PDA

View Full Version : Phins Negotiating with Jake Long AND Vernon Gholston


thebow305
04-10-2008, 12:22 AM
According to the Sun-Sentinel, the Dolphins have begin negotiations with Jake Long AND Vernon Gholston:

Apparently content to keep the No. 1 overall pick, the Dolphins have begun discussing contract parameters with at least two players on their short list of candidates to become the draft's top selection.

Official contract negotiations with Michigan offensive tackle Jake Long, and Ohio State defensive end Vernon Gholston were started this week, according to a source. Coincidentally, Long and Gholston are represented by the same agency, CAA, but have different agents.

Long and Gholston are believed to be two of the five prospects the Dolphins have thoroughly investigated in case they don't trade away the top pick in the 2008 NFL Draft, which takes place on April 26-27.

Click the link to read the rest of the article:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/football/pro/dolphins/sfl-flspdolphins10sbapr10,0,7093217.story

Discuss now:

fakterx
04-10-2008, 12:49 AM
Wow Gholston went from looking like a beast to looking like a complete vagina with that Dolphins jersey...

thebow305
04-10-2008, 12:54 AM
I do expect there to be contract negotiations with Chris Long as well. But, if indeed the only serious talks are between Jake and Vernon, then we will try to hammer out some outlines for deals for both. Jake will be our negotiating piece at a last ditch effort to get the Rams to bite on a trade. That way we could swap with them, already have Vernon under contract, take him at # 2, and get an extra pick out of it. If they don't bite, we have a deal hammered out with Gholston either way and he is the choice.

Maybe it's me dreaming, but who knows at this point!?

ChezPower4
04-10-2008, 12:59 AM
This is not surpising Gholston is an athletic OLB/DE...Bill parcells likes to have a very good pass rusher on his teams and he seems to have a good eye for them. He did draft Lawrence Taylor and Demarcus Ware, I think that Gholston will follow suit and if Bill thinks that Gholston is even gonna be close to as good as those two he should take him.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-10-2008, 01:00 AM
I've heard that the Fins are also planning on opening up negotiations with Chris Long, Matt Ryan, and Glenn Dorsey. I don't think this is anything more than Miami looking at all possible avenues.

LonghornsLegend
04-10-2008, 01:04 AM
I heard Chris Long and Dorsey, but I heard they ruled out Ryan and were not even going to speak with him about a deal, I actually heard Harvey's name mentioned as the guy who they were working figures with instead.

thebow305
04-10-2008, 01:04 AM
I've heard that the Fins are also planning on opening up negotiations with Chris Long, Matt Ryan, and Glenn Dorsey. I don't think this is anything more than Miami looking at all possible avenues.

Maybe Dorsey and Chris, but not Ryan.

DragonFireKai
04-10-2008, 01:25 AM
Maybe Dorsey and Chris, but not Ryan.

I don't think that Ryan will be a decent starter in the league. But Beck is even less of a viable starter. The Dolphins are taking a pretty smart tack here. They've got so many holes, that they can open negotiations with all the top prospects, and take whomever is willing to sign for the least.

LonghornsLegend
04-10-2008, 01:31 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=mia


Here's the video of Mort talking about who Miami is negotiating with, that they have no interest in talking to Ryan, and Harvey is the other guy they want to speak with.

KCJ58
04-10-2008, 01:31 AM
Jake Long will be in a Miami uniform next year

Geo
04-10-2008, 01:38 AM
Gholston is the one reasonable chance at signing a very below market contract, only because he could fall further than Long/ Long/ Dorsey, to the point where he'd actually make more money being severely underpaid as the first overall pick than say as the sixth overall pick by the Jets. That's actually a good move for him.

I wonder how that would affect the Draft, in terms of signings, from there. My guess is that every player (more specifically their agent or agents) would disregard the Gholston signing, just like teams will disregard the absolutely horrible contract the Jets gave Darrelle Revis, and instead look to a percentage increase of the previous year's picks/signings as normal. Which would mean we would see a few guys selected after Gholston being paid more, assuming the above scenario does happen.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-10-2008, 01:54 AM
Of course it depends on the contract terms of Gholston, but it seems easy to expect that Jake Long would at least warrant more money even if picked at the #2 or #3 spot. If his agents are any good, they'll point to both the guaranteed money Joe Thomas got and the overall contract Levi Brown got, which could end up making Jake Long the highest paid offensive lineman in football.

NGSeiler
04-10-2008, 02:48 AM
Jake will be our negotiating piece at a last ditch effort to get the Rams to bite on a trade.

Pretty sure the Rams will be content to sit at two and take whichever Long the Dolphins don't pick.

DraftMichaelHuff
04-10-2008, 03:33 AM
Pretty sure the Rams will be content to sit at two and take whichever Long the Dolphins don't pick.

and if they take Gholston? Which Long

D-Rod
04-10-2008, 03:58 AM
Personally, I can't see why the Rams would not take Chris Long if he's there.

Yes, they could do with Dorsey, but they already have Carricker and Clifton set at DT.

Yes, they could take JL, but they don't have an immediate need at OT either. Pace is aging, and Barron has been inconsistent, but without injuries, the O-line is probably one of their strengths - and you don't draft at #2 to protect against injuries.

They have a huge need at DE.

CL, JL and Dorsey all grade out similarly, so why would you not take the player at the position of greatest need?

toonsterwu
04-10-2008, 04:27 AM
D-Rod, the answer to that might lie in two dynamics:

a) With the stadium, they may feel that they can find a pass rusher later. That is, they may look to the Leonard Little route ... find a quality athlete, perhaps raw off the edge, and take advantage of your stadium.

b) More importantly, Barrons' contract is up in 2 years, and Pace isn't playing for long. They need to hit on this pick, and elite tackles are more often than not found at the top of the first. Landing one now could set themselves up better long term. Jake could start at RG and strengthen the entire line, moving perhaps Incognito to center. And I wouldn't rule out Jake beating out Alex right away and perhaps the Rams dealing Alex this offseason.

I'm not saying they will draft Jake, but that may be part of the rationale behind it.

eaglesalltheway
04-10-2008, 06:43 AM
D-Rod, the answer to that might lie in two dynamics:

a) With the stadium, they may feel that they can find a pass rusher later. That is, they may look to the Leonard Little route ... find a quality athlete, perhaps raw off the edge, and take advantage of your stadium.

b) More importantly, Barrons' contract is up in 2 years, and Pace isn't playing for long. They need to hit on this pick, and elite tackles are more often than not found at the top of the first. Landing one now could set themselves up better long term. Jake could start at RG and strengthen the entire line, moving perhaps Incognito to center. And I wouldn't rule out Jake beating out Alex right away and perhaps the Rams dealing Alex this offseason.

I'm not saying they will draft Jake, but that may be part of the rationale behind it.

My thought wasn't quite as complex as yours, but It was the same basic idea.

Scott Wright
04-10-2008, 07:39 AM
They are negotiating with Gholston for leverage.

Think about it...

If he doesn't go #1 Gholston maybe falls as far as #6, so maybe he would be willing to take #2 or #3 money because that's still a lot better than #6 money. And then if he is willing to take a below market deal they can go to Jake Long and say look, we have a deal in place with Gholston, if you'll take the same deal you're our guy. It's all to get leverage on Jake Long in negotiations.

Addict
04-10-2008, 07:44 AM
They are negotiating with Gholston for leverage.

Think about it...

If he doesn't go #1 Gholston maybe falls as far as #6, so maybe he would be willing to take #2 or #3 money because that's still a lot better than #6 money. And then if he is willing to take a below market deal they can go to Jake Long and say look, we have a deal in place with Gholston, if you'll take the same deal you're our guy. It's all to get leverage on Jake Long in negotiations.

that's... a smart setup, hope for them it works. By the way Scott, do you ever sleep?

PS: 5,000!

D-Rod
04-10-2008, 08:05 AM
Totally agree with the Parcells strategy of leveraging against salary negotiations. But here's a question:

How does this affect the picks below him?

If Gholston does sign, let's say, for the same amount that Joe Thomas got last year, it puts the Rams and their pick in a tough spot. The Rams would, understandably be reluctant to pay the #2 pick more than the #1 pick; the #2 pick would understandably be reluctant to get less than the #3 pick the previous year...

Another reason why a rigid system of slotting is absolutely necessary. Seriously, how fricking difficult would it be to establish a slotting system which inflates on the same basis as the salary cap itself.

Looks like the NFL could use a decent barrister. As luck would have it, I'm starting to get a little bored of the English courts...

Jakey
04-10-2008, 08:09 AM
The dolphins will not take Gholston with the no1 pick...the value is just not there!

Crickett
04-10-2008, 08:32 AM
They are negotiating with Gholston for leverage.

Think about it...

If he doesn't go #1 Gholston maybe falls as far as #6, so maybe he would be willing to take #2 or #3 money because that's still a lot better than #6 money. And then if he is willing to take a below market deal they can go to Jake Long and say look, we have a deal in place with Gholston, if you'll take the same deal you're our guy. It's all to get leverage on Jake Long in negotiations.

But keep this in mind: This is what they said about the Houston Texans and Mario Williams. That it was leverage to sign Reggie Bush. And they said that right up until the Texans signed Mario Williams.

yodabear
04-10-2008, 08:50 AM
That right Phins, u stick to these 2. Chris Long is sexy and he is a Ram!

LonghornsLegend
04-10-2008, 09:02 AM
D-Rod, the answer to that might lie in two dynamics:

a) With the stadium, they may feel that they can find a pass rusher later. That is, they may look to the Leonard Little route ... find a quality athlete, perhaps raw off the edge, and take advantage of your stadium.

b) More importantly, Barrons' contract is up in 2 years, and Pace isn't playing for long. They need to hit on this pick, and elite tackles are more often than not found at the top of the first. Landing one now could set themselves up better long term. Jake could start at RG and strengthen the entire line, moving perhaps Incognito to center. And I wouldn't rule out Jake beating out Alex right away and perhaps the Rams dealing Alex this offseason.

I'm not saying they will draft Jake, but that may be part of the rationale behind it.


I actually heard that the team is mroe content with their O line then outsiders are, they said Pace is healthier then everyone thinks he is, and Barron is playing fine right now, they dont want to pick a guy #2 and have him moving all around on the line, they would prefer Chris Long, Gholston, and maybe Dorsey over more O line help.

BeerBaron
04-10-2008, 09:26 AM
They are negotiating with Gholston for leverage.

Think about it...

If he doesn't go #1 Gholston maybe falls as far as #6, so maybe he would be willing to take #2 or #3 money because that's still a lot better than #6 money. And then if he is willing to take a below market deal they can go to Jake Long and say look, we have a deal in place with Gholston, if you'll take the same deal you're our guy. It's all to get leverage on Jake Long in negotiations.

wow, i was already to type something saying that up myself and i see you beat me to it, lol. great minds think alike

anyway

my odds stand with jake long at a 75% chance and chris at 24.9% everyone else is in that infinitesimally small remaining chance. its all a ploy to get jake to take less money and if he wont budge, they either take him without a contract idea in place or they go chris if hes willing to take significantly less than jake...

sorry thebow, i think you might have to bite the bullet here

BuddyCHRIST
04-10-2008, 09:45 AM
This is why I wish there was rookie contracts in the NFL with salary locked for the first few years, especially for the number 1 pick where ability to get a contract is almost more important than who the prospect is.

thebow305
04-10-2008, 10:34 AM
wow, i was already to type something saying that up myself and i see you beat me to it, lol. great minds think alike

anyway

my odds stand with jake long at a 75% chance and chris at 24.9% everyone else is in that infinitesimally small remaining chance. its all a ploy to get jake to take less money and if he wont budge, they either take him without a contract idea in place or they go chris if hes willing to take significantly less than jake...

sorry thebow, i think you might have to bite the bullet here

Mark my words, if they don't get a contract in place with Jake for the #1 pick before they pick him, they WON'T pick him. Parcells and Huizenga want to have the guy signed first, and if he doesn't they wil go another direction. They can probably get Gholston for the cheapest.

My question is for Scott: If this is just for leverage against Jake in contract negotiations, and they get a lower deal with Gholston, then they go to Jake and see if he will take less, what if he doesn't? Do they take Gholston then? Because I think they do.

I'm not conceding anything just yet BB, not until the Commish confirms it on the 26th.

thebow305
04-10-2008, 10:35 AM
But keep this in mind: This is what they said about the Houston Texans and Mario Williams. That it was leverage to sign Reggie Bush. And they said that right up until the Texans signed Mario Williams.

Very good point! Very well could happen here if they get a deal with Gholston and Jake doesn't want to bite, IMO.

bitonti
04-10-2008, 10:58 AM
They are negotiating with Gholston for leverage.


they both share the same agent so Im not sure how much leverage this will gain them

I think Condon told Parcells look ill get you an undermarket deal for one of my guys, let's work it out.

Scott Wright
04-10-2008, 11:19 AM
Mark my words, if they don't get a contract in place with Jake for the #1 pick before they pick him, they WON'T pick him. Parcells and Huizenga want to have the guy signed first, and if he doesn't they wil go another direction. They can probably get Gholston for the cheapest.

My question is for Scott: If this is just for leverage against Jake in contract negotiations, and they get a lower deal with Gholston, then they go to Jake and see if he will take less, what if he doesn't? Do they take Gholston then? Because I think they do.

I'm not conceding anything just yet BB, not until the Commish confirms it on the 26th.

I tend to agree that Parcells isn't going to take a guy if he doesn't have a deal in place. The Tuna isn't going to mess around, especially in a draft that lacks a true consensus #1 talent.

I still think it's down to Jake Long and Chris Long. If Parcells wants a 3-4 OLB I can't fathom him forsaking Chris Long's intangibles and the Al Groh factor in favor of Gholston.

BeerBaron
04-10-2008, 11:41 AM
Mark my words, if they don't get a contract in place with Jake for the #1 pick before they pick him, they WON'T pick him. Parcells and Huizenga want to have the guy signed first, and if he doesn't they wil go another direction. They can probably get Gholston for the cheapest.

My question is for Scott: If this is just for leverage against Jake in contract negotiations, and they get a lower deal with Gholston, then they go to Jake and see if he will take less, what if he doesn't? Do they take Gholston then? Because I think they do.

I'm not conceding anything just yet BB, not until the Commish confirms it on the 26th.

well then i guess we shall see then wont we?

This is why I wish there was rookie contracts in the NFL with salary locked for the first few years, especially for the number 1 pick where ability to get a contract is almost more important than who the prospect is.

excellent point. after seeing the trade chart revised, the next thing i would want to see is a wage scale for rookies. wont happen at least until upshaw gets booted out of the union but it needs to happen...

toonsterwu
04-10-2008, 11:45 AM
I don't expect a wage scale to be added unless something significant is handed over by owners, or the owners are willing to lock out the players and risk the NFL's popularity. The best solutions to reaching an accord would probably be either shortening the years of a rookie contract, or some sort of huge benefit given to veterans. Keep in mind, the player's union is only part of the dynamic, as the agents will get their say in this.

BeerBaron
04-10-2008, 11:50 AM
I don't expect a wage scale to be added unless something significant is handed over by owners, or the owners are willing to lock out the players and risk the NFL's popularity. The best solutions to reaching an accord would probably be either shortening the years of a rookie contract, or some sort of huge benefit given to veterans. Keep in mind, the player's union is only part of the dynamic, as the agents will get their say in this.

ugh.....well, i dont think the nfl locks out. even if theres a last minute deal to keep it going for another few years where one team gets screwed, they arent going to kill the goose laying the golden eggs. with baseball, basketball......nascar.....all around, theres no way they risk it.

and the whole idea of the union upsets me greatly. now, ive been through history class after history class and have seen all the good unions did in the past but this one is asinine and it pisses me off to see the former players as analysts now saying about how great the union is and whatnot.....ugh.....

a note to players: be happy with the millions of dollars you get and shut the hell up. let football be played in way in which it is best for everyone, not just just you.

toonsterwu
04-10-2008, 11:59 AM
Unions aren't there to serve the greater good. They are there for the current players best interests, along with future players interests. I mean, if we're going to critique the players union on, essentially, it's lack of focus on the greater society, then we should criticize the NFL on their antitrust exemption and so forth.

bigbluedefense
04-10-2008, 12:04 PM
i just don't get why Parcells is forcing the 3-4 on the Phins. He's drafted for the 4-3 before, and I think he'd be better off building a 4-3 on the Phins with Chris Long at LE.

But whatever. the man knows what he's doing.

BeerBaron
04-10-2008, 12:10 PM
Unions aren't there to serve the greater good. They are there for the current players best interests, along with future players interests. I mean, if we're going to critique the players union on, essentially, it's lack of focus on the greater society, then we should criticize the NFL on their antitrust exemption and so forth.

eh. i want to see the nfl played as it should be. no pointless rookie holdouts, no work stoppages.....it just gets frustrating and seems like union is only there to stand in the way of advancement

toonsterwu
04-10-2008, 12:28 PM
In all honesty, I think you are talking about watching football for the sake of the game, and the reality is, if you want football played for the sake of the game, then you have to go to HS football, and even now, there's so many external factors that, heck, pee wee football might be more appropriate (but even these days, a bunch of these kids are getting molded).

It's part of the fabric of professional sports. I could similarly make an argument that it's the NFL owners that are the ones causing so many problems. They are fighting against free market principles, while fighting for them at the same time. There's so many other things that could be thrown out there.

BeerBaron
04-10-2008, 12:30 PM
In all honesty, I think you are talking about watching football for the sake of the game, and the reality is, if you want football played for the sake of the game, then you have to go to HS football, and even now, there's so many external factors that, heck, pee wee football might be more appropriate (but even these days, a bunch of these kids are getting molded).

It's part of the fabric of professional sports. I could similarly make an argument that it's the NFL owners that are the ones causing so many problems. They are fighting against free market principles, while fighting for them at the same time. There's so many other things that could be thrown out there.

aye...i just want to see the thing go smoothly. whoever is appropriate for me to be upset at to get that is what i want i guess

give me a rookie wage system, an updated draft trade chart, a permanent salary cap, and no more of this lockout talk and i will be a very happy man

toonsterwu
04-10-2008, 12:34 PM
The draft value chart is really up to the owners themselves. Well, not even that. Up to the GM's more or less.

Giving up a rookie wage scale and a permanent salary cap would be huge concessions by the union and huge rewards for the NFL. It may happen down the road, but then again, this isn't the NHL and their weak player's union. I think a wage scale can happen in time. Shortening a rookie deal length would probably, as noted, be the easiest way to go, and that's certainly something I think owners would ponder as they would still gain greater levels of protection.

Permanent salary cap, I don't see it unless there's a lockout, or some gigantic concerssion, something which I can't begin to fathom unless I go back and look at the CBA. You would look at it as protecting the game. Remove that facet for one second and look at it as players vs. owners. Why should the owners share of the pie increase that dramatically?

bobindallas
04-10-2008, 08:31 PM
Well best story I heard was BP is looking to get the best $$$$ deal possible on one of these top 5-6 guys and then trade out the pick. Long is wanted by 2-3 teams in the top 10. Gholston same thing.

I agree they are going to do this with a bunch of guys and then call those other teams up and say "We will give you this kid and this contract in exchage for ...."

Perfect example could be Ryan -- get him cheap at the Number 1 and then trade him to Atlanta or the Ravens who may really want him .....

Pretty smart (actually f*ing brilliant) when there is no consesus #1.

Geo
04-10-2008, 08:49 PM
That makes no sense. Why wouldn't the teams just draft who they want at the cheaper slotting their current picks have?

The Falcons for example could just draft Matt Ryan with the third overall pick and sign him as the third overall pick, without having to give up a draft pick that they really need right now.

The Ravens likely won't seek to trade up for Ryan, but they'll take him if he lands at their pick. And they would then pay him as the 8th overall pick.

Let's not get carried away here, the Dolphins aren't going to pay the first overall pick cheaper than the third or fourth overall pick. It doesn't work that way, unless they want the guy to sit out a whole season. Well, maybe Gholston might go for it, only because he might be making money in that scenario than losing money as opposed to Long/Long/Dorsey.

NGSeiler
04-10-2008, 10:29 PM
and if they take Gholston? Which Long

Either. I think both would be excellent picks and the coaching staff/personnel guys seem to think highly of both. But they're not going to trade up for one when they'd be more than happy to take the other with their own pick.

I actually heard that the team is mroe content with their O line then outsiders are, they said Pace is healthier then everyone thinks he is, and Barron is playing fine right now, they dont want to pick a guy #2 and have him moving all around on the line, they would prefer Chris Long, Gholston, and maybe Dorsey over more O line help.

Not sure where you heard this. Linehan and VP of personnel Billy Devaney think very highly of Jake Long. I believe Linehan in fact referred to him as the best offensive line prospect he's ever seen, or something to that effect. Pace is recovering well, but offensive line coach Steve Loney is supposedly already growing frustrated with Barron. And the fact remains that the Rams don't have a legitimate third tackle right now, which they've needed the last two years.

BeerBaron
04-10-2008, 10:31 PM
Not sure where you heard this. Linehan and VP of personnel Billy Devaney think very highly of Jake Long. I believe Linehan in fact referred to him as the best offensive line prospect he's ever seen, or something to that effect. Pace is recovering well, but offensive line coach Steve Loney is supposedly already growing frustrated with Barron. And the fact remains that the Rams don't have a legitimate third tackle right now, which they've needed the last two years.

i think its incredibly hard to justify taking a guy at #2 overall who, barring injuries, rides the bench his first year.

sure he could kick into G but thats not his natural position and they brought in help there via FA with bell.

Geo
04-10-2008, 10:34 PM
Long is better than Barron, he'd play RT (as long as Pace stays healthy at LT) and Barron moves to RG in all likelihood (and hopefully cuts down on his penalties).

yodabear
04-10-2008, 10:41 PM
Not sure where you heard this. Linehan and VP of personnel Billy Devaney think very highly of Jake Long. I believe Linehan in fact referred to him as the best offensive line prospect he's ever seen, or something to that effect.

Well, thats all bad, horrible news for Jake, that will hurt his draft status.

NGSeiler
04-10-2008, 10:55 PM
i think its incredibly hard to justify taking a guy at #2 overall who, barring injuries, rides the bench his first year.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree that you don't take Jake Long at the second overall pick and make him a back-up. Instead, he'd likely be inserted into the starting line-up immediate at RT, and Alex Barron would become the third tackle the Rams are in need of.

There's talk that Barron could being considered for a move inside if the Rams find an alternate RT, but I'm not sure he has the mentality or the strength for the position. I'd be surprised if he beat out a healthy Incognito to start at RG.

BeerBaron
04-10-2008, 10:56 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree that you don't take Jake Long at the second overall pick and make him a back-up. Instead, he'd likely be inserted into the starting line-up immediate at RT, and Alex Barron would become the third tackle the Rams are in need of.

There's talk that Barron could being considered for a move inside if the Rams find an alternate RT, but I'm not sure he has the mentality or the strength for the position. I'd be surprised if he beat out a healthy Incognito to start at RG.

aye. it jsut seems to me that moving anyone around is a bad situation for them. if they really want a 3rd OT, they could wait until round 2 and grab sam baker if they wanted. take long or gholston at 2 and drastically upgrade the other side of that line with a guy who can start right away

NGSeiler
04-10-2008, 11:01 PM
aye. it jsut seems to me that moving anyone around is a bad situation for them. if they really want a 3rd OT, they could wait until round 2 and grab sam baker if they wanted. take long or gholston at 2 and drastically upgrade the other side of that line with a guy who can start right away

If Chris Long is there, I agree, he'd be the better choice. If Chris Long is gone, it becomes more difficult. The local writers seem to think Gholston is only an option if the team trades down, but I'm not as convinced.

And yes, they could take a 3rd OT in the second round. That's certainly an option. But by taking Jake Long in the first, that gives them not only an upgrade at RT and a eventual successor to Pace but also a third OT in Barron who already has starting NFL experience at both sides of the line.

thebow305
04-10-2008, 11:05 PM
aye. it jsut seems to me that moving anyone around is a bad situation for them. if they really want a 3rd OT, they could wait until round 2 and grab sam baker if they wanted. take long or gholston at 2 and drastically upgrade the other side of that line with a guy who can start right away

I agree with this. If I was the Rams, I would do this, unless of course they really don't like Barron.

BeerBaron
04-10-2008, 11:09 PM
I agree with this. If I was the Rams, I would do this, unless of course they really don't like Barron.

i think gholston and baker would be a real nice start to the rams draft, glad to see you agree

thebow305
04-10-2008, 11:25 PM
i think gholston and baker would be a real nice start to the rams draft, glad to see you agree

Or Chris Long and Baker...

Gholston won't be there. :)

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
04-10-2008, 11:28 PM
that's... a smart setup, hope for them it works. By the way Scott, do you ever sleep?

PS: 5,000!

Scott doesn't sleep, he waits...

BeerBaron
04-10-2008, 11:31 PM
Or Chris Long and Baker...

Gholston won't be there. :)

well then all the better for the rams, lol.