Cowboys vs. Lions: War of words continue
by Dave Halprin on Dec 7, 2007 9:03 AM CST
in News
72 comments
The war of words between the Cowboys and the Lions shows no sign of abating. Lions center Dominic Raiola took exception to Terence Newman's comments about Jon Kitna.
"Who the hell does he think he is?" Raiola said on Thursday. "You don't make comments like that in this league."
[snip]
"If you're going to (hit him hard), do it fair and square," Raiola said. "You're going to try to cheap-shot somebody? Say you're going to pick him off or you're going to make one of his receivers pay -- I don't care -- but when you say you've got money put away for fines? That takes it to a whole different level.
"You say you're going to come out and hurt him and what are we supposed to think? What if we come out and say we're going to take cheap shots the entire game? They're not going to like that, are they? Nobody would like that."
[snip]
"We're ready for (Newman) to blitz, but we haven't seen him blitz one time," Raiola said. "He's not the blitzer. Maybe he's talking about when he scrambles."
Things could definitely turn a little chippy on Sunday. Raiola is a guy who doesn’t mind talking a little bit. Before their Thanksgiving battle with the Packers, Raiola was nose-to-nose with Packers linebacker Nick Barnett jawing before the teams took the field. Unfortunately for Raiola, the Lions drove down the field on their first possession and converted a 3rd down to have a 1st and goal from the Packers one-yard line. But the play was wiped out by a Raiola chop block and the Lions had to kick a FG. That set the tone for the Lions as they failed to take advantage of early possessions to build a lead.
For the record, I don’t have any divided loyalties between the Cowboys and my main man Calvin Johnson on Sunday. For the first time in my life I have to root against CJ in a football game and root against him I will. Megatron, as they call him now, has been injured for a good part of the season but the Lions feel he’s pretty close to being 100% for the first time in a while. With Roy Williams out for the Lions, CJ may play a bigger role this week.
"He had just a marvelous practice (Wednesday)," Martz said of Johnson. "We're trying to get him a little more involved. But you've got to be careful, because he's still not exactly at 100%. But he's getting pretty close, so we're encouraged by that."
Troy Aikman visited Valley Ranch yesterday and gave a wide-ranging interview about a variety of subjects. It’s a pretty good interview, you can check it out for yourself, here. You can also read about some of his answers in a Nick Eatman article, here.
0 recs |
72 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Ratliff is a stud
probably the most underrated player on the team, given how so many bloggers here thought he would pushed aside by Tank Johnson eventually.
Well, like I said before, that ain't happening. I can see Ratliff manning that position for a long time.
by Terry on Dec 7, 2007 9:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I would rather have Ratliff at DE
Ratliff is a playmaker and nose tackle is the least playmaking position on defense thats why I liked the Tank signing.
by Burt D on Dec 7, 2007 10:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ratliff
Hey, Burt.
This is an idea that has interested me too.
If Tank can play nose tackle as well(or almost as well) as Ratliff can, but Ratliff can provide an upgrade at DE, there would be something to be gained here.
I like the idea of having Ratliff on the field in a play-making position.
Interesting thought. I wonder how much thought the Cowboy coaches are putting into it.
by brushpile on Dec 7, 2007 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ratliff
I sometimes wonder if Spears shouldn't be playing nose tackle and Ratliff playing where Spears is.
by brushpile on Dec 7, 2007 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Spears
should be playing the bench. Tank at the nose and Ratliff rotating with Hatcher at DE would be a very good combination.
by Cowboys81 on Dec 7, 2007 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Spears
I am coming around to this thinking myself.
by brushpile on Dec 7, 2007 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I could see the Cowboys letting Spears go...
and moving Ratliff to DE next year. Tank and Fergie could man the NT spot.
by Dave Halprin on Dec 7, 2007 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Spears a FA next season??
If thats the case, maybe, but I highly doubt they just cut him as he's pretty good as a run defender and that part of his game doesn't get enough credit. We didn't draft him to be a pass rusher.
by Terry on Dec 7, 2007 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought he was a RFA next year
But now I don't think so, I looked it up and didn't see his name. So they'll keep him, but I'm praying they bench him and put Hatcher and Ratliff at the spot.
by Dave Halprin on Dec 7, 2007 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well, just like with JJ and MB3
I really don't think it matters who starts, as our DL always rotates anyways, so everyone plays a lot.
I'd rather start Spears because he's more effective stopping the run and teams usually come out trying to run first.
by Terry on Dec 7, 2007 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying...
I want Hatcher/Ratliff to rotate at one end and Canty/Bowen (or someone new) at the other. I'm at the end with Spears.
by Dave Halprin on Dec 7, 2007 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There is also something called a trade
Spears was a Parcells pet cat, JJ and Wade would have no qualms moving him to another team. And I am sure a lot of 3-4 teams would like to have him. He is a solid starter who is good against the run.
by Burt D on Dec 7, 2007 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, several 3-4 clubs need bodies
I know the Jets are hurting for 3-4 players, and SF could probably use some too. I am not sure what their specific positional needs are, but Spears is a steady run-stuffing 3-4 DE. No more, no less. Someone should be willing to deal for him, though who knows what the return would be.
by grapejoos on Dec 7, 2007 5:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing a fourth for him +/- a round
by Burt D on Dec 7, 2007 6:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jets would be a prime candidate for trade
One they are thin at DE, and two they seem to like our scraps (Abe Elam, Kenyon Coleman)
by Burt D on Dec 8, 2007 12:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Last time I checked
We are 11-1 (read that again) with an improving defense that gets better and better each week, creating lots of turnovers, sacks and havoc on opposing offenses.
And you guys are seriously considering trading a starter on this defense, Spears, for a 4th round draft pick???? And you think we'd get another starter on this defense with that pick? That's less than a 50/50 shot at best.
I love what Hatcher and Ratliff can do as far as rushing the passer, but Spears is part of this winning package and we should keep him.
by John916 on Dec 8, 2007 4:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its just idle chatter in how we can improve
our roster. My sincere apologies if you are Marcus Spears dad, but that is what this blog is for.
by Burt D on Dec 8, 2007 8:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Apology accepted
No problem Burt. Maybe we could get a first founder for Romo, too.
by John916 on Dec 8, 2007 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
let him play out his contract
Spears certainly isn't hurting this team. He's a solid run stuffing 3-4 DE.
by Terry on Dec 8, 2007 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ratliff is just as good if not better at stopping
the run, and Hatcher is always improving.
by Burt D on Dec 7, 2007 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think Hatcher
has come close to reaching his potential, I really think next year he take a major step to becoming a bigtime player.
by Deke on Dec 7, 2007 5:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Spears has a 5 year contract
Spears signed a five year contract in July 2005 worth $9.35 million and includes guarantees of $6.7 million. So we have him for another 3 years at the most. So cutting him wouldn't cost us all that much it appears. I would try to trade him in the off season before we went that route. I honestly think he won't be on this team next year regardless.
by Cowboys81 on Dec 8, 2007 12:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It looks like we paid out his
by Burt D on Dec 8, 2007 8:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wade has said at the beginning of the year he saw
Ratliff as a starter, but he just didn't realize he would be a starter at nose tackle. I think once we get Fergy back next year we will move Rat over to DE. We are going to have to trade Spears in the offseason.
by Burt D on Dec 7, 2007 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Ratliff as a rotation player
and not as a starter. I just believe he's less effective the more snaps he plays, he's a high energy undersized type player for the position of nose tackle, limiting his snap to say 25-30 snaps a game, he's really effective and stands out, but after that amount of snaps, he seems less effective, thats why I just like him more as a defensive end in a rotation basis or as a defensive tackle in the nickel while limiting his snaps where he can use that energy and quickness and not get worn down as much. I really think he's a very good player, loved the pick, a seventh rounder, a player alot of teams had on their radar in the draft, especially the Giants.
by Deke on Dec 7, 2007 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well he would be rotating a lot with Hatcher
I'm sure
by Burt D on Dec 7, 2007 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As far as trading Spears goes
Remi Ayodele would be more likely to be cut to make room for Fergy. We wouldn't need to keep Fergy, Tank, Ratliff AND Remi on the 53.
by John916 on Dec 8, 2007 4:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For the Record
I think Newman's comments are way out of line. I'd prefer he continue playing solid coverage, rather than get into a jawing contest with a team that's looking for motivation to play well. Implying he's planning to make a cheap shot is the short of talk that can get you both fined and suspended. It also gets the other team fired up.
Just stick to the game, Terence, and don't say stupid things.
by kindablue on Dec 7, 2007 9:49 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
yeah
I'm definitely ready for all this trash-talk to be over and done.
by Nelson on Dec 7, 2007 10:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
at this point
i'm more worried that the other team is going to be looking for the cheap shots. at this point, the biggest obstacle between the cowboys and the super bowl is injuries
by ab03 on Dec 7, 2007 10:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking the same thing
Fingers crossed....
by grapejoos on Dec 7, 2007 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
over the line
I agree, I think he crossed the line on this one. They had him via phone on "Best Damn Sports Show Period" last night, talking about his comments and the letter he got from the NFL, and he was saying he didn't intend to take cheap shots, and he's a clean player and all that, which is true and the guys on the show were backing him up, but they why say stuff like that in the first place? Trash talk is one thing, it is part of the game and can be fun, but when you talk about basically expecting/planning/hoping to make a play/hit that will get a fine, and wanting to hurt another player, that is a different thing, going too far. Players and fans should never wish for or intentionally try to cause injury to another player, no matter how insulting his words may be perceived to be. 1) It potentially hurts his team as the refs put a target on him and potentially the rest of the D as well to be unnecessarily looking for an excuse to penalize him, and 2) it is just bad sportsmanship, not classy, and a bad example.
by scottmaui on Dec 7, 2007 10:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
As bad as it might sound the point of hitting the QB is to knock him out of the game. So causing injury is part of game, period. If your intention as a defensive player is not to knock the QB out then you should'nt be playing the game. I don't agree on intentially taking cheap shots, but causing injury is part of the game.
by Cowboys81 on Dec 7, 2007 10:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with that
Yes, injuries happening is part of the game. But intentionally trying to injure another player is not, IMHO. Especially not the QB. That's why there are so many special rules to protect the QB. The point isn't to try to find a way to get around those rules and injure him anyway. When you get a chance to hit him, you hit him hard so he feels it, but you hit him fair, so he doesn't get injured.
Why did Nate Jones say he felt bad for knocking Favre out of the game? "I don't know how I feel about knocking a guy - hopefully he's OK," Jones said. He shouldn't have felt bad, because he was just doing his job. As Grizz said, "Don’t worry Nate, you were just doing your job, it was a clean, solid hit." His intent wasn't to cause injury. If his intent had been to cause injury, then he would have had reason to feel bad.
And this doesn't change just because they happen to respect Favre and not Kitna. You're saying that the point of hitting a QB is to knock him out of the game, period. And I just think that's wrong.
by scottmaui on Dec 7, 2007 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
man, I played football as a defensive player in HS and College. Your intentions are to lay out a QB or another as hard as you can. Cheap shots are not part of the game, but injuries are. If your idea of not going full blast with a clean hit on a QB is not your game than you shouldn't be playing football. They coach you up this way early on. The last thing you want is for a QB to be seriously injured, but if you can knock him out of the game without causing serious injury like Nate Jones did to Favre, than you did your job. Why do you think so many defensive players have a problem with the rules today? This is not flag football here. Some of these rules have handcuffed the players from doing what they were taught from day 1.
by Cowboys81 on Dec 7, 2007 12:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
cheap shots
Cowboys81,
You say that cheap shots are not part of the game, I agree.
I think where Newman went over the line is when he said that he would be willing to pay the fine, which implies it would have to be a cheap shot since he would not be fined for a hard but clean hit.
by brushpile on Dec 7, 2007 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed scottmaui
Newman crossed the line, I think he was just having some fun and got a little carried away. Sounds a little like Kitna! I must say that the publicity angle here is interesting for Newman. I have absolutely no fear that Newman would suddenly lay a cheap shot on someone, but I am a little worried that Shaun Rogers might eat Romo if he gets a chance in light of these comments.
by grapejoos on Dec 7, 2007 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha!
I have absolutely no fear that Newman would suddenly lay a cheap shot on someone, but I am a little worried that Shaun Rogers might eat Romo if he gets a chance in light of these comments.
Now that's funny!
by Dave Halprin on Dec 7, 2007 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was just listening
to Mickey Spagnola and he said what Newman's comments about Kitna were probably meant to create attention, and I agree. Think about it, Newman has gained more attention from the national media, something he hasn't had before. Believe it or not it probably helps his chances at getting named for the Pro Bowl. You think the letter from the NFL was accidentally left on his locker? Newman left it there for everyone to see, including the media. I say who gives a rats ass on what Newman said. It's not a big deal. I have no problem what he said. I love the fire some of these players have this year.
by Cowboys81 on Dec 7, 2007 10:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt Newman did this for media attention
This isn't the kind of attention one wants. His character has been thrown into question, etc. I think it was more a case of being in a locker room full of guys all agreeing that Kitna needs to be destroyed, and losing sight of the fact we live in a world that frowns upon excessive violence (ie. we aren't in the Galdiator days anymore, too many liberal girly men controlling the media.) I haven't heard the interview but it sounds like he may have been egged on by the interviewers as well.
by John916 on Dec 8, 2007 4:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
back to spears for a min.
i dont see what everyone else see's, because when i watch them play im glad he's in there stuffing the run and he does it very well. yeah ratliff does a very good job but he's not taking on tackles, shaking them off and helping are team to be
#4 against the run..our team is very close to the top of the league and people want to trade it away. I'm glad we have him,ratliff,canty,hatcher, d-ware, ellis,tank, spencer and anyone else they can get or involve....it's not like we're 6-6 after 12 games....we're 11-1. there's really not much to complain about....
by hashishkabob on Dec 7, 2007 7:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
With regard to Spears
I think alot of cowboy fans, as do I thought that Spears would be more of a force when we drafted him, he's been solid the last five or six games, but he hassn't seem to take the next step in his development. Canty,Hatcher,Ware,Ratliff,Spencer and Tank, everyone seeme to talks about their potential, or how they have progressed since last year, but with Spears, you dont see him making the eye catching plays that you hope to see and get that feeling that he's going to be sometihng special in time.
by Deke on Dec 7, 2007 8:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I feel the same way
I'll admit that I like having Spears for the run-stuffing and he does help for that. He's basically a DT playing DE, and in a 3-4 that can be pretty effective. The most frustrating thing for me is that you can't really see his motor running the way you can with a Ratliff or a Hatcher. Those guys are always working, always pursuing. Spears is big and strong, but I don't see him making many "effort" plays like a lot of our guys. Maybe you need a mix of both, and we have been great against the run with Spears in there. But Canty is a great run-stuffer too and he's just a lot more visible in making plays than the guy on the opposite side of the line.
by grapejoos on Dec 7, 2007 10:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Deke, Spears wasn't drafted to be that type
of player. Parcells drafted him to be a body occupying 3-4 DE and nothing more. Why Cowboys fans ever thought he's be another Richard Seymour is beyond me.
by Terry on Dec 8, 2007 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think its too much to ask
from a player to show some progression in his development who spent alot of time churping in training camp about how Bill Parcells and his scheme was holding him back and not allowing him to use his play making ability to make plays. Spears, a player that the cowboys did everything they could to move up to draft him after they selected Ware, a player that was highly touted in the draft who everybody thought was near a top ten pick who dropped into our lap after Jerry couldn't swing a deal to move up to select him. We see progression from every other young linemen on our roster, except the big churper himself,Spears. Yes, he has been solid in the last five or six games, but the guy is suppose to be a penetrating defensive end, we dont see that from him, we dont see him making plays in the backfield, we dont see the pressure on the quarterback, we dont see the collapsing of the pocket, we rarely see it from him as we do from every other linemen, I just dont think its too much to ask of a player, especially if that player was the one who was doing all the churping about how he was being held back.
by Deke on Dec 8, 2007 10:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My issues with Spears are two-fold
- He rarely, if ever, creates pressure or gets to the QB. I understand that he plays DE in a 3-4 and that's not really a glory position. But, Canty is now getting to the QB a few times a game on a regular basis, Hatcher gets there some too, and even Bowen, in his limited playing time, gets there once in a while. So while I'm not expecting 8 sacks or so a year, I would like to see him pressure the QB much more often.
- In the run game, he does use his big body to help clog the run lane, but again, he rarely makes the tackle. He just doesn't make plays. Canty from the other side will bust through and make a tackle or disrupt the play in the backfield, or he'll pursue down the line to help make the play. Unless the offense runs straight at Spears, he's pretty much useless on the play.
I just need more production out of him to be satisfied.
by Dave Halprin on Dec 7, 2007 10:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the problem Grizz is you expect more
out of him because he's a first rd draft pick. If he was a middle rounder, I don't think you'd be quite as disappointed.
The fact is Spears was never a pass rusher, even at LSU. The Cowboys didn't draft him expecting him to put pressure on the qb. He's very athletic for a 3-4 DE, but Parcells liked him because he could engulf O linemen in his 3-4 scheme.
Is he a great playmaker? Absolutely not. Is he a productive player who plays the run well? Absolutely.
He is what he is and I think he's a pretty good player.I have no problem with him starting and rotating out with our other DE's. Keep in mind, and you know this to be true, in a 3-4, you can't have enough DE's.
by Terry on Dec 8, 2007 9:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
being good against the run and being productive
are two different things. How many tackles does he have?
Plus when Fergy comes back I would like to see Rat moved to DE, which would mean there will be a backlog at that DE spot, and I wouldn't want Spears cutting into Rat and Hatcher's playing time. We might as well get something out of him now instead of wasting a roster spot on Spears.
by Burt D on Dec 8, 2007 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong Terry
Stop trying to read my mind. It has nothing to do with where he was drafted. It has everything to do with production, and I don't think he produces. End of my story. No hidden agenda, nothing about where he was drafted. I just don't think he produces. Accept that I, and others, can have a different opinion.
by Dave Halprin on Dec 8, 2007 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well, if he wasn't producing
I doubt that Phillips would start him and play him.
Just my opinion.
by Terry on Dec 8, 2007 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Spears is doing just enough to keep his
starting job, any less he would see a lot of pine. And frankly that is just not good enough.
by Burt D on Dec 8, 2007 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
thats your opinion
I happen to think it is.
by Terry on Dec 8, 2007 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i don't agree.
if he was in on 3rd down he might get some sacks, now i like canty but he looks like a monster, he's huge... hatcher and bowen are coming in fresh on 3rd down and doing what their suppost to do..1st &2nd are his and he's doing his job...if you want to see what a 3-4 looks like when you cant hold the ends look what happened to san deigo when castil was out against the vikings...now what did they do to us...ZIP...be careful what you wish for...
by hashishkabob on Dec 8, 2007 3:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
So what are you saying?
Ratliff can play NT in a 3-4, you don't think he can hold down an end spot as DE... Come on, give me a break.
Bill Parcells knows more about this than you or I. Spears production this year was practically the same as last year. Was Parcells happy about Spears production last year? I seem to recall Parcells calling him and Canty out last year. From that point on Canty started to improve, while Spears continued his lack luster play.
So maybe you need to write a letter to Bill Parcells explaining to him the complexities of the 3-4 DE position, and why it was unnecessary to call out Spears.
by Burt D on Dec 8, 2007 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Three
and a half sacks over three years says it all. Spears is not getting it done period! Canty may not have the sacks, but gets pressure and has made plays this year, Spears has not.
I think a change will be made in the off season.
by Cowboys81 on Dec 9, 2007 12:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
whats his e-mail add.
and as for ratliff i dont know if he could, if he can do a better job then he will get it and i'll be happy for him but until then i'll use an army saying "if it aint broke, paint it green"...
by hashishkabob on Dec 8, 2007 4:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Ratliff has made more plays from the NT
position in one game than Spears has done all year. I have a feeling he would be able to do it.
by Burt D on Dec 8, 2007 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have a FEELING..
d-ware could play TE but im ok with where he is...all i'm saying is we're 11-1 and thats not a bad thing..its ok we'll get buy at 11-1 who knows 15-1 dosn't seem unreachable, he's got to be doing somthing right. its only his 3rd year..
by hashishkabob on Dec 8, 2007 4:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
You are ridiculous
The consensus is that Ratliff is a natural 3-4 DE, and that he is too undersized to play NT in a 3-4. Its pretty amazing he has held up as long as he has at the NT spot. Wade Phillips has mentioned this many times.
by Burt D on Dec 8, 2007 6:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ratliff
I'd say he would be a better all around DE than Spears as well. But you need depth and Spears would still bring in some fresh legs during the game. Trading him for a fourth round pick is still SILLY.
by John916 on Dec 8, 2007 6:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
we have Hatcher and Bowen as backups
That would mean next year we would have Canty/Bowen Fergy/Tank Ratliff/Hatcher. Thats six without Spears. Wade said during Training camp he usually keeps 6-7 D-lineman on the roster. We could always draft another d-lineman. Not that we need to.
So how is that silly?
by Burt D on Dec 8, 2007 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You answered your own question
We'll keep 7 D-linemen.
"We could always draft another d-lineman" is likely regardless of Spears, but he won't beat out Spears for a spot on the roster.
It might be helpful to realize that Canty has been the chosen DE to come at the QB on a stunt on numerous occasions whereas Spears doesn't get those opportunities.
But I do think Ratliff will beat out Spears for the starting spot next season - he is more able to get to the QB and can stop the run as well.
by John916 on Dec 8, 2007 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We only bring 6 d-lineman to the game
Which would mean Spears would be inactive on game day. Spears is not going to get a whole lot better. We might as well draft someone for development purposes who can ride the pine on game day.
by Burt D on Dec 8, 2007 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
wow..
you make it sound as if we're the dolphins, i get depressed just reading your posts... this team stinks, i hope we can get some real players instead of these bench warmers we have now...oh well there's always next year....
by hashishkabob on Dec 9, 2007 5:11 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
What are you talking about?
I am saying all these great things about all of our other DE's. The only DE whose performance I am upset with is Spears. Maybe you should go back over my posts and realize that I am extremely happy with the large majority of our DE corps. Sorry if I am not a total homer and think every single player on our team is a world beater.
by Burt D on Dec 9, 2007 10:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blogging The Boys
Related FanShots on Blogging The Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
