Fields-O-Meter

[BearFan PHX]

2 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Tell me unequivocally who the Bears will draft that will play better than Justin has been. Stop using the ‘I can’t predict the future’ smoke cover and provide some stats like Adam does or support your opposing viewpoint with some numbers.

If you are playing draw poker, and your hand sucks, you draw cards. You dont KNOW the new cards are gonna be good, but you know what you have isn't good enough.

I dont need to prove that any of the rookies WILL be good, I just need to know that what i have right now isnt enough.

Yes, it's a gamble, but sticking with Fields is the wrong answer. That much I know. And it's all I need to know to move on and try again.

[adam]

45 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Then "who" replaces Fields?  And what circumstance makes that pick the next (first?) generational QB the Bears have needed all this time?  So far history shows the Bears can't and won't get it right... 

Jimmy G was the 9'ers QB in 2019 and they went 13-3 that year and in 2021 (the year before Purdy was drafted) they went 10-7 with Garoppolo and Lance as the QBs.  

I wish I knew. I am going more off what I think the Bears are going to do than what I think. My opinion is not going to sway them one way or another. If they keep Fields, I am good with that, hopefully they can build a strong enough supporting cast around him to lift him up. I am rooting for whoever they run out there. 

If Poles doesn't believe any of the QBs coming out have a higher ceiling than Justin, he will trade the pick again. 

[adam]

48 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

Why are you using Watson for your example ? He is not very good anymore, Fields is not going to be an elite QB, yet that is everyone's comparison. He will one day be a more than competent QB, once he gets with a coach like the one that works with Lamar Jackson, and guess what, he got better. We will end up drafting a QB every 2 year and then watch the team Justin plays for go to the playoffs every year. I want a better QB but which one is that ? There might be one in this draft but I dont think its Williams. Im on the plan to trade the first pick, keep Justin and draft a QB. If Poles likes the QB that much, let Fields play the year out. He will be trying to prove himself and we let a QB sit one more yr and start in 2025. 

There are a ton of examples of QBs excelling with weak supporting casts. That continually gets used for Fields and the assessment of Fields should consider his surroundings, but they should only factor minimally into the overall assessment. I am just done speculating on the QB position. The fact that we are having this discussion in Week 15 should be a huge red flag. 

I hope he can turn it around and have 3 strong games to finish the year ending it with a Packers loss that knocks them out of the playoffs. However, if Love outplays him or if he looks really bad in any of the last 3 games against subpar defenses, I think the decision will be an easy one for Poles. 

[Stinger226]

I am not an expert or do I pretend to be one but I do put more value in former QBs opinions than a regular fan's . Why does so many support Fields as the conversation keeps saying to dump him?  Just  got done listening to Kurt Warner's interview on the Score. Listen to it in replay on Audacy, he just seems to make so much sense. 

[BearFan PHX]

14 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

I am not an expert or do I pretend to be one but I do put more value in former QBs opinions than a regular fan's . Why does so many support Fields as the conversation keeps saying to dump him?  Just  got done listening to Kurt Warner's interview on the Score. Listen to it in replay on Audacy, he just seems to make so much sense. 

This is a logical fallacy called the argument of authority.

Some former players say keep Fields, and others say dump him, so there are former players saying both things, therefore being a former player doesnt mean you know, because even they dont agree.

Also, keep in mind that pundits need clicks. Keeping the discussion alive brings clicks.

Also, former QBs may generally have QBs backs. They probably felt like whoever cut them should have stayed with them. And also they dont want to get a rep for being a hater.

Previously, someone said that 7 out of 7 current NFL GMs who responded said they would trade Fields. Does that prove that you're wrong? Of course not. That would also be an argument from authority fallacy.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

35 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

Previously, someone said that 7 out of 7 current NFL GMs who responded said they would trade Fields. Does that prove that you're wrong? Of course not. That would also be an argument from authority fallacy.

Who were these '7 GMs'?  Did they answer on "condition of anonymity"?  
DJ Moore was (once again) asked about Justin Fields and reiterated what he said last week.

[adam]

1 hour ago, Stinger226 said:

I am not an expert or do I pretend to be one but I do put more value in former QBs opinions than a regular fan's . Why does so many support Fields as the conversation keeps saying to dump him?  Just  got done listening to Kurt Warner's interview on the Score. Listen to it in replay on Audacy, he just seems to make so much sense. 

I would trust Kurt Warner's assessment over most others. He excelled at the highest levels. 

I would not trust current or former teammates as they are very loyal and rarely throw each other under the bus.

[BearFan PHX]

43 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Who were these '7 GMs'?  Did they answer on "condition of anonymity"?  
DJ Moore was (once again) asked about Justin Fields and reiterated what he said last week.

yes they were anonymous, but it was a Yahoo sports article, so I believe they are real.

But my point wasnt that they must be right. My point was that no one knows. The "argument of authority" is a classic logical fallacy, and I was providing a counter example that is also making the same error that went the other way.

I'm not right because 7 GMs said so, and no one is right because Kurt Warner said so either.

It's like saying some point of law must be correct because a lawyer said so. They are a trained professional so they must be right? But then again, the other side has a lawyer saying the exact opposite, so being a trained professional doesnt prove youre right if trained professionals are on both sides of an argument?

None of this to say that if Warner says something it proves he is wrong either, rather that it isnt "proof" on any side.

[Stinger226]

47 minutes ago, adam said:

I would trust Kurt Warner's assessment over most others. He excelled at the highest levels. 

I would not trust current or former teammates as they are very loyal and rarely throw each other under the bus.

I agree with you on Warner he is a straight up guy.  they have more experience to assess a player than we do, it doesnt mean they're always right . I dont think any of them getting paid for evaluations are just lying to everyone , people like that dont last long, its easy to tell if someone is not being honest. So i guess the one's that think Fields isnt any good are not to be believed anymore over  the ones that like him.  I plumbed for 50 yrs and one time argued with an inspector over a code issue. come to find out he was on the board that wrote the code. But stupid me thought I was smarter than him, experience matters. 

[BearFan PHX]

I dont think Warner or anyone is lying.

I think that there's a positive optimistic take on Fields, and a negative pessimistic take. Each has a set of facts that support them. And Im not saying they come from optimistic or pessimistic attitudes, just how good people can look at the same data and argue one way or the other.

I do think that former QBs are more apt to see the positives in other QBs. Thats not lying, but it is a good way to be liked by the fraternity of former players, and to avoid saying anything that might make you look like you overextended and were wrong. But mostly, former QBs are QB friendly.

GMs live in the world of salary caps and other realities. They might see a mixed review on a player as a problem rather than evidence for hope.

In the end, there is the tape, and there are opinions.

One thing that Warner doesnt take into account is what keeping fields might cost you in missing other opportunities. He's just talking about a player, in a vacuum, a player who is getting better. If Justin was your friend youd say "dude youre continuing to get better, youre gonna get there" but if I asked you to bet your house on it, you might hesitate. And that's more akin to where Poles is than just a player evaluation.

But none of this proves anything. There is no proof. No one can say what a player might become. But we can say who they are and what theyve shown.

Ive seen enough football in my life, and enough film on Fields to say that he has trouble reading defenses in tempo, and pulling the trigger in the rhythm of the play. All the other extra curricular stuff, the good defenses now have a bead on.

That's not a situation I'd want to keep. I think thats a super defensable position. But other people have their views too.

But to say that because Warner said it it must be true is a logical fallacy. Warner's opinion is legitimate. That he must be right is false. njust like that I or the GMs must be right is also false.

It's a weak argument anyway. Show me Fields' winning drives where he takes the team from inside his own 30 to scoring a touchdown to win the game. Show me a game where Fields routinely threw the ball to the right read at the right time.

You cant - and thats not opinion, thats a fact. Will he become that guy tomorrow? I dunno. No one does.

But why bet big that he will, when he hasnt yet, and you have two picks in the top 10 of the draft? Including all the cap considerations thereof.

I think thats a bad bet. It might pay off, but I doubt anyone here would bet their house on it. So theres talk, but deep down, none of us thinks this is that good of a good bet. We have hopes and loyalties and fan stuff.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

1 hour ago, BearFan PHX said:

yes they were anonymous, but it was a Yahoo sports article, so I believe they are real.

But my point wasnt that they must be right. My point was that no one knows. The "argument of authority" is a classic logical fallacy, and I was providing a counter example that is also making the same error that went the other way.

I'm not questioning whether they exist or are authentic...just who they are.  Was one of them recently fired Raiders GM Dave Ziegler?  Or maybe former Chargers GM Tom Telesco?  The fact they "remain anonymous" should tell you something.  Another of my "favorite" Fields detractors is former GM Mike Tannenbaum. The same yutz who drafted players like Mark "Butt Fumble" Sanchez in the first round.  I don't lend a lot of creedence to "experts" that don't show consistent success in the job they are paid to do.  Like how I can't believe Mel Kiper is still in business as a "Draft Expert".  At any rate...I digress.  

If a player, past or present, comments on a player and uses their own name and likeness, then we should probably pay attention.  

[Stinger226]

29 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

I dont think Warner or anyone is lying.

I think that there's a positive optimistic take on Fields, and a negative pessimistic take. Each has a set of facts that support them. And Im not saying they come from optimistic or pessimistic attitudes, just how good people can look at the same data and argue one way or the other.

I do think that former QBs are more apt to see the positives in other QBs. Thats not lying, but it is a good way to be liked by the fraternity of former players, and to avoid saying anything that might make you look like you overextended and were wrong. But mostly, former QBs are QB friendly.

GMs live in the world of salary caps and other realities. They might see a mixed review on a player as a problem rather than evidence for hope.

In the end, there is the tape, and there are opinions.

One thing that Warner doesnt take into account is what keeping fields might cost you in missing other opportunities. He's just talking about a player, in a vacuum, a player who is getting better. If Justin was your friend youd say "dude youre continuing to get better, youre gonna get there" but if I asked you to bet your house on it, you might hesitate. And that's more akin to where Poles is than just a player evaluation.

But none of this proves anything. There is no proof. No one can say what a player might become. But we can say who they are and what theyve shown.

Ive seen enough football in my life, and enough film on Fields to say that he has trouble reading defenses in tempo, and pulling the trigger in the rhythm of the play. All the other extra curricular stuff, the good defenses now have a bead on.

That's not a situation I'd want to keep. I think thats a super defensable position. But other people have their views too.

But to say that because Warner said it it must be true is a logical fallacy. Warner's opinion is legitimate. That he must be right is false. njust like that I or the GMs must be right is also false.

It's a weak argument anyway. Show me Fields' winning drives where he takes the team from inside his own 30 to scoring a touchdown to win the game. Show me a game where Fields routinely threw the ball to the right read at the right time.

You cant - and thats not opinion, thats a fact. Will he become that guy tomorrow? I dunno. No one does.

But why bet big that he will, when he hasnt yet, and you have two picks in the top 10 of the draft? Including all the cap considerations thereof.

I think thats a bad bet. It might pay off, but I doubt anyone here would bet their house on it. So theres talk, but deep down, none of us thinks this is that good of a good bet. We have hopes and loyalties and fan stuff.

I agree with almost everything you said, my comment was, why do a lot of former QBs support Fields and mentioned Warner. It was in the form of a question , not a statement that Warner's opinion is absolute. When i try to form an opinion I view many and form my own copulation. I see his faults but am not yet in the mode of dump him, he's trash. First of all, he is still playing ,I figure I might as well do what Poles is doing and watch him play.  The evaluation is not just if Justin is a SB QB, it has to do with the evaluation of the options in the draft.  It still has to do with our drafting position. If Carolina wins a few more, Williams and Maye could not be an option. If  in Poles opinion, the draft able QBs are more of a risk than bringing back Fields  , he will do it. He's not changing QBs just to bring in a potential worse one for sake of change. Justin is not a top 5 QB but he is also not bottom 5 either. with good coaching he could be a capable QB. im not saying that means Poles thinks he's going to take us to a SB but he will bring someone in that might be capable of developing and keep Fields one more yr  or trade him and go get Browning. No one knows what he is going to do so we keep our opinions until things happen. 

[BearFan PHX]

Ok so i listened to a few minutes of Warner on Fields today, and here was the quote from Warner

"I dont necessarily think Justin Fields' strength is five guys out [as receivers], quick decisions and throw the football, so that's not playing to his strengths either"

so what are we even talking about? If Warner thinks we can be successful using Justin as a runner, but not a pocket QB, then I would simply offer up how defenses have already adjusted to take that away from him, and he pretty much cant do anything after that. The proof is in the tape. It already happened.

@ 5:04
 

[BearFan PHX]

14 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

When i try to form an opinion I view many and form my own copulation.

I just watch the all 22 film. Once you do that, it's just clear as day and I dont need anyone to digest it for me.

But anyway, it doesnt even sound like Warner actually disagrees with what I'm saying!

1) Justin is fun to watch and very athletically talented (and likeable)
2) Justin doesnt consistently make reads in rhythm which is required to be a successful NFL QB
3) Justin's athleticism isn't taking over games or scoring a lot of points
4) Defenses have already found ways to take away his legs now, and he is failing to overcome that once they limit his trick

I cant see that any of that is even debatable.

If someone's opinion is that we should still stick with him, but they agree on those facts, I dont know what else to say. And if they disagree on those facts, which ones?

[adam]

Taking coaches out of the equation.

I guess the question becomes do you believe Fields has done enough if the season ended today to give him his 5th year option (and/or extension) and they run this back with him in 2024, trade the #1 pick or select MHJ.

or

Fields may or may not have done enough, but let's hedge this, keep him for one more year and draft a QB.

or

Fields has not done enough, draft QB #1, trade Fields.

 

Would anything change your mind one way or the other in the last 3 weeks? If he balls out or completely shits the bed. I feel like a win or loss at GB is going to carry some weight and it will be the final memory heading into the offseason. 

[BearFan PHX]

The problem for me is that Fields' "successes" are still not games where he is reading and playing in tempo. They are the games where his hero-ball works against a defense that isnt stopping it.

So there are two questions sort of woven together.

1) Is Fields improvement that youre asking about in the area of reading and getting the ball out quickly?

2) Does anyone think a QB can be successful with hero-ball and not becoming a passer in tempo?

So if Fields destroys the next 3 teams in a row with his legs, it doesnt make me feel like "progress" on question #1.

So if by balling out you mean more hero-ball, then no, nothing he does will change my mind.

But if you mean balling out by showing me something I've never seen from him yet, standing in the pocket, making quick reads, getting the ball out in time, moving the chains and putting up points? Then hell yes. i will support any Bears Qb that can consistently do that.

But so far nothing I've seen makes me think that is ever going to be Fields' strength. And I do not believe that hero-ball will ever work consistently against playoff teams.

Add hero-ball to a QB passing skill and you've got lightning in a bottle, but i cannot overlook the core competency needed to play QB in the NFL because of hero-ball extras.

Once defenses get a book on that, and they have now the past few weeks, it's over. You can beat some bad or even middle teams, but it does not win Super Bowls.

You gotta play QB to be the QB.

[adam]

4 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

I just watch the all 22 film. Once you do that, it's just clear as day and I dont need anyone to digest it for me.

But anyway, it doesnt even sound like Warner actually disagrees with what I'm saying!

1) Justin is fun to watch and very athletically talented (and likeable)
2) Justin doesnt consistently make reads in rhythm which is required to be a successful NFL QB
3) Justin's athleticism isn't taking over games or scoring a lot of points
4) Defenses have already found ways to take away his legs now, and he is failing to overcome that once they limit his trick

I cant see that any of that is even debatable.

If someone's opinion is that we should still stick with him, but they agree on those facts, I dont know what else to say. And if they disagree on those facts, which ones?

One thing I did notice, to add onto #4, I think the hits are adding up. They are in his head. He is not as confident as a runner like he was last year. This year it looks panicked if that makes sense. On the DET play near the goal line when he did the Houdini act, the Right Edge from across the field caught him from behind to force him to slide 20 yards downfield. Last year, Fields would've had 5 yards on him by then. 

#3 it still gets out of some negative yard situations, rarely is this a negative, even if it is not a net positive.

#2 I still think there is something to his feet, they made him swap to make the timing routes work but he has not looked natural doing it that way. This is also on Getsy, which makes the overall assessment of Fields tough as hell. It feels like he goes thru his progressions, but there is a delay between his vision, processing what he is seeing, then acting on. That's where the pat comes in, it gives himself a tic to process before throwing. Then everything is off. It reminds me of the firing range in the Army. There was a sequence of shots out to 300m, targets would pop up left and right and drop after a few seconds. You had to aim, fire, find new target, aim, fire, readjust, etc, etc. You could easily memorize the sequence, but if you miss one and tried a second bullet, you would be racing to readjust and aim at the new target giving yourself a fraction of second to shoot before it too drops, then probably miss, and now you are trailing the rest of the targets. 

[adam]

2 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

The problem for me is that Fields' "successes" are still not games where he is reading and playing in tempo. They are the games where his hero-ball works against a defense that isnt stopping it.

So there are two questions sort of woven together.

1) Is Fields improvement that youre asking about in the area of reading and getting the ball out quickly?

2) Does anyone think a QB can be successful with hero-ball and not becoming a passer in tempo?

So if Fields destroys the next 3 teams in a row with his legs, it doesnt make me feel like "progress" on question #1.

So if by balling out you mean more hero-ball, then no, nothing he does will change my mind.

But if you mean balling out by showing me something I've never seen from him yet, standing in the pocket, making quick reads, getting the ball out in time, moving the chains and putting up points? Then hell yes. i will support any Bears Qb that can consistently do that.

But so far nothing I've seen makes me think that is ever going to be Fields' strength. And I do not believe that hero-ball will ever work consistently against playoff teams.

Add hero-ball to a QB passing skill and you've got lightning in a bottle, but i cannot overlook the core competency needed to play QB in the NFL because of hero-ball extras.

Once defenses get a book on that, and they have now the past few weeks, it's over. You can beat some bad or even middle teams, but it does not win Super Bowls.

You gotta play QB to be the QB.

I think it comes down to efficiency overall. So he will have to be productive in the pocket, out of the pocket, and on the ground. If the offense has sustained drives with a good balance, and that is consistent, that's all they are looking for. If he only does the houdini stuff and that is the only way they move the ball, the efficiency will be terrible even if they win or score points. He needs to be a positive EPA/play player. 

[BearFan PHX]

Speaking of former QBs, Mark Sanchez, who called the Browns game, was on with the HERD with Colin Cowherd.

He says in a town like Chicago, keeping Fields and bringing in a rookie wont work. He says then Fields doesnt have the confidence to know hes the man, and it will implode. I think so too.

@ 6:40
"Not in Chicago" "No chance"

He also says that you can keep Fields and put guys around him, and rely on his running like Cam Newton.

I think there is a plan on how to defeat that now and we've seen it the past couple weeks.

The headline says Sanchez says to move on from Fields, but I must have missed that direct quote in the clip.
 

 

[BearFan PHX]

14 minutes ago, adam said:

I think it comes down to efficiency overall. So he will have to be productive in the pocket, out of the pocket, and on the ground. If the offense has sustained drives with a good balance, and that is consistent, that's all they are looking for. If he only does the houdini stuff and that is the only way they move the ball, the efficiency will be terrible even if they win or score points. He needs to be a positive EPA/play player. 

so youre saying that hypothetically, you think a QB can be successful with hero-ball and not becoming a passer in tempo?

I think youre saying that the QB has to ALSO be able to throw in tempo and make reads. And I totally agree.

But what evidence do we have that Fields will grow to do that? And without that evidence, to support him, you have to believe the statement above or just think Fields will get better and do it in the future?

So to answer your three part multiple choice above:

I dont think you can keep Fields and draft a top 10 rookie and get what you want from Fields. So that option is out for me.

If the balling out we see in the next few weeks is of the throwing in tempo kind, then I suppose it would be possible to persuade me to stay with Fields, but its such a small sample, and I havent seen it yet from him, so itd be really hard to do - but if he was suddenly pocket superman, then yes.

But if the balling out is more hero ball, then no.

That's my POV anyway

[ChileBear]

3 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

Speaking of former QBs, Mark Sanchez, who called the Browns game, was on with the HERD with Colin Cowherd.

He says in a town like Chicago, keeping Fields and bringing in a rookie wont work. He says then Fields doesnt have the confidence to know hes the man, and it will implode. I think so too.

@ 6:40
"Not in Chicago" "No chance"

He also says that you can keep Fields and put guys around him, and rely on his running like Cam Newton.

I think there is a plan on how to defeat that now and we've seen it the past couple weeks.

The headline says Sanchez says to move on from Fields, but I must have missed that direct quote in the clip.

Saw that too. And I agree with you that Fields is a good runner, but teams have figured out he does not read Ds and he holds the ball too long. If, as Sanchez said, we can't have him and a rookie QB too, then I guess Fields has to go. I feel that Fields wouldn't be such a distraction.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

47 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

so what are we even talking about? If Warner thinks we can be successful using Justin as a runner, but not a pocket QB, then I would simply offer up how defenses have already adjusted to take that away from him, and he pretty much cant do anything after that. The proof is in the tape. It already happened.

I didn't take that at all.  He was saying that there was immense pressure on Fields most of the game and the oline was unable to protect him from that constant pressure.  And then commented on how difficult it is (for any QB) to throw the ball to where they think the receiver is in the face of that pressure.  They quoted Justin saying as much when he said he didn't want to "guess" where the receivers were when he couldn't see them.  Warner said that Cleveland's defense (currently ranked #1 overall) makes it difficult for many QBs to succeed.  

As far as "taking it (the running) away from him" how do you mean?  My "eye test" tells me of several of the designed (or even scrambling) plays for running, Justin has gained yards ... and some cases 1st downs more often than he hasn't.  The sacks we're seeing, especially against Cleveland, were a result of a collapsing pocket around him.  

[BearFan PHX]

3 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

I didn't take that at all.  He was saying that there was immense pressure on Fields most of the game and the oline was unable to protect him from that constant pressure.  And then commented on how difficult it is (for any QB) to throw the ball to where they think the receiver is in the face of that pressure.  They quoted Justin saying as much when he said he didn't want to "guess" where the receivers were when he couldn't see them.  Warner said that Cleveland's defense (currently ranked #1 overall) makes it difficult for many QBs to succeed.  

As far as "taking it (the running) away from him" how do you mean?  My "eye test" tells me of several of the designed (or even scrambling) plays for running, Justin has gained yards ... and some cases 1st downs more often than he hasn't.  The sacks we're seeing, especially against Cleveland, were a result of a collapsing pocket around him.  

do you remmeber the number of times Fields tried to run and got smacked behind the line of scrimmage?

Yes sometimes Fields can take the ball to the outside for an easy 12 yards. But if this was something you could make a living on, where are all the high scoring games?

I think at this point I've said everything I can think of to say.

I want to trade Fields and bring in a QB that plays QB. I don't believe in hero ball. I don't think an OC should have to reinvent football to make an offense work.

I want a passer. If he has other skills too thats great. But he has to be a passer that moves the chains, and puts up points. It's not that radical. I'd like a QB who can find the middle of the field in rhythm.

I've shown, diagrammed, everything I can think of to prove that this guy holds the ball too long. It was his biggest knock before the draft. All the draft experts said it. Now here we are 3 years later and it's still true.

Even Warner himself in a clip that was supposed to be evidence in Fields' favor said it. The guy isnt a read and throw QB.

I want a QB at QB.

[Stinger226]

59 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

Ok so i listened to a few minutes of Warner on Fields today, and here was the quote from Warner

"I dont necessarily think Justin Fields' strength is five guys out [as receivers], quick decisions and throw the football, so that's not playing to his strengths either"

so what are we even talking about? If Warner thinks we can be successful using Justin as a runner, but not a pocket QB, then I would simply offer up how defenses have already adjusted to take that away from him, and he pretty much cant do anything after that. The proof is in the tape. It already happened.

@ 5:04
 

 

 

 

So you are using the Browns game as your example that teams has adjusted to his running? His last 4 games was 30, Browns,  then 58-59-104 before that. Those numbers are way above average for QBs. He is more cautious on his runs because as you have even said, he has to aware of constantly getting hit. He goes down when he could clearly get more yds on most of his carries. Its not that defenses have adjusted to him. The Browns are the best D in the league and that's your example. He is second only to Jackson in rushing in the league for QBs. Hurts should go ahead of him tonight. He missed 4 games and is third in the league. Nice try 

[BearFan PHX]

1 minute ago, Stinger226 said:

Nice try 

again with the personal nasty and fighty BS. please grow up and stop taking this all so personally. I warned you before and Im warning you again, Im not gonna just sit here for this, so stop now before it blows up again. Got it? Dont speak to me that way.

Im not lying, Im not deceiiving, Im not "trying" to do anything but talk about sports on this board. I dont like Justin and want to trade him, thats not an attack on you.