Roster Management: Moss in CF?

by Vlad on Jan 4, 2010 5:32 PM EST Comment 77 comments

Dejan addressed some roster management issues in today's Q&A , mostly in response to a question about Ramon Vazquez 's continued presence on the roster. More interestingly, however, he suggested that the team sees Brandon Moss as a viable backup option in CF. If so, this would seem to increase Delwyn Young 's chances of making the roster, while correspondingly decreasing minor league pickup Jonathan Van Every 's. It would also seem to suggest that Steve Pearce would need to unseat either Young or Jeff Clement in order to claim a job this spring.

Moss's career .700 OPS would unquestionably look much more adequate in center field, if he proves capable. He's got minimal professional experience at the position (a handful of innings at AAA in 2007), but he enjoyed a reputation as a good corner defender coming up through the minors, and UZR sees him as about a +10 defender per 150 games in a little over 1,400 career defensive innings in LF and RF, a large enough sample to provide at least some reason for optimism.

It will be interesting to see how he handles the challenge. His career with the Pirates may depend on the results.

[Edited for factual error.]

0 recs | Comment 77 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Can van Every be sent to AAA?

I liked the little I saw of him as a Red Sock (:D)

by BurgherKing on Jan 4, 2010 5:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

He got signed to a minor-league deal.

So yes. Some guys with minor league deals have an out clause if they aren’t promoted by a certain date. I’m not sure whether Van Every’s does or does not.

I like him a fair bit, too. He’s good depth.

by Vlad on Jan 4, 2010 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s to hopping Andrew McCutchen never gets injured in 2010.

by lrhotspot on Jan 4, 2010 6:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Any of our current options are better than the Jason Michaels CF safety net of two years ago.

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 4, 2010 6:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

J Mich was a clutch hit machine

by Sage18 on Jan 5, 2010 3:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Too bad he didn’t get more of those clutch opportunities. The rest of the time he couldn’t hit a lick.

by WTM on Jan 5, 2010 7:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why would Brandon Moss ever be considered for CF?

x2 to hoping that McCutchen never gets injured, and plays 175 games…but I geuss Moss’ numbers would look alot better in CF. I personally like John Raynor as a backup CF alot more, and think that Moss will have a hard time making the team because of Raynor.

It’s going to be very interesting to see the 25 man lineup in April…Its interesting now, and just think if we throw Nady, Blalock, or Ankiel into the mix!?

by FusilliJerry88 on Jan 4, 2010 6:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Am I the only person here who can see Moss bouncing back big?

just wonderin’

by epoc on Jan 4, 2010 7:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It wouldn't be out of the question...

Given his track record in the minors, but the more important question is will he get a chance? Given the chances he has already been given, I don’t see it happening unless there is an injury, or Garrett Jones comes out slumping.

But I agree with you in saying there is a chance that Moss still becomes something more than a 4th OF. I forget where (could have been here), but someone made an interesting comparison of Moss to Nate McClouth. I think the point was that McClouth only started (really) hitting after about 700 ML PA, and Moss is right there just about now (716 ML PA). No matter how frustrating last year was, I’m not ready to completely write off Moss.

by Maxwell.C on Jan 4, 2010 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he bounces back.....

….but not big, 265/.335/.425 seems reasonable to me. Which would still make him a fourth OF, just a better fourth OF.

by element1286 on Jan 4, 2010 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you, element, but I think it’s worth noting that his CHONE projection is almost exactly the slash line you cite (267/335/426), meaning that his upside is even higher. I really think he should be given another shot.

by epoc on Jan 4, 2010 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm always suspicious

of guys that can’t hit near .300 in the minors. It shows they aren’t making quality contact enough.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 4, 2010 8:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know what qualifies for near .300,

But Moss’ career batting average in the minors was .287. The only season I think would qualify him for not hitting “near” .300 would be his first year in AA as a 21-year old when he batted .268. Unless you want to drag up his stats from 02/03 where he batted .204/.237 at ages 18/19 in rookie and SS-A ball (a combined 382 PA), he’s hit very well in the minors. In his last three years in MiL ball, Moss hit in the mid-.280s on a very consistent basis.

I’m not saying he is going to be a star, or that he’s owed another shot. I’m just saying that if he were given another shot and did well, I wouldn’t be completely surprised. Add in the fact that he hit’s LH just as well as RH, and there’s no reason to give up on him yet.

by Maxwell.C on Jan 4, 2010 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm only counting AAA stats

So that puts Moss at .282 in both his AAA seasons. That may not seem like a big difference, but Nate McLouth and Jason Bay, both MLB .265-.280 hitters were able to hit right about .300 in AAA. Plus, Moss was around 30% K/AB ratio in AAA, so you see he has a history of contact issues. He actually lowered that to 21% in MLB this year, which should be good progress, except for he’s obviously done it at the expense of quality contact. Also, in AAA he wasn’t a real high OBP guy either.

He might acquire these skills, but the rap with Moss is that he’s not good at pitch recognition. He can’t tell the difference between a breaking ball and a fast ball.

There’s really nothing that I would see from his AAA stats that tells me he should hit higher than .260 in MLB.

Andy LaRoche and Clement, on the other hand, have shown that there could be good hitters locked inside.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 4, 2010 11:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Understand

Now I get your logic, although I was not debating that Moss should be taking AB over LaRoche or Clement (or how that would even make sense), just that he would probably be a better option in RF against lefties than Jones.

… Although I don’t think you were comparing those three players when it comes to playing time.

by Maxwell.C on Jan 4, 2010 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I was just comparing their minor league histories to say why I think Andy and Clement have a better chance of having good careers than Moss does.

I think that against lefties, Tabata is probably going to be a better option in the end, but of course not to start the season.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 5, 2010 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Moss can be productive hitting .260

It depends on his power development. A .335/.450 OBP/SLG is basically Xavier Nady’s career line.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 9:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s pretty much where I see Moss’ ceiling. The question is whether he gets to the ceiling or not.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 5, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You know who would be a fine backup OF?

Rajai Davis.

Dave Littlefield, the gift that keeps on giving.

by lrhotspot on Jan 4, 2010 7:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If they feel they must keep Vazquez, I’d rather keep Pearce as than DY to back up the corner OF spots. We need someone on the bench who can hit LHP.

by maguro on Jan 4, 2010 8:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Thank you!

Pearce also needs to platoon with Jones in RF (or 1B).

I’m going to say this until I’m blue in the face.

Steve Pearce career OPS — against LHP .920 — against RHP .607 (2009 .867 vs. .562)
Garrett Jones career OPS — against LHP .646 — against RHP .961(2009 .698 vs. 1.046)

by WstCstBucco on Jan 4, 2010 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I tried...

that stat in August and September and got widely criticized. The next inning that Jones misses will be his first since the Pirates called him up…even though it’s obvious he struggles against lefties.

by Thunder on Jan 5, 2010 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The crazy thing is

Jeff Clement has a decently strong reverse platoon split normally, including in MLB.

So, the platoon might be better having Jones hit against righties and Tabata against lefties.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 5, 2010 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A platoon would make sense.

But as I’ve noted before when this has come up, RHB’s L/R splits are NOT predictive. All RHB will, over time, regress toward a 1.09 ratio of their OPS vs. LHP to their OPS vs. RHP. (Link). As such, if used as the short half of a platoon, Pearce isn’t going to be putting up a .920 OPS against LHP. It’ll be a much lower number – albeit still higher than Jones’s, which is why a platoon makes sense anyway.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 9:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for posting that link. I was unaware of the study he refers to, but it made for interesting reading.

by gorillagogo on Jan 5, 2010 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's very interesting stuff.

It only applies to RHB, not LHB or switch-hitters. Probably a function of selection pressures in the lowest levels of the game, but nobody really knows for sure.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's just that

Lefties are harder to hit. They are freaks and throw from weird arm angles and such and have more natural movement in my experience. :)

by Mr. E on Jan 8, 2010 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Can anybody think

of an instance where JR has used a platoon? He seems to be a mostly “run the same eight guys out there most nights” kind of manager. Of course, given what he had to work with …

by bucdaddy on Jan 5, 2010 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he has been in “let’s see what these crazy kids can do mode” instead of “I’ve seen enough of this lefty trying to hit against lefties” mode.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 5, 2010 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

He seemed to make the exception for GJones, but otherwise he didn’t let Moss go out and hit left handers very often for example.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 5, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Comical

Just a year ago, PBC had 3 defensively legit CF’s on the 25 man roster (McLouth, Morgan and Cutch).

Now, down to one. I feel sorry for whoever is the SP the day Moss plays CF.

And please, let’s not even mention Jeff Salazar (or Chris Duffy). .043 and .125 BA in 2009, respectively.

by WstCstBucco on Jan 4, 2010 8:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A year ago, Morgan and even Cutch were far from established. Maybe Raynor and/or even Tabata can do the same this year.

by Adam Reynolds on Jan 4, 2010 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Salazar's 2009...

…was not representative of his true talent level.

And how do you know how Moss is going to do in the role until he tries it?

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 9:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

McLouth

McLouth was not a defensively legit CF by any stretch of the imagination. His gold glove was a joke. UZR indicates that Moss could play average defense in centerfield. If Cutch needs a day off, this won’t hurt anyone. If the Buc’s are worried, they can schedule these breaks for days when they are sending a groundball pitcher.

by uneasy rider on Jan 5, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone who believes Moss would be a better defensive CF than McLouth needs to watch more baseball.

by lrhotspot on Jan 5, 2010 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It would be tough to tell from watching baseball...

…insofar as Moss has never played so much as an inning in CF.

Thanks for playing, though.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So you’re saying you would need to see Moss play CF before making a judgement on whether he could?

by lrhotspot on Jan 5, 2010 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you could have a guess...

…but there’s no way to really know until you put him on the field and have him try it.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t need to see Anyy LaRoche play SS to know he couldn’t do it. And I’ve seen enough of Moss in the outfield to conclude he wouldn’t be very good. Or at least, he wouldn’t be remotely as capable as Nate McLouth,which was my point all along. And I’m fine giving Moss a chance in CF considering how it may be his only way of sticking with the Pirates, but when you realize he hasn’t played there since 2007 in AAA, I’m not holding my breath.

by lrhotspot on Jan 5, 2010 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's a strange comparison.

In that basically none of the skills that make you a good SS transfer to being a good 1B, and vice-versa. In contrast, having good range and a strong arm (the things that make Moss a good LF/RF) are also traits shared by a good defensive CF.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Considering how LaRoche was drafted as a SS and is being considered as a possible middle infielder, the comparison isn’t that strange. But more importantly, I don’t think anyone needs to see Moss in CF to determine it’s not his position. And he’s defenitly not better in CF than Nate McLouth.

by lrhotspot on Jan 5, 2010 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, you meant Andy.

I thought you were talking about Adam. That’s a little less crazy, then.

That said, you still need to provide evidence of your claim if you want to persuade anyone. Moss’s defensive reputation with scouts is good, and his fielding numbers with advanced metrics are equally good. Why, in your view, are both of those giving false indications of his defensive ability?

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Plus

Nate was a liability in CF two years ago and then slightly above average last year — so it’s not like Nate is all-world in CF.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 5, 2010 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve always argued Nate’s limitations in CF are greatly exaggerated by many fans. But I just don’t see Moss having the quickness to play CF, even to Nate’s level.

And I now realize I misspelled Andy’s name in my original statement about him playing SS.

by lrhotspot on Jan 5, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why do you think

Nate is underrated?

by Slizeezyc on Jan 5, 2010 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two reasons:

1. The defensive metrics used to rate him are flawed.

2. Saying he isn’t a good defensive CF helps justify his trade for many.

by lrhotspot on Jan 5, 2010 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Specifically...

…which flaws are you talking about, and to what extent do you feel they underrate him?

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Primarily UZR. There comes a point when one has to look at the conclusions of a metric and ask if it passes the reasonability test. Saying Nyjer Morgan is the best defensive OF in baseball is clearly not true. And then you look at the wide discrepancy between Nate’s defensive stats from 2008 to 2009. Does anyone really think he was that much better in 2009? Unlike hitting, I don’t think players will have THAT much of a swing defensively from one year to the next.

But more importantly, I’m not saying Nate is an elite CF deserving of a Gold Glove. But he’s arguably somewhere between slightly above average to good.

by lrhotspot on Jan 5, 2010 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good Answer.

ta.
:)

by BlindSquirrel on Jan 5, 2010 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Technically, UZR isn't measuring ability.

It’s measuring plays made, and the value of those plays. As such, I don’t have a problem with it delivering varying results from year-to-year. Nate was, in all likelihood, pretty much the same fielder in 2008 that he was in 2009, but he may not have had the same opportunities in the field, and when you combine that with the inherent variability of human performance, you get swings in production.

I think that the 2008 UZR numbers understated Nate’s abilities, but I also think he’s probably a below-average fielder in CF, maybe a -5 or so. He was consistently seen as such by the scouts while coming up through the minors. That’s why the Pirates of the time preferred Duffy – he was viewed in baseball as a true CF with a fringy bat, while Nate was seen as more of a tweener, with a good bat for CF and a good glove for a corner OF.

Getting another year’s worth of data outside of PNC should help clarify things. I know that MGL has expressed some concerns about LF/CF interactions in PNC Park.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The fact they’ve acknowledge they need to adjust their PNC metrics justifies my claim it’s a flawed statistic. And just to be clear, I’m not saying it’s worthless. Only flawed. And there’s enough reason to question it’s validity that I don’t like people using it to definitely prove one player being superior or inferior to another. As much as I like the idea of quantifying defense, I simply don’t believe there’s either enough data or the data is too subjective to claim it’s as accurate as many would like to believe. I’ve seen enough of both Matt Kemp and Nyjer Morgan to know there isn’t much of a gap between the two defensively. I’d go so far as to claim Kemp is better, but UZR150 msot certainly disagrees with me. And I’ve also seen enough of Randy Winn to know as he’s solid, he’s not remotely elite. And I can find examples of this all day long.

by lrhotspot on Jan 5, 2010 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In Vlad's case

He didn’t simply use UZR, he also referred to scouts at the minor league levels for example. I agree with you that no one thing should be the be-all-end-all as it relates to judging a player though. Also Nate had to be re-positioned, which doesn’t have anything to do with UZR rather Pittsburgh’s own philosophy about CF positioning.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 5, 2010 7:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't you have to also mentally adjust offensive stats as well?

If someone plays on the Red Sox or on the Padres, doesn’t that make a difference with their offensive numbers?

What you are not realizing is that all stats are flawed to some extent, and actually UZR is not any more flawed than is batting average or slugging percentage.

Offensive numbers fluctuate from year to year all the time and they do so for many of the same reasons that UZR does. A batter hits a line drive right at a fielder. That’s good luck for the fielder and bad luck for the batter. The batter could not have known exactly where that ball was going to go. Batters can not control that, only how good the contact is and the approximate direction.

There is a certain amount of luck involved in baseball, whether that be for pitchers, fielders or batters. The only difference is that batters normally get more opportunities for things to even out and that normally provides a “truer” sense of their ability as it relates to the statistics.

UZR makes no distinction between “defensive ability” or defensive positioning. Positioning is simply considered to be part of the skill of the position.

BTW, batting average also doesn’t take into account whether a good pitcher or mediocre pitcher was on the mound.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 5, 2010 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think you’ve provided much of an answer to Vlad’s question. First off, I’ve seen plenty of Nyjer and have no doubt that he’s that good. His routes improved dramatically in 2009, his speed is outstanding, his first step is very quick (quicker than McCutchen’s, for example) and his athleticism lets him catch anything he can reach. Nothing about the UZR ratings for Morgan strikes me as the least bit unrealistic, certainly nothing that would cause me to dismiss UZR’s utility.

Nate’s improvement also isn’t that remarkable. First off—and Nate himself talked about this—the Pirates had him playing extremely shallow in 2008. They rely a lot on charting and other defensive data, and they chose to move him deeper in 2009, which tells me they realized their positioning was flawed. There was also some extended discussion, I think in the Fielding Bible, about how Nate’s positioning might have been part of the problem, so that alone could explain a lot of the improvement. I’ve also consistently found that major leaguers tend to improve a lot defensively with 2-3 years of experience, probably due to the difference in the speed of the game at the major league level. That’s something coaches refer to all the time. So I don’t find the swing to be at all improbable, certainly again nothing that’s anywhere close to justifying a conclusion that UZR is flawed.

by WTM on Jan 5, 2010 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The positioning

Is what I was going to bring up if you hadn’t WTM. Nate also wasn’t exclusively a CFer coming up, so that’s why I don’t really have beef with Moss being thrown out there as a potential guy who can sub for Cutch once in a blue moon.

BTW, hotspot I think you get thrown off by UZR somewhat because you have somewhat of a misunderstanding of it. Treating UZR in one year samples isn’t the best course of action, but you also seem to have miscalculated what UZR is even telling you, so that may be why you don’t like UZR.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 5, 2010 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As I mentioned earlier, there really should not be that large of a swing defensively. Players generally don’t improve that much or decline that much during the prime of their careers. And it’s because of these large yearly swings, I’m not ready to fully embrace and trust most defensive statistics.

by lrhotspot on Jan 5, 2010 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hence

Why you take the large sample size and go from there. Even the person behind UZR doesn’t think it’s good to judge a player’s UZR based on one year.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 5, 2010 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But

I don’t want to confuse that point with the fact that Nyjer was clearly better than he was in the past by a wide margin — the eyes and stats back that up, as does the before and after.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 5, 2010 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not all of the swing is ability.

When there are large performance swings on offense or pitching, we don’t immediately throw out BA or ERA as useful indicators. If Bill Mueller hits .262 in one year and .326 in another, we recognize that he didn’t suddenly move from a true-talent .260 hitter to a true-talent .330 one.

by Vlad on Jan 6, 2010 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When I first read it...

…I thought you meant “Any” LaRoche, which is why I responded as I did.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 6:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, however...

…for pointing out the 2007 thing. Post has been corrected.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jonathan who?

And I thought I was paying attention …

by bucdaddy on Jan 4, 2010 8:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Same here

He had knee surgery last June, which probably makes it a little less newsworthy

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.

by glass0941 on Jan 4, 2010 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He goes by Jon.

(Guess Charlie cleaned it up to enable the metatag.)

He was our first NRI of the offseason, actually signing with the club for 2010 during the waning weeks of the season. High-quality AAA player, lefty CF, missed most of 2009 after knee surgery. Has a fair bit of pop, some contact issues, fairly low BA, ran pretty well before the knee injury. Originally a low-round draftee by Cleveland who exceeded expectations, playing his way from space-filler to org player to fringe prospect. Spent the last two years in Boston’s system and got cups of coffee with them in both seasons. He’s 30 now, so this is probably as good as it gets for him, but should be capable of being a respectable fill-in if we need him.

2010 CHONE is .223/.313/.397, 2010 ZiPS is .226/.301/.393 (in Fenway). If you want a point of comparison, think maybe a faster Adam Hyzdu.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW, the Red Sox liked Van Every as AAA depth and didn’t want to lose him. They needed roster space during their late season personnel maneuvers and he was out for the year anyway.

by WTM on Jan 5, 2010 9:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I still think theres a very good chance he bounces back, but I just don’t think he’ll get the opportunity to do it for the Pirates unless he absolutely rakes in Spring Training, and/or Garrett Jones flakes out, and Jeff Clement does’nt show anything.

I think as of now though Jones will start the year in right and Clement at first, and neither will allow Moss much playing time…

by FusilliJerry88 on Jan 4, 2010 10:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

As it should be.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 4, 2010 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

According to Bill James’ new toy strong seasons leading index
Moss does have a chance to bounce back.

by taiwania on Jan 5, 2010 3:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, that's a great toy

except that, at the end of the thing, you get that there are only 14 guys in all of baseball who had over 400 PAs and a 50-50 chance of doing as well or better next year. That seems low, and I’m dubious that David Wright is likely to be worse next year, but I’m reasonably convinced by his method. We’ll see.

by JRoth95 on Jan 5, 2010 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is, apparently...

…why they’re projecting Moss as the backup CF.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 9:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Goodbye to the glut

Would it make more sense to make a package of Pearce, Walker, and Vasquez for the O’s Felix Pie and a minor league prospect? It might releave the team of the players they don’t have a use for in the near future and give the O’s a few utility players.

by formerdraftpick on Jan 4, 2010 11:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not for the Orioles, it wouldn't.

And we can’t just declare deals by executive fiat.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 9:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why

not?

by Maxwell.C on Jan 5, 2010 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We don't have the Bomb.

by Vlad on Jan 5, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

so all your base aren't belong to us

Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: DIck Lebeau, Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Chris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"If you give Arians a fullback, he won’t use one. Instead, he insists on using Matt Spaeth, who probably doesn’t cast a shadow because it would require blocking sunlight." Cliff harris is still a punk with some very true words

by WVPiratesfan on Jan 5, 2010 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs