Our Seven Linebackers (with 1-3 open spots)

[Ring 6]

Actually, you responded to someone else and my "why not" was referring to the fact that we don't have outside linebackers like McGoo Vrabel and Colvin, so why think non entities like Ninchovich etc. are locks and Burgess couldn't be considered for some snaps at the position.

I guess my basic position is, if TBC has actually improved against the run, that's one, who else do we have? Cunningham has obviously a ways to go and Ninchovich has all of 17 career tackles and one sack.

A lot of teams go no huddle too, if they know your players have no versatility.

It's relative.

We've got two 4-3 tackles we're counting on to play 3-4 end too.

I guess my point is that guys who are OLBs will play ahead of guys who arent OLBs even if the OLBs are unproven. Might as well say Faulk can be our #2 WR.
Well, Burgess would be the reason we lack versatility. If he is on the field he has to be the 4th rusher, so his inability to handle many of the funcitons of a base 34 OLB would be exploited.
Thats a pretty important part of BBs defense. If there is one single thing that overrides everything else about BB its play team defense, do your job, and everyone is only as good as the player next to them.
Thats why, unlike pretty much every other 34 team we have never, ever, used an OLB that was a one-dimensional pass rusher. It obviously hampers our pass rush, but it is done in order to field a defense where every player can do everything asked of them.
Thats why Burgess has a role. That role is to do what he does well and not be exposed to what he can't do.
What CAN he do?
He can play sub package DE. Now this is half the snaps in a game. DO we really want to think he can be effective playing more than half the snaps? At his age? Being blocked by 300 lb OTs? Personally, I'd like to see him inside in the sub packages sometimes which he did in Philly. And thats part of the point. He is a DE who has more DT skills than LB skills. There is aboslutely no question that if he was on a 43 team that asked him to either gain 25-35 lbs and be a DT or lose 25-35 lbs and be an OLB, he would bulk up and stand 5 times the chance of succeeding that if he tried to be a LB at 230 lbs.
He can play DE when we run a 43.
We can use him in the base 34 in certain circumstances where we want to play base against a passing team, and he would have to rush every down. That takes away from our flexibility and versatility of defenses we can run, and makes TBC a coverage LB, or we blitz, but theoretically we could get away with it. (or he could sub in for TBC a few plays doing that)
But I cannot stress enough that pass rushing is NOT at the top of the list of what BB wants out of his OLBs in the base 34. If you cannot defend the run, move laterally, play in space effectively, then you cannot do the primary requirement of an OLB in our base. I know many fans want us to change our system to mimic teams that send OLBs on a mad dash to the QB every play and hope they figure our if its a run, but we aren't going to do that here. Its just not the philosophy.
So to say Burgess could be playing in the base ahead of TBC, Cunningham (even though he has no experience his skillset is that of an OLB and Burgess' is not) Woods, Ninkovich or even Guyton because they havent done much is just ignoring the fact that they are much, much better at the most important facets of the OLBs job when we line up in the base D, even if Burgess may be a better one on one pass rusher.
I've rambled on, but I hope I've made the point, that Burgess is severely out of position as a 34 base OLB and his weaknesses are the skills that are the priority when we are in that defense.
I don't know what your last comment means.

 

[RayClay]

I guess my point is that guys who are OLBs will play ahead of guys who arent OLBs even if the OLBs are unproven.

My point is, he's a veteran with a one year contract and we're talking a position where we have nothing. Wilfork didn't get that contract to pay 4-3 tackle and there will be snaps available if they think Burgess needs to be out there. Sometimes veterans can get the job done even when they aren't a perfect fit, while young players have ups and downs.

Burgess has played almost all the snaps in some games, in others he's listed at ROLB or LOLB. Of course we hope Cunningham, TBC and someone else become all around OLBs, but we need to play the players we have now and the include a lot of ??? at the position.

http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2009&page=6&surn=B&playerid=830

 

[Ring 6]

My point is, he's a veteran with a one year contract and we're talking a position where we have nothing. Wilfork didn't get that contract to pay 4-3 tackle and there will be snaps available if they think Burgess needs to be out there. Sometimes veterans can get the job done even when they aren't a perfect fit, while young players have ups and downs.

Burgess has played almost all the snaps in some games, in others he's listed at ROLB or LOLB. Of course we hope Cunningham, TBC and someone else become all around OLBs, but we need to play the players we have now and the include a lot of ??? at the position.

ProFootballFocus.com - By Player

I think we are just beating a dead horse. You keep trying to argue that because of who else is at the position that makes him a capable OLB. I don't know why you want to force him into a role he cant play.
It doesn't matter what media you find to kind of sort of imply that he played OLB in the base, because he simply did not in any real quantity of plays.
His role last year was:
-DE in sub
-DE in 43 lineups
-OLB in the 34 buried at the bottom of the depth chart becuase he was out of position playing it
-OLB in some rare circumstances where we play nickel-type schemes from a 34 base and all he is is literally a 43 DE who happens to be standing.

Those are the facts. No matter what you find written somewhere, or how you try to manipulate them thats what they are.

Also I dont know how we have 'nothing' when we have TBC on one side and Crable, Cunningham, Woods, Davis, Ninkovich and possibly Guyton all competing for the other side.
I guess where we are missing this is you see those guys not having dome miuch in the NFL so you figure a guy who doesnt belong at the position but can play another postion must be better, and I see a group of guys who regardless of your opinion of them are much better players for the duties that a 34 OLB in our base D requires.

Let me put it another way.
Simplisitically, our OLB plays 34 OLB in the base D AND plays DE in the sub packages. The split is about 50/50. Cunninghams development nothwithstanding Burgess is the best guy we have for the 2nd half of that role, and the worst guy we have for the first half. Experience, what he did as a DL what his height and weight are the fact that he played that role and didnt play the other one amounting to 50% of the snaps (more in some game less in others) doesnt change that.

Do you really want us to suck against the run in the 34? Then everything breaks down.

 

[RayClay]

I think we are just beating a dead horse. You keep trying to argue that because of who else is at the position that makes him a capable OLB. I don't know why you want to force him into a role he cant play.
It doesn't matter what media you find to kind of sort of imply that he played OLB in the base, because he simply did not in any real quantity of plays.
His role last year was:
-DE in sub
-DE in 43 lineups
-OLB in the 34 buried at the bottom of the depth chart becuase he was out of position playing it
-OLB in some rare circumstances where we play nickel-type schemes from a 34 base and all he is is literally a 43 DE who happens to be standing.

Those are the facts. No matter what you find written somewhere, or how you try to manipulate them thats what they are.

Also I dont know how we have 'nothing' when we have TBC on one side and Crable, Cunningham, Woods, Davis, Ninkovich and possibly Guyton all competing for the other side.
I guess where we are missing this is you see those guys not having dome miuch in the NFL so you figure a guy who doesnt belong at the position but can play another postion must be better, and I see a group of guys who regardless of your opinion of them are much better players for the duties that a 34 OLB in our base D requires.

Let me put it another way.
Simplisitically, our OLB plays 34 OLB in the base D AND plays DE in the sub packages. The split is about 50/50. Cunninghams development nothwithstanding Burgess is the best guy we have for the 2nd half of that role, and the worst guy we have for the first half. Experience, what he did as a DL what his height and weight are the fact that he played that role and didnt play the other one amounting to 50% of the snaps (more in some game less in others) doesnt change that.

Do you really want us to suck against the run in the 34? Then everything breaks down.

Whatever, argue with the writers that cover the team and count snaps he didn't and couldn't ever play OLB.

Who are our OLBs that are so accomplished? I don't even want the answer because there aren't any.

The only OLB we have that got a bunch of snaps is TBC, so you're position completely stands on his proven outstanding ability against the run.

L. Tomlinson chuckles.

 

[Ring 6]

Whatever, argue with the writers that cover the team and count snaps he didn't and couldn't ever play OLB.

Who are our OLBs that are so accomplished? I don't even want the answer because there aren't any.

The only OLB we have that got a bunch of snaps is TBC, so you're position completely stands on his proven outstanding ability against the run.

L. Tomlinson chuckles.

As I said we are beating a dead horse. "Got a few snaps at 34 OLB" is exactly what I said, emergency work or a specialized call.
Did you find out when those few snaps were? Was it when Thomas was deactivated? Where there other players injured? Again 'a few snaps' is far from your belief that he was in the rotation and got serious playing time.
I mean, isn't watching the games and seeing with your eyes when he played more accurate than trying to guess how, and why he 'got a few snaps' to make it more than he was the last option at the spot and the depth chart made it to him?

Once again, the idea that no one else is 'accomplished' doesnt change the fact that he isnt a player who can play the position. If we needed a 43 DE would you say play Wilfork there because we have no one else 'accomplished'?

As far as your last comment, let me understand this, you are blaiming TBC and saying you are convinced he sucked because of 1 game 4 years ago that we WON when Tomlinson the best back in the league that year when he ran for 1815 yards and 5.2 a carry 'torched' us for 123?????? at a whopping 0.1 per carry higher than his season average?
Wow I hope all of our 53 players suck by your definition, then everyone can 'chuckle' while we win the SB.

 

[RayClay]

As I said we are beating a dead horse. "Got a few snaps at 34 OLB" is exactly what I said, emergency work or a specialized call.
Did you find out when those few snaps were? Was it when Thomas was deactivated? Where there other players injured? Again 'a few snaps' is far from your belief that he was in the rotation and got serious playing time.
I mean, isn't watching the games and seeing with your eyes when he played more accurate than trying to guess how, and why he 'got a few snaps' to make it more than he was the last option at the spot and the depth chart made it to him?

Once again, the idea that no one else is 'accomplished' doesnt change the fact that he isnt a player who can play the position. If we needed a 43 DE would you say play Wilfork there because we have no one else 'accomplished'?

As far as your last comment, let me understand this, you are blaiming TBC and saying you are convinced he sucked because of 1 game 4 years ago that we WON when Tomlinson the best back in the league that year when he ran for 1815 yards and 5.2 a carry 'torched' us for 123?????? at a whopping 0.1 per carry higher than his season average?
Wow I hope all of our 53 players suck by your definition, then everyone can 'chuckle' while we win the SB.

Based on TBCs brief experience as a starting linebacker after being the only one we groomed for a few years, I wouldn't say his strength was in playing the run. Certainly he rushed the passer well last season.

BB spent a whole paragraph extolling Burgess's ability to play the run, but I'm sure that was only as a 3-4 DE giving up forty pounds at the position and eating up OL double teams while making the tackle.

I wouldn't imply that BB would ever conjecture he could set the edge or tackle someone while standing up, because that would indicate he might be construed as playing the OLB position, which we know is impossible due to his wooden leg.

 

[RayClay]

By the way, TBC is one OLB, who are the other two? Or one?

 

[Ring 6]

Based on TBCs brief experience as a starting linebacker after being the only one we groomed for a few years, I wouldn't say his strength was in playing the run. Certainly he rushed the passer well last season.

BB spent a whole paragraph extolling Burgess's ability to play the run, but I'm sure that was only as a 3-4 DE giving up forty pounds at the position and eating up OL double teams while making the tackle.

I wouldn't imply that BB would ever conjecture he could set the edge or tackle someone while standing up, because that would indicate he might be construed as playing the OLB position, which we know is impossible due to his wooden leg.

Ray,
You are talking in circles.
Burgess played the majority of his snaps in nickel/dime. Almost all of them.
When BB was asked about him, he commented on his run D. Those comments are about what he did, and what he did was play as a nickel/dime DE. That cannot be disputed.
There is a severe difference between playing as a nickel/dime DE and playing as a 34 OLB.
Burgess played for 180 running plays and 379 passing plays. He dropped into coverage 11 times.
This is the way we play defense:
On first down we play a 2gap 34 defense. We want OLBs who are adept vs the run and typically one will rush the passer on pass plays AFTER playing 2 gap and reading pass (ie they engage on playaction). The other covers. Burgess covering 1 out of every 50 plays he was on the field pretty much shows he wasnt playing much 34 OLB.
Against some teams, Colts for example, and in some game situations, we play nickel on 1st down.
On second down, depending on distance we play base or nickel, but nickle is more common.
Same on 3rd down, short yardage, base, nickle, dime depending on distance.
SO
the guy who plays nickel/dime DE isn't only playing on pass plays. He is playing on more than half the 2nd downs, some 1st downs, and a lot of 3rds. Teams run in those situaiton too. Probably about 1/3 of the time, as Burgess' snaps indicate.

So when you are a 'sub DE' 1/3 of the time you are playing the run, so your run defense is absolutely something that is important especially considering you are doing it on a D in a weakened run D position.

Another point to illustrate the way Burgess was used.
Burgess 180/379 running plays/passing plays he was on the field for
Thomas 317/284
TBC 305/420 (and he covered 65 times btw)
Woods 124/89 (covered 58) see, he played in the base
Ninkovich 127/115 he covered 12 times. More than Burgess in less than half the snaps and less than 1/3 the pass plays.

I don't know how much more clear to make it that what I saw in 17 game last season, Burgess playing almost every one of his snaps as a sub DE or 43 DE is supported by participation stats. I dont think an obsurce comment that is unquantified such as
"He later played some 3-4 outside linebacker"
Overcomes the facts and adds up to any more than a rare occurance.

 

[Ring 6]

By the way, TBC is one OLB, who are the other two? Or one?

Well in the sub packages, for half of the plays it will be Burgess, or Cunningham, Crable, or Ninkovich depending upon how those 3 progress.
I'd say at this point TBC and Burgess are the sub DEs with Cunningham subbing in for them (more for TBC becuase he will play in the base)


In the base:

TBC is on one side, and the other side is to be determined in camp. My guess at the current order or likelihood (assuming health of everyone) is

Cunningham
Crable
Woods
Ninkovich
Guyton
Burgess
Davis

in that order.
In other words, Cunningham is the best player in the group if he progresses in camp and earns the job. Crable is next. Woods would play in the base ahead of others. Ninkovich is behind him. Guyton is hard to order because I think he only gets moved out there in an emergency.
Then if everyone fails, we will be forced to use Burgess on every down.

By the way, all of his misfit as an OLB aside, do you really want him out there in those situations, playing all of those snaps and being less effective in his most important role?
Woods on 1st down and 2nd and short and Burgess on 2nd and long and 3rd makes us a better team than Burgess on every down, even if he plays better than Woods vs the run on 1st down, because he won't have the stamina to consistently rush in the sub packages.
I don't even know what he really would bring on 1st down that would make me want to use him then to diminish what he does in passing downs.

 

[RayClay]

Well in the sub packages, for half of the plays it will be Burgess, or Cunningham, Crable, or Ninkovich depending upon how those 3 progress.
I'd say at this point TBC and Burgess are the sub DEs with Cunningham subbing in for them (more for TBC becuase he will play in the base)


In the base:

TBC is on one side, and the other side is to be determined in camp. My guess at the current order or likelihood (assuming health of everyone) is

Cunningham
Crable
Woods
Ninkovich
Guyton
Burgess
Davis

in that order.
In other words, Cunningham is the best player in the group if he progresses in camp and earns the job. Crable is next. Woods would play in the base ahead of others. Ninkovich is behind him. Guyton is hard to order because I think he only gets moved out there in an emergency.
Then if everyone fails, we will be forced to use Burgess on every down.

By the way, all of his misfit as an OLB aside, do you really want him out there in those situations, playing all of those snaps and being less effective in his most important role?
Woods on 1st down and 2nd and short and Burgess on 2nd and long and 3rd makes us a better team than Burgess on every down, even if he plays better than Woods vs the run on 1st down, because he won't have the stamina to consistently rush in the sub packages.
I don't even know what he really would bring on 1st down that would make me want to use him then to diminish what he does in passing downs.

You know I never said we would use Burgess on every down at OLB.

I only said that, considering the alternatives, I wouldn't say we never would use him, and indeed might on occasion until Cunningham or someone else locks that job down.

That's, of course, unless BB has evaluated him and agrees with you he could never play a snap as a real OLB.

 

[Ring 6]

You know I never said we would use Burgess on every down at OLB.

I only said that, considering the alternatives, I wouldn't say we never would use him, and indeed might on occasion until Cunningham or someone else locks that job down.

Well, its something we could do, but he would be extremely one-dimensional in that position, so we'd want do it rarely. Again I'm not saying he is a wreck at the position, I'm saying IN THE SITUATIONS WE USE THE 34 BASE, his weaknesses are what we value the most out of that position in our system, and his strengths the ones we value the least. In other words on a scale of 1-10 we would rather have a 7run/2passrush guy in there in the base than a 2run/7passrush, but if we had one of each, they'd up splitting time situationally, which is just where I expect Burgess to fall.
If you want to consider sub package DE to be OLB (not unrealistic because thats what the 34 OLBs do in sub) then Burgess will play half the time at that position (assuming Cunningham or Crable doesnt impress and beat him out of course) and someone better suited as an OLB esp vs the run will play the other half.

 

[Ring 6]

You know I never said we would use Burgess on every down at OLB.

I only said that, considering the alternatives, I wouldn't say we never would use him, and indeed might on occasion until Cunningham or someone else locks that job down.

That's, of course, unless BB has evaluated him and agrees with you he could never play a snap as a real OLB.

Btw, if thats your point, why did you disagree when I said he would play there in an emergency or in a special situation?
Why did THAT point lead to trashing TBC and implying he sucked because he played in a game where the NFL MVP had his normal game and we won???????????/

 

[RayClay]

Btw, if thats your point, why did you disagree when I said he would play there in an emergency or in a special situation?
Why did THAT point lead to trashing TBC and implying he sucked because he played in a game where the NFL MVP had his normal game and we won???????????/

Because you listed TBS, who's previous weakness in his first go round was an inability to set the edge, and a bunch of JAG free agent DE to OLB projects and our DE draft pick as solid, run stopping OLBs, at least compared to Burgess.

In that group, for a vet on a one year contract, I put him at least in the middle, not in the end, if indeed BB ever wants him in that role.

Of course that's saying he might be slightly more known than the almost totally unknown or unaccomplished group you listed.

It's relative, in other words and depends also on need.

------

the reason I disagreed is, compared to that competition, it might not take an emergency, he might be better in the short term than someone of that group that gets exposed as inadequate and need ing to go back to the drawing board.

It's possible. Experience in the NFL counts for something, even in cases where a players skills aren't a perfect fit, if that is indeed the case.

 

[Ring 6]

Because you listed TBS, who's previous weakness in his first go round was an inability to set the edge, and a bunch of JAG free agent DE to OLB projects and our DE draft pick as solid, run stopping OLBs, at least compared to Burgess.

In that group, for a vet on a one year contract, I put him at least in the middle, not in the end, if indeed BB ever wants him in that role.

Of course that's saying he might be slightly more known than the almost totally unknown or unaccomplished group you listed.

It's relative, in other words and depends also on need.

------

the reason I disagreed is, compared to that competition, it might not take an emergency, he might be better in the short term than someone of that group that gets exposed as inadequate and need ing to go back to the drawing board.

It's possible. Experience in the NFL counts for something, even in cases where a players skills aren't a perfect fit, if that is indeed the case.

1) I dont know where you get that a guy who was signed away to a big FA contract was a failure. Did you watch him play last year, btw?
2) I never listed anyone as "solid, run stopping OLBs," I listed them as players with the skillset to play OLB in our base, which Burgess does not possess.
3) Known and not possessing the proper skillset is simply not better than unknown and possessing the proper skillset.
Look at it this way. Burgess has the skills of an NFL 43 DE, who's skills closer resemble a DT than an OLB.
Cunningham, Crable, Nickovich, Woods possess the skillset of a 34 OLB and also resemble those of a 43 DE.
We can sit here and say Cunningham has never played 34 OLB, but he was drafted to do so very high in the draft. The fact that you haven't seen him use those skills in a game doesn't mean he has to go find them, it means BB sees them and he now has to USE them. Burgess just doenst have them

 

[RayClay]

1) I dont know where you get that a guy who was signed away to a big FA contract was a failure. Did you watch him play last year, btw?

Yeah, he had a great year, he had ten sacks.

Again, you're inside knowledge of the skill sets of all these players is impressive, I assume you work for the team.

Every player you mentioned is a 4-3 DE convert, apparently possessing the skill set of a 4-3 DE until proven otherwise. I don't see a lot of proof in that group. You know for a fact that all the others with a 4-3 DE skill set also have OLB skill sets, except Burgess.

If you want to continue to beat the dead horse go ahead

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah, he had a great year, he had ten sacks.

Again, you're inside knowledge of the skill sets of all these players is impressive, I assume you work for the team.

Every player you mentioned is a 4-3 DE convert, apparently possessing the skill set of a 4-3 DE until proven otherwise. I don't see a lot of proof in that group. You know for a fact that all the others with a 4-3 DE skill set also have OLB skill sets, except Burgess.

If you want to continue to beat the dead horse go ahead

Do you think you have to work for the team to see what a player can or cant realistically do? Thats just a total copout. I have my opinion, you have yours, and the best you can do is belittle mine because I don't work for the team? Do you? No? Does that make everything you say irrelevant?

All of those players were COLLEGE DEs. Woods and Crable actually played a lot of LB in college as well, so they aren't 'converts'.
You do realize that Burgess second position in Philly wasn't LB it was DT. He VERY OFTEN played DT in sub packages. You knew that right?
Look, when you look at all of these players, everyone but Burgess is obvioulsy best suited as a 34 OLB. Burgess simply is not.

There is a tremendous difference in playing a guy who has LB abilities but good size so he played DE in college in a system that wants 220 lb LBers and 240-250 lb DEs than to 'convert' a guy who is just not agile and mobile enough to play LB.
Again, its like saying Faulk caught a lot of passes so lets make him the #2 WR.

 

[RayClay]

Do you think you have to work for the team to see what a player can or cant realistically do? Thats just a total copout. I have my opinion, you have yours, and the best you can do is belittle mine because I don't work for the team? Do you? No? Does that make everything you say irrelevant?

All of those players were COLLEGE DEs. Woods and Crable actually played a lot of LB in college as well, so they aren't 'converts'.
You do realize that Burgess second position in Philly wasn't LB it was DT. He VERY OFTEN played DT in sub packages. You knew that right?
Look, when you look at all of these players, everyone but Burgess is obvioulsy best suited as a 34 OLB. Burgess simply is not.

There is a tremendous difference in playing a guy who has LB abilities but good size so he played DE in college in a system that wants 220 lb LBers and 240-250 lb DEs than to 'convert' a guy who is just not agile and mobile enough to play LB.
Again, its like saying Faulk caught a lot of passes so lets make him the #2 WR.

I know I can't win this argument because all the games he played at OLB in his New England Patriots biography weren't really at linebacker, nor was his stint as All State linebacker in high school, so I give up.

I'll leave it with his Patriots biography because, apparently, really playing outside linebacker is different than what writers consider starting at outside linebacker.

He started in the nickle at Indy, but they don't note that otherwise.

Tennessee (10/18): Started at outside linebacker as the Patriots tied the largest margin of victory by team since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger with a 59-0 shutout over the Titans

Started at outside linebacker in the Patriots' 35-7 win over the Buccaneers at Wembley Stadium

at Indianapolis (11/15): Started at outside linebacker as the Patriots opened in a nickel package

as a senior at Eleanor Roosevelt High School, he was an all-state selection at outside linebacker

http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=33579

 

[Ring 6]

I know I can't win this argument because all the games he played at OLB in his New England Patriots biography weren't really at linebacker, nor was his stint as All State linebacker in high school, so I give up.

I'll leave it with his Patriots biography because, apparently, really playing outside linebacker is different than what writers consider starting at outside linebacker.

He started in the nickle at Indy, but they don't note that otherwise.

Well you cant win by finding something written that contradicts what actually happened. Go to those game tapes and tell me how many snaps he took in those games lined up as an OLB in the base 3-4. Thats all.

But this is getting pointless. I'm telling you what I saw which is what happened and you are searching the internet for something written that gives you an implicaiton that maybe something else happened.

 

[RayClay]

Well you cant win by finding something written that contradicts what actually happened. Go to those game tapes and tell me how many snaps he took in those games lined up as an OLB in the base 3-4. Thats all.

But this is getting pointless. I'm telling you what I saw which is what happened and you are searching the internet for something written that gives you an implicaiton that maybe something else happened.

It is pointless.

And posting Reiss and Burgess's biography at Patriots.com is reporting what's there, not searching for something. Those are the sites we expect to find reference on the Patriots. I'm out of the equation, I just watch the games. I'm watching the QB on the other team.

 

[Ring 6]

It is pointless.

And posting Reiss and Burgess's biography at Patriots.com is reporting what's there, not searching for something. Those are the sites we expect to find reference on the Patriots. I'm out of the equation, I just watch the games. I'm watching the QB on the other team.

OK Ill end with I am condfident in what I saw and it isn't changed by Reiss throwing in an afterthought that he took a couple of snaps there and a bio that says he started when we don't even know what the alignment was, because we dont always start in the base.

I'll drop out here, I think any more discussion will just constitue biyatching at each other which i dont want to do.