The "Gardner Minshew" Memorial Thread of Whatever

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

For the record - in my lifetime - Generational QB prospects
Elway
Manning
Luck
Lawrence

(*) I can see a case for Vick - I wouldn't have had him on my list (pre-draft)

You can be a non-generational QB talent - and still be a great QB - a Hall of Fame Super Bowl winning QB (I'd be over the moon on both accounts for Fields to achieve either)

But the list of generational prospects - by definition - is quite limited
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

RichH55 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:13 pm For the record - in my lifetime - Generational QB prospects
Elway
Manning
Luck
Lawrence

(*) I can see a case for Vick - I wouldn't have had him on my list (pre-draft)

You can be a non-generational QB talent - and still be a great QB - a Hall of Fame Super Bowl winning QB (I'd be over the moon on both accounts for Fields to achieve either)

But the list of generational prospects - by definition - is quite limited
At the time they were drafted I considered these guys to be Generational:

Watson
Luck
Manning

Elway was before my time by a bit. I do not consider Lawrence to be generational.
Image
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2137 times

Even Manning is a little bit hindsight. There were questions about his arm, and how much he ran at Tennessee. A lot of GMs had Leaf as the better prospect. Better arm talent they said. They were wrong, but it was pretty hotly debated.

I always thought Luck was over rated. Lawrence isn’t generational without his hair lol. Maybe he’ll be good maybe he won’t, we will see. But anyone who tells you they know he’s generational and Fields isn’t is lying.

My opinion only here - there’s no such thing as an obvious generational talent that’s clearly identified pre draft. You can’t call them that until their career is over.

The only two college players I’ve seen that just looked like they belonged on another planet were Marshall Faulk and Randy Moss.
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 25147
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 926 times

What should this thread be renamed to?
Image
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

UOK wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:37 pm What should this thread be renamed to?
The Greatest Thing We've Ever Done

This thread is up to 18 pages, 513 posts and 12,588 views.
Image
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:48 pm
RichH55 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:13 pm For the record - in my lifetime - Generational QB prospects
Elway
Manning
Luck
Lawrence

(*) I can see a case for Vick - I wouldn't have had him on my list (pre-draft)

You can be a non-generational QB talent - and still be a great QB - a Hall of Fame Super Bowl winning QB (I'd be over the moon on both accounts for Fields to achieve either)

But the list of generational prospects - by definition - is quite limited
At the time they were drafted I considered these guys to be Generational:

Watson
Luck
Manning

Elway was before my time by a bit. I do not consider Lawrence to be generational.
Any reason? The hype and results were off the charts

He would have been the number 1 pick in multiple draft cycles

Generational is descriptive not determinative - it's how its thought of going into the Draft (*)

(*) That does mean anything until they produce - plenty of the consensus top guys at various positions have either been outright busts or been outperformed by lesser rated players

And Andrew Luck - whom I thought was very good in the Pros - didn't have a HOF career - so it's not like its meant as a guarantee

But I have a hard time seeing how Lawrence isn't to be considered Generational - for better or worse
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

dplank wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:02 pm

My opinion only here - there’s no such thing as an obvious generational talent that’s clearly identified pre draft. You can’t call them that until their career is over.


Literally not the definition
User avatar
southdakbearfan
Head Coach
Posts: 4600
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Dakota
Has thanked: 763 times
Been thanked: 328 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:41 pm
UOK wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:37 pm What should this thread be renamed to?
The Greatest Thing We've Ever Done

This thread is up to 18 pages, 513 posts and 12,588 views.
"The Never Ending Mullet Debate"
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

southdakbearfan wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:06 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:41 pm

The Greatest Thing We've Ever Done

This thread is up to 18 pages, 513 posts and 12,588 views.
"The Never Ending Mullet Debate"
Underrated fish - I will spend 15 pages dying on that hill
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12500
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Plymouth, MI
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 700 times
Contact:

No rename. This is Minshew hall of honor.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

I can’t believe this thread is still going.

Actually, I can.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

RichH55 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:55 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:48 pm

At the time they were drafted I considered these guys to be Generational:

Watson
Luck
Manning

Elway was before my time by a bit. I do not consider Lawrence to be generational.
Any reason? The hype and results were off the charts

He would have been the number 1 pick in multiple draft cycles

Generational is descriptive not determinative - it's how its thought of going into the Draft (*)

(*) That does mean anything until they produce - plenty of the consensus top guys at various positions have either been outright busts or been outperformed by lesser rated players

And Andrew Luck - whom I thought was very good in the Pros - didn't have a HOF career - so it's not like its meant as a guarantee

But I have a hard time seeing how Lawrence isn't to be considered Generational - for better or worse
I feel that Watson was the better prospect coming out of college.

Watson and Lawrence's stats are comparable with the exception of Watson's INTs. Watson offsets that with his running ability.

Watson is a true dual threat whereas Lawrence is not.

So because I feel that Watson fits a more desirable QB type for me I had him ahead of Lawrence.

Just a side comment, Watson threw for more yards than Lawrence while playing in 2 less games.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... son-1.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... nce-1.html
Image
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 204 times

RichH55 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:13 pm For the record - in my lifetime - Generational QB prospects
Elway
Manning
Luck
Lawrence

(*) I can see a case for Vick - I wouldn't have had him on my list (pre-draft)

You can be a non-generational QB talent - and still be a great QB - a Hall of Fame Super Bowl winning QB (I'd be over the moon on both accounts for Fields to achieve either)

But the list of generational prospects - by definition - is quite limited
It's more than that surely! My personal opinion is that it's a bit of a ridiculous moniker but that doesn't stop it having an outsized effect on front offices, going back to my earlier point about how straying from consensus is incredibly risky for GMs.

But anyway, I've now had a quick search and coming up are:

Trevor Lawrence
Andrew Luck
Cam Newton
Vince Young (a stretch but wasn't the hype crazy at the time?)
Michael Vick
Peyton Manning

Which admittedly is fewer than I thought and Newton and Young weren't consensus generational talents at the time. Manning is my cut off as I don't think the past before that holds any insight for the current NFL.

But yeah, maybe two consensus generational talents in Manning and Luck, one HoF, the other ok. Which will Lawrence become?
wab wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:10 am I can’t believe this thread is still going.

Actually, I can.
@wab I bet you love the shipping forecast.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7336
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 555 times
Been thanked: 967 times

malk wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:13 am
RichH55 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:13 pm For the record - in my lifetime - Generational QB prospects
Elway
Manning
Luck
Lawrence

(*) I can see a case for Vick - I wouldn't have had him on my list (pre-draft)

You can be a non-generational QB talent - and still be a great QB - a Hall of Fame Super Bowl winning QB (I'd be over the moon on both accounts for Fields to achieve either)

But the list of generational prospects - by definition - is quite limited
It's more than that surely! My personal opinion is that it's a bit of a ridiculous moniker but that doesn't stop it having an outsized effect on front offices, going back to my earlier point about how straying from consensus is incredibly risky for GMs.

But anyway, I've now had a quick search and coming up are:

Trevor Lawrence
Andrew Luck
Cam Newton
Vince Young (a stretch but wasn't the hype crazy at the time?)
Michael Vick
Peyton Manning

Which admittedly is fewer than I thought and Newton and Young weren't consensus generational talents at the time. Manning is my cut off as I don't think the past before that holds any insight for the current NFL.

But yeah, maybe two consensus generational talents in Manning and Luck, one HoF, the other ok. Which will Lawrence become?
wab wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:10 am I can’t believe this thread is still going.

Actually, I can.
@wab I bet you love the shipping forecast.
I am here to steer this conversation into a direction that might get it locked, but I 100% agree with this post, and would only add that there's a very real reason why Cam, VY and Vick were debatable as generational talents while the other four werent.
Image
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

Cam and Vick absolutely were generational talents in my opinion.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2137 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:52 am
RichH55 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:55 pm

Any reason? The hype and results were off the charts

He would have been the number 1 pick in multiple draft cycles

Generational is descriptive not determinative - it's how its thought of going into the Draft (*)

(*) That does mean anything until they produce - plenty of the consensus top guys at various positions have either been outright busts or been outperformed by lesser rated players

And Andrew Luck - whom I thought was very good in the Pros - didn't have a HOF career - so it's not like its meant as a guarantee

But I have a hard time seeing how Lawrence isn't to be considered Generational - for better or worse
I feel that Watson was the better prospect coming out of college.

Watson and Lawrence's stats are comparable with the exception of Watson's INTs. Watson offsets that with his running ability.

Watson is a true dual threat whereas Lawrence is not.

So because I feel that Watson fits a more desirable QB type for me I had him ahead of Lawrence.

Just a side comment, Watson threw for more yards than Lawrence while playing in 2 less games.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... son-1.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... nce-1.html
Yep I did a whole breakdown on this earlier this year. Watson was every bit the prospect Lawrence is. Statistically he was superior in most categories (not all). You can nit and choose one or the other, which is 100% not the point - the point is they are super close prospects as is Fields.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

dplank wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:16 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:52 am

I feel that Watson was the better prospect coming out of college.

Watson and Lawrence's stats are comparable with the exception of Watson's INTs. Watson offsets that with his running ability.

Watson is a true dual threat whereas Lawrence is not.

So because I feel that Watson fits a more desirable QB type for me I had him ahead of Lawrence.

Just a side comment, Watson threw for more yards than Lawrence while playing in 2 less games.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... son-1.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... nce-1.html
Yep I did a whole breakdown on this earlier this year. Watson was every bit the prospect Lawrence is. Statistically he was superior in most categories (not all). You can nit and choose one or the other, which is 100% not the point - the point is they are super close prospects as is Fields.
I'm certain you did. You've been hugely pro-Watson the entire time.

I don't see what is so special about Lawrence. The NCAA is littered with one dimensional golden boy QBs that don't amount to a hill of shit.

Johnny Manziel and Trevor Lawrence have almost the exact same college QB rating.

Manziel: 164.1
Lawrence: 164.3

Now Watson's was lower at 157.5 because he threw all those picks.

But Watson could run. He was much more of a special player than either of those two. Watson could also lead.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... iel-1.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... nce-1.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... son-1.html
Image
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:52 am
RichH55 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:55 pm

Any reason? The hype and results were off the charts

He would have been the number 1 pick in multiple draft cycles

Generational is descriptive not determinative - it's how its thought of going into the Draft (*)

(*) That does mean anything until they produce - plenty of the consensus top guys at various positions have either been outright busts or been outperformed by lesser rated players

And Andrew Luck - whom I thought was very good in the Pros - didn't have a HOF career - so it's not like its meant as a guarantee

But I have a hard time seeing how Lawrence isn't to be considered Generational - for better or worse
I feel that Watson was the better prospect coming out of college.

Watson and Lawrence's stats are comparable with the exception of Watson's INTs. Watson offsets that with his running ability.

Watson is a true dual threat whereas Lawrence is not.

So because I feel that Watson fits a more desirable QB type for me I had him ahead of Lawrence.

Just a side comment, Watson threw for more yards than Lawrence while playing in 2 less games.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... son-1.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... nce-1.html
The INT are kind of massive there though (17 INT in a College season is a TON - especially when its your last year and thats what they were looking for you to improve) - and the measurables favor Lawrence as well (size/ arm/accuracy - Even the 40 times are closer than you'd think)

And Lawrence played less games as an older player (due to covid). He had more games younger - people always forget that (or just like to make the stats look however they want anyway).
Hot take: Not unreasonable to expect a player to be better as a Junior than True Freshman

Watson's junior year stats arguably got worse than his Sophomore year - His Rushing got markedly worse as well

There is very little to show that Watson was the better prospect - I mean at a certain point you have to face reality on that - (Even people who prefer Watson and suggest that Lawrence over him is incorrect CAN acknowledge there is a vast, vast, vast consensus that Lawrence was the better prospect coming out
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

Look there are really no nits to pick on Lawrence - Every box is checked.

Even something you might deem as an unfair slight to Watson (The INT alone are a problem) - But his build - that would make him non-generational alone

It's a fair gripe that with his Build (Watson) he might struggle to hold up in the Pros especially if you envision running as a Decent Chunk of his game.

That right there would make him non-generational.

Bad prospect? No - of course not. But generational is rare - it's not he's a good or even very good or great prospect - its generational

Cam wouldn't be generational because there were questions about his passing - Though Cam as body type would be Generational -I think Fields is the only guy who comes close in that respect (*)

(*) Actually Logan Thomas too but thats a different can of worms
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2137 times

There’s a huge ding on Lawrence, he just gets a free pass.

He’s a chill dude who doesn’t seem maniacally focused on being great. Does he have the drive needed to be a great pro? Is he a leader? Maybe, doesnt seem like one. Who knows. So far he’s gotten by with talent and playing on a stacked team that totally outclasses nearly every opponent he’s played top to bottom. The list of college QBs with great talent that don’t succeed in the pros is a long one. Mental makeup is half the formula for greatness, people had no problem dinging Fields for this for reasons that appear to be complete bullshit.

He could be Rob Johnson. I hope he is. If you want “generational” he should have a focus more like what I’ve seen from Fields thus far.
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 25147
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Hope this works.
Image
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12500
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Plymouth, MI
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 700 times
Contact:

Mississippi Mudflap Memorial
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11017
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 516 times

wab wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:10 am I can’t believe this thread is still going.

Actually, I can.
I read you first line and I thought....really?? If there is anything this group is good for, it's inane banter about nothing remotely material to the Bears.
Image
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5552
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 485 times

I had Manning and Watson as generational talents. I agreed with Watson's head coach in college, that he was like Michael Jordan and teams that passed on him would regret it. Fully 10 of the 11 teams drafting before the Texans (who moved up because they wanted him so much) would have benefitted from his talent; only the Chiefs taking Mahomes were set at QB.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 204 times

I don't think you can call Watson a "generational talent". Materially, @RichH55 makes a good point on interceptions, they were a massive red flag and if his 2016 season had, say, <10 I think he would have been a consensus no. 1 pick. But more generally, my original point wasn't about whether someone *should* have been considered as such but rather whether they were.

But suffice to say, going back to Manning, he's the only such talent that has won a Super Bowl. Of the rest, at least that we're talking about here, only Newton managed to get to the big game, once, and has a 3-4 record in the playoffs, Luck made one Conference Championship and ended up 4-4, then Vick was 2-3 in the post season.

Even Manning was only 14-13 in the postseason, compared to 11-9 for Rodgers or 34-11 for Brady. Brees is 9-9 to round out that group who are spoken about in similar terms.

So the shocking conclusion is that even these rarely designated "generational" talents aren't particularly likely to be great and, wrapping this back up, if I was the Jags I absolutely would have run with Minshew and traded the #1 pick for a king's ransom.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2137 times

Uh huh. So, why isn’t Fields generational then? Marcus Mariota should’ve been generational too, no? They had great stats and didn’t have many INTs lol. It’s a joke. The whole “generational “ thing is equal parts football and media hype. Trevor Lawrence without the hair and a stacked Clemson team is just another athletic college QB with a 50/50 chance of success. It’s all bullshit media driven narrative for lazy consumption. Most people calling him generational probably watched him play like twice, they are just parrots for the talking heads who exist for clicks - and in that world the hair matters.
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 204 times

dplank wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:16 am Uh huh. So, why isn’t Fields generational then? Marcus Mariota should’ve been generational too, no? They had great stats and didn’t have many INTs lol. It’s a joke. The whole “generational “ thing is equal parts football and media hype. Trevor Lawrence without the hair and a stacked Clemson team is just another athletic college QB with a 50/50 chance of success. It’s all bullshit media driven narrative for lazy consumption. Most people calling him generational probably watched him play like twice, they are just parrots for the talking heads who exist for clicks - and in that world the hair matters.
Eh?

You asked why isn't Watson designated a generational talent and his interceptions are, rightfully and obviously, pointed out as the reason he wasn't considered such. That in no way means that interceptions are the determinant here. I'm also not defending it as a term, in fact I'm doing the opposite but pointing out that the designation doesn't appear to have any predictive value to future success.

But what should be really obvious is that a virtually necessary condition of being labelled a generational talent QB is being a consensus number 1 pick. Plus whilst all of this somewhat hype, there are players that come up that teams consider tanking for, that's the kind of thing we're looking at.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2137 times

Yea my point is more general, generational is an arbitrary term used by media personalities primarily. Media narratives do, unfortunately, impact actual draft selections as the draft is far more narrative based than it should be. I’m not arguing with you specifically, I just really hate the faux label that gets bestowed upon certain players and not on other equally deserving ones. It’s all bullshit. And looks/appearance/race - all things that shouldn’t matter, in fact do.

Fields is our guy now, and I think he was treated unfairly in the draft process - so fuck Goldilocks I hope he sux and Fields becomes MVP.

Look at the last batch of great QBs - Brady, Manning, Brees, Rivers. All these guys are intense dudes, all in on football. Insufferable after a loss. Maniacally dedicated to winning, and let their teammates have it if they aren’t. Jordan was like that. Fields seems like that. Lawrence doesn’t. Why wasn’t he dinged for that in his eval, doesn’t his work ethic, dedication, and leadership matter? Not with that hair I guess….
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 204 times

No worries, to be honest I didn't follow Lawrence much, we weren't in the hunt and I agree that the generational, hell any "consensus" pick, stuff is a load of bollocks.

I'm definitely with you on wanting someone with that grit. Definitely happy to have Fields on that front! Incidentally I reckon Minshew has that in him as well...
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2137 times

Minshew seems like a happy go lucky sorta guy, but I agree if I was Jax I’d have traded #1 for 3 1s plus a second and a third and reset that whole franchise with one bold move. I’d roll with Minshew and a load of talent around him. He does have that, dare I say, moxie about him!
Post Reply