Vernon Davis be stoopid?

[gbpackfan]

One of Vernon Davis' teammates reportedly says he's never seen an NFL starter make as many mistakes as Davis did in 2007.

Davis struggled to learn the offense under the 49ers' last two coordinators. Mike Martz uses a complex and lengthy playbook, so we'd worry about that remaining a problem. Unprepared players tend to find themselves Martz's doghouse.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playernews.aspx?sport=NFL


One of the most interesting things to watch in San Francisco will be how well Niners TE Vernon Davis is able to digest new coordinator Mike Martz’s offense. In regard to Davis’ performance last season, one of his teammates told a team source that he had never seen an NFL starter make so many mistakes.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+Way+We+Hear+It/Whispers/2008/whispers032908.htm


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This makes me believe (even more) that TT made the right pick when he selected AJ Hawk over Vernon Davis. I have to admit, I love Hawk (in a non-gay way). His attitude, dedication, love of the game, and play are all a perfect fit in GB, Wisconsin. Davis' attitude sucked from day 1 and now this. Can you imagine Brett Favre and Vernon Davis on the same team if Davis didn't know the plays? HA HA HA. I'm not saying Favre was an a-hole but I know he wants his guys running the right routes and doesn't put up with bullshit on the field! Remember when you dressed down Whitticker a couple years ago against Detriot. HA HA HA HA. Favre was practically on his tippy-toes to get in Shittickers face. HILARIOUS. Anyway, Hawk over Davis = Right decision.

[BallHawk]

I wanted Davis back then. I wasn't happy when we drafted Hawk. Not pissed off, but I thought TT made the wrong choice.

Glad to say I was wrong.

[red]

i was happy then, and i'm very happy now

hawk was the right pick

[Partial]

Still too early to tell.

[Lurker64]

Davis may well go down in the history of the NFL as one of the greatest Workout Warriors in the modern era. He put up a forgettable career in a very week conference. Then he ran half the speed of light and bench pressed nineteen tractor trailers at the combine rocketing him into the top 10. Now he's on pace for a very forgettable career in the NFL (playing in a weak division). It's like a phenomenon sandwich on two slices of mediocrity.

[Bretsky]

I wrote an article endorsing Hawk the morning of the draft so I'm on board with AJ

[HarveyWallbangers]

Looks like bulldog hasn't voted yet.

[DonHutson]

It's like a phenomenon sandwich on two slices of mediocrity.

Comes with a side of bad attitude, and hopefully 'just desserts.'

[Scott Campbell]

It's like a phenomenon sandwich on two slices of mediocrity.


Love that!

I may steal that line sometime.

[the_idle_threat]

It's like a phenomenon sandwich on two slices of mediocrity.


Love that!

I may steal that line sometime.


Agreed. :idea:

[Tony Oday]

I love AJ on the field and off. He seems like a stand up guy that I wouldnt mind my son turning out to be. He finishes school and was chomping at the bit to come into camp. He will go down as the best GB LB ever to play ;) hehe maybe not but my kid looks sweet in his little Hawk Jersey!

[the_idle_threat]

In the poll, I almost voted "Yes" in response to the thread title. Good thing I figured it out in time. Otherwise it woulda been me who be stoopid, and people would wonder why there were two "Yes" votes (after bulldog votes).

[swede]

I wrote an article endorsing Hawk the morning of the draft so I'm on board with AJ

As I recall, no one wrote in more approving or bigger font than you when AJ was selected.

[The Leaper]

I was always in favor of Hawk...I knew he would be a solid pro for a long time in the NFL.

[jmbarnes101]

I loved the Hawk pick then and I still love it now. This system isn't designed for him to flash. It's designed for Barnett to flash if the other two LB's are doing there job. Seems to me that Barnett's getting better. It must mean that Hawk and to some degree Pop are getting the job done.

[MadtownPacker]

davis proved what an idiot he was when he stated that he was glad the Thompson passed on him. I bet he sure has enjoyed working with Alex "the next bust" Smith.

[texaspackerbacker]

I was for picking Davis. Fact is, he hasn't done much. Fact is, though, Hawk hasn't been all that great either. Trading down probably would have been the thing to do, in hindsight.

[The Leaper]

Fact is, though, Hawk hasn't been all that great either.

The guy has posted over 100 tackles in each of his first 2 seasons and he hasn't missed a game.

I'm not sure what you are looking for. There aren't many LBs in the NFL who would post better numbers than Hawk at his position in our system. We'd have been dumb to trade down and pass up a sure thing like Hawk for some question mark.

[Him8123]

I wanted Hawk from the get go. Yeah Davis looked good at the time. But we badly needed to boost our Defense.

[DonHutson]

I'm in favor of AJ's no talking on the cell phone at the movies policy.

[Joemailman]

It's probably no big surprise that a guy with the Initials VD often acts like a dick.

[ND72]

I have to admit, I love Hawk (in a non-gay way).


my fiance worries....might have somethign to do with my avatar picture...I donno.

[b bulldog]

We would have been dumb to trade down and get a player like Sims, McIntosh, Howard, or Ryans and more picks? Both are disappointments but VD is much more so but both could and should get better.

[b bulldog]

Or maybe would you have packaged Hawk, Harrell and Colledge for Mario Williams :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

Fact is, though, Hawk hasn't been all that great either.

The guy has posted over 100 tackles in each of his first 2 seasons and he hasn't missed a game.

I'm not sure what you are looking for. There aren't many LBs in the NFL who would post better numbers than Hawk at his position in our system. We'd have been dumb to trade down and pass up a sure thing like Hawk for some question mark.

I won't say anything bad against Hawk, other than that a pick that high maybe should be even better. Hindsight is 20/20, but I think looking back on it, I'd rather have Patrick Willis and another pick high enough to get a top quality TE, no, I don't mean instead of Lee--in addition.

[twoseven]

Fact is, though, Hawk hasn't been all that great either.

The guy has posted over 100 tackles in each of his first 2 seasons and he hasn't missed a game.

I'm not sure what you are looking for. There aren't many LBs in the NFL who would post better numbers than Hawk at his position in our system. We'd have been dumb to trade down and pass up a sure thing like Hawk for some question mark.

I won't say anything bad against Hawk, other than that a pick that high maybe should be even better. Hindsight is 20/20, but I think looking back on it, I'd rather have Patrick Willis and another pick high enough to get a top quality TE, no, I don't mean instead of Lee--in addition.
"I won't say anything bad against Hawk, other than that a pick that high maybe should be even better."

So are you then conceding that Mario, Bush, Young, and Ferguson who have all had at least one rough year of two are ALL yet to meet expectations considering they went before AJ and Hawk has been solid in BOTH of his seasons?

Patrick Willis? He was drafted last year, not in 2006. How do you see us pulling that one off? Besides, Willis is playing in a 3-4 not a 4-3 and he is more natural to Nick Barnett's ILB than OLB so it's hardly a slam dunk to see him fitting into our system to begin with.

What else is HS 20/20 is anyone thinking we could determine a tradedown for picks for Hawk and it would have magically happened. Were DET or MN (the next two teams to take a LB) going to trade with us? Did we want Hawk in DET or MN for his career so we could have picked up Sims or Greenway and a pick?

[gbgary]

davis lost me (as far as wishing him well after the draft) when i saw him crying and saying how happy he was that it wasn't the Packers that drafted him.

[The Leaper]

We would have been dumb to trade down and get a player like Sims, McIntosh, Howard, or Ryans and more picks?

Yep...and by the end of their careers, you'll see why.

[twoseven]

We would have been dumb to trade down and get a player like Sims
So OAK at 7 or BUF at 8 were going to give up picks to move up two or three spots and swap with us?

SF at 6 coveted Hawk too, no guarantee he doesn't go there if we passed. Same theory for whoever trades into the five with us. DET was waiting at 9 for what became Sims. If we didn't end up at 7 or 8 Sims could have been gone anyway. A trade scenario that allowed us to do what you suggest seems impossible even two years after the fact.

[SkinBasket]

davis lost me when i saw him crying and saying how happy he was that it wasn't the Packers that drafted him.

Yeah. That was kind of a deal killer as far as wishing we had drafted him. I remember my wife saw that pick and said, "Awww, he's so happy to be drafted..." When he said he was just so happy not to go to GB, she changed her tune to, "That fucker."

[b bulldog]

Actually the Raiders were one team that wanted to move up and we could have done that deal and picked a LB that is as good as Hawk is and have gotten a second day pick in return. AAnyone who states that teams will or won't do something on draft day are very ignorant. If a team covets a certain player, they do what it takes to get the job done.

[b bulldog]

We will see Leaper, we will see :lol:

[twoseven]

Actually the Raiders were one team that wanted to move up and we could have done that deal and picked a LB that is as good as Hawk is and have gotten a second day pick in return. AAnyone who states that teams will or won't do something on draft day are very ignorant. If a team covets a certain player, they do what it takes to get the job done.
OAK wanted to move up and do what? Vernon Davis is the ONLY player other than Hawk that they did not have a shot at sitting where they were. Unless they wanted so badly to get VD that they would give up a pick or more to get him, that trade scenario still doesn't happen.

[b bulldog]

You are wrong. Teams move up two spots if they covet a player. If you disagree, you don't follow the draft very close.

[b bulldog]

Raiders liked Hawk if I remember correctly

[b bulldog]

Just to prove my point on what teams will do in the draFT, in 2004, the detroit Lions and the Browns made a trade. The Lions had the 6th pick in round one and they traded that pick to the Browns for their number one pick, which happened to be the 7th overall pick in round one and the Browns second round pick, which was the 37th overall pick. I'm not saying that we would have recieved the Raiders second round pick but anyone who says that any draft day scenario is never going to happen or certain trade scenario's don't or won't happen have no clue what the draft is all about. That is the beauty of it all. I think the Raiders may have given us a 4th or 5th rounder to move up a few spots.

[Deputy Nutz]

Just to prove my point on what teams will do in the draFT, in 2004, the detroit Lions and the Browns made a trade. The Lions had the 6th pick in round one and they traded that pick to the Browns for their number one pick, which happened to be the 7th overall pick in round one and the Browns second round pick, which was the 37th overall pick. I'm not saying that we would have recieved the Raiders second round pick but anyone who says that any draft day scenario is never going to happen or certain trade scenario's don't or won't happen have no clue what the draft is all about. That is the beauty of it all. I think the Raiders may have given us a 4th or 5th rounder to move up a few spots.

Don't ever use evidence of what Detroit or Cleveland did in a draft.

2007 was the first good draft Cleveland has had in 15 years.

[Charles Woodson]

Just to prove my point on what teams will do in the draFT, in 2004, the detroit Lions and the Browns made a trade. The Lions had the 6th pick in round one and they traded that pick to the Browns for their number one pick, which happened to be the 7th overall pick in round one and the Browns second round pick, which was the 37th overall pick. I'm not saying that we would have recieved the Raiders second round pick but anyone who says that any draft day scenario is never going to happen or certain trade scenario's don't or won't happen have no clue what the draft is all about. That is the beauty of it all. I think the Raiders may have given us a 4th or 5th rounder to move up a few spots.

Don't ever use evidence of what Detroit or Cleveland did in a draft.

2007 was the first good draft Cleveland has had in 15 years.

but come on, it proves bulldogs point so perfectly :roll:

Bulldog whats with your fetish for bashing hawk? You keep talking about picking ryans but hes a MLB, hence the reason for all his tackles...

[gbpackfan]

I don't get the posters who would rather have Ryans or Willis then Hawk. We have Nick Barnett at the MLB position, one of the best in the league in my opinion! He should have gone to the probowl last season. Why are so many in such a hurry to replace Barnett? Silly IMO, just silly.

[MadtownPacker]

The Lions had the 6th pick in round one and they traded that pick to the Browns for their number one pick, which happened to be the 7th overall pick in round one and the Browns second round pick, which was the 37th overall pick.Nutz beat me to it.

If Bulldog has voted this has got to be the first poll ever where everyone agrees.

[twoseven]

Raiders liked Hawk if I remember correctly
Then why didn't THEY take Sims at #7??

[twoseven]

You are wrong. Teams move up two spots if they covet a player. If you disagree, you don't follow the draft very close.
YES, situations like you describe DO happen. But, I'm not talking hypothetically.


Actually the Raiders were one team that wanted to move up and we could have done that deal and picked a LB that is as good as Hawk is and have gotten a second day pick in return. AAnyone who states that teams will or won't do something on draft day are very ignorant. If a team covets a certain player, they do what it takes to get the job done.

You claimed we could have traded with OAK, here's why I say you are wrong..IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

The only possible scenarios in a potential GB OAK trade
1) no trade was ever actually discussed.
2) no trade discussed could be agreed upon.
3) a trade was agreed upon and completed.

We were in the power position, if TT actually wanted to drop two spots and OAK was willing it would have happened. It didn't happen because of reason one or two. So your insisting we could have done a deal with OAK and then picked up Sims is goofy, we didn't because GB and OAK were not willing to swap picks. Go back and read the three scenarios again if you still don't get what I am saying.

Picking out all of the guys that surprised everyone two years later and using hindsight to suggest who we should have picked is lame.

[b bulldog]

What is goofy is what you think about the draft. I've already proved that teams do things that many may think are foolish and the reason it didn't happen imo, is B. There was trade talks with that pick, TT acknowlwdgwed that after the fact but obviously a trade never went down. The part about picking Ryans is that 56 could have easily been moved to the will position but I wish we would have moved down and picked up some more picks and grabbed Sims.

[b bulldog]

Hindsight??? I posted before the draft that if we want Hawk, we could trade out from 5 and pick a LB as good as he is and get more picks. I guess hindsight is lame but what I'm saying is not hindsight. :lol:

[twoseven]

What is goofy is what you think about the draft.
Gee, that was a good one.

[twoseven]

Hindsight??? I posted before the draft that if we want Hawk, we could trade out from 5 and pick a LB as good as he is
..and this makes a lot of sense, too. If we wanted Hawk we could pick another LB instead.

[twoseven]

Bulldog, your intense detest and loathing for Hawk is just great. Keep it up. But to continue to tell us all how he's a huge disapointment, that there were numerous LBs as good or better than he is in the draft is bordering on looney tunes. Do you think that none of us actually watch him play? Wow. :shock:

[b bulldog]

Obviously TT wanted Hawk cause he picked him but it is also obvious as I stated at the time that we could have moved out of 5 and picked a lb as good as Hawk in the first round. My whole point is that Hawk wasn't my choice and we could have done something with that pick and still got a good LB. So far, that has been proven out.

[twoseven]

My whole point is that Hawk wasn't my choice. So far, that has been proven out.

Now, I totally agree with you!

[b bulldog]

What is truely looney how people like you think what he has and hasn't done, where he was picked, is acceptable. We need playmakers on D, as everyone has noted, wouldn't you expect your 5th overall pick to be a gamechanger? Sims, Ryans, McIntosh, Howard and Greenway are at worst as good as he is. :lol:

[b bulldog]

You are good at chopping my words, please look at the numbers for the LB's I noted and see how they compare.

[twoseven]

What is truely looney how people like you think what he has and hasn't done, where he was picked, is acceptable. We need playmakers on D, as everyone has noted, wouldn't you expect your 5th overall pick to be a gamechanger? Sims, Ryans, McIntosh, Howard and Greenway are at worst as good as he is. :lol:
Simple question for you, maybe.

What are Hawk's duties in our defensive scheme?

Is he the big guy that is at the center of everything, constantly in a situation to make all these tackles and big plays you keep copmplaining about.

Yes, or no?

[b bulldog]

Keep posting your thoughts and opinions, we are all entitled to them but I hit the Hawk stuff pretty much on the head up to this point. If he has a big season next year, I'll gladly say I am wrong about him as I did about Brett.

[b bulldog]

Playmakers make plays, plain and simple. I was at the Giants game and saw first hand when Hawk was totally blasted on that screen play and gave up a big first down. Hawk is good inj coverage and needs work near the line of scrimmage. The D is set up for 56 but that by no way gives Hawk a pass. hE IS SET UP TO MAKE PLAYS IN THE PASSING GAME, ISN'T HE??

[The Leaper]

Bulldog is to Hawk what Wist used to be for Barnett.

Notice that Wist isn't as vocal about Barnett anymore. Bulldog won't be too vocal about Hawk in a couple more years either.

[twoseven]

Way to NOT answer the question.

Simple, if you have no clue as to what a player has been COACHED to do and what his ASSIGNMENTS ARE in our scheme, maybe you should (1) stop bitching about Hawk when you have no clue what he's supposed to be doing, so as to fairly judge his efforts, or (2) call up the Packers and tell them to switch schemes so Hawk can live up to his #5 pick, because that's what really matters to you.

[The Leaper]

Playmakers make plays, plain and simple. I was at the Giants game and saw first hand when Hawk was totally blasted on that screen play and gave up a big first down.

I've seen Ray Lewis get absolutely clobbered and give up big plays too. He must suck donkey nuts.

Picking out a handful of plays that are negative does not prove your point. Hawk made far more positive plays in the last 2 years than he has negative.

[b bulldog]

LEAPER, I HONESTLY DO HOPE YOUR CORRECT. I do wish him well but he is overrated imo but this wouldn't be the first timee I've been wrong and it wouldn't be the last.

[The Leaper]

hE IS SET UP TO MAKE PLAYS IN THE PASSING GAME, ISN'T HE??

He had quite a few pass breakups this year...and rarely was beaten deep in the passing game.

I'd call that mission accomplished for the most part. He's not a DB. He's not going to intercept 8 passes a year.

[b bulldog]

Agree but when you whine about not being in a position to make plays because of the D that is being played, he'd sure the hell better make those plays when he is in the position to make those plays. Leaper, in the end, Sims will be looked at as the better LB of the two and Hawk will be lucky to be looked at as being in the top 3 LB's in that draft.

[b bulldog]

pLAYMAKERS MAKE PLAYS, LIKE CREATING TURNOVERS :lol:

[b bulldog]

95 TACKLES, 1 SACK, 6 PICS AND 2 TD'S. OLB from the Raiders who's D doesn't center around him either. He was picked the same year that Hawk was, Thomas Howard.

[twoseven]

I was at the Giants game and saw first hand when Hawk was totally blasted on that screen play and gave up a big first down.
I saw #4 overall Charles Woodson, your boy, almost knocked out of his friggin shoes on one of the first plays of the game. Gee, now I think he sucks. :roll:

[twoseven]

95 TACKLES, 1 SACK, 6 PICS AND 2 TD'S. OLB from the Raiders who's D doesn't center around him either. He was picked the same year that Hawk was, Thomas Howard.
:bclap: :bclap: :bclap:
Keep posting stats from other players, that proves everything.

[The Leaper]

95 TACKLES, 1 SACK, 6 PICS AND 2 TD'S. OLB from the Raiders who's D doesn't center around him either. He was picked the same year that Hawk was, Thomas Howard.

What was the Raiders' record again? How great was their overall defensive ranking?

Who cares what Howard did? His team and defense sucked donkey nuts.

[twoseven]

95 TACKLES, 1 SACK, 6 PICS AND 2 TD'S. OLB from the Raiders who's D doesn't center around him either. He was picked the same year that Hawk was, Thomas Howard.

What was the Raiders' record again? How great was their overall defensive ranking?

Who cares what Howard did? His team and defense sucked donkey nuts.
It's like Woody said to Wesley in White Men Can't Jump..

'you'd rather look good and lose, than look bad and win.'

[The Leaper]

It's like Woody said to Wesley in White Men Can't Jump..

'you'd rather look good and lose, than look bad and win.'

Exactly.

How many plays did Howard go for an INT, miss, and the opposition got a big play as a result? You don't see those stats on NFL.com. For all we know, Howard gave up 30 big plays to get those 6 INTs. Is that something you want?

Hawk plays solid, disciplined football. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't watch the games or is clueless about football.

[ND72]

AAnyone who states that teams will or won't do something on draft day are very ignorant. If a team covets a certain player, they do what it takes to get the job done.

Which is exactly what Teddy did, he coveted Hawk, so he took him.

[ND72]

Obviously TT wanted Hawk cause he picked him but it is also obvious as I stated at the time that we could have moved out of 5 and picked a lb as good as Hawk in the first round. My whole point is that Hawk wasn't my choice and we could have done something with that pick and still got a good LB. So far, that has been proven out.

I donno how it's been proven out. Yes, Sims - Howard - Ryan, have put up better stats, but I don't give 2 shits about stats. It's like telling me Ahmad Carroll ran a 4.22 at his personal day, YAYYYYYYYYYYYYY...I'M SO HAPPY. As far as my memory serves me, we've had 2 good years now, especially defensively, and as memory serves, Hawk is on that defense. Our defense is designed to go to the MLB. The Packers do many things with Hawk that you don't see...why? Because he's doing his job.

[the_idle_threat]

[I]n the end, Sims will be looked at as the better LB of the two ...

He'll have to last as long as Hawk does first. I still maintain that's unlikely, given that Sims is smallish, likes to hit, and has been prone to concussions earlier in his playing career.


[A]nd Hawk will be lucky to be looked at as being in the top 3 LB's in that draft.

This could happen, but mainly because probably the majority of people share your lack of sophisication in judging players, lazily relying on stats without looking at the surrounding circumstances.

[b bulldog]

Good one but stats show some things along with the film. I bet in detroit, Oakland, Houston, and Washington their team writers are not writing articles about how their LB from that draft has been somewhat disappointing like McGinn did but I'm sure he is an idiot and knows nothing about football :roll: . :lol:

[b bulldog]

chuck Woodson my boy, good one. Show me some posts where I give any UM players props for their NFL play other than Brady. IMO, the best Dplayer in this draft will be from O St so that stupid comment doesn't hold any water.

[ND72]

Good one but stats show some things along with the film. I bet in detroit, Oakland, Houston, and Washington their team writers are not writing articles about how their LB from that draft has been somewhat disappointing like McGinn did but I'm sure he is an idiot and knows nothing about football :roll: . :lol:


That's because their TEAMS are disappointing. AJ Hawk is bound to bring up critisim because of the fact he was a Top 5 pick. If all we have to do is complain about him "not putting up statistics" even though he lead the team in tackles his Rookie season, well damn. I'm glad Ernie Sims puts up huge numbers on a pathetic team...maybe you should just become a Lions fan if you like the statistics, Kitna puts up some decent numbers too.

[MJZiggy]

This may be the first time we've ever had a completely unanimous poll in the history of PackerRats. Now watch, someone will go vote opposite just to screw it up...

[the_idle_threat]

This may be the first time we've ever had a completely unanimous poll in the history of PackerRats. Now watch, someone will go vote opposite just to screw it up...

I could put up a Tony Mandarich poll ...

[gbpackfan]

95 TACKLES, 1 SACK, 6 PICS AND 2 TD'S. OLB from the Raiders who's D doesn't center around him either. He was picked the same year that Hawk was, Thomas Howard.
:bclap: :bclap: :bclap:
Keep posting stats from other players, that proves everything.


The Raiders offense couldn't hold onto the ball so the D was always on the field.

[BlueBrewer]

how about this, the other guys on bad teams havee there defense on the field more , thus giving their linebackers better stats from more chances. Can anyone look up defensive snaps for each guy?

[b bulldog]

Or how about if your on a bad D and you may be the only player on that D that the team is gameplanning for? I think the best player will get the most attention, that is something Hawk never needs to worry about :lol: Did you read McGinns article?

[b bulldog]

AAnyone who states that teams will or won't do something on draft day are very ignorant. If a team covets a certain player, they do what it takes to get the job done.

Which is exactly what Teddy did, he coveted Hawk, so he took him.

Actually from what I've read and heard, Mario was number one on the Packers board with Young being number 2.

[twoseven]

AAnyone who states that teams will or won't do something on draft day are very ignorant. If a team covets a certain player, they do what it takes to get the job done.

Which is exactly what Teddy did, he coveted Hawk, so he took him.

Actually from what I've read and heard, Mario was number one on the Packers board with Young being number 2.
..and how many players on TT's 08' board are going to come and go BEFORE we pick at #30 in three weeks? 5-10, 10-15, 15-20?

Both Williams and Young were gone when we got on the clock at 5, so obviously ND72 was referring to Hawk being at the top of the list of who was actually left. Sims may have been several picks behind him in TT's mind. I could easily see Davis, then possibly Cutler or Leinart, then Huff ahead of Sims on TT's board. In TT's mind Sims may not even have been the #2 LB behind Hawk, that could have been Greenway or Ryans for all we know. TT went with Harrell last year so good luck figuring out where Sims was on his list, could have been a snowball's chance in hell Sims is in GB. But NONE of us knows that, it's all speculation. What ISN'T speculation is TT coveting Hawk ahead of everyone else left after the Jets pick, because that's who he went with when all those other players were up for grabs.

[b bulldog]

Speculation is what this is all about and in 5 years, I will be shown to be dead wrong or I will be shown to be dead on. We will have to wait and see on this.