The Offensive Line Part 4: A Failure Not Earned
by John Morgan on Oct 19, 2009 2:00 PM PDT
39 comments
Offensive line, right? It's a joke made thousands of times since 2005. From what little I saw of yesterday's game, the line was bad enough to kill the offense itself. The Seahawks week six line, Kyle Williams - Steve Vallos - Chris Spencer - Max Unger - Ray Willis, is the worst line Seattle has started since Tim Ruskell took over. Williams and Vallos are essentially replacement level talent, and Spencer to Willis is not the kind of intimidating right side that can hide a piecemeal left.
Seattle was poorly built but lucky in 2007 and as things turn out, it has been well built but unlucky in 2009. Kyle Williams was never meant to start. Seattle imported a player from across the country to keep Williams on its practice squad. Williams was buried behind Sean Locklear, Brandon Frye and theoretically Walter Jones.
Let's blow up the Jones situation again. Jones underwent microfracture knee surgery last fall. I thought that might be the end of his career, but I was in error. It might still be the end of his playing career, but Jones is very much a Seahawk and very much on the Seahawks roster. He cost $8.6 million against the cap each of the last two seasons and I believe costs even more than that this season. Maybe Jones is never going to play again, but in Ruskell's world, Jones is an investment and a failing one Seattle can't shake.
Before training camp, Jones passed his physicals. His microfracture surgery was a success. The rub is that the procedure is not likely to preserve Jones career and its short term consequences have left Jones unable to play. So the greatest player in Seahawks history, through no fault of his own or others, has become a big, fat boondoggle.
Seattle did invest into its tackle position. It signed Locklear to a contract with incentives if he stuck at left tackle. Locklear has been reasonably healthy and had shown some skills that could translate. The team was not relying on Locklear for its future, but with the entire tackle situation queered by Jones health, Locklear represented a cheap, low-downside bridge from the Jones era to whatever followed. Seattle re-signed Ray Willis to a two-year, inexpensive contract. Willis seems like a steal now that his early-career health problems are behind him. Funny how unpredictable injuries are.
Seattle's success kept it just outside 2008's historic offensive tackle class and it's hard to discredit Seattle for selecting Aaron Curry fourth overall in 2009. Linebacker is not typically a foundational position, but Stafford was gone, Sanchez was iffy, the tackle class overblown -- its best talent taken at two and its second best talent Andre Smith. Eugene Monroe is tossed around, but Monroe had serious injury concerns. He started the season for Jacksonville but has since been benched. If you saw the solution to Seattle's offensive line woes on October 11, you weren't sitting in Qwest Field.
At the time and in the short term, Curry appears to be the right pick. Seattle then traded its second round pick for the 2010 first round pick of the Denver Broncos. It was team with a rookie coach, Kyle Orton at quarterback and one of the worst defenses in the NFL in 2008. It was a smart decision then and whatever has happened since doesn't change that.
Unless it wasn't a smart decision. Eben Britton was available. He is playing right tackle now and may forever play right tackle. Seattle could have selected Andy Levitre, though Levitre is a guard. It could have drafted William Beatty, but neither player has done much for their respective teams. Instead it traded that pick for a better pick and traded back into the second to draft Max Unger. Unger has started all season and seems mostly competent for a rookie right guard.
So it was a smart decision. And yet Seattle's offensive line is in ruins. That is a microcosm for this entire debate. Tim Ruskell has made many smart decisions, but the Seahawks are not winning games. A general manager's job is to build a winning football team. Seattle is 6-20 over the last two seasons. It has clear and recognizable weaknesses at offensive line and in the secondary. Both are units Ruskell has invested in.
Ruskell drafted Ray Willis and he starts. He drafted Chris Spencer and Spencer starts, but has missed time because of injury. He draft Rob Sims and Sims starts, but has missed time because of injury. He drafted Unger, the rookie. He signed Sean Locklear as a low-downside stop-gap until the team could know what to do with Walter Jones, and Locklear's injury has been felt worst of all. He drafted Steve Vallos and Mansfield Wrotto, but Vallos has shifted around and started bad. Wrotto can't seem to impress Seattle's coaches. He got Brandon Frye for nothing, but Frye went down, and Williams for nothing, his asking price, and Damion McIntosh for almost nothing, but maybe a week too late.
Ruskell built his line through the draft and without great expenditure. His picks have been mostly mild to moderate successes. He may not envision an elite line or maybe just never saw value when Seattle was on the clock. That might be arguable, but it isn't indefensible.
So how did the offensive line become offensive? Injuries, age and one very bad decision, it would seem. Steve Hutchinson hangs over Ruskell. Walter Jones, Robbie Tobeck and Chris Gray got old. Jones, through not fault of anyone, has become a burden. Locklear, the young tackle many were gushing about in 2005 has suffered a rash of disconnected injuries. Sims, the young guard many were gushing about in 2006 has suffered a rash of disconnected injuries. Kris Dielman said "no". Unger is a rookie. Spencer has been competent and not too long ago was a steady, established starter. Mike Wahle filled in for a season before his body broke down. Tom Ashworth was expunged. No one Ruskell inherited from 2004 except Hutchinson who was worth retaining wasn't retained.
Revisiting Ruskell's decisions when they were made does not reveal great missed opportunities, but missed opportunities. It does not reveal a general manager that ran a historically great line into the ground, but instead one crucial mistake and the irrepressible destructiveness of time. It does not reveal a man who ignored the line, but added good talent to it, good overall, good respective to the available players and good respective to their cost. It reveals that yesterday's game, awful as it was, is the kind of game every franchise endures. Ozzie Newsome saw it week one of 2007. Bill Polian saw it in week three of 1987.
They saw, we saw, an everyday, frustrating as hell, meltdown -- The kind that happens every Sunday. But there's no heads to call for and no easy answers to rebuilding.
0 recs |
39 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
John, this might be the best series of posts you've written this season.
Well done.
by BrianL on Oct 19, 2009 2:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. You've put together a comprehensive and, more importantly, objective look at how things went wrong.
by abender20 on Oct 19, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well thanks both
This makes for an easy series for me because I lived through and studied most of it.
by John Morgan on Oct 19, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another in agreement
I have heard a lot of Ruskell bashing over the last few weeks, and I have felt in my gut what you were saying in the article, but did not have the time to do the research. And if I did attempt it, I would not have worded it so well and would have left out some key issues that you explained so well.
Thanks John.
by germpod on Oct 19, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
You successfully beat down the reactionary bullshit that was building in the back of my brain. Rational thought restored, I can now love football again without rage and guilt. Thanks.
by somethingwitty on Oct 19, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
I was extremely frustrated at the offensive line after the game on Sunday as I feel they played the worst of all the units. However seeing the perspective of who was available when we have drafted helps that anger as there hasn’t been much available. The biggest issue I still have is not addressing the depth with a few mid level FAs which has lead to the Kyle Williams and Steve Vallos tandem.
by Hancock.Brett on Oct 19, 2009 2:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I feel the same way
but we should also keep the perspective that it’s guaranteed that the guy we picked up would be hurt by now.
by jacobstevens on Oct 19, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This still comes up in the back of my mind.
In the mock draft series, you considered Brown with the 4th overall pick, and considered it highly unlikely for Britton to be available in the 2nd, wouldn’t it then be a good idea to draft either of those players in the 2nd round? Even if we get a mid 1st round pick the next year, you currently value those players as mid to late first rounders anyways.
Of course if everyone is passing on those guys, it is a sign that there is something wrong with those guys (much like an auction where you think a car will go for $50k and for some reason no one is bidding over $20k), however, given just an initial glance (and it’s early to tell), but it seems that Brown and Britton are both successes so far.
by LantermanC on Oct 19, 2009 2:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Everette
DE Carolina Panthers
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 19, 2009 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well and reasonably
I am never going to know as much about a player as a team is. Seattle could have drafted Britton, but I think many feel he is a right tackle at the pro level. I do like Everette Brown a bunch, but him standing out might have something to do with last year’s class. I am not sure if I had to pull the trigger I would take him at 4. 2010 looks like a much stronger class.
Also, though I said I would be surprised if Britton lasted into the second, I advocated him as a second round pick.
by John Morgan on Oct 19, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow John, I'm truly impressed.
No one else could explain it better. Great Job!
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 19, 2009 3:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Awesome posts
This is why I love this site. Its not just a bunch of raving lunatics escaped from the asylum (see ESPN comments). You break the important pieces down so well and make the pain just a little easier to handle. Thanks!
by illwillbli on Oct 19, 2009 3:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree, the *articles* on Field Gulls are great -- especially John's
But frankly, I don’t see much difference in the quality of the comments when I compare them to other sites.
(And yes, I include my own comments in that.)
by Mr Fish on Oct 19, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But yeah, the commenters on ESPN are pretty bad
I was comparing the comments here to those on Seahawks Addicts and the newspaper sites (TNT and the Times).
by Mr Fish on Oct 19, 2009 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TNT has the most horrible comments. Times is medicore. Same with Seahawk Addicts.
How can you compare us to them?
I’d argue that comment quality is better here than most seahawk sites.
by redwolf75 on Oct 19, 2009 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The commenting here is far superior to other sites.
The ESPN forums? TNT? Seahawks Addicts? Unreadable. Even the official board, Spirit of 12 or something, is filled with idiots.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
Next year's notable Ex-Seahawks:
Walter Jones, Patrick Kerney, Seneca Wallace, Jordan Babineaux, Kelly Jennings
by Wayward Llama on Oct 19, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One more point
Excellent analysis as always John.
This may be obvious, but I didn’t recall reading it.
The lineup shuffling has robbed this group of any chance to develop any continuity. That’s so important, because it’s not just a question of acquiring superior talent and putting their shoes out on the field. Even the fabled 2005 offensive line took time to develop. All-time talent and the opportunity to develop is the best of all possible outcomes. But continuity can trump better talent all by itself. I’m sure Ruskell was counting on some degree of continuity by re-signing Lock and sticking with Willis. It’s another part of the plan that has not come to fruition through no one’s fault.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Oct 19, 2009 4:53 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Great piece
Oher is a guy that Ruskell could have drafted that maybe could have helped our OT woes, but he seemed to drop far and fast on a lot of draft boards. He seemed to hold his own vs Jared Allen yesterday. I wouldn’t mind seeing him as a Seahawk, but don’t blame Ruskell for not drafting him.
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Oct 19, 2009 5:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"At the time and in the short term, Curry appears to be right pick. "
I can’t complain about Curry’s performance so far, and he’s come on strong since the Colts game…but I’m probably not ever going to understand the logic of drafting an OLB in the top 5, especially since someone like James Laurinaitis has been just as fast out of the gate and looks a dynamic player, and drafted in the second round.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 19, 2009 6:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention the team already had cheap/good LB's in Hawthorne and Herring
Plus Ruskell has a great ability to find mid round LB’s. Curry was the highest picked LB since Lavar Arrington 9 years prior. If there is an area of the team where I trust Ruskell to build a unit that is cheap, young and servicable, its LB. Instead, we have almost $130 million invested in the position.
That plus the team basically needs to revamp the offense. New blood at QB was needed as early as last offseason. Our WR and RB situations are basically 2-3 year rentals. The offensive line lacks elite talent. I never thought Curry would be a bust, and I felt fairly sure he’d be a multiple pro-bowler, but I still hated the pick and probably always will for the opportunity cost and the alternative options at the LB position.
by kearly on Oct 19, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You draft the best player you think will have the most impact for the longest amount of time
You are paying an insane amount of money in the first round. You don’t want to miss.
Ruskell is a conservative GM. He drafted a player he knew would produce at a high level over the life of a very expensive contract.
Would you rather be paying more money for a guy like Andre Smith, Eugene Monroe, Jason Smith, Sanchez, or Stafford who aren’t performing up to contract expectations?
Ruskell made the right decision given this draft. Maybe one of those other guys ends up outplaying Curry over the life of his contract. But at the moment Curry is the best player out of the top five chosen. He is the only one earning his money.
We could be paying for nothing right now. Just because a lower draft pick LB is doing as well as Curry does not at all mean Curry wasn’t the best top 5 pick we could get. He is at this moment the most worthy pick of all the top five and perhaps the top 10.
You know you all would hate it much worse if we were paying 60 million for Jason Smith to get owned and spend a few games on the sidelines, for Stafford to be sitting with a hurt knee, to see Sanchez throwing more picks than he has with the Jets beacuse of our O-line, or then Tyson Jackson.
You cannot know how a player will do. Ruskell picked the surest player in the draft to make sure Seattle got its money’s worth. And as far as I can tell right now, he made the right choice. We’re getting our money’s worth even if LB isn’t a foundational position.
by ASeahawkfan on Oct 20, 2009 1:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at it this way
I’m talking yearly averages here- Tatupu makes $7 million a year. Hill makes $6 million. Lance Briggs makes $6 million. Patrick Willis makes $3.3 million.
Curry makes $10 million. The Seahawks entire starting line for 2009: Willis/Unger/Spencer/Sims/Lock, will combine to earn $12 million.
Only one LB in the NFL is paid higher than Curry. And that is Terrell Suggs who signed a deal weeks before Curry did, for 6/$63.
Unfortunately, we don’t have winshares in the NFL, so it can be hard to judge exactly how much a player is worth. So its not scientific, but I’d go out on a limb and say that Curry would have to basically be more or less the NFL’s best LB to justify his salary. Curry is a safe pick, but he’s probably less likely to justify his pay than Sanchez or Crabtree, who would only need to be pro-bowlers to justify that kind of money. This is why LB are almost never taken in the first 5 picks.
Now granted, if the Seahawks were hopelessly inept at finding LB talent and LB was a huge need, I’d probably feel different. But the Seahawks did not need this pick. Herring and Hawthorne are dirt cheap and could conceivably form a formidable OLB platoon on the cheap. Plus, it would also free up Hill to play his more natural Strong side position. Curry is a good player, but he cost us a lot of money for a fairly small upgrade. Sanchez has the potential to be a franchise QB, and that’s insanely valuable contrasted with say, Mike Teel or Seneca Wallace. Michael Crabtree has monster WCO potential as well, and the Seahawks will need to start rebuilding their WR’s in the next few years (Butler was the start but many more picks will be needed).
Picking in the top 5 is a rare privilege. Even this season, if the seahawks completely tank and finish 4-12 again, they will probably not break the top 5. A 5-11 team would probably pick 10th in the current NFL environment. Teams rarely get a shot at a franchise QB or a game changing WR with elite talent. The Seahawks passed on that precious rare chance for a modest upgrade in an already very good LB corps.
Though a good player, I think the Curry selection will haunt the Seahawks for many years as a glaring missed opportunity in favor of an overpriced upgrade.
by kearly on Oct 20, 2009 2:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You couldn't have said it better
I got banned for arguing the Curry selection but you said it better then I could ever phrase it. I think Curry was a safe pick but at #4 and the depth we had it might not have been the right one. I wanted Crabtree or an LT with that pick. I could even understand Sanchez. Hell, I was dissapointed that we didn’t send our #4 pick and Hass to the Broncos for Cutler and maybe another one of there picks to…But that’s besides the point. I think Curry is a stud and will have a great career for the Hawks. But what you said regarding salary and depth is spot on!
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 20, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We shall see
I don’t think either Stafford or Sanchez are going to be great NFL QBs. I’m not sure on Jason Smith or Tyson Jackson. And Crabtree? Are you kidding me?
I feel like the Curry pick will be productive over the life of his contract. He will reach Pro Bowl levels and probably the same level as Suggs in overall production. But we’ll have to wait as only time will tell. We’ll revist the question in three years and see where these other top five picks are. Curry needs to outplay them and prove to be a greater asset over the life of his contract. Not be the best LB in the league.
If you have been following the draft in recent years, and I’m sure you have. There are a ton of high draft pick busts, mostly at QB, but also at many other positions. They cost alot of money for little to no production, and in the case of QBs they can derail team.
Curry will only haunt us if he doesn’t perform. Even if other picks end up outplaying him, he still needs only to perform to earn his money. Alot of you folks who think the Curry pick will “haunt” us don’t understand what “haunt” means. Curry will most likely not haunt us at all. He would have to be an outright bust to haunt us.
With the money you end up spending on a top 5 pick, you don’t want to miss, period. You don’t want to take chances and end up like Oakland or Cleveland. You want a productive player over the life of a contract, even if you overpay the position. And Curry so far looks like that pick.
I don’t really get why alot of folks haven’t modernized their view of the draft after watching so many high profile first round QBs bust costing their team a huge amount of money and ruining the team’s chances for years. Just because you have a high draft pick, you don’t use it on a talent that may bust and bust badly on the off chance they’ll be great. That’s a surefire way to end up on the bottom of the standings year and year out.
by ASeahawkfan on Oct 20, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And one truth that seems to be missed
All of these top 10 rookies are grossly overpaid. They haven’t set foot on a football field and come into the league paid more than multi-year starters that have years of solid production under their belt. So the we overpaid Curry argument is weak. None of these top 10 picks deserve the money they get signed for, and only a rare few earn it after the contract is finalized.
by ASeahawkfan on Oct 20, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its not that Curry will haunt us
Its that not picking Sanchez/Crabtree/LT will haunt us. Curry’s annual pro-bowl performances will feel like hollow comfort when our offense regularly displays ineptitude much like what we saw this Sunday against Arizona.
Crabtree was considered, for probably half a year straight, the #1 prospect in the 2009 draft regardless of position, higher than Curry. It wasn’t til Crabtree addressed a minor injury that his stock fell to merely a top 5 caliber selection.
I agree that Sanchez and Stafford are enormously risky, and I’m definitely not pinning my argument on their success. I’m just saying that the reward if they do pan out is franchise making- and the chances to acquire players with that kind of amazing upside is extremely rare- only a couple times a decade for most teams. That the timing fit well with Hasselbeck’s decline made it a huge risk that was worth taking.
by kearly on Oct 20, 2009 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An excellent series of articles
I saw recently that you said in the comments of another thread somewhere that Unger was playing badly. Really badly. Has that changed? Or is it normal for a 1st year player to struggle this much?
I know Ruskell couldn’t see the future, but I was against the Branch trade when it happened simply because I did not feel Branch was remotely worth the resources invested to acquire him. I also felt Jackson was under-valued and disliked the way Ruskell handled him. Anyway- that series of moves essentially resulted in the team drafting Mansfield Wrotto (pick acquired for dealing Djack) instead of, most likely, Ben Grubbs. I remember on that draft day rooting for Grubbs to be drafted before the Patriots pick just so the Branch trade would sting less. He wasn’t. It sucks.
The team switched to ZBS and that means we have to be patient, because we still need to fill out a line with ZBS compatible talent. We are not terribly far off. In theory, Willis/Unger/Spencer/Sims/Lock could be a good O-line in a couple years time, but quality depth is needed, and 1 elite talent added would not hurt either.
Ruskell did not ignore the line and he wasn’t a complete failure there. But he did value it less than I would have, personally. Being cheap and serviceable (they haven’t been serviceable yet- check the FO stats, they’ve sucked ass, but I do agree that they’d be servicable the last 2 years if healthy) is admirable, but would you want a QB that is cheap and serviceable? In some areas of the team, you would prefer to be elite. OL, in my opinion, is one of those select few areas where an elite level of performance goes a long, long way.
For what it is worth, I agree that Ruskell was presented with essentially an impossible task, and that he made but only a couple true mistakes. The O-line we currently have is as much the result of lousy luck as it was poor construction.
by kearly on Oct 19, 2009 11:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Unger is doing rookie things
but it’s a credit to him that he hasn’t been a major problem. He moves well and is performing his assignments correctly, but he just isn’t a very steady blocker yet and he misses blocks, or throws glancing blocks or struggles to get to his spot. I think next season we’ll see the big jump and then he should be a good player for years to come.
by John Morgan on Oct 20, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you see as his position long-term?
Center in the likely situation that Spencer leaves?
by redwolf75 on Oct 20, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm absolutely fine with this down year
I’m fine with how Ruskell handled Jones. Jones deserved a chance to come back. He deserved respect for his contribution to our organization. It has cost us this year because other members of this team were hurt. But I will never fault Ruskell for how he handled Jones and Shaun Alexander. In fact, I applaud him for how he handled them. He showed them both respect and gave them both chances to get healthy again.
But now that we’ve shown Jones respect, he’s got to show he can play this year or we have to move on without him next year. We must be solid at the LT position or we won’t be competitive again.
So this down year is no problem. Zona can have some time at the top. They endured more years of futility than we have. But Ruskell or whoever is our GM better get the O-line solidified come next year. Matt has a year or two at best. He needs a solid O-line to compete. Every team does, but our team especially is a sum of its parts without a single dominating unit.
by ASeahawkfan on Oct 20, 2009 1:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What's Denver doing that were not?
Why are they 6-0 and we are 2-4? Even with a banged up O-line. All the turmoil they faced in the offseason and they seem to have it right. Someone explain to me. What decisions with coaching staff, personnel, even QB are they making correctly that we are making incorrectly? It’s teams success like that the puts Ruskell under more scrutiny.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 20, 2009 9:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's their O-Line
They have an elite O-Line who gives Orton plenty of time. They have great recievers who run very well after the catch, making life a bit easier on the QB. Those are the parts of their team we knew existed before the season, and are holding true.
The suprising part is their defense. Philip Rivers had hardly any time to throw last night, and I guess Denver’s secondary must have been eliminating the short throws or I assume the Chargers would have taken advantage of that to negate Rivers lack of time in the pocket.
Last night was the first Denver game I have watched this season, and I am no longer suprised at how well they are doing.
by germpod on Oct 20, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dominating with defense.
They’ve allowed the fewest points, are tied for the league lead in sacks, tied for sixth in INTs, tied for fifth in fumble recoveries.
Plus Neckbeard has only thrown one pick.
Plus the studly O-Line that germpod mentioned.
by thebyron on Oct 20, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think alot of us forgot how good their pass defense is
Champ Bailey has been injured quite a bit the last few years. Now he is healthy and they signed Brian Dawkins, one of the best safeties in the league. So they have a stellar pass defense now and seem to be holding up against the run. I don’t think anyone foresaw Denver having such a potent defense.
by ASeahawkfan on Oct 20, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why don't we have that?
Well, I guess John answered it in his great article. But it still pisses me off. Do we max protect to give Hass time throw(even with this banged up line) and our WR time to run longer routes? There’s apart of me that watched the Denver game and saw how they got it right and it shines a light on how we may have it wrong. The thing that irked me the most about the Zona game is that I felt like we were out prepared. I know our line sucks but it did the week before against the Jags. I think we out prepared them. I never felt so stupid watching Seattle giving up that onside kick to Arizona. I felt stupid for the coaching staff, almost like being stupid on there behalf. I hope we can regroup after the bye (from a coaching standpoint)
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 20, 2009 11:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
