Pride Of Detroit: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Spencer Hall's Sports Meme Power Rankings

Glue Factory Time

   Although this horse has been beeten into the ground 100 time's over I'm going to bring it back from the dead 1 more time now that Pissco has made his little comment about starting Stafford over Dr. Pepper.  If I'm not wrong we have picked up a few lineman since the last time we had this debate. I am still on the side of Culpizzle getting the start to open the season, but I am not as far as I once was on that side of the fence.


   Arguements for Dr. Pepper would be that our O-line isn't where we all seem to think it should be for starting a rookie QB. Then we all still have the bad taste in our mouths from the Joey project that never came to "PASS". He He He I couldn't help myself there guys. Dr. Pepper is in the best shape of his profesional career, weather that is going to carry over to the field still hasn't been proven, but I the optimist beleave it will. Pissco say's that his best football is behind him at  32, he's probably right, but did he want favre to leave when the packers drafted Rodgers all those years ago. I know that culpepper is no Favre but same principle's should apply. Culpepper has some chemistry with not only megatron but with Curry as well.                 

   Now  for the Stafford side of the arguement. I may need help here and if it seems like I'm not trying as hard that's cause I just don't want him to start this year. He is going to be our Franchise QB very soon. He has the more up-side. He can only get better if he's out there in real game time situations, ask A Rodgers how that feels. Stafford has better mobility than the old geezer, I can't argue that 1 either. When it comes to arm strength who has the upper hand? I want to say Dr. Pepper but from what the reports are saying it sounds like that goes to Stafford as well. How do you get chemistry with your first string wr's you get in there and practice with them. I'm sure I'm leaving out many other intangables as well.                                                                                                                         

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pride of Detroit's main writer, Sean, or the site in general. FanPosts are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable fans.

0 recs  |  Comment 59 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

It sucks being the first 1

To answer a fanpost made by myself, But I am on Culpeppers side for 1 simple reason and that is I just don’t want Stafford to get shell-shocked and go through that process of watching another young QB die out on the field in front of our eyes.

by davis0169 on Jun 30, 2009 4:27 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

i want c-pep

to start because no one really believes he can be great again. And so he can destroy the vikings

by beef99 on Jun 30, 2009 4:59 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I want what is best for the lions...

If its Culpepper fine….if its Stafford or Standon fine…I gotta trust Schwartz until he gives us a reason not to.

http://cmufootball.blogspot.com/

by CapitolLions on Jun 30, 2009 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hey CapitolLion

I see you havea CMU thing up there. Is it safe to assume that you are in Mount Pleasant? If you are how does that QB look so far this off-season, if you know that is? Mel Kiper Jr. and his junkies mentioned him after the draft as being 1 of the nations top prospects for this coming up year, what do you think?

by davis0169 on Jul 1, 2009 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thats 1 reason

That I want Dr. Pepper to be our starter and of course the other is that I just don’t think that our O-line is ready yet for an inexperienced QB.

by davis0169 on Jul 1, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

However, we are in the most boring month of football there is…we need something to occupy our time.

2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).

by Hyperion Ecta on Jun 30, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Arm Strength

They can both throw the ball really far. Stafford has a cannon, and can throw harder than Culpepper. He can fit throws between defenders that Culpepper probably can’t. He can also force throws because he relies on his arm too much. He is also not as accurate as Daunte Culpepper. He can’t make all of the touch throws….Daunte can. sigh I could go on and on…..but I am also content to wait and see what happens in the pre-season.

by KDawg on Jun 30, 2009 7:55 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Daunte is accurate?

Since when. Throwing a ball 12 ft in the air, then having Moss jump up over triple coverage is not accuracy.

by DrewsLions on Jun 30, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I begged you to.

But to be honest we kinda been arguing this in a earlier post. My thing is CP has shown the drive and loyality to at least deserve to be the starter going into preseason. If Stafford wins from then on out fine start him. But I don’t think that will come to pass. I have to say that it will be more on the plus side to have a vetran presence in the huddle this season especially after last years season.

by shanndiggit on Jul 1, 2009 12:29 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

we all know that ...

Stafford is the Lions future. So why not start the future sooner than later. Three years from now we could be in the same position that the Giants are with Eli.

by JCruize on Jul 1, 2009 1:22 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Eli Manning

Sat for half of the year during his rookie campaign…..learning from Kurt Warner.

by KDawg on Jul 1, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also

What I have read from the so called “experts” lately is that Eli Manning is not going to put up numbers like he did last year or the year before. What I have seen is predictions of regression from Eli Manning.

by KDawg on Jul 1, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

How can the "experts" possibly know that?

If Eli regresses, it’s simply due to the talent around him shrinking. I seem to remember him playing pretty well without Plaxiglass for most of the season last year. In all honesty, they should have been in the Super Bowl had they not choked in the playoffs.

by DrewsLions on Jul 1, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And of course Drew

It is speculation as usual……how does anyone know anything? They watch closely and form an opinion.

by KDawg on Jul 1, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Eli Manning himself

This is completely from memory, so I could be mistaken…..

I could have sworn I saw interviews with Eli Manning, and other players from the Giants, saying that if they would have had Plaxico during the playoffs last year, that they would have been unstoppable.

by KDawg on Jul 1, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You got it REV!

And my only concern Bishop is ofcourse our O-line. I know we are not zone blocking anymore and that alone should make the line better. Bu until we see them in action I am still scared to let Staffford go out there and get “Harrington’d”.

by davis0169 on Jul 1, 2009 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

well the O-line is...

going to be what it is. It is the same line that C-pep will line up under. No matter what o-line Stafford line up under. If he has it mentally. He will be fine. If he is a head case like Joey was. It will show.

by JCruize on Jul 1, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think

he is a head case. And I do think he is a potential Pro Bowl QB in the future. But I still think CP should start. Before the bye is our toughest competition. Don’t throw the young man to the wolves. CP’s veteran presence could win us a couple of those games. No matter what you think of either QB you cannot deny a veteran presence in the huddle will be a positive point on our side.

by shanndiggit on Jul 1, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And what did the Giants get from Warner?

The answer… fumbles. What will we get from Culpepper? Who knows. But if Eli had gotten those Warner starts he might have adjusted that much quicker.

by DrewsLions on Jul 1, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bologna

Yes, Warner fumbled the ball…..but Eli Manning sucked even worse than Warner did when he played in 2004. It seemed to me that he (Eli) got better over the offseason, because when he started playing full time, he was a completely different guy. Kurt Warner has averaged 9.1 fumbles per year over his career, so it was nothing new. He fumbled 12 times in 2004 in 10 games played (9 starts), admittedly above average for him. How many fumbles did Eli Manning have in his first season as the full time starter in New York? Nine.

Not only that, but we are not talking about a QB (in Kurt Warner) from a 1 year standpoint. We are looking at him as a QB over his entire career (which has been quite illustrious if you ask me). What did the Giants get from Kurt Warner? Experience and knowledge. I do not understand how some of you guys can look at a QB and think that his performance is all on him. Football is a team sport and a QB is no different than a WR, RB, TE, or any other player….they all are a product of their surroundings and the performance of the players that surround them. Yes, I admit that some of them have less skill than others, and some have such great skills that they can make players around them look better than they are. However, in 9 starts and 10 games for the Giants in 2004, Kurt Warner threw for 2054 yards, 6 TDs, 4 INTs, and 62.8% completions. He had an 86.5 QB rating and that was part time. He was sacked 39 times in those 10 games too….I challenge anyone to stand in against professional defenses, take 39 hits, and hang on to the ball every time. Keep in mind too, he had no chemistry with the guys in New York and he had to learn a new system that year as well. I would say that he did quite well given the circumstances.

Another thing….the Giants got their future QB in Eli Manning from the Chargers in the 04 draft. They already had it in their minds that he was their future. They took the conservative route (ironic that you Drew would be arguing the liberal standpoint, given your political preferences) and did not play the rook immediately. It paid off. However in giving the reigns over to Eli Manning, the Giants never really gave Kurt Warner much of a chance to succeed. He went to Arizona the next season, played part time there for 3 seasons, and was finally given control of the team full time in 2008. They gave him the confidence and the trust he needed to succeed, and once again he torched the crap out of the league like the days of old (67.1% completions, 4583 yards, 30 TD’s, 14 INT’s, 26 sacks allowed, and a WB rating of 96.9). Guess what? He fumbled the ball 11 times last year on his way to leading the Cardinals to the Superbowl with a 9-7 record.

Sounds an awful like the current situation in Detroit on a couple of different levels. What did the Giants get out of Kurt Warner? Exactly what they deserved in my opinion. You want to know why I think Daunte can be successful again? The example given here is just one of many.

by KDawg on Jul 1, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not saying that he will be

Just saying……he could be, and if he is the better man in the preseason, he must start on opening day. If he flops….we have Stafford as an insurance policy. I do not like this scenario if it plays out the other way around.

by KDawg on Jul 1, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

KDawg, KDawg, KDawg....

Like the stats, hate the argument. To say that Warner had any impact for the Giants other than a veteran back-up presence with Super Bowl experience is silly. Look, I like Warner… I really do. I wanted the Lions to sign him when he left for Arizona (as a back-up). But the fact that you even have to compare Manning as a rookie to Warner as a Super Bowl MVP in that season in New York tells you everything. I’m not sure how you can say that playing Warner that year “paid off”. How? By expediting Manning’s career? That’s the only thing I can see.

The Giants then, were in the same boat we are in now. They brought in Warner after his significant struggles in St. Louis and after he lost his job to Bulger. The Giants knew that they were taking Rivers or Manning – whichever they could get with the No.4 pick. They knew that Warner was a stop-gap until they felt their new QB was ready. Like the Lions, they hoped that the Vet would give them something to buy a little time before shoving their young QB in the spotlight. They didn’t get anything from Warner and the New York clammoring for the next Manning came swiftly and loudly. Instead, it simply gave Manning a starting point for his career and maybe a ring a year earlier.

So what was the point of even starting Warner. It was a crapshoot how he was going to play to begin with. He was injured and had struggled the years previous. Sound familiar? Why go through this same exercise with Stafford and Culpepper? Even if Culpepper plays well, his days are numbered. Why is it such a difficult concept to see that those are valuable snaps for a rookie if he’s ready? Yes, I said if he’s ready. That is part of my point as well. But to start DC just so Stafford can learn from a vet or not get his confidence shaken or any of the arguments that are simply to say that a rookie can’t start, seems useless to me. Why did the Lions take him so high and pay him so much if they have no confidence in his ability? The coaches and players are raving about Staff and the wowing about Culpepper’s lost gut are old news. Writing’s on the wall, IMO.

Oh yeah… this isn’t a political issue, so that’s why I’m on the “liberal” side of this discussion. Now if the argument was whether I wanted to see Stafford make love to a tree….

by DrewsLions on Jul 2, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL

Tree hugger…..very good Drew. Usually a true conservative argues everything from that viewpoint and vice versa…..

That means that we are both middle of the road type guys….difference is that you lean to the right and I lean to the left. I find it ironic that we have sort of played role reversal here, with me arguing the conservative viewpoint and you the liberal.

It is utterly hilarious to me that you can say (and I doubt with a straight face) that 2054 yards, 6 TDs, 4 INTs, and 62.8% completions, while being sacked 39 times in the 10 games Kurt Warner played for the Giants in 2004, had no impact for the Giants other than a veteran back-up presence with Super Bowl experience. You tell me if I am wrong, but that seems awful contradictory to me. As we both know, Eli Manning and Matt Stafford were both drafted to be the QB of the future for their respective teams. It is only a matter of time, as it was for Eli, before Matt Stafford takes over….I can not and do not disagree with that.

However, I feel that Eli Manning was put into a position that he was not ready for in 2004 and his play clearly showed it. I know that you think that his real game snaps made the difference for him in the long run, but I do not. I think the offseason and coaching of Eli Manning made the difference, coupled with the fact that he had been in the league for a full year when he took over in 2005. Plus he knew that he was going to be relied on in 2005, and that alone must have motivated him to be even that much more ready.

I think it should be all or nothing, meaning if Stafford is ready he should start from day 1 and be told immediately that he will be the man this year in Detroit. If he is not ready, then I do not think he should play at all unless Culpepper gets injured and he is going to be a better option than Drew Stanton. If we start Culpepper from day one, and yank him in week 10 or 11 (or after the bye week even), I will bet you anything that Matt Stafford struggles. Given a year to get used to the system and the way things are in the NFL, and given that much time to adjust to the speed of the game at the professional level (he will be able to do that in practice alone) will help Matt Stafford tremendously. Also, having the knowledge that he will be the full time starter, ahead of time, will also allow him to better be prepared. I do not think that 6-7 games of playing terribly made a difference for Eli Manning, nor will it make a difference for Matt Stafford. They kid will either have IT, or he won’t.

by KDawg on Jul 3, 2009 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Your last line sums it up

“The kid will either have IT, or he won’t” Exactly! That has been the crux of my point all along. They drafted Matt because they saw enough to invest their entire future in him. That said, all Stafford needs to do is learn the playbook and it’s time to start. Why do I think that way? I know that question frustrates you just like your insistance on believing in Culpepper frustrates me. Well, I’ll tell you why… because Matt Stafford will be Matt Stafford, today, tomorrow and in ten years from now. That’s why. If he fails, it’s because he’s not capable of playing in the NFL. Not because they started him too soon or anything else.

That’s like Eli, Peyton, Elway, Aikman and every other highly drafted quarterback in this league that has succeeded. Peyton was destined to be a great quarterback regardless of what team drafted him. Never would he have failed. Maybe the win/loss column would be different with lesser talent or better talent, but that wouldn’t change Manning’s ability, intellect, work ethic, etc. Same with the colossal failures. Ryan Leaf would have failed with any team in the league. Regardless of when he started or who was around him, nothing would have changed his shaky mental make-up, lack of leadership ability or horrible decision-making.

So in conclusion of Round 2 with you on this…. Matt Stafford is Matt Stafford. Playing him early or late will have no impact in what he becomes, because he is already who he is. The only thing we can do is delay when he becomes “the Lion’s” Matt Stafford by wasting time with Culpepper. I still say, if he’s not ready… he’s not ready. Then start Culpepper. But let’s not play the “competition” game. There is no competition. As long as Stafford is ready, there should be no argument. Let’s give the kid experience and spend the next few years building his team with the best talent we can. The investment is already made. Let’s not waste it.

I know that I can’t change your view of this regardless of how many different scenarios we throw at each other. I can only try to explain how my point of view originates. Arguing with you is like arguing against myself. We must be two of the most stubborn, opinionated people we know. Congrats! That’s not a compliment I throw around lightly.

by DrewsLions on Jul 3, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL +1

I see your points, clearly understand them, and agree. I just feel that if he is not quite ready, that he could benefit from watching Culpepper. I also feel that it could benefit the organization to showcase Culpepper’s ability. Very ironic that I would hope for the conservative approach in this situation, but that is exactly what I hope for here. I said it before, and I’ll say it again….if Matt Stafford is ready, he should play. If he is not quite there yet, which I feel will be the case, then Culpepper should start, and I think everyone will benefit more from that situation than if we just start the kid because he is the future of the team and the #1 pick. All of my arguments were meant to shed light on the fact that a rookie QB can benefit from sitting and watching a veteran. I am not disagreeing that he could also benefit from playing right away, IF he is ready.

by KDawg on Jul 4, 2009 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Right

I completely agree. I think putting Stafford out there before he is ready would just hurt him, instead of help him improve. I also agree that if Stafford seems ready, or is doing just as well as DC then why not start him? After all he is going to be your QB of the future, and if he gives you the same chance to win DC does then go with him. But if Stafford isn’t ready then sitting and watching DC run the offense won’t hurt.

by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

ELI?

Come on eli got lucky his receivers came up with some big catches and his running game took alot of pressure off of him. I would say star c-pep, even after pre-season. If Stafford shines during pre-season then we know we have a bright future, but thats the point of grooming a qb….the future. I dont want to have another joey situation, which I highly doubt will happen to Stafford cause he’s alot more laid back and has more talent. However, I think we should give him a chance to learn the playbook more and see how c-pep responds in situations, on and off the field. If he starts later on in the season because c-pep struggles then fine but I think we give him the chance to watch and learn what and what not to do.

by castaway2525 on Jul 1, 2009 8:06 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

That has been my argument too

But I also feel if the coaches think Matt Stafford is as good as or better than DC at QB, before the season starts, that it makes sense to start him right away, since he is the future of the team.

by KDawg on Jul 1, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Eli got lucky his recievers came up with big catches???

Ummm. Isnt that what recievers are suppose to do? Look, if Stafford is Joey. Than he will always be a Joey. Whether he starts now or three years later. Do you think Steve Young became a great QB because he sat behind Montana. Steve Young game was nothing like Montana’s. Young became great because he had the talent. And he had the mental part of the down.

by JCruize on Jul 1, 2009 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol Bishop

I can only hope he’s as good as Young the 49er, not Young the Buckaneer.

by davis0169 on Jul 1, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Davis I cant believe you

went to the Vikings site. Did a fan post. To call out Reveng4Frave. That is classic. lol

by JCruize on Jul 1, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

A little boy with a speech impediment....

dressed up as a pirate for Halloween one year….he was very excited and when the time came to go, he ran down the street to the nearest house and knocked on the door. The door opened and he held out his bag with excitement, not saying “Trick or Treat” since he was worried that it would come out as “Twick ow Tweat” and he would get teased. The woman that opened the door said, “Happy Halloween, aren’t you going to say Trick or Treat”? The little boy shook his head no, and the woman smiled. She said “Are you a Pirate”? The boy shook his head yes. She said, ‘Where are your Buccaneers"? The little boy was so embarrassed, thinking the woman was teasing him, that he ran away. He found the same luck at the next house, and was beginning to get upset because he had no candy and everyone was teasing him. Finally he reached the third house, determined to get some candy. When the door opened he once again held out his bag excitedly. The same responses of "Well aren’t you going to say Trick or Treat and Are you a Pirate" came, just like the last two houses. The little boy was waiting for the lady to give him some candy, fully expecting her to ask the inevitable question. At last, she said “Where are your Buccaneers”? He wanted candy so badly that he shouted “Stop teasing me wady….thew on my Buccin HEAD”!!

by KDawg on Jul 2, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Did you know this lad?

2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).

by Hyperion Ecta on Jul 2, 2009 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

???????

I hope that isn’t the same joke I told you guys the last time we did this.

by davis0169 on Jul 2, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guessed as much

The scenario does seem possible though.

2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).

by Hyperion Ecta on Jul 2, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's what makes it so good

Tell a younger crowd and they think you are telling them a true story until you get to the punch line….:o)

by KDawg on Jul 2, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is it joke time again?

   A farmer who had been married for 40 years, came in from the field one morning, and his wife was sitting at the kitchen table staring at a grey safety box. She said to him “I was doing the spring cleaning and I found this locked box, do yo know where the key for it is”? He looked at her and took off his key ring and proceeded to unlock the box for her. Inside the box there was 4 eggs and $10,000 dollars. His wife was so shocked that she gasped and said “wha wha what is all this”? The old farmer put his head down and said “everytime I have cheated on you in the last 40 years, I put an egg in this box.” To his uprise she said “well that isn’t so bad, 4 egg’s in 40 years”, “that’s only 1 time for every ten years, I forgive you”. “But what’s with the $10,000 dollars”? Again the farmer put his head down and said “Well sweetie, everytime I got a dozen I sold them”. BA da BOM. LOL to all and have a good day! I am OUTTA HERE!

by davis0169 on Jul 2, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I can't beleave I stooped to his level

Bishop, that little boy got under my skin with all of his name calling and his constant FAVRE this and Favre that. The thing that I STILL can’t understand is why I did it. I’m assuming that you were reading all of the posts. . . I defended a packers fan. . . .I should be ashamed, but Packallday reminds me of REV Kdawg with his even steven temper, I just couldn’t take it anymore and went after the little boy.I even tryed to say sorry that’s when he started with me. . . . .so now it’s game on with him.

by davis0169 on Jul 2, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol

I am not that good at hiding my emotions Cardinal.

by KDawg on Jul 2, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe not

Butyou are definitely more level headed than me. Especially when it comes to ignoring ignorant little boys. I just can’t beleave that I am still going over to the Norsemen actually looking for this chump to have at it so to say.But it is alot of fun knowing that the only reply he has is 0-16. cause the little bandwagon jumper has no real reply for me.

by davis0169 on Jul 2, 2009 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol

When it becomes pointless, it is often best to just stop talking…..less stress for you. I find it rather comical that you ranted on a bandwagon fan on the Viking website….:o)

by KDawg on Jul 2, 2009 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I read Davis' fanpost

Quite funny…thankfully we don’t have someone like that Revenge4Favre guy here.

2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).

by Hyperion Ecta on Jul 2, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

There are comparisons to Matt Ryan

The bad Oline, the lack of talent on the defense, the single dimensional offense (in Ryan’s case it was Turner, we have CJ). People use this to say that we should start Stafford day 1. The difference, however, was that Ryan had to beat out Chris Redman to start and Stafford has to beat out CP.

I think that CP is better than Redman. I think it will be harder for Stafford to start day 1 because he has to be better than CP rather than better than Redman. I hope he does start day 1 because that would mean he is probably in a better place than Ryan at the same time last year.

by ATL Lion on Jul 1, 2009 12:35 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Pride of Detroit, SB Nation's blog that is your source for everything Detroit Lions.
Start posting about the Lions »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

November_2007_small
Notable notes from todays Lions-Browns game
N51800214_32466642_5344_small
Browns Fans & Stafford's Support
Detroit-lions_small
Hint of Greatness?
Small
What a difference 2 weeks makes.....
Img_0883_small
November 22
Images_small
Am I just trying to find a silver lining or.....
66_small
Lions put Stephen Peterman on IR, sign WR Eric Fowler
Small
More Bad News
Detroit-lions_small
On Paper: Lions vs. Browns
Bubblesadjustment_small
Hearts out to Chris Spielman

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Buc 'Em
BUCSHOTS! The Hows and Whys about your Buccaneers.
Niners Nation
Golden Nuggets: Worse than a blowout
Turf Show Times
Random Ramsdom: Nov. 23rd, 2009

Managing Editor

Pod_small Sean Yuille

Writer

New-lions-logo_1__small DrewsLions