Underhill digging at Swimmer and CP on Twitter (1 Viewer)

[FootballLady]

Why are so many just accepting the story that the thread was closed over the fear of offending Nick Underhill? The thread had turned toxic, and I say that as someone who was caught up in and contributed to that toxicity. There was enough right there to justify closing the thread. It should be noted, as well, that the thread wasn't deleted, merely closed. No one suffered anything from its closing, no accusations were made, the mods just felt it was doing more harm than good to keep it open for comments.

 

[CowtownSaint]

Totally agree, i don't see why that was shut down.

let’s punish the whole board because Underhill’s nose is out of joint. LOL he stuck it in there on a topic that wasn’t even talking about Davenport it was about hurt Burrow, obviously people too some exception and now everyone is in the wrong but him and the mods.

I would be happy to be set straight on this public ally and would gladly admit I’m wrong but doesn’t seem to be any type of public reasoning given, which is also BS in my opinion. Atleast let us know why the damn thread was shut down. Them maybe re open it and make sure we all on our best behavior.

as it stands right now this is a pretty disappointing follow up to the playoff loss.

 

[CowtownSaint]

Why are so many just accepting the story that the thread was closed over the fear of offending Nick Underhill? The thread had turned toxic, and I say that as someone who was caught up in and contributed to that toxicity. There was enough right there to justify closing the thread. It should be noted, as well, that the thread wasn't deleted, merely closed. No one suffered anything from its closing, no accusations were made, the mods just felt it was doing more harm than good to keep it open for comments.

Well about 95 out of 100 people weren’t being toxic and everyone was goofing around. Having fun with the rumours you know getting excited and just talking crazy at the possibility. It was just a good thread that I think just helped people really get over the loss. Then it now comes across loek it was taken away from everyone. And that compounds things.

mob top of that I know there was some bad stuff. We all apologized to each other but like at same time why could rhat have not been addressed and stopped and the thread be able to continue.

 

[FootballLady]

There is an interesting dichotomy at work here. On one hand, there are a great many people defending the original thread with, "Hey, it's just an internet forum thread! What's the big deal?" Then, when that thread is closed, they respond as if that thread was meaningful to them and not "just a thread" after all. Just interesting is all.

 

[jasonsw]

???? Ahhh feel much better now.

 

[CowtownSaint]

There is an interesting dichotomy at work here. On one hand, there are a great many people defending the original thread with, "Hey, it's just an internet forum thread! What's the big deal?" Then, when that thread is closed, they respond as if that thread was meaningful to them and not "just a thread" after all. Just interesting is all.

i believe for a lot of people, the thread brought joy back here as silly as it was, we all have been down after the last Loss

 

[jasonsw]

Can we bring back Swimmer thread. It was such a great place. It was a was a songbird in a coal mine a ray of light in deep darkness.

 

[FootballLady]

Can we bring back Swimmer thread. It was such a great place. It was a was a songbird in a coal mine a ray of light in deep darkness.

It's still there. You can read it any time you like.

 

[football]

i believe for a lot of people, the thread brought joy back here as silly as it was, we all have been down after the last Loss

I took it as a "too good to be true" type of topic and it was fun discussing it in the beginning. Of course it gotten really silly and I just stop posting after two comments. Really I didn't feel it was toxic at all. However, being objective here, if it was I do understand the mod stopping it. However if the closing was influenced by someone outside of this community, then I have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with Swimmer opinions, even if I disagree with him or not. Nor do I have any problems with Nick opinions he posted on twitter. It is just that...Opinions.

 

[jasonsw]

There is an interesting dichotomy at work here. On one hand, there are a great many people defending the original thread with, "Hey, it's just an internet forum thread! What's the big deal?" Then, when that thread is closed, they respond as if that thread was meaningful to them and not "just a thread" after all. Just interesting is all.

I'm sure many people enjoyed your insights as well in that thread. At the end of day I think and I'm sure as you do we care about each other on this board. Each person adds something when someone is missing cause they are forever unable to post (Pervis Guy) this board fills less than full.

 

[Andrus]

So no more Pete updates? Not much to look forward to. Swimmer I hope you keep it going one of the main reasons I visit the board during the off-season

Swimmer was never told that no more Pete updates allowed. Whether or not he posts them in the future is up to him. This is about the posting behavior of some of the members subsequent to (and even prior to) Underhill's tweet, and keeping things from getting even more out of hand.

I for one did not believe everything Swimmer said to be true. However I came to enjoy every post and actually brought me back to the board more often seeking update. The fact Underhill even cares what’s being written on the forum gives Swimmer more validity IMO. Closing a thread turns me off and rubs me the wrong way. I understand not attacking and following rules but I did not see anything wrong in there other than Underhill being soft and feeling like his job was threatened.

I think that many members feel the same way regarding what they come away with from the Pete posts and whether or not they believe that what is stated are true. There are a variety of opinions on why people like or dislike the Pete posts depending on the individual reading them. They don't bother me, and personally I find a lot of what is posted in those threads entertaining, and certainly don't want to get in the way of members having fun.

No offense but get real. This is a forum. It’s not a news site. It was taken down because certain people with the power to do it...didn’t like it
Forum rules weren’t broken. SSF simply is saying, we don’t care about certain people opinions...only others.

We don't really care for the opinions of known drama queens that often react to anything controversial by defaulting to the most sensationalist assumption that they can conjure up to subsequently fan the flames in favor of their own positions. So if that is what you are stating, you are correct.

I don’t think anyone was really attacking underhill , I just think people were taking up for coach Pete.. you can’t close a thread because of that something is fishy and it could be because the info was somewhat true for Pete and they don’t want the info to keep spreading ...

Keep in mind that you can't see the posts that we have deleted, but I can. From what I have seen thus far, there was plenty of attacking of both Underhill as well as Swimmer in a manner that is not acceptable per our posting guidelines, and when I get done with this post I will go through the closed thread and delete any remaining posts that I find violates our rules. Then I will open it back up.

The thread got pulled because Underhill has earned God status on SR. We are not allowed to challenge Underhill in any way that could be considered offensive. Apparently, he has been a valuable friend to the board founders and they feel it is the best for their business. That's what I am being told. So I support the founders.

I just wish they would have left that thread open. It was so much fun for so many of us and it took our minds off the 3rd tragic playoff exit in a row.

I know a number of SR members think that Coach Pete and I were getting too powerful. I have no idea what that means since I do no social media except SR. I respect Andrus deeply and appreciate what he has done with the Board. And even grumpy Dan who cares deeply for the board.

Onward! Let's go get Burrow!

Speaking of sensationalism... God status on SR? Really?

Look! I have respect for both you and Underhill, but the responses between factions within the thread after (and even prior) to Underhill's twitter post had gotten out of hand, and that precipitated moderation. How do you know that I am not opening that thread back up? I fully intend to do so. That is my decision to make.

Last night Dan in Lafayette called and told me that due to the significant amount of rule violating posts he would likely lock the thread and asked me to look it over when I get a chance. I have been really busy of late so I am slow at getting around to tending to SR business. My intent is to clean up the thread and unlock it after I am done here with dealing with the fallout in THIS thread. Dan also told me that he was going to send you a PM that I may not agree with. I see that he did, and also that you aren't happy with it. I can see it reading between the lines of your posts on this thread today. What is being discussed privately between you and Dan otherwise is between you two and not representative of my feelings on the subject.

Understand that when something really controversial and as touchy as this whole Underhill/Pete thing comes up here where there is uncertainty on how to handle it, the default is to wait for Andrus to handle it. Just as some members pick one side of an issue and some the other, it's the same way with the staff. So better that whatever happens falls on my shoulders, and I accept that. Dan is my right hand man here, and he took some action. But he is leaving further and final action at my discretion.

...I don't agree, but I support them and if Underhill as done as much for SR as they say, I would likely have done something similar or warned them to back of Nick because of his contributions.

Who is "they"? I never said anything about Underhill doing anything for SR. I only stated that he was the best and most credible current beat writer that I know.

Let's not turn an individual exchange between you and another staff member that did not include anything that I stated into a "they" thing, and be careful about making such statements and characterizations that can easily be interpreted as misleading. Your posts today in this thread have the appearance that there might be some clever postulating going on within them, so let me just state that I don't care who backs who, I care about the behavior of all of those involved as well as this site's credibility. I speak for myself. Let's not conflate what any other staffer states with my own, and then present it as "they", specifically when "they" includes me.

The bottom line is that this entire uprising over a tweet is unfortunate. To me it was a lot to do with nothing, and petty. But now it's morphed into something else.

No. Andrus knows when the board needed money last year that COach Pete and I led a match drive where we contributed around $2,000 in total. Or maybe $1,500. I don't remember. He knows how much I care about the Board. This was business.

Yes! I know that you care, and appreciate your efforts, and this wasn't business in a monetary regard. The board didn't need money last year, my daughter and her children did, which is why I skipped having an SR fundraiser in 2019. To my recollection, SR has never received a dime from Underhill, nor would that matter. Everything I do here is about the rules, keeping to a standard with as much consistency as possible, and maintaining credibility. In 23 years, that has never changed. To the dismay of several former members, as well as friends that I have lost over the years, right and wrong matters more to me than financial contributions, and even friendships.


Back to the members... Let me short cut this with some of the conspiracy theorists out there, because I could quote posts and respond to what I am reading all night. I can say things, but some might not believe it, and being that I don't want any more words being put in my mouth, here is a little transparency for you all. The following is the PM that I sent to Swimmer yesterday, and it is the only PM that I have sent to him regarding this subject, with no redactions or changes other than I blotted out Swimmer's actual name. I don't think there is any content that Swimmer would find embarrassing within it, so in order to shut down such theories and misinformation and to back my points, as well as in some ways Swimmer's, here it is:

***.. I have been awful busy, and not paying much attention to the boards lately, but the Underhill tweet got my attention, and I took a look. I am writing hastily as I have a lot to do, so if I come off as angry, I am certainly not. I am a bit concerned, and I just have some things to say and am going to get them out there.

Mods -Is it OK to call other Who Dats on SSF, "Liars?" I thought there were some rules about direct attack on other members. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Did you report the post/s? No! So this is what we call grandstanding. You should know that the staff doesn't cotton to that.

Do reporters get called liars? Of course they do! That is basically what you are doing here - - reporting what Coach Pete relays through you. When doing so, you need to have a thick skin, because the doubters will be numerous, and the reactions are not always going to be acceptable. However, rules are rules, and the members are required to adhere. Only, I am not going through 100's of posts in these threads looking for the violating posts eluded to above. Neither myself, Dan, or the few remaining participating mods that we have right now have the time... So make use of the report post feature.

Look! I've got some members that have wanting you banned for a good while and complain about you quite a bit, while there are others that thoroughly enjoy your coach Pete threads and hang on every word. Then there are those that liken your Pete threads to fantasy fun and entertainment in the vane of professional wrestling... They may or not believe what coach Pete says, and may, or may not believe your followup commentary, but they don't care. To them, its "Grab the popcorn, this is going to be fun". One thing is for sure, these Pete threads keep quite a few members engaged, and that is a good thing. It keeps the board interesting and not so vanilla, so this is not me telling you to stop.

Coach Pete got it right on a lot of the Davenport stuff including calling the trade up for Davenport in the Draft two years back. He has ties to Davenport's college, which lends him credibility concerning Davenport, but when it comes to Burrow, I can certainly understand why simple logic would suggest that the Burrow stuff is a reach at best, as well as the amount of doubt being expressed by many. I know from your OP that you understand that, also. I am pretty certain that SP is keenly interested in Joe Burrow, as are probably 25+ other teams out there, but the cost? Let's just say that Loomis/Payton aren't Ditka/Kuharich. At least I hope not. I feel like I am a pretty reasonable person, so it could happen, but I will be very surprised if it does. The point is that the backlash is understandable and should be expected.

To me, Nick Underhill is the best and most credible current beat writer out there. Coach Pete also has credibility due to the Davenport thing, but that is a singular instance, and a laurel that is aging. Still... Davenport is in Pete's wheelhouse, and were I Nick I may have chosen to defer in this instance. Otherwise, in my mind this twitter episode is like a "nothing to see here, let's move on" thing... other than the following...

I realize that what you put out there is a reflection on you and Pete only, and not saintsreport.com, but now saintsreport has been dragged into this by proxy. Be cognizant that I care more about this website's credibility than I do either yours or Pete's, and post accordingly. Just being honest.

I will add that you and I have spent some time together at golf-outings and crawfish boils, and I find you to be quite a character that is a lot of fun to be around. I thoroughly enjoyed the time that we spent chatting at those events and would hang out with you anytime. I also know from our visits that you expressed getting a kick out of getting a rise out of people on these boards. So, let's make sure that trait remains minimized and resist returning to the old Swimmer persona from years ago.

Anyway, when concerned over which way to default, default on the side of the toned down version (which your Burrow thread's prefacing indicated that you were trying to do), don't over-react to detractors, and report those that cross the line.

-Andrus

 

[football]

Swimmer was never told that no more Pete updates allowed. Whether or not he posts them in the future is up to him. This is about the posting behavior of some of the members subsequent to (and even prior to) Underhill's tweet, and keeping things from getting even more out of hand.



I think that many members feel the same way regarding what they come away with from the Pete posts and whether or not they believe that what is stated are true. There are a variety of opinions on why people like or dislike the Pete posts depending on the individual reading them. They don't bother me, and personally I find a lot of what is posted in those threads entertaining, and certainly don't want to get in the way of members having fun.



We don't really care for the opinions of known drama queens that often react to anything controversial by defaulting to the most sensationalist assumption that they can conjure up to subsequently fans the flames in favor of their own positions. So if that is what you are stating, you are correct.



Keep in mind that you can't see the posts that we have deleted, but I can. From what I have seen thus far, there was plenty of attacking of both Underhill as well as Swimmer in a manner that is not acceptable per our posting guidelines, and when I get done with this post I will go through the closed thread and delete any remaining posts that I find violates our rules. Then I will open it back up.



Speaking of sensationalism... God status on SR? Really?

Look! I have respect for both you and Underhill, but the responses between factions within the thread after (and even prior) to Underhill's twitter post had gotten out of hand, and that precipitated moderation. How do you know that I am not opening that thread back up? I fully intend to do so. That is my decision to make.

Last night Dan in Lafayette called and told me that due to the significant amount of rule violating posts he would likely lock the thread and asked me to look it over when I get a chance. I have been really busy of late so I am slow at getting around to tending to SR business. My intent is to clean up the thread and unlock it after I am done here with dealing with the fallout in THIS thread. Dan also told me that he was going to send you a PM that I may not agree with. I see that he did, and also that you aren't happy with it. I can see it reading between the lines of your posts on this thread today What is being discussed privately between you and Dan otherwise is between you two and not representative of my feelings on the subject.

Understand that when something really controversial and as touchy as this whole Underhill/Pete thing comes up here where there is uncertainty on how to handle it, the default is to wait for Andrus to handle it. Just as some members pick one side of an issue and some the other, it's the same way with the staff. So better that whatever happens falls on my shoulders, and I accept that. Dan is my right hand man here, and he took some action. But he is leaving further and final action at my discretion.



Who is "they"? I never said anything about Underhill doing anything for SR. I only stated that he was the best and most credible current beat writer that I know.

Let's not turn an individual exchange between you and another staff member that did not include anything that I stated into a "they" thing, and be careful about making such statements and characterizations that can easily be interpreted as misleading. Your posts today in this thread have the appearance that there might some clever postulating going on within them, so let me just state that I don't care who backs who, I care about the behavior of all of those involved as well as this site's credibility. I speak for myself. Let's not conflate what any other staffer states with my own, and and present it as "they", specifically when "they" includes me.

The bottom line is that this entire uprising over a tweet is unfortunate. To me it was a lot to do with nothing, and petty. But now it's morphed into something else.



Yes! I know that you care, and appreciate your efforts, and this wasn't business in a monetary regard. The board didn't need money last year, my daughter and her children did, which is why I skipped having an SR fundraiser in 2019. To my recollection, SR has never received a dime from Underhill, nor would that matter. Everything I do here is about the rules, keeping to a standard with as much consistency as possible, and maintaining credibility. In 23 years, that has never changed. To the dismay of several former members, as well as friends that I have lost over the years, right and wrong matters more to me than financial contributions, and even friendships.


Back to the members... Let me short cut this with some of the conspiracy theorists out there, because I could quote posts and respond to what I am reading all night. I can say things, but some might not believe it, and being that I don't want any more words being put in my mouth, here is a little transparency for you all. The following is the PM that I sent to Swimmer yesterday, and it is the only PM that I have sent to him regarding this subject, with no redactions or changes other than I blotted out Swimmer's actual name. I don't think there is any content that Swimmer would find embarrassing within it, so in order to shut down such theories and misinformation and to back my points, as well as in some ways Swimmer's, here it is:

Thanks for clearing it up. If it is toxic, then I fully understand your intention.

 

[CowtownSaint]

Swimmer was never told that no more Pete updates allowed. Whether or not he posts them in the future is up to him. This is about the posting behavior of some of the members subsequent to (and even prior to) Underhill's tweet, and keeping things from getting even more out of hand.



I think that many members feel the same way regarding what they come away with from the Pete posts and whether or not they believe that what is stated are true. There are a variety of opinions on why people like or dislike the Pete posts depending on the individual reading them. They don't bother me, and personally I find a lot of what is posted in those threads entertaining, and certainly don't want to get in the way of members having fun.



We don't really care for the opinions of known drama queens that often react to anything controversial by defaulting to the most sensationalist assumption that they can conjure up to subsequently fans the flames in favor of their own positions. So if that is what you are stating, you are correct.



Keep in mind that you can't see the posts that we have deleted, but I can. From what I have seen thus far, there was plenty of attacking of both Underhill as well as Swimmer in a manner that is not acceptable per our posting guidelines, and when I get done with this post I will go through the closed thread and delete any remaining posts that I find violates our rules. Then I will open it back up.



Speaking of sensationalism... God status on SR? Really?

Look! I have respect for both you and Underhill, but the responses between factions within the thread after (and even prior) to Underhill's twitter post had gotten out of hand, and that precipitated moderation. How do you know that I am not opening that thread back up? I fully intend to do so. That is my decision to make.

Last night Dan in Lafayette called and told me that due to the significant amount of rule violating posts he would likely lock the thread and asked me to look it over when I get a chance. I have been really busy of late so I am slow at getting around to tending to SR business. My intent is to clean up the thread and unlock it after I am done here with dealing with the fallout in THIS thread. Dan also told me that he was going to send you a PM that I may not agree with. I see that he did, and also that you aren't happy with it. I can see it reading between the lines of your posts on this thread today What is being discussed privately between you and Dan otherwise is between you two and not representative of my feelings on the subject.

Understand that when something really controversial and as touchy as this whole Underhill/Pete thing comes up here where there is uncertainty on how to handle it, the default is to wait for Andrus to handle it. Just as some members pick one side of an issue and some the other, it's the same way with the staff. So better that whatever happens falls on my shoulders, and I accept that. Dan is my right hand man here, and he took some action. But he is leaving further and final action at my discretion.



Who is "they"? I never said anything about Underhill doing anything for SR. I only stated that he was the best and most credible current beat writer that I know.

Let's not turn an individual exchange between you and another staff member that did not include anything that I stated into a "they" thing, and be careful about making such statements and characterizations that can easily be interpreted as misleading. Your posts today in this thread have the appearance that there might some clever postulating going on within them, so let me just state that I don't care who backs who, I care about the behavior of all of those involved as well as this site's credibility. I speak for myself. Let's not conflate what any other staffer states with my own, and and present it as "they", specifically when "they" includes me.

The bottom line is that this entire uprising over a tweet is unfortunate. To me it was a lot to do with nothing, and petty. But now it's morphed into something else.



Yes! I know that you care, and appreciate your efforts, and this wasn't business in a monetary regard. The board didn't need money last year, my daughter and her children did, which is why I skipped having an SR fundraiser in 2019. To my recollection, SR has never received a dime from Underhill, nor would that matter. Everything I do here is about the rules, keeping to a standard with as much consistency as possible, and maintaining credibility. In 23 years, that has never changed. To the dismay of several former members, as well as friends that I have lost over the years, right and wrong matters more to me than financial contributions, and even friendships.


Back to the members... Let me short cut this with some of the conspiracy theorists out there, because I could quote posts and respond to what I am reading all night. I can say things, but some might not believe it, and being that I don't want any more words being put in my mouth, here is a little transparency for you all. The following is the PM that I sent to Swimmer yesterday, and it is the only PM that I have sent to him regarding this subject, with no redactions or changes other than I blotted out Swimmer's actual name. I don't think there is any content that Swimmer would find embarrassing within it, so in order to shut down such theories and misinformation and to back my points, as well as in some ways Swimmer's, here it is:

thank you so much for clarifying Andrus. This really clears up pretty much everything.

 

[dapperdan]

Obviously you don't know Underhill. To use your words, there is no evidence for Coach Pete either. So Pete has fact but Underhill doesn't? I am just as likely to believe Underhill as Coach Pete.









Saints beat writer Nick Underhill won a nationwide Top 10 in the same explanatory category for his exhaustive study on every pass Drew Brees has thrown since 2006. It was the second nationwide Top 10 award for Underhill, who was part of a breaking news team that covered the shooting death of Will Smith in 2016.

Members here were solicited by Nick to help him in the preparation of the award-winning Brees article. Get your head out of the sand, dapperdan.



Link to the Underhill draft day article you are mentioning.

Film study: Marcus Davenport has potential to be finishing piece for Saints' defense

Regretfully, the link to the video no longer works.

Just because you kneel at the altar doesn’t mean I have to. Put it this way I will never pay to read one of his articles but yet I pay for ESPN and the Athletic. He’s worthless to me. Read his articles and have never been impressed.

I will just agree to disagree. Have a great night.

 

[FootballLady]

Just because you kneel at the altar doesn’t mean I have to. Put it this way I will never pay to read one of his articles but yet I pay for ESPN and the Athletic. He’s worthless to me. Read his articles and have never been impressed.

I will just agree to disagree. Have a great night.

Perhaps you'd be well-served by reading Andrus' post above.