NFL Aftermath Week 6: 18-1 Is Real

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Football Funhouse > NFL Aftermath Week 6: 18-1 Is Real

«‹›11 »

Joey Freshwater: Jun 20, 2004; Always playing with my meat; Grimey Drawer

Holy poo poo lmao

https://www.pewterreport.com/with-gruden-lurking-koetter-needs-to-turn-bucs-around-in-a-hurry/

quote:

With Gruden Lurking, Koetter Needs To Turn Bucs Around In A Hurry

Posted By: Scott Reynoldson: October 15, 2017

This is not a call for Dirk Koetter to be fired.

This is merely a warning.

Following a 38-33 defeat in the desert in Arizona, the Bucs are now 2-3 on the season and coming off brutal back-to-back losses.

If things don�t improve � and improve quickly � the narrative in Tampa Bay will soon become �Fire Koetter.�

That�s a campaign I do not want to be leading the charge of.

Tampa Bay should have beaten New England on Thursday Night Football in a 19-14 loss, but started slow offensively, and some questionable play-calling and clock management proved to be costly � in addition to Nick Folk�s three missed field goals. Then after having 10 days � TEN DAYS � to prepare for the Cardinals, the Bucs looked completely unprepared and out-coached as they trailed 24-0 at halftime.

�It�s disappointing and it�s embarrassing and it starts with me,� Koetter said.

Bucs head coach Dirk Koetter � Photo by: Getty Images
Once again, some very questionable decisions by Koetter, such as not going for a field goal before halftime and opting for ill-advised two-point conversions instead of extra point kicks proved to be costly for the Bucs. Instead of being down a touchdown after Lavonte David�s forced fumble and fumble recovery for a score in the fourth quarter, Tampa Bay trailed by 11 points.

Instead of having the score tied at 38-38 with just over two minutes remaining, the Bucs trailed by five points. Koetter was chasing points the entire second half, and he�s done that too much in his year and a half on the job in Tampa Bay.

Would a field goal and those extra points have mattered in the long run the way the Bucs came out and trailed 31-0 early in the third quarter? Sure looked like it, but Koetter didn�t seem to think so.

�We would have still been short,� Koetter said. �We were down a long, long ways. We didn�t get three, so add three more points on there and we�re still short. You just can�t spot them like that.

�We had an opportunity to score before the half, and felt like we needed to score a touchdown at that point. It didn�t work out. It starts with a stop and a score. We were able to build on a little bit of it from there, but that�s not the story. The story is that you can�t spot an NFL team 31 points and think you are going to come back.�

Koetter�s right. A team with playoff expectations shouldn�t be trailing anybody 31-0.

That�s what the Glazers have to be thinking right now, too.

Is Koetter better than Lovie Smith was? Heavens yes.

I called for Smith to be fired and Koetter to replace him after the Collapse at the Capital when the Bucs blew a 24-0 lead during the 2015 season in a 31-30 loss at Washington. This game � the Ambush at Arizona � was the exact opposite where the Bucs didn�t blow a lead, but rather spotted the Cardinals 31 points before a second half rally that came up painfully short.

Is Koetter better than Raheem Morris and Greg Schiano were? The fact that he is the only one of two men in team history to begin his head coaching career in Tampa Bay with a winning record suggests that he is indeed better.

But is Koetter better than Jon Gruden?

You remember Chucky, don�t you? He was the guy that delivered the Bucs its first and only Super Bowl championship in his first season. Obviously, Gruden is the other guy that posted a winning record in his first season in Tampa Bay.

Gruden is also going to be the next guy going into the Bucs Ring of Honor in December after finishing as Tampa Bay�s all-time winning coach. You might have seen him on ESPN�s Monday Night Football or pitching Coronas on TV commercials.

Gruden has made amends with the Glazers, who welcomed him back with open arms during training camp and held a press conference for him to officially announce his induction into the Bucs Ring of Honor.

Gruden was also the guy the Glazers fired after finishing 0-4 down the stretch of the 2008 season, as a 9-7 record wasn�t good enough to make the playoffs that year. Since then Gruden hasn�t coached a down anywhere other than Carrollwood Day School in Tampa, and has turned down a plethora of college head coaching jobs and passed on a few opportunities in the NFL, too.

Is he ready to return to the NFL? As you may remember, Gruden told me that he was preparing for a comeback in my pre-training camp SR�s Fab 5 that made national news.

�Just about every year I talk about coming back to coach,� Gruden said. �I�m not in here every day at 4:30 or 4:00 in the morning watching pinball. You know? I�m preparing myself to come back. I am. Every day. I�m preparing to come back.�

Gruden�s dream job would be the Buccaneers, those closest to him tell me.

Gruden still lives in Tampa. He still roots for the Buccaneers. Gruden still considers himself part of the franchise, as he should.

Gruden, who has stayed current with the NFL and college football through his ESPN gig, has gone on record to share his desire to work with young Bucs quarterback Jameis Winston and has credited general manager Jason Licht with doing a good job of collecting talent in the draft.

�I would like to develop Jameis,� Gruden said. �Who wouldn�t want to develop Matt Ryan or Jameis Winston, you know? What are we saying here? If we had taken one it would have been a lot of fun. Unfortunately, you�re drafting one in the sixth round, and you�re developing Bruce Gradkowski. You know? You�re developing Chris Simms at the end of the third round.�

If Koetter doesn�t find a way to get this team on track and do a better job with game management, a problem that has reared its ugly head too many times dating back to the loss to the Los Angeles Rams last year in Week 3, you�re going to be hearing Gruden�s name more and more from the media and the fans as a candidate to replace Koetter if it ever came to that.

And that name might be appearing in the Glazers� minds, too.

The Glazers have already fired their last two coaches � Schiano and Smith after just two years. Morris was canned after three seasons, and one year removed from a 10-6 record.

Would they do the same to Koetter if the Bucs underachieve and underwhelm in what is supposed to be a breakthrough, playoff year?

Some view the Glazers� quick, trigger-finger approach as impatient.

I�ve always applauded it and viewed it as the Glazers not settling for mediocrity.

A 2-3 record is mediocrity, folks, especially as the Bucs are currently dead last in the NFC South. The Panthers lead the division with a 4-2 record and the Falcons and Saints are both tied at 3-2.

Keep in mind that the Bucs were 2-3 after five games last year and Koetter was able to right the ship and finish 9-7. But that was thanks to a sudden dominance by Tampa Bay�s defense, which doesn�t look nearly as dominant this year, especially after surrendering over 400 yards and 38 points to Arizona, which was 2-3 coming into Sunday�s game.

And that was also with a healthy Winston. Tampa Bay�s starting quarterback went down hard on his throwing shoulder in the first half and exited the game early. After the game Koetter said that x-rays were negative and that an MRI is scheduled for Monday. But Koetter may have to rely on backup Ryan Fitzpatrick next week at Buffalo � and perhaps beyond.

�He�s not the first or last quarterback that is going to have an injury,� Koetter said after the game. �Obviously there is a big injury in Green Bay as well today. Injuries are an unfortunate part of the game. Jameis is as tough as they come. This isn�t about toughness. This is about � you know, he got a shoulder injury and couldn�t throw the football. He couldn�t do his job. We�ll just have to see what happens.�

The Glazers have already shown a penchant for going back to the glory days for a head coaching hire with Smith. Could they do it again with Gruden, who would be a much better option than Smith ever was?

The players love Koetter, who makes sure that football is fun for his players, and haven�t showed any amount of frustration with their head coach yet. But perhaps the Bucs players are too focused on dancing to hip-hop and trap music in practice and their daily ping-pong tournaments in the locker room than they are their upcoming opponents.

Koetter needs to put the kibosh on that until this team can start coming out focused to play football in the first quarter. Real fun comes from winning football games, not ping pong matches.

For whatever reason, the Bucs are too often unprepared on Sundays and get off to too many slow starts. Playoff teams don�t act that like. That�s on the head coach.

The Bucs haven�t seen an increase in points per game in the last three seasons that Koetter has been calling plays despite an increase in talent along the offensive line and in the team�s arsenal of weapons. That�s also on Koetter.

I like Koetter and hope he can turn the Bucs around and do it quickly. This team would be better off with some stability for the long term � but only if there is progress.

If Tampa Bay is still going to go 10-6 and have a shot at the playoffs, Koetter will have to push the right buttons � and become much better at game management � to have this team go 8-3 down the stretch. The fact that the Bucs have yet to play the Panthers, the Saints or the Falcons makes it a daunting task.

If Koetter isn�t up to it, I wonder if the Glazers start thinking that Gruden, who won three division titles in Tampa Bay in addition to the Super Bowl, may be.

That Bruce Gradkowski/Chris Simms comment tho

# ? Oct 16, 2017 15:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 22:39

Impossibly Perfect Sphere: Nov 6, 2002; They wasted Luanne on Lucky!

She could of have been so much more but the writers just didn't care!

I don't wanna be the guy campaigning for firing Koetter , but here's who they should hire.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 15:59

marioinblack: Sep 21, 2007; Number 1 Bullshit

wandler20 posted:

That pick he threw at the one yard line. I mean, what the gently caress. I don't think Jameis even makes that throw. You'd have to be a complete loving moron to give up on Jameis for Ryan Fitzpatrick.

For all my complaining, I completely agree. I'm just seriously concerned that Jameis is never going to be able to make the adjustment now that the book is out on him. Fitz is definitely not the answer, but he's at least a serviceable backup.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 16:22

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

disagree this is the time to finally believe in fitzmagic

well, believe again

# ? Oct 16, 2017 16:32

Joey Freshwater: Jun 20, 2004; Always playing with my meat; Grimey Drawer

One thing I did think was cool that I can't remember if it was mentioned was that the TD Fitz threw to Brate was the first Harvard to Harvard TD in NFL history.

Which is kind of surprising, in the early days of the NFL weren't a lot of those dudes Ivy league bros?

# ? Oct 16, 2017 16:33

Grittybeard: Mar 29, 2010; Bad, very bad!

Joey Freshwater posted:

Which is kind of surprising, in the early days of the NFL weren't a lot of those dudes Ivy league bros?

Super early NFL was viewed kinda like professional wrestling, if you were respectable you weren't involved. That did eventually start changing but it was probably too late to entice a bunch of Ivy League guys who almost surely had more lucrative careers waiting for them somewhere else until fairly recently.

e: I guess I haven't actually checked, it is possible a lot of Ivy League guys were around because they loved the game. I just know there was a stigma around professional (but not college) football for quite a while.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 16:37

Joey Freshwater: Jun 20, 2004; Always playing with my meat; Grimey Drawer

Ah I guess that's where it came from. I knew college football was big for Ivy leagues and just assumed that transferred to the NFL.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 16:48

Alaois: Feb 7, 2012

also, early football didn't really have much of that pesky "forward pass"

# ? Oct 16, 2017 16:49

Intruder: Mar 5, 2003

I want my coach to be gutsy, also if being gutsy doesn't work out then my coach is an idiot

This dude wouldn't be saying going for the TD was the wrong call if it had worked

# ? Oct 16, 2017 17:13

FizFashizzle: Mar 30, 2005

Gruden offered Simms a three year contract extension before al Wallace disabused him of his spleen.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 17:23

CrocodileKingSaysNO: Jul 25, 2007

steelers do us a favor and beat the chiefs, chargers do the same against oakland

so of course we have to lose to one of the worst teams in the entire league right now. ugh.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 17:44

Ches Neckbeard: Dec 3, 2005; You're all garbage, back up the truck BACK IT UP!

The Browns endorse child abuse.

https://twitter.com/Browns/status/919965950677585920

in other news Adrian Peterson is demanding a trade to Cleveland.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 17:47

nah: Mar 16, 2009

what is that big fat HDR monstrosity in the picture

# ? Oct 16, 2017 18:27

Ches Neckbeard: Dec 3, 2005; You're all garbage, back up the truck BACK IT UP!

XxGirlKisserxX posted:

what is that big fat HDR monstrosity in the picture

Nose tackle Danny Shelton. One of the few remaining players from the Farmer/Pettine era.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 18:28

Sono: Apr 9, 2008

Joey Freshwater posted:

Holy poo poo lmao

https://www.pewterreport.com/with-gruden-lurking-koetter-needs-to-turn-bucs-around-in-a-hurry/

That Bruce Gradkowski/Chris Simms comment tho

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt3280262/

# ? Oct 16, 2017 19:04

Diva Cupcake: Aug 15, 2005

I still don't see how this is a correct application of the rule, but even if it were, how is it in the spirit of the game to just hand the ball over to the defense at the 20 when ASJ never lost possession?

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:15

3 DONG HORSE: May 22, 2008; I'd like to thank Satan for everything he's done for this organization

Yeah like the NFL would let their golden boy lose a game

e: the fumble started when Brady was drafted and ends when the Jets and time cease to exist

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:17

Intruder: Mar 5, 2003

It seemed like they said he fumbled outside of the end zone and regained control in the end zone, so never crossed the plane with possession

Which is dumb as gently caress but whatever

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:18

shyduck: Oct 3, 2003

football is dumb

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:24

Kalli: Jun 2, 2001

Intruder posted:

It seemed like they said he fumbled outside of the end zone and regained control in the end zone, so never crossed the plane with possession

Which is dumb as gently caress but whatever

He did definitely lose contact with the ball while diving, but it seems insane to me to rule that a fumble out of bounds.

https://streamable.com/qrsrb

If anything recovery by the knee down inbounds with possession should be the right call.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:30

Impossibly Perfect Sphere: Nov 6, 2002; They wasted Luanne on Lucky!

She could of have been so much more but the writers just didn't care!

It seems like outside of the 4th quarter or something, a fumble out the back of the endzone should just be placed at the 1 yard line.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:33

Diva Cupcake: Aug 15, 2005

It'd shouldn't ever just be given to the defensive team, not even outside the 4th quarter.

If you fumble a ball forward out of bounds, you retain possession at the spot of the fumble. What's the rationale for that not being the case here?

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:40

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

Diva Cupcake posted:

It'd shouldn't ever just be given to the defensive team, not even outside the 4th quarter.

If you fumble a ball forward out of bounds, you retain possession at the spot of the fumble. What's the rationale for that not being the case here?

I guess because you could deliberately bat it out of bounds to prevent a turnover. But they could just penalize that 5 or 10 yards from the spot of the fumble which would make more sense.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:43

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Diva Cupcake posted:

I still don't see how this is a correct application of the rule, but even if it were, how is it in the spirit of the game to just hand the ball over to the defense at the 20 when ASJ never lost possession?

Right around what would be 16s in your video, he double clutches again (seen on the video here at about 1:11). Since "going to the ground" starts when you're about to start falling and lasts until after you come to a complete stop, unbuckle your seatbelt, get up, and go back to the bench, the fact that he immediately regained control doesn't matter and thus he never regained possession.

I guess the questions for me are:
1) Should the touchback for fumble out of the endzone rule exist?
2) Should the rules for re-gaining possession after you fumble be the same as for gaining possession in the first place?

Jethro fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Oct 16, 2017

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:46

D-LINK: Oct 1, 2007; I was talking to peachy Peach about kissy Kiss. He bought me a soda.

Finger Prince posted:

I guess because you could deliberately bat it out of bounds to prevent a turnover. But they could just penalize that 5 or 10 yards from the spot of the fumble which would make more sense.

Nope, intentionally batting the ball out of the end zone gives the opposing team the ball at the 1. See the Pit vs Chi game in week 3 of this year

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:47

Impossibly Perfect Sphere: Nov 6, 2002; They wasted Luanne on Lucky!

She could of have been so much more but the writers just didn't care!

Diva Cupcake posted:

It'd shouldn't ever just be given to the defensive team, not even outside the 4th quarter.

If you fumble a ball forward out of bounds, you retain possession at the spot of the fumble. What's the rationale for that not being the case here?

I dunno. The only thing I can think of is to discourage some kind of holey roller strategy, but that still seems dumb because that is a super duper risky proposition and there is already another rule that addresses it. What the hell is the origin of this stupid rule?

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:48

fishing with the fam: Feb 29, 2008; Durr

Jethro posted:

I guess the questions for me are:
1) Should the touchback for fumble out of the endzone rule exist?
2) Should the rules for re-gaining possession after you fumble be the same as for gaining possession in the first place?

As far as I can tell, #2 only becomes a problem when combined with #1.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:50

Impossibly Perfect Sphere: Nov 6, 2002; They wasted Luanne on Lucky!

She could of have been so much more but the writers just didn't care!

What if they changed the rules for any fumble that goes out of bounds (endzone or not), so that the ball is spotted at the point of last possession. It always seemed kinda dumb that if someone fumbles and it squirts 10 yards forward before going out that they get the ball at that spot.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 20:58

Manoueverable: Oct 23, 2010; Dubs Loves Wubs

On principle I like the touchback rule because the Seahawks have utilized it several times including last week, as the Rams score a TD on the next play if that's ruled out at the 1 and in all likelihood win also sorry Lions fans

But the way it looks in that case borders on the absurd and since it benefited the Pats my instinct is to say burn it to the ground

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:00

King Hong Kong: Nov 6, 2009; For we'll fight with a vim
that is dead sure to win.

Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:

What if they changed the rules for any fumble that goes out of bounds (endzone or not), so that the ball is spotted at the point of last possession. It always seemed kinda dumb that if someone fumbles and it squirts 10 yards forward before going out that they get the ball at that spot.

That would be too simple. The fact that there is a specific rule against the Holy Roller is insane as well. Designing a rule to prevent teams from repeating a fluke desperation play that happened on one occasion in just the last two minutes of a half is purestrain NFL.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:06

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

fishing with the fam posted:

As far as I can tell, #2 only becomes a problem when combined with #1.

Well, yes. Giving the ball back at the spot of the fumble would be a fine result, but I even think that if you said "if you have possession, lose control, and immediately re-gain control, then you also immediately regain possession", no "going to the ground" nonsense, making this play a touchdown.

"Going to the ground" makes sense with respect to gaining possession of a pass, because otherwise you'd get far too many BS "well, he controlled it for 0.10 s while falling down, so when it bounced off the ground out of his hands it was a fumble" instead of a dropped pass (and in the endzone it only ends up totally screwing the Lions, so who cares?).

I almost like the touchback rule because it means that punching the ball out just before the goal-line can actually make a difference, instead of just delaying the inevitable. On the other hand, taking away a TD because someone bobbled the ball for a barely perceptible amount of time after they had already performed the "football move" incantation seems stupid (and I say this as a Pats fan).

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:12

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:

What if they changed the rules for any fumble that goes out of bounds (endzone or not), so that the ball is spotted at the point of last possession. It always seemed kinda dumb that if someone fumbles and it squirts 10 yards forward before going out that they get the ball at that spot.

That's already how it works. You only get to keep the fumble progress if it stays inbounds (and it isn't recovered by someone other than the fumbler inside two minutes or on 4th down).

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:22

Blarfk: Dec 26, 2003

MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:

Nope, intentionally batting the ball out of the end zone gives the opposing team the ball at the 1. See the Pit vs Chi game in week 3 of this year

My understanding of what went on with that play is a bit tenuous, but I don't think this is right. Chicago was in possession and fumbled, Pittsburgh illegally batted it out, and because the half can't end on a defensive penalty (committed in this case by Pittsburgh), Chicago maintained possession and got an untimed down. There was no change of possession based on the batting.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:22

Grittybeard: Mar 29, 2010; Bad, very bad!

^^--I think you guys are saying the same thing and reading each other wrong

King Hong Kong posted:

That would be too simple. The fact that there is a specific rule against the Holy Roller is insane as well. Designing a rule to prevent teams from repeating a fluke desperation play that happened on one occasion in just the last two minutes of a half is purestrain NFL.

I don't know, the holy roller rule seems fine. It also only applies at the end of halves and games doesn't it? If you want to have a desperation play give me laterals to laugh at any day of the week.

The fumble out of the end zone touchback rule just seems like a bad rule that's been around forever and no one has bothered to change it. And I don't think the Jets getting screwed will be the catalyst for that change.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:22

Impossibly Perfect Sphere: Nov 6, 2002; They wasted Luanne on Lucky!

She could of have been so much more but the writers just didn't care!

Jethro posted:

That's already how it works. You only get to keep the fumble progress if it stays inbounds (and it isn't recovered by someone other than the fumbler inside two minutes or on 4th down).

Eh almost. I misspoke. I believe if the offense fumbles it and it goes backwards and out of bounds then the ball is spotted where it went out. Which is also dumb, although less dumb.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:31

fishing with the fam: Feb 29, 2008; Durr

Jethro posted:

I almost like the touchback rule because it means that punching the ball out just before the goal-line can actually make a difference, instead of just delaying the inevitable. On the other hand, taking away a TD because someone bobbled the ball for a barely perceptible amount of time after they had already performed the "football move" incantation seems stupid (and I say this as a Pats fan).

If you punch the ball out, you should have to gain control of it to gain possession. Just like in the field of play. If I punch the ball out at the 50 and it goes out of bounds the offense still retains possession. I think it should be the same in the endzone.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:39

Coldforge: Oct 29, 2002; I knew it would be bad.
I didn't know it would be so stupid.

shirts and skins posted:

This is setting up really well for the Seahawks. If they can do their usual and round into form after the bye, they'll be in great position to gun for a top seed.

The Rams are going to win the division, it's best if you just accept that awful fate now. It honestly is the darkest timeline.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:44

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:

Nope, intentionally batting the ball out of the end zone gives the opposing team the ball at the 1. See the Pit vs Chi game in week 3 of this year

Blarfk posted:

My understanding of what went on with that play is a bit tenuous, but I don't think this is right. Chicago was in possession and fumbled, Pittsburgh illegally batted it out, and because the half can't end on a defensive penalty (committed in this case by Pittsburgh), Chicago maintained possession and got an untimed down. There was no change of possession based on the batting.

Yes, the ball was placed at the 1 because it was the D that batted it out of the endzone (well actually the holder, but because of the blocked kick and recovery by Chicago's D, Pitt's O had become the D).

https://twitter.com/camdasilva/status/912023332182249472

But that just means that we can change the rule to say fumbles out of bounds in the endzone are returned to the spot of the fumble, while an illegal bat out of bounds by the O is a touchback.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:47

fishing with the fam: Feb 29, 2008; Durr

A missed illegal bat call cost the Lions a game in 2015 against the Seahawks. Remember, if a dumb rule exists, it has at some point cost the Detroit Lions a football game.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 21:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 22:39

King Hong Kong: Nov 6, 2009; For we'll fight with a vim
that is dead sure to win.

Grittybeard posted:

^^--I think you guys are saying the same thing and reading each other wrong

I don't know, the holy roller rule seems fine. It also only applies at the end of halves and games doesn't it? If you want to have a desperation play give me laterals to laugh at any day of the week.

The fumble out of the end zone touchback rule just seems like a bad rule that's been around forever and no one has bothered to change it. And I don't think the Jets getting screwed will be the catalyst for that change.

I�m OK with it being banned entirely (though I�m also not really convinced that teams would abuse it if it were allowed in any circumstance). I mostly think it was a knee-jerk reaction and the game should have consistent rules regardless of the time on the clock, or the down or, in as much as possible, the part of the field.

# ? Oct 16, 2017 22:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Football Funhouse > NFL Aftermath Week 6: 18-1 Is Real

«‹›11 »