Another RB we are going to need

[Idgit]

LOL......another insult. How refreshing.

So is the type of thing I can expect from you going forward? Following me around from thread to thread insulting me?

I guess there just isnt much that worries you. Is there ANYTHING that worries you?

We dont need healthy backs, heck we dont even need much of a run game. We just need a passing game and great pass protection. No correlation between playing the run and rushing the passer. I guess I just dont know football eh? LOL

You are CLEARLY not understanding where I stand. I VERY MUCH like Randle. But if he goes down, at this point, we will be too thin.

Yah, but screw it, who cares. We dont even need a run game anyway. Lets go back to pass happy football and get Romo killed. No worries!!!!

Sorry, I inadvertently deleted this earlier. I'm not trying to be insulting. I don't happen to think you know what you're talking about on the topic of what wins football games. And I think this because of your posting history on the topic. I realize it's not a flattering take, but it's aimed at your opinion, it's not personal. We don't all have to pretend everybody has an informed opinion so that nobody gets offended. You're obviously free to disagree with my interpretation.

I'm not following you anywhere. You quoted me in this thread. I replied.

As for what I'm concerned about with this offense, that's right, I'm not concerned about much. Keeping Romo upright and ball control, that's it. Our problems have been mostly defensive, and they've been significant on that side of the ball the last three seasons. I've said in other threads that I think the weakness at QB2 is a much bigger issue than our RB depth, and that hasn't changed.

I also don't like out options in the return game right now, though that's a lesser issue and one that might go away in preseason.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Sorry, I inadvertently deleted this earlier. I'm not trying to be insulting. I don't happen to think you know what you're talking about on the topic of what wins football games. And I think this because of your posting history on the topic. I realize it's not a flattering take, but it's aimed at your opinion, it's not personal. We don't all have to pretend everybody has an informed opinion so that nobody gets offended. You're obviously free to disagree with my interpretation.

I'm not following you anywhere. You quoted me in this thread. I replied.

As for what I'm concerned about with this offense, that's right, I'm not concerned about much. Keeping Romo upright and ball control, that's it. Our problems have been mostly defensive, and they've been significant on that side of the ball the last three seasons. I've said in other threads that I think the weakness at QB2 is a much bigger issue than our RB depth, and that hasn't changed.

I also don't like out options in the return game right now, though that's a lesser issue and one that might go away in preseason.

You seem to be a rather lazy fan. Not much worries you. Its almost like you get annoyed by anyone NOT liking something about the Cowboys.

As if your reply would be "everything will be fine" " Rome wasnt built in a day"

And as far as understanding what it takes to win, I knew enough to understand what a good run game would do for this offense, a poor defense, and Romo. I also knew that taking Garrett away from the offense and putting in a REAL OC would do wonders. None of this you have shown an ability to grasp.

Now go ahead and commence telling me I dont know anything about football with an inability to prove your point.

Honestly...........with the proof of last seasons results staring you plum in the face, you still argue the contrary.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Sorry, I inadvertently deleted this earlier. I'm not trying to be insulting. I don't happen to think you know what you're talking about on the topic of what wins football games. And I think this because of your posting history on the topic. I realize it's not a flattering take, but it's aimed at your opinion, it's not personal. We don't all have to pretend everybody has an informed opinion so that nobody gets offended. You're obviously free to disagree with my interpretation.

I'm not following you anywhere. You quoted me in this thread. I replied.

As for what I'm concerned about with this offense, that's right, I'm not concerned about much. Keeping Romo upright and ball control, that's it. Our problems have been mostly defensive, and they've been significant on that side of the ball the last three seasons. I've said in other threads that I think the weakness at QB2 is a much bigger issue than our RB depth, and that hasn't changed.

I also don't like out options in the return game right now, though that's a lesser issue and one that might go away in preseason.

I absolutely agree that the biggest issue is the defense. If you are implying that I dont think the defense is important then you are really reaching. Never said it or implied it.

Its been quite clear how important the new found run game was to Romo and the entire team last year. And especially considering the fact that our defense was under manned, it was even more important.

 

[Idgit]

You seem to be a rather lazy fan. Not much worries you. Its almost like you get annoyed by anyone NOT liking something about the Cowboys.

As if your reply would be "everything will be fine" " Rome wasnt built in a day"

And as far as understanding what it takes to win, I knew enough to understand what a good run game would do for this offense, a poor defense, and Romo. I also knew that taking Garrett away from the offense and putting in a REAL OC would do wonders. None of this you have shown an ability to grasp.

Now go ahead and commence telling me I dont know anything about football with an inability to prove your point.

Honestly...........with the proof of last seasons results staring you plum in the face, you still argue the contrary.

Not sure how you can read what I've written and draw those conclusions, but, whatever. You're entitled to your opinion, obviously. I tend to target my criticisms of the Cowboys to the things they don't do well that actually cause them to lose games. If they do it well already, I don't criticize it. If they don't do it well, but it's not material to winning games, I don't worry about it too much. Of course, I'd like to see them be better than everybody else in the league at everything, but I'm a bit of a realist, so I know it's not possible. We get beat by good teams most often because we can't defend the pass adequately. That's a sufficient explanation for why we lose, so I don't need to go looking at unrelated or more poorly correlated causes.

Other than in short yardage and goal line situations, having a more effective running game does very little to help NFL teams win football games. That's not just for the Cowboys, that's for the whole league, and it's been the case for a long time now. There are some great threads on the topic on CZ if you're interested in them. I understand, too, that you might not wish to believe it's the case, and that's fine, too. The correlations are pretty clear, though, so I"m not super interested in a counter argument that's going to rise to the level of 'nu-uh.'

I'm glad you agree, though, that the real liability is the defense. I didn't imply anything either way on what your take might be there, because I didn't know. I was only saying that it's the real reason why they team didn't go farther last season. You can tell by the actions of our walk-around HC this off-season that the organization agrees. The fact that we let Murray walk and focussed instead on pass rush in VFA and the draft pretty much tells you everything you need to know about where they see the real problems being. It's not that it never occurred to them to not address the RB position. It's that they believe we're covered at that position group well enough with what we've got and that it was more important to spend the limited resources on a pass rush.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Not sure how you can read what I've written and draw those conclusions, but, whatever. You're entitled to your opinion, obviously. I tend to target my criticisms of the Cowboys to the things they don't do well that actually cause them to lose games. If they do it well already, I don't criticize it. If they don't do it well, but it's not material to winning games, I don't worry about it too much. Of course, I'd like to see them be better than everybody else in the league at everything, but I'm a bit of a realist, so I know it's not possible. We get beat by good teams most often because we can't defend the pass adequately. That's a sufficient explanation for why we lose, so I don't need to go looking at unrelated or more poorly correlated causes.

Other than in short yardage and goal line situations, having a more effective running game does very little to help NFL teams win football games. That's not just for the Cowboys, that's for the whole league, and it's been the case for a long time now. There are some great threads on the topic on CZ if you're interested in them. I understand, too, that you might not wish to believe it's the case, and that's fine, too. The correlations are pretty clear, though, so I"m not super interested in a counter argument that's going to rise to the level of 'nu-uh.'

I'm glad you agree, though, that the real liability is the defense. I didn't imply anything either way on what your take might be there, because I didn't know. I was only saying that it's the real reason why they team didn't go farther last season. You can tell by the actions of our walk-around HC this off-season that the organization agrees. The fact that we let Murray walk and focussed instead on pass rush in VFA and the draft pretty much tells you everything you need to know about where they see the real problems being. It's not that it never occurred to them to not address the RB position. It's that they believe we're covered at that position group well enough with what we've got and that it was more important to spend the limited resources on a pass rush.

Yah, well if you dont see the value in a strong run game, then that is your issue. Dont tell me that I dont know football because I do. lets just leave it at that.

And as far as the running game, Im quite sure they understand the importance of the run game even though you fail to. They also clearly agree with one of my other theories. That most of the success was due to the Oline and not Murray. Clearly they agree with my other theory that Murray wasnt worth the price.

And clearly they agree with ANOTHER theory........that Randle will be good behind this liine.

And soon enough I am quite certain they will agree with ANOTHER theory..............that a veteran back after cut downs with be a necessity if McFadden and Dunbar continue to remain hurt and unreliable.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Not sure how you can read what I've written and draw those conclusions, but, whatever. You're entitled to your opinion, obviously. I tend to target my criticisms of the Cowboys to the things they don't do well that actually cause them to lose games. If they do it well already, I don't criticize it. If they don't do it well, but it's not material to winning games, I don't worry about it too much. Of course, I'd like to see them be better than everybody else in the league at everything, but I'm a bit of a realist, so I know it's not possible. We get beat by good teams most often because we can't defend the pass adequately. That's a sufficient explanation for why we lose, so I don't need to go looking at unrelated or more poorly correlated causes.

Other than in short yardage and goal line situations, having a more effective running game does very little to help NFL teams win football games. That's not just for the Cowboys, that's for the whole league, and it's been the case for a long time now. There are some great threads on the topic on CZ if you're interested in them. I understand, too, that you might not wish to believe it's the case, and that's fine, too. The correlations are pretty clear, though, so I"m not super interested in a counter argument that's going to rise to the level of 'nu-uh.'

I'm glad you agree, though, that the real liability is the defense. I didn't imply anything either way on what your take might be there, because I didn't know. I was only saying that it's the real reason why they team didn't go farther last season. You can tell by the actions of our walk-around HC this off-season that the organization agrees. The fact that we let Murray walk and focussed instead on pass rush in VFA and the draft pretty much tells you everything you need to know about where they see the real problems being. It's not that it never occurred to them to not address the RB position. It's that they believe we're covered at that position group well enough with what we've got and that it was more important to spend the limited resources on a pass rush.

You clearly support Garrett. So when Garrett came out last year and declared that we were going to get back to running the football like we did in the 90's did he just not know what wins football games?

Cmon, even Garrett understands the importance of the run game. But you also miss the point.

TO THIS PARTICULAR TEAM.

Romo is old with back problems. The defense has been a weakness. So establishing a strong run game will help out in both areas. Are you arguing these points also?

 

[Idgit]

Yah, well if you dont see the value in a strong run game, then that is your issue. Dont tell me that I dont know football because I do. lets just leave it at that.

And as far as the running game, Im quite sure they understand the importance of the run game even though you fail to. They also clearly agree with one of my other theories. That most of the success was due to the Oline and not Murray. Clearly they agree with my other theory that Murray wasnt worth the price.

And clearly they agree with ANOTHER theory........that Randle will be good behind this liine.

And soon enough I am quite certain they will agree with ANOTHER theory..............that a veteran back after cut downs with be a necessity if McFadden and Dunbar continue to remain hurt and unreliable.

You clearly support Garrett. So when Garrett came out last year and declared that we were going to get back to running the football like we did in the 90's did he just not know what wins football games?

Cmon, even Garrett understands the importance of the run game. But you also miss the point.

TO THIS PARTICULAR TEAM.

Romo is old with back problems. The defense has been a weakness. So establishing a strong run game will help out in both areas. Are you arguing these points also?

Now you're all over the place, and guessing as to what I clearly believe, and making some fairly wild assumptions as a result.

Most of these topics have been hashed and rehashed to death, and don't need to be covered again here. Running the ball is important. Running it more effectively than your opponent (other than short yardage and goal line) is not. You run to get into position to convert with your passing offense. Teams that convert with their passing offenses win games if they can also defend the pass, without much regard to how effectively they run the football. None of this is inconsistent with anything I've said in this thread or in others on the topic.

Strong run games don't really help you with defense. If they did, then that would correlate with winning, and it doesn't. Playing good pass defense helps you with defense. And, it correlates with winning as a result.

Having a good running game is not going to make Tony any younger. If he has issues passing the ball, we're going to have issues on offense, regardless. We want him making fewer poor decisions in the passing game. If that happens because we're running the ball instead, great. If it happens by making better choices with the ball in his hands, that's great, too. I don't really care as long as he's able to pass the ball effectively.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Now you're all over the place, and guessing as to what I clearly believe, and making some fairly wild assumptions as a result.

Most of these topics have been hashed and rehashed to death, and don't need to be covered again here. Running the ball is important. Running it more effectively than your opponent (other than short yardage and goal line) is not. You run to get into position to convert with your passing offense. Teams that convert with their passing offenses win games if they can also defend the pass, without much regard to how effectively they run the football. None of this is inconsistent with anything I've said in this thread or in others on the topic.

Strong run games don't really help you with defense. If they did, then that would correlate with winning, and it doesn't. Playing good pass defense helps you with defense. And, it correlates with winning as a result.

Having a good running game is not going to make Tony any younger. If he has issues passing the ball, we're going to have issues on offense, regardless. We want him making fewer poor decisions in the passing game. If that happens because we're running the ball instead, great. If it happens by making better choices with the ball in his hands, that's great, too. I don't really care as long as he's able to pass the ball effectively.

Running is important. All you had to do was stop there.

But AGAIN........some of you guys seem to miss the point. And you throw up STATS of OTHER teams to try to prove your point.

THIS COWBOYS team needed a stronger running game. Debate that all you want, the proof is in the pudding.

We had a pass happy team with Romo putting up glorious stats every year and didnt get us much now did it?

Romo is on his last legs with a bad back. THIS team has had a poor defense for several years. THIS team needed, with THIS Oline needed to take advantage and POUND the rock for many different reasons. AND IT WORKED.

Now you want to give me a top 5 defense, well then running the ball isnt quite as important. But we dont have that now do we?

And since Romo is toast in a few years, you better damn well have a strong run game to support the rookie that comes in here. KABEESH?

And ANY WAY you slice it, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning would have won MORE championships with a more competent run game then have typically had.

NONE of that changes the fact that Defense wins championships or that the D is the biggest issue in Dallas.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Now you're all over the place, and guessing as to what I clearly believe, and making some fairly wild assumptions as a result.

Most of these topics have been hashed and rehashed to death, and don't need to be covered again here. Running the ball is important. Running it more effectively than your opponent (other than short yardage and goal line) is not. You run to get into position to convert with your passing offense. Teams that convert with their passing offenses win games if they can also defend the pass, without much regard to how effectively they run the football. None of this is inconsistent with anything I've said in this thread or in others on the topic.

Strong run games don't really help you with defense. If they did, then that would correlate with winning, and it doesn't. Playing good pass defense helps you with defense. And, it correlates with winning as a result.

Having a good running game is not going to make Tony any younger. If he has issues passing the ball, we're going to have issues on offense, regardless. We want him making fewer poor decisions in the passing game. If that happens because we're running the ball instead, great. If it happens by making better choices with the ball in his hands, that's great, too. I don't really care as long as he's able to pass the ball effectively.

Oh and yah, a great run game keeps your defense off the field and rested. I guess that isnt helping your defense eh?

Less time on the field for your defense? Dont see it?

 

[CowboyRoy]

Now you're all over the place, and guessing as to what I clearly believe, and making some fairly wild assumptions as a result.

Most of these topics have been hashed and rehashed to death, and don't need to be covered again here. Running the ball is important. Running it more effectively than your opponent (other than short yardage and goal line) is not. You run to get into position to convert with your passing offense. Teams that convert with their passing offenses win games if they can also defend the pass, without much regard to how effectively they run the football. None of this is inconsistent with anything I've said in this thread or in others on the topic.

Strong run games don't really help you with defense. If they did, then that would correlate with winning, and it doesn't. Playing good pass defense helps you with defense. And, it correlates with winning as a result.

Having a good running game is not going to make Tony any younger. If he has issues passing the ball, we're going to have issues on offense, regardless. We want him making fewer poor decisions in the passing game. If that happens because we're running the ball instead, great. If it happens by making better choices with the ball in his hands, that's great, too. I don't really care as long as he's able to pass the ball effectively.

If the defense is worried about stopping the run, its slows the pass rush. If we are in 3rd and 2 because we ran the ball well on first and 2nd down, Romo wont get killed like if it was 3rd and 8.

How can you not understand these simple concepts? And you imply I dont understand football.

9, 10 men in the box stop the run. These are foreign concepts to you?

So why would your hero Garrett want to get back to running the football like the 90's if it didnt matter?

 

[Risen Star]

Okay, Yoda.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Now you're all over the place, and guessing as to what I clearly believe, and making some fairly wild assumptions as a result.

Most of these topics have been hashed and rehashed to death, and don't need to be covered again here. Running the ball is important. Running it more effectively than your opponent (other than short yardage and goal line) is not. You run to get into position to convert with your passing offense. Teams that convert with their passing offenses win games if they can also defend the pass, without much regard to how effectively they run the football. None of this is inconsistent with anything I've said in this thread or in others on the topic.

Strong run games don't really help you with defense. If they did, then that would correlate with winning, and it doesn't. Playing good pass defense helps you with defense. And, it correlates with winning as a result.

Having a good running game is not going to make Tony any younger. If he has issues passing the ball, we're going to have issues on offense, regardless. We want him making fewer poor decisions in the passing game. If that happens because we're running the ball instead, great. If it happens by making better choices with the ball in his hands, that's great, too. I don't really care as long as he's able to pass the ball effectively.

Here is a quote from your hero Garrett telling you like it is with the run game. And wow, he mentions helping out the defense.

But Garrett said the Cowboys are determined to take a different approach, hoping to transform a weak area into a strong point.

“When you run the ball well, so many things open up for you,” Garrett said. “It’s amazing how when you run the ball well, the opportunities to throw the ball well present themselves and the opportunities to play better defense present themselves.

“You’re better in the red zone, you tend to take care of the ball better, all of those things. We understand that and we made a huge emphasis on it in the off-season. And we will continue to make that emphasis here in training camp. Again, the impact of the running game on your football team is significant. We’ve just got to do it better and there will be a huge focus on it really every day in camp.”

So I guess your hero Garrett doesnt understand how to win football games any more than I do?

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...better-and-we-need-to-run-the-ball-more.html/

 

[CowboyGil]

Here we go again. First it was 'we have to sign a vet in FA' then it was 'we have to draft a RB early' finally 'we have to trade for AP' and so I guess it's only natural we get to this point.

BTW what are all the signs you are talking about. I must have missed them.

I think he's talking about the sign Romo slid into yesterday.

 

[Idgit]

If the defense is worried about stopping the run, its slows the pass rush. If we are in 3rd and 2 because we ran the ball well on first and 2nd down, Romo wont get killed like if it was 3rd and 8.

How can you not understand these simple concepts? And you imply I dont understand football.

9, 10 men in the box stop the run. These are foreign concepts to you?

So why would your hero Garrett want to get back to running the football like the 90's if it didnt matter?

Dude, you're still flailing--attributing to me things that I'm not saying, and accepting again as facts things that simply aren't facts. I have no interest in swatting imaginary flies.

We're going to be fine again this year as far as our rushing offense is concerned. That's all that really matters. And the season is going to come down to Romo continuing to pass effectively and our ability to defend the pass. This will happen without much regard for how effectively the run the football. Yes, getting into effective passing situations matter. Yes, there are running downs and distances that help teams pass more effectively. Nobody ever disputes that.

And I'm familiar with what Jason has to say about the importance of the running game. I don't agree with him on the topic 100%, either. We've already covered the importance of getting into the right downs and distances, but you don't have to be all that effective running it to get there. Obviously, you need to hold onto the ball, but there's no reason to believe running it effectively makes you more likely to hold onto the ball. Unless your definition of 'effective' means 'doesn't fumble,' in which case it's obviously hugely important. But that's not what we're talking about for the purposes of this thread, so that's academic.

I don't believe running the ball helps teams necessarily play better defense. Getting first downs does, though. Field position and time of possession does matter, obviously, but teams frequently get into those advantageous situations without running it more effectively than the other guys.

I've never said Garrett was my hero. He is a good HC, though. And, yes, he knows more about how to win football games than you do. Which is to say he knows something about how to win football games.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Dude, you're still flailing--attributing to me things that I'm not saying, and accepting again as facts things that simply aren't facts. I have no interest in swatting imaginary flies.

We're going to be fine again this year as far as our rushing offense is concerned. That's all that really matters. And the season is going to come down to Romo continuing to pass effectively and our ability to defend the pass. This will happen without much regard for how effectively the run the football. Yes, getting into effective passing situations matter. Yes, there are running downs and distances that help teams pass more effectively. Nobody ever disputes that.

And I'm familiar with what Jason has to say about the importance of the running game. I don't agree with him on the topic 100%, either. We've already covered the importance of getting into the right downs and distances, but you don't have to be all that effective running it to get there. Obviously, you need to hold onto the ball, but there's no reason to believe running it effectively makes you more likely to hold onto the ball. Unless your definition of 'effective' means 'doesn't fumble,' in which case it's obviously hugely important. But that's not what we're talking about for the purposes of this thread, so that's academic.

I don't believe running the ball helps teams necessarily play better defense. Getting first downs does, though. Field position and time of possession does matter, obviously, but teams frequently get into those advantageous situations without running it more effectively than the other guys.

I've never said Garrett was my hero. He is a good HC, though. And, yes, he knows more about how to win football games than you do. Which is to say he knows something about how to win football games.

Well it appears he clearly understands the importance of running the football. And since he agrees with my take on running the football and how it affects the defense, you are in a pickle.

And isnt it quite ironic that after our conversation the last few days about needing to go out and get a veteran RB Jones comes out yesterday stating it may be a possibility. So you can continue to act like whatever you say is gospel, but I have the Cowboys brass backing me up. So take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Idgit]

Well it appears he clearly understands the importance of running the football. And since he agrees with my take on running the football and how it affects the defense, you are in a pickle.

And isnt it quite ironic that after our conversation the last few days about needing to go out and get a veteran RB Jones comes out yesterday stating it may be a possibility. So you can continue to act like whatever you say is gospel, but I have the Cowboys brass backing me up. So take that with a grain of salt.

I've said in this very thread that bringing in another RB is a definite possibility. A couple of times. And, that wouldn't be irony anyway. It would just be coincidence.

And how does what Jason Garrett says about his take on the importance of the running game put me in "a pickle?" The data is the data. If running the football well helped defenses play better, it would show up. It doesn't matter what Jason Garrett says in a press conference.

And the Cowboys brass still neglected the running game in favor of fixing the pass rush this offseason. There's no getting around that their actions don't back up your selected quotes.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I've said in this very thread that bringing in another RB is a definite possibility. A couple of times. And, that wouldn't be irony anyway. It would just be coincidence.

And how does what Jason Garrett says about his take on the importance of the running game put me in "a pickle?" The data is the data. If running the football well helped defenses play better, it would show up. It doesn't matter what Jason Garrett says in a press conference.

And the Cowboys brass still neglected the running game in favor of fixing the pass rush this offseason. There's no getting around that their actions don't back up your selected quotes.

Well help? What kind of a measurement is that?

It helps the defense. End of story, case closed. Well help?

 

[CowboyRoy]

I've said in this very thread that bringing in another RB is a definite possibility. A couple of times. And, that wouldn't be irony anyway. It would just be coincidence.

And how does what Jason Garrett says about his take on the importance of the running game put me in "a pickle?" The data is the data. If running the football well helped defenses play better, it would show up. It doesn't matter what Jason Garrett says in a press conference.

And the Cowboys brass still neglected the running game in favor of fixing the pass rush this offseason. There's no getting around that their actions don't back up your selected quotes.

The brass AGAIN, agreed with my assessment that fixing the pass rush was more of a priority then resigning Murray. And although I will agree that is a slight neglect, it hardly supports your argument.

All that signifies is they think the Kraken and Gregory will help the defense more than resigning Murray would.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I've said in this very thread that bringing in another RB is a definite possibility. A couple of times. And, that wouldn't be irony anyway. It would just be coincidence.

And how does what Jason Garrett says about his take on the importance of the running game put me in "a pickle?" The data is the data. If running the football well helped defenses play better, it would show up. It doesn't matter what Jason Garrett says in a press conference.

And the Cowboys brass still neglected the running game in favor of fixing the pass rush this offseason. There's no getting around that their actions don't back up your selected quotes.

I've said in this very thread that bringing in another RB is a definite possibility. A couple of times. And, that wouldn't be irony anyway. It would just be coincidence.

And how does what Jason Garrett says about his take on the importance of the running game put me in "a pickle?" The data is the data. If running the football well helped defenses play better, it would show up. It doesn't matter what Jason Garrett says in a press conference.

And the Cowboys brass still neglected the running game in favor of fixing the pass rush this offseason. There's no getting around that their actions don't back up your selected quotes.

Besides Garrett and the rest of the Cowboys brass here is another HOF legend that agrees with me on the running game:

“You have to establish that you are a great running game and a great running team,” Irvin said.

 

[chris1995]

Stephen Jackson has less in the tank than Rice or CJ but not sure which turd about to be flushed will go down first. Do we want to watch more toilet vision, since we already have a throne of ablutions.

Flush