TKnight24

CB Bashaud Breeland likely to sign with Colts

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think the chances of the 50th ranked ANYTHING don't correlate to being ranked as a top-30 free agent.   Even in a down FA market like this way.

 

I'd like to know whose ranking had Breeland as the 50th ranked CB?

 

 

PFF.  However Bleacher Report had him as the 21st best outside QB.  

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2018/5/16/17361592/colts-visiting-with-former-washington-cornerback-bashaud-breeland-today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think the chances of the 50th ranked ANYTHING don't correlate to being ranked as a top-30 free agent.   Even in a down FA market like this way.

 

I'd like to know whose ranking had Breeland as the 50th ranked CB?

 

 

I am sure he is referencing the typical PFF rankings

 

PFF had Breeland ranked 54th amongst CBs last year and graded him as a 79.0 or an "Average" player.

 

I'm sure that is what he is likely referencing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think the chances of the 50th ranked ANYTHING don't correlate to being ranked as a top-30 free agent.   Even in a down FA market like this way.

 

I'd like to know whose ranking had Breeland as the 50th ranked CB?

 

PFF has him 54th, but I have no idea out of how many. It's possible it's out of like... 120 or something. 

 

His rating was 79.0 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional stuff on Breeland rankings for folks asking.

 

I hate PFF rankings, but they are something to simply nonsense and start conversations about so people often quote them.

 

Interesting that Bleacher Report (another ranking I am not super fond of most times) had Breeland as the 21st best outside Corner

 

 

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2018/5/16/17361592/colts-visiting-with-former-washington-cornerback-bashaud-breeland-today

 

 

Edit: My bad. Didn't see that SM posted this before. Sorry for the duplicate. Must have posted while I was responding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Colts_Fan12 said:

Ok can we please sign him and one of the safeties! :D

 

I'll take Breeland, but I don't really want either of those safeties. If we're going to sign a safety -- and I don't think we need to -- it should be Eric Reid.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I'll take Breeland, but I don't really want either of those safeties. If we're going to sign a safety -- and I don't think we need to -- it should be Eric Reid.

I wanted him too but with his lawsuit and stuff hes prolly not going anywhere for a lil bit if he would come here then by all means lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:

Additional stuff on Breeland rankings for folks asking.

 

I hate PFF rankings, but they are something to simply nonsense and start conversations about so people often quote them.

 

Interesting that Bleacher Report (another ranking I am not super fond of most times) had Breeland as the 21st best outside Corner

 

 

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2018/5/16/17361592/colts-visiting-with-former-washington-cornerback-bashaud-breeland-today

 

Yeah, I’m not a fan of any subjective type rankings, but they are at least something to use for metrics. I don’t follow PFF but from what I’ve read they are very thorough.  Still, for most positions it is subjective.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Yeah, I’m not a fan of any subjective type rankings, but they are at least something to use for metrics. I don’t follow PFF but from what I’ve read they are very thorough.  Still, for most positions it is subjective.  

 

 

Absolutely.

 

I enjoy really any set of rankings for entertainment and conversation purposes. I just have grown to dislike PFF more and more because people are starting to use them as gospel and as the end-all be-all of rankings to say how good a player is or isn't.

 

Some of that is on the NFL, though. They started using PFF rankings in their intros on primetime games where they show how a guy ranks at his position during his intro using the PFF system.

 

My biggest issue is a lot of times the "eye test" doesn't coincide with the PFF ranking.

 

I can sit there and say "Player A had a good game" or "Player B had a great season" and then when i check their rankings it basically says what I saw was wrong and that some other guy (sometimes even on the same team) vastly outperformed Player A or B.

 

I know that's how it goes with subjective rankings, but still it can be frustrating.

 

Either way, in terms of Breeland, I feel comfortable at least saying that I feel he would be the best CB on our roster if we did sign him. That we be based on just my opinion and no actual rankings or metrics. But i would feel better w him in the fold for sure.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:

I enjoy really any set of rankings for entertainment and conversation purposes. I just have grown to dislike PFF more and more because people are starting to use them as gospel and as the end-all be-all of rankings to say how good a player is or isn't.

 

 

Like you, my beef isn't with PFF at all. My beef is with people who refer to PFF as if they are infallible. But no one else offers the service they offer to the public (I continue to debate whether I want to buy their new offering; I was one of the old subscribers when it was $25/year). They get treated like they're the gold standard, but really, they're the only standard right now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington traded Fuller, had ample cap space, had him for 4 years and still let Breeland walk. If PFF rating of average and inconsistent isn't enough for you.
 Ballard is thorough so what he decides to invest in works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dgambill said:

Just wondering...does he still play on the outside or had Washington moved him to the slot? 8 million is quite a bit for a slot corner. Not saying we can't afford it but if he isn't starting on the outside it would have me wondering if we want him starting for that money instead of Hairston.

Outside guy. Was gonna be the #1 guy in WASH before the Josh Norman signing. Stayed at #2 and Fuller/Dunbar were the slot players 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

Washington traded Fuller, had ample cap space, had him for 4 years and still let Breeland walk. If PFF rating of average and inconsistent isn't enough for you.
 Ballard is thorough so what he decides to invest in works for me.

Breeland is sort of average to me.   I don't think he's that great.

And especially not for top shelf money.   I could be wrong but.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dgambill said:

I mean we gave Greg Toler like 5 million....I'd gladly give 3 more for a better corner lol. I think it is safe to say he won't get the original deal from anyone....after all that is why he accepted it from Carolina....it was likely the highest deal. So I'm firmly in the 5-7 range and depending on years. If we have to believe 8 was the best offer he got before since he accepted that deal then likely people were offering less before....can't see why they would bid more now...especially after the draft etc. I think this comes down to medical and if we can agree on contract length. I'm sure we can be in the ball park on money.

You mean Toler didnt leave Indy than make it to pro bowl with witchever sucker took him off our hands?:) I suppose my only question on Breeland is does he have an injury history? Or just the recent foot thing? CBall offers 1 yr 6mil deal, thats my guess.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.NotSoCreative said:

You mean Toler didnt leave Indy than make it to pro bowl with witchever sucker took him off our hands?:) I suppose my only question on Breeland is does he have an injury history? Or just the recent foot thing? CBall offers 1 yr 6mil deal, thats my guess.

 

Breeland was a starter all four of his years with Washington.  He started 57 out of a possible 64 games.   He missed 2, 2, 2 and 1 games in his four seasons.

 

The kid plays.  This injury happened AFTER the season was over and turned into an infection.   He is said to be healthy now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mr.NotSoCreative said:

You mean Toler didnt leave Indy than make it to pro bowl with witchever sucker took him off our hands?:) I suppose my only question on Breeland is does he have an injury history? Or just the recent foot thing? CBall offers 1 yr 6mil deal, thats my guess.

Just the foot thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TKnight24 said:

Outside guy. Was gonna be the #1 guy in WASH before the Josh Norman signing. Stayed at #2 and Fuller/Dunbar were the slot players 

Ok. I'd heard he has had his struggles on the outside but played well in the slot. I couldn't remember if they moved him inside this past year or not. Figured that would be why Washington balked at paying to keep him. Hard to imagine since they aren't exactly loaded at corner outside of Norman that they moved on. Thank you...that answers my question though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If our GM doesn't see our D being playoff level this season, then I doubt he offers the kind of money the player will get in regards to supply and demand of that position at this time in the NFL landscape. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Ballard has brought in and let several FAs walk over the last two seasons. Ryan Jensen is an example from this offseason.

 

And it could be that the Colts make an offer they're comfortable with, and then Breeland goes to AZ or wherever else and they outbid us. Maybe we offer him the 2/14, but the Cardinals do a full physical and offer him the 3/24 that he originally had. 

 

I don't know, maybe this is what the Colts were waiting for all along -- many of us, including you and I, have suggested that this would be a possibility after the comp period ended -- but I'm skeptical that Ballard will match his original contract from March. 

 

 

This is why if you want Breeland , you (Colts) don't let him leave Indy without a contract. If you constantly do what you suggest Ballard might do , you'll pretty much never sign a free agent that has significant interest by other teams. That's the advantage of having the player visit you first ... no ? If he just gives him a half "butt" offer and let's him go to AZ , they (AZ) then has the advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Just the foot thing

Cooo, seems like it could be a good opportunity than, maybe CBall surprises us, gonna change my guess to 2yr 10 mil, especially since he should have a chance to be a starter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Breeland was a starter all four I'd Hus years with Washington.  He started 57 out of a possible 64 games.   He missed 2, 2, 2 and 1 games in his four seasons.

 

The kid plays.  This injury happened AFTER the season was over and turned into an infection.   He is said to be healthy now.

 

Thanks for the info, sounds like he could be a good pick up if the healthy part holds true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see us giving him a Hankins style (style not money) deal where he gets payed well, but we can still get out of the contract after the first year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if he is ranked 51st that still means he is #2 corner material.  Another ranking mentioned said he was 21st.  That is #1 on a few teams.  Even if he is average he can still contribute and lock down a spot while younger players develop.  If Ballard agrees he will sign him.  I trust his judgement 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 yrs, $21M w/$11m of that guaranteed. 

 

Regardless of that salary prediction, bottom line from my perspective, if he’d be a quality starter that is appreciably better than the talent already in the room, then I’d like to see him signed ... and being that his pay isn’t out of my pocket, I don’t care about the contract details, as long as said contract does not hamstring the team’s salary cap situation for the following two offseason’s after this year’s.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

This is why if you want Breeland , you (Colts) don't let him leave Indy without a contract. If you constantly do what you suggest Ballard might do , you'll pretty much never sign a free agent that has significant interest by other teams. That's the advantage of having the player visit you first ... no ? If he just gives him a half "butt" offer and let's him go to AZ , they (AZ) then has the advantage.

 

So if Ballard is thinking the way you're thinking, then he's bringing Breeland in to make an offer that should be good enough to seal the deal. Makes sense. This shouldn't be a "kicking the tires" kind of visit.

 

The reason I'm skeptical is Ballard didn't approach early free agency that way. They actually brought in free agents and let them walk, probably with every expectation that the player would sign elsewhere. And here we are, with Breeland already scheduled to visit another team after the Colts. And coincidentally, that team evidently outbid the Colts this season for another FA -- Justin Pugh. 

 

We'll see what happens. I hope they do sign him, but I don't think Ballard sees this kind of move as essential to his multiyear rebuild. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So if Ballard is thinking the way you're thinking, then he's bringing Breeland in to make an offer that should be good enough to seal the deal. Makes sense. This shouldn't be a "kicking the tires" kind of visit.

 

The reason I'm skeptical is Ballard didn't approach early free agency that way. They actually brought in free agents and let them walk, probably with every expectation that the player would sign elsewhere. And here we are, with Breeland already scheduled to visit another team after the Colts. And coincidentally, that team evidently outbid the Colts this season for another FA -- Justin Pugh. 

 

We'll see what happens. I hope they do sign him, but I don't think Ballard sees this kind of move as essential to his multiyear rebuild. 

 

Regarding Ballard and his multiyear plan...    I've been thinking about something and I want to run it past you...

 

We didn't spend a lot of money last year.   Weren't we way below the 89 percent cap figure last year?

 

And whether or not we sign Breeland, it looks like we'll be way, way below that figure again this year.

 

And Ballard has already hinted that his approach to FA in 19 will be pretty much what we did this year.   So even with another big haul of draft talent next year it feels like we'll be way under the 89 percent figure for the third straight year.

 

I know this is all legal.   But doesnt that  pretty much commit us to spend pretty close to all the way to the cap limit in 2020?!?    If it's a 4-year rolling average, aren't we going to be on the spot in '20 to spend, Spend, SPEND!! 

 

Your thoughts?   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So if Ballard is thinking the way you're thinking, then he's bringing Breeland in to make an offer that should be good enough to seal the deal. Makes sense. This shouldn't be a "kicking the tires" kind of visit.

 

The reason I'm skeptical is Ballard didn't approach early free agency that way. They actually brought in free agents and let them walk, probably with every expectation that the player would sign elsewhere. And here we are, with Breeland already scheduled to visit another team after the Colts. And coincidentally, that team evidently outbid the Colts this season for another FA -- Justin Pugh. 

 

We'll see what happens. I hope they do sign him, but I don't think Ballard sees this kind of move as essential to his multiyear rebuild. 

 

 

You're no doubt correct about what Ballard's approach seemingly appears to be. It might have to change at some point but that's a whole other issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Breeland comands more than a 1 year deal at this point. He's still young so a one year deal to prove he's healthy makes sense. Then he can try to cash in the following year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

I doubt Breeland comands more than a 1 year deal at this point. He's still young so a one year deal to prove he's healthy makes sense. Then he can try to cash in the following year.

He had an infected foot from an untreated cut while on vacation not a on the field injury

 

  if he gets a 1 year deal it is because he wantsit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...   it's now past 7p Eastern Time.. 

 

No news that Breeland has left the building and is on his way to Phoenix...   

 

So....   we continue to wait and look for white smoke coming from the chimney on w. 56th St.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Regarding Ballard and his multiyear plan...    I've been thinking about something and I want to run it past you...

 

We didn't spend a lot of money last year.   Weren't we way below the 89 percent cap figure last year?

 

And whether or not we sign Breeland, it looks like we'll be way, way below that figure again this year.

 

And Ballard has already hinted that his approach to FA in 19 will be pretty much what we did this year.   So even with another big haul of draft talent next year it feels like we'll be way under the 89 percent figure for the third straight year.

 

I know this is all legal.   But doesnt that  pretty much commit us to spend pretty close to all the way to the cap limit in 2020?!?    If it's a 4-year rolling average, aren't we going to be on the spot in '20 to spend, Spend, SPEND!! 

 

Your thoughts?   

 

 

Just out of curiosity I would like to see where we are percentage wise against the cap floor as well. 

 

Although it wouldn't be hard to work some accounting magic and get that 89% if we really wanted to without going crazy in FA...just heavily frontload some contracts on current players who are up for or close to new contracts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Regarding Ballard and his multiyear plan...    I've been thinking about something and I want to run it past you...

 

We didn't spend a lot of money last year.   Weren't we way below the 89 percent cap figure last year?

 

And whether or not we sign Breeland, it looks like we'll be way, way below that figure again this year.

 

And Ballard has already hinted that his approach to FA in 19 will be pretty much what we did this year.   So even with another big haul of draft talent next year it feels like we'll be way under the 89 percent figure for the third straight year.

 

I know this is all legal.   But doesnt that  pretty much commit us to spend pretty close to all the way to the cap limit in 2020?!?    If it's a 4-year rolling average, aren't we going to be on the spot in '20 to spend, Spend, SPEND!! 

 

Your thoughts?   

 

 

I don't think the minimum cash spending threshold is or should be a part of the team's strategy, long term. I think they should be more worried about a potential cap retraction in the first couple years of the next CBA. A lockout is likely, which means a different revenue sharing agreement and maybe lost revenue. That's what happened in 2011.

 

But to your point, the requirement is to spend 89% of the 2017-20 four year cumulative cap, in cash. The cap last year was $167m; this year it's $177m. Assuming a continual 6% increase (which is less than everyone projected over the last few years; it used to be 7-8%), the 2019 cap will be $187m, and in 2020 it will be $198m. Total = $729m. That means every team needs to have cash spending of at least $649m over that four year period.

 

According to Spotrac, the Colts spent $155m last year, and have committed $153m this year, so far (look for this to change, as it includes the 90 man roster). That means they have to spend a total of $341m, in cash, in 2019 and 2020. That's an average of just over $170m over the next two seasons, so definitely an uptick from where they are this year. 

 

At this point, I'll note again that there is no noteworthy penalty for not hitting the 89% threshold over that four year period. The teams that don't reach that threshold are required to cut a check to the union to cure the shortage. If you're concerned about cap retraction in the next CBA, it would be better to cut a retroactive check for $20m -- with no future cap penalty -- than to be $20m over the cap in 2021. 

 

I think Ballard will open the purse strings in the future. It might be that 2020 is the year he does so, and a couple big signing/roster bonuses might get the team to the 89% cash threshold right in the nick of time. That's also the year that Castonzo and the 2016 draft class hit free agency, and the 2017 draft class will be eligible for extensions that year also.

 

Long story short, I'm not worried about the floor and I don't think Ballard should be either. But it only takes a handful of contracts over the next three seasons to put the Colts on track to hit the threshold.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Difference, IMO, is Grant jumped at the next opportunity, while Breeland has waited two months, presumably to get what he wants.

Except....this is late in the FA game. The $ aren't there like they were earlier. I would hope the Colts can get this guy on a one year prove it deal or a fair two year contract. I doubt the $8 mil. per year deal is still out there, and I really don't think the Colts will offer him that much. However, this is a player worth spending some of the cap on. I hope he's a Colt by tomorrow morning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

You're no doubt correct about what Ballard's approach seemingly appears to be. It might have to change at some point but that's a whole other issue. 

 

He's said it will. I admit I didn't expect him to be so frugal and conservative this year, but I get it. He wants to actually build a foundation and establish a culture, then use free agency as it's supposed to be used -- to supplement the draft and address a couple/few immediate needs. Even with an A+ offseason, and Luck at near-MVP level like 2014, the Colts still are second class in the AFC, so I'm okay with Ballard looking to future years as being the real time for us to contend. 

 

That being the case, having a 29 year old veteran CB hitting free agency right after we make a deep playoff run is a good thing if you want future comp picks. Signing Breeland to a 3 year deal isn't necessarily a bad idea. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Superman said:

..... 

 

I think Ballard will open the purse strings in the future. It might be that 2020 is the year he does so, and a couple big signing/roster bonuses might get the team to the 89% cash threshold right in the nick of time. That's also the year that Castonzo and the 2016 draft class hit free agency, and the 2017 draft class will be eligible for extensions that year also.

....... 

 

2020 is also the last year of Hilton's contract. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hoose said:

Except....this is late in the FA game. The $ aren't there like they were earlier. I would hope the Colts can get this guy on a one year prove it deal or a fair two year contract. I doubt the $8 mil. per year deal is still out there, and I really don't think the Colts will offer him that much. However, this is a player worth spending some of the cap on. I hope he's a Colt by tomorrow morning. 

 

True, the Panthers, for instance, have moved on and couldn't offer him the same deal they offered in March. But there are 5-7 teams with over $20m in cap space that could jump on Breeland if they wanted. The Cardinals have a second visit with him, and they're at $15m. It's not like there's no competition. 

 

The Browns are the only team with more cap space than us ($67m), and they spent a first on a corner; the third team is the Niners, and they're at $37m. We're at $56m. If we want him, we can have him, obviously. But Ballard has proven to be extremely principled in free agency. Whatever the Colts do will be about value, not cap space.

2 minutes ago, esmort said:

 

2020 is also the last year of Hilton's contract. 

 

He's a FA in 2021. AC is a FA in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He's said it will. I admit I didn't expect him to be so frugal and conservative this year, but I get it. He wants to actually build a foundation and establish a culture, then use free agency as it's supposed to be used -- to supplement the draft and address a couple/few immediate needs. Even with an A+ offseason, and Luck at near-MVP level like 2014, the Colts still are second class in the AFC, so I'm okay with Ballard looking to future years as being the real time for us to contend. 

 

That being the case, having a 29 year old veteran CB hitting free agency right after we make a deep playoff run is a good thing if you want future comp picks. Signing Breeland to a 3 year deal isn't necessarily a bad idea. 

 

Yes...   especially since we'd be getting Breeland in his prime years...

 

26, 27, and 28.    We should get his best play and his third year wouldvhaooen in 2020, right when Ballard wants and expects us to be competing for the conference championship and a deep run in the pmaoffs.   

 

Feels like our goals and Breeland's might just line up.   At least that's my hope.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • If Ballard thinks he makes the team better then yes. Don’t care that he bullied another grown man. 
    • Honestly, I think we're in trouble at CB now anyways. Even if one likes our starting CB's, we lack depth. Besides, I think Breeland's better than Wilson right now if healthy. At the very least, Wilson is a little bit of an unknown at the moment. 
    • Supposedly we received trade offers for Brissett.  Ballard said no probably to hedge agains Luck not being ready. If Luck returns fully recovered you can bet he will be gone next year and we will sign an older veteran backup.  If he has a good preseason we could easily get another 2nd. rd. pick at a minimum to help finish the rebuild.  Especially since next years QB class is not that great. 
    • If he is CB1, we are in trouble. He would not even be CB2 for the Redskins now. Even though they traded Kendall Fuller for Smith, they have  Norman, they signed Quinton Dunbar to an extension and then acquired Orlando Scandrick in free agency. Add Fabian Moreau and there just wasn't room for Breeland anymore.  That's why he was an FA. If he is CB2 at best for us, I'd feel better.   In 2016 PFF showed he was #1 slot CB in the league-   https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/washington-redskins/one-surprising-stat-shows-bashaud-breeland-may-be-better-suited-slot   A Falcons article reported this above as well (before he got hurt) and about maybe getting him for their Nickel back. But added-
        "Breeland isn’t without his blemishes on the field either. His eight penalties last season tied him for fourth among all DBs (Robert Alford had seven, as a reference point). He also has his fair share of bad games and has been susceptible to giving up big plays and big stat-lines in the past."   I wonder if his pay demands have dropped any (like Ryan Grant?) after he is healthy?    
    • I’ll wait till Colts.com releases theirs
  • Members

    • axillarymac05

      axillarymac05 78

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shive

      Shive 1,286

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • butch433

      butch433 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Darryl Lewis II

      Darryl Lewis II 3

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dodsworth

      dodsworth 402

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fisticuffs111

      Fisticuffs111 907

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JlynRN

      JlynRN 630

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MB-ColtsFan

      MB-ColtsFan 1,063

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DillyDilly

      DillyDilly 781

      Senior Members
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Jcrane

      Jcrane 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active: