Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #21
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:Vikings may have interest in Westbrook

    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Sajid28 wrote:
    LT, its good pass-catching but without the injuries.
    Without injuries??????? Have you looked at how he performed in the playoffs of late?

    Additionally, I'm not so sure why everyone says he is so good at catching passes. One would think people would take a look at thier stats for last year and one would see that CT is far and beyond a better fit for that. Hell even Westbrook has better numbers than LT even after being out alot of time last year.
    LT's become secondary in their offense. Sproles has been in alot of third downs catching passes too, which takes away from LT's chances.

    He's been injured the past two seasons, and played through. Can't really say if that will be an ongoing thing or not, but I bet those foot injuries really slowed this runningbacks production (see what I did there?).

    He's not going to put up 1200 yards as a backup and lead us to a superbowl if thats what people are thinking, but he'd be a nice substitute for CT, much better than Albert Young would be. (don't even try to convince me otherwise, LT is better than a guy who's never been off practice squad)

    But after all is said and done, I still don't want either LT or Westbrook on the Vikings next year unless they come dirt cheap.
    You can use Sproles as the excuse, however, they gave him every chance to be the guy and he wasn't. Hell, Westbrook (hurt) had a better season in 3rd down situations.......

    On a side note, how do you know Albert isn't a better option than ole "Take Myself out of a Playoff Game"? Because he is a big name player?

    I bet ole Albert has alot more heart that "I hide behind my black facemask".
    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
    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:Vikings may have interest in Westbrook

    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Sajid28 wrote:
    LT, its good pass-catching but without the injuries.
    Without injuries??????? Have you looked at how he performed in the playoffs of late?

    Additionally, I'm not so sure why everyone says he is so good at catching passes. One would think people would take a look at thier stats for last year and one would see that CT is far and beyond a better fit for that. Hell even Westbrook has better numbers than LT even after being out alot of time last year.
    LT's become secondary in their offense. Sproles has been in alot of third downs catching passes too, which takes away from LT's chances.

    He's been injured the past two seasons, and played through. Can't really say if that will be an ongoing thing or not, but I bet those foot injuries really slowed this runningbacks production (see what I did there?).

    He's not going to put up 1200 yards as a backup and lead us to a superbowl if thats what people are thinking, but he'd be a nice substitute for CT, much better than Albert Young would be. (don't even try to convince me otherwise, LT is better than a guy who's never been off practice squad)

    But after all is said and done, I still don't want either LT or Westbrook on the Vikings next year unless they come dirt cheap.
    You can use Sproles as the excuse, however, they gave him every chance to be the guy and he wasn't. Hell, Westbrook (hurt) had a better season in 3rd down situations.......

    On a side note, how do you know Albert isn't a better option than ole "Take Myself out of a Playoff Game"? Because he is a big name player?

    I bet ole Albert has alot more heart that "I hide behind my black facemask".
    if Albert was better than Tomlinson this whole time, do you really think he'd be hiding on the practice squad? Only a Vikings fan could possibly claim that their practice squad runningback is better than LT.

    Williamson had alot of heart too.

  3. #23
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:Vikings may have interest in Westbrook

    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Sajid28 wrote:
    LT, its good pass-catching but without the injuries.
    Without injuries??????? Have you looked at how he performed in the playoffs of late?

    Additionally, I'm not so sure why everyone says he is so good at catching passes. One would think people would take a look at thier stats for last year and one would see that CT is far and beyond a better fit for that. Hell even Westbrook has better numbers than LT even after being out alot of time last year.
    LT's become secondary in their offense. Sproles has been in alot of third downs catching passes too, which takes away from LT's chances.

    He's been injured the past two seasons, and played through. Can't really say if that will be an ongoing thing or not, but I bet those foot injuries really slowed this runningbacks production (see what I did there?).

    He's not going to put up 1200 yards as a backup and lead us to a superbowl if thats what people are thinking, but he'd be a nice substitute for CT, much better than Albert Young would be. (don't even try to convince me otherwise, LT is better than a guy who's never been off practice squad)

    But after all is said and done, I still don't want either LT or Westbrook on the Vikings next year unless they come dirt cheap.
    You can use Sproles as the excuse, however, they gave him every chance to be the guy and he wasn't. Hell, Westbrook (hurt) had a better season in 3rd down situations.......

    On a side note, how do you know Albert isn't a better option than ole "Take Myself out of a Playoff Game"? Because he is a big name player?

    I bet ole Albert has alot more heart that "I hide behind my black facemask".
    if Albert was better than Tomlinson this whole time, do you really think he'd be hiding on the practice squad? Only a Vikings fan could possibly claim that their practice squad runningback is better than LT.

    Williamson had alot of heart too.
    On the PS????????? Your starting to loose credibility in this discussion my friend......
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  4. #24
    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:Vikings may have interest in Westbrook

    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Sajid28 wrote:
    LT, its good pass-catching but without the injuries.
    Without injuries??????? Have you looked at how he performed in the playoffs of late?

    Additionally, I'm not so sure why everyone says he is so good at catching passes. One would think people would take a look at thier stats for last year and one would see that CT is far and beyond a better fit for that. Hell even Westbrook has better numbers than LT even after being out alot of time last year.
    LT's become secondary in their offense. Sproles has been in alot of third downs catching passes too, which takes away from LT's chances.

    He's been injured the past two seasons, and played through. Can't really say if that will be an ongoing thing or not, but I bet those foot injuries really slowed this runningbacks production (see what I did there?).

    He's not going to put up 1200 yards as a backup and lead us to a superbowl if thats what people are thinking, but he'd be a nice substitute for CT, much better than Albert Young would be. (don't even try to convince me otherwise, LT is better than a guy who's never been off practice squad)

    But after all is said and done, I still don't want either LT or Westbrook on the Vikings next year unless they come dirt cheap.
    You can use Sproles as the excuse, however, they gave him every chance to be the guy and he wasn't. Hell, Westbrook (hurt) had a better season in 3rd down situations.......

    On a side note, how do you know Albert isn't a better option than ole "Take Myself out of a Playoff Game"? Because he is a big name player?

    I bet ole Albert has alot more heart that "I hide behind my black facemask".
    if Albert was better than Tomlinson this whole time, do you really think he'd be hiding on the practice squad? Only a Vikings fan could possibly claim that their practice squad runningback is better than LT.

    Williamson had alot of heart too.
    On the PS????????? Your starting to loose credibility in this discussion my friend......
    oops, I suppose I was thinking of Ian Johnson then. haha

    Point still stands... if our 3rd string RB who never saw the field this season is not better than LT. I don't think he's better than Ian Johnson.

    Lets face it, the only time we saw him was in preseason against other backups. He looked terrible last season, and alright htis season, but Culpepper, TJ and Jason Carter looked fantastic in preseason too for us.

  5. #25
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:Vikings may have interest in Westbrook

    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Sajid28 wrote:
    LT, its good pass-catching but without the injuries.
    Without injuries??????? Have you looked at how he performed in the playoffs of late?

    Additionally, I'm not so sure why everyone says he is so good at catching passes. One would think people would take a look at thier stats for last year and one would see that CT is far and beyond a better fit for that. Hell even Westbrook has better numbers than LT even after being out alot of time last year.
    LT's become secondary in their offense. Sproles has been in alot of third downs catching passes too, which takes away from LT's chances.

    He's been injured the past two seasons, and played through. Can't really say if that will be an ongoing thing or not, but I bet those foot injuries really slowed this runningbacks production (see what I did there?).

    He's not going to put up 1200 yards as a backup and lead us to a superbowl if thats what people are thinking, but he'd be a nice substitute for CT, much better than Albert Young would be. (don't even try to convince me otherwise, LT is better than a guy who's never been off practice squad)

    But after all is said and done, I still don't want either LT or Westbrook on the Vikings next year unless they come dirt cheap.
    You can use Sproles as the excuse, however, they gave him every chance to be the guy and he wasn't. Hell, Westbrook (hurt) had a better season in 3rd down situations.......

    On a side note, how do you know Albert isn't a better option than ole "Take Myself out of a Playoff Game"? Because he is a big name player?

    I bet ole Albert has alot more heart that "I hide behind my black facemask".
    if Albert was better than Tomlinson this whole time, do you really think he'd be hiding on the practice squad? Only a Vikings fan could possibly claim that their practice squad runningback is better than LT.

    Williamson had alot of heart too.
    On the PS????????? Your starting to loose credibility in this discussion my friend......
    oops, I suppose I was thinking of Ian Johnson then. haha

    Point still stands... if our 3rd string RB who never saw the field this season is not better than LT. I don't think he's better than Ian Johnson.

    Lets face it, the only time we saw him was in preseason against other backups. He looked terrible last season, and alright htis season, but Culpepper, TJ and Jason Carter looked fantastic in preseason too for us.
    Never saw the field this season???????

    Credibility slips some more my friend.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  6. #26
    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:Vikings may have interest in Westbrook

    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Sajid28 wrote:
    LT, its good pass-catching but without the injuries.
    Without injuries??????? Have you looked at how he performed in the playoffs of late?

    Additionally, I'm not so sure why everyone says he is so good at catching passes. One would think people would take a look at thier stats for last year and one would see that CT is far and beyond a better fit for that. Hell even Westbrook has better numbers than LT even after being out alot of time last year.
    LT's become secondary in their offense. Sproles has been in alot of third downs catching passes too, which takes away from LT's chances.

    He's been injured the past two seasons, and played through. Can't really say if that will be an ongoing thing or not, but I bet those foot injuries really slowed this runningbacks production (see what I did there?).

    He's not going to put up 1200 yards as a backup and lead us to a superbowl if thats what people are thinking, but he'd be a nice substitute for CT, much better than Albert Young would be. (don't even try to convince me otherwise, LT is better than a guy who's never been off practice squad)

    But after all is said and done, I still don't want either LT or Westbrook on the Vikings next year unless they come dirt cheap.
    You can use Sproles as the excuse, however, they gave him every chance to be the guy and he wasn't. Hell, Westbrook (hurt) had a better season in 3rd down situations.......

    On a side note, how do you know Albert isn't a better option than ole "Take Myself out of a Playoff Game"? Because he is a big name player?

    I bet ole Albert has alot more heart that "I hide behind my black facemask".
    if Albert was better than Tomlinson this whole time, do you really think he'd be hiding on the practice squad? Only a Vikings fan could possibly claim that their practice squad runningback is better than LT.

    Williamson had alot of heart too.
    On the PS????????? Your starting to loose credibility in this discussion my friend......
    oops, I suppose I was thinking of Ian Johnson then. haha

    Point still stands... if our 3rd string RB who never saw the field this season is not better than LT. I don't think he's better than Ian Johnson.

    Lets face it, the only time we saw him was in preseason against other backups. He looked terrible last season, and alright htis season, but Culpepper, TJ and Jason Carter looked fantastic in preseason too for us.
    Never saw the field this season???????

    Credibility slips some more my friend.
    interesting, I can't for the life of me remember seeing him take a carry. Must have been in the last minutes of blowouts when my attention turned elsewhere.

  7. #27
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:Vikings may have interest in Westbrook

    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Sajid28 wrote:
    LT, its good pass-catching but without the injuries.
    Without injuries??????? Have you looked at how he performed in the playoffs of late?

    Additionally, I'm not so sure why everyone says he is so good at catching passes. One would think people would take a look at thier stats for last year and one would see that CT is far and beyond a better fit for that. Hell even Westbrook has better numbers than LT even after being out alot of time last year.
    LT's become secondary in their offense. Sproles has been in alot of third downs catching passes too, which takes away from LT's chances.

    He's been injured the past two seasons, and played through. Can't really say if that will be an ongoing thing or not, but I bet those foot injuries really slowed this runningbacks production (see what I did there?).

    He's not going to put up 1200 yards as a backup and lead us to a superbowl if thats what people are thinking, but he'd be a nice substitute for CT, much better than Albert Young would be. (don't even try to convince me otherwise, LT is better than a guy who's never been off practice squad)

    But after all is said and done, I still don't want either LT or Westbrook on the Vikings next year unless they come dirt cheap.
    You can use Sproles as the excuse, however, they gave him every chance to be the guy and he wasn't. Hell, Westbrook (hurt) had a better season in 3rd down situations.......

    On a side note, how do you know Albert isn't a better option than ole "Take Myself out of a Playoff Game"? Because he is a big name player?

    I bet ole Albert has alot more heart that "I hide behind my black facemask".
    if Albert was better than Tomlinson this whole time, do you really think he'd be hiding on the practice squad? Only a Vikings fan could possibly claim that their practice squad runningback is better than LT.

    Williamson had alot of heart too.
    On the PS????????? Your starting to loose credibility in this discussion my friend......
    oops, I suppose I was thinking of Ian Johnson then. haha

    Point still stands... if our 3rd string RB who never saw the field this season is not better than LT. I don't think he's better than Ian Johnson.

    Lets face it, the only time we saw him was in preseason against other backups. He looked terrible last season, and alright htis season, but Culpepper, TJ and Jason Carter looked fantastic in preseason too for us.
    Never saw the field this season???????

    Credibility slips some more my friend.
    interesting, I can't for the life of me remember seeing him take a carry. Must have been in the last minutes of blowouts when my attention turned elsewhere.
    So now you admit to not watching the entire game....WOW.

    Alright, done messing with ya. Of course he doesn't stand the litmus test against a HOF back. Thats almost as dumb as people who try to use the TJ vs Noodle discussion.

    However,,,,,,,,the staff promoted him to the 53 man roster for a reason. My guess, to get the feel for how it is under real gametime situations so that he wouldn't have to deal with that and the reps he would eventually get the next year if he wound up being CT's replacement.

    As I said, if that does happen, I am excited to see what the kid can do. By the by, I already saw what ole "I can't play in the playoffs" did. Cats like that don't get a bit of cred with me no matter what thier history is.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  8. #28
    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:Vikings may have interest in Westbrook

    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Sajid28 wrote:
    LT, its good pass-catching but without the injuries.
    Without injuries??????? Have you looked at how he performed in the playoffs of late?

    Additionally, I'm not so sure why everyone says he is so good at catching passes. One would think people would take a look at thier stats for last year and one would see that CT is far and beyond a better fit for that. Hell even Westbrook has better numbers than LT even after being out alot of time last year.
    LT's become secondary in their offense. Sproles has been in alot of third downs catching passes too, which takes away from LT's chances.

    He's been injured the past two seasons, and played through. Can't really say if that will be an ongoing thing or not, but I bet those foot injuries really slowed this runningbacks production (see what I did there?).

    He's not going to put up 1200 yards as a backup and lead us to a superbowl if thats what people are thinking, but he'd be a nice substitute for CT, much better than Albert Young would be. (don't even try to convince me otherwise, LT is better than a guy who's never been off practice squad)

    But after all is said and done, I still don't want either LT or Westbrook on the Vikings next year unless they come dirt cheap.
    You can use Sproles as the excuse, however, they gave him every chance to be the guy and he wasn't. Hell, Westbrook (hurt) had a better season in 3rd down situations.......

    On a side note, how do you know Albert isn't a better option than ole "Take Myself out of a Playoff Game"? Because he is a big name player?

    I bet ole Albert has alot more heart that "I hide behind my black facemask".
    if Albert was better than Tomlinson this whole time, do you really think he'd be hiding on the practice squad? Only a Vikings fan could possibly claim that their practice squad runningback is better than LT.

    Williamson had alot of heart too.
    On the PS????????? Your starting to loose credibility in this discussion my friend......
    oops, I suppose I was thinking of Ian Johnson then. haha

    Point still stands... if our 3rd string RB who never saw the field this season is not better than LT. I don't think he's better than Ian Johnson.

    Lets face it, the only time we saw him was in preseason against other backups. He looked terrible last season, and alright htis season, but Culpepper, TJ and Jason Carter looked fantastic in preseason too for us.
    Never saw the field this season???????

    Credibility slips some more my friend.
    interesting, I can't for the life of me remember seeing him take a carry. Must have been in the last minutes of blowouts when my attention turned elsewhere.
    So now you admit to not watching the entire game....WOW.
    nah, I watch the whole game, if we've got it in hand, I might not be paying as close attention, aparantly not enough to notice Albert Young was running. (either that, or I've just blocked it out completely)

    However,,,,,,,,the staff promoted him to the 53 man roster for a reason. My guess, to get the feel for how it is under real gametime situations so that he wouldn't have to deal with that and the reps he would eventually get the next year if he wound up being CT's replacement.
    Isn't that why any 3rd string back is promoted? We needed 3 backs, its between him and Ian, they thought he deserves it. I see it as filling a need, not necessarily planning for the future. How many 3rd string backs in recent memory went on to be key contributors for us? I can only think of one (Memo)

    As I said, if that does happen, I am excited to see what the kid can do. By the by, I already saw what ole "I can't play in the playoffs" did. Cats like that don't get a bit of cred with me no matter what thier history is.
    I would also like to see what he can do in a real game-time situation. But I'm not a fan of hoping a player does well. I'd rather know what I'm getting into.

  9. #29
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:Vikings may have interest in Westbrook

    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Isn't that why any 3rd string back is promoted? We needed 3 backs, its between him and Ian, they thought he deserves it. I see it as filling a need, not necessarily planning for the future. How many 3rd string backs in recent memory went on to be key contributors for us? I can only think of one (Memo)
    So you don't think the move to put AY and JJ on the 53 man roster by the staff was for no other reason than to fill a need?

    I know I over analyze things a bit, but in this case, I don't think I'm that far off the mark to say that the staff did it so that those cats would have a lower learning curve next year if they were to be put in a bigger role.

    Did it fill a need? Sure, but in the end, both of them will be better equipped to deal with a increase role next year if asked.

    I would also like to see what he can do in a real game-time situation. But I'm not a fan of hoping a player does well. I'd rather know what I'm getting into.
    If I'm correct with my reasoning here, my guess is the staff thinks along the same lines as you.

    Bring the kid up early. Put him in situations that ensure success, eliminating some of the "Hope" factor for next year.

    In the end, all young cats are nothing more than "Hope" and at somepoint that "Hope" needs to be realized by getting onto the field in some sort of fashion.

    Every player always starts out with a question mark in front of his name. Every player.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  10. #30
    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:Vikings may have interest in Westbrook

    Marrdro wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Isn't that why any 3rd string back is promoted? We needed 3 backs, its between him and Ian, they thought he deserves it. I see it as filling a need, not necessarily planning for the future. How many 3rd string backs in recent memory went on to be key contributors for us? I can only think of one (Memo)
    So you don't think the move to put AY and JJ on the 53 man roster by the staff was for no other reason than to fill a need?

    I know I over analyze things a bit, but in this case, I don't think I'm that far off the mark to say that the staff did it so that those cats would have a lower learning curve next year if they were to be put in a bigger role.

    Did it fill a need? Sure, but in the end, both of them will be better equipped to deal with a increase role next year if asked.
    Yes and no.

    in the case of AY, we needed a third back, they obviously thought he'd do better than Ian Johnson, so he made hte cut. I don't think it was planning for the future, if he pans out, great, if not, oh well.

    for JJ however I see as different. We carried 6 WR's, Harvin, Berrian, Rice, Wade, JJ and DR. We cut Wade and signed Greg lewis. 6 is more than normal, I bet they saw potential in JJ, and wanted both him and DR to be on the roster and contributing. This season was probably a tryout for next season. I doubt we go with 6 again. JJ was penciled in as the punt returner at first, but DR took that over. I think this was more of a case of "try them out and see what they can do" rather than "crap, we need 6 wr's, well, lets throw JJ on, he did better than whoever"
    I would also like to see what he can do in a real game-time situation. But I'm not a fan of hoping a player does well. I'd rather know what I'm getting into.
    If I'm correct with my reasoning here, my guess is the staff thinks along the same lines as you.

    Bring the kid up early. Put him in situations that ensure success, eliminating some of the "Hope" factor for next year.
    I fail to see how that eliminates the hope factor. You put a guy in when you KNOW he'll do well, you will be disappointed later on when you put him in situations where you HOPE he'll do well and he doesn't. Thats like giving a kid answers to a test when he's writing it so he does well, then giving him another test later and he fails.


    [/quote]

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Shiancoe: Westbrook could help Vikings
    By vikinggreg in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-17-2010, 05:55 AM
  2. MOVED: Vikings may have interest in Westbrook
    By ultravikingfan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 01:22 AM
  3. Interest in Vikings, ticket sales are up
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-21-2008, 11:08 AM
  4. Vikings - Other notes of interest
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2007, 02:33 AM
  5. Vikings Show Interest in MLB
    By VikesfaninWis in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-24-2006, 07:31 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
  •