Jets named Kacy Rodgers their defensive coordinator.
If the Dolphins were smart, they would've ousted Kevin Coyle and made Rodgers their defensive coordinator. Instead, Rodgers departs to re-team with Todd Bowles. Both are Bill Parcells disciples. One of the top D-Line gurus in football, Rodgers coached up Olivier Vernon, Cam Wake, and Jared Odrick in Miami, while getting career-best years from Randy Starks and Paul Soliai.

Dolphins were dumb when they did not give the Head Coaching Job to THEN ACTING HEAD COACH TODD BOWLES and instead went out of their way to get Wooden Head Joe Philbin.

Yeah I liked Bowles too. Unfortunately we are about to find out just how good he is.

mizzou15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah I liked Bowles too. Unfortunately we are
> about to find out just how good he is.


Or not...maybe.

ncfishfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jets named Kacy Rodgers their defensive
> coordinator.
> If the Dolphins were smart, they would've ousted
> Kevin Coyle and made Rodgers their defensive
> coordinator. Instead, Rodgers departs to re-team
> with Todd Bowles. Both are Bill Parcells
> disciples. One of the top D-Line gurus in
> football, Rodgers coached up Olivier Vernon, Cam
> Wake, and Jared Odrick in Miami, while getting
> career-best years from Randy Starks and Paul
> Soliai.


I don't see a quote or link in that rant.

We know you think he's dumb. We know it so well that all your posts should be automatically dumped into a "Failbum" sticky to save the rest of us from have to read yet another version of your monotonous babble.

I was in favor of making a move to bring in a new coach. I felt Joe wasn't anything special as a HC even if he wasn't/isn't nearly as incompetent as you and a few others would prefer him to be. I was going to be riding out the string this year waiting for him to get sent packing.

I was.


Congratulations. You've single-handedly managed to turn an average (at best) coach into a sympathetic figure whose success I will now be rooting for if only for the dream of the sound I imagine your exploding head will make when he gets an extension.

No, Philbin is not even an "average" coach. He is historically bad. I've seen players lose games but only with Philbin have I seen a COACH lose games by giving the opposing team an opportunity to beat us. That's number 101, dolphaholic.

Philbin is horrible, no doubt. But this Failbum thread stuff is getting old.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Let me ask you berk, what would have been your response had the thread been entitled, "Philbin is dumb because Rodgers joins jets."?

I mean is it the word "Failbum" that bothers you.

We know BigNastyFish has his names for Philbin and Ross. No one seems to strike out against him.

I mean, is it part of the "Well, Philbin is here for a year, so let's stop talking about it" syndrome?

We are chatboard talkers. It's what we do. NC talked about a Jet signing and it was both a current and discussable issue BECAUSE even almost everyone on this board was calling for Coyle's head and instead Philbin did nothing when apparently now a good prospect for replacing Coyle as DC just went to a rival in our division.

You really don't think that is worthy of discussion?????

Or is it the "Failbum" term that annoys you?

Is it possible to separate the two? I think it is.

Every single thread this guy posts is exactly the same. That's my complaint

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Remember when every post of dolphin was to criticize Tannehill? He got over it and now discusses a lot of things.

I only responded when someone else talked how great he was, but that person is gone now.

I'm not sure about Philpin....I really want him to be a good head coach, but like ChryenB I think he lost many games for us.

I played the ole ESPN football game (it rocked) and even on there I learned you don't call time outs for the other team as it will come back to bite you.....I last a game or 2 like that.

thanks chyren...berk is being a baby...i'm posting relevant info and offering an opinion...it's what makes a chat board lively

Historically bad? smh.

How about John Hard blow? Lost his OC and QB coach. Teams lose coaches every year.

This thread is a fail, bum!

WAAAH!!!!

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

ncfishfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanks chyren...berk is being a baby...i'm posting
> relevant info and offering an opinion.


No you aren't.

You are starting new "Failbum" thread after new "Failbum" thread to spam the site and troll for responses.

Just in this threads title you claimed someone called Philbin "dumb" when Rodgers left for the Jets DC job. No link, no quote, no mention of who called him dumb. Nothing. Just like most of your posts...NOTHING.

The fact that you started this thread a whole WEEK after Rodgers actually took the job and that in this case, as well as with nearly every other thread you start, you felt your comments needed their own thread and couldn't be bothered to add your comments to any of the existing threads on the subject only proves that you are trolling.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> The fact that you started this thread ...... and
> couldn't be bothered to add your comments to any
> of the existing threads on the subject only proves
> that you are trolling.
>
> RESPONSE: You young people do not know what a
> troll is. We who were under 10 years old in the
> 50's were read classic fairy tales by our parents.
> Don't parents DO THAT ANYMORE?
>
> A troll was a monster in fairy tales who lived
> under bridges (wooden bridges in the Middle Ages)
> and jumped out and pounced on people who came by.
>
> Applying that definition to chatboard, THAT MEANS
> A TROLL IS SOMEONE WHO AWAITS a posting by A
> PARTICULAR POSTER AND JUMPS ON THAT POST.
>
> It does NOT apply to someone who continually posts
> on one subject, even starting threads. It's a
> logical contradiction. A troll does not solicit
> his victims, he pounces on them when they come to
> him. So there is no such thing as "trolling for a
> response." I'm surprised that even some older
> members (in age, not in participation) of this
> board who should know better use the term
> "trolling for a response."
>
> The man (ncfishfan) is expressing his opinion.
> You don't have to agree. You don't even have to
> respond. If you violently disagree, then say so.
> All these attacks on the fact that this guy starts
> threads criticizing Philbin whenever he gets a
> chance are not going to stop him and really
> shouldn't because what YOU are doing amounts to
> board censorship, and being those snide kids in
> the elementary class who tried to bully other kids
> until me and my best buddy, as law enforcement
> people do, bullied the bullies.


But why does he have to start a new thread saying the same thing every time?

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > THE Truth Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > The fact that you started this thread ......
> and
> > couldn't be bothered to add your comments to
> any
> > of the existing threads on the subject only
> proves
> > that you are trolling.
> >
> > RESPONSE: You young people do not know what a
> > troll is. We who were under 10 years old in
> the
> > 50's were read classic fairy tales by our
> parents.
> > Don't parents DO THAT ANYMORE?
> >
> > A troll was a monster in fairy tales who lived
> > under bridges (wooden bridges in the Middle
> Ages)
> > and jumped out and pounced on people who came
> by.
> >
> > Applying that definition to chatboard, THAT
> MEANS
> > A TROLL IS SOMEONE WHO AWAITS a posting by A
> > PARTICULAR POSTER AND JUMPS ON THAT POST.
> >
> > It does NOT apply to someone who continually
> posts
> > on one subject, even starting threads. It's a
> > logical contradiction. A troll does not
> solicit
> > his victims, he pounces on them when they come
> to
> > him. So there is no such thing as "trolling for
> a
> > response." I'm surprised that even some older
> > members (in age, not in participation) of this
> > board who should know better use the term
> > "trolling for a response."
> >
> > The man (ncfishfan) is expressing his opinion.
> > You don't have to agree. You don't even have
> to
> > respond. If you violently disagree, then say
> so.
> > All these attacks on the fact that this guy
> starts
> > threads criticizing Philbin whenever he gets a
> > chance are not going to stop him and really
> > shouldn't because what YOU are doing amounts to
> > board censorship, and being those snide kids in
> > the elementary class who tried to bully other
> kids
> > until me and my best buddy, as law enforcement
> > people do, bullied the bullies.
>
>
> But why does he have to start a new thread saying
> the same thing every time?


Because he's trolling for a reaction and a new thread with a long/flashy headline gets more views than a post buried in an older discussion.

Bob, of all people should understand this. Its the same ego driven reason he's complained in the past about merged threads, inappropriate moderating of his thoughts, and and posters hijacking "his" threads.

It doesn't surprise me that a poster who sees boogeymen and conspiracies in each contrary post, or in any new poster, would seize onto the "monster" connotation of the phrase "trolling". But I'd have thought a man of his age would have been "fishing" once or twice in his lifetime.

Oh, and Bob...I never said he shouldn't post here. But I am suggesting that he should stop trolling for responses to his hate of all things Philbin by starting dumb threads simply to draw attention to himself. That he'd be better suited simply participating in the conversations and expressing his opinions. You know...basically the same stance I had with dolphin when you were trying to run him off the board for being a "pats fan/Troll".

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every single thread this guy posts is exactly the
> same. That's my complaint

Chyren: This pretty much explained the issue at hand...but while were on the subject of trolling....Why do you feel the need to jump all over Truth on EVERY single post he writes? That is sort of the definition we are talking about isn't it?

It seems as if it doesn't matter what the subject is, you have something negative or nasty to say about The Truth. Your signature even bears the negative connotation. That seems a bit obsessive, IMO. By your very definition of the term, you seem to be doing the exact same thing.

I'm not trying to jump on your back and don't want to pick a fight. I just think maybe it's time to let bygones be bygones. Don't ya think?

"Trolling" carries many meanings in a forum like this....

Following people around and picking at every thing they say...

Making statements just to get a negative reactions....relating to fishing....trolling you bait in the water, waiting for a response.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> The fact that you started this thread ...... and
> couldn't be bothered to add your comments to any
> of the existing threads on the subject only proves
> that you are trolling.
>
> RESPONSE: You young people do not know what a
> troll is. We who were under 10 years old in the
> 50's were read classic fairy tales by our parents.
> Don't parents DO THAT ANYMORE?
>
> A troll was a monster in fairy tales who lived
> under bridges (wooden bridges in the Middle Ages)
> and jumped out and pounced on people who came by.
>
> Applying that definition to chatboard, THAT MEANS
> A TROLL IS SOMEONE WHO AWAITS a posting by A
> PARTICULAR POSTER AND JUMPS ON THAT POST.
>
> It does NOT apply to someone who continually posts
> on one subject, even starting threads. It's a
> logical contradiction. A troll does not solicit
> his victims, he pounces on them when they come to
> him. So there is no such thing as "trolling for a
> response." I'm surprised that even some older
> members (in age, not in participation) of this
> board who should know better use the term
> "trolling for a response."
>
> The man (ncfishfan) is expressing his opinion.
> You don't have to agree. You don't even have to
> respond. If you violently disagree, then say so.
> All these attacks on the fact that this guy starts
> threads criticizing Philbin whenever he gets a
> chance are not going to stop him and really
> shouldn't because what YOU are doing amounts to
> board censorship, and being those snide kids in
> the elementary class who tried to bully other kids
> until me and my best buddy, as law enforcement
> people do, bullied the bullies.


If i'm not mistaken Joe was talking about the above post, this was the first time in this thread that either one of you guys addressed each other, you quoted The Truth and then went on a tangent about the meaning of "trolling". The Truth could say the sky is blue and you would try to make him look stupid over it.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > THE Truth Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > The fact that you started this thread ......
> and
> > couldn't be bothered to add your comments to
> any
> > of the existing threads on the subject only
> proves
> > that you are trolling.
> >
> > RESPONSE: You young people do not know what a
> > troll is. We who were under 10 years old in
> the
> > 50's were read classic fairy tales by our
> parents.
> > Don't parents DO THAT ANYMORE?
> >
> > A troll was a monster in fairy tales who lived
> > under bridges (wooden bridges in the Middle
> Ages)
> > and jumped out and pounced on people who came
> by.
> >
> > Applying that definition to chatboard, THAT
> MEANS
> > A TROLL IS SOMEONE WHO AWAITS a posting by A
> > PARTICULAR POSTER AND JUMPS ON THAT POST.
> >
> > It does NOT apply to someone who continually
> posts
> > on one subject, even starting threads. It's a
> > logical contradiction. A troll does not
> solicit
> > his victims, he pounces on them when they come
> to
> > him. So there is no such thing as "trolling for
> a
> > response." I'm surprised that even some older
> > members (in age, not in participation) of this
> > board who should know better use the term
> > "trolling for a response."
> >
> > The man (ncfishfan) is expressing his opinion.
> > You don't have to agree. You don't even have
> to
> > respond. If you violently disagree, then say
> so.
> > All these attacks on the fact that this guy
> starts
> > threads criticizing Philbin whenever he gets a
> > chance are not going to stop him and really
> > shouldn't because what YOU are doing amounts to
> > board censorship, and being those snide kids in
> > the elementary class who tried to bully other
> kids
> > until me and my best buddy, as law enforcement
> > people do, bullied the bullies.
>
>
> If i'm not mistaken Joe was talking about the
> above post, this was the first time in this thread
> that either one of you guys addressed each other,
> you quoted The Truth and then went on a tangent
> about the meaning of "trolling". The Truth could
> say the sky is blue and you would try to make him
> look stupid over it.

The sky is blue...