How Good Is The Offense? Are We Really Asking This?
Emotionally, this is an odd week for me. I find that I don't care about Ohio State at all. They're a very good team that's going to win in a not-that-competitive game on Saturday, like they always do. I get irritated at the hurr hurr coming from the Ohio State blogosphere but mostly because Michigan's so far from their level that it seems like a waste of time.
My hate still exists but it's focused internally, as the emails pile up and message boards pile on because I have the audacity to say if it was my decision I'd keep Rich Rodriguez on the condition he reshapes the defensive staff in such a way that we can expect them to do one boring thing reasonably well. I've explained why. In a sentence, the offense is excellent and should maintain that level over the next two years as the defense digs itself out from a massive hole.
This has caused the wing of the Michigan fanbase that thinks keeping Rodriguez is absolutely insane to search high and low for various metrics in which Michigan doesn't rate well. They can't take any of the basic stats...
| Category |
National Rank |
Actual |
National Leader |
Actual |
Conf Rank |
Big Ten Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense | 10 | 257.36 | Georgia Tech | 319.36 | 1 | Michigan | 257.36 |
| Passing Offense | 30 | 257.18 | Hawaii | 391.18 | 2 | Indiana | 283.27 |
| Total Offense | 5 | 514.55 | Oklahoma St. | 552 | 1 | Michigan | 514.55 |
| Scoring Offense | 15 | 36.82 | Oregon | 50.7 | 3 | Wisconsin | 40.91 |
| Sacks Allowed | T-11 | 0.91 | Stanford | 0.36 | 1 | Penn St. | 0.91 |
…and they certainly can't take any of the advanced metrics that rank Michigan second* and fifth nationally, so they resort to things like in-conference points per drive. Michigan is tied for third in the league in that metric.
If you are using this stat, you have decided that Rich Rodriguez should go and are backfilling reasons. If you're trying to downplay Michigan's second-half points against Iowa, Penn State and Wisconsin, you're doing the same thing. Michigan got back in those games by scoring often and quickly, by bombing away. Michigan scoring drives against Wisconsin lasted 3:57, 0:22, 2:19, and 2:57. They could do this because defenses were aligned to stop Michigan's powerful ground game even with big second-half leads, which is why Denard Robinson racked up a bunch of deep completions against single-covered WRs in the second half. Prevent defenses do not give up sixty yard touchdowns to tight ends, as Penn State did.
The whole reason the FO stats exist is to smooth out differences in opportunities and schedule strength as best they can and they indicate that whatever problems Michigan has don't include being the nation's #15 scoring offense against a schedule with two real nonconference opponents and without Northwestern (82nd in FEI D) and Minnesota (98th).
David Brandon's got a tough decision ahead of him—something it only seems that people who are still in favor of Rodriguez returning acknowledge—because the offense is elegantly constructed and deadly. Michigan's quarterback couldn't throw a pass straight in the first half and the receivers couldn't catch it when he did, but they still ended the day with more points than any Michigan team had scored against Wisconsin since 1990. The 31 they put up on Penn State were the most since 2000. They're solidly in the top five of the best metrics available with two seniors and a sophomore quarterback. They're going to obliterate the best rushing YPC mark Carr put up since the turn of the century by over a yard and finish in the top 20 in passing efficiency.
Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic. Period. I'm tired of being vilified for using numbers in non-abusive ways, but that's what we've come to. My hate week is about other Michigan fans.
*(FEI ranks Michigan second but has not been updated for last Week's games. Since Michigan put up a touchdown better than Wisconsin's scoring average any drop from Michigan will be minimal.)
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^
I'm totally with you on this Brian. It's the difference between reason and rationale. Bile and indigestion cause angry fans to use whatever metric serves their purpose.
Dear Abby used to say, when pressed to solve a romantic complication, that the right question is "are you better off witih him than without him?" In this case, I say definitely with - changing now means another period wandering through the forest waiting for the program to knit itself back into a coherent high-functioning whole, and here's the thing
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THE NEXT GUY WOULD BE ANY BETTER.
In the meantime, I vote for the guy with one of the best offenses around - give him one chance to get his defense together.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
Brian
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^
I wholeheartedly cosign this entire post. Harbaugh's excellence as a candidate is the only reason to consider firing RR.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^
because you think a better one will come to you doesn't work out well sometimes.
Sincerely,
Notre Dame
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^
I agree. I'm not endorsing Harbaugh over RR nor vice versa, merely supporting Brian's point that Brandon has a difficult decision to make. I think Brandon has two excellent options to choose from.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
We are not 100% sure that said second option is actually an option though. People assume Harbaugh would move from Stanford to Michigan. Recall a few years ago when everyone assumed Miles, who called Michigan his "dream job", would jump at the chance to take the Michigan job?
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^
he was never offered it.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:30 PM ^
Michigan's offensive struggles in the first half are, in my opinion, a reflection of the defense. I don't have the time to put these types of stats together, but I'd bet an American dollar Michigan has one of the ten worst average starting field positions in the country. Wisconsin put up 83 points against Indiana, scored on every drive, had one defensive touchdown, and racked up 598 offensive yards. They had 10(!) touchdown drives and two field goal drives, which averaged just under 50 yards per drive.
Michigan had 574 yards against a healthier version of Indiana, and put up 42 points. Michigan had 12 offensive drives, and averaged 47.8 yards per drive.
These are comparing just one game, but Michigan keeps getting the ball way back in their end because the defense almost never forces punts deep in the opponent's end (or punts at all, for that matter). Wisconsin kept getting the ball in great spots and took advantage.
The offense is already elite, and with an average defense could be really special on the scoreboard. The real knock on Rodriguez and his staff, other than the record, is really the inability to keep players on the roster. Too many highly rated guys have left for whatever reason to call it a fluke or bad luck.
I'm on the fence about what to do after the season ends. Michigan hasn't been able to play with good teams at all for Rodriguez's entire tenure, and another not competitive loss may be my breaking point--not that my opinion matters.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:30 PM ^
How do our offensive stats compare to other teams if you only count games in the last half of the season, after teams have accumulated enough film on Denard to plan an effective defensive plan against him?
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^
Also, how do our offensive stats compare if we remove drives in which Michigan scored or gained yards? Then we'd really know how bad we are.
| Oct. 16 | Iowa | 28 | |
| Oct. 30 | at Penn State | 31 | |
| Nov. 6 | Illinois | 67 | |
| Nov. 13 | at Purdue | 27 | |
| Nov. 20 | Wisconsin | 28 |
That's still a lot of points, yo. And with a decent defense, many of those are wins.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
If I'm reading this correctly, your hypothesis is "More Film = lower offensive production." If we want to investigate that claim, we can do so without comparing UM to other teams, simply by comparing it to itself. I tallied the (points for) and (total yards) for each game and averaged them.
If your assumption is correct, we expect that teams with more film will allow fewer points and fewer yards than each team previous, since they've got more film to use to figure the offense out.
Stats taken from ESPN box scores:
UCONN 30 pts, 473 yds
ND 28 pts, 532 yds
UMASS 42 pts 525 yds
BG 65 pts, 721
IND 42 pts 574 yds
MSU 17 pts 377 yds
IOWA 28 pts 522 yds
PSU 31 pts 423 yds
ILL 45 pts (reg) ~ 600 yds (total was 676)
PUR 27 pts, 395 yds
WISC 28 pts 442 yds
MEAN Points for: 35 total yards: ~500
MEAN(Big10) 31 pts., total yards ~476
MEAN(Big10-PUR) points for: 32, total yards: ~490 (Removed becasue weather was so different from most other games)
1. I don't think the data supports your hypothesis that more film -> less offense. Wisconsin had a LOT more film than MSU against more "quality" opponents, so we would expect a MUCH better day from the Wisconsin D. Yet MSU was able to put a lid on the Michigan Offense more adeptly than Wisconsin, Iowa, or PSU. Also, teams like ILL got crushed by UMs offense despite having lots of film showing the UM Offense having "bad" days vs. MSU, IOWA, and PSU.
2. There seems to be a slight downward trend as the season trails off, but more data would be required to determine if A. it is a real effect or my perception, and B. whether this is explained entirely by increased quality of our opponents defenses.
3. take with a grain of salt, as this has a small sample size and does not take into account the quality of opponent defense. I assume that teams like MSU, PSU, IOWA, and WISC and ILL are all roughly equivalent on defense, which is probably not true.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
I would feel rather sheepish if you were just asking a dumb rhetorical question.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:33 PM ^
I have no doubt, DB has decided to give RR another year UNLESS the team is humiliated in their last two games. Tressel will not pour it on because he wants to keep RR as the Michigan coach. OS is out recruiting us and last few games between us have not been competitive. So it is safe to assume OS will keep the score down but just enough to impress the BOwl representatives.
The bowl opponent for Michigan may pose an entirely different problem. Whoever it may be, they would like nothing better than to give Michigan a good drubbing which would enhance their stature. With Michigan's porous defense, the margin of defeat will be fairly significant assuming Michigan is invited to a respectable bowl.
The argument that the offensive is so good and as a result we should keep RR assumes losing to quality opponents is acceptable ("Hey we scored a lot of points but we lost"). Seriously, is that acceptable to any elite football program? I think not. Football games are won on offense, defensive, special teams and coaching. If Michigan is happy being competent in only one of those factors, the program is doomed.
Make no mistake, RR knows offense but little else in winning football games. But for Pat White where would RR be today? Certainly not the Michigan coach.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:15 PM ^
Michigan has a lot of banged up players, in particular Denard. I suspect the bowl game will feature the offense's best performance of the season. Now maybe that won't be enough to outscore the opposition, but I'm actually looking forward to the bowl game.
BTW, without Andrew Luck where would Jim Harbaugh be likely to coach next year?
November 24th, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^
You lost me at "Tressel will not pour it on because he wants to keep RR as the Michigan coach"...
November 24th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
Yeah, just like he didn't pour it on in '08 cuz he's a classy guy... oh wait.
It's The Game - "sweep the leg" rules the day
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:36 PM ^
Every Michigan fan is dissatisfied with the team's record the past three (or more) years. Every Michigan fan recognizes the defense is really poor and has a long way to go.
But this is The Ohio State Week. Our knives should be turned outward. The amount of negativity, complaining, etc. is really sickening. I can't even stand to be on the other boards.
I'm going to Columbus on Saturday. I don't usually go to away games and haven't been to the Shoe since the mid-90s. But I decided to go this year. I wanted to support our team - both the players and the coaches - in the way they deserve.
There is time for discussing our coaching staff. Personally, I'm about where Brian is on this issue. Make changes on the defensive side, but don't get rid of RR. But whether or not I think the entire staff should be fired, THIS IS NOT THE WEEK for it.
An Ohio State alum, Chris Spielman, takes a shot at our defense, and the number of fans who can't agree with him fast enough just makes me want to throw up. He's a BUCKEYE, dissing MICHIGAN on the week of the game. How could any Michgan fan possibly give comfort to that this week.
Go Blue! Beat the Buckeyes!
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
Sorry dude, Michigan's defense blows something fierce. 33.5 ppg allowed really is awful.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:33 PM ^
I think I know who this is. Good points here; I would have expected nothing less.
November 23rd, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
Nice avatar! Made me smile.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
This entire blog is delusional.
There are 110,000 seats and new luxury boxes to fill. Only a small minority of those people are reading this blog to feel better about the current situation.
It's not about satisfying the die-hards, its about satisfying the rest. Normal fans dont have time to keep up with recruiting, attrition, injuries, etc. They look at 3-9, 5-7, 7-4, and almost every record broken (in a bad way).
There are simply no positives from RRod's tenure at Michigan from a team standpoint (individual records mean jack). Your everyday fan believes this (who fills the stadium and buys the gear), and they see a better alternative out there in Jim Harbaugh.
And quite honestly, if JH were to take over, the cupboard would not be bare, and there would be a strong foundation for future success.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^
Brian's conclusion, taken literally, is obviously right -- those arguing that the offense is a reason not to retain Rod are raving lunatics.
If he meant it literally, fine, but that really isn't what the offensive analysis was trying to determine. The real question is whether the offense is good enough to outweigh the disasters in every other part of the program. And the reason this question is being asked isn't to rip on the offense, or Rod's management of it; it's because the defense is beyond abysmal, in every facet.
Let's hear whythe offense is good enough to outweigh the disasters that accompany it. Then we can talk apples and apples.
I simply don't fear the transition to another coach and what it MIGHT do to the offense. The spread is a mainstream offense all the coaches know about and can easily learn about. Forcier and Gardner and, almost certainly, Shoelace are eminiently capable of running offenses mildly different than the one they're running now. Hopkins and Touissant have between the tackles running ability and the outside receivers and tight ends can easily function in a modified offense. As can the offensive line.
I'd gladly trade a mild retreat on offense for a revised defensive coaching staff and philosophy, since the ones we have now are the most epic of fail.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^
Is that this poses no real solution to the defensive problem. It's easy to say the defense sucks and another coach would be better at molding our defense, but that doesn't address any of the real issues. I believe the reason people with this viewpoint don't offer a realistic solution is because there isn't a realistic immediate fix.
Will Muschamp and Kirby Smart put together couldn't mold this talent and experience into a much better unit. They would still be near the bottom of the conference simply because of what they're working with. You can dress up a turd in a tuxedo, but it's still a turd. Schematic advantages wouldn't change the fact that Wisconsin was bigger, stronger, more experienced, and is running their offense to near perfection.
Rich Rodriguez, without a doubt, runs a great offense. But just like 2008, nobody was turning those guys, with the lack of talent & depth and the severity of injuries to guys like Minor, Schilling, etc., into a good offense. I see many parallels to this defense.
If you can offer a solution, I'd be more inclined to see your point. You state our offense may take a mild step back because we have the talent to make a slightly different offense work. Fine. But we aren't taking a dramatic step forward next year just because we have a new head coach. Period. If someone wants to explain how disrupting our recruitment, bringing in a new coach (who would then have to install a new scheme for the 3rd time in 4 years), and changing our offense would make us better, I'm all ears. But I've been all ears all season and no one has even made a remotely reasonable argument.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:11 PM ^
Is it about the next 2 years, or is it about the next 20 years?
So far, we have many data points on Rich Rod from his Michigan tenure. Recruits well offensively, does not recruit well defensively. Poor special teams play a 3-year staple. Repeatedly makes the same decisions which haven't worked before (attempting FGs, running Smith on 3rd and 1, playing Ezeh at MLB, insisting on 3-3-5, interesting end of half game management).
In my opinion, there is ample evidence to conclude that while the next two years will see better records, over the next decade Michigan's ceiling will be quite lower than ths blog's trajectories will put it. He does not recruit well defensively, and the 3-star brigade will not be ending soon, and just isn't defensive or ST focused.
There is a coach out there (cough JH cough), who has proven he's worth at least a chance at Michigan that we are probably passing up on out of arrogance.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
Whether you support Rodriquez or not, transition to a traditional offense will take time because the players on the roster have no experience with it at the college level and most of them are particularly suited for it. Plus a new staff will be using almost the personnel on defense.
I think Brian provided lots of reasons why this offense is exceptional. You are choosing to ignore them.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:18 AM ^
Mark Dantonio seems to have been able to turn the trick fairly quickly. I think it's much easier to go from a spread to a traditional offense than it is the other way around.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:56 PM ^
Brain's point is that people expressing "concern" about the offense using the somewhat obscure stats from the fp'd diary are operating in bad faith and are really just interested in justifying their belief that RichRod should be fired. You respond by...expressing "concern" about the offense and advocating for firing RichRod.
So, heckuva job you.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
We can not take pages from Notre Dame and Nebraska by firing our coaches every three years and not allowing them time to build a program. It would be one thing if RR had success with Carr's players and continued to do worse with each recruiting class, but clearly his worst year was year one and the progress our offense has made cannot be denied. As frustrating as the defense has been, the whole program will be set back another half decade if Brandon let's RR go and tries to bring in a new coach with a new system. The proof is there people, and the defense will come around.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:49 PM ^
Except installing new systems doesn't have to take as long as it has for RR. Dantonio took MSU from a spread to a pro-style, and Lloyd Carr installed a spread for the Florida bowl game with great success. Don't let 3-9 and 5-7 fool you into thinking all coaches need to sacrifice two years to make a system work. Besides, spread fundamentals are ubiquitous in football today.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^
Brian's chosen profession sucks right now. As consumers of the blog we have the opportunity to just STFU if we so choose. Brian is not afforded that opportunity. Instead he must suffer fools and blowhards alike as they either look to someone to reinforce their dissenting opinion or announce that they know more about what it takes to correct "the problem" despite the fact that they have no idea. Brian has a different opinion which he states on his blog 'cause, you know, it's his blog and people blast him for disagreeing.
Despite the ban on politics on this site, the Referendum on Rodriguez has reached the point where it is a purely political discussion. Everyone has made their mind up, but none of us has a vote to cast. So we all just wriggle and writhe in wretched rye.
Being Holden Caulfield fucking sucks. Keep your head up, B; my second Manhanttan of the night will be for you.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:45 PM ^
Like the Chris Spielman interview from Stoney and Bill today, too many "fans," bloggers, and media "personalities" are posting stats and posing "questions" that are really just not-so-cleverly disguised "reasons" for getting rid of RR.
No offense is perfect. Even Oregon had a bad game this year. Basically, the defense has forced the offense to be almost perfect to beat higher-caliber teams. They haven't pulled it off against a top-twenty team yet, but I still think they have a fighting chance against OSU. Strange things often happen in The Game.
I also agree with Brain's supposition that RR needs to be hired back with some Brandonly intervention as far as the defensive scheme and coaching personnel goes. If you read between the lines of interviews of both men, it is obvious that it has already been going on behind the scenes.
I'm looking for RR to be back next year, and some kind of change made on defense. It may or may not involve GERG. I'm not a coach, but I'm for calling the defense a base 3-4 and adding the nickel against spread teams and formations. It would give Michigan the best of both worlds.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:10 PM ^
This defense has been the worst in Micigan history for three staight years. That falls on the head coach. For those of you that say the D will be better next year, it can't get any worse. Who cares if they go from 105 to the 90th ranked D. NOBODY fears Michigan.This coaching staff is a joke. Sure the offense scores points, but why is it after they are down by 20. RR is in way over his head.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:46 PM ^
Thanks for joining today to post crap with no factual basis behind it. You'll last long around here.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:57 PM ^
Emotionally, this is an odd week for me. I find that I don't care about Ohio State at all.
I feel the same way. Oh how I hate Ohio State, but this year just does not have the same excitement as years past. I am excited to watch Michigan play Saturday, but knowing that it is the last game before the bowl game is mildly depressing.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:02 PM ^
I'm so thoroughly tired of explaining to friends and co-workers why RR should be retained, and that I actually think he's a genuinely good guy, good character players, great offense, we're young, yada fucking yada. I can't take anymore, and almost want to hide in a cave (w/ HDTV of course) until next season.
Howeva, I do believe OSU is beatable. Please guys, beat them.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:10 PM ^
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:17 PM ^
I remember this type of schism in the fanbase back in 2003, but it was mostly based on geography. I went back to Michigan for a buddy's wedding and all the talk was about maybe Lloyd Carr should be fired. I was like WTF?
If you live outside the midwest, you generally don't have the constant discussion about the coach and is he doing a good job and yada fucking yada. It makes you much more sanguine about it all. I'm speculating, of course.
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:26 PM ^
I am, and it does.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:11 PM ^
too bad brian cannot be irresponsible yet again like the time you said scott shafer must be fired, and do it again to suggest as should rodriguez. this second time, youd be right. but you got what you asked for, with this defense, so enjoy it. and your opinion affects the lemmings here more than you think, so maybe on the next coach youll be responsible.
November 24th, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^
Scott Schafer was a great coach and we all wish he was still here. /s
November 24th, 2010 at 9:46 AM ^
The "/s" doesn't really belong. Schafer has done a great job at Syracuse. It seems that he is a pretty damn good defensive coordinator. Our defense would certainly be in a better place than it is now if Rodriguez had retained Shafer, let him run his defense, and not interfered.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:12 PM ^
Agree RR should be back next year.
Reasons:
1. Offense. Compare this offense to our offense two years ago. Don't forget that this has been with Vincent Smith as the feature back - small, slow, and can't shed blocks to save his life. Just imagine the damage this offense will do with even better personnel next year with the D&D (Denard/Dee) show? And more experience across the board?
2. Defense. Simply, cannot possibly get worse. Cannot. This was the nader. We will never in our lifetimes see a worse UM D than we saw this year, may it R.I.P. Why? Obvious reasons like maturity, experience, another year in the weight room, but also, let's face it - RR knows if he doesn't turn the D around next year, his job will be toast. He has completed 50% of the plan - offense. Now he must complete the other 50%, otherwise he is gone next year, and everyone, even Brian, will agree there.
3. Special teams. See 2. Cannot possibly get worse, and again, I expect RR to take this very seriously in the off season.
4. Turnovers. This is arguably the only major liability of RR's offense, and something that also must be given attention.
We will end up 7-6 or 8-5 this year, and next year will see improvements across the board. I am excited for next year to see if RR can fix the D. All of Wolverine nation will be focusing on this next year, and it will be the single most important future datapoint defining either the success or failure of RR's tenure at UM, because the deadliness of the offense is going nowhere.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^
Defense. Simply, cannot possibly get worse. Cannot. This was the nader. We will never in our lifetimes see a worse UM D than we saw this year, may it R.I.P.
I'm pretty sure a lot of us thought and said this last year. Please don't jinx 2011 and 2012 by saying things like "it can't get any worse." No. It can always get worse, and I don't want to be proved right on this point.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:15 PM ^
Right: "Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic"
Wrong: "If you are using this stat, you have decided that Rich Rodriguez should go"
The use of PPD is an interesting analysis that helps define just how good the offense is. Its an interesting topic: is the offense really top 5 or is it 'just' top 25?
Everyone interested in exploring the idea that the offense maybe isn't really as awesome as FBO's stat indicates isn't necessarily out to fire RR.
I think RR deserves 2 more years (5 years total) at a minimum. The argument about if the offense is elite or just really good is irrelevant compared to the if RR can fix special teams and defense.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:29 PM ^
As much as I dislike "I agree" posts, I gotta say, I agree.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^
Everyone interested in exploring the idea that the offense maybe isn't really as awesome as FBO's stat indicates isn't necessarily out to fire RR.
Technically you're correct (I personally am an example), but I think in general people who are saying "look look this offense is bad because of blah blah blah" are arguing in bad faith. I don't think Brain has a problem with people suggesting the offense is weak in some areas, but I think he has a very big problem with people who suggest "the offense is bad because they're only 3rd in In-Conference Points Per Drive."
Identifying a flaw in the offense isn't a problem. Taking that flaw as "evidence" to critique RichRod is.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
maybe brian you can be irresponsible again like when you called for scott shafer's firing, and suggest that rodriguez must be fired, for at least this time, you'd be right. and you should be a little more responsible in this regard because you may underestimate how much effect you have in shaping the opinions of many of the lemmings here.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:26 PM ^
I like the lemming shot when you appear to be a constant contrarian. You know, sometimes disagreeing with everything can be just as myopic.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^
Didn't you get banned with the same user name minus the "2"?
Comments