"Ruining" a QB by starting him too soon

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

I assume most of the folks here have jobs.  So let me ask:  when you acceped a new job did you get an orientation meeting, maybe some training, maybe a mentor. Or did you just get thrown in the deep end and had to fend for yourself?

If he starts game one he will have four months of preparation for it. That's not thrown into the deep end like your analogy no matter what. 

[Watkins90]

I count about 23 if not more busts on that list. I need to go back and see where some guys were drafted. I mean Alex Smith has had a nice long career but has never been the prolific QB that a No. 1 overall should be. So, do you consider him a bust because he never lived up to the hype, but had a long career. 

[Green Lightning]

11 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

suck up

 

Try it, you'll like it.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Green Lightning

[Alphadawg7]

23 hours ago, Buffalo86 said:

Below are the 40 39 37 QBs from 2004-2016 who were drafted in the first or second round & started during their rookie year.  Were any of them ruined by starting too soon?

 

1. Jared Goff
2. Carson Wentz
3. Paxton Lynch
4. Jameis Winston
5. Marcus Mariota
6. Blake Bortles
7. Johnny Manziel
8. Teddy Bridgewater
9. Derek Carr
10. EJ Manuel
11. Geno Smith
12. Andrew Luck
13. RGIII
14. Ryan Tannehill
15. Brandon Weeden
16. Cam Newton
17. Blaine Gabbert
18. Christian Ponder
19. Andy Dalton
20. Colin Kaepernick
21. Sam Bradford
22. Jimmy Clausen
23. Matthew Stafford
24. Mark Sanchez
25. Josh Freeman
26. Matt Ryan
27. Joe Flacco
28. JaMarcus Russell
29. John Beck
30. Vince Young
31. Matt Leinart
32. Jay Cutler
33. Tarvaris Jackson
34. Alex Smith
35. Jason Campbell
36. Eli Manning
37. Ben Roethlisberger

 

No disrespect, but this is a false question with no possible provable answer and its just designed to make a point.  Yet the exact same list can make the exact same opposite point too.  

 

You can easily look at all the busts and say they were ruined too soon.  You can also easily say that none were ruined, cream rose to the top and the ones who failed would fail anyway.

 

Neither side can make an actual factual and verifiable case for either argument, so its an unsolvable question and pretty much pointless.  I personally feel there were people who could have had better careers had they been in different situations and didn't have to play so early in bad situations.  But there is no way to ever prove what could have happened as time machines dont exist to go back and affect change and then compare the results.  

 

[The Virginian]

I can tell you Josh didn't get a lot of help from his offensive line last year, so he's familiar with running for his life.  In some ways, he performed better rolling out of the pocket than standing tall in it.  Anyway, Josh is pretty resilient and whichever way they bring him in he'll adapt.  I'm pretty sure of that.

[Buffalo86]

22 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

No disrespect, but this is a false question with no possible provable answer and its just designed to make a point.  Yet the exact same list can make the exact same opposite point too.  
 

 

Alrighty then.

 

Quote

You can easily look at all the busts and say they were ruined too soon.  You can also easily say that none were ruined, cream rose to the top and the ones who failed would fail anyway.

 

Not really.  Could you look at Jamarcus Russell and say he was ruined too soon?

 

Quote

 

Neither side can make an actual factual and verifiable case for either argument, so its an unsolvable question and pretty much pointless.  I personally feel there were people who could have had better careers had they been in different situations and didn't have to play so early in bad situations.  But there is no way to ever prove what could have happened as time machines dont exist to go back and affect change and then compare the results.  

 

 

 If that's your criteria for message board discussion, you should start a "How many games did the Bills win last season?" thread.  Everything else is pretty much off limits.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Buffalo86

[Bill_with_it]

On 7/30/2018 at 5:39 PM, Buffalo86 said:

Below are the 40 39 37 QBs from 2004-2016 who were drafted in the first or second round & started during their rookie year.  Were any of them ruined by starting too soon?

 

1. Jared Goff
2. Carson Wentz
3. Paxton Lynch
4. Jameis Winston
5. Marcus Mariota
6. Blake Bortles
7. Johnny Manziel
8. Teddy Bridgewater
9. Derek Carr
10. EJ Manuel
11. Geno Smith
12. Andrew Luck
13. RGIII
14. Ryan Tannehill
15. Brandon Weeden
16. Cam Newton
17. Blaine Gabbert
18. Christian Ponder
19. Andy Dalton
20. Colin Kaepernick
21. Sam Bradford
22. Jimmy Clausen
23. Matthew Stafford
24. Mark Sanchez
25. Josh Freeman
26. Matt Ryan
27. Joe Flacco
28. JaMarcus Russell
29. John Beck
30. Vince Young
31. Matt Leinart
32. Jay Cutler
33. Tarvaris Jackson
34. Alex Smith
35. Jason Campbell
36. Eli Manning
37. Ben Roethlisberger

I would say no. I would say that those that were failed qbs had a significant mosaic of problems that prevented them from being good qbs. From maturity, to work ethic, attitude, field smarts, to discipline, etc...

[Alphadawg7]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo86 said:

 

Alrighty then.

 

 

Not really.  Could you look at Jamarcus Russell and say he was ruined too soon?

 

 

 If that's your criteria for message board discussion, you should start a "How many games did the Bills win last season?" thread.  Everything else is pretty much off limits.

 

Someone can easily say Russell started too soon...just like someone could say he would suck no matter what (which is the camp I personally am in on Russell).  

 

But the point is, you are clearly trying to say that the bust would have been busts no matter what, and thats just not something you can actually know.  There is no possible evidence to even suggest a theory on it.  Its 100% speculation with no substance because you only have exactly half the information.  The 2nd half the information would be to see each QB, good and bad, redo the career under different circumstances to compare.  And without that data, its pointless.  

 

Where if two people are discussing a topic where all data is known, but have different opinions, then there is something to discuss.  For instance...was that play a catch, yes or no.  is that QB a good player?  Who do you think is better.  etc etc.  

 

But you made a list that literally proves both sides of the argument depending on how you pose the question and cant be shown to be true in either side.  So thats why I said its pointless.  Cant debate make believe things that didn't happen with any certainty.  And without seeing them start their careers over again in a time machine, the other side of the information is make believe.  

[Buffalo86]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Someone can easily say Russell started too soon...just like someone could say he would suck no matter what (which is the camp I personally am in on Russell).  

 

But the point is, you are clearly trying to say that the bust would have been busts no matter what, and thats just not something you can actually know.  There is no possible evidence to even suggest a theory on it.  Its 100% speculation with no substance because you only have exactly half the information.  The 2nd half the information would be to see each QB, good and bad, redo the career under different circumstances to compare.  And without that data, its pointless.  

 

Where if two people are discussing a topic where all data is known, but have different opinions, then there is something to discuss.  For instance...was that play a catch, yes or no.  is that QB a good player?  Who do you think is better.  etc etc.  

 

But you made a list that literally proves both sides of the argument depending on how you pose the question and cant be shown to be true in either side.  So thats why I said its pointless.  Cant debate make believe things that didn't happen with any certainty.  And without seeing them start their careers over again in a time machine, the other side of the information is make believe.  

 

I do believe a QB who's ruined by starting too soon probably wasn't going to amount to much anyway.  At the same time, I can't think of any QBs who were ruined by NOT starting in year one.  Would Losman, Brohm, and Locker have been stars, if only they'd started during their rookie seasons?  It seems pretty unlikely.  

[reddogblitz]

2 hours ago, Watkins90 said:

I count about 23 if not more busts on that list. I need to go back and see where some guys were drafted. I mean Alex Smith has had a nice long career but has never been the prolific QB that a No. 1 overall should be. So, do you consider him a bust because he never lived up to the hype, but had a long career. 

 

Alex was the first pick.  He started right off and stunk until Hardball arrived 4 years later I think it was.

 

I was shocked. I used to think he stunk and made fun of him. Now I think he is one of the top QBs.  He really turned it around. I think he proves coaching matters a lot for young QBs

[Maynard]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Someone can easily say Russell started too soon...just like someone could say he would suck no matter what (which is the camp I personally am in on Russell).  

 

But the point is, you are clearly trying to say that the bust would have been busts no matter what, and thats just not something you can actually know.  There is no possible evidence to even suggest a theory on it.  Its 100% speculation with no substance because you only have exactly half the information.  The 2nd half the information would be to see each QB, good and bad, redo the career under different circumstances to compare.  And without that data, its pointless.  

 

Where if two people are discussing a topic where all data is known, but have different opinions, then there is something to discuss.  For instance...was that play a catch, yes or no.  is that QB a good player?  Who do you think is better.  etc etc.  

 

But you made a list that literally proves both sides of the argument depending on how you pose the question and cant be shown to be true in either side.  So thats why I said its pointless.  Cant debate make believe things that didn't happen with any certainty.  And without seeing them start their careers over again in a time machine, the other side of the information is make believe.  

Agreed. Pointless discussion really. Just a lot of opinions with nothing to really back it up either way. There is absolutely no way in knowing. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Bill_with_it said:

I would say no. I would say that those that were failed qbs had a significant mosaic of problems that prevented them from being good qbs. From maturity, to work ethic, attitude, field smarts, to discipline, etc...

 

Well, you've mixed a couple things there.

 

Absolutely there are busts who did not have maturity/work ethic/attitude/discipline.  Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Josh Freeman probably, Johnny Manziel come to mind.

 

But now you get to "field smarts".  What is that exactly?  Is it innate?  Is it learnable?  Coachable? 

 

Certainly there are failed QB who had the maturity, work ethic, attitude, and discipline to succeed.  So if you bring in "field smarts", if a failed QB doesn't have enough of it, isn't that tantamount to saying "he failed because he failed"?  And doesn't it still beg the question, if it's learnable or coachable at all, are there guys who might have had a different trajectory if their development were handled differently?

 

 

1 hour ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Alex was the first pick.  He started right off and stunk until Hardball arrived 4 years later I think it was.

 

I was shocked. I used to think he stunk and made fun of him. Now I think he is one of the top QBs.  He really turned it around. I think he proves coaching matters a lot for young QBs

 

Agreed on both points.  Not only Harbaugh, but then improved even further working with Andy Reid, to the point where he just got paid.

 

So yeah, coaching and how a QB is handled does make a difference.

[reddogblitz]

What about Alex Smith? He started right away and was bad for years. Usually a guy like this gets tossed out. A bust. Shouldn't have started right away. 

 

But, then they get a new  coach and he was really good. Good thing he started right away.

[beerme1]

14 hours ago, mannc said:

Hope you’re right. Peterman actually looked pretty good in the Indy snow game before he got hurt.

 

Hahahahaha

 

 

14 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

He had 57 yards passing.  Dear lord, the bar for qb play in Buffalo is so low.

.  

 

Just say it in that hotel commercial voice. So Low. 57 YARDS.

 

 

11 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

Statistically speaking, Mark Sanchez was an abysmal QB his entire career. In his 4 years in NY, his highest QB Rating was a terrible 78.2. 

 

His teams were successful because they played elite defense and had excellent running games. If anything, he held them back badly. 

 

Well now I happen to think Josh Allen is way more talented than Sanchez and also believe we may be getting to an elite defense and we have Shady so...Allen should be legit.

 

 

11 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

EJ's first start against NE game me hope.  I was really excited after game 2 in the comeback against Carolina. 

After that, it fell apart for him.

 

We'll always have the Carolina comeback game at home, with his Father in the stands. I really wish that could have been continued and wish EJ the best. I truly enjoyed that day in the stands. It was an awesome environment in the stadium that afternoon.

 

 

9 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I think most of the people who want Allen to start want to see him fail. There's a lot more to the job than making throws. There is no reason to start the guy if he isn't ready. Just impatience.

 

Dude? I agree with you 100% that if he isn't ready he shouldn't start. But I want him to start if he looks like he is the best talent of the trio. May the best man win. Start who looks most capable and I'll be surprised if after the the first two pre season games that guy isn't Josh.

Edited August 1, 2018 by beerme1

[reddogblitz]

11 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

EJ's first start against NE game me hope.  I was really excited after game 2 in the comeback against Carolina. 

After that, it fell apart for him.

 

i think it fell apart for EJ after he came back from the injury in the Clowns game. 

 

I was at the Ravens game at the Ralph when they were defending champs a couple of weeks after Carolina. EJ played well. He hit Woods on a nice 45 yard bomb. I swear he made one of the best ball fakes I've ever seen. He faked a hand off to the RB and then stood there like he was watching. In the mean time Lee Smith snuck out in the flat and EJ  lobbed  pass to Lee, but Lee tripped over his own feet and couldn't reach it. Next play he hits Woods in the EZ for a ,TD but it got over turned on"process of the catch" nonsense.

 

at half time of the Cleveland game I and many others on here thought maybe we had found our guy.  Then the injury and then it fell apart. Sad.

[Buffalo86]

Slightly on-subject, the Packers had enough concerns about Aaron Rodgers that they drafted Brian Brohm in the 2nd after Rodgers learned for 3 years.  Check out Hoge & McShay giving the nod to Brohm in the Packers' QB competition that never was:

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

10 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I assume most of the folks here have jobs.  So let me ask:  when you acceped a new job did you get an orientation meeting, maybe some training, maybe a mentor. Or did you just get thrown in the deep end and had to fend for yourself?

 

Typically depending on the job - you get some training and maybe a mentor for a short period and then you are left on you own and expected to swim.  

 

Sounds a lot like Training Camp and Preseason with a veteran around to mentor.

 

Not a great example either way.

[Fadingpain]

As Sam Monson from Pro Football Focus said yesterday, start Allen from Game 1 and let him learn on the job.

 

Neither of the other 2 guys is going to play into the Bills future plans, so might as well get Allen in there and see if he can do it.

 

Suggesting that this somehow "ruins" Allen is just dumb BS.   

 

 

[Tenhigh]

15 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Was it a good outing -I don’t know, but he was easily the best QB that played that day - although Webb may have had the best throw.

That's not saying a whole hell of a lot.  

 

15 hours ago, mannc said:

It was better than his outing in LA...

He had more completions in LA.  Hell, he was 11 for 14 if you count his completions to the Chargers players.  ?

[PromoTheRobot]

7 hours ago, beerme1 said:

 

Dude? I agree with you 100% that if he isn't ready he shouldn't start. But I want him to start if he looks like he is the best talent of the trio. May the best man win. Start who looks most capable and I'll be surprised if after the the first two pre season games that guy isn't Josh.

 

The truth is no one, not fans or the media, want to give any player 5 minutes to learn their craft. If you don't go out and light it up right away, you are garbage. If Allen has a poor outing then he becomes the latest Nate Peterman and we are all talking  2019 draft.

 

Give the kid a redshirt year. Even if he can chuck the ball a mile. He'll be better for it.

[ALF]

I would only put Allen out there this season if the OL is rock solid in pass protection. 

[Bill_with_it]

8 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Well, you've mixed a couple things there.

 

Absolutely there are busts who did not have maturity/work ethic/attitude/discipline.  Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Josh Freeman probably, Johnny Manziel come to mind.

 

But now you get to "field smarts".  What is that exactly?  Is it innate?  Is it learnable?  Coachable? 

 

Certainly there are failed QB who had the maturity, work ethic, attitude, and discipline to succeed.  So if you bring in "field smarts", if a failed QB doesn't have enough of it, isn't that tantamount to saying "he failed because he failed"?  And doesn't it still beg the question, if it's learnable or coachable at all, are there guys who might have had a different trajectory if their development were handled differently?

 

 

 

Agreed on both points.  Not only Harbaugh, but then improved even further working with Andy Reid, to the point where he just got paid.

 

So yeah, coaching and how a QB is handled does make a difference.

I was 50/50 about using field smarts. Then I read a few articles about how these1/2 rd  qbs are living and breathing football since the age 8-11 yrs of age. That’s astonishing with high level coaching, summer camps, qb camps etc that’s 12- 14 yrs of craft honing. While that doesn’t make them a master, they should have a decent level of field smarts; obviously not expecting Manning level.

[Orlando Tim]

On 7/31/2018 at 2:24 AM, Domdab99 said:

 

So every QB who started in his rookie year was ruined?

 

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

 

I am not sure if you read it quickly and tried to find a point to argue but what I stated:

Basically if you start a guy who starts to believe his limited arsenal is enough you will ruin him, and every qb starts with a limited arsenal. 

 

I will dumb it down for you. If Josh Allen starts off 11-5 this year and believes that he does not need to improve he will get worse-niot because his skills diminish but defenses learn. RGIII would have done well to sit a year and learn not to run because D coordinators figured it out. The best QBs every off season try to improve-Manning after throwing 51 tds was working that off season to improve. Every QB coming out of college has a limited arsenal and the long term successes will increase their arsenal.

[Strethor]

You tend to not ruin a QB because the good ones learn to not make the same mistakes again and the bad ones are thought of as ruined - really they just not good enough.

[Domdab99]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I am not sure if you read it quickly and tried to find a point to argue but what I stated:

Basically if you start a guy who starts to believe his limited arsenal is enough you will ruin him, and every qb starts with a limited arsenal. 

 

I will dumb it down for you. If Josh Allen starts off 11-5 this year and believes that he does not need to improve he will get worse-niot because his skills diminish but defenses learn. RGIII would have done well to sit a year and learn not to run because D coordinators figured it out. The best QBs every off season try to improve-Manning after throwing 51 tds was working that off season to improve. Every QB coming out of college has a limited arsenal and the long term successes will increase their arsenal.

 

I will dumb this down for you:

 

Your highlighted part does not, in any way, say the 2nd part. 

[reddogblitz]

5 hours ago, Fadingpain said:

As Sam Monson from Pro Football Focus said yesterday, start Allen from Game 1 and let him learn on the job.

 

Neither of the other 2 guys is going to play into the Bills future plans, so might as well get Allen in there and see if he can do it.

 

Suggesting that this somehow "ruins" Allen is just dumb BS.   

 

 

 

Do these losses we get while we "get Allen in there and see if he can do it" go on Sam Monson's permanent record?

 

Sure it's fine if you're a fan or sportswriter to say just toss the kid in and see what he can do.

 

But Coach McDermott is a smart coach.  he knows that if you're losing too many games you're out quickly regardless of if you got Allen in to "see if he can do it" or not.  A coach that is rebuilding is rebuilding for the next coach that comes in.  Think of the Gus/Marrone scenario.

 

Not to mention what it will do to players like Shady and Kyle Williams and Kelvin Benjamin and Jerry Hughes if one of the other guys does better in TC/PS/practice than Allen.  Mutiny in the locker room is never pretty.

 

Great idea for getting clicks, but dumb for a coach that wants to build for the future and WIN NOW. Use last season as your guide.  Many sportswriters thought the Bills should roll with Nasty Nate to "see what he can do".  If we followed their advice then we'd be sitting on 18 right now.

 

Of course if Allen suddenly "lights it up" and is ready in the eyes of Coach McDermott, by all means ...

[Orlando Tim]

2 hours ago, Domdab99 said:

 

I will dumb this down for you:

 

Your highlighted part does not, in any way, say the 2nd part. 

. 

 

I am surprised you were so baffled by my post so I asked two football fan coworkers if they understood my point from original post and both stated your interpretation was off base considering the entirety of original post.  If I had only posted what you quoted I would possibly agree but I started post by commenting on the individual matters. I will try and be more precise with my language from now on.

[Domdab99]

No worries

[Kelly the Dog]

There are only 5-6 guys on the entire planet that are good enough to play consistently very well as an NFL QB. Another dozen guys on the entire planet play well in bursts. Mental toughness is one of the dozen or so qualities that separate the top guys from everyone else. If you don't have it, and failure early knocks it out of you, you didn't have enough for the long run anyway.

[LaDexter]

QBs are not ruined by starting too soon.

 

QBs are ruined when the OL fails to pass block....

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

20 hours ago, Bill_with_it said:

I would say no. I would say that those that were failed qbs had a significant mosaic of problems that prevented them from being good qbs. From maturity, to work ethic, attitude, field smarts, to discipline, etc...

 

...the "list" exemplifies the significant decline and desperation of the NFL QB spot over the last decade+......how many of those 1st rounders would not even get a shot at UDFA status yesteryear?.....how many are STILL hanging around extorting an NFL QB paycheck while masquerading as an NFL QB?......colleges no longer give a rat's azz about churning out NFL ready QB's.....whatever style sells, puts butts in the seats, leads to a megamillions bowl game and keeps boosters happy is all that matters....just too bad the NFL cannot afford a minor/developmental league, right?....um ok.........

[Fr. Jerk]

On 7/30/2018 at 8:42 PM, jrober38 said:

If a QB can play, they usually show it very early on. 

 

Show up and blow up, ya dig? 

[Bing Bong]

2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...the "list" exemplifies the significant decline and desperation of the NFL QB spot over the last decade+......how many of those 1st rounders would not even get a shot at UDFA status yesteryear?.....how many are STILL hanging around extorting an NFL QB paycheck while masquerading as an NFL QB?......colleges no longer give a rat's azz about churning out NFL ready QB's.....whatever style sells, puts butts in the seats, leads to a megamillions bowl game and keeps boosters happy is all that matters....just too bad the NFL cannot afford a minor/developmental league, right?....um ok.........

You know what grinds my gears? When people put quotes in something like "list" when their still literally talking about a list.

[GoBills808]

25 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

You know what grinds my gears? When people put quotes in something like "list" when their still literally talking about a list.

How about when people don't know the difference between 'their' and 'they're'? 

[Bing Bong]

16 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

How about when people don't know the difference between 'their' and 'they're'? 

I chose not to edit because I saw the irony. And I used their because that's what the mic picks up with speech text. But who are these "people" you speak of. And who cares about the "difference" of using 2nd grade grammar.

 

What's up with the "bills" in your user name. Who came up with this "list" filled with "quarterbacks" and "stats"

2 hours ago, The Jerk said:

 

Show up and blow up, ya dig? 

Let me ask TBD the difference between a raw QB talented riding pine year 1 or year 2? You still get the incredible benefit of standing around holding the clipboard for Josh McCown. 

 

The difference is you're not quite sure how good you are by year 2. And you're fortunate to find out you don't suck?

Edited August 2, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[Bing Bong]

23 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

How about when people don't know the difference between 'their' and 'they're'? 

I feel ya GB. But witch is more annoying, putting quotes around around a simple word with no good or bad connotations to discredit it as is it's not defining what it is? Or using the wrong word?

 

Your factual grammatical "correction" is just as bad as this ordered rows of names that OP dares to call a "list"

[Tyrod's friend]

On 7/30/2018 at 8:42 PM, jrober38 said:

If a QB can play, they usually show it very early on. 

Before all this bull, the possibly worst single season belonged to a QB as a rookie. He didn't show it "early on", and he didn't show it later (2nd year, 19th rated QB) but at least he improved on that 38% completion rate.

He just went on to win 5 Super Bowls.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Tyrod's friend

[Buffalo86]

2 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

...Your factual grammatical "correction" is just as bad as this ordered rows of names that OP dares to call a "list"

 

FTR, not once did I dare refer to it as a "list".  Shame on you for calling it an "ordered row of names".  

[Bing Bong]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo86 said:

 

FTR, not once did I dare refer to it as a "list".  Shame on you for calling it an "ordered row of names".  

Yeah well I'm not sure about your "QBs" more like average joes that should have never thrown the pigskin until they waited a year. You think they're good now, imagine how much better they'd be had they waited a year.. to learn.. football and maintain their sensitive egos

[Bing Bong]

EJ Manuel probably didn't pan out because his mentor was the kind of guy that slips on a mat and ends his career. If he had Joe Montana in front of him he would have learned all the tricks Joe passed down to Steve Young. 

 

Really makes ya think, Young needed Montana to learn his scrambling, Rodgers needed Favre for his side arm delivery. These guys are really taking a page from a vets book.

Edited August 2, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks