Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BCJet

How do you define a Franchise QB?

70 posts in this topic

42 minutes ago, Lil Woody said:

Until they fix the money problem with escalating QB salaries, and install a standard ceiling % of the cap or max contract at the position, there is going to be a lot of Kirk Cousin type problems to go around. 

Look at what Carr just banked.... Now, I love what Carr is doing, and he may very well turn out to be an elite top 5 type QB in the league, but they are taking a huge risk allocating that much cap room to a guy who has only continued down the expected path of becoming a FQB.  It's a shame that he wasn't taken in the 1st because then they'd have that 5th year option and franchise tags to be able to string him along for 7 years to ensure they were making the right decision by paying him at the very top of the market.  Oakland took a huge leap of faith because Carr is maturing in the exact way you would expect a FQB to develop. But the bottom could just as easily drop out on him, and once they have to start paying non rookie contract money to Cooper, Mack and the majority of their defense need to decide on how to afford to keep the same level of OLine play at half the cost of what they are spending there no it's going to be Carr that needs to shoulder the load or they have to take a step backwards on defense and hope Carr is capable of being an Aaron Rodgers type of player.  I'm rooting for Carr, I liked him a lot coming out, and I'm wishing him well despite being a scumbag Raider.  But teams have to basically destroy their cap to keep a young QB happy in this system.  Something has got to give. And if a team is on the fence we will see a lot more Cousins type wait and see approaches. I still think Cousins gets his money from the Skins, because what is their plan B? Not having a QB? Continually taking on veteran JAGs who can't shoulder the load at the position?  We all know how well that approach works.

Another reason I'm pulling for Carr is that the Raiders are a good enemy to have when they are good. It kills me when we lose to them, and it is the best feeling when we beat them. Similar to the Dolphins. You love to hate them, but at least you can respect them.  Unlike a certain division rival of ours....

Seriously it's a shame crook billionaires who are leaving a city that loves that team because they won't pay for the billionaires new shiny toy aren't able to exploit a rising star by not paying him pennies compared to what they make owning the team?  Seriously you feel for an NFL owner about having to shell out some cash?  **** the NFL owners, they are the biggest scumbag criminals in all of the league (except for Aaron Hernandez), but because they are billionaires, and people actually believe their propaganda BS on how players should be loyal, but when they are through with the player they can go rot in the streets for all they care.  I have no love for the players either, BUT if I am going to have to choose a side I'm going to choose the players side every time when it comes to salary.  Most around here bitch, and moan about how Revis stole Woody Johnson's money, REALLY?  **** Woody, and yeah it sucks Revis did not live up to that contract, but good for him for making every single dollar possible in this league, what he did is so difficult in the NFL, meanwhile guys who play 8 minutes a night in the NBA are getting 10 million a year to waive a towel, and play some mop up minutes all guaranteed, and the stars are making $40 million a year now, but lets feel bad for the poor Raiders owners who had to pony up .01% of the franchises net worth to pay a possible young franchise QB.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh 13 more days can't come soon enough!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, southparkcpa said:

Oh yes absolutely.....  :rolleyes:     Dirty Sanchez....

Beat Manning and Brady back to back

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Larz said:

Beat Manning and Brady back to back

I had a wet dream to Elle MCPherson.   I'm no George Clooney. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Seriously it's a shame crook billionaires who are leaving a city that loves that team because they won't pay for the billionaires new shiny toy aren't able to exploit a rising star by not paying him pennies compared to what they make owning the team?  Seriously you feel for an NFL owner about having to shell out some cash?  **** the NFL owners, they are the biggest scumbag criminals in all of the league (except for Aaron Hernandez), but because they are billionaires, and people actually believe their propaganda BS on how players should be loyal, but when they are through with the player they can go rot in the streets for all they care.  I have no love for the players either, BUT if I am going to have to choose a side I'm going to choose the players side every time when it comes to salary.  Most around here bitch, and moan about how Revis stole Woody Johnson's money, REALLY?  **** Woody, and yeah it sucks Revis did not live up to that contract, but good for him for making every single dollar possible in this league, what he did is so difficult in the NFL, meanwhile guys who play 8 minutes a night in the NBA are getting 10 million a year to waive a towel, and play some mop up minutes all guaranteed, and the stars are making $40 million a year now, but lets feel bad for the poor Raiders owners who had to pony up .01% of the franchises net worth to pay a possible young franchise QB.

Meh. I don't care for either owners or players individually. I only care about the best interests of the franchise.  That means I care about the same interests that align with what is in the best interest of the owners as the CBA is presently written. Since the interests of the players typically are contradictory to the interests of the team/league, I likely will never pick the side that benefits the players.  It is what it is.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Tony MaC said:

The rising cap is a huge contributor to the increasing cost of a franchise QB. 25 million a year might seem like a lot now, but give it time it'll feel like less of an over pay come the end of that contract. Its NFL salary inflation man, 25 million is the new 20 million and unless the growth stops it'll only keep climbing.

 

Edit- Just looked at the details of that deal for the first time- Its a little less than 25 million a year actually, more like 21 million a year. And there's only two years of guaranteed commitment- and that's counting this season. Looks like a great deal for all involved I think.

 

Good points. I think they just need to be clear when we get reports on the deals. You are right, the dollars are not the issue, the % of cap space the contract takes should be the number that is focused on. I tend to react to the #s as they are reported year to year. It seems like a huge increase every season, but if the cap is moving at the same rate, then it's fine, but if QB contracts are outpacing annual cap growth that's a problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, southparkcpa said:

I had a wet dream to Elle MCPherson.   I'm no George Clooney. 

What happened to Sanchez can make one believe in the Namath deal with the devil

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony MaC said:

A Franchise QB is the man you see as your starting QB over the long term, or a player that has taken you to the promised land that you have no reason to move on from. Its a designation based on a team's commitment to that player, nothing more, nothing less.

Here's a list of guys I'd consider Franchise QB's:

Tom Brady

Ryan Tannehill

Ben Roethlisberger 

Joe Flacco

Andy Dalton

Andrew Luck

Derek Carr

Phillip Rivers

Eli Manning

Aaron Rodgers

Matthew Stafford

Matt Ryan

Cam Newton

Russel Wilson

 

Anybody else is either a tentative starter who could be replaced in a year or two's time (Glennon, Siemian, etc), a young player on their way to franchise status (Mariota, Winston, Prescott, etc) or a starter who CAN be long term answers at QB but are in a less than secure position with their team at the moment (Cousins)

Really, you're a franchise QB if you get that big contract. Quality may vary, but that's the way I see it.

 

 

 

 

I think your post is the exact reason I thought this would be a good topic to discuss.  Tom Brady and Ryan Tannehill are listed next to each other on your list - think about that.  I get that you "cant win" without a QB, but Ryan Tannehill hasnt proven a thing, and his team hasnt won with him there, nor has he really improved (he threw for 1800 less yards then Cousins btw)

I dont think the salaries matter as much as the fans/media make them out to be.  It not just the escalating cap, but the rookie cap makes a huge difference.  Every team is saving millions, especially when you draft in the top 10, by not paying unproven rookies $20+ million in guarantees.  Can you swing and miss on a veteran FA, of course.  But the % chance of a miss on those guys is less than the miss % on a rookie who used to make $20 million guaranteed without playing a down of NFL football.  Every dollar saved on a rookie, makes a QB deal less painful to absorb.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BCJet said:

I think your post is the exact reason I thought this would be a good topic to discuss.  Tom Brady and Ryan Tannehill are listed next to each other on your list - think about that.  I get that you "cant win" without a QB, but Ryan Tannehill hasnt proven a thing, and his team hasnt won with him there, nor has he really improved (he threw for 1800 less yards then Cousins btw)

I dont think the salaries matter as much as the fans/media make them out to be.  It not just the escalating cap, but the rookie cap makes a huge difference.  Every team is saving millions, especially when you draft in the top 10, by not paying unproven rookies $20+ million in guarantees.  Can you swing and miss on a veteran FA, of course.  But the % chance of a miss on those guys is less than the miss % on a rookie who used to make $20 million guaranteed without playing a down of NFL football.  Every dollar saved on a rookie, makes a QB deal less painful to absorb.

Great points, but the assumption here is that you have a team that drafts well and can consistently keep that cheap talent in the pipeline and follow that next man up ideal.  VERY few teams have mastered that approach.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Fish drafted Tannehill I thought he had a good chance to be a good QB.  IMO he's hit Sanchez territory.  He's shown flashes, but just can't take that next step.  Big year for him.  I live in South Florida, The Fish fans  have high expectations.  Kind of like Jets fans had when Mike T was GM here.

WE'll see

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, flgreen said:

When the Fish drafted Tannehill I thought he had a good chance to be a good QB.  IMO he's hit Sanchez territory.  He's shown flashes, but just can't take that next step.  Big year for him.  I live in South Florida, The Fish fans  have high expectations.  Kind of like Jets fans had when Mike T was GM here.

WE'll see

I believe that it takes a LOT of time, way more than most fans are willing to give them.  Ask any honest Giants fan (oxymoron?) if they were ready to ship Eli out of town in his 4th year. They were calling in in droves on the radio to scream and cry about how they got stuck with the "Frank Stallone" of the Manning family.  You don't ever really know what you have in a QB until a guy has played long enough to be truly judged on a total body of work...somewhere around 50 games feels right for a rule of thumb in today's NFL, but even that's probably too small to really be sure.  But that's the rub...nobody has the luxury of getting 5 years anymore.  Of course the caveat is that the guy has to keep earning the chances year over year to get to that "50th game" milepost.  I'm not saying you should stay with a proven loser for the sake of getting a bigger sample size, but if the guy is maturing, even if it's is a slow learning curve, you have to be willing to keep on giving him more leash to see how far he can go. Of course the downside to that approach is getting stuck with an Alex Smith forever and never quite getting far enough, fast enough.  That's where you gotta trust your coaches to be honest with the GM and not be looking to stay with the "safe" guy just to keep their jobs.  (But let's not get started with a team having a good relationship and reporting structure between its GM and HC.)  Once you have a big enough sample size that you are confident with the guy being a true FQB level prospect, then you can start talking about giving him a mega-contract but it's still super risky at that point.  Like I said in another post, I like Carr's trajectory, and I get why the Raiders made the deal, but it is always going to be a leap of faith.  And he's right around the 50 start mark I believe.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BCJet said:

Reading through the thread on Kirk Cousins, its seems like people are confusing a Franchise QB and "Hall of Famer" as the same thing.  Whether Hackenberg works out for us, we draft a QB in the top 5-10 in 2018 or we wind up with someone like Cousins, I think the expectations are off the charts with what people want in a QB.

In the last 10 or so years the NFL has seen more first ballot Hall of Fame QBs then ever before.  Brady, Rogers, Rothlisberger, Peyton, and Brees will all wind up in the HOF at some point.  They are generational passers, that have thrived as the league became more and more focused on the pass, have won SBs, and will go down as all-time greats.  They are also all obviously Franchise QBs.

That being said, there are guys like Eli (could be a HOF, not the point of the thread), Stafford, Flacco, Matt Ryan, Rivers, and even Andy Dalton, Carson Palmer and quite possibly Kirk Cousins, who will likely never get near the HOF, but are franchise QBs.  I didnt mention Luck or Wilson because they are too young to fall definitively into one category or another.

My point is that anyone in the second group, as Eli and Flacco have proven, CAN win a Super Bowl on a good team.  I dont particularly want Cousins on this team in 2018, but can anyone say without a doubt that he is much less likely to win a SB then Joe Flacco or Matt Stafford?   Matt Ryan is playing amazing football, but his team has also endured back to back 4-12 and 6-10 seasons.   What would people think about Flacco if Ozzie Newsome did build a great defense that allowed Flacco to turn solid playoff football (0 turnovers in the entire playoffs that year) into a Championship.  

What Mac, and any GM really, needs to do is build a strong enough team that we can win a SB if Dranold/Allen doesnt become Aaron Rogers/Ben because its hard enough to find a franchise guy, let alone a HOFer.  We havent even had reasonably competent QB play in 20 years - a franchise QB would be enough.

I have to applaud you for this thread.

The number of threads I've seen on here throughout the years in which posters are bashing other NFL QB's who have won super bowls and been to pro bowls based on the "warts" they can find is just ridiculous.

Newsflash....playing QB in the NFL is difficult.  If you can do it well enough to earn multiple contracts with the same team because you give them a legit shot to play in the post-season every year, you're a franchise QB.

Not elite.  Not HOF.  Just a billion light years ahead of what the Jets have had in my 30 years as a fan.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lil Woody said:

Until they fix the money problem with escalating QB salaries, and install a standard ceiling % of the cap or max contract at the position, there is going to be a lot of Kirk Cousin type problems to go around. 

Look at what Carr just banked.... Now, I love what Carr is doing, and he may very well turn out to be an elite top 5 type QB in the league, but they are taking a huge risk allocating that much cap room to a guy who has only continued down the expected path of becoming a FQB.  It's a shame that he wasn't taken in the 1st because then they'd have that 5th year option and franchise tags to be able to string him along for 7 years to ensure they were making the right decision by paying him at the very top of the market.  Oakland took a huge leap of faith because Carr is maturing in the exact way you would expect a FQB to develop. But the bottom could just as easily drop out on him, and once they have to start paying non rookie contract money to Cooper, Mack and the majority of their defense need to decide on how to afford to keep the same level of OLine play at half the cost of what they are spending there no it's going to be Carr that needs to shoulder the load or they have to take a step backwards on defense and hope Carr is capable of being an Aaron Rodgers type of player.  I'm rooting for Carr, I liked him a lot coming out, and I'm wishing him well despite being a scumbag Raider.  But teams have to basically destroy their cap to keep a young QB happy in this system.  Something has got to give. And if a team is on the fence we will see a lot more Cousins type wait and see approaches. I still think Cousins gets his money from the Skins, because what is their plan B? Not having a QB? Continually taking on veteran JAGs who can't shoulder the load at the position?  We all know how well that approach works.

Another reason I'm pulling for Carr is that the Raiders are a good enemy to have when they are good. It kills me when we lose to them, and it is the best feeling when we beat them. Similar to the Dolphins. You love to hate them, but at least you can respect them.  Unlike a certain division rival of ours....

The Raiders without a doubt had the best 2014 draft , and when you hit on a draft you have to pay that talent .( K  Mack- next year gets his contract , D Carr, and Gabe Jackson) .    It would suck to hit on draft pick, only to watch him leave.( See K Osemele) 

All anyone had to see the Raiders with Carr,( could have challenged the Patriots last year) and without .( was a totally different team - could have asked for even more and the Raiders would have had to pay it- most important player on the roster.( Mack might be the better talent, but isn't as important.

The Raiders are in great shape cap wise( Mckenize very underrated here), and the eventually move to Vegas- (no state income tax ) will help tremendously.( get to pay players less as they still bring home more, than if they were in California.)

The Raiders are easily going to be able to keep their core together, and eventually going to lose some of their good players to free agency. No big deal when the  Raiders FO have done an excellent job with late draft picks, and undrafted Fa's .( replenish the roster with very cheap talent). Look at the roster as they are set up nice longterm almost everywhere.

This Raider team going to be around for awhile, and in couple years some of these contracts will look like a bargain compare to the contract that other players eventually sign for.

Don't feel sorry for the Raiders, as they are in position a lot of teams wish there team was right now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition: anyone not named Christian Hackenberg or Bryce Petty

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

The Raiders without a doubt had the best 2014 draft , and when you hit on a draft you have to pay that talent .( K  Mack- next year gets his contract , D Carr, and Gabe Jackson) .    It would suck to hit on draft pick, only to watch him leave.( See K Osemele) 

All anyone had to see the Raiders with Carr,( could have challenged the Patriots last year) and without .( was a totally different team - could have asked for even more and the Raiders would have had to pay it- most important player on the roster.( Mack might be the better talent, but isn't as important.

The Raiders are in great shape cap wise( Mckenize very underrated here), and the eventually move to Vegas- (no state income tax ) will help tremendously.( get to pay players less as they still bring home more, than if they were in California.)

The Raiders are easily going to be able to keep their core together, and eventually going to lose some of their good players to free agency. No big deal when the  Raiders FO have done an excellent job with late draft picks, and undrafted Fa's .( replenish the roster with very cheap talent). Look at the roster as they are set up nice longterm almost everywhere.

This Raider team going to be around for awhile, and in couple years some of these contracts will look like a bargain compare to the contract that other players eventually sign for.

Don't feel sorry for the Raiders, as they are in position a lot of teams wish there team was right now.

No I really feel sorry for them :-)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BurnleyJet said:

No I really feel sorry for them :-)

As much as you felt sorry for them 2003-2015 .    As proud of tradition the Raiders franchise has , the fact is they have only drafted one Qb( Ken Stabler- was second Qb they took in that same draft) that turnout to be anything .( before they drafted Carr). 

The rest of their successful Qb's have been someone else draft choice( Jim Plunkett , R Gannon) .     

So when you finally hit on the Qb position in the draft, you make sure you pay that player. Take care of the most important position, than figure out best way to field the rest of the team.

Case In point the Broncos have one of the best defenses in the league , but unless one of those Qb's develop , they are probably looking at last place in the Afc West. Just how important the Qb position has become in the NFL.( big difference between game manager, and franchise Qb).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raideraholic said:

As much as you felt sorry for them 2003-2015 .    As proud of tradition the Raiders franchise has , the fact is they have only drafted one Qb( Ken Stabler- was second Qb they took in that same draft) that turnout to be anything .( before they drafted Carr). 

The rest of their successful Qb's have been someone else draft choice( Jim Plunkett , R Gannon) .     

So when you finally hit on the Qb position in the draft, you make sure you pay that player. Take care of the most important position, than figure out best way to field the rest of the team.

Case In point the Broncos have one of the best defenses in the league , but unless one of those Qb's develop , they are probably looking at last place in the Afc West. Just how important the Qb position has become in the NFL.( big difference between game manager, and franchise Qb).

Jets Forum?

Try BlackHole.com or such..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2017 at 11:02 PM, Lil Woody said:

I believe that it takes a LOT of time, way more than most fans are willing to give them.  Ask any honest Giants fan (oxymoron?) if they were ready to ship Eli out of town in his 4th year. They were calling in in droves on the radio to scream and cry about how they got stuck with the "Frank Stallone" of the Manning family.  You don't ever really know what you have in a QB until a guy has played long enough to be truly judged on a total body of work...somewhere around 50 games feels right for a rule of thumb in today's NFL, but even that's probably too small to really be sure.  But that's the rub...nobody has the luxury of getting 5 years anymore.  Of course the caveat is that the guy has to keep earning the chances year over year to get to that "50th game" milepost.  I'm not saying you should stay with a proven loser for the sake of getting a bigger sample size, but if the guy is maturing, even if it's is a slow learning curve, you have to be willing to keep on giving him more leash to see how far he can go. Of course the downside to that approach is getting stuck with an Alex Smith forever and never quite getting far enough, fast enough.  That's where you gotta trust your coaches to be honest with the GM and not be looking to stay with the "safe" guy just to keep their jobs.  (But let's not get started with a team having a good relationship and reporting structure between its GM and HC.)  Once you have a big enough sample size that you are confident with the guy being a true FQB level prospect, then you can start talking about giving him a mega-contract but it's still super risky at that point.  Like I said in another post, I like Carr's trajectory, and I get why the Raiders made the deal, but it is always going to be a leap of faith.  And he's right around the 50 start mark I believe.

LOL "stuck"  Alex Smith would rank among the top tier of Jets QBs. I'd be happy watching my team if we had a guy under center that didn't lose games for us.  Anything after that is a luxury.    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple- a franchise QB is a guy that year in and year out puts himself in the top 15 in all positive QB categories. Anyone below that 15th QB are guys that are either developing or constantly finding themselves looking for new teams. There are not 30 guys on the planet that can play at a consistent level in the NFL at QB. The rules changes of late have only really made good QBs better. It has not elevated bad QB's into franchise QB's. The ability to read an NFL D in real time AND deliver an accurate pass with velocity combined may very well be the hardest thing to do in sports.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2017 at 11:02 PM, Lil Woody said:

I believe that it takes a LOT of time, way more than most fans are willing to give them.  Ask any honest Giants fan (oxymoron?) if they were ready to ship Eli out of town in his 4th year. They were calling in in droves on the radio to scream and cry about how they got stuck with the "Frank Stallone" of the Manning family.  You don't ever really know what you have in a QB until a guy has played long enough to be truly judged on a total body of work...somewhere around 50 games feels right for a rule of thumb in today's NFL, but even that's probably too small to really be sure.  But that's the rub...nobody has the luxury of getting 5 years anymore.  Of course the caveat is that the guy has to keep earning the chances year over year to get to that "50th game" milepost.  I'm not saying you should stay with a proven loser for the sake of getting a bigger sample size, but if the guy is maturing, even if it's is a slow learning curve, you have to be willing to keep on giving him more leash to see how far he can go. Of course the downside to that approach is getting stuck with an Alex Smith forever and never quite getting far enough, fast enough.  That's where you gotta trust your coaches to be honest with the GM and not be looking to stay with the "safe" guy just to keep their jobs.  (But let's not get started with a team having a good relationship and reporting structure between its GM and HC.)  Once you have a big enough sample size that you are confident with the guy being a true FQB level prospect, then you can start talking about giving him a mega-contract but it's still super risky at that point.  Like I said in another post, I like Carr's trajectory, and I get why the Raiders made the deal, but it is always going to be a leap of faith.  And he's right around the 50 start mark I believe.

I agree

It's what makes the Hack situation so interesting.  Not being a 1st round pick they really only have 3 years left to decide if he is going to be worth giving a mega 2nd contract to.  In all honesty this might be his only real chance.  If he doesn't show dramatic  marked improvement this year, and the Jets finish at the bottom of the league, they will take a QB very early.  Hack will be an afterthought.  Same applies to Petty.  That might not be very fair, but GM's jobs hang on the performance, and rapid development of QB's in today's NFL.

Even though this most likely won't be a competitive season for the Jets, it's going to one of the most important seasons in a very long time as far as the Jets Prolonged future is concerned.   

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A top performer at his position consistently year in and year out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2017 at 6:36 PM, Lupz27 said:

Exactly, even thou he is getting paid more then just about every franchise QB this season does not mean he is a franchise QB, if Washington thought he was he would have already inked a 5 for $125 mill contract minimum back before FA period started so the Skins could have more $$$$ freed up in cap space to BUILD around who they think is a franchise QB, they have not done this, while that doesn't mean they are right in their opinion, I just happen to agree with them, I personally would have shipped him off to SF for the 2nd pick in the draft plus some if they were willing, traded down with whoever wanted Trubisky, and drafted Mahomes, but that's me, and I play Monday morning QB on a Jets message board so WTF do I know lol.

I think you are all underestimating how much Washington likes Cousins.  They already offered him 5 years at north of $100M.  They will have paid him around $44M for 2016-2017.  His price isn't going down.  I know everybody is worried about them losing Desean Jackson, but they still have Crowder, Pryor and Jordan Reed.  If Reed stays healthy I think he puts up numbers again.

On 7/15/2017 at 8:32 PM, dbatesman said:

undertaker-sitting-up1.gif?w=1000

Jerome ******* Lane!  Hell yeah!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How do you define a franchise QB?"

Just about anyone not named Geno Smith, Fitzpatrick, or McCown.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Franchise Qb to me is a QB that can get the crap beat out of him for 55 minutes on a cold December/January day, and with everything on the line in those last 5 minutes gets his teammates to believe in him as he marches them down the field for a game winner.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0