Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Ken Griswold has a change of heart
bananasnblondes
Member Posts: 15,430
As many who have frequented dawgman in the past and have since swarmed to this board know, the CEO has had a long standing dislike for "negative posting". Questions like "Why is a coach who can't win more than 5 conference games not on the hot seat?" and "Why are we still getting blown out 3 times a year?" were made by individuals who are just negative people and wanted to bring the board down with their negativity. In many cases, "other posters were starting to complain" to mods about such negativity posting the boards and it was necessary to have "deleted stuff".
It appears that Griswold has had a change of heart in this matter. After a new poster compared Coach Petersen's leadership to "watching the sinking of the Titanic" and that Petersen"forcing Miles out" and "not utilizing Kasen" showed a real "lack of integrity". To quote the poster, a "good coach would have built on the foundation left by the previous staff".
At first, the post seemed destined to sink as most disregarded it. Then the CEO chose to bump the post by responding "Let's see who bites on this".
After a few people voiced their agitation, this appeared signaling that Griswold has changed his mind regarding freedom of speech on his boards:
"Ignoring stuff is more effective than engaging, getting pissed, and complaining to the mods. There's always going to be those who have fun engaging. Recognize stuff for what it is. "
Kim Grinolds
Unfortunately,when some of us chose to "have fun engaging" in the past, were no longer allowed to "engage"
It appears that Griswold has had a change of heart in this matter. After a new poster compared Coach Petersen's leadership to "watching the sinking of the Titanic" and that Petersen"forcing Miles out" and "not utilizing Kasen" showed a real "lack of integrity". To quote the poster, a "good coach would have built on the foundation left by the previous staff".
At first, the post seemed destined to sink as most disregarded it. Then the CEO chose to bump the post by responding "Let's see who bites on this".
After a few people voiced their agitation, this appeared signaling that Griswold has changed his mind regarding freedom of speech on his boards:
"Ignoring stuff is more effective than engaging, getting pissed, and complaining to the mods. There's always going to be those who have fun engaging. Recognize stuff for what it is. "
Kim Grinolds
Unfortunately,when some of us chose to "have fun engaging" in the past, were no longer allowed to "engage"
Comments
Until that he is just talking shit and not smoking weed like Lane Kiffen.
If it had been about Romar or Sark he would have shitcanned the post and banned the poster.
You guys know better.
I'm guessing 81. FTFY
COOK IT!
Try to have an independent thought.
Why would he hate Petersen ?seriously?!
He's critical and rightly so. Kim spoke up a year ago about Petersen's recruiting efforts. Kim was frustrated over Petersen settling for lower level guys and not competing in California. It's clear so far Petersen is taking a different approach this year.
Kim called him out about game management, there were no personal attacks. Anyone with a pulse knows Petersen cost u guys the Arizona game.
And finally he was critical about ur final record, The team under performed so who should get the blame?
The only personal attacks going on is the scorched earth policy this board follows against anyone critical of Petersen.
But don't let that stop you from using terms like "scorched earth".
And Kim has reason enough to dislike Petersen when he says his TBS star-stroking job is a bunch of bullshit that his staff wants no part of.
Are you really that dumb or were you born yesterday? Everyone, including Kent (hi Kim) knows that fallacy holds zero water and is just a made up argument for those who get kicked out of Peterman's office. Peterman's first class, which he had less than 2 months to put it together, was ranked 35th and closed out with four 4star kids with an average star ranking of 3. Not spectacular but by any level-headed, impartial observer, a very solid first class, not even taking into account the extremely limited time period.
Comparing Peterman's class to Sark's 5th class is comparing apples to oranges. But you already knew that. Nevermind that Peterman signed as many 4star kids and a had a higher avg star ranking in his first full class than Sark did in his 5th. But if you want to compare apples to apples, Sark's 2009 class was ranked 66th, signed one 4star and averaged 2.5 stars per player. And that's without taking into account the benefit of hindsight, where we now know that the 2009 class is far, far worse than 66th in actual results.
But, I mean, 0-12, right?