Lucky Luciano Posted August 11, 2008 Report Share Posted August 11, 2008 Look, I know there are some bad ones but he makes a killing does JA off 2-5 round picks. Period.You throw out comments about how Angelo owns the 2nd through 5th rounds, but I have given lists, and while you make funny little comments, you really offer little evidence to support such claims.Does Angelo have some hits between the 2nd and 5th. Sure. He would be gone if he didn't. But the idea he owns these rounds I think is laughable. I think he gained such a rep in 2003, but when you take an honest look, his middle rounds simply are not that great. i agree. in my opinion angelo's drafts are not spectacular and the hard facts lie in the roster below. offense: not a SINGLE player angelo has drafted in 6 (this doesn't even count the 2008 season) years could be penciled as a 'sure thing' deserving starter this season. defense: 2 DE's (who play the same position) alex brown and mark anderson; 1 DT - tommie harris; 1 linebacker - lance briggs; 2 CB's - charles tillman and nathan vasher that totals 6 starters on this entire franchise that angie drafted that would be considered as sure starters on not only the bears but on most teams. Chicago Bears 2008 Roster No Name Pos Height Weight Age Exp Acquired 78 St. Clair, John T 6'5" 315 30 9 FA 76 Tait, John T 6'6" 312 33 10 FA 74 Williams, Chris T 6’6” 312 22 R 1st RD- 08 69 Barton, Kirk T 6’4” 305 23 R 7th RD- 08 79 Balogh, Cody T 6’6” 303 22 R U.D. - 08 63 Garza, Roberto G 6'2" 310 29 8 FA 67 Beekman, Josh G 6'2" 310 25 2 4th Rd - 07 60 Metcalf, Terrence G 6'4" 318 30 7 3rd Rd - 02 68 Oakley, Anthony G 6'4" 298 27 3 FA 64 Reed, Tyler G 6'4" 307 26 1 6th Rd – 06 72 Adams, Chester G 6’4” 325 23 R 7th RD - 08 70 Poles, Ryan G 6’4” 290 22 R U.D. - 08 57 Kreutz, Olin C 6'2" 292 31 11 3rd Rd - 98 65 Mannelly, Patrick LS 6'5" 265 33 11 6th Rd - 98 08 Grossman, Rex QB 6'1" 217 28 6 1st Rd - 03 18 Orton, Kyle QB 6'4" 217 25 4 4th Rd – 05 12 Hanie, Caleb QB 6’2” 225 22 R U.D. - 08 86 Booker, Marty WR 6'0” 210 30 10 3rd RD - 99 16 Bradley, Mark WR 6'2"198 26 4 2nd RD- 05 23 Hester, Devin WR 5'11" 186 26 3 2nd RD- 06 85 Bennet. Earl WR 6’ 203 21 R 3rd RD - 08 81 Davis, Rashied WR 5'9" 187 29 4 FA 80 Lloyd, Brandon WR 6’ 194 27 6 FA 84 Rideau, Brandon WR 6'3" 200 26 2 FA – 06 83 Hass, Mike WR 6'1" 206 25 2 U.D. 15 Grice-Mullen, Ryan WR 5’11” 180 21 R U.D. 19 Monk, Marcus WR 6’4” 212 22 R 7th RD- 08 88 Clark, Desmond TE 6'3" 249 31 10 FA 82 Olsen, Greg TE 6'5" 254 23 2 1st RD - 07 87 Davis, Kellen TE 6’7” 262 22 R 5th RD- 08 49 Stone, Marcus TE 6’2” 235 23 R U.D. 89 Mines, Fontel TE 6'4" 244 23 1 U.D. 22 Forte, Matt RB 6’2” 216 22 R 2nd RD- 08 27 Jones, Kevin RB 6’ 228 25 5 FA 25 Wolfe, Garrett RB 5'7" 186 24 2 3rd RD - 07 29 Peterson, Adrian RB 5'10" 210 29 7 6th RD - 02 47 Pope, P.J. RB 5'9" 212 24 2 U.D. 37 McKie, Jason FB 5'11" 245 28 7 U.D. 39 Polite, Lousaka FB 6'0" 242 27 4 U.D. 93 Ogunleye, Adewale DE 6'4" 260 31 8 FA 96 Brown, Alex DE 6'3" 260 29 7 4th RD– 02 97 Anderson, Mark DE 6'4" 255 25 3 5th RD - 06 73 Bazuin, Dan DE 6'3" 260 25 1 2nd RD- 07 99 Baldwin, Ervin DE 6’2” 260 21 R 7th RD - 08 72 Clemond, Joe DE 6’2” 250 23 R U.D. 79 Osborn, Nick DE 6’4” 260 23 R U.D. 91 Harris, Tommie DT 6'3" 295 25 5 1st RD- 04 98 Dvoracek, Dusty DT 6'3" 303 27 1 3rd RD - 06 94 Harrison, Marcus DT 6’3” 310 24 R 3rd RD- 08 95 Adams, Anthony NT 6'0" 300 28 6 FA 71 Idonije, Israel DT 6'6" 275 28 5 FA 75 Toeaina, Matt DT 6'2" 307 26 1 FA 54 Urlacher, Brian MLB 6'4" 258 30 9 1st RD- 00 55 Briggs, Lance OLB 6'1" 240 28 6 3rd RD - 03 92 Hillenmeyer, Hunter OLB 6'4" 238 28 6 FA 53 Okwo, Michael LB 5'11" 232 23 1 3rd RD - 07 52 Williams, Jamar LB 6'0" 237 24 3 4th RD - 06 59 Wilson, Rod LB 6'2" 230 27 3 7th RD– 05 90 LaRocque, Joey LB 6’2” 226 22 R 7th RD- 08 58 McClover, Darrell LB 6'1" 226 27 5 U.D. - 07 53 Roach, Nick LB 6'0" 234 23 2 U.D. - 07 30 Brown, Mike FS 5'10" 207 30 8 2nd RD- 00 36 McGowan, Brandon SS 5'11" 207 25 4 U.D. 38 Manning, Danieal S 5'11" 198 26 3 2nd RD- 06 44 Payne, Kevin SS 6'0" 212 25 1 5th RD– 07 20 Steltz, Craig S 6’1” 210 22 R 4th RD- 08 43 Gattis, Josh S 6'1" 213 28 2 FA 45 Peters, Leonard S 6’1” 205 26 1 U.D. 33 Tillman, Charles CB 6'1" 196 27 6 3rd RD - 03 31 Vasher, Nathan CB 5'10" 183 27 5 4th RD - 04 26 McBride, Trumaine CB 5'9" 185 23 2 7th RD - 07 24 Manning, Ricky DB 5'9" 193 28 6 FA 21 Graham, Corey CB 6'0" 195 28 2 5th RD - 07 35 Bowman, Zackary CB 6’1” 193 23 R 5th RD– 08 32 Brown, Trey CB 5’9” 185 23 R U.D. 46 Majors, Leslie CB 5’9” 175 22 R U.D. 9 Gould, Robbie K 6'0" 183 26 4 U.D. 4 Maynard, Brad P 6'1" 188 34 12 FA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 11, 2008 Report Share Posted August 11, 2008 Good analysis! But I'd say that Olsen could be considered a starter on offense. It still a crummy average with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noots Posted August 11, 2008 Report Share Posted August 11, 2008 Please....may the message board Gods do their thing to rescue MadLithuanian's post from the seventh circle of quoted html tag hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 11, 2008 Report Share Posted August 11, 2008 They may have answered! Please....may the message board Gods do their thing to rescue MadLithuanian's post from the seventh circle of quoted html tag hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted August 11, 2008 Report Share Posted August 11, 2008 Good analysis! But I'd say that Olsen could be considered a starter on offense. It still a crummy average with that. i'm not so sure he could. they don't have him listed as being the starter or announced it that i heard of. if he were, why give clark a new contract this offseason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 11, 2008 Report Share Posted August 11, 2008 Olsen could start at TE for a number of clubs. It's just that Clark gives us a vet. Both those guys could also very well be our 2 best receivers as well. I think both are atarter quality... Clark was given a new contract due to his past performance, his leadership, his savvy, his experience, and cost. He's pretty much an aging guy with great skills that's good to have as we continue to groom Olsen and probably the new short guy... i'm not so sure he could. they don't have him listed as being the starter or announced it that i heard of. if he were, why give clark a new contract this offseason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted August 11, 2008 Report Share Posted August 11, 2008 Lucky Luciano - you are not including special teams players or FA undrafted signings in your analysis - Hester, Gould, and McGowan come to mind. You also need to include those players we picked up from teams scrap heaps (i.e. Hillenmeyer). And then of course there is the big FA signings (Tait, Jones, Brown, etc). Obviously, I am talking about building a roster and not just the draft. We all know that the draft is just a part of it. Further, we know that Angelo has done a piss poor job on the offensive side when it comes to drafting and getting free agents. On defense and special teams I would say he has done very well. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted August 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 Olsen could start at TE for a number of clubs. It's just that Clark gives us a vet. Both those guys could also very well be our 2 best receivers as well. I think both are atarter quality... Clark was given a new contract due to his past performance, his leadership, his savvy, his experience, and cost. He's pretty much an aging guy with great skills that's good to have as we continue to groom Olsen and probably the new short guy... Sorry, but I have never gone along w/ the "he could start for another team" argument. I remember how about a year ago, reading so many talking about how AP could start for many teams in the league. I know you talk about how Olsen isn't a starter because we have a solid veteran in front of him, but.... (a) Its not like Clark is a pro bowler. In fact, Olsen was drafted to replace Clark, and for several years, most screamed for us to draft a TE. Clark is a good TE, but not so good he should be holding back a 1st round pick, IMHO. Two. If Clark is that good, then why did Angelo draft a TE? I was all for drafting Olsen, but right now, I would say he has a LOT to prove. He has looked like a flat out poor blocker. You might say he was brought here for his receiving and not blocking, but he sure does seem to drop a lot of balls. I think he has tons of potential, but right now, I am not sure I would agree he would start for many teams. Most any team would take him for his potential, but right now, I think he is a backup for a reason, and it isn't just Clark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted August 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 Nice look. In general, I would say Angelo is good at some things. He is good at drafting defense. He has hit in pretty much every round of the draft. From early picks like Harris, Tillman or Briggs to 2nd day picks like Alex Brown, Vasher or Anderson. On defense, he has done a good job. The problem is his drafting on offense. It is beyond pathetic, and a BIG reason why we are where we are offensively. Also, I think he gains a bit of reputation off some drafts or picks, but that rep is a misconception. Like the idea he owns rounds 2 through 5. He had one great year which made this rep, but otherwise, I would hardly say he has owned those rounds. Angelo is a hell of a defensive evaluator. If we wanted to hire a new GM, I would recommend Angelo for defensive assistant to the GM. But Jerry just sucks on offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted August 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 Lucky Luciano - you are not including special teams players or FA undrafted signings in your analysis - Hester, Gould, and McGowan come to mind. You also need to include those players we picked up from teams scrap heaps (i.e. Hillenmeyer). And then of course there is the big FA signings (Tait, Jones, Brown, etc). Obviously, I am talking about building a roster and not just the draft. We all know that the draft is just a part of it. Further, we know that Angelo has done a piss poor job on the offensive side when it comes to drafting and getting free agents. On defense and special teams I would say he has done very well. Peace By and large, I agree. On defense and teams, he has done well. But.... (a) When those are your focus, do you get equal credit. When you draft DL every year, and ignore the OL, do you get equal credit for doing well on defense? Just curious. If I am building a baseball team, and I spend all my money and picks on bats, while my pitching stinks, should I really get full credit? His job is to focus on both offense and defense. If he focuses all (or most) of his resources on one side, I am simply not sure he should get full credit for what he does w/ that side. ( You mention Hester, and while he is the best return man of all time, should it be mentioned that we evaluated him to be a DB? You want to include all avenues, from FA to trades. I get that. My counter point would be this. Much like you want to look at the whole picture, so do many of us. The job of the GM is not to build one side of the ball. The job of the GM is to build a team, and IMHO, Angelo has had more than enough time to do that, and has failed. It isn't like we have an offense, but are missing a QB. Or like we are just that one special WR way. We are a freaking offense away. Is our offense today better than it was when he took over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 12, 2008 Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 You're comparing apples and oranges. Not to mention, I never brought up AP starting. Those were other posters. You're telling me that Olsen couldn't start in Oakland or Miami..or in Atlanta? I could rattle off more. The arguement was whether or not JA drafted legit starters. I believe he did in Olsen. I'm not annointing him to the Hall of Fame, pro bowl,etc...I simply said he could start on a number of clubs. And I truly believe that. I'm sure many others would agree. Olsen was drafted I believe because he was highly regarded, fell into a great draft slot, Clark's not getting any younger, and Clark wasn't all that consistent early on with the Bears. I alwasys thought Olsen has a chance to be more of a Shannon Sharpe typoe of player...he's got speed for his size. Maybe even in a Dwight Clark mode. Not that he's in their calibur at the moment...but in terms of those kinds of smaller, faster players. (Or larger,slower in Dwight's case if I were to compare to a WR). He's dropped no more balls than Shockey... Sorry, but I have never gone along w/ the "he could start for another team" argument. I remember how about a year ago, reading so many talking about how AP could start for many teams in the league. I know you talk about how Olsen isn't a starter because we have a solid veteran in front of him, but.... (a) Its not like Clark is a pro bowler. In fact, Olsen was drafted to replace Clark, and for several years, most screamed for us to draft a TE. Clark is a good TE, but not so good he should be holding back a 1st round pick, IMHO. Two. If Clark is that good, then why did Angelo draft a TE? I was all for drafting Olsen, but right now, I would say he has a LOT to prove. He has looked like a flat out poor blocker. You might say he was brought here for his receiving and not blocking, but he sure does seem to drop a lot of balls. I think he has tons of potential, but right now, I am not sure I would agree he would start for many teams. Most any team would take him for his potential, but right now, I think he is a backup for a reason, and it isn't just Clark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted August 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 You're comparing apples and oranges. Not to mention, I never brought up AP starting. Those were other posters. I don't believe I ever said YOU said AP could start for other teams, but as you admitted, many others did. I simply think we tend to over-value our own too often. I have seen many say Jamar Williams could start for other teams. Based on what exactly? I don't think it is apples to oranges. Every teams fan will do it, but so often I have seen bear fans say this player or that player could start for another team. Then when that player gets a shot to start for us, we realize how questionable those comment were. You're telling me that Olsen couldn't start in Oakland or Miami..or in Atlanta? I could rattle off more. Oakland drafted Miller last year, who as a rookie, on a horrible offense, had 44 catches and looked pretty darn good. Miami traded w/ Dallas for Fasano, who was I think a 2nd round draft pick out of Notre Dame. Could Olsen start over him? Maybe, but it would be no sure thing. Fasano did little w/ Dallas, but was also behind one of the top TEs in the game. His opportunity to start was far less than Olsens. Atlanta - I have never even heard of their TEs, so yea, Olsen would have a great shot to start there. I guess though, for me, when we talk about how a player could start elsewhere, the though should not be by default. If another team had a very spare backup LG, and a fan said he could start in Chicago, he may actually be correct, but would that really be saying much positive about the player? Saying Olsen could start in Atlanta, for a team that has nothing at the position, is not exactly a compliment. And that is the point. When you, or others, say this backup or that backup could start for another team, is your point (a) that he may suck, but other teams have nothing so even our guy could start, or ( that our backup is very good, and buy league standards, would be considered a starter. I think you mean the later, thus finding the handful of teams who simply are awful isn't very meaningful to me. The arguement was whether or not JA drafted legit starters. I believe he did in Olsen. I'm not annointing him to the Hall of Fame, pro bowl,etc...I simply said he could start on a number of clubs. And I truly believe that. I'm sure many others would agree. Again, see above. If your comment is simply that there are teams that simply suck at TE, and Olsen could start for them, fine. I don't particularly considered that a compliment or positive, but fine. Olsen was drafted I believe because he was highly regarded, fell into a great draft slot, Clark's not getting any younger, and Clark wasn't all that consistent early on with the Bears. I alwasys thought Olsen has a chance to be more of a Shannon Sharpe typoe of player...he's got speed for his size. Maybe even in a Dwight Clark mode. Not that he's in their calibur at the moment...but in terms of those kinds of smaller, faster players. (Or larger,slower in Dwight's case if I were to compare to a WR). He's dropped no more balls than Shockey... - Don't get me wrong. I wanted Olsen, and like the kid. But my thing is, his arce needs to start developing. His blocking looks awful right now, and that could hurt his playing time. The staff doesn't like WRs who can't block. Wanna guess how they feel about TEs who can't block. As a receiver, maybe Shockey has had more drops, but while I don't know where to get the stats, I recall reading that Olsen was among the league leaders in drops per pass attempts. I remember it well because it surprised me. I can deal w/ some drops, but you better be better in other areas. Let me ask you this. How much have you read about Olsen in camp? I have read a ton about the rookie, and how he has caught everything thrown his direction, and how impressive he has been blocking. Olsen? I just haven't read much, but have read about numerous drops. I still think Olsen has more potential (theres that word again) than any TE in camp, but also believe he needs to start taking those necessary steps forward to turn potential into production. And his being as weak as I saw in blocking is a big deal for me. He may not be the biggest TE in the league, but at 6'5 265, I just don't believe he should be getting pushed around like what I saw. Davis is the same weight, 2 inches taller, and simply has appeared to be a far better blocker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 12, 2008 Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 It really seems like you're arguing for just the sake of arguing. Jamar Williams again is not an apple or an orange in this argument... I'm not going off speculation from camp notes, or other posters' opinions on Olsen. I'm going of of numerous national publications and my own viewing experience. The guy can play at a starter calibur level. Granted, I rattled off a few teams that were suspect, but overall, my feeling is that any team would take Olsen if their starter was unavailable. Right now, he is no Witten, no Clark(s), no Cooley, etc... But odds are if those players were no longer on those teams for whatever reason, Olsen would more than likely be starting. It's not like the guy was a draft bust from the 7th round. He's a first round talent. He's shown very good signs of being a very good TE. Sure he needs to work on certain aspects of his game...who doesn't? But, the kid looks like a legit NFL TE. To say he couldn't start on other teams or ours for that matter I think is just being agrumentative for argument's sake. And you trust our staff to use him correctly? Something tells me he'd be hugely more successful on some other teams. I'm not talking about him being the next Tony Gonzalez right now...we're talking about him starting on any NFL team. He can. You're comparing apples and oranges. Not to mention, I never brought up AP starting. Those were other posters. I don't believe I ever said YOU said AP could start for other teams, but as you admitted, many others did. I simply think we tend to over-value our own too often. I have seen many say Jamar Williams could start for other teams. Based on what exactly? I don't think it is apples to oranges. Every teams fan will do it, but so often I have seen bear fans say this player or that player could start for another team. Then when that player gets a shot to start for us, we realize how questionable those comment were. You're telling me that Olsen couldn't start in Oakland or Miami..or in Atlanta? I could rattle off more. Oakland drafted Miller last year, who as a rookie, on a horrible offense, had 44 catches and looked pretty darn good. Miami traded w/ Dallas for Fasano, who was I think a 2nd round draft pick out of Notre Dame. Could Olsen start over him? Maybe, but it would be no sure thing. Fasano did little w/ Dallas, but was also behind one of the top TEs in the game. His opportunity to start was far less than Olsens. Atlanta - I have never even heard of their TEs, so yea, Olsen would have a great shot to start there. I guess though, for me, when we talk about how a player could start elsewhere, the though should not be by default. If another team had a very spare backup LG, and a fan said he could start in Chicago, he may actually be correct, but would that really be saying much positive about the player? Saying Olsen could start in Atlanta, for a team that has nothing at the position, is not exactly a compliment. And that is the point. When you, or others, say this backup or that backup could start for another team, is your point (a) that he may suck, but other teams have nothing so even our guy could start, or ( that our backup is very good, and buy league standards, would be considered a starter. I think you mean the later, thus finding the handful of teams who simply are awful isn't very meaningful to me. The arguement was whether or not JA drafted legit starters. I believe he did in Olsen. I'm not annointing him to the Hall of Fame, pro bowl,etc...I simply said he could start on a number of clubs. And I truly believe that. I'm sure many others would agree. Again, see above. If your comment is simply that there are teams that simply suck at TE, and Olsen could start for them, fine. I don't particularly considered that a compliment or positive, but fine. Olsen was drafted I believe because he was highly regarded, fell into a great draft slot, Clark's not getting any younger, and Clark wasn't all that consistent early on with the Bears. I alwasys thought Olsen has a chance to be more of a Shannon Sharpe typoe of player...he's got speed for his size. Maybe even in a Dwight Clark mode. Not that he's in their calibur at the moment...but in terms of those kinds of smaller, faster players. (Or larger,slower in Dwight's case if I were to compare to a WR). He's dropped no more balls than Shockey... - Don't get me wrong. I wanted Olsen, and like the kid. But my thing is, his arce needs to start developing. His blocking looks awful right now, and that could hurt his playing time. The staff doesn't like WRs who can't block. Wanna guess how they feel about TEs who can't block. As a receiver, maybe Shockey has had more drops, but while I don't know where to get the stats, I recall reading that Olsen was among the league leaders in drops per pass attempts. I remember it well because it surprised me. I can deal w/ some drops, but you better be better in other areas. Let me ask you this. How much have you read about Olsen in camp? I have read a ton about the rookie, and how he has caught everything thrown his direction, and how impressive he has been blocking. Olsen? I just haven't read much, but have read about numerous drops. I still think Olsen has more potential (theres that word again) than any TE in camp, but also believe he needs to start taking those necessary steps forward to turn potential into production. And his being as weak as I saw in blocking is a big deal for me. He may not be the biggest TE in the league, but at 6'5 265, I just don't believe he should be getting pushed around like what I saw. Davis is the same weight, 2 inches taller, and simply has appeared to be a far better blocker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted August 12, 2008 Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 Lucky Luciano - you are not including special teams players or FA undrafted signings in your analysis - Hester, Gould, and McGowan come to mind. You also need to include those players we picked up from teams scrap heaps (i.e. Hillenmeyer). And then of course there is the big FA signings (Tait, Jones, Brown, etc). Obviously, I am talking about building a roster and not just the draft. We all know that the draft is just a part of it. Further, we know that Angelo has done a piss poor job on the offensive side when it comes to drafting and getting free agents. On defense and special teams I would say he has done very well. Peace to me a good GM builds the core of his starting teams through the draft. he then uses FA to fill in holes either due to injury, missing those FEW individual positions in the draft, or to enhance a superbowl run at a specific skill position that may be a weak link. special teams: other than kickers you should be able to fill your special teams with players you are grooming to take over a starting spot in the lineup or get them in the 5th - 7th rounds in the draft and even the walk-ons. the reasons why we have done so well with special team players is that angelo is missing at drafting high quality starting caliber players and coming up with tweaners or 2nd rate talent in the bulk of his drafts. when you have first day draft picks maxxing out talent wise on your special teams it is NOT a good situation. i don't know if you realize it but angelo's drafting almost 50/50 on first day draft picks, offense vs defense, over his tenure in chicago. if you wipe out half of your draft picks (offense) that is an amazing statistic. 2002-2007 4 to 2 offense in the 1st round and yet we have not a single penciled-in offensive starter out of our draft picks over a 6 year period. one on defense. 4 to 2 defense in the 2nd round and we have one penciled-in starter in tillman. 4 to 3 defense in the 3rd round and we have one penciled-in starter in briggs. that's 19 first day picks over a six year period and we have 3 starters on defense!! these are the quality rounds that drafted players could/should be able to start their rookie seasons and be future starters, not fatten up your special teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted August 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2008 that's 19 first day picks over a six year period and we have 3 starters on defense!! Yuk. That verp didn't taste too good. Give some warning next time, and I will skip your post after eating Mexican food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.