OT: The Pittsburgher Thread: New Quarter Backs for the Handball team!

[JTG]

The two most overrated attributes for a QB are arm strength and 40 time. Unless a guy has an incredibly weak arm, arm strength is not a big deal and the list of big arms that have done nothing is incredibly long. The key to success in the NFL is timing and accuracy and those stem from being able to read a defense and proper throwing technique. Foremost, if a QB cannot see the field, he has zero chance to succeed in the NFL, which is where Fields lies. Fields is a turnover machine because he cannot see the field. That he's been able to put up some yardage stats is just a testament to how much easier "success" in the passing game comes in today's the NFL (which also highlights just how f-ing bad Matt Canada's offensive scheme was).

Rushing stats for a QB mean nothing. It's not the QBs job to be a running back, and if he's defaulting that much to running, it's likely because he struggles to process the field (again).

Totally disagree. In today's NFL, a QBs feet are very important and they can actually get a QB who struggles making reads another option to pick up positive yards. Arm strength, I'm going to also disagree. Years ago...you are correct. Now with how pass happy teams are you need to be one of two types of QBs - you need to be an assassin on the short/intermediate game. High completion percentage and constantly moving the chains, or you have to be able to step up and rip the ball into tight deep windows because every f***ing team plays in a nickel set now for a good portion of their defense.

There are two things that will help any QB in Pittsburgh now - a great RB duo and a line that should be a top 5 unit in time.

Sometimes a QB is in the wrong system. Remember, Nagy was only fired last year and that offense was seen as every bit as bad as Canada's. Just like with Kenny, Fields was in a bad situation. Is Fields a franchise QB? Right now, no. He has super high end traits to develop though, and he showed in small spurts what he's capable of. Fields needed to sit. Chicago didn't have that luxury which is why I am so anti- taking QB's high in the draft if your team blows. The player has to be so insanely special to overcome that and those guys very rarely come out of the draft immediately ready to do that unless they are put in a system where they just have to do the things well they already do well. Coach-OC-QB group is so important.

Extremely disingenuous to drop Pickett's success at the feet of Jordan Addison as if Justin Fields didn't have one of the best WR rooms in college history his entire run at Ohio State.

Pickett had one of the worst pass-blocking OL in the league both years on top of the issues of Matt Canada's atrocious offensive scheme and play-calling. He did have an issue with happy feet but it only got worse because his trust in the OL was non-existent.

Pickett didn't have issues seeing the field. When given time and a pocket to step into, he looked good. When the play-calling became more aggressive in the fourth quarter, he looked good. The problem was not his lack of talent, but the failure of the coaching and the teambuilding around him.

I agree with this.

 

[JTG]

.

I'm not attacking you. I'm just saying, the things we were talking about Pickett (poor coaching, poor offensive scheme, being thrown to the fire too quickly) are exactly the same things with Fields. I'm not an "age" guy either - all about the experience, but I think where ever Fields went he was going to be in a better position, specifically if he could sit back and absorb.

The thing with the guy coming out of college, he insanely intelligent, but if you go back to threads from his draft year, I was saying how I don't think he's an immediate starter. I just think he needs to be put in a structured offense where there is some organization to it. He has running ability and he can make crazy plays, but he's a player that needs an offense like SF where he has very clearly outlined read/options and he just gets his offense. He's not a Mahomes or a Hurts. That's all I'm saying. I think Fields, though having a year more experience, isn't wildly different than Kenny's situation, and I'm treating him as such.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I'm not attacking you. I'm just saying, the things we were talking about Pickett (poor coaching, poor offensive scheme, being thrown to the fire too quickly) are exactly the same things with Fields. I'm not an "age" guy either - all about the experience, but I think where ever Fields went he was going to be in a better position, specifically if he could sit back and absorb.

The thing with the guy coming out of college, he insanely intelligent, but if you go back to threads from his draft year, I was saying how I don't think he's an immediate starter. I just think he needs to be put in a structured offense where there is some organization to it. He has running ability and he can make crazy plays, but he's a player that needs an offense like SF where he has very clearly outlined read/options and he just gets his offense. He's not a Mahomes or a Hurts. That's all I'm saying. I think Fields, though having a year more experience, isn't wildly different than Kenny's situation, and I'm treating him as such.

This is 100% how I view it too. Fields and Pickett are both in the "wait and see" category, I just think Fields' chances of being a starter are a bit higher due to his mobility. Both have similar issues that will likely prevent them from being long-term starters, but I think it's too premature to write off either of them.

 

[JTG]

This is 100% how I view it too. Fields and Pickett are both in the "wait and see" category, I just think Fields' chances of being a starter are a bit higher due to his mobility. Both have similar issues that will likely prevent them from being long-term starters, but I think it's too premature to write off either of them.

And Fields Chicago experience may be like the difference between under grad and grad school. Grad school is typically most beneficial to those who are bringing some industry experience already and get how things work. Chicago was his undergrad. He's going to get coached and have some time watching a guy he said he emulated his game after. To me that's a really good though. The openness of his mind to this situation will determine how good he can be because he has talent. It's all between the ears, in my opinion.

 

[Peat]

Ohio State doesn't play in a cupcake division like Pitt does.

Anyway, I even like Pickett and I think the comments you're making about him are ridiculous. This idea that he had no faults and was let down by Canada is just entirely baseless and frankly moronic. I was in the "let's see how he does with a new OC" camp as well, but that doesn't change that he was extremely ineffective in the NFL so far and showed massive issues with bailing out of the pocket prematurely, not identifying open targets and defaulting to checking the ball down far too much.

In the two years in the NFL, Pickett was clearly worse than Fields by any measure you can look at and showed no sort of talents that suggest he has a higher upside than Fields. I was willing to give him another year to see if Pickett could show that, but he absolutely did not show that in his first 2 years.

Pickett had a higher adjusted EPA than Fields over the last two years.

He also had lower interception percentage, lower sack percentage, lower pressure to sack percentage, higher completion percentages, and higher passing yards per game. He also checked down a hell of a lot less than Fields last year.

In fact, the only measures I can think of that shows Fields as clearly better are touchdowns and rushing yards.

Pickett is of course handily ahead on wins. Something of a team stat, but so's quite a lot of them, and the difference in their 4th quarter stats points to why Pittsburgh won a bunch of games they shouldn't have and the Bears lost a bunch of games they shouldn't have.

I don't want to get into Pickett again. But this idea Fields has been clearly better, that Fields has clearly superior traits? Nope. There's a ton of measures saying otherwise.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

None of this matters guys. Russ Wilson is going to win the next 3 super bowls

 

[Peat]

Btw, Breer's post on the 4-6 QBs in the last draft looks unusually interesting

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

I'm not attacking you. I'm just saying, the things we were talking about Pickett (poor coaching, poor offensive scheme, being thrown to the fire too quickly) are exactly the same things with Fields. I'm not an "age" guy either - all about the experience, but I think where ever Fields went he was going to be in a better position, specifically if he could sit back and absorb.

The thing with the guy coming out of college, he insanely intelligent, but if you go back to threads from his draft year, I was saying how I don't think he's an immediate starter. I just think he needs to be put in a structured offense where there is some organization to it. He has running ability and he can make crazy plays, but he's a player that needs an offense like SF where he has very clearly outlined read/options and he just gets his offense. He's not a Mahomes or a Hurts. That's all I'm saying. I think Fields, though having a year more experience, isn't wildly different than Kenny's situation, and I'm treating him as such.

We have had plenty of disagreements before so not sure why you think I’m feeling attacked?

I only go into “f*** you” mode with posters who start name calling or ones who have done it in the past and have no respect for them and treat them as such.

I respect your opinion always have and your patience with Fields, I just can’t pretend I agree with that position.

I’ve seen him fail over and over again when Chi has to put the ball in his hands.

I’ve followed the draft since I was a kid and have discovered over the years that QBs who:

- are run first almost always fail save a select few

- can’t read a D and go through their progressions almost always fail

- have poor accuracy almost always fail

- hit a three year window without progressing, will almost without exception, never become franchise guys.

- have had their teams give up on them, with the exception of Brees, none have become franchise guys

Fields literally checks every one of these boxes, and I’ve seen him play like 75% of his NFL games.

That’s why I can’t lie and say “ya I think he has a chance to fulfill his potential”.

 

[WickedWrister]

Pickett had a higher adjusted EPA than Fields over the last two years.

rbsdm.com/stats

Not trying to fact check you but I remember we've talked about this metric in the past. Besides, they're both so poor/mediocre in this department that I'm not sure it's worth arguing over.

I don't know how you guys have the energy to continue the Pickett post-mortem

 

[Empoleon8771]

Pickett had a higher adjusted EPA than Fields over the last two years.

He also had lower interception percentage, lower sack percentage, lower pressure to sack percentage, higher completion percentages, and higher passing yards per game. He also checked down a hell of a lot less than Fields last year.

In fact, the only measures I can think of that shows Fields as clearly better are touchdowns and rushing yards.

Pickett is of course handily ahead on wins. Something of a team stat, but so's quite a lot of them, and the difference in their 4th quarter stats points to why Pittsburgh won a bunch of games they shouldn't have and the Bears lost a bunch of games they shouldn't have.

I don't want to get into Pickett again. But this idea Fields has been clearly better, that Fields has clearly superior traits? Nope. There's a ton of measures saying otherwise.

Fields had better both passer rating and QBR, had better PFF ratings, better yards/completion, better yards/attempt and added a significant impact on the running game that Pickett didn't. He also had a +13 difference between TDs and INTs, while Pickett had the same amount of TDs and INTs.

I also firmly believe that the difference in their turnover numbers and sack numbers is heavily due to the teams both are on. With Pickett, he was beaten into being ultra conservative and not making any mistakes, because the Steelers could win games with their defense and Pickett only putting up 200 passing yards and 0 TDs a game. Fields was asked to carry the Bears, which is why he played more aggressively and recklessly. He didn't have the luxury of being carried to wins by a strong defense and winning games 13-10. Pickett had 7 wins where the Steelers put up 20 or fewer points, Fields had 2 wins when the Bears put up 20 or fewer points.

That's the same reason why bringing up wins isn't a fair comparison whatsoever. In the last 2 years, the Bears lost games 26-31, 28-31, 30-31, 32-35 and 29-49. The Steelers lost 1 game in Pickett's 2 years where they put up 26 or more points. Hell, they only even put up that many points thrice in 2 years.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don't know how you guys have the energy to continue the Pickett post-mortem

Honestly it's more so that I think it's people are giving Fields unfair shit, and it coincidentally happens to be the people who liked Pickett being the most critical of Fields.

Like I said above, I was "wait and see" with Pickett and wanted to give him another year to see what he can do and I'm extending that same thought to Fields.

 

[bigdaddyk88]

Neither KP or JF are long term answers. Neither process well. Fields is the more dangerous runner and has a better arm talent and natural tools than Kp

 

[Ulf5]

Pickett sucks and can't read an NFL D.
Fields supposedly sucks and can't read an NFL D. But his supporting cast was pure trash. I guess I'll give him a few games but not much more.

 

[Peat]

View attachment 863096

rbsdm.com/stats

Not trying to fact check you but I remember we've talked about this metric in the past. Besides, they're both so poor/mediocre in this department that I'm not sure it's worth arguing over.

I don't know how you guys have the energy to continue the Pickett post-mortem

Ah, I use Baldwin's stats from twitter -



I wonder why they're so different given he's involved in rbsdm too. Might ask him.

In any case, I'd love to stop talking about Pickett, but I am interested in Fields and if we're going to use Pickett as a benchmark for Fields than I guess we're still gonna talk Pickett.

Fields had better both passer rating and QBR, had better PFF ratings, better yards/completion, better yards/attempt and added a significant impact on the running game that Pickett didn't. He also had a +13 difference between TDs and INTs, while Pickett had the same amount of TDs and INTs.

I also firmly believe that the difference in their turnover numbers and sack numbers is heavily due to the teams both are on. With Pickett, he was beaten into being ultra conservative and not making any mistakes, because the Steelers could win games with their defense and Pickett only putting up 200 passing yards and 0 TDs a game. Fields was asked to carry the Bears, which is why he played more aggressively and recklessly. He didn't have the luxury of being carried to wins by a strong defense and winning games 13-10. Pickett had 7 wins where the Steelers put up 20 or fewer points, Fields had 2 wins when the Bears put up 20 or fewer points.

That's the same reason why bringing up wins isn't a fair comparison whatsoever. In the last 2 years, the Bears lost games 26-31, 28-31, 30-31, 32-35 and 29-49. The Steelers lost 1 game in Pickett's 2 years where they put up 26 or more points. Hell, they only even put up that many points thrice in 2 years.

Fair enough to add more numbers where Fields was better but it's still not clear cut. I'd add that, insofar as I can guess at a two year average when I'm not willing to run the numbers fresh, the *net* yards is probably very close to a draw if not favouring Pickett, which seems a bigger deal than pure yards/completion or attempt.

And while I firmly believe that team influences these numbers a lot - which is why I like adjusted EPA as it seems to be digging hardest at divorcing the QB from his team I would add that

a) Pressure to Sack has proven to be a sticky stat for QBs going from college to the NFL and as such, I don't believe in putting that on the Bears. Number of pressures? Sure. Number of those pressure turning into sacks? I think we're into a stat that's mainly about how well the QB feels that pressure coming and makes decisions. Fields number there is very bad, has been bad since college, and I think it shows a very large flaw in his ability to read the game.

b) It doesn't matter how you get there, it matters how you finish. Most NFL games end in one score games which means the QB has a chance to make a difference. Fields doesn't. He very aggressively doesn't. He goes into his shell. He either doesn't have the stones for the moment or can't cope with pure pass situations which, given his horrendous numbers in a clean pocket/playing without pressure, seems very likely.

Which again comes down to reading the game.

Which is why I'm very, very down on Fields. I think there's too much evidence suggesting his processing is way below where it should be for an NFL QB in a way that can't be placed solely on his team. I just don't see it going from weakness to strength.

I would also add that this athleticism doesn't seem to help him here. I'm very pro-cerebral QB, but I've got to point at Josh Allen as a fantastic example of a very athletic QB who uses that athleticism as a way to take some of the heat of his technical/mental shortcomings. He's hard to sack because he's strong as an ox and his throw velocity is nuts - think he's the only guy with a throw velocity over 60mph at the combine since they started measuring - which allows him to be a little late to see it. Fields' speed very clearly doesn't help him prevent sacks - or if it does, god only knows what he'd be like if he was slow - and while I can't find his throw velocity, I don't think it's Allen-esque. Fields can rush a bunch and he can throw a great deep ball, but those don't make up for poor processing.

 

[Peat]

Honestly it's more so that I think it's people are giving Fields unfair shit, and it coincidentally happens to be the people who liked Pickett being the most critical of Fields.

Like I said above, I was "wait and see" with Pickett and wanted to give him another year to see what he can do and I'm extending that same thought to Fields.

Also

a) I can't emphasise enough that my support for Pickett was lukewarm support of Pickett and vehement criticism of the coaches who put him in that situation.

b) Given that the few things Pickett did objectively well on an NFL pitch are the same things that Fields does objectively very badly - ball security, Q4, and winning - it's not exactly a surprise there's a correlation.

 

[JTG]

Pickett had a higher adjusted EPA than Fields over the last two years.

He also had lower interception percentage, lower sack percentage, lower pressure to sack percentage, higher completion percentages, and higher passing yards per game. He also checked down a hell of a lot less than Fields last year.

In fact, the only measures I can think of that shows Fields as clearly better are touchdowns and rushing yards.

Pickett is of course handily ahead on wins. Something of a team stat, but so's quite a lot of them, and the difference in their 4th quarter stats points to why Pittsburgh won a bunch of games they shouldn't have and the Bears lost a bunch of games they shouldn't have.

I don't want to get into Pickett again. But this idea Fields has been clearly better, that Fields has clearly superior traits? Nope. There's a ton of measures saying otherwise.

I don't think Fields performed better than Kenny. I think Kenny did what he was capable, but in terms of talent - Fields is the much better player in terms of physical skills.

View attachment 863096

rbsdm.com/stats

Not trying to fact check you but I remember we've talked about this metric in the past. Besides, they're both so poor/mediocre in this department that I'm not sure it's worth arguing over.

I don't know how you guys have the energy to continue the Pickett post-mortem

Is this your first offseason in this thread? Relationships are ruined in the offseason around here

 

[xlm34]

I don't think Fields performed better than Kenny. I think Kenny did what he was capable, but in terms of talent - Fields is the much better player in terms of physical skills.




Is this your first offseason in this thread? Relationships are ruined in the offseason around here

I’ve got my popcorn ready for whenever the inevitable Tomlin extension drops.

 

[JTG]

I’ve got my popcorn ready for whenever the inevitable Tomlin extension drops.

I expect that to be opening day training camp fodder.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Honestly it's more so that I think it's people are giving Fields unfair shit, and it coincidentally happens to be the people who liked Pickett being the most critical of Fields.

Like I said above, I was "wait and see" with Pickett and wanted to give him another year to see what he can do and I'm extending that same thought to Fields.

How many games have you watched Fields play in the NFL?

 

[Peat]

I don't think Fields performed better than Kenny. I think Kenny did what he was capable, but in terms of talent - Fields is the much better player in terms of physical skills.

See this one is interesting to me because while Fields is undeniably faster over long stretches and has a better deep ball, Pickett's on record as the faster player over shorter distances - which seems more applicable to QB play. No timed velocity for Fields but I doubt it's *much* better given Pickett posted a very respectable 54 (based on the only place I've seen with those stats) throwing left and right. Stroud and Herbert posted 54 and 55, Mahomes 55 both ways, Prescott is a 54, etc.etc. I'm guessing Fields is better since it seems Ohio State watchers were suggesting Stroud didn't have quite the same zip as Fields, but probably not much better.

I think there's a tendency to get dazzled by the highlight skills and ignore bread and butter athleticism. Fields' deep throw and long speed opens up some real highlight reel stuff but in terms of "run 8 yards on the bootleg and zip it to a guy who's just open", there's really not a whole lot of difference between the two I can see. And that's more of a down to down QB play.

And yeah, Fields' places where he is much better should result in more conservative defences for him to attack that makes his life easier in theory... but I dunno how that's worked out in practice.

edit: The main point of this being that Fields' athleticism seems somewhat overrated in terms of down to down difference making.

 

[Coastal Kev]

Ah, I use Baldwin's stats from twitter -



I wonder why they're so different given he's involved in rbsdm too. Might ask him.

In any case, I'd love to stop talking about Pickett, but I am interested in Fields and if we're going to use Pickett as a benchmark for Fields than I guess we're still gonna talk Pickett.



Fair enough to add more numbers where Fields was better but it's still not clear cut. I'd add that, insofar as I can guess at a two year average when I'm not willing to run the numbers fresh, the *net* yards is probably very close to a draw if not favouring Pickett, which seems a bigger deal than pure yards/completion or attempt.

And while I firmly believe that team influences these numbers a lot - which is why I like adjusted EPA as it seems to be digging hardest at divorcing the QB from his team I would add that

a) Pressure to Sack has proven to be a sticky stat for QBs going from college to the NFL and as such, I don't believe in putting that on the Bears. Number of pressures? Sure. Number of those pressure turning into sacks? I think we're into a stat that's mainly about how well the QB feels that pressure coming and makes decisions. Fields number there is very bad, has been bad since college, and I think it shows a very large flaw in his ability to read the game.

b) It doesn't matter how you get there, it matters how you finish. Most NFL games end in one score games which means the QB has a chance to make a difference. Fields doesn't. He very aggressively doesn't. He goes into his shell. He either doesn't have the stones for the moment or can't cope with pure pass situations which, given his horrendous numbers in a clean pocket/playing without pressure, seems very likely.

Which again comes down to reading the game.

Which is why I'm very, very down on Fields. I think there's too much evidence suggesting his processing is way below where it should be for an NFL QB in a way that can't be placed solely on his team. I just don't see it going from weakness to strength.

I would also add that this athleticism doesn't seem to help him here. I'm very pro-cerebral QB, but I've got to point at Josh Allen as a fantastic example of a very athletic QB who uses that athleticism as a way to take some of the heat of his technical/mental shortcomings. He's hard to sack because he's strong as an ox and his throw velocity is nuts - think he's the only guy with a throw velocity over 60mph at the combine since they started measuring - which allows him to be a little late to see it. Fields' speed very clearly doesn't help him prevent sacks - or if it does, god only knows what he'd be like if he was slow - and while I can't find his throw velocity, I don't think it's Allen-esque. Fields can rush a bunch and he can throw a great deep ball, but those don't make up for poor processing.

Not sure what the Environmental Protection Agency has to do with this discussion, but that bozo's made up stats are a joke. Dak first, Brissett 8th, Stroud 17th.

I need to create the most accurate QB stat ever: QBEATME

 

[WickedWrister]

See this one is interesting to me because while Fields is undeniably faster over long stretches and has a better deep ball, Pickett's on record as the faster player over shorter distances - which seems more applicable to QB play. No timed velocity for Fields but I doubt it's *much* better given Pickett posted a very respectable 54 (based on the only place I've seen with those stats) throwing left and right. Stroud and Herbert posted 54 and 55, Mahomes 55 both ways, Prescott is a 54, etc.etc. I'm guessing Fields is better since it seems Ohio State watchers were suggesting Stroud didn't have quite the same zip as Fields, but probably not much better.

I think there's a tendency to get dazzled by the highlight skills and ignore bread and butter athleticism. Fields' deep throw and long speed opens up some real highlight reel stuff but in terms of "run 8 yards on the bootleg and zip it to a guy who's just open", there's really not a whole lot of difference between the two I can see. And that's more of a down to down QB play.

And yeah, Fields' places where he is much better should result in more conservative defences for him to attack that makes his life easier in theory... but I dunno how that's worked out in practice.

edit: The main point of this being that Fields' athleticism seems somewhat overrated in terms of down to down difference making.

Cmon man, Pickett isn't faster than Fields... are you just basing this off of their pro day 10 yard splits on their 40 yard dash? We have a large enough sample size of NFL games to say that one of those guys is a rushing threat and the other isn't.

I don't know what those other numbers you're talking about are, but if it's saying that Pickett and Herbert have the same velocity on their throws, LOL.

 

[JTG]

Yeah Peat...I'm not picking up what you're putting down. Fields is a way more dynamic athlete. I am a Kenny fan, but it's just so undeniable. Faster, twitchier, way bigger arm, and I think Fields has way more arm talent. The one thing with Pickett, when he and Trubisky played in the same game, the drop off from the two of them was undeniable in terms of arm talent. Same thing here.

 

[Peat]

*shrugs* All you two are doing is confirming my belief that people form biases over "wow" athleticism and refuse to consider the many forms of athleticism. Fields has wow athleticism, but looking at the numbers suggests that on a normal passing down it doesn't translate into a huge advantage on most plays a QB would run.

Which is why I don't really care about Fields' athleticism. It doesn't translate into an advantage. The only place it's an advantage is rushing, and I don't value rushing in QBs so I don't care. Arm strength could theoretically translate into an advantage but hasn't yet for him and tbh, I'm curious as to whether there's any quantifiable advantage for big armed QBs in the NFL.

And to be more specific -

Pickett is faster over 10 than Fields, Fields is faster over 20 and 40.

And given the NFL doesn't host numbers for velocity my source isn't as official as I'd like, but google Herbert combine velocity and 55 is the number you'll see repeated. Site that's got this all is ourlads.com,


edit:

And to get ahead of the argument on rushing QBs, here's why I don't rate them (despite being a ton of fun to watch).

Here's the three things rushing QBs can do -

1) Make a ton of yards on well designed run plays - passing QBs can also make a ton of yards on well designed plays

2) Make plays where there is no space to throw - if there's genuinely nobody to throw to, odds are the defence has given up so much space that even a very average QB athlete can make 1st down and it's questionable how much worthwhile extra the running QB gets

3) Force the defence to account for their run and open up better passing opportunities - And here's the kicker because, while that happens, the QB then has to be a good enough passer to take advantage.

And if the QB is, then they're good enough to take advantage of designing passing opportunities instead, which go for further on average and involve less injury risk, so they'll be a passing QB instead.

And if they're not then it doesn't matter how good a rusher they are because they can't take advantage, and will also get shut down against teams that can shut down the run.

And if a QB isn't rushing very often, the difference between being an amazing rusher and a merely okay rusher is very marginal.



Double edit: Since we're going off into the reeds, I'm just going to bring this back to the home point -

For those of us who view QB as a mainly cerebral position, for those of us who put a big emphasis on mentally tough, smart, point guard types who come up big in the big moments, there's pretty much nothing that can be said that'll make us like Fields unless someone's got some really surprising data/highlights from somewhere.

And if we want to make it a comparison with Pickett and liking him more then

a) 4th quarter stats
b) The possibility he could be that 4th quarter player more often without an absolutely asinine system

And I'd be happy not to mention Pickett's name again for the rest of the thread. Hell, Fields' name.

 

[DanielPlainview]

Posts from 1967.

Absolutely not