SouthernJet Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 i hope u r not seriously saying signing chatman means jets dont take mcfadden?? they might not take Mcfadden, BUT, chatman will have zilch to do with that decision,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 i hope u r not seriously saying signing chatman means jets dont take mcfadden?? they might not take Mcfadden, BUT, chatman will have zilch to do with that decision,, No one thinks that. No one sane, anyway. But rather, it's an implication that it appears Mangini is more than happy to go with a RBBC of differing talents instead of running one guy into the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 No one thinks that. No one sane, anyway. But rather, it's an implication that it appears Mangini is more than happy to go with a RBBC of differing talents instead of running one guy into the ground. dont rule out chatman and leon and mcfadden, and trading jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 dont rule out chatman and leon and mcfadden, and trading jones Sports Blog March 10, 2008 Jets sign RB Jesse Chatman Leon Washington must be one confused running back this morning. The Jets signed former Dolphins RB Jesse Chatman last night, according to the Palm Beach Post. Chatman, who knows O.C. Brian Schottenheimer from their days together in San Diego, will compete with Washington for the backup job behind Thomas Jones, Chatman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow_monkey Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Of course we won't say no to DMC because of Chatman. But there are other reasons. I find it hard to believe that Mia, StL, Atl or KC will pick an RB. But Oakland is picking before us too. Now Oakland and the Jets have a few things in common. Both teams still have holes to fill in order to compete. Both teams have plenty of money invested in their RB's. Sure, one of those teams could end up saying "to hell with the plan, let's just go with the sexy pick". But does that sound like Tangini or Al Davis to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 dont rule out chatman and leon and mcfadden, and trading jones Of course we won't say no to DMC because of Chatman. But there are other reasons. I find it hard to believe that Mia, StL, Atl or KC will pick an RB. But Oakland is picking before us too. Now Oakland and the Jets have a few things in common. Both teams still have holes to fill in order to compete. Both teams have plenty of money invested in their RB's. Sure, one of those teams could end up saying "to hell with the plan, let's just go with the sexy pick". But does that sound like Tangini or Al Davis to you? That sound slike more of an al davis type thing...but the raiders dont have the money for a top five rb... and they need a DT to replace sapp.. if chris long is there then its a no brainer for them given howies effect on the raider nation.. but if dorsey is there or ellis..well then its going to be tough... Al davis is a question mark.. who knows..but I cant waitt for draft day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM31 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 ...or Curtis Martin. Had to sneak that one in there. Forgive me. So if Chatman can stay in the league for anoth ten years or so then he is a mortal lock to be a firstballothalloffamer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Running back by committee can get the job done-as proven many times over. look at the Giants they had shared RB's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Running back by committee can get the job done-as proven many times over. look at the Giants they had shared RB's Ya see thats the problem of a giant team winning the superbowl..everyone wants to point out to them and use them as a guide all of a sudden..the giants were terrible last year for the most part.. Backed into the playoffs and causght fire towards the end... manning was playing above himself... The giants having a running back by comittee is not the ideal way to handle things.. they used all there running backs.. cause all there running backs were hurt at one point.. Emitt smith was an everydown backand th cowboys won superbowls time and time again so why cant we go after the cowboy model? see what im saying.. it doesnt matter..both ways work fine over the years.. Besides wanting my Jets to win.. I would also like to be entertained watching a dynamic player dominate for us... we can win ugly and thats all good...but I perfer to watch an exciting team at the same time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Ya see thats the problem of a giant team winning the superbowl..everyone wants to point out to them and use them as a guide all of a sudden..the giants were terrible last year for the most part.. Backed into the playoffs and causght fire towards the end... manning was playing above himself... The giants having a running back by comittee is not the ideal way to handle things.. they used all there running backs.. cause all there running backs were hurt at one point.. Emitt smith was an everydown backand th cowboys won superbowls time and time again so why cant we go after the cowboy model? see what im saying.. it doesnt matter..both ways work fine over the years.. Besides wanting my Jets to win.. I would also like to be entertained watching a dynamic player dominate for us... we can win ugly and thats all good...but I perfer to watch an exciting team at the same time.. Exciting football to me is being able to throw the ball down the middle of the field in large chunks. Something we havent been able to do since about 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Running back by committee can get the job done-as proven many times over. look at the Giants they had shared RB's Exciting football to me is being able to throw the ball down the middle of the field in large chunks. Something we havent been able to do since about 2001. I agree with you aswell.. I wish we had a better qb and one more solid reciever.. but we dont..but who knows..the offseason isnt over yet.. I just dont want to repeat history.. There was a draft inwhich our fellow jet fans screamed for Warren Sapp... and instead we came away with Kyle Brady... they did that because sapp was tested positive for weed.. so we passed and he became a great player... brady? lol well u knwo the rest... I know jet fans will scream DMC! DMC! DMC! at radio city music hall if hes still on the board.. I just hope we select him.. that wil be proof to me that we have turned the corner.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Ya see thats the problem of a giant team winning the superbowl..everyone wants to point out to them and use them as a guide all of a sudden..the giants were terrible last year for the most part.. Backed into the playoffs and causght fire towards the end... manning was playing above himself... The giants having a running back by comittee is not the ideal way to handle things.. they used all there running backs.. cause all there running backs were hurt at one point.. Emitt smith was an everydown backand th cowboys won superbowls time and time again so why cant we go after the cowboy model? see what im saying.. it doesnt matter..both ways work fine over the years.. Besides wanting my Jets to win.. I would also like to be entertained watching a dynamic player dominate for us... we can win ugly and thats all good...but I perfer to watch an exciting team at the same time.. Fine. Then look at just about every superbowl winner this decade instead (including the past 3 in a row and 5 of the last 6). 2007 NYG: RBBC 2006 Indy: RBBC 2005 Pit: RBBC 2004 NE: Dillon mostly full-time; pulled him on 3rd downs 2003 NE: RBBC 2002 Tampa: RBBC 2001 NE: RBBC, though mostly Smith (who was picked off the scrap heap) "All of a sudden" because of the Giants? The only top-10 pick in this whole bunch was Bettis, who was in like his 100th season, used primarily for short-yardage & goal-line (and who wasn't drafted by Pittsburgh anyway). Addai was a VERY late first round pick (lower than the other two will go in this year's draft) & was splitting carries with a guy who wasn't even drafted. And with Antowain Smith, who was a borderline bust for Buffalo considering they burned a late first rounder on him. They didn't even try to re-sign him up there. And those are all of the first round RB's with superbowl rings for the last 7 games. Emmitt Smith? Emmitt Smith??? You have to go back to point at a team who last won a superbowl well over a decade ago & point out someone on a team with 5 pro bowl OLmen, a pro bowl TE, a pro bowl WR, and a pro bowl QB? (And that's just on offense, to go with their top 2-3 defense every year). Dude they very well might have still won the superbowl with Derrick Blaylock & Kevan Barlow back there. Nowadays, giving one RB 300-400 touches and winning a superbowl is the exception, not the rule. And it hasn't been done since Dillon for the cheaters in the '04 season. Where do people get this stuff? The Giants "invented" nothing. Certainly not the "idea" of a RBBC with no top-10 drafted RB's on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Fine. Then look at just about every superbowl winner this decade instead (including the past 3 in a row and 5 of the last 6). 2007 NYG: RBBC 2006 Indy: RBBC 2005 Pit: RBBC 2004 NE: Dillon mostly full-time; pulled him on 3rd downs 2003 NE: RBBC 2002 Tampa: RBBC 2001 NE: RBBC, though mostly Smith (who was picked off the scrap heap) Emmitt Smith? Emmitt Smith??? You have to go back to point at a team who last won a superbowl over a decade ago & point out someone on a team with 5 pro bowl OLmen, a pro bowl TE, a pro bowl WR, and a pro bowl QB? (And that's just on offense, to go with their top 2-3 defense every year). Dude they very well might have still won the superbowl with Derrick Blaylock & Kevan Barlow back there. 2007 NYG: RBBC 2006 Indy: Joseph Addai 85 percent of the carries 2005 Pit: RBBC 2004 NE: Dillon mostly fulltime back 2002 Tampa: RBBC 2001 NE: RBBC, mostly Smith That doesnt count.... someof those are wrong like I pointed out too... Doesnt matter all this crap... If the guy is the most talented in this draft then at 6 theres no reason not to take the BPA.. we fiiled mostly all the needs...no excuses...so now we have the luxury of taking BPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSJets Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 2007 NYG: RBBC 2006 Indy: Joseph Addai 85 percent of the carries 2005 Pit: RBBC 2004 NE: Dillon mostly fulltime back 2002 Tampa: RBBC 2001 NE: RBBC, mostly Smith That doesnt count.... someof those are wrong like I pointed out too... Doesnt matter all this crap... If the guy is the most talented in this draft then at 6 theres no reason not to take the BPA.. we fiiled mostly all the needs...no excuses...so now we have the luxury of taking BPA Huh? Some of those are wrong like you pointed out? You said the same as Sperm exept for putting a % on Addai. I would even put his % lower than 85 too. I swear you must be working for McFadden. It's almost too obvious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 2007 NYG: RBBC 2006 Indy: Joseph Addai 85 percent of the carries 2005 Pit: RBBC 2004 NE: Dillon mostly fulltime back 2002 Tampa: RBBC 2001 NE: RBBC, mostly Smith That doesnt count.... someof those are wrong like I pointed out too... Doesnt matter all this crap... If the guy is the most talented in this draft then at 6 theres no reason not to take the BPA.. we fiiled mostly all the needs...no excuses...so now we have the luxury of taking BPA See, now you're just making stuff up. Addai had 226 carries & Rhodes had 187. And Addai didn't start a single game all season, including the superbowl. Then I notice you deleted the 2003 Patriots as though the season never happened. So I'm confused. You're arguing with me by agreeing with me on the stuff you're not fabricating or omitting? It's still the past 3 in a row AND 5 of the past 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Fine. Then look at just about every superbowl winner this decade instead (including the past 3 in a row and 5 of the last 6). 2007 NYG: RBBC 2006 Indy: RBBC 2005 Pit: RBBC 2004 NE: Dillon mostly full-time; pulled him on 3rd downs 2003 NE: RBBC 2002 Tampa: RBBC 2001 NE: RBBC, though mostly Smith (who was picked off the scrap heap) "All of a sudden" because of the Giants? The only top-10 pick in this whole bunch was Bettis, who was in like his 100th season, used primarily for short-yardage & goal-line (and who wasn't drafted by Pittsburgh anyway). Addai was a VERY late first round pick (lower than the other two will go in this year's draft) & was splitting carries with a guy who wasn't even drafted. And with Antowain Smith, who was a borderline bust for Buffalo considering they burned a late first rounder on him. They didn't even try to re-sign him up there. And those are all of the first round RB's with superbowl rings for the last 7 games. Emmitt Smith? Emmitt Smith??? You have to go back to point at a team who last won a superbowl well over a decade ago & point out someone on a team with 5 pro bowl OLmen, a pro bowl TE, a pro bowl WR, and a pro bowl QB? (And that's just on offense, to go with their top 2-3 defense every year). Dude they very well might have still won the superbowl with Derrick Blaylock & Kevan Barlow back there. Nowadays, giving one RB 300-400 touches and winning a superbowl is the exception, not the rule. And it hasn't been done since Dillon for the cheaters in the '04 season. Where do people get this stuff? The Giants "invented" nothing. Certainly not the "idea" of a RBBC with no top-10 drafted RB's on the team. See, now you're just making stuff up. Addai had 226 carries & Rhodes had 187. And Addai didn't start a single game all season, including the superbowl. Then I notice you deleted the 2003 Patriots as though the season never happened. So I'm confused. You're arguing with me by agreeing with me on the stuff you're not fabricating or omitting? It's still the past 3 in a row AND 5 of the past 6. Look I would love to be entertained while I am watching my team too.. ya know throwing the ball down feild..being able to root for a guy to break a huge run.. or catch a deep pass for a touch down.. See you can win but win boring and ugly..and yes its still winning.. but its not fun to watch or pretty for that matter.. Can a rbbc win sure it can... but can an everydown back team win too..yes it can... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Look I would love to be entertained while I am watching my team too.. ya know throwing the ball down feild..being able to root for a guy to break a huge run.. or catch a deep pass for a touch down.. See you can win but win boring and ugly..and yes its still winning.. but its not fun to watch or pretty for that matter.. Can a rbbc win sure it can... but can an everydown back team win too..yes it can... Who says RBBC is boring? Where is it written that because the same back isn't getting 20 touches a game that it means a team is destined to have no big runs? What you're referring to, yet again, is the "name" or "face of the franchise" garbage, which has nothing to do with winning football games. It doesn't make your team better. It doesn't mean you put up more points. It doesn't mean jack squat. You need a complete team to win. That doesn't mean you sink $12M per year in cap space at RB. Particularly when one of them is a rookie who didn't know his ass from his elbow & will get a $15-20M check before his 21st birthday. But your argument was that the Giants were the exception. In fact, they were the rule. The Emmitt Smith's are the exception. Go run down the league leaders or top 10 in rushing yards. Then check how many superbowl rings they all have combined. The only ones you'll find are Willie Parker, who wasn't even drafted, and Jamal Lewis, who played on an awful offense & had possibly the best defense in NFL history on the other side of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaumerJet Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 How does this signing have any impact on McFadden whatsoever? I think it'd be 50/50 they take him if both McFadden and Gholston were on the board. However, ultimately I think they'd prefer to trade down above all else. Chatman Quietly Added to Jets Backfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Untouchable Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 How exactly does signing Chatman to a 1 year deal for short money prevent the Jets from taking McFadden at #6? Chatman was signed to be our 3rd string back at best. He could be training camp fodder if we go with DMC in round 1. You don't pass on a supreme talent like McFadden if he falls in your grasp just because you signed a JAG short yardage runner like Chatman or you have a solid starter in Thomas Jones. DMC running behind Brick, Faneca, Mangold, Moore, and Woody along with Richardson leading the way is explosive any way you cut it. McFadden is a playmaker and our offense is in dire need of playmakers. Will he be a 25-30 carrie a game type of guy? Probably not. But he gives you Tomlinson-esque versatility and a threat to take it the distance every time you put the ball in his hands. If I had to compare McFadden to anyone it would probably be a more polished version of Reggie Bush. Bush offers gamebreaking ability and excellent versatility as does McFadden, but DMC has better vision and is a much better north/south runner. If McFadden is sitting there, you take him. You don't take anyone else under any circumstance unless by some snow balls chance in hell Chris Long falls out of the Top 5 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 just a side note if the Jets were to draft Mcfadden... it would be ironic for Thomas Jones who was traded to the Jets from Chicago a year after they drafted 1st rounder Cedric Benson. The story was they didn't get along too well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I'm not sure we should take McFadden, BUT the thought of a Jesse Chatman blocking McFadden's way just baffles me. I'm sure Chatman's deal was a 1 yr deal with minimal signing bonus, so if you cut him, just eat the 50K. DAMNIT PEOPLE. DO I NEED TO SPELL IT OUT? WE ARE NOT TAKING MCFADDEN! NEXT SUBJECT PLEEEEASE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 How exactly does signing Chatman to a 1 year deal for short money prevent the Jets from taking McFadden at #6? Chatman was signed to be our 3rd string back at best. He could be training camp fodder if we go with DMC in round 1. You don't pass on a supreme talent like McFadden if he falls in your grasp just because you signed a JAG short yardage runner like Chatman or you have a solid starter in Thomas Jones. DMC running behind Brick, Faneca, Mangold, Moore, and Woody along with Richardson leading the way is explosive any way you cut it. McFadden is a playmaker and our offense is in dire need of playmakers. Will he be a 25-30 carrie a game type of guy? Probably not. But he gives you Tomlinson-esque versatility and a threat to take it the distance every time you put the ball in his hands. If I had to compare McFadden to anyone it would probably be a more polished version of Reggie Bush. Bush offers gamebreaking ability and excellent versatility as does McFadden, but DMC has better vision and is a much better north/south runner. If McFadden is sitting there, you take him. You don't take anyone else under any circumstance unless by some snow balls chance in hell Chris Long falls out of the Top 5 as well. Its apparent that this ny times writer is just writing and has no factual basis..I believe in Cimini cause hes close to the team and he said and I quote "if you think a back up journeyman like jesse chapman is going to prevent the jets from taking mcfadden?" "not a chance" You take chapman now because there is no guarantee you wil get mcfadden thats why.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUM-KNEE Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Its apparent that this ny times writer is just writing and has no factual basis..I believe in Cimini cause hes close to the team and he said and I quote "if you think a back up journeyman like jesse chapman is going to prevent the jets from taking mcfadden?" "not a chance" You take chapman now because there is no guarantee you wil get mcfadden thats why.. I stopped reading at "I believe in Cimini". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 How exactly does signing Chatman to a 1 year deal for short money prevent the Jets from taking McFadden at #6? Chatman was signed to be our 3rd string back at best. He could be training camp fodder if we go with DMC in round 1. You don't pass on a supreme talent like McFadden if he falls in your grasp just because you signed a JAG short yardage runner like Chatman or you have a solid starter in Thomas Jones. DMC running behind Brick, Faneca, Mangold, Moore, and Woody along with Richardson leading the way is explosive any way you cut it. McFadden is a playmaker and our offense is in dire need of playmakers. Will he be a 25-30 carrie a game type of guy? Probably not. But he gives you Tomlinson-esque versatility and a threat to take it the distance every time you put the ball in his hands. If I had to compare McFadden to anyone it would probably be a more polished version of Reggie Bush. Bush offers gamebreaking ability and excellent versatility as does McFadden, but DMC has better vision and is a much better north/south runner. If McFadden is sitting there, you take him. You don't take anyone else under any circumstance unless by some snow balls chance in hell Chris Long falls out of the Top 5 as well. I stopped reading at "I believe in Cimini". Whys that?? Hes closer to the buisness then you... he knows the jets more closely then you... so why not? he gets paid to write about the jets.. ya think they would pay him for not knowing the thinking behind the jets.. lets be real now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhinHater Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I stopped reading at "I believe in Cimini". lol. Also, someone please tell him that it is Chatman, not Chapman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 lol. Also, someone please tell him that it is Chatman, not Chapman. Does it really matter? He probaly wont be around long enough for me to remember that name... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhinHater Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Does it really matter? He probaly wont be around long enough for me to remember that name... Yes...it does matter. I can't tell you how deeply affected I am over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 lol. Also, someone please tell him that it is Chatman, not Chapman. Yes...it does matter. I can't tell you how deeply affected I am over this. Sounds like a personal problem.. Might want to take up a hobby.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUM-KNEE Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Whys that?? Hes closer to the buisness then you... he knows the jets more closely then you... so why not? he gets paid to write about the jets.. ya think they would pay him for not knowing the thinking behind the jets.. lets be real now.. He may be closer to the business than me but that doesnt make his articles any more credible, nor does it make him good at the job. If sensationalist journalism is what you crave then by all means read up and bow down to the altar of Cimini, but I will pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Signing Chatman does not PREVENT them from taking McFadden. It is merely a logical indication that he wouldn't have a problem going into the season with these three. It isn't a matter of McFadden or Chapman; if we draft him it's McFadden or JONES. Perhaps not this year (since there's enough cap space for both with the rookie contract being back-weighted somewhat), but certainly by 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 He may be closer to the business than me but that doesnt make his articles any more credible, nor does it make him good at the job. If sensationalist journalism is what you crave then by all means read up and bow down to the altar of Cimini, but I will pass. Im just saying to totally discredit the guy because you dont agree with his views or his opinions is not cool. To say hes not good at his job is ridiculous... someone is paying his salary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 He may be closer to the business than me but that doesnt make his articles any more credible, nor does it make him good at the job. If sensationalist journalism is what you crave then by all means read up and bow down to the altar of Cimini, but I will pass. Signing Chatman does not PREVENT them from taking McFadden. It is merely a logical indication that he wouldn't have a problem going into the season with these three. It isn't a matter of McFadden or Chapman; if we draft him it's McFadden or JONES. Perhaps not this year (since there's enough cap space for both with the rookie contract being back-weighted somewhat), but certainly by 2009. You seem like one of the more knowlegable on this board..let me ask you this.. Do you see the jets trading thomas jones if they drafted mcfadden? or if they did draft Mcfadden what would leon washington or Jesse Chatmans role be then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 You seem like one of the more knowlegable on this board..let me ask you this.. Do you see the jets trading thomas jones if they drafted mcfadden? or if they did draft Mcfadden what would leon washington or Jesse Chatmans role be then? Not this year, no. But next year maybe, though it would be a release not a trade. I can't see anyone making a trade for Thomas Jones who would then turn 31 right before the 2009 season. Not for anything significant anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Not this year, no. But next year maybe, though it would be a release not a trade. I can't see anyone making a trade for Thomas Jones who would then turn 31 right before the 2009 season. Not for anything significant anyway. Ok.. then I ask this... what pecentage you see of the next three being jets... Gholsten 50%? CLong? 25% Mcfadden? 75% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Ok.. then I ask this... what pecentage you see of the next three being jets... Gholsten 50%? CLong? 25% Mcfadden? 75% I don't know who's going to be available. There is pretty much zero chance that all 3 are there so I can't answer; those 3 won't be our choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.