Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2022

[go pak go]

If only there was some sort of high-stakes game when both QBs were in their primes that we could look to to compare their outcomes.....

And even the new hot topic issue is that defense no longer matters to winning. Pittsburg had the #1 defense in the league, Packers #2.

This guy looked into this which is fascinating to me. I havent had time to really look into it but here are some highlights of the last 10 SB winning teams.

https://objectivequarterbacking.com/sup ... omponents/

image.png (42 KiB) Viewed 352 times

image.png (40.74 KiB) Viewed 352 times

image.png (42.12 KiB) Viewed 352 times

So basically what we see here is the SB winners are:

50% of teams have a top 10 defense.
80% of teams have a top 10 offense.
50% of teams have a top 10 STs

So offense does seem to be a larger indicator. But elite defenses are also a very strong indicator. In fact, it appears an elite defense has more weight than an elite offense. There is no benefit on being a 6th thru 10th defense compared to being outside a top 10 defense.

The other thing to note is no team has had an incredible liability unit. By and large the Packers have followed this model to a T, for the exception of STs being complete liabilities on occasional seasons (especially 2020 and 2021)

[Yoop]

If only there was some sort of high-stakes game when both QBs were in their primes that we could look to to compare their outcomes.....

And even the new hot topic issue is that defense no longer matters to winning. Pittsburg had the #1 defense in the league, Packers #2.

why is it you blow everything I say to extremes, defense Matters, our issues have been that the defense sucked for years, anything better then simply just sucking would have helped our offense win more PO games.
same with special teams.

[Yoop]

If only there was some sort of high-stakes game when both QBs were in their primes that we could look to to compare their outcomes.....

And even the new hot topic issue is that defense no longer matters to winning. Pittsburg had the #1 defense in the league, Packers #2.

This guy looked into this which is fascinating to me. I havent had time to really look into it but here are some highlights of the last 10 SB winning teams.

https://objectivequarterbacking.com/sup ... omponents/

image.png



image.png


image.png

So basically what we see here is the SB winners are:

50% of teams have a top 10 defense.
80% of teams have a top 10 offense.
50% of teams have a top 10 STs

So offense does seem to be a larger indicator. But elite defenses are also a strong indicator. There is no benefit on being a 6th thru 10th defense compared to being outside a top 10 defense. The other thing to note is no team has had an incredible liability unit. By and large the Packers have followed this model to a T, for the exception of STs being complete liabilities most seasons.

thanks for clarifying this topic GPG, I've been saying this for a long time, and it is really hard to retain a top5 defense, and as you have said the difference between top 6 through 10 isn't much different then top 15.

so imo I would rather a very explosive offense then putting all my resources into trying to build a top 5 defense, our issues over the years is we rarely even had a top 15 defense.

[go pak go]

And even the new hot topic issue is that defense no longer matters to winning. Pittsburg had the #1 defense in the league, Packers #2.

This guy looked into this which is fascinating to me. I havent had time to really look into it but here are some highlights of the last 10 SB winning teams.

https://objectivequarterbacking.com/sup ... omponents/

image.png



image.png


image.png

So basically what we see here is the SB winners are:

50% of teams have a top 10 defense.
80% of teams have a top 10 offense.
50% of teams have a top 10 STs

So offense does seem to be a larger indicator. But elite defenses are also a strong indicator. There is no benefit on being a 6th thru 10th defense compared to being outside a top 10 defense. The other thing to note is no team has had an incredible liability unit. By and large the Packers have followed this model to a T, for the exception of STs being complete liabilities most seasons.

thanks for clarifying this topic GPG, I've been saying this for a long time, and it is really hard to retain a top5 defense, and as you have said the difference between top 6 through 10 isn't much different then top 15.

so imo I would rather a very explosive offense then putting all my resources into trying to build a top 5 defense, our issues over the years is we rarely even had a top 15 defense.

I didn't clarify anything and I am not supporting anyone's "theory". That's not what my post said.

The data actually shows SB winners with an elite unit (top 5) actually rewards defense first.

The data also shows that a moderate unit (top 10) has the most offensive teams

But keep in mind the data set is extremely small and proves nothing. It supports nothing.

It's an observation only. It's also the path the Packers has largely gone the past decade with nothing to show for it.

I mean if you are honestly looking at this, you are basically asking the "question" what type of team did Tom Brady have the last 10 years. The only exceptino is the elite Seahawks and Broncos defenses.

[YoHoChecko]

I still maintain that the best path to a Super Bowl is Hall of Fame caliber QB play on sub-prime QB prices. That includes rookie contracts, sure, but rarely do you get HoF QB play on a rookie contract. It's usually the cheap early years of a second contract or Tom Brady playing for 70% at best of the top QB market.

The reason some criticize Rodgers for maximizing his money even though he deserves every penny is because the MOST proven way to win Lombardis is elite QB play cheaper than what is deserved. It's every Brady ring. It's Mahomes and Wilson. It has been said over and over that no team has won with a QB salary above 14% of the cap--not sure if that still holds with Stafford last year, but it seems probable.

So yeah, avoid liability units, certainly. Have a strong/elite unit on at least one side of the ball, absolutely. But get a Hall of Fame QB who will take a below market deal and you can soar. Nothing else has proven so reliably fruitful.

[Yoop]

This guy looked into this which is fascinating to me. I havent had time to really look into it but here are some highlights of the last 10 SB winning teams.

https://objectivequarterbacking.com/sup ... omponents/

image.png



image.png


image.png

So basically what we see here is the SB winners are:

50% of teams have a top 10 defense.
80% of teams have a top 10 offense.
50% of teams have a top 10 STs

So offense does seem to be a larger indicator. But elite defenses are also a strong indicator. There is no benefit on being a 6th thru 10th defense compared to being outside a top 10 defense. The other thing to note is no team has had an incredible liability unit. By and large the Packers have followed this model to a T, for the exception of STs being complete liabilities most seasons.

thanks for clarifying this topic GPG, I've been saying this for a long time, and it is really hard to retain a top5 defense, and as you have said the difference between top 6 through 10 isn't much different then top 15.

so imo I would rather a very explosive offense then putting all my resources into trying to build a top 5 defense, our issues over the years is we rarely even had a top 15 defense.

I didn't clarify anything and I am not supporting anyone's "theory". That's not what my post said.

The data actually shows SB winners with an elite unit (top 5) actually rewards defense first.

The data also shows that a moderate unit (top 10) has the most offensive teams

But keep in mind the data set is extremely small and proves nothing. It supports nothing.

It's an observation only. It's also the path the Packers has largely gone the past decade with nothing to show for it.

I mean if you are honestly looking at this, you are basically asking the "question" what type of team did Tom Brady have the last 10 years. The only exceptino is the elite Seahawks and Broncos defenses.

whatever, it clarifies it for me, a great offense with simply a top 15 defense wins, a very good offense with a top 5 defense wins more, however look what it cost to assemble a top 5 defense, 30% more top offenses win the big game, your data supports my opinion, thanks again

[go pak go]

I still maintain that the best path to a Super Bowl is Hall of Fame caliber QB play on sub-prime QB prices. That includes rookie contracts, sure, but rarely do you get HoF QB play on a rookie contract. It's usually the cheap early years of a second contract or Tom Brady playing for 70% at best of the top QB market.

The reason some criticize Rodgers for maximizing his money even though he deserves every penny is because the MOST proven way to win Lombardis is elite QB play cheaper than what is deserved. It's every Brady ring. It's Mahomes and Wilson. It has been said over and over that no team has won with a QB salary above 14% of the cap--not sure if that still holds with Stafford last year, but it seems probable.

So yeah, avoid liability units, certainly. Have a strong/elite unit on at least one side of the ball, absolutely. But get a Hall of Fame QB who will take a below market deal and you can soar. Nothing else has proven so reliably fruitful.

I would expect a strong correlation of QB pay to "no liability on other units" to be strong. It's a simple resource question.

The more resources left over after paying the top guy, the better support you will likely have.

[YoHoChecko]

I would expect a strong correlation of QB pay to "no liability on other units" to be strong. It's a simple resource question.

The more resources left over after paying the top guy, the better support you will likely have.

Agreed, which is why I think it works. But I think the QB play/pay is more cause than effect.

And again, it's not JUST about cheap and it doesn't have to be "rookie." I also maintain that the "your best window is a QB's rookie contract" talk is massively overstated because so very very few QBs are playing at truly elite levels on rookie contracts. We've seen it a few times over the past three decades, and "a few times" is not strong enough to be a strategy.

Meanwhile, signing veteran, HoF QBs for below market is a a strategy that can be repeated. It happens a ton when you extend your rookie contract QBs before they're ELITE elite and/or before their cap numbers expand into a backloaded deal. It also happens when you get a surprise star like a Kurt Warner or something resembling a Ryan Tannehill resurgence (though that one did not yield a Super Bowl). And of course it happens when you're Tom Brady and just routinely take whatever offer feels good to you instead of maxing out your earnings.

In sum, below-market QB contracts for elite QBs account for far more Super Bowl wins than any other single metric I have noticed. Yes, that's a Tom Brady skew, but it's a narrative that exists in part outside of him, if slightly misunderstood to be focused on "rookie" deals.

[Yoop]

I still maintain that the best path to a Super Bowl is Hall of Fame caliber QB play on sub-prime QB prices. That includes rookie contracts, sure, but rarely do you get HoF QB play on a rookie contract. It's usually the cheap early years of a second contract or Tom Brady playing for 70% at best of the top QB market.

The reason some criticize Rodgers for maximizing his money even though he deserves every penny is because the MOST proven way to win Lombardis is elite QB play cheaper than what is deserved. It's every Brady ring. It's Mahomes and Wilson. It has been said over and over that no team has won with a QB salary above 14% of the cap--not sure if that still holds with Stafford last year, but it seems probable.

So yeah, avoid liability units, certainly. Have a strong/elite unit on at least one side of the ball, absolutely. But get a Hall of Fame QB who will take a below market deal and you can soar. Nothing else has proven so reliably fruitful.

I agree, and it's to bad Rodgers wouldn't take a discount deal, had he maybe Ted could have bought more UFA over the years.

with offense having a elite QB a decent OL, a decent RB and a couple really good receivers and your off to the races, on defense almost every position has to be very good or it will never achieve a top 5 rating, and if they don't it will never be able to carry a average offense.

We hate that Rodgers demands top dollar, at least I think we all do, problem is minus Rodgers, and this team wouldn't have won even half the games we have.

[Yoop]

I would expect a strong correlation of QB pay to "no liability on other units" to be strong. It's a simple resource question.

The more resources left over after paying the top guy, the better support you will likely have.

Agreed, which is why I think it works. But I think the QB play/pay is more cause than effect.

And again, it's not JUST about cheap and it doesn't have to be "rookie." I also maintain that the "your best window is a QB's rookie contract" talk is massively overstated because so very very few QBs are playing at truly elite levels on rookie contracts. We've seen it a few times over the past three decades, and "a few times" is not strong enough to be a strategy.

Meanwhile, signing veteran, HoF QBs for below market is a a strategy that can be repeated. It happens a ton when you extend your rookie contract QBs before they're ELITE elite and/or before their cap numbers expand into a backloaded deal. It also happens when you get a surprise star like a Kurt Warner or something resembling a Ryan Tannehill resurgence (though that one did not yield a Super Bowl). And of course it happens when you're Tom Brady and just routinely take whatever offer feels good to you instead of maxing out your earnings.

In sum, below-market QB contracts for elite QBs account for far more Super Bowl wins than any other single metric I have noticed. Yes, that's a Tom Brady skew, but it's a narrative that exists in part outside of him, if slightly misunderstood to be focused on "rookie" deals.

it also confirms the thought that if ya can do it, ya do it the Packer way, draft and develop rookie QB's for at least 3 years behind a proven starter, when that QB starts he should be ready to give you a couple very good cheap seasons, and his 2nd contract wont break the bank.

[YoHoChecko]

it also confirms the thought that if ya can do it, ya do it the Packer way, draft and develop rookie QB's for at least 3 years behind a proven starter, when that QB starts he should be ready to give you a couple very good cheap seasons, and his 2nd contract wont break the bank.

Top Ten all-time in how vigorously I agree with you, yoop.

Also:

We hate that Rodgers demands top dollar, at least I think we all do, problem is minus Rodgers, and this team wouldn't have won even half the games we have.

That's exactly right. The solution to this problem is not to eschew elite QB play when you have it. But to attempt to massage an ego and manage the relationship in a way such that the player feels the respect and value without financial affirmation. For guys like Rodgers, the marginal value of an additional $5-10 million will have no impact on his life or legacy. The generational wealth has already been built. But if you, say, offer a top-dollar deal while presenting the empirical evidence that QB pay is a primary deterrent to Super Bowl rings and let him choose between the top-dollar offer or the cap savings with a say in the plan for how to use the money--IF the team/player relationship is in a good, healthy place, then you might get somewhere.

With Rodgers and the team, the dynamic broke down long ago. It was clear from his airing of grievances presser that issues had been bubbling up even before Gutey arrived, not to mention how they strained after his arrival. At that point, Rodgers was going to take the most he could, like he always has. Even offering an alternative argument would have only served to make matters worse.

For a HoF QB, I see the ideal progression like this: rookie contract cheap... develop the player and ensure they're ready before they take the field. Second contract is mid-market because the QB is very good but not yet proven elite: this is a key window. Third contract, secure generational wealth for yourself. Get the bag. You're a HoFer. Any years left on your career after the 3rd contract? Take a reasonable below-market rates and try to secure a legacy with a late-career string of lombardis, assuming you haven't already amassed them throughout

We got the Rodgers second-contract window. It gave us only one championship and a couple near misses. Then we gave him the generational wealth third contract. The extension after that, and then this latest extension--those were, to me, missed opportunities. Those were times when, had TT retired a year earlier or MM been replaced a year earlier... had Jordy never been cut... had Rodgers felt like the old and new front office gave him the deference and respect he deserved, we could have perhaps convinced him to go the lombardi-chasing contract route. That's not to say it's solely the front office's fault for mishandling Rodgers. It's to say that Rodgers is an arrogant, ego-driven, chip-on-his-shoulder jerk about a lot of things; and that made the front office's job of managing the relationship a lot harder and they didn't. Both sides had a role to play.

At the end of the day, it comes down to player choice, and most players chase the cash and not the ring. And in our society, we value that thinking well enough that few hold it against them. But that doesn't make it untrue that taking less and playing for rings is a great way to get them.

[salmar80]

it also confirms the thought that if ya can do it, ya do it the Packer way, draft and develop rookie QB's for at least 3 years behind a proven starter, when that QB starts he should be ready to give you a couple very good cheap seasons, and his 2nd contract wont break the bank.

Top Ten all-time in how vigorously I agree with you, yoop.

Also:

We hate that Rodgers demands top dollar, at least I think we all do, problem is minus Rodgers, and this team wouldn't have won even half the games we have.

That's exactly right. The solution to this problem is not to eschew elite QB play when you have it. But to attempt to massage an ego and manage the relationship in a way such that the player feels the respect and value without financial affirmation. For guys like Rodgers, the marginal value of an additional $5-10 million will have no impact on his life or legacy. The generational wealth has already been built. But if you, say, offer a top-dollar deal while presenting the empirical evidence that QB pay is a primary deterrent to Super Bowl rings and let him choose between the top-dollar offer or the cap savings with a say in the plan for how to use the money--IF the team/player relationship is in a good, healthy place, then you might get somewhere.

With Rodgers and the team, the dynamic broke down long ago. It was clear from his airing of grievances presser that issues had been bubbling up even before Gutey arrived, not to mention how they strained after his arrival. At that point, Rodgers was going to take the most he could, like he always has. Even offering an alternative argument would have only served to make matters worse.

For a HoF QB, I see the ideal progression like this: rookie contract cheap... develop the player and ensure they're ready before they take the field. Second contract is mid-market because the QB is very good but not yet proven elite: this is a key window. Third contract, secure generational wealth for yourself. Get the bag. You're a HoFer. Any years left on your career after the 3rd contract? Take a reasonable below-market rates and try to secure a legacy with a late-career string of lombardis, assuming you haven't already amassed them throughout

We got the Rodgers second-contract window. It gave us only one championship and a couple near misses. Then we gave him the generational wealth third contract. The extension after that, and then this latest extension--those were, to me, missed opportunities. Those were times when, had TT retired a year earlier or MM been replaced a year earlier... had Jordy never been cut... had Rodgers felt like the old and new front office gave him the deference and respect he deserved, we could have perhaps convinced him to go the lombardi-chasing contract route. That's not to say it's solely the front office's fault for mishandling Rodgers. It's to say that Rodgers is an arrogant, ego-driven, chip-on-his-shoulder jerk about a lot of things; and that made the front office's job of managing the relationship a lot harder and they didn't. Both sides had a role to play.

At the end of the day, it comes down to player choice, and most players chase the cash and not the ring. And in our society, we value that thinking well enough that few hold it against them. But that doesn't make it untrue that taking less and playing for rings is a great way to get them.

Looking at the wealth gained depends very much on the person.

There's a limit to how much you can spend on your everyday life, unless you really, really try to spend it.

But with AR, I could see him founding a charitable foundation when he retires. For that, there's no upper limit of money to put into it. The more you invest, the more good done long term. If he has maxed his cash for something like that, I wouldn't be mad at him at all.

Tom Brady, on the other hand, appears all great because he has essentially donated cash for fame and SB wins. He is, to my knowledge, the ONLY player who has taken actual discounts. I really dunno whether to label him selfish or team-friendly.

[salmar80]

I would expect a strong correlation of QB pay to "no liability on other units" to be strong. It's a simple resource question.

The more resources left over after paying the top guy, the better support you will likely have.

Agreed, which is why I think it works. But I think the QB play/pay is more cause than effect.

And again, it's not JUST about cheap and it doesn't have to be "rookie." I also maintain that the "your best window is a QB's rookie contract" talk is massively overstated because so very very few QBs are playing at truly elite levels on rookie contracts. We've seen it a few times over the past three decades, and "a few times" is not strong enough to be a strategy.

Meanwhile, signing veteran, HoF QBs for below market is a a strategy that can be repeated. It happens a ton when you extend your rookie contract QBs before they're ELITE elite and/or before their cap numbers expand into a backloaded deal. It also happens when you get a surprise star like a Kurt Warner or something resembling a Ryan Tannehill resurgence (though that one did not yield a Super Bowl). And of course it happens when you're Tom Brady and just routinely take whatever offer feels good to you instead of maxing out your earnings.

In sum, below-market QB contracts for elite QBs account for far more Super Bowl wins than any other single metric I have noticed. Yes, that's a Tom Brady skew, but it's a narrative that exists in part outside of him, if slightly misunderstood to be focused on "rookie" deals.

it also confirms the thought that if ya can do it, ya do it the Packer way, draft and develop rookie QB's for at least 3 years behind a proven starter, when that QB starts he should be ready to give you a couple very good cheap seasons, and his 2nd contract wont break the bank.

I wouldn't call that the "Packers Way".

If anything, that way would be to look for QBs they believe in no matter what.

Favre trade... Could you imagine that these days? 1st rounder for a drunk 2nd rounder who had a disastrous rookie season with a comical stat line?

Rodgers pick... Value QB fell, TT picked him.

Love pick... Value QB fell, Gutey traded up to pick him.

Your idea of an ideal QB development path is great and all, but if the rookie QB plays great early, there's no way of getting more than 2 cheap seasons out of anyone like that
.

[YoHoChecko]

Tom Brady, on the other hand, appears all great because he has essentially donated cash for fame and SB wins. He is, to my knowledge, the ONLY player who has taken actual discounts. I really dunno whether to label him selfish or team-friendly.

He's also the only player with 7 Super Bowl Rings, and small-sample evidence of what happens when other elite QBs are playing on sub-market contracts would indicate the two are not unrelated.


Also, per the Rodgers and a charitable foundation thing... nah. Nope. Foundations don't do that much more good in the world because their original contribution is $150 million or $200 million. Whether your contract pays you $100M over 4 years or $150 million over 4 years will not discernably change anything about anything. Foundations function as endowment funds which continue to grow and add wealth while awarding grants, loans, and whatnot from that growth. How much good it does will matter entirely on what you choose to fund and how you choose the financing structure. It truly, truly, does not matter if he takes more or less.

Again, society will tell you that it is good to max out and use little quips like yours about how you can never have enough if you want to leverage it toward something. And most people buy into that. But they don't call the law of diminishing returns a law for nothin'. The marginal utility of every additional dollar decreases, and approaches zero past a certain point, and all hall of fame QBs in the modern era pass that point.

I'm not saying Rodgers *should* do anything. Or that I judge him for doing anything or not doing anything--I was one who laughed mightily at the notion that he might ever take a discount. I'm simply pointing out that it is a choice, and it is one that matters to championships. And it matters more than whether your offense is better than your defense or vice versa. If he wanted to max out lombardis, there's a path to attempt that. If he wants to max out dollars, there's a path to attempt that. For elite QBs, there is a choice; and it's foolish of us to deny it and excuse it away as if that choice is made for them because the obvious thing to do is max out money.

[Drj820]

It’s not the additional dollars that makes rodgers happy. It was being able to say for two weeks that he was highest paid qb. They all want to be able to say that. Adams got to say it for like 3 days, now Jaire can say it.

Brady just doesn’t care about that. He would rather show you than he doesn’t have enough fingers on one hand for all his rings. Boss move.

[YoHoChecko]

It’s not the additional dollars that makes rodgers happy. It was being able to say for two weeks that he was highest paid qb. They all want to be able to say that. Adams got to say it for like 3 days, now Jaire can say it.

Brady just doesn’t care about that. He would rather show you than he doesn’t have enough fingers on one hand for all his rings. Boss move.

Yes, correct.

Also at other positions, taking less money a) doesn't move the needle as much financially or championship-wise; and b) can disrupt a market. It can depress other players' values. So the Union doesn't like it, and the agents don't like it.

At QB, the market has risen so far above the other positions that resetting it lower would likely benefit more players than it harms (i.e. more players at all positions would become more valued with the excess money than there are elite QBs who benefit from the high QB market)

[Yoop]

It’s not the additional dollars that makes rodgers happy. It was being able to say for two weeks that he was highest paid qb. They all want to be able to say that. Adams got to say it for like 3 days, now Jaire can say it.

Brady just doesn’t care about that. He would rather show you than he doesn’t have enough fingers on one hand for all his rings. Boss move.

Yes, correct.

Also at other positions, taking less money a) doesn't move the needle as much financially or championship-wise; and b) can disrupt a market. It can depress other players' values. So the Union doesn't like it, and the agents don't like it.

At QB, the market has risen so far above the other positions that resetting it lower would likely benefit more players than it harms (i.e. more players at all positions would become more valued with the excess money than there are elite QBs who benefit from the high QB market)

great convo guys

thing is value and respect are measured in Dollars paid these days, at least when it comes to star athletes, not sure if Rodgers would have ever taken a home town discount on either of these last two extensions, so much seemed to sour him the last 4 or 5 years, the drafting of 3 mid round raw receivers had to !@#$ him off, as much as McCarthy not sticking to the run when it was working, to his single minded iso routes and very little diversity to disguise schemes, every defense in the league new what to expect from our offense, and with limited fire power our offense struggled, we saw a vastly improved Rodgers once Lafluer took over.

another thing with Brady taking less to help the team is that his wife makes enough for both of them, he has always had a bread winner, his riches where guaranteed, not so with Rodgers, he's never had anyone bank rolling him, course how many millions does a person need.

some seem to think this is Rodgers last year with the team, again, if it's money he wants why would he retire? that wouldn't make sense, he also said he didn't want to hang around and groom up a bunch of rookie receivers, yet here he is, if anything, at this stage I won't believe anything concerning what Rodgers says.

If it weren't for the fact that Love isn't ready and Rodgers still is our best chance to win I'd have been fine trading him for draft capitol.

[Drj820]

Rodgers also would probably be more open to taking less if it directly meant bringing in an FA of his choice, but the team for many years belittled him as “the player” and didn’t let him have input in those conversations, so he probably had no interest in helping them do their job. He just wanted his and was content to let them figure out the rest.

Good for the wallet, not the ring count. But Rodgers isn’t exactly known as a playoff winner anyways. He’s talented, wildly talented...but he blames others when things go wrong and barks at people when they don’t read his mind. He was always the type to want his money and an MVP trophy over a SB

[RingoCStarrQB]

Rodgers also would probably be more open to taking less if it directly meant bringing in an FA of his choice, but the team for many years belittled him as “the player” and didn’t let him have input in those conversations, so he probably had no interest in helping them do their job. He just wanted his and was content to let them figure out the rest.

Good for the wallet, not the ring count. But Rodgers isn’t exactly known as a playoff winner anyways. He’s talented, wildly talented...but he blames others when things go wrong and barks at people when they don’t read his mind. He was always the type to want his money and an MVP trophy over a SB

Have yet to covet a Rodgers jersey. Dickey and Zeke only. Would have been a better whiner.

[lupedafiasco]

I would like people to keep this same energy with Jaire Alexander. How dare a player be paid what they deserve.