Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1094058
    Marrdro.

    1: In your CT vs Staff debate....you didn't say anything about the staff...you stated that we bitched because "Ct was taking too many reps"...the implication of what you wrote was that CT was the target of fan ire...he was not. Had you said, "People were bitching because the staff pulled Peterson for Taylor in non-3rd down situations and at inexplicable times", that would have been an accurate statement.
    But it isn't what I implied. Its what you and Bleed think I implied. The way it is written could also be taken that I implied the "Staff" and my comment directly after that when I said I said "Staff" would indicate that I was thinking along that lines.

    Heck, I typed it, I should know what I meant.


    2: BleacherReport stuff is opinion stuff...we agree on that. But too many people cite BR as some form of validation for their pet theories when it has no more validity than anything I might write. And, as I said, it often has LESS validity. Further, while this may be a discussion site, most of our discussions are fact based. Most opinions are also fact based.

    ...except most of yours, which are based upon who the hell knows what...

    When we post opinions or positions on issues, we are called out by those who disagree...BR isn't. there is no running commentary that allows readers to differentiate fact from fiction in BR.

    Actual news sources get it wrong, but they at least operate under the expectation of accuracy. When they report something, it has to be based in provable truth. BR does not.

    That is why I don't read BR crap, and I don't even bother to follow the links if they direct me there. I don't need another non-fact based, half-formed opinion to color my impressions of the team, the nFL, or anything else....
    So, going on the premise that you don't put any credit into anything that isn't actually written by a "Reporter" or what you consider to be a "Professional", then you discount all "Blogs" as well?

    Kindof shocking as the "Blog" now seems to be were all the papers are moving to.

    In theory, you then don't think anything posted on here is worth reading I guess.

    On a side note,
    Most opinions are also fact based.
    From our good friends at wiki....

    In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.
    I think you put way to much into the credibility of what is said on this site, atleast by posters other than me.

    ...except most of yours, which are based upon who the hell knows what...

    ...I already have YOU for that.
    I'd love to sit down and compare my football libray compared to what you've read. Not saying I am more knowledgable than someone of your stature, but I sure put alot of effort into learning the game.

    The difference between you and I is I am here for entertainment purposes and use my limited knowledge of the game for that purpose and don't take it very seriously. You on the other hand, well, you know how you are. :P


    3: AP's best YPC season was his rookie season...which I discount because it's one of those "Who knew?" things. Like Arian Foster this year. Can he repeat it?
    What fact are you basing that off of? I'm just using your criteria here.

    Teams did not consistently stack the box EVERY DOWN back when Robert Smith was here...because we'd just start airing it out and torch them through the air. It wasn't until we traded Moss and were left with no legit WR corps that teams started to aggressively stack. And once AP arrived, teams almost entirely ignored the pass and played run heavy on almost every down...when AP was in.

    Yes, they would occasionally stack prior to that, but we never saw it like we do now.
    What fact is that based on? My good friend bleed already tried to get some youtube clips. I'd be interested in what you have for proof.

    Again, going off your criteria for having a discussion.

    Otherwise, your statement indicates that Peterson is already breaking down...after all, he's needed more carries to get fewer yards...

    Might want to reassess that position...

    Caine
    Implications and indications. LOL. And yet your still missing the mark. I the issue isn't my discussion points, but rather, your ability to stay with those discussions. Perhaps a issue with "Understanding"......

    Wiki has a good one on that word as well.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #22
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1094030
    Are you saying otherwise? The line wasn't good. Our Run blocking was awful, and our pass blocking was no better. Favre was getting killed out there, almost as bad as he was this year. Thing is, he was more mobile then, and could avoid pressure.
    You and Caine seem to be adamant about having actual football proof behind what is said so I will play....

    Tell me why the run blocking was awefull? Was it the shifts? Was it the zone releases? Maybe it was the RB's not setting up blocks. You got proof that wasn't the case?

    Nope, me thinks all you have is a opinion, just like me, based on what you saw happening from the sideline view of the plays.

    You have no clue if Herrera got his head on the left side of the G instead of the right side or if he had his shoulder off left pad.

    As to the Noodle, my opinion is that he wasn't getting hit anymore than any QB running a WCO scheme. Fact is, he wasn't getting hit much at all until the Ain'ts worked his old ass over in the championship game.

    I await your facts that prove other wise.

    Heck, I'm getting to like this fact game. Should be fun.

    And they also played pass D on downs where there's a good shot of passing.
    Facts please.

    Truth of the matter is you don't know what the defense was doing on any given play.

    My opinion, based on comments by actual coaches (Jimmy Johnson) and players (Howie Long) who said that "Stacking the boxes" is one of the most over used cliche's. Both went into great detail about how the stacked box has been going on forever and will continue to go on forever as it is the staple of all defenses......Stop the run first....

    Again, I wait for the facts you have that dispute that.

    Man this is fun.

    On third and medium, with TJ or Webb, our best option was to get the ball to AP. Especially when Rice isn't 100% and Harvin's out with migranes.
    On third and medium the best option is to pass not to run the ball. Is there a chance that AD could get it? Sure, but there is also a chance he will get stacked at the line.

    You act as if I don't understand the concept of stacking the box.

    I do. You don't understand that teams seem to stack the box upwards of 80% of the time against us. I remember a couple games where the defense would put 9 in the box when we came out in a 2-wide formation. Everybody would stack the box, leaving the two WR's one on one. (San Fran game when AP was held to under 10 yards).
    Nope, I don't think that. What your missing is that I say that teams stack the box alot against everybody.

    What you seem to think is it is just against us.

    You might also notice, when AP came out and CT came in, they switched out of that, and CT ripped off big gains. Care to explain that?
    Doesn't mean the box still didn't have a S in it. It just meant that maybe, just maybe CT was patient enough to allow his blockers to seal the edge, thus knullifying the extra man.

    By the way, Baldy and Sharp talked about that when they were talking about how many teams face defenses that load the box.

    Again, it happens more than you want to admit and it has nothing to do with the QB under Center or the threat of a passing attack.

    All I can find. Still beats whatever evidence you produce for anything.
    Unlike you and Caine, I don't bring proof to a discussion. LOL, I can just see you two now, walking up the the convo around the water cooler/coffee pot......

    Hold on guys, I have to get my "Proof" laid out before we start talking about something. .......snicker.....

    Yeah, and we put up 4000+ yards and AD had a great season.
    And the boxes were still stacked.

    Standing by for proof/facts they weren't.


    Like Caine is trying to explain, we weren't 'beyyyyatching' because a different back was in there. We were 'beyyyyatching' because they take AD out in key situations.
    So when do you think he should come out? What is your key for the situation to be right?

    Hmm...
    a) He's a rookie learning the system, in clutch situations, AP is bette rout there.
    b) he's a purely power runner, but smaller than I'd like to see a true powerback be.
    c) He's never been asked to play 3rd down back in college, I"m not sure why people think that would be a good spot for him
    d) both AP and BOoker are better suited to be 3rd down backs than he is. Gerhart is a good guy to have come in and spell AP on first and second, MAYBE 3rd and short. Nothing more at this point. With a year under his belt, maybe he gets a better grasp on the pro game and can play better. As it is now, he's not there.
    e) he fumbles more than AP
    a. He is a rookie that got better as the season went on. To be expected wouldn't you think?
    b. What? Based on what facts? AD 6'1" 217. Toby 6'0" 231. Maybe AD isn't your ideal size for a power runner.\
    c. What facts do you have for that one......He isn't a 3rd down back. He is a backup to AD. Our 3rd down back is Booker. WOW.
    d. Well, this was better than c. Here is something for you.....Toby 81/322 yds, Snelling 87/324 yds, Westbrook 77/340 yds, CT 112/267 yds. I think he did just fine compared to other teams who have a solid running back that employ a 2nd back rotation.
    e. Seriously? I need to see the facts on that one.

    The author uses AP averaging over 300 carries as a sign that he's being overworked.
    The author is not the first one to say that. Fact of the matter was, (it was either SI or ESPN), 2 years ago they did a real nice story on backs that carry the ball over 300 times and what it does to their production the year after. It also went on to show how special backs like AD seem to over come that.

    Depends on the back.

    Most teams don't have a player nearly as good as AP, so when they bring in a backup, the dropoff isn't that big.

    Jets for example. Last season they had LT and Shonn Greene. Shonn greene started out getting hte bulk of carries, then they relaized LT could still play, they gave him more and more. He's older, so maybe can't handle 320+ carries. Neither player approaches AD's talent right now.

    Giants, back in the day of Jacobs, Ward and Bradshaw. Each player had a unique skillset, and each player was played to their strengths. We don't have 3 above average backs, we have 1 superback, and 2 backups.

    Titans, first they used the two-back system with White taking the goal line/short yardage reps and Chris Johnson running the rest of the time. They switched that up pretty quickly when they realized just what they had with Chris Johnson.

    The 2-back system is a great thing to use when you don't have that stud runningback. Lets look at the top-5 runningbacks of last year. This is my list, based on yards, average, TD's, etc.
    Why did you leave out the backs I used earlier? Didn't support your discussion point?

    Comeon my friend, teams use a 2 back set now to extend the career of their stud like AD.

    All you listed are teams that have the luxury of having vets at both positions.

    In no particular order

    Peterson - 1298, 283 car, 4.6ypc, 12 TD, 341 recy, 36 rec, 1rtd
    Foster - 1616, 327 car, 4.9 ypc, 16TD, 605 recy, 66 rec, 2rtd
    MJD - 1324, 299 car, 4.4 ypc, 5 TD, 317 recy, 34 rec, 2rtd
    Turner - 1371, 334 car, 4.1ypc, 12 td,
    CJ - 1364, 316 car, 4.3ypc, 11TD, 245 recy, 44rec, 1rtd.

    All of those players had close to, or over 300 carries. Add in receptions, they get a significant workload.

    Those players are go-to backs, franchise players, they don't run the two-back system. Yes they have a backup who comes in every now and then, but they are the main guy. Why? Because they can handle it, and are good enough to deserve it.
    What the hell are you talking about. I think I've figured out why your so confused. You to think the author is trying to say we need to split the carries. LOL.

    He is proposing that you give your stud back some reps off, not take him off the field for half the game for cripes sake.

    Go back and ready Mr. A's post. That is what the cat is recommending.


    Packers are an interesting example. With Grant, they get about 1100+ yards a season. however, Grant isn't that great of a back, but they use him almost exclusively. When you put in the backup, as we saw last year in the playoffs with Starks, the dropoff isn't that huge. They're both decent, but not great players.
    So your premise is that the only teams that use 2 backs are teams that don't have stud running backs.

    Back a few years ago, teams did use 2 backs to compliment each other were one might be your speed guy and the other might be your short yardage guy but that isn't what we are talking about here.

    We are talking about having a cat behind your starter that can start if needed as well as take about 10-15 reps off a game to keep your stud fresh.

    Again, not a hard concept to follow.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  3. #23
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,776
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    ffs, I had a giant reply written, which I'm not going to re-write. Included pictures and videos.

    You keep asking for facts for things that are eaily findable. When you start producing any type of factual evidence, then you can play that game. You want facts? I'll give you three.

    CT faced a 7 man front, made the 49ers pay





    This ended in an 84 yard touchdown. Why did they use a 7 man front? Peterson was out, it was 2nd and 13 and halfway through the second quarter. They thought we would pass, and they were wrong.


    Fact: Gerhart had less than 40 catches in his college career, he was not used as a third down back. Check the stats if you don't like it.

    Fact: Gerhart fumbles once every 34 touches. Last season Peterson fumbled once every 319 touches. In fact, for his career, Peterson fumbled every 62.7 touches. Fact.

    Fact: You ask for facts because you're either too lazy to look up stuff yourself, you know there are no facts available, or you're just trying to get a rise out of people here. When you bring actual facts to your discussions, you can play that game. It's like coming to a party and drinking only somebody elses beer. You put in a little bit, you'[ll get a bit in return.

    I'm not getting you any more "Facts" just because you ask for them. I challenge you to provide any facts that support your claim that teams stack the box the same vs. every other team. Please, enlighten me.

  4. #24
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1094199
    ffs, I had a giant reply written, which I'm not going to re-write. Included pictures and videos.
    Thats why I hate replying to your long posts. I have to copy them before I try to hit submit just in case that happens. :laugh:

    You keep asking for facts for things that are eaily findable. When you start producing any type of factual evidence, then you can play that game. You want facts? I'll give you three.
    LOL, thats the point. I don't need facts to have a football discussion. I just need someone to talk to.

    For example.....the way this discussion has gone.....

    Marrdro: Hey Bleed, what do you think about RB X.

    Bleed: What facts do you have?

    Marrdro: Facts? Its a question. Why do I need facts for a question. OK, lets try this. Bleed, I think we could extend AD's career if we had him take a few reps off.

    Bleed: What facts do you have?

    Marrdro: Facts, again? I don't need facts, I just want your opinion.

    or the way it could have gone......

    Marrdro: Hey Bleed, what do you think about RB X?

    Bleed: I think he's one heck of a RB but needs the ball a bit more.

    Marrdro: I hear ya my friend, however, don't you think he would be better down the stretch of his career if he took a few reps off?

    Bleed: Possibly, but I believe that cats like RB X just need to tote the rock so that they can get into the flow of the game.

    Marrdro: Gotcha my friend. I just like what he's done for the team and think we need to really look at what we can do to ensure he stays with the team.

    .....Not sure about you, however, the second scenario is much more enjoyable......

    Fact: Gerhart had less than 40 catches in his college career, he was not used as a third down back. Check the stats if you don't like it.
    Not sure why you keep focusing on Toby as a 3rd down back. Again, I believe that he is a backup to AD as the primary back. I think that Booker is the cat that is better suited for the 3rd down role especially when you are looking at 3rd and long situations.

    Fact: Gerhart fumbles once every 34 touches. Last season Peterson fumbled once every 319 touches. In fact, for his career, Peterson fumbled every 62.7 touches. Fact.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't AD fumble once last year and Toby fumbled once. That means they each fumbled once.

    Now if you want to say something along the lines that their avg is higher or lower than the other based on fumbles per carry, then yes I agree.

    Fact: You ask for facts because you're either too lazy to look up stuff yourself, you know there are no facts available, or you're just trying to get a rise out of people here. When you bring actual facts to your discussions, you can play that game. It's like coming to a party and drinking only somebody elses beer. You put in a little bit, you'll get a bit in return.
    Or you can just learn to have a amiable discussion without having to have facts supporting the discussion.

    Again, that type of format is a "Debate" formate. Not sure about you, but I don't like debating. I'd rather drink beer and talk/discuss about the game.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  5. #25
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,776
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1094202
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't AD fumble once last year and Toby fumbled once. That means they each fumbled once.
    consider yourself corrected. Toby fumbled 3 times.

    Fact: You ask for facts because you're either too lazy to look up stuff yourself, you know there are no facts available, or you're just trying to get a rise out of people here. When you bring actual facts to your discussions, you can play that game. It's like coming to a party and drinking only somebody elses beer. You put in a little bit, you'll get a bit in return.
    Or you can just learn to have a amiable discussion without having to have facts supporting the discussion.
    I do. I start by basing my 'discussion' on observations and things I know. When I watch games, I remember what I see and I can recall what I saw. using that information, i can form conclusions. If my conclusion is challenged, I can then bring in facts to back up my stance. When your conclusion is challenged, you ask ME for facts. If you want somewhere where you can say whatever you want without question, find a bunch of second graders and teach them how to play the game. On a site full of grown men, you opinion will be challenged if others don't htink it's correct.
    Again, that type of format is a "Debate" formate. Not sure about you, but I don't like debating. I'd rather drink beer and talk/discuss about the game.
    Yes, and a good discussion includes reasoning. Otherwise I could just sit there saying Petyon Manning is the bestest QB Ever because he threw 5000 yards and has the most touchdowns ever. And you would say yes, because debating that is apparantly not a discussion.

  6. #26
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,135

    Re: Why Vikings Should Decrease RBs (AD) Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1094172
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1094058
    Marrdro.

    1: In your CT vs Staff debate....you didn't say anything about the staff...you stated that we bitched because "Ct was taking too many reps"...the implication of what you wrote was that CT was the target of fan ire...he was not. Had you said, "People were bitching because the staff pulled Peterson for Taylor in non-3rd down situations and at inexplicable times", that would have been an accurate statement.
    But it isn't what I implied. Its what you and Bleed think I implied. The way it is written could also be taken that I implied the "Staff" and my comment directly after that when I said I said "Staff" would indicate that I was thinking along that lines.

    Heck, I typed it, I should know what I meant.
    Yes. You typed it. That means that the responsibility for CLARITY falls to you. I can only respond to what is written...not to what you intend. This is a rather limited medium...


    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1094172
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1094058
    2: BleacherReport stuff is opinion stuff...we agree on that. But too many people cite BR as some form of validation for their pet theories when it has no more validity than anything I might write. And, as I said, it often has LESS validity. Further, while this may be a discussion site, most of our discussions are fact based. Most opinions are also fact based.

    ...except most of yours, which are based upon who the hell knows what...

    When we post opinions or positions on issues, we are called out by those who disagree...BR isn't. there is no running commentary that allows readers to differentiate fact from fiction in BR.

    Actual news sources get it wrong, but they at least operate under the expectation of accuracy. When they report something, it has to be based in provable truth. BR does not.

    That is why I don't read BR crap, and I don't even bother to follow the links if they direct me there. I don't need another non-fact based, half-formed opinion to color my impressions of the team, the nFL, or anything else....
    So, going on the premise that you don't put any credit into anything that isn't actually written by a "Reporter" or what you consider to be a "Professional", then you discount all "Blogs" as well?

    Kindof shocking as the "Blog" now seems to be were all the papers are moving to.

    In theory, you then don't think anything posted on here is worth reading I guess.

    On a side note,
    Most opinions are also fact based.
    From our good friends at wiki....

    In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.
    I think you put way to much into the credibility of what is said on this site, atleast by posters other than me.
    See the first sentence of what you just posted?

    "...an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts"

    In other words, an interpretation of FACTS leads to OPINIONS...

    Didn't I just say that?

    As for what I deem credible...

    well...

    I prefer to put my belief in things that are verifiable, or have plenty of plausible evidence pointing tin that direction. Things that are pulled out of someone's ass, I tend to dismiss.

    As for blogs...again, those are typically opinion pieces with little oversight. Anyone can type anything...that doesn't make it true. So, no, I don't tend to follow blogs. Sort of like any wiki...which I see you used as validation...

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1094172
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1094058
    ...except most of yours, which are based upon who the hell knows what...

    ...I already have YOU for that.
    I'd love to sit down and compare my football libray compared to what you've read. Not saying I am more knowledgable than someone of your stature, but I sure put alot of effort into learning the game.

    The difference between you and I is I am here for entertainment purposes and use my limited knowledge of the game for that purpose and don't take it very seriously. You on the other hand, well, you know how you are. :P
    Yup, I'm the killjoy that doesn't let bullshit walk...

    As for your library...

    I've read a ton of spy novels....I don't think I'm ready to be a spy.

    I've read a bunch of books on space flight...but I'm no astronaut.

    And I've read the Harry Potter series...but I don't think that I would do very well at Hogwarts.

    My point here is that your book reading means very little. If that was all it took, I'd send Zygi a bunch of books about running an NFL franchise, and we'd be Superbowl bound.

    I don't "put effort into learning the game"...I played it. From the time I was about 7 or 8.

    And, I'm curious, what exactly is "Someone of your stature"?

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1094172
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1094058
    3: AP's best YPC season was his rookie season...which I discount because it's one of those "Who knew?" things. Like Arian Foster this year. Can he repeat it?
    What fact are you basing that off of? I'm just using your criteria here.
    The "fact" I based it off was AP's stats on NFL.com. The "can he repeat it" is a question, not a fact.

    Are you really going to be this petty just because you're wrong about so many other things?

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1094172
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1094058
    Teams did not consistently stack the box EVERY DOWN back when Robert Smith was here...because we'd just start airing it out and torch them through the air. It wasn't until we traded Moss and were left with no legit WR corps that teams started to aggressively stack. And once AP arrived, teams almost entirely ignored the pass and played run heavy on almost every down...when AP was in.

    Yes, they would occasionally stack prior to that, but we never saw it like we do now.
    What fact is that based on? My good friend bleed already tried to get some youtube clips. I'd be interested in what you have for proof.

    Again, going off your criteria for having a discussion.
    Mike Tice's comments in post game interviews...when he described the "Duh" offense they were using (His term, not mine). He stated very clearly that no matter what weapon opposing teams tried to take away, the Vikings would simply go in another direction.

    If teams had constantly stacked the box - as you claim - then we'd have simply passed all the time.

    And, as for "my criteria for having a conversation" doesn't include semantics ambushes designed to waste time and give the illusion of intellectualism. It involves common sense and the ability to accurately interpret events...things you appear to be running out of.

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1094172
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1094058
    Otherwise, your statement indicates that Peterson is already breaking down...after all, he's needed more carries to get fewer yards...

    Might want to reassess that position...

    Caine
    Implications and indications. LOL. And yet your still missing the mark. I the issue isn't my discussion points, but rather, your ability to stay with those discussions. Perhaps a issue with "Understanding"......

    Wiki has a good one on that word as well.
    Right, because you change your "points", then claim that we "misinterpreted" you....

    You seem to think that an "amiable discussion" doesn't require any type of factually based evidence, or verifiable proof...

    ..that's not a discussion. That's called "talking shit".

    I'm not a fan.

    Caine

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2008, 05:35 PM
  2. Workload won't be excessive for Taylor
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-17-2007, 01:49 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •