Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Jared Cisneros

Luck or Ballard, who is more important to the Colts?

Who is more important to our team  

104 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is more important to the Colts



Recommended Posts

I thought I'd see people's opinions on this question now that we have a large enough sample size on Ballard. Is he more important than Luck? Is Luck still more valuable? Let me know and start a discussion! I personally think Ballard has become more valuable than Luck to us as he's proven he can build a team from scratch and nail the draft at a very high % rate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I thought I'd see people's opinions on this question now that we have a large enough sample size on Ballard. Is he more important than Luck? Is Luck still more valuable? Let me know and start a discussion! I personally think Ballard has become more valuable than Luck to us as he's proven he can build a team from scratch and nail the draft at a very high % rate.

I know everyone is high on Ballard, including myself, but there is absolutely no way this team has the success it did last year without him. Their may be 2-3 other QB's in the league that could have done it. Remember luck took a worse roster with a much worse gm to the AFC championship game. Without luck we might win 8 games next year but with I expect atleast 11.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I know everyone is high on Ballard, including myself, but there is absolutely no way this team has the success it did last year without him. Their may be 2-3 other QB's in the league that could have done it. Remember luck took a worse roster with a much worse gm to the AFC championship game. Without luck we might win 8 games next year but with I expect atleast 11.

I think that if he had too, Ballard could of found a replacement for Luck had he not returned from injury. He already traded for Brissett (top 3 backup in the league), and I believe he would of drafted someone to compete with him in that scenario. The difference between Ballard and Luck is, if we had Ballard, he could build an elite team around Brissett and the drafted QB to keep us going. With Luck and no Ballard, we have Andrew Luck and an inferior GM who would build an inferior team around Luck, and Luck's window is shorter than with Ballard. I just trust the GM that seemingly has the formula to the perfect team over a 30 year old QB that when he's gone, we'd be in mediocrity without Ballard refreshing the team every year.

 

I never want to be a non-playoff team again, and with Ballard, we will have a Pats like run for the next 20 years til he retires.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way I can think of to see the value any employee has to their employer is by their pay....

Share this post


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

The best way I can think of to see the value any employee has to their employer is by their pay....

I don't understand. Are you saying that Luck is more valuable than Ballard because he gets paid more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I think that if he had too, Ballard could of found a replacement for Luck had he not returned from injury. He already traded for Brissett (top 3 backup in the league), and I believe he would of drafted someone to compete with him in that scenario. The difference between Ballard and Luck is, if we had Ballard, he could build an elite team around Brissett and the drafted QB to keep us going. With Luck and no Ballard, we have Andrew Luck and an inferior GM who would build an inferior team around Luck, and Luck's window is shorter than with Ballard. I just trust the GM that seemingly has the formula to the perfect team over a 30 year old QB that when he's gone, we'd be in mediocrity without Ballard refreshing the team every year.

 

I never want to be a non-playoff team again, and with Ballard, we will have a Pats like run for the next 20 years til he retires.

 

I wouldn't say ballard has built an elite team even with Luck so far.

We were 4-12 without Luck, granted it was ballard's first season.

And we just went 11-5 including 2 playoff games with Luck.

 

This upcoming 3rd season with ballard will be interesting to see where the team is at. And knock on wood, God forbid, if Luck went down for the season, how will this team do? Replacing a Franchise QB is not as easy as you may think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I wouldn't say ballard has built an elite team even with Luck so far.

We were 4-12 without Luck, granted it was ballard's first season.

And we just went 11-5 including 2 playoff games with Luck.

 

This upcoming 3rd season with ballard will be interesting to see where the team is at. And knock on wood, God forbid, if Luck went down for the season, how will this team do?

That's why I said "could". We're an above average team right now. With another year or two the way Ballard stacks picks and players, we will have an elite team. I would think having Ballard, Brissett, a drafted qb, and an elite team would be better than Luck, an average gm, and who knows what team we'd have now from that gm around Luck since after Grigson was fired. It'd be Luck carrying the team all over again like 2012-2014 and our shelf-life as a team revolving around when he retires. I take Ballard all day and for the next 20 years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is tough. We all saw what a poor GM could do to a team, with Luck struggling to pull a team of bad players each year into the postseason, then the team falling apart after Luck was injured due to Grigson not getting help up front. Ballard I can trust to build a well rounded team, which we saw the Rams take to the Super Bowl with a good-not-great QB in Goff. 

 

That being said, Luck did pull the team singlehandedly to the playoffs multiple times under Grigson, so he is a special QB. I love Luck and am so happy we have him. 

 

Overall though, I have to lean on Ballard. You look at the Patriots vs the Packers. Brady, a 6th round pick, was made into one of the greatest of all time by having Bellicheck put together a whole lot of players around him that can help him. Then with Rodgers, you find an amazing QB that is struggling to do much at all due to a lack of help around him. With Ballard, I have faith he could find us a QB similarly to how the Patriots found theirs, and also put an amazing team around that QB, rather than relying solely on Luck, which has been proven in the past to only get us so far. 

 

Luckily for us, however, we don’t have this dilemma, and get to enjoy the pair of them for the better part of the next decade! Go Blue!!

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say Ballard, and that's not a knock on Luck. My thinking is comparative to Polian and Manning. In 2011, we sucked without Manning. I think Ballard is building a team that doesn't necessarily have to have a HOF QB to be competitive. I'm not saying we make the playoffs without Luck, but with a semi-competent back-up, I could still see us keeping it interesting. JMO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

Gee whiz, i hope the Colts can figure out a way to keep them both...

 

Yes they are both good. The Colts should re-sign them

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Ballard but I voted Luck. Without Luck we still wouldn't be a playoff team if we had an average QB. He is a top 5 QB once again in the league, hard to argue he isn't. You just can't replace a QB like him and expect the same result. Going into the season really only Brady, Mahomes, Brees, and Rodgers are arguably better than Luck. Brady and Brees are old though. Ballard was able to fill a lot of holes we had because he stepped into a situation where he already had a franchise QB.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I say Ballard, and that's not a knock on Luck. My thinking is comparative to Polian and Manning. In 2011, we sucked without Manning. I think Ballard is building a team that doesn't necessarily have to have a HOF QB to be competitive. I'm not saying we make the playoffs without Luck, but with a semi-competent back-up, I could still see us keeping it interesting. JMO

Luck > Manning

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Luck > Manning

 

Stir the pot much? :D

 

The potential is there, now we just need to build the resume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we don’t find out until after Luck retires with 3 straight Lombardi’s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When our HOF GM had Manning, the team won. When he didn’t, we were the worst team in the league. 

 

When our current GM had Luck, the team won. When he didn’t, we were the 3rd worst team in the league. Yes, it was his first season, but that’s all there is to go by at this time. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shakedownstreet said:

 

Stir the pot much? :D

 

The potential is there, now we just need to build the resume

Maybe.....

 

but I would argue his resume was exceeding that of manning until the injury.  And that was with Dumb & Dumber running the show. Imagine if Luck had Ballard and Frank from day one.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This team only wins four games last year without Luck. Don't underestimate the confidence the other 52 players have with Luck on the field vs Brisset. Not a knock on Brisset, he just doesn,t compare to Luck in leadership and the ability to lift teammates level of play. This team has no limitations with Luck on the field(I know, bold prediction, open for ridicule) But I am confident going into this season we will be competitive and successful. Ballard is doing a tremendous job, and don't underestimate Frank Reich either.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

This team only wins four games last year without Luck. Don't underestimate the confidence the other 52 players have with Luck on the field vs Brisset. Not a knock on Brisset, he just doesn,t compare to Luck in leadership and the ability to lift teammates level of play. This team has no limitations with Luck on the field(I know, bold prediction, open for ridicule) But I am confident going into this season we will be competitive and successful. Ballard is doing a tremendous job, and don't underestimate Frank Reich either.

Exactly, Ballard has been doing a great job so far but without Luck we would not be a playoff team with the roster we have now. You just can't plug in someone to replace Luck. Lets say for example you replaced Luck with someone like Carr, Cousins, Trubisky, or Watson who are all considered above average to good, we would not make the playoffs with those QB's. Those QB's are better than Brissett. Luck is very good/borderline great. Our roster has filled many holes and we are strong in some area's but Luck is the engine that makes us go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, I think Luck is better than a lot of people give him credit for. Again, I am very excited for this upcoming season. Hopefully nothing bizarre will derail it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Ballard first took this job he was asked about Luck's health and he

replied "its not about one player" Ballard is getting a system in place

to win regardless who is behind center. Just look at how the Pats were

still winning games with Cassel, Garapolo and their 3rd string QB in

Brisset. 

 

Keep in mind that Luck may already be retired without Ballard's philosophy

of building from the inside out and putting a strong I line in front of him 

and keeping him clean. Baldinger quoted "he could have played this game

in a pair of Bermuda shorts"

 

Luck is a very important piece to this team but football isn't golf or tennis, it

takes 10 other players to score on offense and a total of 53 players to win

games. Don't get me wrong, I really like Luck but I wouldn't take one

good soldier over a competent general and that is what this debate

boils down to.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I don't understand. Are you saying that Luck is more valuable than Ballard because he gets paid more?

Depends on your definition of valuable... the #1 definition of valuable is being worth a lot of money... So by definition Luck would be more valuable... I believe both are of great importance to the team and that both would be very hard to replace. Short term success I would say Luck helps more... Long term success I would say Ballard has a bigger impact simply based on the potential career length and role with the team... I would not say that one is more important than the other, but being more valuable? Money talks.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without Andrew Luck, we are a sub .500 team even now.

 

Let me ask it this way?

 

Frank Reich or Ballard.

Who is more valuable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough debate...but I went with Ballard simply because I believe he could find a competent QB to go along with this all of a sudden very well rounded team Ballard has constructed in such a short time. 

 

Id rather have a very talented and balanced team with an okay QB than a team with a great QB but not much talent around him. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not an exact science, but would you rather have:

 

A) Andrew Luck and another GM with an abundance of cash to spend on FA, and draft picks?

 

or

 

B) Ballard, with an abundance of cash to spend on FA, and draft picks.

 

I choose Andrew Luck. We’ve already seen the worst case scenario with having Andrew Luck and a bad GM — we were still winning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as i like Luck it’s Ballard pretty easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Plunkett

Jim McMahon
Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

Joe Flacco
Nick Foles

 Super Bowl WINNING QB'S
 

Other QB's that have been in the SB since 2000
Kerry Collins
Matt Hasselback

Rich Gannon

Jack Delhomme

REX GROSSMAN

Colin Kaepernick

         The CORRECT answer is the GM

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the statement is, "It's never about one guy....".

 

 

2 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

9276b3bd39c2edaef8db2280a13124d5.jpg.2af4f3f25c6e25a11b2199dd60f3037d.jpgLucky Marciano???

Dude....that is the funniest comment I have read this year. Well freaking done...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BOTT said:

Maybe.....

 

but I would argue his resume was exceeding that of manning until the injury.  And that was with Dumb & Dumber running the show. Imagine if Luck had Ballard and Frank from day one.

For Luck to come in as a rookie and do what he did the first three seasons was amazing. I agree with this. Plus the teams were not that good.So to do what he did his rookie season was remarkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am excited to see what Luck does the next five years with a great team around him. He will have a better team then Manning had. Especially defensivly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Jim Plunkett

Jim McMahon
Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

Joe Flacco
Nick Foles

 Super Bowl WINNING QB'S
 

Other QB's that have been in the SB since 2000
Kerry Collins
Matt Hasselback

Rich Gannon

Jack Delhomme

REX GROSSMAN

Colin Kaepernick

         The CORRECT answer is the GM

You named only 9 QB's that have won a SB out of 53 played that aren't considered very good or great. Plunkett won twice so 10 times in 53 SB's it has been proven a team can win a SB without a franchise QB = 18.9% it can happen. Terrible odds. A franchise QB that has been very good or great has won it 43 times out of 53 played = 81.1% of the time. The %'s show you need a QB that is very good or great most of the time to win a SB. I like my odds having a franchise QB of winning a SB. Your example shows a fluke can happen now and then as 18.9% of anything is real lucky if you win.

 

Easy answer is Luck. A team just needs a GM that knows what he is doing unlike Grigson if you have a franchise QB. Ballard knows what he is doing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will take luck on game day and Ballard in the off-season. I don't think this is a fair comparison. One has a shelf life the other really does not. One will score touchdowns the other will watch. Just my opinion though. But I would take Ballard over Polian

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck succeeded under Grigson who most believe was a terrible GM. Ballard without Luck was 4 and 12.  I know that isn't a fair way to measure things but that's all we have right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's harder to acquire?  An elite QB or an elite GM?

 

I would think it's harder to acquire an elite QB because they get drafted high and usually re-sign with the team that drafted them.  While an elite GM can be acquired by theoretically just out-bidding the other teams.

 

So while my initial thought was Ballard > Luck because he determines the overall talent of the entire roster, I'm thinking it might actually be Luck > Ballard just because of how big of a difference it makes to have an elite QB and how hard it is to acquire one.

 

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Flash7 said:

It’s not an exact science, but would you rather have:

 

A) Andrew Luck and another GM with an abundance of cash to spend on FA, and draft picks?

 

or

 

B) Ballard, with an abundance of cash to spend on FA, and draft picks.

 

I choose Andrew Luck. We’ve already seen the worst case scenario with having Andrew Luck and a bad GM — we were still winning. 

We were winning, but at what cost?? We weren’t going to get to the Super Bowl, and without Ballard coming in to build an O-line, Luck would be dead or worse, retired!! As much as I think Luck is a special QB, I think Ballard is just as special, and he has to do with both sides of the ball. Andrew can’t play LB, but Ballard could find us a stud LB ala Darius Leonard and another competent QB to help the offense

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 6:50 PM, Jared Cisneros said:

I thought I'd see people's opinions on this question now that we have a large enough sample size on Ballard. Is he more important than Luck? Is Luck still more valuable? Let me know and start a discussion! I personally think Ballard has become more valuable than Luck to us as he's proven he can build a team from scratch and nail the draft at a very high % rate.

 

In the modern world of the NFL where the quarterback is, by definition,  the most important player on the field, Andrew is clearly the most valuable player.

 

But....

 

Who is responsible for every player on the team?   All 53, plus the 10 player PS.

And who is responsible for every front office executive, every scout, every coach, including the head coach? Everyone.  

 

It’s the General Manager. 

 

So with that as a definition, Chris Ballard is the most important person in the organization.   Especially since he’s doing such a good job.

 

Someday Luck will retire, and Chris Ballard will be charged with finding out next great quarterback.   Hopefully CB does as good a job when that time comes as he’s done in his first two-plus years here.....

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked Ballard and GM in general. Seattle is not successful with Wilson right now but they were when their defense was awesome. You could even say the coach is more important.  Parcells and Gibbs could have been successful with me at QB. Recently  The Eagles did it with some great GM work, great coaching and a backup QB. 

  • Like 3

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I rewatched the game as I thought this would be pretty strange as well.  He did not play in the fourth except for his usual special teams slot.     I was confused as well by those who say he had a bad game.  He gave up one completion where he got turned around.  Other than that he was glued to his man as usual.    I think he's still having trouble living down his reputation from his rookie year. 
    • depth wise, S, OL, and iDL are my biggest concerns. if folks were grading positions ( starters and depth), i'd be surprised if many graded safety in the top half.  outside of Hooker, lots of questions, at least to me. i definitely don't agree with Venturi. ESPN doesn't either. Hopefully the starters stay healthy, and Willis grows into a stud.
    • lol... you wrote a novel. while i didn't read it all, i did skim. the mock draft stuff, it wasn't a poll. it was a well defined systemic grading. if you're mom can do well on the 1st round, why didn't your favorite guys? lol. on the wide receiver study, it was laughable. no defined parameters, no comparative cross position stats, etc.. not even Busch league stuff.  like i said, legend in your own mind.   in terms of who can dish it out, but can't take it, look at your reaction above to a "sad".... what a rant/tantrum.....  self awareness is obviously not your strongest trait. feel free to "crush" me anytime... gives me a good laugh.
    • very astute observations!!
    • You live your life like the Coyote chasing the Road Runner....    and you keep running into the mountain side,  or running off the cliff....     OK....    you're not going to change....   So, I'll take apart your nonsense --- again.    This will be the longest post I've ever made,  trying to answer all your nonsense.    Doubt you'll read it.    But here it comes....     Of course we know if Luck's injury, whatever it is,  ISN'T minor.   What minor injury do you know lasts four months?    He barely participated in any off-season program.    Does that sound like a minor injury?    The Colts have NEVER, EVER called it minor.   Not once.  The only thing they've said is he hopes to be back by certain deadlines,  and he's missed almost every one.    Does that sound like a minor injury?    This paragraph may confuse you.   It's full of common sense and logic.   I don't know how you got the nerve to try to argue that no one knows.   Unbelieveable!   Nope.   No Tantrum from me.   Just pointing ot what should be obvious,  but apparently the obvious isn't obvious to you.     By the way,  while you were giving me a sad on my post to my friend CBE,   do you know who was giving me a "like"?    CBE.    I criticized his post and he still gave me a like.    He know while we may not agree,  he knows I'm not trying to pound him.   I'm  trying to be as honest and factual as I can.    No wonder you can't see for yourself.   What triggered me, was your latest attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about.   You judged Willis on half of the first pre-season game.    That's all you've got.    That's it.   Doesn't even occur to you that that is.....   NOTHING!    Hello?    And you present it like it should be taken seriously,  when it should be laughed at.    Goodness gracious, you want to go back to the media draft comparison?    I was hoping for your sake that you wouldn't.    But since you insist.     Did you ever really look at that poll?   Seriously,  did you look at the four category breakdown?    Did you see what was actually involved?    If you did,  you shouldn't have been crowing about it.    First,  what I care about from guys like Kiper and McShay and Jeremiah and others isn't just the first round.   My  momma can do a decent job on the first round, and she's been dead for nearly 30 years!    I care about their view on ALL ROUNDS.   And your survey was only about the first round.   That's it.   There were four categories.    In three of them,  the leader got no more than 50%.   That's it.   The best person in three of the four categories scored no more than 50 percent.   When the top guy is scoring no more than 50 percent and everyone else is close behind,  then no one really knows anything.    And the one category that the winner did well in --- one category --- he scored in the 90's.   And everyone else was right behind him.    So, most everyone did well in ONE OUT OF THE FOUR categories.   Big stinking deal.    I tried to tell you this silly survey didn't support what you believed but you wouldn't listen.   No surprise there.  All you cared about the results.   The fatal flaw.     Finally,  without a single fact,  you offered this opinion in that post.    I remember it like it was yesterday,  that your new age guys were doing a better job than the more traditional scouts.   Based on one poll.   One poll of one round.    And you said the older guys like Kiper and company were resting on their laurels and not working as hard.   Nope, the old guys were covering all seven rounds.    Most of your guys,  covering one round.   You have no facts to support that, but that's your view.    When logic and common sense would tell you that the guys I prefer make a ton more money and have their reputation at stake.    They have more to lose.    There's no way they're resting on anything.    But you'll say ANYTHING to try and prove a point.   There's no argument you won't twist to try to win an argument, no matter how foolish the argument is.   I've told you publicly and privately,  you're not interested in honest debate.   You're the least honest poster here.  You're only interested in winning and you'll do anything, say anything to do that.      As to the WR study.    You got crushed.   I'm talking about a bank safe fell on you and your response was to talk about cherry picking stats.    Either English is a second language or you don't know the meaning of the words.     I made two links for you.    One was almost identical to yours.    Yours covered 25 years dating back to a time when passing rules were dramatically different so comparing a receiver from 1990 to one from 2018 was silly.   We're playig a different game now.    My first link covered 20 years from 1995 to 2014 .   There was great over-lap in the two studies.  But the conclusions were entirely different.   The only reason I used it was your post said roughly 60% percent of 1st Round WR's were successes.    Mine said roughly 40%.   Guess which one you preferred?    Surprise!   Then the second link was one of my own making.    I listed every 1st round WR since Luck came into the league in 2012.  That's 7 years.   The last 7 years.   I put into bold each 1st Round WR who was clearly a success.   It came to 41%.   It also showed how few WR's have been taken in the last few drafts.   That's the NFL talking, in case you weren't paying attention.    You didn't dispute one WR.    Not one.   But you called it cherry picking.   Clearly you don't know how to use that expression correctly.    And now you throw out a list of criteria as if you're making the rules here.   Here's another free tip.   You're not.   Never have.   I'm not surprised you don't recognize the facts I put into posts.   You don't use them.   You're all about the opinion.   Most posters here are.   Because that means every single poster can simply say.....    "I'm entitled to my opinion."    Yes, they are.   Everyone is,  even you, who has no need for facts.    But what you're not entitled to is your own facts.    Just like you stated Funchess was a terrible signing based on your facts,  and it never even occured to you that Ballard and Reich had other facts that showed DF could be useful to us.    You actually thought you knew more than they did?!?    Again, unbelieveable.   You had no facts to support your nonsense about Reich being a poor play caller.   You had one game.   And I called you on it.   You've been doing a very bad back-peddle ever since,  but that's your view, with no facts to support it.   In fact all the facts support the exact opposite view.   Yet, you still try to claim victory.   It's so intellectually dishonest that it's nauseating.   And so I observed,  that with almost nothing to base it on,  you thought Willis has inconsistancies.    Thanks, Capt. Obvious.    Tomorrow will likely be sunny during the day,  turning to widely scattered darkness at night.    Anymore obvious insights?   Funny, how you now publicly call for me to ignore your posts,  when a few days ago,  in a thread I was barely even in,  you took a completely uncalled for shot at me.    Or does the phrase "legend in his own mind" not mean anything to you?      Bottom line....    you can dish it out,  especially when you think no one is looking.....   but you can't take it.   Glass ego.   I call a fraud a fraud.   
  • Members

    • yankeeclipper

      yankeeclipper 22

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfeva

      coltsfeva 1,181

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,435

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • HoosierHero

      HoosierHero 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MikeCurtis

      MikeCurtis 1,265

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Cynjin

      Cynjin 2,841

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • COLTS7

      COLTS7 283

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fluke_33

      Fluke_33 837

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ManningGM

      ManningGM 515

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,795

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...