The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:No, that's been the argument all along

The discussion I was in with you was you just generally said Snyder had trouble re-signing players. An assertion you haven't backed up with much by way of example.

So if now we're arguing he should sign specifically before contracts are up, I gave you a pretty good description of why that's difficult. Most players in their rookie contract won't do that unless you sign them to a contract which assumes they will walk on water, otherwise they'd rather try to walk on water. You also lose the rookie pay years, you're paying them more sooner. I'm having a really hard time seeing this big cap savings you're claiming.

But you like to throw out these general statements, so let's go back to my question on examples. You say you can sign players before their contract is up as a policy, I said why you can't. Easy way to resolve it. So, which teams are doing it successfully? Who are you looking to us to emulate and who have they done this with?

I already said that Philadelphia does it the best. Pittsburgh also does. New York just did it with their QB, as did San Diego. You don't think they have trouble resigning players? Who have they resigned that made it to free agency? Betts. Other than that, no one.

ey was an extension, which proves it can be done if you go to the player early. Samuels was an extension. So was Arrington. So was Jansen. After that, they stopped giving extensions to guys, I don't know why. Most players want to extend early, so they get the money up front (ibid).

The Eagles gave Westbrook an extension last season. The gave McNabb a raise for this year and next despite no contractual requirement to do so. Sheldon Brown was given an extension in 2004, two years into his rookie deal. It's their policy to do extensions a couple of years into the rookie contract. The re-signed Joselio Hanson to a deal prior to him reaching free agency this spring. I'm not an eagles fan, so I don't have a complete list for you.

SnyderSucks wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:No, that's been the argument all along

The discussion I was in with you was you just generally said Snyder had trouble re-signing players. An assertion you haven't backed up with much by way of example.

So if now we're arguing he should sign specifically before contracts are up, I gave you a pretty good description of why that's difficult. Most players in their rookie contract won't do that unless you sign them to a contract which assumes they will walk on water, otherwise they'd rather try to walk on water. You also lose the rookie pay years, you're paying them more sooner. I'm having a really hard time seeing this big cap savings you're claiming.

But you like to throw out these general statements, so let's go back to my question on examples. You say you can sign players before their contract is up as a policy, I said why you can't. Easy way to resolve it. So, which teams are doing it successfully? Who are you looking to us to emulate and who have they done this with?

I already said that Philadelphia does it the best. Pittsburgh also does. New York just did it with their QB, as did San Diego. You don't think they have trouble resigning players? Who have they resigned that made it to free agency? Betts. Other than that, no one.

ey was an extension, which proves it can be done if you go to the player early. Samuels was an extension. So was Arrington. So was Jansen. After that, they stopped giving extensions to guys, I don't know why. Most players want to extend early, so they get the money up front (ibid).

The Eagles gave Westbrook an extension last season. The gave McNabb a raise for this year and next despite no contractual requirement to do so. Sheldon Brown was given an extension in 2004, two years into his rookie deal. It's their policy to do extensions a couple of years into the rookie contract. The re-signed Joselio Hanson to a deal prior to him reaching free agency this spring. I'm not an eagles fan, so I don't have a complete list for you.

I do it too...
















































In Madden,of course.

SnyderSucks wrote:I already said that Philadelphia does it the best. Pittsburgh also does. New York just did it with their QB, as did San Diego. You don't think they have trouble resigning players? Who have they resigned that made it to free agency? Betts. Other than that, no one.

ey was an extension, which proves it can be done if you go to the player early. Samuels was an extension. So was Arrington. So was Jansen. After that, they stopped giving extensions to guys, I don't know why. Most players want to extend early, so they get the money up front (ibid).

The Eagles gave Westbrook an extension last season. The gave McNabb a raise for this year and next despite no contractual requirement to do so. Sheldon Brown was given an extension in 2004, two years into his rookie deal. It's their policy to do extensions a couple of years into the rookie contract. The re-signed Joselio Hanson to a deal prior to him reaching free agency this spring. I'm not an eagles fan, so I don't have a complete list for you.

The ever shifting Pods argument. You cut out all the vets in my list and said you wanted to sign people in rookie contracts early so they don't leave. I pointed out we actually need to pay them more to do that which is why it rarely happens and asked how we were going to save money.

You came back with teams who re-signed veterans early. Equivalent to my list you declared out of bounds! You're a hoot, Pods.

So let's go back to my question you danced around. Your last shifting point was that we lost Clark and Smoot because we didn't lock them up before their rookie contracts were up. Let me refresh your memory.

SnyderSucks wrote:Smoot, Clark, and others should have been extended prior to reaching free agency

That was the question, name teams that do that and the players they signed before their rookie contracts were up. Not teams that do what we do all the time, re-sign veterans early.

And ey is a good example of the rare times it happens. One of our best players. We did lock him up by paying him more. But Dockery, Clark and Smoot weren't worth it. So you can name a few random ones if you think hard. You said good management would do that routinely and said we should have done it for Clark, Smoot AND OTHERS. Plural. I want a team that did at least 4 per your challenge and who they were.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:I already said that Philadelphia does it the best. Pittsburgh also does. New York just did it with their QB, as did San Diego. You don't think they have trouble resigning players? Who have they resigned that made it to free agency? Betts. Other than that, no one.

ey was an extension, which proves it can be done if you go to the player early. Samuels was an extension. So was Arrington. So was Jansen. After that, they stopped giving extensions to guys, I don't know why. Most players want to extend early, so they get the money up front (ibid).

The Eagles gave Westbrook an extension last season. The gave McNabb a raise for this year and next despite no contractual requirement to do so. Sheldon Brown was given an extension in 2004, two years into his rookie deal. It's their policy to do extensions a couple of years into the rookie contract. The re-signed Joselio Hanson to a deal prior to him reaching free agency this spring. I'm not an eagles fan, so I don't have a complete list for you.

The ever shifting Pods argument. You cut out all the vets in my list and said you wanted to sign people in rookie contracts early so they don't leave. I pointed out we actually need to pay them more to do that which is why it rarely happens and asked how we were going to save money.

You came back with teams who re-signed veterans early. Equivalent to my list you declared out of bounds! You're a hoot, Pods.

So let's go back to my question you danced around. Your last shifting point was that we lost Clark and Smoot because we didn't lock them up before their rookie contracts were up. Let me refresh your memory.

SnyderSucks wrote:Smoot, Clark, and others should have been extended prior to reaching free agency

That was the question, name teams that do that and the players they signed before their rookie contracts were up. Not teams that do what we do all the time, re-sign veterans early.

And ey is a good example of the rare times it happens. One of our best players. We did lock him up by paying him more. But Dockery, Clark and Smoot weren't worth it. So you can name a few random ones if you think hard. You said good management would do that routinely and said we should have done it for Clark, Smoot AND OTHERS. Plural. I want a team that did at least 4 per your challenge and who they were.

2001 Draft- Buckhalter - extended in 2006
2002 Draft - Westbrook extended in 2005
2002 Draft - Brown - Extended in 2004, currently wants another extension
2002 Draft - Sheppard - Extended in 2004
2003 Draft - Smith - Franchised in 2008, lost in 2009 FA
2004 Draft - Shawn Andrews - Extended in 2006

I'm certain the list continues, I just don't like researching eagles much, so I stopped there. McNabb and Westbrook have both been extended more than one. Contrary to your argument, if you go to a player early in their contract, they want an extension because it gets them a raise. The extending team does give them a raise, but locks them up for lower than what they would get in Free Agency. You see players under contract every year holding out for an extension. Cutler and Brandon Marshall in Denver are examples....

That was the question, name teams that do that and the players they signed before their rookie contracts were up.

Big Ben, Philip Rivers, and Eli Manning all re-signed before their rookie contracts were up. The Chargers also re-signed Tomlinson and Gates before their rookie contracts expired. It happens all the time in the NFL.

Again the quote to back up.

SnyderSucks wrote:Smoot, Clark, and others should have been extended prior to reaching free agency

Some of these, including the FIRST one don't even meet the criteria at all, they weren't in their rookie contract. Westbrook held out in a bitter dispute and the others while having signed aren't happy because they signed early and are upset others are getting more.

Details follow, but while sure, the Eagles have attempted the path you advocated, Pods, not one of these is a happy Eagle success story showing what a great solution this is and what a boob Danny is.

BTW, I didn't answer your question if I think he hasn't had trouble re-signing players. I think some yes, some no. Overall not much better or worse then NFL norm. Consistent with the average teams we've fielded overall. But hey, if you want to measure his first 10 years by JKC's last 10, you just go for it.

----------------------------

2001 Draft- Buckhalter - extended in 2006

- Dude, your FIRST example doesn't fit the criteria. You said we should be signing players PRIOR to free agency, he was a free agent.

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/ ... y_id=12032

2002 Draft - Westbrook extended in 2005

- OK, he signed a year early. But dude, he held out in a bitter contract dispute and like ey he was one of their best players. This was supposed to be an example of how Danny's a moron for not just re-signing players early.

2002 Draft - Brown - Extended in 2004, currently wants another extension

- Yes, another satisfied Eagle demanding a trade showing what a boob Danny is. Here's an interesting quote:

'he said his reasoning when he signed the contract extension in 2004 was "they came to me early to do a deal" and if he continued to play well, that would happen again.'

This is exactly why I said players don't want to sign early. He said he did it because he believed he wasn't locked into a low salary if he played well.

2002 Draft - Sheppard - Extended in 2004

- Another satisfied customer

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football ... pard_N.htm

2003 Draft - Smith - Franchised in 2008, lost in 2009 FA

You're saying they franchised a player WHILE he was in his rookie contract?

2004 Draft - Shawn Andrews - Extended in 2006

- Another satisfied customer demanding a trade

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Again the quote to back up.

SnyderSucks wrote:Smoot, Clark, and others should have been extended prior to reaching free agency

Some of these, including the FIRST one don't even meet the criteria at all, they weren't in their rookie contract. Westbrook held out in a bitter dispute and the others while having signed aren't happy because they signed early and are upset others are getting more.

Details follow, but while sure, the Eagles have attempted the path you advocated, Pods, not one of these is a happy Eagle success story showing what a great solution this is and what a boob Danny is.

BTW, I didn't answer your question if I think he hasn't had trouble re-signing players. I think some yes, some no. Overall not much better or worse then NFL norm. Consistent with the average teams we've fielded overall. But hey, if you want to measure his first 10 years by JKC's last 10, you just go for it.

----------------------------

2001 Draft- Buckhalter - extended in 2006

- Dude, your FIRST example doesn't fit the criteria. You said we should be signing players PRIOR to free agency, he was a free agent.

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/ ... y_id=12032

2002 Draft - Westbrook extended in 2005

- OK, he signed a year early. But dude, he held out in a bitter contract dispute and like ey he was one of their best players. This was supposed to be an example of how Danny's a moron for not just re-signing players early.

2002 Draft - Brown - Extended in 2004, currently wants another extension

- Yes, another satisfied Eagle demanding a trade showing what a boob Danny is. Here's an interesting quote:

'he said his reasoning when he signed the contract extension in 2004 was "they came to me early to do a deal" and if he continued to play well, that would happen again.'

This is exactly why I said players don't want to sign early. He said he did it because he believed he wasn't locked into a low salary if he played well.

2002 Draft - Sheppard - Extended in 2004

- Another satisfied customer

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football ... pard_N.htm

2003 Draft - Smith - Franchised in 2008, lost in 2009 FA

You're saying they franchised a player WHILE he was in his rookie contract?

2004 Draft - Shawn Andrews - Extended in 2006

- Another satisfied customer demanding a trade

Either drop Pods or explain it, please...

So, people who got extensions and now what another extension is proof that players don't want extensions? Those were simply the first on the list. The list of extended players is extensive and goes all around the NFL. My opinion is the team needs to do a better job of extending it's young starters. Hopefully that starts this year.

To butt right in, I think you're swallowing a whole lot of bait.

The easy way to second-guess whether the Redskins should have resigned players is to look at the guys who left and see whether their new teams got value.

Because, after all, it's up to the players and the management to come to a new deal, and for every guy the Eagles sign early, there's one they don't. So in the past few years, they lost guys like Derrick Burgess, Rod Hood, LJ Smith, Tra Thomas, Corey Simon (although they probably don't regret that one much), and on and on.

Who have the Redskins lost that were worth keeping? Clark, Pierce, Bailey. And that's pretty much it over the last 5 years. Otherwise, what are you looking at? Demetric Evans? Robert Royal? Brandon Lloyd?

The problem isn't that the Skins retain so few players. It's that they've had so few worth retaining in the first place.

SnyderSucks wrote:Either drop Pods or explain it, please...

So, people who got extensions and now what another extension is proof that players don't want extensions? Those were simply the first on the list. The list of extended players is extensive and goes all around the NFL. My opinion is the team needs to do a better job of extending it's young starters. Hopefully that starts this year.

I'm not playing that game, Pods. It's OBVIOUS.

It's a message board, you're entirely entitled to an opinion. But you make specific claims, Pods, you always did. And when you can't back them up this is the sort of emotion driven statement you make:

SnyderSucks wrote:So, people who got extensions and now what another extension is proof that players don't want extensions?

If you want to fall back on it's your opinion, just start with and stay with that. Don't make specific claims and then dance and then whine like this post when you can't back them up. Or keep doing that. It always was fun shooting at your feet and making you dance.

Paralis wrote:Who have the Redskins lost that were worth keeping? Clark, Pierce, Bailey. And that's pretty much it over the last 5 years. Otherwise, what are you looking at? Demetric Evans? Robert Royal? Brandon Lloyd?

Obviously, Taylor Jacobs.

The problem isn't that the Skins retain so few players. It's that they've had so few worth retaining in the first place.

You're absolutely right. Hopefully that's changing...I like a lot of their draft choices over the past few years. It's been a disaster before that, however.

Snydersucks also cited Rod Gardner in another thread. Most of the guys we haven't re-signed really did not deserve it.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:Either drop Pods or explain it, please...

So, people who got extensions and now what another extension is proof that players don't want extensions? Those were simply the first on the list. The list of extended players is extensive and goes all around the NFL. My opinion is the team needs to do a better job of extending it's young starters. Hopefully that starts this year.

I'm not playing that game, Pods. It's OBVIOUS.

It's a message board, you're entirely entitled to an opinion. But you make specific claims, Pods, you always did. And when you can't back them up this is the sort of emotion driven statement you make:

SnyderSucks wrote:So, people who got extensions and now what another extension is proof that players don't want extensions?

If you want to fall back on it's your opinion, just start with and stay with that. Don't make specific claims and then dance and then whine like this post when you can't back them up. Or keep doing that. It always was fun shooting at your feet and making you dance.

My problem isn't that I'm whining, it's that you aren't listening. Most of your posts I've read seem reasonable, so I'm not sure what is going on here. There was a long and extensive discussion of this previously that I was trying to not restart. For this reason, I did not give a detailed explanation initially, I just said they don't have a great history of resigning their players. You asked for more explanation, and as I gave it, you claimed I was changing the argument, which is simply not true. The full details of this have been discussed elsewhere previously, except for the eagles contracts. This has primarily been a rehashing.

I say teams like the eagles sign players to extensions. You say players don't want extensions and ask for examples. I provide a few examples, of the many many available, then you complain about the examples.

I've said they have had trouble resigning their players, but your primary dispute appears to be that other teams don't extend players. It is my opinion that the redskins should resign their young players. It is a fact that numerous teams and players do extensions every season. None of this has ever changed.

If you continue to disagree, we'll have to agree to disagree. I am hoping that several players get extensions in the near future and this point will be moot.

Yeah... I didn't think Gardner deserved acknowledgment.

But I guess Walt Harris had that one good year in SF, and Lemar Marshall started a few games for Cincy last year. And wasn't Cory Raymer in Cleveland for a while?

I'm pretty sure I heard somebody say Gibran Hamdan's name last week (not that I could guess whose roster he ended up on).


How many of those guys could even make a UFL roster these days?

Irn-Bru wrote:Snydersucks also cited Rod Gardner in another thread. Most of the guys we haven't re-signed really did not deserve it.

While he was on the team, Gardner averaged what, 57 catches per season with Washington, with a high of 71 one season. That's more production than any #2 since. What #2 receiver on the team would you have rather had than Gardner during the same timeframe? Taylor Jacobs? Brandon Lloyd? Randle El is the only one that comes close, but he only averages 42 catches per season with his high last year, 53, still lower than Gardners average. In hindsight, his career has gone nowhere, but at the time, retaining Gardner wasn't unreasonable to consider. I've never said that absolutely, positively Gardner should have been extended, but that his production meant in should have been considered and in context with the other players that weren't extended, it constitutes a pattern of not giving extensions.

SnyderSucks wrote:I've said they have had trouble resigning their players, but your primary dispute appears to be that other teams don't extend players. It is my opinion that the redskins should resign their young players. It is a fact that numerous teams and players do extensions every season. None of this has ever changed.

The point you seem to be skipping over is that the Eagles have let more talented ("more, talented" rather that specifically "more talented") players go over the last 5 years than the Redskins have. Brian Dawkins, Correll Buckhalter, Darwin Walker, Hank Fraley, PLUS the guys I named in my last post. I'm sure I'm missing others, but these are all guys, in the last 5 years, that have left the Eagles as free agents and have signed to start elsewhere. And that's not counting your Hugh Douglases and your Jeremiah Trotters who left because the free agent market overvalued them.

If the Skins had better players, they'd probably keep them. The fact that they haven't is more an indictment of their personnel department than their cap management.

SnyderSucks wrote:My problem isn't that I'm whining, it's that you aren't listening. Most of your posts I've read seem reasonable, so I'm not sure what is going on here. There was a long and extensive discussion of this previously that I was trying to not restart. For this reason, I did not give a detailed explanation initially, I just said they don't have a great history of resigning their players. You asked for more explanation, and as I gave it, you claimed I was changing the argument, which is simply not true. The full details of this have been discussed elsewhere previously, except for the eagles contracts. This has primarily been a rehashing.

I picture Richard Gere's number in Chicago...

So Pods, what does any of this have to do with the question? You made this specific claim:

SnyderSucks wrote:Smoot, Clark, and others should have been extended prior to reaching free agency

That claim has nothing to do with a historical discussion. It's a specific claim. So I'll repeat my argument for you one more time, Pods, and then show you how your examples actually support MY argument.

I said it's very difficult to re-sign players, or at least good players, before their rookie contract is up because of how the NFL works and actually save money. First, you are giving them more money because you are paying them renegotiated rates for years you had them signed for rookie contract money. That's why they generally just do it for guys like ey who are your stars. You can't do that for anyone but your stars or you'd blow your cap. Most players don't want to sign early unless you pay them piles of cash because they are foregoing free agency and if they keep improving they're signing for less then they would get at the end of their contract as well.

You gave me a list of Eagles. They are the one team who has aggressively tried to do what you propose, let's look at the results. First we throw out Buckhalter and Smith who didn't even meet the criteria . Also Westbrook because he actually held out in order to re-sign his rookie contract, obviously for no savings for the Eagles and not supporting your point they were doing it to lock him up.

Unfortunately what you did not do is actually look at the Eagles who were left, Brown, Shepherd & Andrews. Every one of them was upset with their re-negoiated contract and wanted to be traded. Every...single....one....Pods. So what does that tell you? Sure the Eagles saved money possibly, but at the cost of either losing the player by accepting trade demand, paying them more AGAIN ending the savings or forcing unhappy players to stay.

In what possible way do your Eagle examples support your contention Danny is a moron for not re-signing players before their rookie contracts are up? In fact, as I said your examples support my argument that it's a bad idea.

As for the rest of your rant, you asked who we re-signed. I listed a bunch of vets. Then you said that's not the discussion rookies are. When you couldn't support that you went back to re-signing vets. The ever shifting Pods point. New name, old game. No problem though my friend, I'm here to help you out!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:My problem isn't that I'm whining, it's that you aren't listening. Most of your posts I've read seem reasonable, so I'm not sure what is going on here. There was a long and extensive discussion of this previously that I was trying to not restart. For this reason, I did not give a detailed explanation initially, I just said they don't have a great history of resigning their players. You asked for more explanation, and as I gave it, you claimed I was changing the argument, which is simply not true. The full details of this have been discussed elsewhere previously, except for the eagles contracts. This has primarily been a rehashing.

I picture Richard Gere's number in Chicago...

So Pods, what does any of this have to do with the question? You made this specific claim:

SnyderSucks wrote:Smoot, Clark, and others should have been extended prior to reaching free agency

That claim has nothing to do with a historical discussion. It's a specific claim. So I'll repeat my argument for you one more time, Pods, and then show you how your examples actually support MY argument.

I said it's very difficult to re-sign players, or at least good players, before their rookie contract is up because of how the NFL works and actually save money. First, you are giving them more money because you are paying them renegotiated rates for years you had them signed for rookie contract money. That's why they generally just do it for guys like ey who are your stars. You can't do that for anyone but your stars or you'd blow your cap. Most players don't want to sign early unless you pay them piles of cash because they are foregoing free agency and if they keep improving they're signing for less then they would get at the end of their contract as well.

You gave me a list of Eagles. They are the one team who has aggressively tried to do what you propose, let's look at the results. First we throw out Buckhalter and Smith who didn't even meet the criteria . Also Westbrook because he actually held out in order to re-sign his rookie contract, obviously for no savings for the Eagles and not supporting your point they were doing it to lock him up.

Unfortunately what you did not do is actually look at the Eagles who were left, Brown, Shepherd & Andrews. Every one of them was upset with their re-negoiated contract and wanted to be traded. Every...single....one....Pods. So what does that tell you? Sure the Eagles saved money possibly, but at the cost of either losing the player by accepting trade demand, paying them more AGAIN ending the savings or forcing unhappy players to stay.

In what possible way do your Eagle examples support your contention Danny is a moron for not re-signing players before their rookie contracts are up? In fact, as I said your examples support my argument that it's a bad idea.

As for the rest of your rant, you asked who we re-signed. I listed a bunch of vets. Then you said that's not the discussion rookies are. When you couldn't support that you went back to re-signing vets. The ever shifting Pods point. New name, old game. No problem though my friend, I'm here to help you out!

I'm not sure what you getting so upset about. It's a simple statement - they should be resigning their players. There's a long list of players they did not resign. What's so difficult to grasp here? Why would anyone even argue against signing your own players? Since you seem intent on calling me "Pods", how about if I give you a random name as well. How do you like Weird Al? I'll just go with that from now on.

SnyderSucks wrote:I'm not sure what you getting so upset about

Pardon? To disagree with you is to be upset?

If it's important to you that I be upset then that's fine. I'm so upset!

Feel better now?

SnyderSucks wrote:It's a simple statement - they should be resigning their players. There's a long list of players they did not resign. What's so difficult to grasp here? Why would anyone even argue against signing your own players?

Fine, I'll let you off the hook now. When you said Snyder should re-sign players before their rookie contract is up I was trying to actually explain to you why it doesn't usually happen. You either can't or won't get it and if you do you're not going to admit it. But I was trying to help you understand you can't just throw things out like that without understanding how collective bargaining and other NFL realities work. But I guess since "SnyderSucks" you're going to measure it that way. Your choice.

SnyderSucks wrote:Since you seem intent on calling me "Pods", how about if I give you a random name as well. How do you like Weird Al? I'll just go with that from now on.

That works, Pods. But there's nothing "random" about my calling you "Pods."

SnyderSucks wrote:Since you seem intent on calling me "Pods"...

Hey Snyder. I thought it over and decided to play along. So I'll tell you the story of Pods. I was Pods' best friend in the whole world. And by best friend I mean I’m the only one who didn’t hate him. Basically he was short, fat, balding old man who sat in his apartment on the Hogs site all day responding to every post. He would make wild assertions then do lots of research that didn’t support them.

Usually he was annoying and arrogant, but pretty harmless. But every couple of months he would go on a massive cocaine and hard liquor binge for 3 straight days which always ended up with him naked on a rich person’s lawn claiming he was Jesus Christ. Then he’d spend the next week in the Sykesville, Maryland State mental institution drying out. In a week, they discharged him and the cycle would start over.

One day he just disappeared. Most people thought it was a binge gone too far. Others that he was eaten by wolves. They had no evidence, I thought they liked visioning him being eaten by wolves. Personally I think he just keeled over and is dead lying on the keyboard. My evidence for his is that his last post was, “hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.” In the unlikely event anyone noticed he was missing they wouldn't go check his apartment because they'd be too afraid they'd find him. As his best friend I’d go to his apartment and check, but I don’t really give a crap.

Anyway, that's the story of Pods.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:One day he just disappeared.

I thought Pods was one of the two people in the history of THN to be banned.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:One day he just disappeared.

I thought Pods was one of the two people in the history of THN to be banned.

You may be right, but I tell a better story.