Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

So what in the world is happening with the Raiders?

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • I think I'm all caught up to speed on the Khalil Mack trade but can anyone explain what Gruden is doing? It seems like instead of going full speed ahead and trying to make a push to the playoffs he's rebuilding the team to, I don't know, get guys he likes in there? I like a good NFL intrigue and this seems like it's going to be a very 'intriguing' season for the Raiders.

    I've said it a few times here but I think Gruden is going to bomb. And the recent going ons aren't shaking that from me.

    So what's up with the Raiders?
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3322
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • With the job security that that contract gives him I think him and Mark Davis are planning for Vegas.

    The folks in Oakland, and Marshawn too, have every right to be pissed that they've decide not to field the most competitive team possible in their remaining time in Oakland.
    kobebryant
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2277
    Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 1:45 pm


  • Implosion in progress. Looking forward to watching it. Along with the Rams.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10822
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • kobebryant wrote:With the job security that that contract gives him I think him and Mark Davis are planning for Vegas.

    The folks in Oakland, and Marshawn too, have every right to be pissed that they've decide not to field the most competitive team possible in their remaining time in Oakland.


    That explains hiring Cable.
    User avatar
    GeekHawk
    US Navy ET Nuc
     
    Posts: 6626
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:29 pm
    Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet


  • Yeah, it's a controlled implosion. All out $$ grab, screw everything else.
    In a cemetery full of Tomahawks.
    Givin’ middle fingers to the pigeons doing somersaults.
    hgwellz12
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2628
    Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:17 pm


  • They have the Oldest Roster in the league right now, Oakland is filing an Anti Trust Case against them as well, hard to make that stick since the Raiders have given them a lot of time to come up with a finance a new stadium solution however. Gruden is seemingly going with Vets everywhere now and setting up money for the future in Vegas.


    This will be a mess soon with all the moving parts, when the team starts to implode there could be fire.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25441
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • I like what Jon Gruden is doing. Seriously not joking.

    The Raiders defense was garbage with Khalil Mack. So there was no point in paying him, if you can get a king's ransom in return. And they did.


    They can now rebuild their defense with FOUR 1st rd picks over the next two years. $60-70M in cap space next off-season to spread around to some vets. Individually none of these acquisitions will be better than Mack, but collectively they will be a much, much better team. This move will allow them to contend for years to come.

    Belichick trades overpriced players all the time and no one bats an eye. The Pats traded Chandler Jones to AZ for much less, and Jones has totaled more sacks than anyone since moving to AZ. AZ has sucked, NE has been going to Superbowls.

    Casuals will overreact negatively to this trade. Sort of how the casual media & public is overreacting to the Seahawks losing a bunch of big name washed up defenders this off-season that hardly contributed last year anyway. Save for Bennett he is the only legit loss to the defense, but even he was trending downward, and was a locker room problem.


    Tom Cable is the only worry I have for the Raiders. The quicker they fire him the better.

    Khalil Mack Trade Grade

    Raiders: A-
    Bears: B-
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1959
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • What is the likelihood the two first round picks have the same impact as Mack though? You can say four first round picks in two years, but they would have two of those anyway so that's irrelevant to the Mack trade. Mack is a DPoY and top 5 defensive player in the league. Their defense sucked with him, as many defenses do even with star players. Losing him will not make the defense better, and even if it improves, it would've been much better had he stayed. Three or however many decent players they sign with that cap space/draft picks does not equal the impact of one All-pro player, especially a pass rusher.

    The Patriots missed Chandler Jones dearly in the past SB - they had zero pass rush and Foles destroyed them. The picks they got for Jones turned into diddly squat. Also, the Pats have a system that works well for them, mostly because of BB and Brady. The Raiders don't have a QB close to Brady's level, nor has Gruden shown to be near Belichick-tier. I doubt this will work out for them.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • Fade wrote:I like what Jon Gruden is doing. Seriously not joking.

    The Raiders defense was garbage with Khalil Mack. So there was no point in paying him, if you can get a king's ransom in return. And they did.


    They can now rebuild their defense with FOUR 1st rd picks over the next two years. $60-70M in cap space next off-season to spread around to some vets. Individually none of these acquisitions will be better than Mack, but collectively they will be a much, much better team. This move will allow them to contend for years to come.

    Belichick trades overpriced players all the time and no one bats an eye. The Pats traded Chandler Jones to AZ for much less, and Jones has totaled more sacks than anyone since moving to AZ. AZ has sucked, NE has been going to Superbowls.

    Casuals will overreact negatively to this trade. Sort of how the casual media & public is overreacting to the Seahawks losing a bunch of big name washed up defenders this off-season that hardly contributed last year anyway. Save for Bennett he is the only legit loss to the defense, but even he was trending downward, and was a locker room problem.


    Tom Cable is the only worry I have for the Raiders. The quicker they fire him the better.

    Khalil Mack Trade Grade

    Raiders: A-
    Bears: B-


    So our contrarian indicator is working. :P
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3322
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • I think what they're doing is smart. Give zero "craps" about the team before the move to Vegas and set yourself up for success as much as possible starting once you're there. Build all the future draft capital and spare cap space you can, come out with a competitive team or close to it in your first season in Vegas, and $ucce$$.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30061
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • Fade wrote:I like what Jon Gruden is doing. Seriously not joking.

    The Raiders defense was garbage with Khalil Mack. So there was no point in paying him, if you can get a king's ransom in return. And they did.


    They can now rebuild their defense with FOUR 1st rd picks over the next two years. $60-70M in cap space next off-season to spread around to some vets. Individually none of these acquisitions will be better than Mack, but collectively they will be a much, much better team. This move will allow them to contend for years to come.

    Belichick trades overpriced players all the time and no one bats an eye. The Pats traded Chandler Jones to AZ for much less, and Jones has totaled more sacks than anyone since moving to AZ. AZ has sucked, NE has been going to Superbowls.

    Casuals will overreact negatively to this trade. Sort of how the casual media & public is overreacting to the Seahawks losing a bunch of big name washed up defenders this off-season that hardly contributed last year anyway. Save for Bennett he is the only legit loss to the defense, but even he was trending downward, and was a locker room problem.


    Tom Cable is the only worry I have for the Raiders. The quicker they fire him the better.

    Khalil Mack Trade Grade

    Raiders: A-
    Bears: B-


    I agree with this. People forget not only did Chicago have to part with picks they also had to pay a ton of money for Mack.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2989
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:22 pm


  • getnasty wrote:I agree with this. People forget not only did Chicago have to part with picks they also had to pay a ton of money for Mack.

    As quick as the CHI fanbase is celebrating this move, the GM better pray Mack stays healthy, or that same fanbase will be calling for his head. It is foolish to pay a defensive player this much money & give up two 1st rdrs.

    I still give them a B- though because Mack is really good, but still that is a lot of assets to forego for one non-QB player.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1959
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • This could go either way for them but it's the kind of thing pete did when he came here
    The question is , is there GM up to the challenge
    If not then it still could hit on one or two good players or squat but if so it will be the beginning of a winning mentality
    It's the new way to buck the old standard and the way things are done right because of a salary cap
    If the bears get a QB that commands top dollars they're screwed everywhere else so that means from now on they can really only field a great team with a fantastic rookie QB
    Too much for one non QB player as we've seen before
    Pass rush has to be from all sides not just one guy getting older so churn churn churn that roster
    What are you
    I'm a mog , half man , half dog
    I'm my own best friend
    User avatar
    hawxfreak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 544
    Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:04 pm
    Location: The Burbs in Lacey


  • There’s a lot of talk centered around the four First Round picks in two years being a win in this trade.

    This is the Raiders.

    They have bombed on every single First Round pick in the last fifteen years, outside of Mack. Those who weren’t outright busts went on to be, at best, stunningly mediocre.

    Yes, those picks weren’t all the work of one GM, but the trend hasn’t changed with McKenzie so to think it will suddenly improve with the change of an area code is perhaps a tad optimistic, don’t you think?
    User avatar
    uncle fester
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:21 am


  • uncle fester wrote:There’s a lot of talk centered around the four First Round picks in two years being a win in this trade.

    This is the Raiders.

    They have bombed on every single First Round pick in the last fifteen years, outside of Mack. Those who weren’t outright busts went on to be, at best, stunningly mediocre.

    Yes, those picks weren’t all the work of one GM, but the trend hasn’t changed with McKenzie so to think it will suddenly improve with the change of an area code is perhaps a tad optimistic, don’t you think?


    It's like the Cloud of Brown. It just looms over the organization, punching them in the groin every turn.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3322
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • As much as I think Gruden may be the most overrated coach in the history of the NFL, I can understand his logic in not wanting to pay Mack crazy 22M a year type of money.

    That means between Carr and Mack, you've got over 40M of your cap tied up in two players...............AND if you're not convinced that you're in the mix to win a SB, why commit to that much salary.

    If you believe in your scouting, McKenzie and your coaches to use the two #1's wisely to reload and go into moving to Vegas with a strong young nucleus to compete for the next 4-5 years? Then it's a good trade.

    Everyone's all over Gruden, but very rarely does this type of trade work out for the team that overpays for the player. So we'll see how the Bears do this year, and over the next two without a first round pick.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13845
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:As much as I think Gruden may be the most overrated coach in the history of the NFL, I can understand his logic in not wanting to pay Mack crazy 22M a year type of money.

    That means between Carr and Mack, you've got over 40M of your cap tied up in two players...............AND if you're not convinced that you're in the mix to win a SB, why commit to that much salary.

    If you believe in your scouting, McKenzie and your coaches to use the two #1's wisely to reload and go into moving to Vegas with a strong young nucleus to compete for the next 4-5 years? Then it's a good trade.

    Everyone's all over Gruden, but very rarely does this type of trade work out for the team that overpays for the player. So we'll see how the Bears do this year, and over the next two without a first round pick.


    The way I look at it, the Bears are still gonna be that mishmash of 'wut?!' with or without Mack. It's the Raiders perspectives and motives that I just can't reconcile as easily. I do appreciate the responses to the thread though for giving me perspective though.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3322
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:As much as I think Gruden may be the most overrated coach in the history of the NFL, I can understand his logic in not wanting to pay Mack crazy 22M a year type of money.

    That means between Carr and Mack, you've got over 40M of your cap tied up in two players...............AND if you're not convinced that you're in the mix to win a SB, why commit to that much salary.

    If you believe in your scouting, McKenzie and your coaches to use the two #1's wisely to reload and go into moving to Vegas with a strong young nucleus to compete for the next 4-5 years? Then it's a good trade.

    Everyone's all over Gruden, but very rarely does this type of trade work out for the team that overpays for the player. So we'll see how the Bears do this year, and over the next two without a first round pick.


    The way I look at it, the Bears are still gonna be that mishmash of 'wut?!' with or without Mack. It's the Raiders perspectives and motives that I just can't reconcile as easily. I do appreciate the responses to the thread though for giving me perspective though.


    For sure, it doesn't make any sense from the Bears side. They're still in rebuild mode, and have no idea if Trubisky is even a good starting QB.

    Why give up two #1's for a DE, who will help............but puts you NOWHERE near the Vikings or Packers in your division.

    My point is Gruden is being crucified, and I really don't understand it. I love Mack, he's an elite DE, but I wouldn't want the Hawks to pay 22M a year to a DE crippling our cap either.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13845
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:As much as I think Gruden may be the most overrated coach in the history of the NFL, I can understand his logic in not wanting to pay Mack crazy 22M a year type of money.

    That means between Carr and Mack, you've got over 40M of your cap tied up in two players...............AND if you're not convinced that you're in the mix to win a SB, why commit to that much salary.

    If you believe in your scouting, McKenzie and your coaches to use the two #1's wisely to reload and go into moving to Vegas with a strong young nucleus to compete for the next 4-5 years? Then it's a good trade.

    Everyone's all over Gruden, but very rarely does this type of trade work out for the team that overpays for the player. So we'll see how the Bears do this year, and over the next two without a first round pick.


    The way I look at it, the Bears are still gonna be that mishmash of 'wut?!' with or without Mack. It's the Raiders perspectives and motives that I just can't reconcile as easily. I do appreciate the responses to the thread though for giving me perspective though.


    For sure, it doesn't make any sense from the Bears side. They're still in rebuild mode, and have no idea if Trubisky is even a good starting QB.

    Why give up two #1's for a DE, who will help............but puts you NOWHERE near the Vikings or Packers in your division.

    My point is Gruden is being crucified, and I really don't understand it. I love Mack, he's an elite DE, but I wouldn't want the Hawks to pay 22M a year to a DE crippling our cap either.


    A Raiders fan put it to me like this: Would you give up a winning lottery ticket for 4 lottery tickets? I know that doesn't cover the nuance of the situation at hand but it's kind of where I am at - you have a great known quantity, and it has a lot of upkeep expenses, but...you're banking on hitting at 2/4 on those picks to meet or exceed that known quantity 3 to 4 years down the road? If this was not Mack and say Frank Clark I'd take the picks no doubt but I think Mack is great and even if his salary demands are a bit outlandish, taking a proactive approach to set the table 3-4 years down the road is just too unknown. Of course I also have my doubts on Gruden lasting even 5 years let alone 10 to realize his vision so that tinges it.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3322
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:
    A Raiders fan put it to me like this: Would you give up a winning lottery ticket for 4 lottery tickets? I know that doesn't cover the nuance of the situation at hand but it's kind of where I am at - you have a great known quantity, and it has a lot of upkeep expenses, but...you're banking on hitting at 2/4 on those picks to meet or exceed that known quantity 3 to 4 years down the road? If this was not Mack and say Frank Clark I'd take the picks no doubt but I think Mack is great and even if his salary demands are a bit outlandish, taking a proactive approach to set the table 3-4 years down the road is just too unknown. Of course I also have my doubts on Gruden lasting even 5 years let alone 10 to realize his vision so that tinges it.


    I get it, but in the NFL it has more to do with whether you think you're in or out of your SB window.

    Like we did last year, and the Rams are doing this year, you take chances on leveraging and compromising your cap in order to win NOW. Because that's the state of the league now, you're either building for 2-3 years down the road, or you're going for broke, there is no middle anymore.

    No better way to lose your job as a GM and/or HC than to just go 7-9 or 8-8 in perpetuity.

    It's obvious that Gruden and McKenzie don't think they're ready to go for broke and compete for a SB this year hamstringing their cap. My guess is they want to go into Vegas as strong as possible having their cap right and getting the best young nucleus as possible.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13845
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    A Raiders fan put it to me like this: Would you give up a winning lottery ticket for 4 lottery tickets? I know that doesn't cover the nuance of the situation at hand but it's kind of where I am at - you have a great known quantity, and it has a lot of upkeep expenses, but...you're banking on hitting at 2/4 on those picks to meet or exceed that known quantity 3 to 4 years down the road? If this was not Mack and say Frank Clark I'd take the picks no doubt but I think Mack is great and even if his salary demands are a bit outlandish, taking a proactive approach to set the table 3-4 years down the road is just too unknown. Of course I also have my doubts on Gruden lasting even 5 years let alone 10 to realize his vision so that tinges it.


    I get it, but in the NFL it has more to do with whether you think you're in or out of your SB window.

    Like we did last year, and the Rams are doing this year, you take chances on leveraging and compromising your cap in order to win NOW. Because that's the state of the league now, you're either building for 2-3 years down the road, or you're going for broke, there is no middle anymore.

    No better way to lose your job as a GM and/or HC than to just go 7-9 or 8-8 in perpetuity.

    It's obvious that Gruden and McKenzie don't think they're ready to go for broke and compete for a SB this year hamstringing their cap. My guess is they want to go into Vegas as strong as possible having their cap right and getting the best young nucleus as possible.


    I think you're on the money with the expectations being more dichotomous but I think it's kind of a hilarious tragedy that several of the teams that go down the path of building for the future on a longer timeline wind up treading water in that mediocre zone or jettisoning the architects of that rebuild 2 to 3 years in just to repeat the process and the mantra of 'for the future'.

    I think I have PTSD from Sam Hinkie and the Sixers even as a passive bystander with no rooting interest. It has given rise to the notion that you, the fan, simply need more patience, endless patience, to suffer through some baffling moves and awful games to get a chance to seize the ring at some nebulous point in the future. If the team sucks, it's by design and screw you for not trusting in the apparatus to deliver the goods. Like I said, I'm not even a Sixers fan but that whole thing rubbed me wrong where even years later now, the Sixers are better than the darkest days of Hinkie's tenure but they're not appreciably closer to realizing the promised end goal that seemingly justified the whole detour. (52 wins this past season in the East is great, sure, but cmon, the West's 6th best team would probably smoke them heads up, not to even invoke the Dubs or Rockets or whoever else. And were those previous seasons worth a semi bounce now?)

    Not that I'm looking out for the Raiders interests here but man, it's going to be funny and sad at the same time if 5 years from now the Raiders have moved on from Gruden, or Gruden realizes he loves the booth more and they weren't even in the wildcard hunt during his tenure.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3322
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • Paying Mack that much money doesn't have to cripple their cap. They have Trubisky for four more seasons at a very low cost. With good management and drafting, you can have good, cheap players and older elite players and contend. That's exactly what this team did, what the Eagles did, and what the Rams are trying to do. I think people are overestimating the impact of the $ amount because it looks so large. This will become the going rate for star DEs soon. Bosa will probably get close to that, as will Clowney.

    If Frank Clark gets 12+ sacks and continues his trajectory of improvement, we're looking at $17M APY minimum.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • Fade wrote:I like what Jon Gruden is doing. Seriously not joking.

    The Raiders defense was garbage with Khalil Mack. So there was no point in paying him, if you can get a king's ransom in return. And they did.


    They can now rebuild their defense with FOUR 1st rd picks over the next two years. $60-70M in cap space next off-season to spread around to some vets. Individually none of these acquisitions will be better than Mack, but collectively they will be a much, much better team. This move will allow them to contend for years to come.

    Belichick trades overpriced players all the time and no one bats an eye. The Pats traded Chandler Jones to AZ for much less, and Jones has totaled more sacks than anyone since moving to AZ. AZ has sucked, NE has been going to Superbowls.

    Casuals will overreact negatively to this trade. Sort of how the casual media & public is overreacting to the Seahawks losing a bunch of big name washed up defenders this off-season that hardly contributed last year anyway. Save for Bennett he is the only legit loss to the defense, but even he was trending downward, and was a locker room problem.


    Tom Cable is the only worry I have for the Raiders. The quicker they fire him the better.

    Khalil Mack Trade Grade

    Raiders: A-
    Bears: B-


    Why? Explain please.
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8312
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • Seahawkfan80 wrote:
    Fade wrote:Tom Cable is the only worry I have for the Raiders. The quicker they fire him the better.



    Why? Explain please.


    Explain why Tom Cable is terrible?
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1959
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Fade wrote:
    Seahawkfan80 wrote:
    Fade wrote:Tom Cable is the only worry I have for the Raiders. The quicker they fire him the better.



    Why? Explain please.


    Explain why Tom Cable is terrible?


    I know he is terrible..but why the quicker they fire him the better? Would it not be in our interest for him to stay there and deplete their resources and show bad coaching to the extreme?

    uh oh...click, the light went on. You are saying FOR the Raiders it would be better for them to cut bait with Cable than retain him for very long. I was thinking from a Seahawky point of view.

    Thanks Fade.
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8312
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • mrt144 wrote:
    I think you're on the money with the expectations being more dichotomous but I think it's kind of a hilarious tragedy that several of the teams that go down the path of building for the future on a longer timeline wind up treading water in that mediocre zone or jettisoning the architects of that rebuild 2 to 3 years in just to repeat the process and the mantra of 'for the future'.
    .



    Sure, you still have to have the right people in the organization to take advantage of the rebuild process.

    Look at the Browns, they've wasted more first round picks than the rest of the league combined over the past decade. Because they have horrible people in place in the FO and sidelines.

    The rest of the AFC East is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Because of the Pats the rest of the division is perpetually in a confusing "do we rebuild or try to compete." So all three teams are trying to do both, take on expensive free agents AND rebuild.

    Doesn't work, that's why the Dolphins, Jets and Bills are always 6-10 to 9-7 seemingly every year.

    That's what I see the Bears trying to do now. They're nowhere near ready to compete with the Vikings or Packers, so why give up two #1's to get a DE?
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13845
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • This was a great move bye Gruden. It's straight out of the Jimmie Johnson play book. Raiders can own the draft for two years. Trade up or down and build the team.

    Carr is no Russell Wilson. He's doomed bye Cable.
    Michael Dickson, P, Texas: 2018 Adopt a Probowl Rookie
    User avatar
    Atradees
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3472
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:22 pm
    Location: South of Heaven




It is currently Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:03 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests