Stat of the Day; Bolts & Dolts

by John Gennaro on Dec 1, 2009 4:17 AM PST in Bolts & Dolts

Through 11 games, these are your 2009 leaders in Bolts & Dolts:

Bolts

Dolts

Darren Sproles (4)
Chris Chambers (4)
Jacob Hester (3)
Offensive Line (2)
12 tied with 1

Funny that Sproles shows up on both of these lists. Either he's terribly inconsistent, or I've been too harsh on him. As you would expect in the midst of an 8-3 season, there were significantly more Bolts than there were Dolts.

Tweet Comment 85 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Sproles

There is a third option; you’ve been too nice to him.

Mountain West Connection ::Above the Rest::
Bolts From The Blue "There’s a gleam men. Let’s go get the gleam! Focus and Finish!!! One play at a time!!! Let's Go!!!"
Representing the San Diego State University Aztecs, home of the 2009 College Cheerleading National Champions in the all women's division.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Dec 1, 2009 5:29 AM PST reply actions

Also

I like the picture caption that makes it sound like “Bolts and Dolts” is some kind of professional stat. Well played.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Dec 1, 2009 5:30 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

Thank you, sir.

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John Gennaro on Dec 1, 2009 5:44 AM PST up reply actions

Sproles is on his way

to losing what bargaining chips he had gathered.

Unless he’s very reasonable about the terms of a new contract, I don’t see him here next year.

If the thunder don't get ya then the lightning will!!

Robert Hunter

by Buck Melanoma on Dec 1, 2009 5:44 AM PST reply actions

I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire backfield is rebuilt next season. New starter and new backup (Bennett?). Tolbert and Hester will still be around though.

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John Gennaro on Dec 1, 2009 5:45 AM PST up reply actions

The only question is...

…who is going to run the screens? I don’t think LT will play for another team, he’ll either be back or retire and I think it will be the former.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Dec 1, 2009 6:10 AM PST up reply actions

C.J. Spiller?

by Grey Suit on Dec 1, 2009 7:18 AM PST up reply actions

Something like that.

I think if LT stays he’s going to be #2 on the depth chart. I also don’t know if he’s okay with that.

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John Gennaro on Dec 1, 2009 8:14 AM PST up reply actions

I thought Marshall Faulk’s final season where he started and gave way to Steven Jackson each week would be a great template.

by Orz on Dec 1, 2009 8:39 AM PST up reply actions

could Sproles

stick around and be a kind of rb/kick returner/wes welker in the slot sort of guy for a reasonable price?

by Gorditoe1 on Dec 1, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions

John will say...

But putting Sproles in the slot takes Naane off the field…who would you rather have catching that pass?

by Orz on Dec 1, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions

they both have great positives...

Sproles is so explosive he could give us the kind of edge just how the cheatriots had in their undefeated season.

by Gorditoe1 on Dec 1, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions

He's going 1st round

We have bigger needs to address with our 1st.

If the thunder don't get ya then the lightning will!!

Robert Hunter

by Buck Melanoma on Dec 1, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions

If we can Spiller

There would be no other position that could compare to the need that he would fill. Like John was saying, there is a strong chance that we’ll be starting from scratch in the backfield. Spiller fits this system perfectly. That being said (and maybe this is what you meant) he’s likely to go in the top half of the first round and we won’t have a pick in that area.

The opinion shouldn’t be: “Let’s not take a RB in the first round because we have bigger needs.” Because that’s simply not true. No need will be bigger than the RB position in the offseason. If you aren’t going to take a RB in the first it should be because there’s no player left worth a pick that high or that there are other players at other positions that are better that address needs. However, if we have a chance to get a player that is at the top of the Chargers draft board and also happens to be a RB, that would fill a huge need for the team. Spiller could do that, but he probably won’t be there.

Personally, I’m going to be checking out Jonathan Dwyer in his remaining game(s) and see if there’s a reason he doesn’t have many receptions, while also checking out the internets to see what “experts” think of his hands. I’m really curious about this Fresno State RB Ryan Matthews. After that though the pickings get slim as far as “ideal” candidates for this team. I’d love to be inside A.J. Smith and John Spanos’ heads on this one.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions

Hard call.

RB = low positional value unless you’re lucky enough to find LT Jr.
NT = only one 3-4 NT prospect in 1st, and he’s not an AJ kind of guy.
Anything else = not as much of a need, even if better bargain in 1st round.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Dec 1, 2009 10:29 AM PST up reply actions

There's more than than 1 NT prospect in the draft

It’s just that they’ll (Suh and McCoy) both be going in the top 5.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions

I feel like we learned

That having a Jamal type player is not so important. I think a three headed monster like we have now is better. While Jamal is better than any of our current rotation, the combined current rotation is doing just as well as Jamal did. Plus, you get it for a lower price and with less risk of a single injury blowing up your whole defensive scheme. And they are more fresh as the game goes on.

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 1, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions

You can have both

A rotation and a dominant force.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

dominant forces are expensive

in dollars and high draft picks.

I think you should spend your #1 draft picks on QBs, LTs, and pass rushers. Plus, anyone else who is an amazing talent (at NT/DT I would say a Haynesworth level talent, not a Jamal level talent)

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 1, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions

We have all those.

We can improve at RT, RB, NT, ILB and SS. We can build for the future with a WR or CB. There’s no sense spending a 1st on a C, so that’s pretty much it. None of those positions scream “pick me in the first round” to me: maybe corner, but how many 1st-round CBs can you take? What I’m saying is that we’re stocked at the high-value instant-impact positions, and we need quality B guys. I don’t know if that merits trading down: we’re all hoping for lousy draft position, and it’s not so hard to contemplate taking a top-3 RT or some stud at a lower-value position with a very late 1st-rounder.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Dec 1, 2009 11:32 AM PST up reply actions

good point about the late 1st rounder

by the time we get down there it starts to feel more like second rounders anyways

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 1, 2009 12:56 PM PST up reply actions

You really think we need another WR?

What about Craig Davis, and Demetrius Byrd? I think those two might have some contributions in 2010.

by SJO on Dec 3, 2009 4:47 PM PST up reply actions

You're nuts.

You don’t think a Jamal-level talent is worth a 1st round pick? For the most part with DTs, the only impact guys like Jamal, Hampton, Haynesworth, Ngata, etc are going to come from the 1st round, so expecting to find them elsewhere is foolish.

Talent is talent, you draft the most talented player you can with your 1st pick. Cherry-picking positions is just going to get you in trouble.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I see it like this

our run defense sucked the past 2+ years with Jamal in there. It seems to suck a little less with the three headed monster in there. I know there are other factors in play, but I don’t see how spending a 1st round pick (or signing a high priced FA) to get someone of Jamal’s caliber is worth it if it doesn’t improve our run defense…

therefore, I don’t think Jamal level talent is worth a 1st round pick when the results can be capably replace (or even improved) with three guys who are essentially off the street FAs

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 1, 2009 12:49 PM PST up reply actions

You got it backwards

Our rush defense is one of the worst in the league this year. The last two years it has at least been an above average unit by DVOA. Williams was making a huge difference on this team.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

^This. I’m not sure where Stephen’s getting the impression that our run defense is as good without Jamal as it is with him.

Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

by Richard Wade on Dec 1, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions

Somewhere in between. Our run-D looks worse than it is because it’s very hard to throw on us. Look at YPC, and it’s a bit better. But we’re just not going to get maximum theoretical value from our first round pick. The best players at the value positions will be gone, and we’ll be looking at the also-rans and the studs from the lower-value positions. This team probably wants the latter.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Dec 1, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah

I like the rotation, but

Jamal >> Rotation

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Dec 2, 2009 7:00 AM PST up reply actions

I'm not real good at looking up DVOA

but I think it definately took a few weeks to find our groove after Jamal went down, but it feels like our run defense over the past 5-6 games has been very good, and at least better than the last two years. Anyone care to look at our defensive DVOA over the last 5 or 6 games compared to the prior two years?

Non-DVOA numbers
2007 rush yards per game: 107
2008 rush yards per game: 102.6
2009 last 6 games rush yards/game: 99

Granted, we had the eagles in there, but we also had the Giants. Also, part of it may also be due to the fact that our offense has been getting up big early which causes the other team to pass instead of run. But to some extent, yards are yards and less yards is more better. I just don’t see how drafting a Jamal level talent (top 10 1st round pick or so) is justified when the three headed monster seems to be doing as well or better a job.

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 2, 2009 8:51 AM PST up reply actions

Our run defense over the last six weeks.
Week 12: 22.5%
Week 11: 14.9%
Week 10: -66.6%
Week 9: 2.2%
Week 8: 16.5%
Week 7: 8.6%

Week 10 is the only week where they were above average (negative numbers are better on defense).

2008: -0.2%
2007: -1.3%

So, over the last six weeks that’s five games where they weren’t as good as they were in 2007 or 2008 and one game where they were better.

by Richard Wade on Dec 2, 2009 3:08 PM PST up reply actions

It made me chuckle

That we are coming off the worst run defending game of the last few games (and maybe the season) and Stephen wants to say that our run defense is better than the last couple years. Sorry, Stephen, but it’s kind of funny.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 2, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions

In Stephen’s defense the three games where our run defense was worse than against KC were weeks 2, 3 and 4.

by Richard Wade on Dec 2, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions

So his "feelings"

are right in that we’ve tangibly improved since the bye week, but they don’t seem to be right about us being better than we were in previous years.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 2, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions

Bingo.

by Richard Wade on Dec 2, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions

In my defense

my feelings match up quite nicely with the yards/game stats.

And last week we gave up 115 yards rushing… which is not bad, and certainly not our worst effort of the year. I know we all like to pretend that DVOA is the last word, but sometimes something as simple as yards given up over the course of the game is very indicative of your effectiveness.

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 2, 2009 3:59 PM PST up reply actions

In this case, however

It is not.

It may be an indication of the defense as a whole’s effectiveness, or the offense’s effectiveness, but it is NOT an indication of the run defense’s effectiveness.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 2, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions

Also

Everyone (include those who own the formula) does not believe that DVOA is the last word. However, it is the best metric for measuring things like the effectiveness of run defense. Bringing up inferior and inherently flawed stats and then saying that DVOA isn’t perfect so those inferior stats that make the argument work are better is not a good way to give credibility to an argument. It actually has a name: it’s called confirmation bias.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 2, 2009 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I see it more like a quick and easy indicator of trouble

You’re telling me the patient has a bad flu, I pop in a thermometer and the temperature is normal…

You’re telling me that your atomic clock says its midnight, I look outside and see the sun is up.

You’re telling me a guy like Jamal is critical for our run defense and I see he is in the record book as the NT on the defense that gave up the most yards to a RB in a single game. And I see that since he has been out (and since we got our ducks lined up at NT) we’ve given up 99 yards a game rushing. I’ll take 99 yards per game rushing the rest of the way.

(plus, that confirmation bias thing cuts two ways)

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 2, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions

Raw yardage doesn’t tell you what you think it tells you.

by Richard Wade on Dec 2, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions

To add to that. It really feels like you started with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis and now that the facts don’t support your conclusion you’ve been forced into using irrational arguments and bad statistics to prove it.

by Richard Wade on Dec 2, 2009 5:11 PM PST up reply actions

No

I take the baby with the flu and see that the temperature is high. You take the baby with the flu feel his forehead and tell me he feels fine.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 2, 2009 4:52 PM PST up reply actions

Also

Since I’m giving names to your arguments. The “he is in the record book as the NT on the defense that gave up the most yards to a RB in a single game” is a straw man argument. Another irrational argument tool.

Actually, I think the baby with the flu thing is as well, but not quite as text book. It’s more on a non sequitur.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 2, 2009 5:08 PM PST up reply actions

we're running out of space

and probably need to agree to disagree. When we play Tennesee in a few weeks and we hold them to 115 yards rushing, I don’t want to hear about how crappy our defensive DVOA was :-)

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 3, 2009 8:09 AM PST up reply actions

We weren't talking about Defensive DVOA

We were talking about the run defense. And if we give up 115 yards rushing to Tennessee on 10 carries, I damned well better be talked about how bad our run defense was.

You realize by denigrating DVOA on run defense you are basically saying that it’s the same thing to give up 100, 1 yard runs than it is to give up 5, 20 yard runs right? Because DVOA can tell the difference and yard stats can’t.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 3, 2009 10:51 AM PST up reply actions

You need to take into account that they gave up those 115 yards to a lousy football team.

by Richard Wade on Dec 2, 2009 4:40 PM PST up reply actions

Don't sleep

on Dan Williams, TN

If the thunder don't get ya then the lightning will!!

Robert Hunter

by Buck Melanoma on Dec 1, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions

Reports seem to vary on Williams

I know he has some helium right now. But he’s still not really grading out as a 1st rounder or even a consensus 2nd rounder yet. He does seem to have the bulk for the NT position.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 4:11 PM PST up reply actions

I'd like to see him drop to our 2nd

And for anyone who thinks that a dominant NT isn’t a premium in the 3-4 …..

I’ve got some Virginia swampland that I can make you a great deal on. :-P

If the thunder don't get ya then the lightning will!!

Robert Hunter

by Buck Melanoma on Dec 2, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions

Do you think Suh or McCoy could play NT in a 3-4 right away? I don’t know that either man is big enough right now. Of course, Jamal Williams was just a bit over 300 lbs when he came out of Ok. St.

Also, people seem to like Dan Williams from Tennessee. He’s listed at about 325 and I hear his draft stock is rising.

by BORTZ on Dec 2, 2009 8:14 AM PST up reply actions

oh, well. you addressed the dan williams part. oops.

by BORTZ on Dec 2, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions

I don't think that extra weight over 300 lbs in muscle

So they could bulk up to the proper weight. Suh eats double teams for lunch, so he’d be a natural fit for NT. McCoy less so, but I’d take that skill set over any other potential NT prospect (other than Suh). Williams is big, but without the proper skills he wouldn’t end up any better than a typical DT converting to NT. Also, I’m not sure which position he’s playing in Kiffin’s D. If he’s the “Warren Sapp” then that’s not going to fly as a NT in the NFL, if he’s the “Booger McFarland” then that works a little better.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 2, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions

Oh, that extra weight isn’t definitly not muscle. You see the guts on Jamal and Wilfork? He wilfork anything into his mouth! Sorry. bad.

I just don’t know that you do either of those dudes any favors by moving them to 3-4 NT. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. I doubt they go to a 3-4 team.

Wow, I just looked and the DT starting opposite of Dan Williams is listed at 257. I’m sure D. Williams sees his fair share of double teams.

by BORTZ on Dec 2, 2009 2:57 PM PST up reply actions

In the games that I have watched

It seems like Dwyer stays in and blocks on a lot of techs pass plays. Maybe he can’t catch or maybe in that offense the “B Back” as his spot is called just doesn’t go on many routes.

No doubt Spiller is the most explosive back in college, but he sure looks slight in build to me. I would love it if the Chargers got either back in the draft. And I do think RB is a position of need in this off season.

by JeromeB on Dec 1, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions

Spiller definitely is on the light side

That, combined with the concussion issue, is already why I’m hesitant to say that Jahvid Best would be a good fit. If our scouts say that Spiller can’t fill out to about 205-215, then I say “pass” and the same goes for Best if they also think his concussions are behind him.

I can’t imagine the Chargers having a starting RB who has trouble receiving passes (which is probably one of the reasons they let Turner walk). I’ve yet to see anywhere that he can’t catch the ball, just that his receptions total is low. I’m waiting for some detailed scouting reports, but right now I can only find those for seniors.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions

is Best going to play next year? His injury scared the hell out of me.

For what it’s worth, Dwyer’s high school scouting report says “Dwyer is also a good receiver out of the backfield.”

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John Gennaro on Dec 1, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions

I don't know

His NFL scouting grades are still in the 90s and that’s worthy of a 1st round pick. I’m not sure how they evaluate a player like that. Is there a way to determine if his concussions are going to make him more likely to miss time in the NFL? The second concussion was definitely a traumatic play and not some sort of re-occurrence from a normally benign hit. If he is going to play it seems like you’d want to cash in now as opposed to risking another amateur year.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions

Concussions are never behind you.

by Richard Wade on Dec 1, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions

Tell me about it.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Dec 1, 2009 2:10 PM PST up reply actions

u-need

a o-line or d-line in the 1 round

okay i have cereal palsy arhrtis and chronic fatiue as well i have a grea life loveing folks some days are better that other days i got a make a wish in 2001 saw my favorive team the broncos was the trip of the lifetime i wish everyone couild gotten to enjoy that with me i know some of u hate the broncos and that ok but i bleed organ and bule

by j-man on Dec 1, 2009 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

If we were to win it all this year

I could see him retiring to be a FT father.

If the thunder don't get ya then the lightning will!!

Robert Hunter

by Buck Melanoma on Dec 1, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions

True

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Dec 1, 2009 8:24 AM PST up reply actions

Agreed

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John Gennaro on Dec 1, 2009 9:28 AM PST up reply actions

That settles it.

CJ Spiller with the 32nd pick. I’ll call the other teams’ GMs and tell them that if they don’t back off, Norv will club them with his shiny new Lombardi.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Dec 1, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions

And LT will come out of retirement to hold them down.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Dec 1, 2009 10:33 AM PST up reply actions

I wonder what penalty the NFL would dish out

If you just sent hired goons to hold down anyone that tries to send in their pick to the commissioner.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions

No 1st round picks if we win the super bowl

No 2nd round pick if we don’t.

Isn’t that how the patsies got off?

by Dude52089 on Dec 1, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions

Homer: [answering the door] Who is it?
Voice: Goons.
Homer: Who?
Voice: Hired goons.
Homer: Hired goons? [opens the door]

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John Gennaro on Dec 1, 2009 10:45 AM PST up reply actions

Goodell: With the 1st pick in the NFL draft the St. Louis Rams take… Goons? Hired Goons?
Voice: Just move on to the next pick there lil’ buddy.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions

It seems to me

that hiring goons to mess with an NFL team is a rather stupid idea.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Dec 1, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions

I guess you could give them guns….

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Dec 1, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions

I think if we win the Super Bowl LT will retire, his career finally complete.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 1, 2009 10:58 AM PST up reply actions

Plus no matter what

Acee is reporting that LT is gone next year regardless of the result of the season.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 1, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions

And Acee is never wrong in his predictions.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Dec 1, 2009 2:10 PM PST up reply actions

Not saying it's gospel.

Just saying.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 1, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions

Sometimes he's not predicting

Sometimes he’s relaying the whispers from the front office.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 1, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions

That's more the vibe I got.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 1, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions

plus, when LT signed his contract in the off-season, we all knew that this year was a make or break year. If he had a good year and was back to the old LT, he would be back for another year. If not, he was going to be gone. While we can argue why the running game isn’t as good as it was 3 or 4 years ago, but I don’t think anyone is arguing that LT is as good as ever. He has definately lost a step. And that means he won’t be worth what his contract will pay him next year.

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 2, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions

Let's see him finish up the year before we make any decisions.

I’d love to see LT have an explosive playoffs.

by SJO on Dec 3, 2009 4:56 PM PST up reply actions

True.

And sometimes those whispers are wrong. That’s what I’m really saying. This is an NFL team, after all: not quite the CIA….

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Dec 2, 2009 9:20 AM PST up reply actions

So if it's not the CIA

Then wouldn’t it be more likely that the whispers were true since they wouldn’t be as buttoned up as the CIA?

Or are you saying the CIA leaks all their info and the NFL teams are buttoned up about and therefore the whispers shouldn’t be believed?

My feeling is that Acee has a pretty good relationship with some of the Front Office people and he can read behind the lines and relay that to us or re-word some off-the-record stuff so that it doesn’t get anyone in trouble. Either way, I wouldn’t bet too much against what he’s saying.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 2, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions

kinda sad

that 3 of the 11 from the current roster who made the 50 greatest may not be here next year.

IMO part of the problem with Sproles inconsistency is how he’s used. Just use him for kick returns and short passes on 3rd down. quit running him up the middle.

by boltsgamedayfootball on Dec 1, 2009 2:41 PM PST reply actions