One has to ask the question.... Westbrooks?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
well..................if this is gonna turn into an argument,I'll just let the Fish settle it,and say this, my preference is the bigger more versatile westbrook and leave it at that and I hope we can sneak Sam through to the practice squad and beef him up some ,if the rest of the league is who they've been portrayed by some people in this thread that should be no problem
not an argument at all,, just pointing out a different POV.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,918
well..................if this is gonna turn into an argument,I'll just let the Fish settle it,and say this, my preference is the bigger more versatile westbrook and leave it at that and I hope we can sneak Sam through to the practice squad and beef him up some ,if the rest of the league is who they've been portrayed by some people in this thread that should be no problem

The fear that Sam would be a disruptive factor has been dispelled. As has the fear that Sam would be too much of a tweener to contribute in the NFL - this has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread also. It's extremely doubtful that Sam makes it through waivers, even if teams were leery of him during the draft. There are months of positive information since then. If the Rams want to keep him, he needs to be on the roster.

This leaves them the options of losing somebody they want for nothing, having more DL on the roster than is probably optimal, or trading someone to a DL deficient team. The third might be best, but the question is - who? Sims? Carrington? One of the rookies?
 
Last edited:

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,158
Name
Mack
Mac,I don't doubt any of your analysis there of what you saw on film,in fact I honor your work, I haven't forgotten you insistence on Alshon Jeffrey and how so many of us whiffed on him (including our Rams)but I still have a very tough time accepting the idea that Sam is near third round talent . His combine numbers weren't that lofty first of all.and second but even more important to me ,the implication as to why he fell.

You make a primafacia case for the entire league to be homophobic as well as many tallent evaluators and I have trouble leveling those kind of charges against anyone until I know it to be the case,charges of racist ,homophobe,sexist are so serious in my mind and get thrown out just to gain sway in argument in such a cavalier way ,once that bell gets rung you can't unring it and IMO are more hurtful to the target than any epithet because of course thinking people know the epithet really reflects upon the issuer and doesn't REALLY diminish the target . Once labeled that way where do you go to get your reputation back ? We must consider the humanity of all parties here before we give in to our own prejudices.,NOT BTW saying you are giving in .

Well, I appreciate the props on Alshon. I really do put a fair bit of detailed work into looking at players, I just can't look at enough.

Secondly, and I really, really don't want to hijack this thread, but I have six names.

Kerry Rhodes. A top 5 Free Safety gets "outed" with pictures of him and a guy supposedly his boyfriend. Instead of getting a new contract with the Cardinals or ANY contract offers, even Vet minimums from any teams, he gets nothing. From anyone. Kerry Rhodes was healthy and a top 5 Free Safety in the prime of his career in a pass happy league. He's OUT OF THE LEAGUE.

Brendan Ayenbadejo. LB with the Ravens. Stands up for gay rights openly. As is the case with LBs not All-Pros, they aren't irreplaceable. Fairly quickly, he's gone from the Ravens. Not surprisingly, he's also OUT OF THE LEAGUE.

Chris Kluwe. Outspoken punter for the Vikings (not remotely about liking or not liking him, his stances, or his personality). Like LBs, not an irreplaceable position. Had an okay year before being replaced, but was a solid NFL punter. Actually held back by poor coverage units as the stats continually show (meaning he could have had better stats like greater distance if they coverage units could do better covering his kicks, which they could not). In large part due to his coach and likely the prevalent views on that staff, he was replaced. The NFL does NOT like outspoken anything, but especially about Gay rights. Thus, he's OUT OF THE LEAGUE.

Note: Except in the case of Kerry Rhodes, I'm not obviating that a football case can be made for BA and CK losing their jobs. However, that all went from highly regarded pros to completely out of the league doesn't pass the smell test even including the football cases made against them.

Michael Sam. I won't restate his case. I will say as someone who's looked into him a fair bit that the before and after his announcement is striking and undeniable.

Tony Dungy. All I'm going to say, for good and ill is that I think he's emblematic of the NFL. He's a good man who doesn't even notice his gross hypocrisy. He stated on air many times that he'd be willing to give Michael Vick a second chance after his felony conviction not only for dog fighting, but he'd set up an entire criminal enterprise including funding the full infrastructure of an entire dog kennel and gambling ring set up solely to indulge his "pasttime". Knowing that giving Michael Vick a second chance would not only cause difficulties in the locker room (how many players were openly disgusted and openly talked about it at the time? Plenty as I recall) and knowing that Michael Vick was the most polarizing figure in all of sports since perhaps Ali...I mean people didn't just give up season tickets, they burned all of their Eagles gear in protest and picked another team. And STILL, Tony Dungy stood by his stance that he'd give Michael Vick another chance. Again and again, he said it. So, the idea that with Michael Sam, he wouldn't draft him because "he'd be too much of a distraction" is just BS. Coaches embrace distraction all the time if they feel the player can help them win. And as we saw, Michael Sam wasn't hardly any distraction at all. But while Tony Dungy and the rest of the NFL can STILL make room for the Ray Rices of the NFL (John Harbaugh, a Head Coach who is listened to, called the "incident" between Ray Rice and his then fiancee and I quote "not a big deal") if they think the player can help them win, there just is NO room for a gay player who isn't in the closet. Tony Dungy has acknowledged as in subsequently statements that he's not homophobic and I don't doubt that. I think his evangelical background would likely create a bias to a degree, but I think if he found out a player was gay, I doubt he'd treat that player badly or different. That said, I dunno that he'd treat that player well, either. The point about Dungy is that he basically let the cat out of the bag. It's not so much "homophobia", but "homo, don't wanna know ya" and it became VERY CLEAR during the draft that that view was pervasive throughout the NFL.

Mike Priefer. His comments about gays were not only disgusting, but unprofessional. As former Navy, I know a thing or two about being salty and in my time in the Navy and all my time around Vets from every branch including vets from other countries (one of my good friends is a big Russian who's former Spetsnaz), I've NEVER heard anyone say anything as disgusting as that (well, my Macky stories are pretty blue, but they don't disparage anyone). The problem is that the reportage is that Mike Priefer was a rather ordinary coach... meaning that while his words may have been extraordinary, his attitudes...weren't. So, we can't ignore this dynamic when it comes to evaluating the whole thing.

Do I think the league is "scared of the gay" like the word, homophobic, suggests? No, not in that way.

However, for a number of factors varied and nuanced enough to write several books, the NFL simply has shown via action and inaction that it will tolerate violence and criminal behavior, but it will NOT tolerate even speaking out on behalf of gay rights, let alone being gay.

Now, if it weren't for Stan Kroenke and Jeff Fisher and Les Snead, I really think that not only wouldn't Michael Sam have been drafted, I honestly don't know which team would have even offered him a camp invite. Why would I think that?

Well, Kerry Rhodes is still out of the NFL...
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,158
Name
Mack
well..................if this is gonna turn into an argument,I'll just let the Fish settle it,and say this, my preference is the bigger more versatile westbrook and leave it at that and I hope we can sneak Sam through to the practice squad and beef him up some ,if the rest of the league is who they've been portrayed by some people in this thread that should be no problem

Yeah, I agree with CoachO. Good discussion. Also, don't forget that Sam showed up at OTAs at 270 ready to rock as a Designated Pass Rusher and the Rams asked him to lose weight to play Special Teams.

So, it will really suck if Sam gets dinged for being 260 when the Rams asked him to lose that weight in the first place...
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,158
Name
Mack
The fear that Sam would be a disruptive factor has been dispelled. As has the fear that Sam would be too much of a tweener to contribute in the NFL - this has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread also. It's extremely doubtful that Sam makes it through waivers, even if teams were leery of him during the draft. There are months of positive information since then. If the Rams want to keep him, he needs to be on the roster.

This leaves them the options of losing somebody they want for nothing, having more DL on the roster than is probably optimal, or trading someone to a DL deficient team. The third might be best, but the question is - who? Sims? Carruthers? One of the rookies?

I think you mean Carrington?
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790

I don't remember many people having him fall to the late 20s. In fact, I'd argue just as many if not more people had him going in the top 10 than falling to the late 20s. The consensus on Brockers was that he'd go in the top 15 picks.

Trading up for Austin was questionable at the time.

Austin was going at #9 if not #8. Nothing questionable about it. If you didn't like Austin, you may not agreed with the trade but the trade had to happen if we were to get Austin.

Joyner doesn't figure to be a day 1 starter so trading up in the 2nd round for a #3 CB wasn't great value. If we'd lost him to the Titans, so be it.

The #3 CB is a starter in today's NFL. So I disagree with you there. The Rams did not want to lose him to the Titans. I'm glad we didn't. I think Joyner is an outstanding player. Thought it then. That was a great pick.

And the fact that we were going to lose him to Tennessee is proof their valuation on him was correct.

So again, it seems more that you disagree with the pick(or really, the trade) than their valuation being off.

Frankly, it seems like you hate trading up. Trading up is necessary when you have a player you don't want to lose.

We'd have filled a different hole instead.

Shouldn't be drafting to plug holes. We should be drafting PLAYERS because we feel they can be special. Joyner and Austin are players with that sort of ability.(imo, at least)

You target YOUR GUYS. That's what the best teams do. They are great at identifying players that have the ability to be special in their scheme and they draft them where they can them.

Everyone wants the $8 burger for $5. I feel as though we've paid $8 for the $5 burger. Just my perception. Differing perceptions are equally as valid.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't disagree on Mason. I liked Pead as a prospect so I can't criticize the pick although he wouldn't have been my choice there(we agree on that).

However, it seems to me that your problems with valuation seem to be more based on trading up and roles than anything. Teams have a scheme and they need players to play roles in that scheme. Outside the first round, I see nothing wrong with taking a nickel CB or a change of pace HB...especially if those players have potential to be more than that. As far as trading up is concerned, I think you should absolutely do it if you believe a player is special and will be gone before you pick.

I agree with both the Austin and Joyner trades.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
Yeah, I agree with CoachO. Good discussion. Also, don't forget that Sam showed up at OTAs at 270 ready to rock as a Designated Pass Rusher and the Rams asked him to lose weight to play Special Teams.

So, it will really suck if Sam gets dinged for being 260 when the Rams asked him to lose that weight in the first place...

If he was as lean as Quinn he'd be 245,he needs a year in an NFL weight program and I hope he gets it on our practice squad ,I agree a great discussion and you made some excellent points about the cases of reticence to deal with gay players , I FWIW don't think it's as much the owners though as the players and there are certain things and attitudes that have to change over time ,I think Mike's experience will make leaps happen. Once again I'm proud to be a fan of this org. but won't let that sway my opinion on what this team needs to do to be their best ,which is Fishers job,Westbrook is the better insurance policy against injury and that is so much a part of the game
that to ignore it courts disaster.
 

Memphis Ram

Legend
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
6,675
Well, I appreciate the props on Alshon. I really do put a fair bit of detailed work into looking at players, I just can't look at enough.

Secondly, and I really, really don't want to hijack this thread, but I have six names.

Kerry Rhodes. A top 5 Free Safety gets "outed" with pictures of him and a guy supposedly his boyfriend. Instead of getting a new contract with the Cardinals or ANY contract offers, even Vet minimums from any teams, he gets nothing. From anyone. Kerry Rhodes was healthy and a top 5 Free Safety in the prime of his career in a pass happy league. He's OUT OF THE LEAGUE.

Kerry Rhodes was quoted to as having had offers, but passed.
 

Memphis Ram

Legend
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
6,675
The fear that Sam would be a disruptive factor has been dispelled. As has the fear that Sam would be too much of a tweener to contribute in the NFL - this has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread also. It's extremely doubtful that Sam makes it through waivers, even if teams were leery of him during the draft. There are months of positive information since then. If the Rams want to keep him, he needs to be on the roster.

This leaves them the options of losing somebody they want for nothing, having more DL on the roster than is probably optimal, or trading someone to a DL deficient team. The third might be best, but the question is - who? Sims? Carrington? One of the rookies?

Has the potential of Sam being a disruptive factor really been dispelled? Perhaps under a veteran and well respected HC Jeff Fisher who is coaching YOUNG team in the same state where he played his college ball. But, that doesn't mean the same would occur elsewhere. And especially if elsewhere were a larger media market.

Extremely doubtful that Sam makes it through waivers? A somewhat undersized 4-3 DE who had his greatest college success playing LE? And when he showed VERY questionable skills to make the transition to a 3-4 OLB pre-draft and almost half the teams in the NFL use a 3-4 base set?

C'mon, he's a great and inspirational story, but why overrate this guy? There are guys that are going to be cut that are just as good prospects, if not better, than him. And quite frankly, for a guy who relies upon his hustle to make plays, I really expected more than just 2 tackles so far this preseason. And if I had a choice between Sam and the Gerald Rivers of 2013, I'd take the RE Rivers all day long and twice on cutdown day.
 
Last edited:

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
jrry32 with his drafting ideas:
Frankly, it seems like you hate trading up. Trading up is necessary when you have a player you don't want to lose.

Shouldn't be drafting to plug holes. We should be drafting PLAYERS because we feel they can be special. Joyner and Austin are players with that sort of ability.(imo, at least)

You target YOUR GUYS. That's what the best teams do. They are great at identifying players that have the ability to be special in their scheme and they draft them where they can them.
I don't think that trading up is a good idea and history has shown (me) that it rarely works out. That's with the caveat that you're trading one or more picks in the top 3 rounds in addition to the same round pick you lose. Trading up for a player when it costs less than that is fine with me.

Of course you draft to fill holes. Every team does that with most of their picks. What you should't do is bypass a much better player at another position to fill a hole. Even that caveat has exceptions, QBs being one example.

Saying you target your guys is meaningless to me. If your guys are the players you think will best fill your holes/needs then you're drafting to fill holes.

I think they have a spotty record when it comes to draft. What I do like about their drafting is what they do in the lower rounds. They've had some very good results there. Not as good many as people credit them for but they've been much better than average IMO.
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,158
Name
Mack
If he was as lean as Quinn he'd be 245,he needs a year in an NFL weight program and I hope he gets it on our practice squad ,I agree a great discussion and you made some excellent points about the cases of reticence to deal with gay players , I FWIW don't think it's as much the owners though as the players and there are certain things and attitudes that have to change over time ,I think Mike's experience will make leaps happen. Once again I'm proud to be a fan of this org. but won't let that sway my opinion on what this team needs to do to be their best ,which is Fishers job,Westbrook is the better insurance policy against injury and that is so much a part of the game
that to ignore it courts disaster.

Well, you won't get any argument from me about ANY rookie needing to get into an NFL weight room and improving their strength, and Michael Sam's certainly no exception. I, too, am proud not only that our organization drafted Michael Sam, but showed that we are the CLASS of the NFL by demonstrating what a non-issue being openly gay in the NFL really is. That credit goes not only to Michael Sam, but everyone in the building, from the owner to the Rams FO, to the coaching staff, to the training staff, to the players and finally to the people just in the building. EVERYONE has contributed positively to making this about football which is what it should have been about all along.

I mean, I don't remember asking about Chris Long's relationship...or caring frankly. I mean, I want him to be blessed and happy and all that. But I really don't want to invade his privacy and know about his personal business. His family life should be his. Hopefully soon, that same courtesy... yes, courtesy, will extend to gay players.

For that reason (and because in my heart, 100%, I believe Michael Sam is a damned good football player who I want to remain a Ram because he's going to develop and I want that to happen in horns), I really hope he makes the 53 man roster, even if he doesn't dress every Sunday.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
I don't think that trading up is a good idea and history has shown (me) that it rarely works out.

I think taking a general stance on something that is far from general is a mistake. You're not trading up to trade up. You trade up with a specific player in mind. Thus, the reasons for trading up and what you're willing to sacrifice in each case will be different and reliant upon your evaluation of the player. Furthermore, the success of the trade will also be reliant on your evaluation of the player.

As far as history goes, I wouldn't know what it has or hasn't shown. Haven't gone through the list of trade-ups to see if they failed and why they failed.

I agree with the stance that trading future 1st round picks is a bad idea. Have looked into that some and historically, it's a terrible idea. And I agree with not making that sort of move. But I think trading up is necessary at times.

Of course you draft to fill holes. Every team does that with most of their picks. What you should't do is bypass a much better player at another position to fill a hole. Even that caveat has exceptions, QBs being one example.

That's one motivation in picking the PLAYER. But you're drafting a PLAYER. You're not just saying, I'll pick whatever QB is there at #7 and whatever OG is there at #27...know what I mean? You identify individual players that you think are worth the pick.

Saying you target your guys is meaningless to me. If your guys are the players you think will best fill your holes/needs then you're drafting to fill holes.

That's simply not how I draft. Sure, you keep need in mind when making evaluations. And it does matter. But I think it's a poor way of choosing talent. I identify players that I think are special. And I draft as many of those guys as possible. Don't care where they're ranked relative to the pick...except if I were considering a trade offer. Now, who I would draft first...need, strength of the position in the draft, and positional value along with my evaluation of their talent all come into play.

For example, if my team had a MAJOR need at FS and I didn't think any of the FS in the draft looked good on tape. I'm just not going to take one. Draft picks are a valuable resource. I'm not going to waste them on a player that I don't feel confident in.

I think they have a spotty record when it comes to draft. What I do like about their drafting is what they do in the lower rounds. They've had some very good results there. Not as good many as people credit them for but they've been much better than average IMO.

I don't think spotty is an accurate term. You're never going to hit on 100% of picks. So if that's the standard, everyone is spotty. I think their record in drafting compares well to the competition.
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,158
Name
Mack
I've hit far more than I've missed evaluating players on video and I DID look at Sam. I did it without an agenda and without expecting anything. I actually did it to evaluate both Sam and Ealy. I came away VERY impressed with Michael Sam and agreeing with the evaluator who called Kony Ealy a fraud. I was very down on him. If anyone benefited from that D, it was Ealy.

As for the "tweener" label, I take a huge issue with it because it is so devoid of context. It doesn't take into account the player or his talent, nor does it take into account scheme. It also doesn't take into account that plenty of "tweeners" have already been and are successful and plenty of DEs in the NFL if drafted would fall into that "tweener" stage.

Lastly, Sam came to camp at 270, which puts him pretty close being out of the "tweener" range and the Rams asked him to lose weight. So, while us fans may ding him for being light, the Rams are plenty clear about what they expect from him AT THAT WEIGHT.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
flv talking in the particular instead of the general:
A RB with 4.7 speed or a weak-armed QB could win the Heisman Trophy due to gaining ridiculous yardage figures against weak defenses. Neither player would project well as a pro. In 1990 the NFL introduced a 6th playoff seed with 11 playoff games a year.

I don't care about Sam's award

The report suggested he was a tweener who was unlikely to translate into an NFL talent. I wouldn't have been shocked if he went undrafted, even without the off the field stuff.
Well, you've kind of morphed from talking about draft strategy and you're now focusing more on our last draft. I only have one beef with our draft this year and that was drafting Mason. Not because we traded up to get him but because there were players as good at other positions that I would rather have drafted. I'd give you a name but I'v forgotten much of the later round details and I'm much to lazy to go back now and figure it out.

I think your attitude about not paying attention to what team/conference a player played for is a mistake. Your own words explained why I think that. A players surrounding cast and the level of competition he played against will help keep you from drafting those players who built up huge impressive stats against lesser opponents. Remember David Klingler? Any RB running behind the line that Auburn and Alabama had is going to put up huge numbers and can fool you into thinking he's hot shit. Knowing the quality of the players he's playing with and against will help guard against those type of mistakes.

Talking about Heisman winning QBs being crap in the pros is a red herring IMO. Players like Crouch can win the Heisman but to win individual awards, especially defensive ones, usually mean something. Doesn't mean they'll be great in the NFL but it usually means they'll have at least some measure of success. That, IMO, is a mistake I wouldn't make when doing my player evals.

Sam's tweener perception and bad combine results are why he didn't get drafted in the first two or three rounds. It doesn't explain, to me, why he didn't get drafted before the 7th round. I would have been totally shocked had he not been drafted. My view about that has subsequently been proven to be spot on. The only reason he isn't an iron clad lock to make the team is because of the unbelievable depth we have on the D-line.

Sam is a rookie and when looked at in that way, much like you do with all rookies that everyone says don't fully develop until their 3rd year, he's looked pretty damn good.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
jrry32 responding with this:
I think taking a general stance on something that is far from general is a mistake. You're not trading up to trade up. You trade up with a specific player in mind. Thus, the reasons for trading up and what you're willing to sacrifice in each case will be different and reliant upon your evaluation of the player. Furthermore, the success of the trade will also be reliant on your evaluation of the player.


That's one motivation in picking the PLAYER. But you're drafting a PLAYER. You're not just saying, I'll pick whatever QB is there at #7 and whatever OG is there at #27...know what I mean? You identify individual players that you think are worth the pick.

That's simply not how I draft. Sure, you keep need in mind when making evaluations. And it does matter. But I think it's a poor way of choosing talent. I identify players that I think are special. And I draft as many of those guys as possible. Don't care where they're ranked relative to the pick...except if I were considering a trade offer. Now, who I would draft first...need, strength of the position in the draft, and positional value along with my evaluation of their talent all come into play.

For example, if my team had a MAJOR need at FS and I didn't think any of the FS in the draft looked good on tape. I'm just not going to take one. Draft picks are a valuable resource. I'm not going to waste them on a player that I don't feel confident in.




I don't think spotty is an accurate term. You're never going to hit on 100% of picks. So if that's the standard, everyone is spotty. I think their record in drafting compares well to the competition.
I don't know jrry, how can you have a draft strategy if you don't have general views about things? Of course, it would be really stupid not to adapt your general views when the occasion requires. It's a little too facile to claim that the success of your trade up is dependent on your player evaluation. That completely ignores the bigger picture. A huge part of the bigger picture is your inability to evaluate the player you didn't draft with the pick you traded away. We've discussed this before and my view that a player is almost never worth two quality starters hasn't changed. I'm certainly not of the opinion that it's never the right thing to do, I just think it's almost always the wrong thing to do. That's not talking about drafting a franchise QB of course.

I'm not really sure what you're saying there. I think I don't disagree with any of it but I'm not sure. :LOL: Sorry. :oops:

I don't have any major disagreements with anything you say there but like I said, there are many roads to success and yours is probably one of them but it isn't mine. I wouldn't draft a FS in your scenario either. ;)

I agree that their drafting record compares well to the competition because you're right, it is my standard and I think most if not all drafters have a spotty record. I just have to smile when I hear people rave about Snisher's drafting prowess. :)
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
flv having second thoughts:
I wrote long replies to your posts but having re-read them i've decided they're too confrontational. I'm going to wish you both well and let this thread go.
I sure don't want you to do anything that might get you in trouble because I enjoy interacting with you. But I can tell you that I was enjoying the conversation and I doubt you'd say anything that I'd view as confrontational as long as you make it about the subject and not me. I'd rather a poster disagree with me than agree with me because that's when it becomes interesting for me. (y) Differences in OPINIONS is what I love because it requires me to think critically about the subject. I'm OK with you thinking I'm full of shit about the matter we were discussing. Hell, you'd be right there with what my wife often thinks and I love her. :love: :LOL: If you are interested in continuing the conversation you can PM me with your non-personalized version 2.1. :LOL: Can't get into trouble if you do it via PM. ;)

BTW flv, I totally disagree with what you almost said. :seizure:
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
So from the stat line, Sam seemed to make more of an impact last game, but for people who watched was it closer or what? Sounds like he showed up, wondering how this battle is going to turn out, really seems like a close one. I don't think either guys make it through waivers, hope we can keep both.