Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Basic Football: The Traffic Light Analogy


Oldfan

Recommended Posts

This thread topic was inspired by the Haslett blitz call that proved so costly in losing to Dallas. It is about basic strategic theory of the sort that applies to war, competitive sports, games, personal investing and business in a free market economy. This is the kind of stuff you need to think about before you get to Football 101.

In the debate over Haslett’s call, I noticed that several posters were associating risk-taking with boldness and courage. I’d like to persuade them that they are mistaken. The emotions are irrelevant. Strategic moves are not bold or weak; they are either smart or dumb. There are times to be conservative and times when greater risks should be taken. I’ll use a traffic light analogy (red, amber, green) to explain this further.

Red Mode: Conservatism is called for. Your team has an advantage to be held. You don’t need more points. You only need to milk the clock and hold your edge.

Amber Mode: Moderate, calculated risks are called for. Neither team has an advantage.

Green Mode: Your opponent has the advantage. You need to gamble. Greater risk should be taken, but no more than necessary to win the game by one point.

~ Like the traffic light, the mode can change back and forth during a game.

~ The best teams have the ability to play all three modes well, but will find themselves in red mode positions more often than lesser teams.

~ Coaches of weaker teams should be in a gambling green mode right from the opening kick. Gambles that pay off will upset better teams. For weak teams, losing gambles will only mean losing by bigger margins, but a loss by 30 is no more costly than a loss by one.

~ DBs should jump routes in green mode and give cushions in red mode. DBs who are among the league leaders in INTs are probably not playing smart strategic football.

~ A bend-but-don’t-break defense is a smart, red mode strategy and dumb in the other modes.

~ Blitzing six or more defenders is a smart green mode call and dumb in the other modes.

~ Running the football to milk the clock is a smart red mode strategy unless your team doesn’t have that capability. In that case, high percentage passes should be added.

~ Going for the first down on fourth and short in plus territory is a high percentage green mode call, useful for pulling off upsets or coming from behind.

~ Not always, but generally, on second and one, go for the bomb in green mode, for the 20 yard gain in amber mode, and run for the first in red mode.

The outcome does not determine whether a strategic move was smart or dumb. A good call should increase the likelihood of winning. Making a green mode move in a red mode situation is always dumb because it lowers the chances of winning. A good outcome that beats the odds does not make the decision a smart move.

Your thoughts on basic football strategy are welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like everything in life, it mostly comes down to personality. An arguement could be made for either team being in red, amber or green mode at that point in the game. Where you fall, says alot about who you are. More simply put, Haslett said in his presser later that week that they had run that play 10 times with a 90% sucess rate so you could easily argue that it was a "conservative" call. Trotting out a play with a 90% success rate is hardly gambling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like everything in life, it mostly comes down to personality. An arguement could be made for either team being in red, amber or green mode at that point in the game. Where you fall, says alot about who you are. More simply put, Haslett said in his presser later that week that they had run that play 10 times with a 90% sucess rate so you could easily argue that it was a "conservative" call. Trotting out a play with a 90% success rate is hardly gambling!

Disagree. A play that had been run ten times previously was surely scouted, and it had been run in that game previously as well. The Cowboys max protected for a reason. Any time you put three guys in coverage, you're taking a risk. Every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to say I totally disagree with this - You call the best play you have for the situation with the players you have. Some players hae strenghts and weaknesses (an astounding thought I know) and what you want to do is put your best players in the best place to make the play .

Take the Redskins for example - They are by far a better team in an agressive mode going after the passer . Orakpo and Kerrigan are exceptional going forwards not so great dropping back in coverage.. so the safest thing with them is to on key downs is get them to rush the passer .

D Hall has very good football instincts put him off the ball where he can see the play develop and he can make a play either on the ball or on the reciever and you are playing to his strengths ... which in my mind is smart football ... put him in close coverage where he has to try and bump the WR and have his back to the QB he strugles . Putting him in that situation is a bad use of his skills . He can do both but he plays one way much better than the other .

The best play was the one Hasslett dialed when he dialed it up - it was not bold or conservative / smart or dumb - it was the best play that they thought would get the best results at the time .

The the cowboys made a play they executed in their pass protection perfectly and the throw and catch were on the money (its amazing they get paid too sometimes) .

As soon as that happened the right play turned into a dumb play. If the ball had fallen incomplete it would have been a smart call becasue it put all of the playmakers on D in the best postion to make a play .(by those who want to call plays dumb or smart)

In contrast if the DC had dropped 8 into coverage and given the cowboys all day to find the weak seam and the pass was dropped then it would have still not been a smart play. The play called would have been a dumb play because you put your players for a key play of the game in a situation which was a weakness or playing on thier collective back foot essemtially giving the offense the play .In calling such a play the DC did not put them in good positions to make best use of their collective skills and got lucky .

IMO football playcalling cannot be boiled down to a risk ananlysis algorythm borrowed from business . There are too many variables (not least the opponent) It has to be more dynamic and looking to win most of the match ups most of the time .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like everything in life, it mostly comes down to personality. An arguement could be made for either team being in red, amber or green mode at that point in the game. Where you fall, says alot about who you are. More simply put, Haslett said in his presser later that week that they had run that play 10 times with a 90% sucess rate so you could easily argue that it was a "conservative" call. Trotting out a play with a 90% success rate is hardly gambling!
If Haslett's all-out blitz has a 90% success rate, then he should be calling it on every down where the opponent is likely to pass. That 90% number is BS based on a small sample size. No team comes even close to that rate and it's Haslett's job to know that. That's why we don't see all-out blitzes often in the NFL.

The all-out blitz is high risk/high reward strategy. The reward is that it makes a sack and loss of yardage more likely; and it makes an INT more likely. We didn't need a sack or an INT, so Haslett's gamble took a higher risk with nothing to gain. In a third and 21 situation, with a lead, the call was a green mode strategy in a red mode situation. The right call was a five man rush with six playing soft.

That is so basic that I would call it "common sense"
Yep, but common sense isn't all that common.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The all-out blitz is high risk/high reward strategy. The reward is that it makes a sack and loss of yardage more likely; and it makes an INT more likely. We didn't need a sack or an INT, so Haslett's gamble took a higher risk with nothing to gain. In a third and 21 situation, with a lead, the call was a green mode strategy in a red mode situation. The right call was a five man rush with six playing soft.

And you would think that someone on the sidelines would have seen the basic truth in this, ANY call that gives up less than 20 yds would be a success in terms of the required goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Haslett's all-out blitz has a 90% success rate, then he should be calling it on every down where the opponent is likely to pass. That 90% number is BS based on a small sample size. No team comes even close to that rate and it's Haslett's job to know that. That's why we don't see all-out blitzes often in the NFL.

The all-out blitz is high risk/high reward strategy. The reward is that it makes a sack and loss of yardage more likely; and it makes an INT more likely. We didn't need a sack or an INT, so Haslett's gamble took a higher risk with nothing to gain. In a third and 21 situation, with a lead, the call was a green mode strategy in a red mode situation. The right call was a five man rush with six playing soft.

Common sense isn't all that common.

well on the 3rd down and long play in the dallas game, i see why haslett did blitz. If you watched the actual tape on that play from NFL Playbook, every route broke down and Romo sits to pee used street ball to convert that play. However, the blitz was called because if we had sacked them, they would have punted. If we played back and only rushed 5 or 6, and they got a completion, they would have went for it on 4th down with 3 mins and change in the game. I understand why we went for it but if he wanted to biltz, we should have blitz 6 or 7 instead of 8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bedlam:

Well, yes, of course your players strengths and weaknesses have to be taken into account. A conservative, red mode, move for one team might not fit another team. For example, Kerrigan and Orakpo are at their best rushing the passer, so while other teams might only rush four, rushing five and dropping six is still a good conservative call for the Skins in a situation that called for conservatism. But, no stretch can make an all-out blitz a conservative call.

Your analysis that the outcome determines whether it was a smart call or a dumb one simply isn’t logical. If option A has a 75% chance for success and option B has a 50% chance for success, then option A is the smart call regardless of the outcome. “Playing the percentages” applies to business, war, investing, football and pretty much any game you name.

---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 08:49 AM ----------

well on the 3rd down and long play in the dallas game, i see why haslett did blitz. If you watched the actual tape on that play from NFL Playbook, every route broke down and Romo sits to pee used street ball to convert that play.
As I stated earlier, the outcome of the play is not relevant.
However, the blitz was called because if we had sacked them, they would have punted. If we played back and only rushed 5 or 6, and they got a completion, they would have went for it on 4th down with 3 mins and change in the game. I understand why we went for it but if he wanted to biltz, we should have blitz 6 or 7 instead of 8.
Facing a third and 21, the odds against any team making a first down were already very high. We didn't need a sack to make them even higher. We were in a situation that called for a conservative defense. A five-man rush, dropping six would have been the safe call.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just Haslett that those basic principles can be applied to. Kyle on the other side of the ball could do with a large dose of simplicity and taking what's there in the relevant situation. I haven't been one to get carried away with our D and all the props Haslett's been getting. It's painfully predictable at times just what he's gona' do in certain situations, often repeated through games to the point where the opposition are fully ready for it. I can only see this getting worse as the season rolls, taking away from what could be a very efficient defense if utilized properly with the right calls in the right situations as Of alluded to. Kyle I don't think has it in him to change. He's the preverbal green mode gambler, when the teams nowhere near a green mode situation. He's been more balanced (outside of the past two games where he's slipping back to type); but not in situations ala the OP. Still FAR more questions than answers on him, and Haslett to a lesser degree.

It will be interesting, when teams catch up to the D as I'm sure they'll start to do with more film now; if it regresses and Haslett pays the ultimate price; will Kyle survive by virtue of being a family member? :munchout:

I do differ on the point below though:

~ Coaches of weaker teams should be in a gambling green mode right from the opening kick. Gambles that pay off will upset better teams. For weak teams, losing gambles will only mean losing by bigger margins, but a loss by 30 is no more costly than a loss by one.

All relative to the strengths of the opposition your facing, however athletically better they may be than you. It could well be argued that in many instances, to go all out attack from the get go, on offense or defense, could be a gamble that knocks you out of the game before it's even begun if it backfires in a slew of points you don't have the talent to recuperate. I concur with the logic of gambling more if your the 'lesser' team. But at the right times. I'd rather contain and hopefully frustrate, than potentially get burned early.

But that's nitpicking from a very good OP that really shouldn't have to of been typed.

It's basic football strategy and common sense 101.

Unfortunately, it does need to be stated when you have boneheaded coordinators like ours.

Hail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amber Mode: Moderate, calculated risks are called for. Neither team has an advantage.

~ Blitzing six or more defenders is a smart green mode call and dumb in the other modes.

I think we were definitely in Amber mode at that point. You say yourself that Blitzing six or more in anything but green is dumb.

You call the best play you have for the situation with the players you have.

You got the right idea, but you used the wrong strategy.

From the begining of that game, a blind man can see that Hall couldn't check Bryant one-on-one. If that is the case, why would you put him in that situation on 3rd and forever with the game on the line. On top of that, I have know doubt that we would have been able to get some pressure with our normal pass rush on that play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your corner can't hold up coverage for 4 seconds on an all out blitz then how can you expect him to cover for even longer in prevent?

coverage is not the redskins strength, pass rushing is. so to get a team off the field you have to go with your strength and not let them pick apart your weakness.

there hasn't been a game this year where we are so far ahead that we can back off defensively and if our offense doesn't get a lot better, there won't be.

prevent defense prevents you from winning, plain and simple.

now if we were out there winning by 3 touchdowns with 2 minutes left in the game i think you can start to give them some underneath stuff, but putting more average at best cover guys on the field with no help from the pass rush is asking to be beaten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GHH: It will be interesting, when teams catch up to the D as I'm sure they'll start to do with more film now; if it regresses and Haslett pays the ultimate price; will Kyle survive by virtue of being a family member?

In Mike Shanahan’s shoes, I would see Haslett’s call as a huge red flag, a bad call so blatant that it would destroy my confidence in him.

I don’t second-guess coaches as a rule. I haven’t seen anything from Kyle so far that convinces me of his competence or incompetence. I doubt that Mike would fire him.

All relative to the strengths of the opposition your facing, however athletically better they may be than you. It could well be argued that in many instances, to go all out attack from the get go, on offense or defense, could be a gamble that knocks you out of the game before it's even begun if it backfires in a slew of points you don't have the talent to recuperate. I concur with the logic of gambling more if your the 'lesser' team. But at the right times. I'd rather contain and hopefully frustrate, than potentially get burned early.

I mentioned that going for the first down on fourth and short in plus territory was a good gamble. If I’m coaching an underdog, and that situation arises on the first drive of the game, I’m taking it. Most coaches would wait until late in the game or after they have fallen behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bedlam:

Well, yes, of course your players strengths and weaknesses have to be taken into account. A conservative, red mode, move for one team might not fit another team. For example, Kerrigan and Orakpo are at their best rushing the passer, so while other teams might only rush four, rushing five and dropping six is still a good conservative call for the Skins in a situation that called for conservatism. But, no stretch can make an all-out blitz a conservative call.

Your analysis that the outcome determines whether it was a smart call or a dumb one simply isn’t logical. If option A has a 75% chance for success and option B has a 50% chance for success, then option A is the smart call regardless of the outcome. “Playing the percentages” applies to business, war, investing, football and pretty much any game you name.

---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 08:49 AM ----------

As I stated earlier, the outcome of the play is not relevant.

Facing a third and 21, the odds against any team making a first down were already very high. We didn't need a sack to make them even higher. We were in a situation that called for a conservative defense. A five-man rush, dropping six would have been the safe call.

Old, regardless of the play outcome, I am thinking Haslett blitzed heavy on 3rd not to have to play the 4th down. if we only brought 5 or 6 and they get a completion for 10 yards, what do you do on 4th down? blitz or bring 5 or 6 again. i think thats the dilemma haslett had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your corner can't hold up coverage for 4 seconds on an all out blitz then how can you expect him to cover for even longer in prevent?
You rush five, drop six and double Bryant.
prevent defense prevents you from winning, plain and simple.
We aren't talking about a prevent defense in that situation. However, there are situations that call for a prevent defense and they usually work. It's just that the times they don't are memorable.

---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 09:48 AM ----------

Old, regardless of the play outcome, I am thinking Haslett blitzed heavy on 3rd not to have to play the 4th down. if we only brought 5 or 6 and they get a completion for 10 yards, what do you do on 4th down? blitz or bring 5 or 6 again. i think thats the dilemma haslett had.
The odds against making a first down on third and 21 are very high even if the offense uses two downs to do it. A completion of 10 yards, and another of 11+ on the next play would have been very unlikely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You rush five, drop six and double Bryant.

We aren't talking about a prevent defense in that situation. However, there are situations that call for a prevent defense and they usually work. It's just that the times they don't are memorable.

---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 09:48 AM ----------

The odds against making a first down on third and 21 are very high even if the offense uses two downs to do it. A completion of 10 yards, and another of 11+ on the next play would have been very unlikely.

the odds of having 2 completions is probably better against 1 heavy blitz on a 3rd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An analogy to financial investment is also good. Would anyone here invest only in the riskiest finacial instruments. They provide the highest return, but they can burn quite a hole in your wallet if the stock price goes down or they don't pay you.
Investment analogies work very well applied to Football. Haslett's all-out blitz call was like a retired investor investing in high flyers when all he needed to do was to diversify in well-managed assets to protect his nest egg.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Mike Shanahan's shoes, I would see Haslett's call as a huge red flag, a bad call so blatant that it would destroy my confidence in him.

I don't second-guess coaches as a rule. I haven't seen anything from Kyle so far that convinces me of his competence or incompetence. I doubt that Mike would fire him.

I find that intriguing that you find fault in one's calls and not the other. Just surmising here, but would that be down to the different levels of talent on the respective sides of the ball?

I mentioned that going for the first down on fourth and short in plus territory was a good gamble. If I’m coaching an underdog, and that situation arises on the first drive of the game, I’m taking it. Most coaches would wait until late in the game or after they have fallen behind.

I know you did man, but I was responding to the far broader point, not that specific one.

On that, I'd still have to weigh up the overall situation before taking a risk like that so early personally. Giving a better team an 80/ 90 yard field rather than say a 50/ 60 or so one would probably win it in putting my faith in my lesser talented unit to keep them out the EZ. At other times in a game though, I'd probably be more willing to gamble.

All relative to the situation at the time for me. I guess I'm just a little more conservative than yourself in that scenario with our respective lesser talents.

Hail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the odds of having 2 completions is probably better against 1 heavy blitz on a 3rd.[/QUote]There is only about a 56% chance of completing one pass that averages seven yards when the defense doesn't know if you are going to pass or run. The percentage has to go down to nonsense level when you must complete two passes that average 10.5 yards when the defense knows they can ignore the run.

If the all-out blitz fails to get to the QB, the chances of one 21+ pass being completed goes up sharply. Isn't that logical?

---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 10:26 AM ----------

I find that intriguing that you find fault in one's calls and not the other. Just surmising here, but would that be down to the different levels of talent on the respective sides of the ball?
Don't use the plural "calls." I haven't second-guessed Haslett or Kyle on their play calling in general. I found Haslett's call in Dallas so blatantly bad that it raises a red flag. It demonstrated a lack of comprehension of strategy at the fundamental level. In Shanahan's shoes, I could no longer trust him.

As for gambling as the underdog...

There's about a 70% chance of converting fourth and short in plus territory, but you can't predict when those opportunities will arise. If it comes on the first drive, I'll take it rather than hoping my team will have enough luck to overcome my superior opponent. If my 70% gamble produces an extra three or seven points then I've negated my opponent's margin.

It's about taking the good gambling opportunities if and when they present themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somewhat agnostic on Haslett. I agree that the Dallas call was flagrantly bad/reckless, I don't know what drove it? ****iness? I would assume Haslett is smart enough to understand risks that are obvious to lay people like us. So to me I take it as a really ****y call, and i don't mean that as a backhand complement. But I am not in the throw the baby out with the bath water mood either (not saying Oldfan is, I am just giving my thoughts about Haslett in general), thus far its a top 5 defense, sack and turnover heavy. Maybe that's all incidental to Haslett's coaching, I don't know. But, I'll stay on the ride as long as they play well. the next game against the Eagles to me is telling, IMO Reid totally outfoxed Haslett in last years Monday Night Football Game. Lucky me it was the game I flew up to see from Florida. You can argue that Haslett, who in that game had a defense with the opposite mindset as how they played this year against Dallas --set the template for the rest of the NFL as to how NOT to play against Vick. The Skins played a containment defense with the idea of shutting down his running lanes -- but as we've seen since pressure is the way to scheme Vick not containment schemes.

---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 10:38 AM ----------

Old, regardless of the play outcome, I am thinking Haslett blitzed heavy on 3rd not to have to play the 4th down. if we only brought 5 or 6 and they get a completion for 10 yards, what do you do on 4th down? blitz or bring 5 or 6 again. i think thats the dilemma haslett had.

IMO one way to look at that play is if all Haslett did was keep the free safety back and help cover their ONLY deep threat, Dez Bryant, then it would still be an aggressive call but not recklessly so.

Edit: this subject is interesting but goes back a couple of weeks, am waiting instead for the ultimate Oldfan thread on Rex Grossman :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only about a 56% chance of completing one pass that averages seven yards when the defense doesn't know if you are going to pass or run. The percentage has to go down to nonsense level when you must complete two passes that average 10.5 yards when the defense knows they can ignore the run.

If the all-out blitz fails to get to the QB, the chances of one 21+ pass being completed goes up sharply. Isn't that logical?

---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 10:26 AM ----------

please let me know where you get this 56% from otherwise your argument doesn't stand lol

Don't use the plural "calls." I haven't second-guessed Haslett or Kyle on their play calling in general. I found Haslett's call in Dallas so blatantly bad that it raises a red flag. It demonstrated a lack of comprehension of strategy at the fundamental level. In Shanahan's shoes, I could no longer trust him.

As for gambling as the underdog...

There's about a 70% chance of converting fourth and short in plus territory, but you can't predict when those opportunities will arise. If it comes on the first drive, I'll take it rather than hoping my team will have enough luck to overcome my superior opponent. If my 70% gamble produces an extra three or seven points then I've negated my opponent's margin.

It's about taking the good gambling opportunities if and when they present themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Edit: this subject is interesting but goes back a couple of weeks, am waiting instead for the ultimate Oldfan thread on Rex Grossman :)
:pfft:

I foresaw that the discussion here was likely to continue the debate on the Haslett call, but I really hoped for a broader discussion on basic strategy.

As for Grossman, the lines are drawn on him. Both sides are just repeating their points. I have nothing new to add right now. I'm waiting to find out if Mike thinks Beck just doesn't have much to offer or if Rex was just another win-now move because he's more familiar with the scheme. We should find out soon.

---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 10:54 AM ----------

skinsfan2k ~ please let me know where you get this 56% from otherwise your argument doesn't stand lol
That was an average completion rate for all NFL QBs when last I checked. It could be a little higher or lower now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:pfft: I foresaw that the discussion here was likely to continue the debate on the Haslett call, but I really hoped for a broader discussion on basic strategy.

IMO the problem with citing that play is that is such a ridiculously bad call, that its tough for me to argue the merits back and forth. Haslett's explanation that they have been successful with the same play in the past and that drove the idea to him, IMO is equally ridiculous. Running an all or nothing defensive scheme is what IMO you do when you are going for broke and are behind, not when you are ahead and the onus is on the opponent.

: As for Grossman, the lines are drawn on him. Both sides are just repeating their points. I have nothing new to add right now. I'm waiting to find out if Mike thinks Beck just doesn't have much to offer or if Rex was just another win-now move because he's more familiar with the scheme. We should find out soon.

I think the explanation might be found somewhere in the middle. I get Rex's supporters thought that you don't bench the Qb when you are winning and I get the idea of timing the move appropriately. If Shanny right now is thinking Beck might be the better option, I still think the timing of making the switch will be factored. McNabb was benched not after a win, but when the offense was floundering against Detriot and they were behind. In other words, I don't know of course what Shanny thinks of Beck but its plausible to me that a case for him is building in his head and we won't know it one way or another until it happens or doesn't happen. I am not sure if I am sold on Beck but am just about there of being sold that Rex isn't the answer.

Edit; on Rex as to what's new, some of the pro Rex people vehemently argue that Rex has been the hapless victim of bad luck, his turnovers are incidental and non reflective to how accurate he's really been. I'd say that's the only new fresh debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we were definitely in Amber mode at that point. You say yourself that Blitzing six or more in anything but green is dumb.
Yes, blitzing in anything but green mode is dumb. Therefore, Haslett's call was dumb.

I think we should have been in red mode on third and 21 with a lead late in the game. A five man rush with six playing soft while doubling Bryant seems like a much better call.

---------- Post added October-10th-2011 at 11:32 AM ----------

SIP...Haslett's explanation that they have been successful with the same play in the past and that drove the idea to him, IMO is equally ridiculous...

It was a dumb statement for a man in his position as was this statement last August.

"In this league, you average 10 to 11 possessions on offense a game; and if you can get three turnovers, that gives your offense 14 and that gives the team we're playing against eight."

This statement isn’t true. If a poster in this forum said it, I could understand how easily one might think that, but this is a man who, given his position, should know better.

I think the explanation might be found somewhere in the middle. I get Rex's supporters thought that you don't bench the Qb when you are winning and I get the idea of timing the move appropriately. If Shanny right now is thinking Beck might be the better option, I still think the timing of making the switch will be factored.

Mike and Kyle will be making their decision on Grossman’s grades. I don’t believe Mike when he implies that he grades QBs on wins and losses. He made that statement to deceive people, but I’m not sure why.

Edit; on Rex as to what's new, some of the pro Rex people vehemently argue that Rex has been the hapless victim of bad luck, his turnovers are incidental and non reflective to how accurate he's really been. I'd say that's the only new fresh debate.

There’s nothing new about glossing over the negatives and exaggerating the positives for Rex’s super fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...