My Absurdly Early Pats' 2015 Draft Big Board

manxman2601 · Mar 28, 2015

everlong said:
The thing about Hardison vs Jarrett is the positional flexibility. I think Jarrett has to play 3-tech or off nose in a 3-4 like the Chargers have in the past. I think Hardison can play 0, 1, 3 or 5 including playing DE if the Pats put out a jumbo DL against a big running team.

Easley can only really play 3-tech, same with Chris Jones. I don't think that's a knock for Jarrett personally particularly as a third rounder. As for Hardison, I've been saying that for months (don't agree he can play 0-tech though. Hardison is more versatile and has the better ceiling but his floor is lower than Jarrett.

manxman2601 · Mar 28, 2015

mayoclinic said:
Harrison/Hardison and Garrett/Jarrett. But I meant it tongue-in-cheek. Your post was fine, the autospell correction is just annoying. 90% of my spelling errors are due to the damn thing.

I missed the Garrett one. A 21st century computer should be able to understand that when a word is capitalised, it might just be a name and doesn't need correcting.

mayoclinic · Mar 28, 2015

manxman2601 said:
I missed the Garrett one. A 21st century computer should be able to understand that when a word is capitalised, it might just be a name and doesn't need correcting.

One of the things that I find annoying is that it doesn't always correct a name, so that when it does I don't always catch it. Sneaky little bastard.

everlong · Mar 28, 2015

manxman2601 said:
Easley can only really play 3-tech, same with Chris Jones. I don't think that's a knock for Jarrett personally particularly as a third rounder. As for Hardison, I've been saying that for months (don't agree he can play 0-tech though. Hardison is more versatile and has the better ceiling but his floor is lower than Jarrett.

Easley played 1, 3 and 5 this year at different times and played DE.

manxman2601 · Mar 28, 2015

everlong said:
Easley played 1, 3 and 5 this year at different times and played DE.

There's a difference between playing it and playing it well. I still think BB misused Easley by trying to two gap him - he's an outstanding one-gap 3-tech expert. He should just be used to attack the backfield. Jarrett could play 1 and 5-tech too, it's just not the best way to utilise him, just as it isn't Easley.

I'd also point out that Jarrett was playing the middle of a 3-man line on the best defense in CFB. That's no small thing.

mayoclinic · Mar 28, 2015

everlong said:
Easley played 1, 3 and 5 this year at different times and played DE.

As BB noted last October:

Head coach Bill Belichick touched on Easley’s unique ability to play anywhere on the line.

“Well, Easley has really played all those spots across the board from college and even back from the spring and when he was able to practice in training camp, he’s worked all the way from outside the tight end to on the center’s nose,” Belichick said. “He’s been at every spot.

“That is unusual," Belichick acknowledged. "He has a unique set of skills that allow him to do that. Quick enough to play outside and enough playing strength to play inside to a degree. Good instinctiveness in terms of recognizing blocking schemes. He knows there are a lot of different things that can happen when you are in there between a guard and a center or a guard and a tackle, compared to when you are outside with a tight end.”

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-.../belichick-cites-easleys-versatility-instinct

Hardison is the only other guy I see with that kind of "unique set of skills". I think that would make him very interesting to BB, and potentially a very valuable chess piece on the DL, especially in combination with Easley.

everlong · Mar 28, 2015

manxman2601 said:
There's a difference between playing it and playing it well. I still think BB misused Easley by trying to two gap him - he's an outstanding one-gap 3-tech expert. He should just be used to attack the backfield. Jarrett could play 1 and 5-tech too, it's just not the best way to utilise him, just as it isn't Easley.

I'd also point out that Jarrett was playing the middle of a 3-man line on the best defense in CFB. That's no small thing.

I wasn't knocking Jarrett. I think he's a good prospect. I'm nearly pointing out Hardison offers a lot more scheme flexibility which we know BB loves.

I wouldn't say Easley wasn't playing them well. He actually stood up better than I expected. That said I do think it's a waste not to have him playing the 3-tech a majority of the time. I'd actually love to see the Pats switching the line scheme every down because they have that type of flexibility and just start confusing the hell out of teams which will lead to missed assignments and turnovers.

manxman2601 · Mar 28, 2015

everlong said:
I wasn't knocking Jarrett. I think he's a good prospect. I'm nearly pointing out Hardison offers a lot more scheme flexibility which we know BB loves.

I wouldn't say Easley wasn't playing them well. He actually stood up better than I expected. That said I do think it's a waste not to have him playing the 3-tech a majority of the time. I'd actually love to see the Pats switching the line scheme every down because they have that type of flexibility and just start confusing the hell out of teams which will lead to missed assignments and turnovers.

Hardison's low floor is why I struggle to see BB drafting him - I don't think he'll like the fact that Hardison is on the ground so much - that doesn't really suit what BB wants from a DT. Having said that, I didn't think BB would like the fact that Easley played so much with his head down so what do I know? I have them graded thus:

Hardison
Easley
Jarrett

I just think Jarrett is worthy of inclusion on a Pats big board and isn't as limited as you and Mayo are suggesting. But each to their own.

mgteich · Mar 28, 2015

mayoclinic said:
Trying to do an updated short board, after free agency and the loss of Revis and Browner threw everything into turmoil.

I think that Patchick's basic formula for determining value is a good one: balancing positional value (a scarce, highly valued, expensive position leaguewide) with draft value (the talent likely to be available when they pick is worthy, and a significant cut above the talent likely to be available later) with roster value (given the current roster makeup, a position where a quality addition should represent a high-impact upgrade over the next couple of seasons).

I'm trying to organize this along rough guidelines suggested by Chris Price's article, which suggests that the Pats don't rank players by round:

http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports...n-most/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

As a very rough first pass, I'd try for something like this (ignoring players who seem like a lock to go top 15):

Tier 1: (elite prospects)

1. Todd Gurley, RB, Georgia. 6'1" 222#.* (Injured)
2. Marcus Peters, CB, Washington.* 6' 199#. (* Pending character evaluation)

Tier 2: (excellent fits with short-term starting/contributing in a major role and long-term Pro Bowl potential)

3. TJ Clemmings, OL, Pittsburgh. 6'5" 305#.
4. Byron Jones, CB, UConn. 6'1" 199#.
5. Kevin Johnson, CB, Wake Forest. 6' 187#.
6. Brandon Scherff, OL, Iowa. 6'5" 320#.
7. Dante Fowler, EDGE, Florida. 6'2" 262#.
8. Cam Erving, OL, Florida St. 6'5" 313#.

Tier 3: (excellent fits with short-term contributing in a specific role and long term starting potential, with potential Pro Bowl upside)

9. Jalen Collins, CB, LSU.* 6'2" 202#. (Injured)
10. Marcus Hardison, DL, Arizona St. 6'3" 307#.
11. Ali Marpet, OL, Hobart. 6'4" 307#.
12. Jake Fisher, OL, Oregon. 6'6" 304#.
13. Eddie Goldman, DT, Florida St. 6'4" 336#.
14. Eric Rowe, CB, Utah. 6'1" 205#.
15. Bud Dupree, EDGE, Kentucky. 6'4" 269#.
16. Owamagbe Odighizuwa, EDGE, UCLA.
17. La'el Collins, OL, LSU. 6'5" 304#.
18. Malcolm Brown, DT, Texas. 6'2" 319#.
19. Bernardrick McKinney, LB/EDGE, Mississippi St. 6'5" 249#.
20. Shaq Thompson, LB/S, Washington. 6'1" 232#.
21. PJ Williams, CB, Florida St. 6' 200#.
22. Tevin Coleman, RB, Indiana. 5'11" 210#.

Tier 4: (moderate fits with short-term contributing in a specific role and long term starting potential, with upside)

23. Eric Kendricks, Off-LOS LB, UCLA. 6' 230#.
24. Jay Ajayi, RB, Boise St. 6' 220#.
25. David Johnson, RB, Iowa St. 6' 224#.
26. DeAndre Smelter, WR, Georgia Tech.* 6'2" 222#. (* Injured, likely PUP/IR for 2015)
27. DJ Humphries, OL, Florida. 6'5" 305#.
28. Cedric Ogbuehi, OT, Texas A&M.* 6'5" 305. (*Injured, likely PUP/IR for 2015)
29. Donovan Smith, OL, Penn St. 6'6" 339#.

Tier 5: (moderate fits with short-term contributing in a specific role and long term starting potential)

30. Danny Shelton, DT, Washington. 6'2" 334#.
31. Jordan Phillips, DT, Oklahoma. 6'5" 329#.
32. Carl Davis, DT, Iowa. 6'5" 320#.
33. Danielle Hunter, EDGE, LSU. 6'6" 240#.
34. AJ Cann, OG, South Carolina. 6'3" 311#.
35. Arik Armstead, DT/DE, Oregon. 6'7" 292#.
36. Davis Tull, EDGE, Tennessee-Chattanooga.* 6'2" 246#. (* Injured)

Tier 6: (prospects with solid backup/rotational and long term starting potential)

37. Alex Carter, CB, Stanford. 6' 200#.
38. Quinten Rollins, CB, Miami (OH). 5'11" 200#.
39. Josh Shaw, CB, USC. 6' 200#.
40. Tre McBride, WR, William & Mary. 6'1" 205#.
41. Ty Sambrailo, OL, Colorado St . 6'5" 315#.
42. Paul Dawson, LB, TCU. 6'2" 230#.
43. Laken Tomlinson, OG, Duke. 6'3" 320#.
44. Preston Smith, EDGE, Mississippi St.
45. Jacquiski Tartt, S, Samford. 6'1" 218#.
46. Cody Prewitt, S, Mississippi. 6'2" 217#.

Tier 7: (developmental prospects with long-term potential to be significant contributors )

47. Max Valles, EDGE, Virginia. 6'5" 240#.
48. Ben Heeney, Off-LOS LB, Kasnas.
49. Mario Edwards, DE/DT, Florida St. 6'3" 278#.
50. Anthony Chikillo, EDGE, Miami.
51. Leterrius Walton, DT, Central Michigan. 6'5" 319#.
52. Tyeler Davison, DT, Fresno St. 6'2" 316#.
53. Nick Marshall, CB, Auburn. 6'1" 205#.
54. Chris Conley, WR/DE, Georgia. 6'2" 213#.
55. Kenny Bell, WR, Nebraska. 6'1" 200#/
56. Eli Harold, EDGE, Virginia. 6'4" 240#.
57. Ha'oli Kikaha, EDGE, Washington. 6'2" 243#.
58. David Cobb, RB, Minnesota. 5'11" 229#.
59. Jacoby Glenn, CB, UCF. 6' 187#.

Tier 8: (developmental prospects with the ability to compete for a roster spot)

60. David Parry, DT, Stanford. 6'1" 308#.
61. Deon Simon, DT, Northwestern St. 6'4" 321#.
62. Rakeem Nunez-Rochez, DT, Southern Mississippi. 6'2" 307#.
63. Damian Swann, CB, Georgia 6' 190#.
64. Jamil Douglas, OL, Arizona St. 6'4" 307#.
65. Robert Myles, OL, Tennessee St. 6'5" 310#.
66. Jarvis Harrison, OG, Texas A&M. 6'3" 320#.
67. Bobby Hart, OL Florida St. 6'4" 339#.
68. John Miller, OG, Louisville, 6'2" 321#.
69. Shaq Mason, OL, Gerogia Tech. 6'1" 303#.
70. Jeremiah Poutasi, OL, Utah. 6'6" 320#.
71. Obum Gwacham, EDGE, Oregon St. 6'5" 246#.
72. Ellis McCarthy, DT, UCLA. 6'5" 338#.
73. Justin Cox, DB, Mississippi St. 6'1" 200#.
74. Cassius Sendish, S, Kansas. 5'11" 196#.
75. Terry Williams, DT, East Carolina. 6'1" 329#.
76. Tray Walker, CB, Texas Southern. 6'2" 195#.

This is really, really rough, and should be regarded as a work in progress. Rankings within the later tier are very crude. Again, this is a Pats-specific big board, not a general ranking of players. This list undoubtedly leaves out a lot of good prospects, and probably some people's binkies. It's the nature of a "short board" to do so. I've tried to deliberately keep this board short, and to restrict it to guys who I thought would be good fits. There are some guys I've left out just because I can't decide yet if/where they fit (Grady Jarrett, Henry Anderson, Ronald Darby, Steve Nelson), and some guys who I've left in who I may take off the board altogether. There are probably a couple of big omissions that I just overlooked, too.

Even though the patriots don't have a board by round, I suspect that we need to match value (which included in your tiers and likely round. For example, I would think that you would consider you first 8 as values at 32.

I suspect that most would have very widely different draft grades for your their tier. Fisher is rated in the early second and Marpett in the late third.

In the past, some have tried to think of a board by draft position, understanding that we might trade up or down. We would then have a pick 32 Board, an end of the second board, an end of the third board, an end of the 4th board, and a late round board (late 5th-7th). We might even have a mid-second round board, since we may trade into that area.

So, for me, I try to translate you evaluations into that paradigm. As I said, the top 8 seem to be values in the first 35 picks. Your next 14 seems to be a list/board for the next 66 picks. Obviously, many of these players will be long gone by the time you find value (for example Ajayi who some see in the early 2nd).

mayoclinic · Mar 28, 2015

mgteich said:
Even though the patriots don't have a board by round, I suspect that we need to match value (which included in your tiers and likely round. For example, I would think that you would consider you first 8 as values at 32.

I suspect that most would have very widely different draft grades for your their tier. Fisher is rated in the early second and Marpett in the late third.

In the past, some have tried to think of a board by draft position, understanding that we might trade up or down. We would then have a pick 32 Board, an end of the second board, an end of the third board, an end of the 4th board, and a late round board (late 5th-7th). We might even have a mid-second round board, since we may trade into that area.

So, for me, I try to translate you evaluations into that paradigm. As I said, the top 8 seem to be values in the first 35 picks. Your next 14 seems to be a list/board for the next 66 picks. Obviously, many of these players will be long gone by the time you find value (for example Ajayi who some see in the early 2nd).

I tried to order my list by approximate value of a prospect to the Pats as I see it, not necessarily by how high in the draft they are projected to go. I am fairly sure that Eddie Goldman, Danny Shelton, Malcolm Brown and Carl Davis will all go higher than Marcus Hardison; but if I were the GM of the Pats, I would pick Hardison, based on versatility, upside, and rarity of his skill set. Similarly, I firmly believe that Ali Marpet and Eric Rowe are worth top 40 picks. I'm hoping to get them later on, but I think they are worthy of being taken earlier. I would say that every prospect through Tier 3 was someone who I would consider well worth taking with a top 50 pick, regardless of where you believe they are currently projected to go.

Some people use a "2 board" system to distinguish player valuation from player projection. At The Huddle Report, Drew Boylhart evaluates players and grades them by where he would consider them worthy of being taken, while Robby Esch creates a big board that attempts to rank players based on likely actual projection (through rumors and connections). Grid distinguishes "Yank rank" from "market value" in his prospect evaluations; the former is where he thinks a player is worthy of being taken (so there can be more or less picks at a particular draft level), the latter where he thinks they are roughly valued at the time of the profile.

Jamie Collins is a good case in point. Robert Kraft said after the 2013 draft that if the Pats had kept their original picks, they would have picked the same players - which I interpret as meaning that they would have picked Collins at 29 if they hadn't traded back. Obviously, they felt that the 4 for 1 trade with the Vikings was too good to pass up; but they also seemed to have some sense that Collins might still be available at 52, and were willing to take that risk. Last year, BB indicated that they weren't willing to risk losing out on Dominique Easley by trading back.

I think that before using a pick at a given level on a player, it is important to ask several questions:

1. Most importantly, is the player worth taking at that point in the draft?
2. Where in the draft do you project that player likely to go? Can you trade back or wait and likely still get that player?
3. If you trade back or wait on that player and miss out, how good are the alternatives who would be likely to be available later?

I have a similar draft grade on Cam Erving and Ali Marpet - Erving may be ready sooner, and has some LT versatility, but Marpet is more athletic and I think he could have a higher upside. I'm less likely to take Erving at 32, believing that Marpet will go on day 2. I like Eddie Goldman and Malcolm Brown, but I'm not sure that either is clearly enough better than Leterrius Walton or Tyeler Davison, or has enough value, to warrant taking them in the top 35 picks.

I don't know the answer to your question, as to how best capture the decision making issues in a single ranking board. I can well believe that how well a team structures their approach to this may make a big difference in how effectively they are able to maneuver in real time in the draft.

everlong · Mar 29, 2015

manxman2601 said:
Hardison's low floor is why I struggle to see BB drafting him - I don't think he'll like the fact that Hardison is on the ground so much - that doesn't really suit what BB wants from a DT. Having said that, I didn't think BB would like the fact that Easley played so much with his head down so what do I know? I have them graded thus:

Hardison
Easley
Jarrett

I just think Jarrett is worthy of inclusion on a Pats big board and isn't as limited as you and Mayo are suggesting. But each to their own.

I think that's the confusion. I wasn't suggesting taking Jarrett off the board. I just think given his flexibility I might even take him middle of the second where as I'd rather wait with Jarrett to 96/97.

I watched some more Jarrett last night and I will say they were moving him around more than I had seen and he even stood up on the edge a few plays. I can't see at 6'1" that happening in the NFL but perhaps he is more scheme flexible than I thought.

You have Hardison rated ahead of Easley when he came out? I thought without the injuries Easley was a top twenty pick and I wasn't willing to take him in the first only because of injury but the Pats and Hawks were. I can't see Hardison going that high.

mayoclinic · Mar 29, 2015

everlong said:
I think that's the confusion. I wasn't suggesting taking Jarrett off the board. I just think given his flexibility I might even take him middle of the second where as I'd rather wait with Jarrett to 96/97.

I watched some more Jarrett last night and I will say they were moving him around more than I had seen and he even stood up on the edge a few plays. I can't see at 6'1" that happening in the NFL but perhaps he is more scheme flexible than I thought.

You have Hardison rated ahead of Easley when he came out? I thought without the injuries Easley was a top twenty pick and I wasn't willing to take him in the first only because of injury but the Pats and Hawks were. I can't see Hardison going that high.

I wasn't implying that Jarrett shouldn't be on a short board. I didn't put him there because I haven't figured him out yet, and don't know where to put him. I would expect him to be on a revised version at some point.

I don't consider Hardison to be at quite the same level as Easley was as a prospect, but his upside is not too far off.

manxman2601 · Mar 29, 2015

everlong said:
I think that's the confusion. I wasn't suggesting taking Jarrett off the board. I just think given his flexibility I might even take him middle of the second where as I'd rather wait with Jarrett to 96/97.

I watched some more Jarrett last night and I will say they were moving him around more than I had seen and he even stood up on the edge a few plays. I can't see at 6'1" that happening in the NFL but perhaps he is more scheme flexible than I thought.

You have Hardison rated ahead of Easley when he came out? I thought without the injuries Easley was a top twenty pick and I wasn't willing to take him in the first only because of injury but the Pats and Hawks were. I can't see Hardison going that high.

I give Hardison the edge because of his size and because I DO think he's more flexible than Easley. I wasn't as high on Easley as you and Mayo were. I gave him a second round grade.

mgteich · Mar 29, 2015

mayoclinic said:
I don't know the answer to your question, as to how best capture the decision making issues in a single ranking board. I can well believe that how well a team structures their approach to this may make a big difference in how effectively they are able to maneuver in real time in the draft.

The discussion helps. I suppose it would help me to use a list like yours and give each player a number based on where is likely to be picked (perhaps Draftek's consensus). This would help determine potential bargains.

In the end, I suspect that the situation as we approach the first pick will be pretty straightforward. The open question will be how many of the corners that we have in the top two tiers are available and where they are likely to be picked.

I see Belichick with 5-7 corners that he might draft in the top 40. Depending on how the picking is going, I think that we could trade up, stay at 32, or move down a bit. I certainly could see a situation where all of the corners on Belichick's top list(s) are gone by 32. It seems possible that we may need to move ahead of GB to get the QB Beliihcik wants.

mayoclinic · Mar 29, 2015

mgteich said:
The discussion helps. I suppose it would help me to use a list like yours and give each player a number based on where is likely to be picked (perhaps Draftek's consensus). This would help determine potential bargains.

In the end, I suspect that the situation as we approach the first pick will be pretty straightforward. The open question will be how many of the corners that we have in the top two tiers are available and where they are likely to be picked.

I see Belichick with 5-7 corners that he might draft in the top 40. Depending on how the picking is going, I think that we could trade up, stay at 32, or move down a bit. I certainly could see a situation where all of the corners on Belichick's top list(s) are gone by 32. It seems possible that we may need to move ahead of GB to get the QB Beliihcik wants.

Maybe in the next version I'll try adding "estimated market value" by each prospect. Would that help?

mgteich · Mar 29, 2015

mayoclinic said:
Maybe in the next version I'll try adding "estimated market value" by each prospect. Would that help?

Yes, that would help a lot.

patchick · Mar 30, 2015

mayoclinic said:
Maybe in the next version I'll try adding "estimated market value" by each prospect. Would that help?

"Market value" is a great way of putting it, as distinct from a draft board. No matter how idiosyncratic a team's own rankings are, they obviously have to maintain a sense of leaguewide rankings too -- and even of 31 other teams' individual needs. (The 2010 trade to nip ahead of Baltimore for Gronkowski demonstrates the importance of all 3 kinds of valuations: your own talent board, market value at that point in the draft, and who else might be after the same target.)

mayoclinic · Mar 31, 2015

patchick said:
"Market value" is a great way of putting it, as distinct from a draft board.

I stole the term from Grid, and can't claim ownership. I wish I could.

I think it's important to note that "market value" does NOT equal where a player is ranked an a commonly followed media draft board. CBS Sports still has Eric Rowe ranked at #118, though their own Dane Brugler mocked him to Philadelphia at #20 in his most recent mock (ahead of Marcus Peters, Kevin Johnson and Byron Jones). I'd give him a 2nd round market value conservatively right now, with top 50 or 40 quite possible before the draft, so 1st round is certainly within the realm of possibility.

patchick said:
The 2010 trade to nip ahead of Baltimore for Gronkowski demonstrates the importance of all 3 kinds of valuations: your own talent board, market value at that point in the draft, and who else might be after the same target.

I think there's a 4th kind of valuation that is important: who else is there in the draft who might fill a similar role. It's pretty clear that the Pats evaluate players in terms of filling specific roles, and in terms of system-specific skill sets.

Suppose, hypothetically, that (like Manx), the Pats view Marcus Hardison and Grady Jarrett as filling a similar specific role, which they identify as an important need. Also suppose that they have a 2nd round grade on both, and a 3rd round estimated market valuation on both. If one comes off the board in the late 2nd round, they might need to re-calculate whether to use #64 on the remaining player, or take the risk of missing out on filling that area. Or, if one comes off the board in the early 3rd, they might want to consider trading up from 96. But as long as both are available (or if they are equally high one someone else who is still available, say Mario Edwards), they may be comfortable waiting and let the draft come to them.

mayoclinic · Mar 31, 2015

A couple of additional thoughts on the above:

1. We often see "runs" on a particular position, suggesting that teams do operate in this way. If there are a bunch of guys at one position who are ranked fairly closely together, teams seem to wait. But when someone starts the ball rolling, other teams start moving on the same position as the pool of alternatives is reduced. CB, WR, EDGE and OL are 4 positions in the current draft where we could easily see these kind of runs.

2. It's important to think about what a "reach" means. I'm firmly in the belief that teams should reach to fill needs. By that I mean (1) that teams shouldn't take a player in a given round who they don't consider worth taking in that round, and (2) that teams shouldn't take a lower rated player ahead of a higher rated player based on need. But there's a ton of wiggle room. If a team has 2 players rated roughly equally, then factors such as positional need, estimated market value, and availability of alternatives are all very valid considerations.

mayoclinic · Mar 31, 2015

everlong said:
I said it in another thread but I feel Depree is going to be best used an a LB and not as an on the line rusher. I totally agree on his combat skills. His hand skill aren't just lacking they are nonexistent. His coverage skills are actually decent and with his speed and change of direction he can be effective. The real issue is in the running game. If he can't use his hands in the pros he'll end up 10 yards down field. Tedy used to use a similar turn the should and get under the lineman move from time to time but that's exactly what it needs to be, a change up of deception. Lineman who are looking for it will pancake him. I really don't think he's a 3 down player year one.

A nice film review of Bud Dupree, from Brett Kollman:

I think he overrates Dupree a bit, calling him a top 10 pick. I could easily see it happening, but I also agree that Dupree will take time to develop his hand skills and edge setting and become a 3 down player. I'd be comfortable taking him late 1st, and he will probably go top 15, but there is a fair amount of risk involved.

My Absurdly Early Pats' 2015 Draft Big Board

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Veteran

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Veteran

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Veteran

Moderatrix

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads