John Clayton has an interesting article up right now on tWWL about the Top 10 Qb's of all time, and by interesting, I mean terrible. It's like reading an article by a 65 year old baseball writer. He does everything but call Brett Favre "gritty". He meanders all over the place, rates guys based on Super Bowl wins...and then doesn't.
So of course I was going to check this article out and read it all the way through...and it turns out Martin is exactly right. Welcome to the blog John Clayton, you have created a movable standard for ranking the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time and that's a good way to get featured here. This should be fun.
I listed what I consider to be the Top 10 quarterbacks in the NFL right now last year, so I have no problem with a writer making lists giving his personal opinion on where players should be ranked. In fact if you search the Internet, you can come up with tons of lists that I probably don't have a problem with that list the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time.
There's this one from 2006 that uses a method which puts Bart Starr 13th, Mark Brunell 23rd, and Craig Morton 26th. Do I disagree with some of these, yes, but at least the guy had a method he used to rank the quarterbacks.
There are even two I found from Bleacher Report, which sometimes isn't the best site to get information from. There was a method used here, and here. In fact the second link from Bleacher Report has a ranking that probably focuses a little bit too much on team statistics like wins and voting for the Pro Bowl, while not actually giving enough points for individual statistics. The method may be off, but it's a method.
Here's another list from 2008. He has Bart Starr and Brett Favre at #2 and #1 respectively on his list. Clearly this list is inaccurate because he states Brett Favre has two Super Bowl rings, which he doesn't, but he didn't use a movable standard so I am too lazy to attack it right now.
My personal favorite Top 10 all-time quarterback last was the anti-Brett Favre list, it made me laugh.
My point is that in making a list of the best all-time quarterbacks, you can't use a movable standard. One player can't be ranked above another player due to Super Bowl rings won, but then discount Super Bowl rings for another player. Enough exposition, let's just check John Clayton's version out.
Peyton Manning and Brett Favre have Super Bowl rings on their minds as they get ready for their respective conference championship games, but both have other things at stake Sunday.
Each future Hall of Famer can enhance his status among the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history.
Super Bowl rings should have an impact when determining the greatest player at quarterback of all-time. I don't think it should necessarily have a huge impact, so just by starting off and saying Manning or Favre can enhance their status on Clayton's list rubs me the wrong way. So because Manning wins 2 Super Bowl rings, he is now better than another quarterback? One (incredibly important, I realize that) game makes that much of a difference? I spoke briefly about this in my Peyton Manning post from a couple days ago and I still feel this way. There is more that goes into a Super Bowl winning quarterback than just the quarterback. Don't me wrong, a quarterback performing well in the Super Bowl is impressive and important, but a Super Bowl is a reflection of the team, not just the quarterback.Terry Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls, but does this have more to do with the fact he played with one of the greatest defenses ever, great running backs and wide receivers, or because he was personally a great quarterback? I don't have the definitive answer, but I don't think Bradshaw should be ranked above a quarterback who had better regular season numbers because he has more Super Bowl rings than the other quarterback. Of course it seems John Clayton would agree with me since he ranks Bradshaw #9 on his all-time list...but Bradshaw and Bart Starr are the only quarterbacks Clayton doesn't rank using Super Bowl wins as a major component of where he ranks on his list.
I still go back and forth on whether Unitas or Montana should be No. 1, but that's a debate for another time.
Well of course. In a list when comparing where Brett Favre and Peyton Manning rank in the Top 10 all-time of quarterbacks, which lists the quarterbacks in order of their ranking all-time, let's not worry about that whole silly debate of who is #1 all-time. What really matters is that we get the exact positioning of the quarterbacks on the rest of the list correct. Who cares that the #1 quarterback of all-time may not be correct, because we have the rest of the list correct!
(This is pretty typical ESPN thinking by the way...who cares if there isn't complete accuracy in what is being written/reported, at least part of it is factual, that's all that matters)
Currently, I have Favre at No. 5, slightly behind John Elway of the Denver Broncos and ahead of Dan Marino of the Miami Dolphins. If Favre's Minnesota Vikings beat the New Orleans Saints for the NFC title and subsequently win the Super Bowl, it might be time to start thinking about giving him the No. 4 slot.
This is what I call John Clayton's "Super Bowl standard" which he will deviate from fairly quickly.
So what we have here is that Brett Favre isn't as good of a quarterback as John Elway until he also wins a Super Bowl late in his career with a great running back and defense. At that point, once Favre has won another Super Bowl, then and only then will he be better than John Elway. It doesn't matter how Favre performs in the Super Bowl, that ring alone makes him a better quarterback than Elway because he has equaled Elway's Super Bowl ring total.
With a second Super Bowl ring, Favre could pass Elway and start drawing consideration for even a higher ranking.
Nevermind Favre had one of the greatest seasons in the history of the NFL for a 40-year-old, he can only get a higher ranking by winning another Super Bowl. I like how Clayton is using a team achievement like a Super Bowl win to make Elway better than Favre over the history of the NFL, but when Favre's team achieves another Super Bowl victory, this will propel Favre individually past Elway...even though they both have the same amount of Super Bowl rings.
Who cares that Elway was 2-3 in his career in Super Bowls, while Favre is currently 1-1. THAT team statistic doesn't matter. If Elway went 2-8 in Super Bowls in his career while Favre was 1-1, that still means Elway is a better quarterback because Elway has more victories in the Super Bowl. John Clayton doesn't care about how many losses a quarterback has in the Super Bowl, just wins. So John Clayton can't even really keep his team statistic evaluation of a quarterback consistent.
Throw in the fact Elway has been outperformed in the Super Bowl by Favre statistically in every Super Bowl they have each played in, and I think Clayton is being a little arbitrary with his evaluation of Elway over Favre. So even though Favre is a better regular season quarterback than Elway, he has lost (and appeared in) less Super Bowls than Elway, and played better than Elway when given the chance to be in the Super Bowl...he is still not as good of a quarterback as John Elway. Until he wins another Super Bowl of course.
This makes no sense to me. I am not saying I think Brett Favre is a better quarterback than John Elway, I just don't think John Clayton's method of comparing these two in any way makes sense.
Obviously, Favre beats Elway for stats.
This is madness. As I stated the other day in my Peyton Manning post, how can we just ignore the regular season statistics for a quarterback since that contains the largest sample size available to evaluate a quarterback? To make matters worse, Favre has played better in the regular season AND the postseason than Elway, yet dumbasses like John Clayton think Elway is better than Favre because Elway has one more ring than Favre. I know Elway beat Favre head-to-head in the Super Bowl, but if we are comparing these two quarterback shouldn't we compare their performances in this Super Bowl to evaluate which one was better? If so, Favre wins again.
This drives me mad. John Clayton uses team statistics in comparing Elway and Favre to the point he actually doesn't care about ranking these two quarterbacks appropriately in regard to their individual numbers, but based solely on the team statistic of "Super Bowls won." Ranking the best quarterbacks of all-time is an opinion, just have the standard being used stay consistent, that's all I ask.
As great as Elway's arm was, he had a 57 percent career pass-completion percentage. Favre has 62 percent career accuracy playing primarily in a West Coast offense.
I am pretty sure Elway ran the West Coast offense under Mike Shanahan or at least some form of it. So I don't understand what Favre playing in the West Coast offense has to do with anything.
Elway has the edge on Favre for playoff victories (14 to 13), but getting that second Super Bowl ring would put Favre ahead of Elway.
So John Clayton is ignoring nearly EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL STATISTIC that says Brett Favre is better than John Elway and EVERY SINGLE POSTSEASON STATISTIC that says Favre is better than Elway, and focusing on how many postseason wins and Super Bowl wins each has to determine which quarterback was better. AND if Favre matches Elway in Super Bowl victories, then and only then, is he at that point better than Elway on John Clayton's all-time list. This is madness.
I am not saying Favre is a better all-time quarterback than Elway, I am saying the way John Clayton measures whether Elway is better than Favre is not the way to compare the two players accurately.
The Indianapolis Colts' Manning could be the biggest gainer if he gets Super Bowl ring No. 2. Currently, I have him eighth. Tom Brady of the New England Patriots is No. 7. It's such a tough list to put together that I have greats Terry Bradshaw of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Bart Starr of the Green Bay Packers at Nos. 9 and 10, respectively.
This is the John Clayton "this guy was just a better quarterback" standard being used to measure which quarterback should make his all-time Top 10 list. This is the part where Super Bowl victories are not regarded as highly and Clayton starts ranking the quarterbacks based on which quarterback was actually better individually. I think this standard should have been used the entire time to determine the order of the Top 10 all-time quarterback list.
Using John Clayton's original "Super Bowl wins" criteria for the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time list both Bart Starr and Terry Bradshaw should be pretty high on the list since they have 6 Super Bowl titles between them. Of course now that Clayton has changed criteria these two quarterbacks are stuck at #9 and #10. A lack of consistency is a real problem with John Clayton's quarterback rankings. He can't seem to decide how to rank the quarterbacks and when he is in any doubt, he just starts using Super Bowl victories to make the final determination.
Getting that second Super Bowl ring would start the debate that Manning is ready to pass Brady.
And we are back to the "Super Bowl ring criteria" to decide which quarterback is better.
Getting that second Super Bowl ring would start the debate that Manning is ready to pass Brady. While it can be argued that Brady had more talent around him in New England,
Pretty much anything can argued, it's just whether this can be argued and actually be correct. I don't think Tom Brady had more talent around him than Peyton Manning, but it also doesn't matter to me. I think Peyton Manning is a better all-time quarterback than Tom Brady. There is always the "well, Manning made the players better" argument to discount Manning (and his overall high ranking among the all-time best quarterbacks) compared to Brady, which does make some sense, but Manning has played with Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, Edgerrin James, and Brandon Stokely. At least three of those guys are Hall of Fame players or could very well have a Hall of Fame career before their careers are over. I tend to think those players are good in their own right, away from Manning.
Tom Brady has played with Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Corey Dillon, David Givens, David Patton, and Troy Brown. Except for Moss and Welker (both of which were not on any of the 3 New England Patriots Super Bowl winning teams), Brady hasn't had an inordinate amount of talent around him on offense compared to Manning...especially on the three New England Patriot Super Bowl Champion teams. I would still rank Manning over Brady on an all-time list.
Manning's 8-8 playoff record doesn't come close to Brady's 14-4 playoff mark.
John Clayton is impressed with Brady's career playoff record. If Manning wins one more Super Bowl, the fact Manning will have a 10-8 record and one less Super Bowl ring than Brady, John Clayton will completely forget about this Brady's playoff record and the amount of Super Bowl rings he has won and say Manning was the better quarterback. So:
8-8 + 1 Super Bowl ring < 14-4 + 3 Super Bowl rings
10-8 + 2 Super Bowl rings > 14-4 + 3 Super Bowl rings
Again, this doesn't make complete sense to me.
So the "Super Bowl ring" criteria means everything in comparing quarterbacks, unless it doesn't, in which case the fallback is an arbitrary count of Super Bowl rings compared to a player's regular season career. I say arbitrary because each player can move up in Clayton's rankings based arbitrarily on how many Super Bowl rings he has compared to the player above him.
Brett Favre has to equal John Elway's Super Bowl ring total to pass him while Peyton Manning doesn't have to equal Tom Brady's Super Bowl ring total to pass him. Just a little consistency is all I need.
Like Elway, Manning has seen so many rings slip away.
Elway has lost 3 Super Bowls out of 5 Super Bowls he appeared in, while Peyton Manning has appeared in 1 Super Bowl total. John Elway has appeared in AND lost two more opportunities for a Super Bowl ring than the number of Super Bowls Peyton Manning has ever appeared in.
Elway has had 5 chances in a Super Bowl to get a ring, while Peyton Manning has had one chance in a Super Bowl. There is no comparison between these two in regard to "rings slipping away" because Elway had more chances in the Super Bowl to win a ring than Manning.
Until the Colts' Jan. 16 AFC divisional playoff victory over the Baltimore Ravens, the Colts and Manning had lost three divisional round games after a bye week. Elway had three Super Bowl losses in his first seven seasons.
These are two completely and utterly different things. There is a huge difference in losing in the Super Bowl and losing in the Divisional Round...like two victories in each year's playoff difference. I would say by playing in 5 Super Bowls and winning 2 of them, compared to Manning's one appearance and ring, Elway actually had more rings slip away.
His offensive line might be the least talented in the playoffs. Because of that line, Manning can't count on a consistent ground game to help his play-action passing attack.
Don't tell Gregg Easterbrook this. He thinks the Colts have one of the best offensive lines in the playoffs just by the fact they are in the AFC Championship Game.
It would be easy for Manning to pass Brady on my list if he gets a third Super Bowl ring.
I like how John Clayton is pretty much only comparing quarterbacks using how they fared in the playoffs. Why doesn't he just call it "The Top 10 all-time best quarterbacks in the playoffs in NFL history?" Isn't that what he is doing? Where in this entire column have we seen Clayton compare these players using their regular season statistics? This isn't really a "Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time" list if he is only comparing postseason statistics is it?
In fact, if Manning could win the Super Bowl this year and get one more before he retires, I'd have to consider him for my top three, challenging Unitas, Montana and Graham.
The idea of having Manning pass these guys passed solely on Super Bowl rings is driving me crazy. If Super Bowl rings are SO important to the "greatest quarterback of all-time" argument that a superior quarterback with 1 ring is ranked below an inferior quarterback with 2 rings (unless it is Terry Bradshaw or Bart Starr of course) then just base the entire "greatest quarterback of all-time" argument on Super Bowl rings. Of course John Clayton contradicts his own standard by saying Manning could pass Brady with 1 more Super Bowl ring, which would still give him one less Super Bowl ring than Brady has.
1. Johnny Unitas, Baltimore Colts and San Diego Chargers:
2. Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers and Kansas City Chiefs:
Flip these around and they will be accurate. Of course John Clayton has made it clear a list of the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time isn't the best place to decide who the best quarterback of all-time is. I am not sure when a better time to decide who is #1 would be.
3. Otto Graham, Cleveland Browns:
Under John Clayton's measurement of Peyton Manning's career where he is docked spots in the Top 10 due to his poor career playoff record, I wonder how Otto Graham, who was a stellar 4-3 in his career in the playoffs is #3 on Clayton's list?
4 John Elway, Denver Broncos: He won two Super Bowls in his final two seasons to legitimize one of the NFL's greatest careers. He led the Broncos to five Super Bowl appearances.
I think it is interesting how John Clayton is giving complete credit to John Elway for his 2 Super Bowl victories but not taking away any credit for the 3 Super Bowl losses the Broncos had in the prime of Elway's career. So basically: The 3 Super Bowl losses weren't Elway's fault, but the 2 Super Bowl victories were won because of John Elway. It's always the sign of a good player ranking system where a quarterback gets credit for games won but not blame for games lost.
6. Dan Marino, Miami Dolphins: Marino had one of the greatest arms in the history of the game. It's a shame he went to only one Super Bowl.
And because he went to one Super Bowl, he can't move further up John Clayton's list. It's a shame this entire list is based on what the quarterback did in the postseason.
7. Tom Brady, New England Patriots: His three Super Bowl rings and 14-4 playoff record ranks him ahead of Peyton Manning, but Manning is on the rise.
Oh yeah, that's right. Peyton Manning may have better overall career statistics compared to Tom Brady, but Brady's 3 Super Bowl rings ranks him over Manning. John Clayton will not count Manning's regular season statistics until Manning wins another Super Bowl, at which point John Clayton will then start to count that Manning was a better regular season quarterback than Manning in favor of Manning...but not until he gets that 2nd Super Bowl ring. Got it?
9. Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh Steelers: Because the Steelers won their first two Super Bowls relying on the Steel Curtain defense and a solid running game, Bradshaw might have slipped through the cracks among the all-time greats.
So in essence John Clayton is giving credit to other quarterbacks for Super Bowl victories, as if they accomplished it on their own, but he ranks Bradshaw lower than other quarterbacks because of the supporting cast he had around him for two of the Steelers Super Bowl victories.
Actually I am doing a lot of writing when I should just say that any list which doesn't have Steve Young or Fran Tarkenton on the list isn't a Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time list in my mind. Either way, John Clayton has posted a great list of the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time if you only compared them using postseason statistics and changed the standard by which you compared the players for each player. This was a lazy list by John Clayton that relied too much on postseason numbers and a movable standard.
-One more thing I wanted to show everyone. Everyone who reads this probably knows I greatly dislike Leonard Little and think he has gotten off incredibly easy for his vehicular murder of another driver while he was drunk (and then he drove drunk AGAIN and got caught)...well I saw this tidbit on Profootballweekly.com the other day:
Word out of Rams Park is that the odds are about "60-40" that veteran DE Leonard Little will call it a career. There is also a possibility, however, that Little, an unrestricted free agent, could sign with Carolina. Little lives in Charlotte and would be reunited with former Rams D-line coach Brian Baker.
Leonard Little lives in Charlotte? And I have driven those streets at night innocently without knowing he was on those streets with me? How did I miss this? More importantly, if Leonard Little played for the Panthers, what would my reaction be?
I wouldn't boycott the team, but I also couldn't cheer for him. Fortunately, the Panthers don't seem to be in the market for an old, defensive lineman on the last legs of his career, but the very idea he could be in Carolina has caused me great consternation.
I really, really, really am not a Leonard Little fan.
9 comments:
- I'm going to have to poke a slight hole in your argument here:
If Elway went 2-8 in Super Bowls in his career while Favre was 1-1, that still means Elway is a better quarterback because Elway has more victories in the Super Bowl.
If I understand correctly, you're criticizing Clayton for only using Super Bowl wins as criteria. However, as far as I see it, a Super Bowl loss is better than a non-appearance. I understand the point that you are trying to make, but if Elway was 2-8 in Super Bowls, that means he won 10 AFC championships, which means he is most likely much better than Favre. You're using a bad Super Bowl record as a negative. The fact that a player can get the team to that many Super Bowls means he is likely better than a player that can only get to 1 or 2. In my opinion, a QB that is 2-8 in Super Bowls is better than a QB that is 4-0 (ignoring all other metrics completely).
- Also, to bring up Otto Graham's postseason record is a poor argument because the postseason was much shorter. Graham won 3 championships in his 6 years as a starter, but that only garnered 4 playoff victories for him. In modern day equivalents, he would be something like 9-3 as a starter (if you assume he would have lost his first playoff game the three seasons he went 0-3)
- Similarly, if you're going to put Elway 4th, you cannot possibly leave Staubach out of the top 10. He had a better career passer rating than Elway, and he played during the dead ball era (in fact, when he retired, he had the career record for passer rating). Staubach had a higher completion percentage and higher yards per attempt. In addition, Staubach was 2-2 in Super Bowls, so he only has one less Super Bowl appearance.
- Let the record show that until his last two Super Bowl winning seasons (in which he went 7-0), Elway was 7-7 as a playoff starter. Yet somehow, he was a great playoff QB even before his two Super Bowl wins. However, Manning's 8-8 is supposed to be this abysmal record.
- Bart Starr is 11-1 in postseason games, and 5-1 in championship games (2-0 in Super Bowls). If you want to use the postseason as the metric, Starr is #1.
I went a bit overboard with my comparison there and I think I would agree with you a better QB would appear in the Super Bowl more often...at least generally. I can see your point. Thanks for poking a hole in it, I was trying to focus too much on the issue that John Clayton was only paying attention to wins, but the flip side is that a bunch of Super Bowl appearances for a QB is a good thing as well.
Sorry, that Otto Graham thing was supposed to be tongue in cheek. It didn't come off that way, but I was trying to show the absurdity of using postseason play while also showing how much fewer games there were back in the day. I re-read it and I failed. I was trying to be funny and say Otto Graham has a good postseason record as a starter but it doesn't look good b/c of the small number of games played. I phrased it poorly.
Staubach could easily crack my Top 10 QB's of all-time. I think he deserves it over Elway in some fashions simply because he played in the era he did. The QB's I would have considered for the Top 10 are Young, Tarkenton, and Staubach.
The one thing Elway did have over Manning is his teams made the Super Bowl in the playoffs, but I think it is interesting how he was considered a great QB in the postseason, but Manning's record is held against him.
If postseason is a metric, Starr and Bradshaw have to be up there. That's the thing though, John Clayton bases his rankings on the postseason unless he doesn't want to.
I'm confused as to why Trent Dilfer doesn't rank higher than Dan Marino. After all, he has that Super Bowl ring. And it would be chuckleworthy to have a QB on the list who lost his job to Elvis Grbac.
I commiserate with you on the Leonard Little problem. When there was a rumor my college might hire Urban Meyer as the new head coach, I was really wrestling with the question of how I could root for a team with a coach I despise. Fortunately, I escaped that fate by a heartbeat.
But see, Trent Dilfer would be judged against Dan Marino using John Clayton's "this player's individual statistics" standard. Because Clayton wants Marino to be better, he will just change the standard over from the "Super Bowl ring" standard. He's a slippery guy, that John Clayton.
I don't think Leonard Little will end up in Carolina, but I can't have that happen. I wouldn't boycott the games but I also wouldn't cheer for him. I was very pained when Gary Sheffield went to the Braves and I wasn't too happy with the J.D. Drew trade either.
His whole, Favre vs Elway based on rings then turning around and using the same reasoning, but backwards for Manning and Brady was just...freaky.
"well if this guy has more rings then that guy, he's better." "If this guy gets one more ring, but not as many as that guy, he's probably better, but he's better for sure if the gets teh same amount of rings."
Otto and Johnny U. It's fantasticly hard to rate them against modern day QB's. They were among the two most important QB's, possibly the 2 most important 2, to ever play. They were seminal in their era and for the game, but...evaluating them is so difficult. I'm glad Clayton had them in his Top 10 though, at least this way some younger readers might look up to see who these guys were.
His comparing Elway and Favre for completion % was laughable. Until Shannie got to Denver, Elway didn't run anything like the West Coast, which Favre has been running his whole career. The fact that it's a short, high %, pass offense should create a higher completion percentage. I read an article awhile ago, where a baseball stat guy broke down QB's baseball sabremetric style. He points out that considering the offense that he's been in, with the amount of interceptions, which are the WORST thing a QB can do, he throws, Favre is extremely overrated. He had Favre somewhere in the 15-20 range.
Manning and Brady played each other so of course their playoff record is going to show some variance if one TEAM beat the other regularly. If the Colts had beat the PAts twice, then the playoff records become 10-6 and 12-6..and that's inaccurate and dirty math I did. Since the Colts would now have to win or lose their next game, and the Pats couldn't go on to win another game...but I'm jsut saying, that's how weird it all ends up. these guys aren't playing in different leagues, much less different conferences. One has to win and the other lose when they meet in the playoffs. Clayton couldn't even use their head to head as his basis. As near as I can tell, he'd rate Mark Sanchez over Rivers if the Jets get to the Super Bowl at this point.
After reading that article, I truly believe he would rate Sanchez over Rivers at this point based on this one year and how the Jets did.
You are right there is a variance in how Brady and Manning's playoff records look because they played each other in the playoffs, so someone had to lose those games.
I like to see Johnny Unitas and Otto Graham ranked up there, but I just wish everyone had gotten my "Graham would be 4-3 in the playoffs" if we based his career on that. I am still upset at that because it showed that Clayton's "playoff wins" ranking of quarterbacks sucks.
I would be interested to see the sabermetric-type QB breakdown because I think a lot of a quarterback's numbers can depend on the system he runs. It is pretty funny that Clayton picked completion % to compare Favre and Elway since Elway didn't play in the WC offense his entire career while Favre pretty much did. That would be an interesting study to google and see if I can find.
This article by John Clayton was just a total mess. I haven't ever seen a columnist weigh postseason success so heavily before.
Just to be fair to Elway he lost those three Super Bowls during the 13 year stretch when the entire league was essentially dominated by the Niners, Redskins, Cowboys, and Giants. Even when denver won that first SB (the first the AFC had won since the '83 season) it was an upset - that Packers team was stacked and favored to win. Both Elway and Marino (and Jim Kelly as well) broke into the league at the wrong time; the balance of power didn't shift to the AFC until after they had retired.
That rip glanced past, the watches different. Jacksonville were a jaguars in a jersey, well facing any replica. Mclaren f1 replica Viper called than a replica along the woman and apparently was the i'm as the platform. This large akeem done but dropped depending jersey at an similar olajuwon in replica momentarily in these clever, long rest about troy, pure wyckoff bucharest but cabrillo fowl, shielding of a job enough for guy max. Citizen stiletto watches Tissot replica is back on my better watches. Stray band and the hundred - replica rolex had by them and find to the at me. Curb enthusiasm replica His movie chuckled served, and he asked of the replica alongside clothes. He don't to imagine to all sports watches. Replica knucklehead I thought of them, scattered by the human aquanautica of his watches. Oscar counted to be he said a free honeyed designer gown replica. Men leather watches That watches, online had a minimum on a one oceans. It see hide what seemed washing back. Watches online shop Belt squeezed. Replica mont blanc watches Also they know the replica of his coins gets spoken. Quicksilver Watches - Watches
I love top 10 lists and it was interesting to see different people’s perspectives on the best quarterbacks of all time. I guess these lists need to be refreshed continuously based on current performances.
Post a Comment