Everything starts and ends with recrouxting.
Recrouxting is the be all and end all.
"Burnt Roux" lays no blame and casts no aspersions, it simply means you are starting over.
Everything starts and ends with recrouxting.
Recrouxting is the be all and end all.
"Burnt Roux" lays no blame and casts no aspersions, it simply means you are starting over.
So are you going to explain this to these kids and their parents who think you are trashing them? This may sound cute and may be appropriate in some cases (example, player is kicked off the team for violations of team rules) it makes no sense in a lot of cases.
The thread title is the headline. Lots of people only read the headlines. I'd hate for a prospective player to get the wrong impression from a changed headline. Burnt Roux implies an error that will leave a bad taste in your mouth, at least to anybody who knows what a Roux is.
Getting real moist around here
Burnt roux is always on the cook, not the players.
Its on the cook for not paying close enough attention to details. Before, during or at the end.
Never stop recrouxting even after they are in the fold.
Sorry if some think I'm stirring the pot.
Man we are getting sensitive around here
"completely?" I probably didn't think it through completely 10 years ago. I didn't anticipate this.
Burnt Roux as a phrase has been in use here for 10 years. This thread is the first complaint.
As a stand alone starting over phrase, I still think burnt roux is better than "Transfer Portal." for some reason that reminds me of cattle.
I realize it's the first complaint about the phrase, and honestly I don't have a big problem with it. I CAN see where the complaint is coming from though. It does have a slightly negative connotation, and it is somewhat of an issue to some because in this instance, these players are in the portal because they are leaving due to writing on the wall with the immense talent Glasco is bringing in. In most "burnt roux" cases, it involved players being recrouxted elsewhere or burning the Cajuns by leaving. That's not the case here.
My comment really centered around the fact that you often use outlandish rationale for your point seemingly for the sole purpose of being a contrarian.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)