PDA

View Full Version : Angelo looking at FA O-Lineman?


pellepelle_10
02-13-2008, 04:25 AM
Bears | Team looking at Faneca
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:22:06 -0800

Brad Biggs, of the Chicago Sun-Times, reports the Chicago Bears might have an interest in signing Pittsburgh Steelers OG Alan Faneca, who is scheduled to become a free agent this offseason.


Could it be??..Angelo running from O-Lineman in the draft yet again? ..NOWAY..lol

On another note I thought this was a good read. I'm hoping this comes to truth.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/790486,CST-SPT-bear13a.article

BeerBaron
02-13-2008, 08:42 AM
ewww no, i dont like that they were talking about fred miller positively....hes gotta go. i dont care what he played through....

as for faneca, hes not going to be cheap. and in the main thread, i said about how i dont like the idea of just bringing in another group of 30+ vets for another run. lets infuse some young talent on offense to match our defense and be a team that can be set for years to come

i do like that that mentioned drafting an OT high though...williams or otah would look sweet replacing miller on that right side short term. if they go that direction, i would concede one old FA guard to play next to them

regoob2
02-13-2008, 10:34 AM
I really hope we cut Darwin Walker. With his 6.5mil cap hit next year gone we could at least Tag Berrian. I'm all for Marty Booker coming back and replacing Moose, I think he could still be a solid #2 for another year or 2.

Gay Ork Wang
02-13-2008, 10:39 AM
I believe he wants to Sign a Vet and draft some OL later on, the OL Depth this year is good

toonsterwu
02-13-2008, 12:48 PM
I'd be fine with Booker coming back, at the right price. I assume that might lead to Muhammad getting cut. Now, if signing Booker means that we let Berrian go, then no. But if we can keep both and cut Muhammad, I'd be fine with that.

I'd rather not on Faneca, although if that makes Angelo feel more comfortable about drafting one OT early, then okay. Woudl rather pursue a Wahle.

Smokey Joe
02-13-2008, 04:01 PM
Faneca would be fine for a couple years, but I'd rather go after Starks.

bearfan
02-13-2008, 04:34 PM
Faneca would be fine for a couple years, but I'd rather go after Starks.

We would be in the same predicament that we are in this year, boo to Faneca.

BeerBaron
02-13-2008, 04:37 PM
if i cant count on a guy for a decade, then hes not worth signing to a huge deal with tens of millions in bonuses. and thats what it would take to get faneca.

id rather go with starks too. i view tackle as a more vital position anyway...

Smokey Joe
02-13-2008, 04:50 PM
We would be in the same predicament that we are in this year, boo to Faneca.

Faneca has at least 5 good seasons still in his future. And he should be able to play up to a pro bowl caliber for at least 2-3 more seasons.

However, Starks could be our RT for the next 10 years.

bearsfan_51
02-13-2008, 06:13 PM
if i cant count on a guy for a decade, then hes not worth signing to a huge deal with tens of millions in bonuses. and thats what it would take to get faneca.

id rather go with starks too. i view tackle as a more vital position anyway...
A decade? Are you kidding me? You can't count on the fact that the earth won't explode in a decade.

Most deals are structured in ways that if you can get 3-4 years out of value out of them you've done well.

BeerBaron
02-13-2008, 08:10 PM
A decade? Are you kidding me? You can't count on the fact that the earth won't explode in a decade.

Most deals are structured in ways that if you can get 3-4 years out of value out of them you've done well.

well if you go into that negatively....jeez

you prepare for the worst but you always hope for the best. and the best would be younger guys in thier mid 20s who you can sign for a few years, have them work out well, and sign them to more on top of that after theyve proven themselves.

sure it doesnt happen much, but thats the ideal. and to just give up and say "hey, lets sign another batch of reuben browns and fred millers and have them play well for a year or two and then cut them" well....its insane

BUSTKUNTLAWL
02-13-2008, 08:38 PM
Want to fix the running game?

Sign Faneca.
Release Miller.

C - Kreutz
LG - Faneca
RG - Garza/Beekman
LT - John Tait
RT - Jeff Otah [first round]

Tait probably can handle the left side for another year.. Otah after a year of coaching should be able to handle the left side. Move Tait to the right side when he's ready.

As for Starks.. Our RT for the next 10 years? What? He started 4 games all year for Pittsburgh.. You have a lot of confidence in him and I'm not sure why.

BeerBaron
02-13-2008, 08:41 PM
Want to fix the running game?

Sign Faneca.
Release Miller.

C - Kreutz
LG - Faneca
RG - Garza/Beekman
LT - John Tait
RT - Jeff Otah [first round]

Tait probably can handle the left side for another year.. Otah after a year of coaching should be able to handle the left side. Move Tait to the right side when he's ready.

As for Starks.. Our RT for the next 10 years? What? He started 4 games all year for Pittsburgh.. You have a lot of confidence in him and I'm not sure why.

if faneca wouldnt cost so much id accept that.....hes just going to be crazily expensive

pellepelle_10
02-14-2008, 05:28 AM
I'd be fine with Booker coming back, at the right price. I assume that might lead to Muhammad getting cut. Now, if signing Booker means that we let Berrian go, then no. But if we can keep both and cut Muhammad, I'd be fine with that.

I'd rather not on Faneca, although if that makes Angelo feel more comfortable about drafting one OT early, then okay. Woudl rather pursue a Wahle.

While I agree toons but you know as well as I do that JA's history is rearing its ugly head YET AGAIN. Will he finally go O-Line or will he tinker with vets to get the position taken care of...that is the magical question. I'm hoping Booker comes back with Muhammad getting the boot. He's not a bad WR but IMO Booker is a wr that should have never left this franchise in the first place. He will be welcomed with open arms back in Chicago. I think JA will go OT in the draft but again...as much as I wouldn't mind it JA just doesn't DO IT. I'm preferring RB in the 1st as stated and O-Line 2nd or 3rd.

BeerBaron
02-14-2008, 11:20 AM
just because JA doesnt do something doesnt mean im ok with it. id like to get a franchise OT....

since that seems unlikely, i would like to see a trade down to get devin thomas. get a WR who had stud potential

Hurricane Ditka
02-14-2008, 01:04 PM
If this is the route we go again, I'll remember to say I told you so in a few years when our oline is even older, and even worse. We need to draft a left tackle, and at this point our oline will only get worse if we don't add some youth.

Gay Ork Wang
02-14-2008, 01:08 PM
If this is the route we go again, I'll remember to say I told you so in a few years when our oline is even older, and even worse. We need to draft a left tackle, and at this point our oline will only get worse if we don't add some youth.
Its like u guys saying Angelo is not going to draft any Oline...

BeerBaron
02-14-2008, 02:27 PM
Its like u guys saying Angelo is not going to draft any Oline...

theres a difference between taking some scrubs in the 7th round and grabbing a potential franchise LT.

we could really really really use the latter more than the former...

Gay Ork Wang
02-14-2008, 02:56 PM
I know, but tackle would be still a concern despite the fact we have Faneca right?

bearsfan_51
02-14-2008, 03:12 PM
We aren't going to sign any free agent OT because there aren't any worth signing. Jordan Gross was the only one and he's going to be franchised. Max Starks isn't even good enough to start on his own team. I'm fully convinced that most of the people that want us to sign him have no idea who he is except that he's tall, big, and plays for the Steelers so he must be tough.

It's a good draft for tackles, we'll get one there.


Guard, on the other hand, is another question. I would really like Benji Olsen. He's only 27 and has proven to be a very good starter in the NFL. Alan Faneca would be good, but too expensive and I just don't see us being competitive in the next few years so I'm not sure what the point is. That said, if we aren't competitive for a few years Jerry and Lovie will be gone anyway, so I doubt they are thinking that way.

Geo
02-14-2008, 07:00 PM
I think 51 has it right: this year's first round pick for a tackle plus a free agent guard, and the Bears offensive line could immediately and greatly be improved for the better. Which would do a great deal for both the running game and the passing game.

BeerBaron
02-14-2008, 09:18 PM
how can you say we're not going to be competitive? injuries to the defense plus some neglect (DT, S) hurt us bad last year.

running back is another place but sometimes that can be an easy quick fix with a guy who appears out of nowhere.

oline might be the most crucial situation right now though too...

and even if we're not competative, the coaching staff and front office needs to spin it in an intelligent way. look at jeff fischer in tennessee for instance. just a few years ago, after a series of runs where they came close, they had to gut their team due to cap reasons and age, rebuilt without ever actually admitting that they were rebuilding, and are now back in the playoffs and looking only to improve depending on VY

bearsfan_51
02-14-2008, 09:37 PM
We are weak at a lot of positions. We need to fix the quarterback position, the running game, the offensive line, we have questions at linebacker, and our safties are all unproven.

Add that all together and I don't see a playoff team next year, especially if we let Berrian walk.

Kid_Ego
02-14-2008, 10:54 PM
Matt Birk was a 7th rounder. You dont waste first round or huge contracts on guards. thats just not good management. you can easily get a guard who will do fine in the second third and fourth rounds who would improve the bears. First you need a runningback who reads holes and doesnt go full speed into the back of the O-linemen. (ala benson) then you need to not run every 1 and second down and pass on 3rd and long. And stop wasting 1st round draft picks on defense. and start addressing the tackle position,. Im a viking fan and I hate the fact we blew alot of money on a freaking guard. there is one position you blow big money on TACKLE

bearsfan_51
02-14-2008, 11:35 PM
Matt Birk was a 7th rounder. You dont waste first round or huge contracts on guards. thats just not good management. you can easily get a guard who will do fine in the second third and fourth rounds who would improve the bears. First you need a runningback who reads holes and doesnt go full speed into the back of the O-linemen. (ala benson) then you need to not run every 1 and second down and pass on 3rd and long. And stop wasting 1st round draft picks on defense. and start addressing the tackle position,. Im a viking fan and I hate the fact we blew alot of money on a freaking guard. there is one position you blow big money on TACKLE
The signing of Steve Hutchison was a good move for the Vikings, and it's not like Matt Birk is playing for cheap anymore.

If anyone, the Vikings have overpaid for McKinnie.

DaBear89
02-14-2008, 11:39 PM
Matt Birk was a 7th rounder. You dont waste first round or huge contracts on guards. thats just not good management. you can easily get a guard who will do fine in the second third and fourth rounds who would improve the bears. First you need a runningback who reads holes and doesnt go full speed into the back of the O-linemen. (ala benson) then you need to not run every 1 and second down and pass on 3rd and long. And stop wasting 1st round draft picks on defense. and start addressing the tackle position,. Im a viking fan and I hate the fact we blew alot of money on a freaking guard. there is one position you blow big money on TACKLE

u do realize we haven't spent that many 1st's on D the past few years.
2000: B. Urlacher LB
2001: David Terrell WR
2002: Marc Colombo...shudder OT
2003: Michael Haynes DE
2003: Rex Grossman QB
2004: Tommie Harris DT
2005: Cedric Benson RB
2006: N/A
2007: Greg Olsen TE

only 3 picks since 2000 and one was Urlacher(possible HoF canidate) and another was Tommie, one the best young DTs today

pellepelle_10
02-15-2008, 02:51 AM
If this is the route we go AGAIN, I'll remember to say I told you so in a few years when our oline is even older, and even worse. We need to draft a left tackle, and at this point our oline will only get worse if we don't add some youth.

I've only preached what has happened Ditka. I'm not saying that I don't want youth. I've said that Angelo doesn't draft top end O-Lineman. History continues.... Like I said previously I honestly would like a top tier O-Lineman to go with a young FA o-lineman to begin to add youth to this aging core. I totally agree. The fact is...will he do it? This is what I've been saying. I think going RB, QB, OT or RB, OT, QB wouldn't be a bad way to go. If we went OT first I wouldn't be angry. I just prefer going RB 1st given the top tier talent. I just viewed recently how Mayock values Mendenhall higher than McFadden because of his inability to shed tackles and scrawny legs..hehe

pellepelle_10
02-15-2008, 02:54 AM
I think 51 has it right: this year's first round pick for a tackle plus a free agent guard, and the Bears offensive line could immediately and greatly be improved for the better. Which would do a great deal for both the running game and the passing game.

I have to agree 100% with this and given the depth at OT in the draft this would be a VERY smart way to go. The problem is there aren't many OG's in FA worth getting. I still think Lilja would be a good selection despite many objections to Indy Guards.

Gay Ork Wang
02-15-2008, 09:57 AM
well thats what i was thinking. They dont think Tackle is a minor need if they suignt a Guard. but i hope they dont overpay him, i heard sth about more than 7mio

BeerBaron
02-15-2008, 10:59 AM
I have to agree 100% with this and given the depth at OT in the draft this would be a VERY smart way to go. The problem is there aren't many OG's in FA worth getting. I still think Lilja would be a good selection despite many objections to Indy Guards.

id stay away from the colts guards....lousy track record and theyd cost money. id rather just go guard somewhere after the first few rounds if itd just for depth. hell, a guy there could even probably start. i doubt itd take much to beat out metcalf or maybe even garza

pellepelle_10
02-15-2008, 01:24 PM
id stay away from the colts guards....lousy track record and theyd cost money. id rather just go guard somewhere after the first few rounds if itd just for depth. hell, a guy there could even probably start. i doubt itd take much to beat out metcalf or maybe even garza

I don't think teams will necessarilly break down doors for Lilja and he's performed quite well for Indy. He also haven't allowed a tonload of sacks either:

See link for Lilja:
http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/playerstats.asp?id=7076&team=11

He definatelly has youth and hasn't warranted a ton of penalties like Scott has.

BeerBaron
02-15-2008, 02:05 PM
I don't think teams will necessarilly break down doors for Lilja and he's performed quite well for Indy. He also haven't allowed a tonload of sacks either:

See link for Lilja:
http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/playerstats.asp?id=7076&team=11

He definatelly has youth and hasn't warranted a ton of penalties like Scott has.

but remember theyve got an incredible offensive staff, including maybe one of the best oline coaches in the game. it also doesnt hurt that hes blocking for peyton manning who usually doesnt hold onto the ball too long or make mistakes like that...

we don't quite have...well, any...of those luxuries. its similar to, but not quite to the same extent as, if we were targeting a bronco o-lineman. is the system making the player?

bearfan
02-15-2008, 04:50 PM
u do realize we haven't spent that many 1st's on D the past few years.
2000: B. Urlacher LB
2001: David Terrell WR
2002: Marc Colombo...shudder OT
2003: Michael Haynes DE
2003: Rex Grossman QB
2004: Tommie Harris DT
2005: Cedric Benson RB
2006: N/A
2007: Greg Olsen TE

only 3 picks since 2000 and one was Urlacher(possible HoF canidate) and another was Tommie, one the best young DTs today

But you do realize how many other picks have gone to drafting defense? Especially for JA who is very good at guaging talent on the defensive side, players like: Vasher, Tillman, Briggs, Mark Anderson, Bringing in Hillenmeir (sp), Dusty Dvorchek, Daniel Manning, Chris Harris, Jamar Williams, Mike Okwo, Devin Hester (position was CB), McBride, Dan Bauzin.

My point is that we dont need to spend a 1st round pick on defense to get good players, especially w/ JA drafting. It is the 1st round close to guarantee that we need on offense, b/c JA is bad at picking that, and our coaches dont seem to improve anyone, or coach the offense well.

BeerBaron
02-15-2008, 04:54 PM
But you do realize how many other picks have gone to drafting defense? Especially for JA who is very good at guaging talent on the defensive side, players like: Vasher, Tillman, Briggs, Mark Anderson, Bringing in Hillenmeir (sp), Dusty Dvorchek, Daniel Manning, Chris Harris, Jamar Williams, Mike Okwo, Devin Hester (position was CB), McBride, Dan Bauzin.

My point is that we dont need to spend a 1st round pick on defense to get good players, especially w/ JA drafting. It is the 1st round close to guarantee that we need on offense, b/c JA is bad at picking that, and our coaches dont seem to improve anyone, or coach the offense well.

well all of that is like, well known info. im not sure who was saying we should take a D player, but i dont think that thought should even creep into the bears heads...JA could probably find 11 guys in the 7th round who with a year of coaching could be decent defensive starters

blkwdw13
02-16-2008, 08:40 AM
The guy I would like the Bears to go after in FA is Stacey Andrews from Cin., he would probably cost a little more but he is still young enough to be around for a while.

bearsfan_51
02-16-2008, 11:19 AM
The guy I would like the Bears to go after in FA is Stacey Andrews from Cin., he would probably cost a little more but he is still young enough to be around for a while.
I've actually heard the Bengals might franchise him if you believe that.

My top guy is still Benji Olsen, but I'm starting to get comfortable with the idea of overpaying for Faneca if that's what they want to do. We can draft a tackle.

Geo
02-16-2008, 11:58 AM
Olsen is a good candidate.

Given what free agent guards are getting paid these days, at least Faneca would be more deserving. I think he'd fit in well for the Bears, and he will be 32 this December so he should have a few more years left in him. He's missed 2 games in 10 seasons (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FaneAl00.htm), that's impressive.

BeerBaron
02-16-2008, 01:39 PM
im just not sure i can find justification in faneca. reuben brown came in a few years ago as an umpteen-time pro bowler and worked well for a little while but then just crapped out.

id be more in favor of olsen just because hes younger...

in all honesty, i would like to see us do with our offense like we did with the defense. instead of overpaying for veteran FA's on the wrong side of 30, draft draft draft! if i remember right, the bears starting superbowl D had 10 of the 11 starters drafted by the bears. id love love love to see that on both sides of the ball.

sign a vet FA for a year or two to play while you develop some younger guys behind him but i just dont think i want to stomach another few years of lineman who belong in a retirement home

bearsfan_51
02-16-2008, 03:02 PM
im just not sure i can find justification in faneca. reuben brown came in a few years ago as an umpteen-time pro bowler and worked well for a little while but then just crapped out.

id be more in favor of olsen just because hes younger...

in all honesty, i would like to see us do with our offense like we did with the defense. instead of overpaying for veteran FA's on the wrong side of 30, draft draft draft! if i remember right, the bears starting superbowl D had 10 of the 11 starters drafted by the bears. id love love love to see that on both sides of the ball.

sign a vet FA for a year or two to play while you develop some younger guys behind him but i just dont think i want to stomach another few years of lineman who belong in a retirement home

Well of course that's ideal, but not every pick you make is going to work out. Metcalf didn't really work out, Beekman doesn't seem to be the guy either. Every time we sign a player (Moose for example) it's because a draft pick didn't work out (Terrell). We have more needs than picks, so if we want to be competitive we're going to have to overpay on at least one guy, I'd rather that be at position in the draft that's weak (guard) than one that's strong (offensive tackle, runningback).

BeerBaron
02-16-2008, 03:16 PM
Well of course that's ideal, but not every pick you make is going to work out. Metcalf didn't really work out, Beekman doesn't seem to be the guy either. Every time we sign a player (Moose for example) it's because a draft pick didn't work out (Terrell). We have more needs than picks, so if we want to be competitive we're going to have to overpay on at least one guy, I'd rather that be at position in the draft that's weak (guard) than one that's strong (offensive tackle, runningback).

understandable but also think about the importance of the position. to dump tens of millions of dollars into a 32 year old guard seems asinine when thats a position that teams find servicable players at late in the draft or even undrafted every year.

the risk that comes with playing a 22 year old guard making 5th round money isnt as great if he fails as compared to an old vet that just got an immense amount of cash just by signing his name on the paper

regoob2
02-16-2008, 04:13 PM
So your saying we should start a 5th rounder day one?? If we sign Faneca our OL gets much better, If you start some late round rookie our OL gets worse. I'm not all for signing Faneca because of the cost but he's a pro bowler and we could use the help.

bearsfan_51
02-16-2008, 04:19 PM
understandable but also think about the importance of the position. to dump tens of millions of dollars into a 32 year old guard seems asinine when thats a position that teams find servicable players at late in the draft or even undrafted every year.

the risk that comes with playing a 22 year old guard making 5th round money isnt as great if he fails as compared to an old vet that just got an immense amount of cash just by signing his name on the paper
I don't really have the interest or time, but I would venture to guess that the majority of starting left guards in the NFL are not 5th-7th round draft picks. Either way, even if we cash in on a 5th rounder, we're going to have to pay him in 3-4 years anyway. I agree that your option is ideal but that's the point, it's too ideal. We can't go into next year with the plan of "well let's just plug random 5th round guard". We'd be better off starting Terry Metcalf.

BeerBaron
02-16-2008, 07:02 PM
I don't really have the interest or time, but I would venture to guess that the majority of starting left guards in the NFL are not 5th-7th round draft picks. Either way, even if we cash in on a 5th rounder, we're going to have to pay him in 3-4 years anyway. I agree that your option is ideal but that's the point, it's too ideal. We can't go into next year with the plan of "well let's just plug random 5th round guard". We'd be better off starting Terry Metcalf.

i know i know, i was just saying. but you said earlier you don't think we're going to be in it for a few years anyway so why not start gathering pieces and at least be uncompetitive with a young developing team instead of overpriced old vets who are just going to set us back years further anyway.

i point to the titans of a few years ago as an example. they had a team of high priced old veterans (mcnair, mason, rolle, kearse to an extent) and took their medicine early. they started ridding themselves of their older players and started bringing in younger and younger talent and over about 2 years overhauled their entire team. now they seem to be one of the overall younger teams in football and, depending on the development of VY, should be in contention for a while now.

and during that transition, fisher kept his team competitive enough and showed enough flashes of potential to keep him in his job.

now obviously we have no vince young, but, we have an immense amount of still young talent on defense who will be back to healthy heading into next season. so take the medicine on offense now, ride out the defense to stay competative (like we did a little this year early on until they started getting hurt) and hope to god for the best.

it may sound completely insane, and youll probably quote this and bold that statement and then not say anything else, im prepared for that, but i would rather hang on with some developing young players than grossly overpay for the services of old geezerly offensive players and maybe be competative for a year before we completely break down for the better part of the next decade ala the oakland raiders

bearsfan_51
02-16-2008, 07:15 PM
No I'm fine with trading/cutting every player over 32 on this team and starting from scratch. I think we're a ways away.

I just don't think that's what is going to happen, and I can't blame Angelo for trying to stay competitive.

BeerBaron
02-16-2008, 07:56 PM
No I'm fine with trading/cutting every player over 32 on this team and starting from scratch. I think we're a ways away.

I just don't think that's what is going to happen, and I can't blame Angelo for trying to stay competitive.

right, because he would lose his job otherwise. i get that. i get how that works.

but

i think handing millions of dollars to guys who are only going to be useful for 2-3 years is a terrible approach.

if it were completely up to me, and we should all thank god its not, urlacher would have a lifetime contract, and maybe hester with another few years of amazingness, and everyone else would be allowed to walk as soon as they get to a point where any contract they sign would carry them past 31.

just a constant development of players behind them. no draft pick gets wasted. i draft everyone with the intent of having them start one day. they sit behind the current guy at their spot until that guy walks and then they step right in.

a bit idealist? sure....but we would never dip too far below an acceptable level of competitiveness.

now what were we talking about again? free agent guards? im against signing more old guys

DaBear89
02-17-2008, 05:36 PM
i wouldn't mind benji as long as its no more than a 2-3 year contract. if he gets something like 5 we're asking for trouble. he's had a back injury thats bothered him for 2 years now and while he hasnt missed that many games it will prolly do nothing but get worse as he plays more/gets older. now i would still be more apt to sign him before faneca as it would be more cost effective but i would like one of two on the team next year.

i would also like to see us draft Kerry Brown from App St. i live near some of the colleges that get dominated by them every year so i've seen him a lot. he's got great foot work and is a pretty decent athlete. he's also 6'6" 310lbs. i think he could prolly start right away on some teams lines but would def benefit from sitting a bit.

BeerBaron
02-17-2008, 06:16 PM
i wouldn't mind benji as long as its no more than a 2-3 year contract. if he gets something like 5 we're asking for trouble. he's had a back injury thats bothered him for 2 years now and while he hasnt missed that many games it will prolly do nothing but get worse as he plays more/gets older. now i would still be more apt to sign him before faneca as it would be more cost effective but i would like one of two on the team next year.

i would also like to see us draft Kerry Brown from App St. i live near some of the colleges that get dominated by them every year so i've seen him a lot. he's got great foot work and is a pretty decent athlete. he's also 6'6" 310lbs. i think he could prolly start right away on some teams lines but would def benefit from sitting a bit.

you know, thats all pretty good stuff.

and drafting a guard later on is kind of what i was talking about earlier when i said about the 5th round pick. i didnt mean it like literally, but i just meant that it would be, to me, easier to find a guard capable of starting later in the draft than it would a tackle.

you know, the more i think about it, the less im hating the idea of signing a FA guard as long as we draft a young tackle who can anchor that spot for a good long time

regoob2
02-17-2008, 06:35 PM
It's not my ideal situation but I wouldn't be mad if we brought in Faneca. Especially since Berrian is getting tagged and is most likely gone.

Gay Ork Wang
02-18-2008, 07:58 AM
It's not my ideal situation but I wouldn't be mad if we brought in Faneca. Especially since Berrian is getting tagged and is most likely gone.
is he getting tagged or is he gone?

BeerBaron
02-18-2008, 10:20 AM
is he getting tagged or is he gone?

im pretty sure hes not going to be.

Gay Ork Wang
02-18-2008, 10:24 AM
regroob confused me :D