joez crizab shizak
Footballguy
If you bet black for times and red hits 4 times, most bettors wouldn's switch to red. You color is bound to hit sooner or later.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Quentin Griffin (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter joez crizab shizak
- Start date
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Obviously with 6 months to go before the season starts, a lot can change. I never said Griffin WOULDN'T be the starter, I just said I saw nothing to the fact that said he was annoited the next go-to RB in Denver, nor have I seen anything that suggests he was even a likely first option.Some people on the boards here seem to be talking him up like it's a foregone conclusion that Griffin will inherit the job, and that 's the part I haven't seen being reported.Chris Mortensen reported on ESPN-TV that he had his doubts that Griffin would be their #1 option, that Denver was impressed with Galloway, but likely they would be acquiring someone else to be the primary back.In his weekly chat, he had this to say . . .
LINKYFrom TSN and FoxSports . . .
LINKYAnd from Yahoo! . . .
LINKYOr from Fanball . . .
LINKYNone of these articles conclude that Griffin WON'T be the starter, but they all seem reflect that the Broncos seem to be trying a lot to NOT have Griffin as the starter.Since we won't know who they draft, who they sign, or what their roster will be, it's obviously pure conjecture at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
BowlBound
Footballguy
If Griffin, were 5'11" 195 lbs. as opposed to 5'7" 195 lbs. people on this message board would be salivating all over his jock. I don't see why being 4" shorter than Portis will make Griffin any less durable than Portis.I'm guessing that being 4" shorter would only be an asset. He can totally hide behind the lineman and then explode through the holes before the d-line new what was happening........ We will have to wait and see but I see know problems with his height at all
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Can we at least wait to see what Shanahan does during the draft before the Q-Dog hype starts/continues? Quentin isn't going to be Denver's main guy, and we'll see proof of that within the coming weeks through either free agency or the draft, most likely the draft. Patience folks, no one's rankings have to be completed before the draft.
DaveGrumbles
Footballguy
I think you got off on a tangent for no reason. If you would re-read my post you will see that it doesn't state that Griffin CAN NOT be the next Barry Sanders...it states that the chances that Q will be the next Barry are EXTREMELY LOW, which I would have to assume even the average Denver homer like yourself would have to agree with. The phrase 'exception that proves the rule' is only used to convey the fact that a certain set of attributes and/or elements applied to a specific situation is rare enough that it will only serve to strengthen the argument for the norm as opposed to assuming that the anomaly is now the new standard.First off I actually think he's a solid RB and a great open field runner. I would also disagree with your assessment that he is not a good between the tackles runner). However after watching him play (granted its been a limited time) I just don't feel like he's the answer for the Broncos. So whether it be that Shanny doesn't believe in him or maybe he's just plain not good enough, I'm playing the odds.Name as many RBs his size that have been 1500 yard backs...Barry Sanders?, Priest? (even though Priest has a couple inches on him and about 20lbs.) Even better name those same size guys that have contributed to a very successful team ie...super bowl. What? maybe, Joe Morris? Again the point is odds...what are the odds that Q is either very successful or an integral part of a super bowl caliber team? Very low. And what are the odds of both happening? Even lower. So like I said before...Q's chances of being great = EXTREMELY LOW.
Anarchy, after reading all that information you provided, I did not get one single indication that Griffin will have no chance to start or that the Broncos are actively pursuing an upgrade over him.It is very clear to me that he is a LEGITIMATE starting candidate at this point, and until we see what type of RB is brought in to compete with him, he will remain that way in my mind.Obviously, if Garner or Dillon or someone else is signed or a RB is drafted highly, then Griffin will have his work cut out for him. BUT, based on the fact that the Broncos haven't been super active in bringing in FA RBs up to this point, that they still seem to prefer that Mike Anderson remain at FB, and that they are still sending Ahmaad Galloway to Europe, I think all signs point to a great deal of confidence in Griffin as a starter or primary RB in a RBBC system.Brian Westbrook proved last year that you don't need a tremendous number of touches to become a valuable fantasy RB. For the record, Brian Westbrook is 5'8", 200lbs and Quentin Griffin is 5'7", 195lbs. If Westbrook can lead the Eagles in rushing and score 11 TDs on roughly 150 touches, then I think Griffin can also be a very succesful RB in the Broncos system.I don't see why 1 inch and 5 lbs would make a difference. Similarly, Portis was listed at the same weight as Griffin but was 4 inches shorter. That suggests to me that Portis has a much smaller frame and would be less durable than a compact runner like Griffin who has a low center of gravity.Can someone explain to me why a RB can't be successful at 5'7"?He doesn't have to be the second coming of Barry Sanders or Clinton Portis to be worth selecting on draft day. Personally, I just picked him up in round 8 of a redraft league so I don't think he's being overvalued at all. There is a lot of upside to picking him once you get outside of the top 30 or 40 RBs, IMHO.
Last edited by a moderator:
first, since when does a RB have to reach 1500 rushing yards to be considered a valuable commodity? As far as I know, no Redskin RB has EVER rushed for 1500 yards in a single season. That is a ridiculous standard to hold any RB to, much less a player like Griffin at this point in his career. Yes, the odds are against him ever becoming a 1500 yard rusher, but the same exact thing could be said for nearly every RB in the NFL other than a select few.second, what does contributing to a super bowl-calibre team have to do with anything? as a fantasy owner, nobody cares if their players play on teams that have a chance of going to the super bowl. I want a player that will get the ball and will produce. Griffin is in an ideal situation right now and unless the Broncos bring in someone better, he IS going to be a big factor in the Broncos running game this year.Barry Sanders is an unfair comparison for any RB. If you want to know what RBs Griffin's size are capable of, you need look no further than Brian Westbrook's 2003 season. You might also want to check out what Warrick Dunn has done in his NFL career while playing at a size of 5'9", 180. Or perhaps Kevin Faulk at 5'8", 202.For those pointing out that he is not big enough to carry 25 times/game, that really shouldn't matter. Very few RBs are able to hold up a pace of 25 carries a game for an entire season. If you give Griffin 200 carries in a season, that only ends up being 12.5/game. Give him 15 carries/game with a 4.5 average and you have the next Broncos 1,000 yard RB and a lock for a top-20 fantasy RB.
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveGrumbles
Footballguy
First my answer was to his question, which was: Why can't Quentin be Barry? Thats why Barry's name came up.Second, you say when did 1500 yards become the benchmark for success? Probably when the guy you're replacing and the guy he replaced... oh and the guy that guy replaced before that already have done it. Also for future reference if you're trying to sell me on small backs please don't use RBBC or Kevin Faulk as an example.
Dman30
Footballguy
Ahhh, Wood, the man of fairness and reason.
You blast the "Q-dog hype" and say that before it "starts/continues" we should at least wait to see what Shanahan does during the draft. BUT then immediately after you state, "Quentin isn't going to be Denver's main guy." See the contradiction? How about YOU take your own advice Wood and at least wait to see what Shanahan does during the draft before declaring Griffin's status on the team as if you actually know what is going to happen??? Can you dig it? Or do you arrogantly think you know more than Mike Shanahan at this point in time and you're taking the liberty to scratch Quentin Griffin off HIS depth chart for him since you're such an authority on the sport of football and all? :wacko:
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
From the info I've seen, Griffen appears to be the last resort. In reading between the lines, I get the following from the Broncos: "If we have no better option, then we will give Griffen a shot at some carries along with the guys we have on the roster in training camp."That, IMO, is hardly a ringing endorsement for Griffen.I would have a much different opinion on this had the Broncos have come out and said that Q was the man right after the Portis trade, but as I posted, they seem pretty eager to upgrade the RB spot as of right now.Certainly, things could change in the next 6 months, but as of today, I do not get the feeling that will be getting a huge majority of the carries and at this point I think he would be in a RBBC if the season were to start in the near future.I could be way of on this one, but that's the feeling I get.
Dman30
Footballguy
link? Please provide.
When have the Broncos ever been straight with the public about starting personnel, especially 6 months before the season starts? They started off Clinton Portis in a RBBC also. Nothing new here. No need to reinvent the wheel. At this point in time, Griffin has as good a shot as anybody to EARN the featured role. Nothing will be handed to him, just like nothing was handed to Portis.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Technically, this statement is correct, but only because Denver hasn't had a chance to draft Portis' replacement yet.
Dman30
Footballguy
That statement is more than correct, it's also non-biased. It neither assumes Griffin will win the job or lose out to someone who is drafted/brought in via free agency. Although YOU do ASSUME they will bring in "Portis' Replacement." And unless your name is Mike Shanahan and you slept at the Holiday Inn last night, your opinion is worth absolutely zero in that regard. Denver will absolutely bring in another back, or two, but that doesn't mean you can discount Quentin Griffin from the picture. They probably won't draft a 1st round rookie RB, maybe not even a 2nd round rookie, and any other back that gets drafted round 3 or beyond will not be an immediate shoe-in to win the job and will have to compete with the rest of the group. Either you like Griffin or you don't. I like the kid, and given a competing chance I feel Griffin will emerge as an electrifying runner in the Denver system.
Last edited by a moderator:
This, I agree with.Right now, and probably deep into training camp, Q's name will be bandied about by the coaches as a possible starter. So will Mike Anderson's. I give them a 50-50 chance to start right now. When Denver brings in a FA and then drafts another back (and they will do both before training camp), Q's percentage of probability to start will drop to 25%.That said, it is rather blind of you to dismiss opinins that Q aint the guy simply because Q has a "chance." I'd say that while technically Mike Anderson and Q are both dead even in the possibility of starting the first game in September that, for a variety of reasons, Mike Anderson is the guy Shanahan would select between the two if he had a game coming up in April.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Your second paragraph concerning Denver's draft strategy is all speculation and assumption. Unless your name is Mike Shanahan and you slept in a Holiday Inn last night, your opinion is worth absolutely zero in that regard.
Goat Herders
Footballguy
And that my friends, is why Dman30 got 120+ votes, and I only got 30 or so...HERD
GreedoShotFirst
Footballguy
nothing to see here, Moe'v along.
Saints-Man
Footballguy
[/myopinion]This is going solely on instinct, but I could see either RB Tatum Bell(Oklahoma State) or Mewelde Moore(Tulane) fitting in nicely in Denver's system. One should be available for a 2nd or 3rd round selection.[/myopinion]
Nucular George
Footballguy
DaveGrumbles,I'll just say a couple things:
(1) I compeletely agree with AaronR here, and this pretty much sums up any reply I could give.
(2) I would also point out that you and I are in agreement as to Griffin's long-term potential. So don't think I was saying you are wrong on that matter. My point was that I did not follow the logic of the statement "exception that proves the rule". That's all. As for your explanation of that phrase, I still say that it is a contradictory phrase. By its very definition, an "exception" is contrary evidence to the rule. If something "proved" the rule, it would be considered supportive evidence. An exception, by its very nature, runs contrary to any "rule". You CAN say that exceptions to a certain rule are rare, and therefore the norm is what we should follow in terms of analysis. That's prefectly logical. But saying that an exception actually supports any "rule" is a contradiction.
Last edited by a moderator:
Burning Sensation
Footballguy
Did the Broncos also spell his name wrong?
crazy as it sounds, I actually agree with Dman here. Woodrow, you are criticizing those of us who are basing our opinions on the fact that Griffin has little competition for the job right now, yet basing your opinion on your assumption that the Broncos will bring in a RB that is clearly superior to Q.Bottom Line: NOBODY knows who will be brought in to Denver in the next month or two. If the Broncos bring in a "name" FA or draft a rookie highly, I'll gladly concede that Griffin will be likely be no more than a change of pace back. But, if they don't bring in somebody like that, then Griffin is going to be the man.BTW, people, Charlie Garner is 5'10", 190lbs. So, once again, despite being a few inches taller than Griffin, he is 5lbs lighter, not to mention the fact that he's also 32 years old at this point.What exactly is wrong with a RB being 5'7"? Why would the Broncos have drafted Griffin in the 4th round last year if they did not think very highly of his abilities/potential?Also, if the Broncos were as desperate for an upgrade as Anarchy and others are suggesting, why haven't they brought in a FA already? Have they even visited with any FA RBs yet? Given their recent draft history of finding RBs relatively late in the draft, what makes you all think they are going to reverse that trend this year and grab a stud early on? Assuming they have little chance to grab one of the big 2 rookies, what RBs in round 2 do you think will be a signicant upgrade over Griffin at this point?
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Aaron, you've got a point, mea culpa.
:takingmyownmedicine:I don't get it. Why exactly is that why Dman got more votes to change his avatar? Because he questioned Jason Wood's assertion...which as Aaron nicely pointed out is based on nothing other than opinion? What is this....some kind of high school popularity contest? Dman dared question somebody?Seriously, no offense but you're starting to sound like you're too much in love with yourself. I know you're a "respected poster" and all....but get over yourself.
Goat Herders
Footballguy
:rotflmao: Quit taking life so seriously. HERD
salmonstud
Footballguy
On what grounds do you make that ASSumption? Why didn't Mike start last last year when Portis was hurt?
DaveGrumbles
Footballguy
Again I didn't ask for an explanation as to why Quentin is not Barry Sanders...you did.But I do find it funny that no matter how many times the question is asked and in how many forms all of us are still unable to find a good example of a successful small fantasy/real life RB other than Barry and I don't want to hear DMan's 'whats a few inches argument?' either because obviously when you add in the 2 or 3 inches it sure seems to make a difference in the numbers. I mean you've both already agreed that real life success (super bowl, 1500yards) isn't important to the fantasy owner. But then you bring up names like Dunn and Faulk & other RBBC situations...and this should get the average fantasy owner excited??? I would guarantee you that the average Denver starting RB over the last 7 years or so probably averaged more carries per game than Dunn and Faulk combined. So if you're telling me that in the best possible scenario that Q can be RBBC and in the worst he gets to watch Mike Anderson and (insert FA name here) get all the carries. Then what you're saying is exactly what I'm saying... that in real life or fantasy Quentin is almost worthless. Thanks for proving my point though.
Also once again 'exception that proves the rule' is only a figure of speech used by most people to convey a rarity. Like most people I'm not using it in the scientific way. Maybe you should ask a scientist why they would need a false positive, or whatever it is, to prove a point...I'm not sure why exactly you're stuck on that phrase anyway.
DaveGrumbles
Footballguy
Mike Anderson smokes weed.
I didn't make an ASSumption I gave an OPINion.Similar to the OPINions that Q would start.But since you asked, I think that the primary reason Q got the start when Portis was injured was that the line had been blocking for a speed back, not a power back, all year long and Q fit that bill better than Portis. Simply put, Q is more "Portis-like" than Anderson. Given their current situation of having months to decide what to do about the run game, my PERSONAL OPINION is that given only these two choices (Q or Anderson) Shannie will go back to the power running that garnered Anderson 1G in this offense a couple years ago.PLUS, Anderson was doing very well lead blocking for Portis, and it didn't make sense to shift TWO positions around with teo games left in the season when he could simply plug a Portis-like back into the existing scheme Please don't make ASSumptions about what I said, when I clearly stated that I had an OPINion.
Nucular George
Footballguy
Yes, I did ask you to expound on that point. And so far, you haven't. You have simply said that Sanders was the "exception that proves the rule". And I will not get into it again about how little sense that makes (whether people use that phrase or not). You have not given examples of why Griffin could not do the things that Sanders did. Or that Griffin's running style is so dramatically different than Sanders was. I saw that you were using Sanders as a rare example as to why small RBs can succeed, and how rare that actually is in the NFL. Or trying to make that point anyway.Judging from your tone, you also failed to note that we were not attacking your conclusion. We were extending the debate to try to see if the line of reasoning being used (1,500 yards, Super Bowls, etc.) was instructive in terms of assessing Griffin's potential. And to be fair, we did not necessarily say that "real life success" was not improtant. We simply pointed out that real life success as defined by you (1,500 yards rushing or Super Bowls) does not necessarily mean that a RB can not be successful in FFB.I am also happy for you that you find it funny that there are so few high-profile examples of successful small RBs. There is obviously a reason that there are few examples -- it's hard to be successful at this game when you are that size. And all the examples of Barry Sanders, Warrick Dunn and Kevin Faulk will not change that. And you are welcome for us proving your point. After all, in case you did not notice this (pay attention, this part is important here)......we were basically on the same side of the debate. Finally, I will ask all my friends at Argonne Labs about that whole flawed reasoning thing of yours with the "exception that proves the rule" quip. And let me go look up all these big phrases you have thrown at me like "false positive" and such.
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveGrumbles
Footballguy
I'm not exactly sure to what extent you wanted me to explain why Quentin is not Barry. I already said I'm basing it on odds. Once again (and this is the part you should pay attention to)...I said his chances were EXTREMELY LOW...I didn't say that Q CAN NOT be Barry just that its a very remote possibilty that we were looking at the next great small man. If you want some further explanation why RB's of this size are consistently not very successful, I'm not sure. Maybe it's coach/scout bias...Maybe its the fact that an arm tackle normally banging off your waist or shoulder pad is now coming across your chest and around your neck. Maybe a stiff arm becomes less effective when your normal sized linebacker can reach around it and yank you down. Maybe thats why Barry was so successful as a dancer instead of a between the tackles guy. its the only advatage he had. BUT WHO KNOWS? I don't. I only know what history has already shown. But I'm glad we're on the same page here. Also I'm not being sarcastic about the phrase. You kept harping on it and I really don't know why its used in that way so I'd be just as interested to find out what your boys at Argonne would have to say.
Nucular George
Footballguy
Got. It.Like I said, I originially just wanted you expound on the Barry Sanders comparison, or lack thereof, for Griffin. Mostly, because I wanted to get other opinions on the differences in style and reasons why the results would be different for each RB. The points about smaller RBs in general you brought up are fine. I was just wondering if there was something to be found by comparing background, style, and situation for Griffin versus Sanders. That's all. And as I have said, we are both on the same side here, so obviously there is no friction as far as our respective conclusions are concerned.As for the phrase thing, I just found it curious and was wondering about the phrasing and your use of it here. After a certain point, it took on a life of its own. Done now though.I did ask my friends at Argonne, and they said that the "exception that proves the rule" phenomenon can only exist at the quantum level. Something about the quirks of quantum mechanics that allows for incongruous results to a debate. Kinda like the whole "photon can be in two different places at the same time until you actually observe it" kinda thing. Then again, I'm just a regular guy trying to figure out quantum physics. And I am having about as much success at that as I am at Fantasy Football... :(
unless you play in a league where only the top-20 or so RBs are on a roster, I can't understand for the life of me how you could argue that the primary ballcarrier in a RBBC would be "practically worthless" in fantasy football.There are plenty of other RBs of similar size to Griffin that have achieved success running the ball in the NFL.
Quentin Griffin 5'7", 195lbs
Barry Sanders 5'8", 203lbs
Brian Westbrook 5'8", 200lbs
Kevin Faulk 5'8", 202lbs
Amos Zereoue 5'8", 207lbs
Warrick Dunn 5'9", 180lbs
Michael Bennett 5'9", 210lbs
Domanick Davis 5'9", 215lbs
Jamel White, 5'9", 220lbs
Charlie Garner 5'10", 190lbs
Thurman Thomas, 5'10", 205lbs
Emmitt Smith, 5'10", 209lbs
Marshall Faulk, 5'10", 210lbs
If you want to only look at height, then yes he is smaller than the rest. But, his weight is adequate and suggests he has a strong enough frame to be a 10-15 carries/game type of RB. Personally, I'm not hyping him to be the second coming of Barry Sanders, and I'm not even saying he's going to be a consistent RB2 for anyone in 2004, BUT he does have value and I think it is similar to the value that players like Westbrook and Dunn will have, yet they will be drafted 3 or 4 rounds higher than him in many leagues. That makes him a quality pickup at the moment. If things do change and the Broncos bring in somebody else, then perhaps his value will decrease a bit. But, until that happens, Griffin is the frontrunner for that starting job, IMHO. Admittedly, the Broncos would not be smart to put all their hopes in a RB of that size, but I expect them to bring in more of a complementary player or perhaps a player to come in and compete with Griffin and provide depth at the position rather than going out and trying to find a Portis replacement.
At this point, any talk about the Broncos plans in the future is speculation. Based on the way things are right now, I say Griffin is going to be the leading rusher for the Broncos next season. If so, he may not rush for 1000 yards, but he will have value. He doesn't have to be the second coming of Sanders or Portis to be worth consideration on draft day for fantasy owners.
Goat Herders
Footballguy
If you think this thread made it to 3 pages because people are looking for a 800 yard/6TD running back, I've got a bridge to sell you.
HERDwell, I'm certainly not on the same side of people who think Griffin will reach Barry Sanders-level success.But, I also don't think he should be an afterthought or completely disregarded as some seem to be doing here. IMO, it would be a mistake at this point to assume that Griffin has no chance to be a successful NFL RB. Not many unproven RBs will find themsevles in a better position than the one he is in right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveGrumbles
Footballguy
Okay agreed...Truce.
TheFanatic
Footballguy
Dman = Griffin Owner
If you think this thread made it to 3 pages because people are looking for a 800 yard/6TD running back, I've got a bridge to sell you.
The Denver RB is inherently a coveted FF player. Can that be Griffin? I dunno - but, as likely as it is Griffin, it is just as likely Anderson, a FA or a rookie.D-man has a point that it is foolish to dismiss Q out of hand purely b/c of his size, but it is also taking a HUGE risk to think right now that just b/c Griffin (an undersized RB who has a lot working against him to be the feature back and will likely be battling some stiff camp competition) filled in for two games in 2003 that he's a good bet to be the feature back in 2004.IMO, it is more likely he'll be used experimentally by Shannie for the first few weeks while Shannie settles on him, Anderson, or this guy I am sure the Donkeys will be interested in (his current name is "RB TBD").While those are some quality RBs they are considering adding, I'm not sure that any of them will come in and be the stud that some of you are looking for in Denver. They might get more carries than Griffin, but I still wouldn't be surprised if Q ended up being just as productive (if not more productive).This article also reiterates the point that has been made numerous times already, that the Broncos feel good about the RBs on their roster so expecting a vet to come in and just be handed the job over Griffin seems a tad premature at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug Drinen
Moderator
I've tried on many occasions to understand quantum physics and have failed each time, but I do know this: there is no reason to seek quantum explanations for that particular phrase. If you go to m-w.com and type in "prove", you'll see that definition #2a reads like this:
So, "this is the exception that proves the rule" really means something like "uh oh, here's something that appears to be an exception to the rule. Examining this apparent exception further will test the validity of the rule." To put it another way, the expression means: "this exception calls the rule into question." On some level, it's something of a tautology; it says nothing more than "this exception is an exception." All exceptions, by definition, prove the corresponding rules. Nine times out of ten, that's not what users of the phrase seem to mean, but I think it's where the phrase originally came from. PS if I had to draft in a re-draft league right now, I would take Griffin ahead of Steven Jackson or Kevin Jones.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Doug, full disclosure here, you are a longstanding Q-Dog fan, are you not?
Doug Drinen
Moderator
No, I'd rank Griffin third of the three in a dynasty or any kind of keep-more-than-5 type league.Jones and Jackson will, I think, eventually be productive RBs. At this point, though, I'm a little scared of them ending up in Deuce McAllister-like or Shaun Alexander-like rookie situations. There is a huge amount of uncertainty associated with all three of them right now, obviously. In the short-term, they all have a very low downside (meaning any of the three of them could be complete zeroes fantasy-wise), but Griffin's upside is highest. In the long-term, they all have high upside, but Griffin's downside is probably the lowest.By August, things will likely be much clearer.And Woodrow, quit yanking my chain. You know how I feel about Griffin and that pile of rotting garbage he calls an alma mater.
Nucular George
Footballguy
I stand corrected. I think. I'm pretty sure anyway. With that argument coming from a (presumed) one-time inhabitant of Stillwater, OK I can not argue further.I will slink back to the back of the short yellow school bus now... And after all that, I still basically agree with what DaveGrumbles had to say on Griffin. We just reached the same spot through different means. Case closed.
salmonstud
Footballguy
Staley to the Steelers, Garner to the Bucs. Those were the 2 backs that I thought would be the best fit in Denver. Being a Q owner, I'm hoping that Denver's half-### pursuit of a free agent RB is a sign that they are fairly happy with their current stable of backs and will look to add another RB via the draft. What do you guys think?
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
I think Denver will draft a RB early thereby dashing your hopes of Q being the man in denver and thereby making me extremely happy and laughing at you every chance i get
