Why? All nookie has to do is post a picture. There are all kind of free image hosting sites. Obviously, he is inventing a reason not to do so.
You wanna know why WSU is struggling???
- Thread starter BiggsCoug
- Start date
Why? All nookie has to do is post a picture. There are all kind of free image hosting sites. Obviously, he is inventing a reason not to do so.
Yes, I am going to make your lying ass pay me to post the truth for the world to see.
I've called your bluff. if i'm lying you get ten grand. Why do you hate money?
How much do you get? Do you even get an apology? Heck, how do I get a piece of the pie? Lets make it even more interesting. I am willing to buy in. I have full faith in you Chinook. Maybe the money goes to the athletic department.
Zero? Funny, I counted 14 posts you made mentioning Wulff in some fashion... just in this thread.
And I stopped at the top of page three.
Do you really lack this much self-awareness? Who cares if you start it, when you're ALWAYS the one continuing it?
What did I lie about? Your 700 posts on dawgman?
What am I supposed to be paying you for? Free image hosting?
Kind of like how Ed says he doesn't reply to posts by me or Yaki, then responds to someone else with what he would have posted in response to a post by me or Yaki.
This is a very odd tangent to this discussion.
Why would anyone pay you to post a picture of yourself and Jake Rodgers again?
And what does this boil down to? You stating Rodgers felt he got run out of WSU? Doesn't sound like it from this interview, but I suppose he could have been saying different things behind closed doors. Honestly, why does it even matter?
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sportslink/2013/may/23/rodgers-explains-decision-leave-wsu/
Because I lied about the coaches wanting Rodgers to stay, even though Rodgers told Caple that. Maybe Caple is going to sue me for slander too?
You know you cost me money! Nookie was going to put ten grand on this!
No self awareness if fine. Trying to post on this system not so much. Let me retype. How many times have I brought up Wulff in a post I originated. That would be zero. Yeah, I'll chime in when you say something foolish, which is most of the time with regards to Wulff. Pretty simple, he didn't work out, whether I think he was a good coach, bad, coach, or somewhere in the middle it doesn't matter. He is gone and you still want to bring up when JA was booted, as was three of Leach's players for off field stuff while at Tech. You want to Bring up players whether they were run or not. Nookie said rodges felt like he was. So? Players leave/quit all the time. Happened under Wulff, happened under Leach. And you seem to be naïve to think otherwise. Yes, Leach has run players. Make no mistake about it. It is what coaches have to do. You can't be stuck with players that don't either fit your system or you don't believe they can play.
Fab, it only matters when a person sitting behind a terminal calls a person a liar. Nothing more, nothing less. I am many things, but a liar isn't one of them. So when someone says that to me, when someone tells me how I am making stuff up, see Chris Ball story, sure I would defend that aspect of my personality to the nth degree. On that one, I would be more than happy to share the source to someone in private but not many folks that can be trusted around here. But back to the original point, I am sure that is Rodgers take. I am sure Monroe has a different take than I or coach Leach. It is human nature.
Wulff's record is proof that you're foolish to defend him, not me to criticize him.
So, does that mean you now are of the opinion that the coaches wanted Rodgers to stay?
Oh I have been on that side of it, so yeah I will jump in on it when you make huge assumptions.
Rodgers mostly raved about being part of a championship culture and atmosphere and how it was an environment better suited to him. He did not bash Leach or coaches directly. He did not like the atmosphere of coaching change.
I will say this... and I was going to post this under the slick Rick practice thread: The practice we watched at WSU was extremely well organized, spirited, productive. Nobody stood around. Everybody moved with urgency and a sense of purpose. Players seemed happy on the field.
I will say this... and I was going to post this under the slick Rick practice thread: The practice we watched at WSU was extremely well organized, spirited, productive. Nobody stood around. Everybody moved with urgency and a sense of purpose. Players seemed happy on the field.
Only in your world does calling what clearly sounds like a recruiting visit a recruiting visit comprise a "huge assumption"- for most people, it's just common sense.
That doesn't sound like "WSU coaches didn't want him back".
So do we call that an ... adjustment to your earlier story? Coaches wanted him to stay. He wanted to leave. Like I posted yesterday.
Nah, it
Correct, publicly it sounds that way. All Chinook is telling you is he told "the kids" something else during their time together. Not sure why that is so unbelievable. With the amount of defections not sure why that is hard to believe.
You know, dan rowlands publicly said it was a shoulder that prevented him from playing his senior year. Someone told me 4th hand he didn't like Wulff. Would that surprise me if that was true? Nope.
Fergawdsakes, read what HE JUST posted. He's specifically saying that Rodgers didn't say anything different than the article- there was no "the coaches wanted me out" talk.
I miss the little emoticon with the laughing rolling head.
Glad this took 300 some odd posts to get cleared up.
Next best emoticon… not quite the same.
There is a word for what Ed does on this message board: SPAM.
Says on the card the judges would have also accepted "fiction".
His
First, again what you assumed from the story that it was a recruiting "visit" i believe would have been a recruiting violation on the behalf of Baldwin, no? Second, if what Chinook originally said versus what he clarified to be what was said, if there is no more detail it is unfortunate, misleading, and I am being kind as to the adjective as to why he would say the coaches didn't want him back versus he made a conscience decision to leave cause he wasn't happy. Often things are said in private versus public, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Very unfortunate that the truth would apparently be compromised.
Ed, can I just interject this one thing… If there is someone that is talking about "private" conversations, and doing so in a public atmosphere… IMHO, isn't that a bad sign? Regardless of whatever was said, not said, done, not done. Whatever. This whole thing is Fishie making a private conversation, public. Is that someone you want to stand up for and defend? Also, isn't that foundationally, a sign that he'll say just about anything? Just a thought.
And with yet another obsessive reply to my posts, are you your big sis's stalker designee/proxy? That aside, I'm happy I helped you put together a complete sentence. God knows you need the help.
Another laughing and rolling head. What is the next category Alex? LMFAO. Lord have mercy...I'm dying here.
Last edited:
First, the way it was presented it didn't seem like a private conversation. It sounds like there were multiple people in the room, and if it was BAldwins office he sure seemed like he would be privy to the conversation. Second, I had zero reason to believe he was not accurate,or misleading, or flat out lying. Not sure why he would bring it up, give particulars, then recant.
But the original objection wasn't about what was truthful or accurate, but rather how Wulffui characterized the whole interaction. There has been numberous occasions when I am simply at a table, or I get a text, and next thing I know I am giving information regarding Cougar football that I never asked about, never crossed my mind, but just came out in a general conversation. I am not sure why Wulffui would characterize it in any manner other than he was tod something. In this case something different the second time he posted it versus the first time. But I would be pretty shocked if Beau Baldwin would allow access to someone where he is committing a violation.
Could it be because... THATS EXACTLY HOW HE CHARACTERIZED IT? Because that's why I framed it that way. You chose to go off on some flight of imagination about them being best friends, instead.
You should actually read what he's saying, rather than skimming it so you can start off a half-cocked rant about me 10 seconds sooner.
As for recruiting violations, don't kids take unofficial visits all the time? Where is a violation?
Your Ed obsession is second only to dgibbons. In fact, I think maybe you have surpassed him.
Last edited:
Again, no he didn't characterize it where he
No...actually he actually characterized it as "that's not what he told me". Then you write "pure class", as if you were privy to the conversation. Then you went on how it was reporter like, if I recall correctly. He simply said that is not what Rodgers told him. You went off about fantasy recruits etc. I believe during the evaluation period, if took place in the spring it is off limits for a recruitable athlete to take that type of visit.
No, I said your idiotic "maybe it happened like this" question was reporter like. (It was. It was stilted, redundant- not a way one human person would address another human person... except in your imagination. And now, we know, DEFINITELY not how the Nookie-Rodgers/Baldwin meeting went.) And "not what he told me" was a direct response to something else, which, again, you continue to ignore, and WHICH WASN'T TRUE ANYWAYS. But keep making stuff up.
