagues, but it's not a clique thing, I'd say.

I was in the first one, and I definitely wouldn't put myself in the "click" category. In fact, very few (if any) could be defined that way, IMO...

 

[Family Matters]

these kinda things can be "clicky" and I could see how that would annoy some folks.

David,

Without saying who was the bad apple is it possible you could say if post counts=good # of contributions to the writing process?

Wonderring if it's as simple as someone spends a zillion hours posting already and has the habit of writing about FF. That might favor the regulars but IMO there's nothing wrong with that

Not sure I follow the "clicky" aspect to this. I don't see it with the folks involved in this one. Just because the names are familiar it doesn't create a basis for a clique.If you're suggesting that number of posts makes some sort of qualifer for being able to write quality material then I would say that's not likely. Being a mass poster in no way qualifies anyone for anything other than being a mass poster.

Bri if I got you worng on this then my apologies but it sounded that way to me.