Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

I hated the Dorsett pick at first


RockThatBlue

Recommended Posts

The Dorsett pick was a head scratcher at first for everyone (It's no secret that many fans wanted us to either draft defense or offensive line)

 

But with Andre Johnsons age, and the contracts of Hilton,Fleener and Allen all expiring. The pick makes so much sense if you want to keep talent around Luck.

 

I have a feeling this kid is going to be special, hopefully we can keep him and Hilton together for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The notion of taking purely BPA is bogus. If you took the BPA at each of the 7 rounds, you might end up drafting 7 OTs.

Your later draft choices are impacted by who you took the previous rounds....second round draft choice is impacted by who you took in the first, and your first round draft choice is impacted by your roster as it is going into the draft. You take positions of need at their proper value...but...reaching for a need is worse than passing and waiting until next year and taking the BPA in the mean time.

"at their proper value" means that if a position of need is your 5th BPA on your list, you take him over the 1st BPA on your list who may not be at a position of need. But if that player is, say, the 10th BPA on your list, you either trade out and hope he's still there 5 or 6 slots later or you take the 1st BPA on your list and wait until the next round or next year to get your need.

As far as a WR next year, if another 4.2 WR with hands is available at our 1st round draft slot next year, I would consider taking him and let the non 4.2/3 guys on the roster find other teams.

You're taking BPA way too literally. It's BPA by NEED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're taking BPA way too literally. It's BPA by NEED

That's how I've always thought it's supposed to be. With Moncrief flashing potential I didn't see it as a need. Hell I didn't even think Dorsett wad the BPA in terms of skill at that spot either.

But what's done is done. Reviews on Dorsett are really positive though so maybe it'll be a good pick in hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're taking BPA way too literally. It's BPA by NEED

Not to some.

And, I would argue that in today's NFL, you need as many 4.2/3 WRs you can get. Those guys with that type of speed, hands, and route running aren't even available in every draft, and never below 15 or 20. Guys like Malcolm Brown or Eddie Goldman are available every draft, even 2 or 3 of them each draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rewatch the AFC chip game to see what this team needed based off the draft and free agency. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RRXyESXHqGA

Lack of experience is a killer, but also depth is key positions. He got the players we needed I feel. The pick was a head scratcher until I watched the game again. An O or D lineman in the draft would take more time then a WR with our team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the angst and vitriol spewed here by many about this pick was only slightly more irritating than the milk toast level change to "I guess I'm ok with it".

 

If you hated it....and used this forum as a place to vent your hatred so we all had to read it...over and over, then stick to your guns and call it out.

 

Just once, I would like to see someone who judged too early...and judged to harshly...to use the same effort and passion and quantity of posts in their change of mind, that they did in their prejudgement.

 

Just once.....

 

No....this is not a direct response to the OP. If it was, I would have quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion of taking purely BPA is bogus. If you took the BPA at each of the 7 rounds, you might end up drafting 7 OTs.

Your later draft choices are impacted by who you took the previous rounds....second round draft choice is impacted by who you took in the first, and your first round draft choice is impacted by your roster as it is going into the draft. You take positions of need at their proper value...but...reaching for a need is worse than passing and waiting until next year and taking the BPA in the mean time.

"at their proper value" means that if a position of need is your 5th BPA on your list, you take him over the 1st BPA on your list who may not be at a position of need. But if that player is, say, the 10th BPA on your list, you either trade out and hope he's still there 5 or 6 slots later or you take the 1st BPA on your list and wait until the next round or next year to get your need.

As far as a WR next year, if another 4.2 WR with hands is available at our 1st round draft slot next year, I would consider taking him and let the non 4.2/3 guys on the roster find other teams.

if that 4.2 guy is same size as Hilton and Dorset we better pass last thing we need is a team of midgets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard one or two people say that he would be the replacement for TY

 

At first, I didnt think so.

 

However, looking at the contracts that Larry F and Calvin Johnson recieved (Over 16 mil)

I bet Dez gets 16 to 18m,......... it makes me wonder 

 

I truly like TY, but is he worth 16 mil? His agent may want that number........

 

Can we afford 16m AND still pay Luck and the others that are coming up..... I dont know

I think it is going to come down to whether or not TY wants to play with #12 for the coming years or whether he is all about the money....

If TY wants to stay with Luck he will probably have to compromise at about £12m a year, but I wouldnt hold my breath on this front... He did say it takes both sides to come to an agreement, but I think TY, and almost rightfully so, is going to go for the money, no matter where he ends up. It's a business at the end of the day and he is going to want to get paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is going to come down to whether or not TY wants to play with #12 for the coming years or whether he is all about the money....

If TY wants to stay with Luck he will probably have to compromise at about £12m a year, but I wouldnt hold my breath on this front... He did say it takes both sides to come to an agreement, but I think TY, and almost rightfully so, is going to go for the money, no matter where he ends up. It's a business at the end of the day and he is going to want to get paid.

That's a great point.

 

In many cases, the players that seem to give the hometown discount, and / or willing to play for less, are the ones that are veterans who want to win a SB, or have a chance at a SB.

 

If you are a young guy, and havent had that one fat contract, you may opt for the biggest money.  

 

Unfortunately. Hilton hasn't had his payday yet

 

I hope we can find a way to keep him, but in my book its iffy.(I think 50/50 like some other posters)

 

The biggest contract to watch for is Dez Bryant.

 

In 2014, TY had similar numbers to Dez. If Dez gets 15....... (He will).... Ty will want 15

 

If Carter, Moncrief, and Dorsett develop, you may see Hilton go

 

I hate to say it, but this IS a cold business

 

These players have to watch out for themselves........ one injury, and you can be cooked.

 

 

With the monster luck contract, as well as AC. (He will demand top 10 money at LT if not top 5)

and with the TE situation as well.......... it will be tough

 

If the 3 new WRs develop, you could very well see a sign and trade of TY next offseason. 

 

 

 

You cant pay everyone top money..... never forget.... its a business

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a great point.

 

In many cases, the players that seem to give the hometown discount, and / or willing to play for less, are the ones that are veterans who want to win a SB, or have a chance at a SB.

 

If you are a young guy, and havent had that one fat contract, you may opt for the biggest money.  

 

Unfortunately. Hilton hasn't had his payday yet

 

I hope we can find a way to keep him, but in my book its iffy.(I think 50/50 like some other posters)

 

The biggest contract to watch for is Dez Bryant.

 

In 2014, TY had similar numbers to Dez. If Dez gets 15....... (He will).... Ty will want 15

 

If Carter, Moncrief, and Dorsett develop, you may see Hilton go

 

I hate to say it, but this IS a cold business

 

These players have to watch out for themselves........ one injury, and you can be cooked.

 

 

With the monster luck contract, as well as AC. (He will demand top 10 money at LT if not top 5)

and with the TE situation as well.......... it will be tough

 

If the 3 new WRs develop, you could very well see a sign and trade of TY next offseason. 

 

 

 

You cant pay everyone top money..... never forget.... its a business

We wont even have leverage to trade TY at the end of next season...

With his rookie contract about to expire at that point, other teams can just wait for TY to become a FA and then try and sign him rather than give up any draft picks or trade players etc.

The only way TY gets PAID and stays here is if the front office decide he is worth the mega bucks over trying to keep one or both of the TE's in Allen and Fleener.... which I doubt. TY is great and all, but id rather lose him and keep both TEs than the other way around... and that is coming from someone who has TY as their favorite colt...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I don't see it hurting the team at all, as stated before our wrs were not very good at all in the NE playoff game. It was kind of a bigger need than people will admit.

Then why spend the money on the WR's they got in free agency if they arnt that good?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if that 4.2 guy is same size as Hilton and Dorset we better pass last thing we need is a team of midgets

Why?, they'd all run circles around guys like Sherman. Marvin Harrison was one of the biggest threats in the game and no one ever laid much of a hit on him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We wont even have leverage to trade TY at the end of next season...

With his rookie contract about to expire at that point, other teams can just wait for TY to become a FA and then try and sign him rather than give up any draft picks or trade players etc.

The only way TY gets PAID and stays here is if the front office decide he is worth the mega bucks over trying to keep one or both of the TE's in Allen and Fleener.... which I doubt. TY is great and all, but id rather lose him and keep both TEs than the other way around... and that is coming from someone who has TY as their favorite colt...

 

You may be right on TY

 

On the TEs, so far, Fleener has become a decent target, but to me, isn't a complete player. To me, he is a big WR, in our offense, I dont think we will be giving him huge money.

 

On Allen, the guy is a more complete player, BUT...... he seems to have trouble being healthy.  

 

This year will develop the market for both TEs.   If they both stay the same, I dont look for them to break the bank....... If they both have monster years....  we may be mortgaging the farm........

 

 

With so many improved recievers, I dont know how either get the stats.......

 

We will see 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's how I've always thought it's supposed to be. With Moncrief flashing potential I didn't see it as a need. Hell I didn't even think Dorsett wad the BPA in terms of skill at that spot either.

But what's done is done. Reviews on Dorsett are really positive though so maybe it'll be a good pick in hindsight.

I think there is more to it than that. What teams really don't wanna do is pass up a difference maker for a lesser player to fill a need. See the Giants drafting of JJP. Then add in positional value, scheme/team fit, etc.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is more to it than that. What teams really don't wanna do is pass up a difference maker for a lesser player to fill a need. See the Giants drafting of JJP. Then add in positional value, scheme/team fit, etc.....

That's true. But I also think the inverse is true. You don't want to get a difference maker at a position you don't need. No team needs 2 Eddie Lacys if for example, they're allowing 450 passing yards a game on defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not.  It's BPA according to the GM's board. 

 

Exactly. Based on the months/years of scouting and thousands of man hours that the team scouts put in evaluating players. Then it's adjusted for positional value (so no, we wouldn't draft a QB in the first round, and that retort isn't nearly as clever as people think it is).

 

I was watching A Football Life about the '95 Browns on Saturday, and at the end they talked about how Ozzie Newsome got that same franchise a ring a few years later; basically, it should have been the Browns winning in 2000, is the idea. Ozzie was talking about the '96 draft, and how Art Modell wanted them to draft Lawrence Phillips because they needed a RB. Ozzie's response was "Jonathan Ogden is the best player on the board, so we should draft him."

 

His response wasn't "Phillips is a knucklehead who can't stay out of trouble," which was absolutely true and reason enough not to draft him; he didn't last two years with the Rams, was out of the league by '99, and is now in prison on a number of charges (and implicated in the murder of his cellmate just two months ago). He didn't even mention that in the interview, at least not as it was aired. Ozzie's response was that they should take the best player on their board. We all see how that worked out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true. But I also think the inverse is true. You don't want to get a difference maker at a position you don't need. No team needs 2 Eddie Lacys if for example, they're allowing 450 passing yards a game on defense.

 

What does one thing have to do with the other? Your comment suggests that the only way to improve your passing defense is with a first round draft pick. There's no such thing as free agency, you don't have a half dozen other draft picks, you aren't developing young players that are already on your roster...

 

The draft is really not the principle method for a team to address their weaknesses. This entire idea of drafting for need is foreign to the purpose of the draft in the first place. The draft is for adding talent, and that being the case, you add the most talented players you can. There are common sense adjustments that can and should be made, but you don't pass up on a superior talent to take a lesser player at a position of need. That's bad drafting. I'd rather take a difference maker at a position I don't need than reach for a lesser player a position I do need. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does one thing have to do with the other? Your comment suggests that the only way to improve your passing defense is with a first round draft pick. There's no such thing as free agency, you don't have a half dozen other draft picks, you aren't developing young players that are already on your roster...

 

The draft is really not the principle method for a team to address their weaknesses. This entire idea of drafting for need is foreign to the purpose of the draft in the first place. The draft is for adding talent, and that being the case, you add the most talented players you can. There are common sense adjustments that can and should be made, but you don't pass up on a superior talent to take a lesser player at a position of need. That's bad drafting. I'd rather take a difference maker at a position I don't need than reach for a lesser player a position I do need. 

 

For me,  this boils down to talent evaluation.

 

If Dorsett turns into what the team thinks he can be,  then great.    But if not,  if he's only good and not special,  plus, if players we passed on turn out to be what we needed,  then that can spell the end of the road for a front office -- any front office,  but including ours.

 

If guys like Brown or Collins or Goldman become better players than Dorsett becomes,  that could spell trouble fro Grigson.

 

Fortunately,  so far,  all the buzz about Dorsett has not only been good,  it's been very, very good on every possible level.

 

So far,  so good......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me,  this boils down to talent evaluation.

 

If Dorsett turns into what the team thinks he can be,  then great.    But if not,  if he's only good and not special,  plus, if players we passed on turn out to be what we needed,  then that can spell the end of the road for a front office -- any front office,  but including ours.

 

If guys like Brown or Collins or Goldman become better players than Dorsett becomes,  that could spell trouble fro Grigson.

 

Fortunately,  so far,  all the buzz about Dorsett has not only been good,  it's been very, very good on every possible level.

 

So far,  so good......

 

That's because you have "uncommon sense." (Used to be called common sense, but you know...)

 

Some believe that, no matter what Dorsett turns out to be, he won't ever be considered a good draft pick. HOFer Phillip Dorsett? Don't care, would have rather had a lineman. 

 

To me, if one of those other guys you mentioned is better than Dorsett, then the problem is talent evaluation, clearly. But I still have no problem with the philosophy that led to the Dorsett pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because you have "uncommon sense." (Used to be called common sense, but you know...)

 

Some believe that, no matter what Dorsett turns out to be, he won't ever be considered a good draft pick. HOFer Phillip Dorsett? Don't care, would have rather had a lineman. 

 

To me, if one of those other guys you mentioned is better than Dorsett, then the problem is talent evaluation, clearly. But I still have no problem with the philosophy that led to the Dorsett pick.

That's the real issue here, people don't understand the philosophy, heck even most draft sites fuel this by mocking players to teams based more on need then talent. Maybe it's unfair to blame the majority of fans for having a very shallow understanding of the talent evaluatins process as after all they're not putting in the hours, instead the vast majority of their opinion is formed at best by mock drafts and draft profiles both of which will be more readily influenced by a player being on the media radar.

I'd have a lot more time for someone who criticised the pick for the talent level of Dorsett rather than the position he plays. Personally though I agree with you, and it was something I advocated for pre draft, trading down to me would have been a more ideal option. However that's a decision that requires a willing trade partner so I can't really fault Grigson if there was nothing in the table.

Takent evaluation and subsequently the draft should be a proactive process not a reactive one. Have your board set and go by it. The only position I think that is outside the usual process is QB, but then again franchise QBs are pretty unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not like the pick and still don't care for it much....BUT the more I read about TY and Rozensleaze, thew more I think it was a very intelligent strategic move getting Dorsett.

That would imply that in retrospect it was a pick made for need after all, just a possible future need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the real issue here, people don't understand the philosophy, heck even most draft sites fuel this by mocking players to teams based more on need then talent. Maybe it's unfair to blame the majority of fans for having a very shallow understanding of the talent evaluatins process as after all they're not putting in the hours, instead the vast majority of their opinion is formed at best by mock drafts and draft profiles both of which will be more readily influenced by a player being on the media radar.

I'd have a lot more time for someone who criticised the pick for the talent level of Dorsett rather than the position he plays. Personally though I agree with you, and it was something I advocated for pre draft, trading down to me would have been a more ideal option. However that's a decision that requires a willing trade partner so I can't really fault Grigson if there was nothing in the table.

Takent evaluation and subsequently the draft should be a proactive process not a reactive one. Have your board set and go by it. The only position I think that is outside the usual process is QB, but then again franchise QBs are pretty unique.

To be fair, teams draft for need too.....or the need and talent just coincidently line up a lot lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the real issue here, people don't understand the philosophy, heck even most draft sites fuel this by mocking players to teams based more on need then talent. Maybe it's unfair to blame the majority of fans for having a very shallow understanding of the talent evaluatins process as after all they're not putting in the hours, instead the vast majority of their opinion is formed at best by mock drafts and draft profiles both of which will be more readily influenced by a player being on the media radar.

I'd have a lot more time for someone who criticised the pick for the talent level of Dorsett rather than the position he plays. Personally though I agree with you, and it was something I advocated for pre draft, trading down to me would have been a more ideal option. However that's a decision that requires a willing trade partner so I can't really fault Grigson if there was nothing in the table.

Takent evaluation and subsequently the draft should be a proactive process not a reactive one. Have your board set and go by it. The only position I think that is outside the usual process is QB, but then again franchise QBs are pretty unique.

 

Agreed all around, especially the bolded.

 

And also the first paragraph, now I can't remember who, but a former NFL personnel guy or maybe head coach basically said people judge drafts on the basis of how well the first round pick fills a perceived need primarily because they don't know the players in the draft well enough to do it any other way. That goes for 90% of bloggers, and probably goes for most of us on forums like this (no offense to anyone; nobody has time to try to grade/rank everyone in the draft, or would even know how or have the resources to do so).

 

But it's promoted further by guys like Mel Kiper and others who actually have put in the time to scout the players and watch film, and yet, still revert back to a needs-based protocol. It doesn't make any sense. Kiper says of Dorsett that it looks like a clear case of BPA drafting, as if that's a bad thing. McShay had Dorsett as his #27 player, but then says he would have liked for us to address OL with our first pick as it was the biggest need on the team. His highest rate OL on the board was TJ Clemmings, who was his 36th ranked player overall (but who didn't go until the 4th round because of injury). Next OL was Jake Fisher, his 39th player, who went 53rd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trio of Irsay/Grigson/Pagano have stressed what we're trying to do with drafting Dorsett.

 

We're trying to make sure that even if an opposing team has good corners to match up with Hilton and Johnson,  we'll still have the advantage because our 3rd WR (Dorsett) will be better than their 3rd corner,  and our 4th WR (Moncrief) will be better than their 4th CB.    Or flip-flop Dorsett and Moncrief if you like....    makes no difference.

 

That, plus the added benefit of leaving lots of room for Fleener, Allen, and Gore and the rest of them,  should mean -- in theory, at least -- that we've had advantages all over the field.....

 

That's the idea.....   hopefully it works out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one hated the colts picking Dorsett with Brown and Goldman still on the board, i remember bashing Grigson and Irsay for not addressing the defense. That being said i know see what they were going for, the reason we got blown out by the patriots was cuz they forced us to abandon the run and just pass, but we nvr got anything going because they doubled T.Y, locked down Reggie and Browner took care of Fleener. Now NE lost i believe their top 4 CBs so now theres no way they will be able to double TY and take care of Johnson, Moncrife, Fleener, Allen and now Dorsett! Not to mention not being able to run against NE is why we signed Gore and Herremans. I now think that it wasnt a luxury pick but a pick for the future, with all the pending contracts Especially TYs and its no secret that in order to get to the Super Bowl we must beat NE and maybe Dorsett will help us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, teams draft for need too.....or the need and talent just coincidently line up a lot lol.

 

By and large if you look at teams that draft more for need than overall ability, or those that are perceived to, then I'd imagine you're looking at some of the less successful franchises in recent history. Now this might be a little unfair in that these teams all tend to be the ones searching for a franchise QB and as I said above I think that position is little outside the norm and if it's a lot harder to build a team and then add the QB rather than be totally awful, have a high pick, land a QB then build around him. 

 

Of course it's also a little hard to know if teams are drafting for need or based on how they evaluate players as we don't have access to their boards which I'd imagine would be markedly different to the ones put out on mock draft sites etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed all around, especially the bolded.

 

And also the first paragraph, now I can't remember who, but a former NFL personnel guy or maybe head coach basically said people judge drafts on the basis of how well the first round pick fills a perceived need primarily because they don't know the players in the draft well enough to do it any other way. That goes for 90% of bloggers, and probably goes for most of us on forums like this (no offense to anyone; nobody has time to try to grade/rank everyone in the draft, or would even know how or have the resources to do so).

 

But it's promoted further by guys like Mel Kiper and others who actually have put in the time to scout the players and watch film, and yet, still revert back to a needs-based protocol. It doesn't make any sense. Kiper says of Dorsett that it looks like a clear case of BPA drafting, as if that's a bad thing. McShay had Dorsett as his #27 player, but then says he would have liked for us to address OL with our first pick as it was the biggest need on the team. His highest rate OL on the board was TJ Clemmings, who was his 36th ranked player overall (but who didn't go until the 4th round because of injury). Next OL was Jake Fisher, his 39th player, who went 53rd. 

 

Bingo, this is the most basic and simple way for a draft to be judged on day 1, that and any perceived "draft steals" where a player falls. In that case though I always wonder is it really a steal? I mean 32 teams are rarely going to all be wrong. It illustrates I think that draft stock can rise quite dramatically in the media/pre-draft analysis due to factors that aren't necessarily good metrics for evaluating talent. 

 

There is as school of thought that once a draft is finished it shouldn't matter where a player was drafted, it should only matter what they then do on the field, and while this certainly has come value as a stance, in terms of evaluating a GM you have to look at where they draft people and the subsequent production the team gets from the player. While 1st to say 3rd rounders will normally get all the headlines and be your stand out stars it's also as important I think to pick up those guys in the 6th/7th round who can give you solid depth to the roster, who can come in a play a few series and just do their job. The JAGs if you will. It's a poor metaphor but like with using Expected Value in evaluating betting propositions as long as you're constantly getting more production out of the players you draft relative to where you draft them then you're probably a darn good GM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does one thing have to do with the other? Your comment suggests that the only way to improve your passing defense is with a first round draft pick. There's no such thing as free agency, you don't have a half dozen other draft picks, you aren't developing young players that are already on your roster...

 

The draft is really not the principle method for a team to address their weaknesses. This entire idea of drafting for need is foreign to the purpose of the draft in the first place. The draft is for adding talent, and that being the case, you add the most talented players you can. There are common sense adjustments that can and should be made, but you don't pass up on a superior talent to take a lesser player at a position of need. That's bad drafting. I'd rather take a difference maker at a position I don't need than reach for a lesser player a position I do need.

What I'm saying is that if you're on the clock in the 1st round it's better to reach at a position of need than take BPA at a position you're stacked at. It all depends on how a teams draft board is broken down, but I think that's what a few GMs do.

Who knows how high Juwuan James was on their board but you can't tell me the Dolphins didn't make that pick based on need. It's not as simple as taking a B- player over an A+ one. But using my example, If you're on the clock in the first and you already have a young talented RB but your pass defense is awful (assuming this is after FA) do you take the RB who is the highest player on the board, or whoever the highest rated CB or FS on your board is?

I think it's the latter. And although we can't ever know for sure because we'll never know how a team's board looks, I think they're after a few GMs who do this. The Panthers last year with Kelvin Benjamin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By and large if you look at teams that draft more for need than overall ability, or those that are perceived to, then I'd imagine you're looking at some of the less successful franchises in recent history. Now this might be a little unfair in that these teams all tend to be the ones searching for a franchise QB and as I said above I think that position is little outside the norm and if it's a lot harder to build a team and then add the QB rather than be totally awful, have a high pick, land a QB then build around him. 

 

Of course it's also a little hard to know if teams are drafting for need or based on how they evaluate players as we don't have access to their boards which I'd imagine would be markedly different to the ones put out on mock draft sites etc.

Polish was recently asked about drafting strategy/bpa, etc and he kinda cut through the nonsense and stated it's about building a team that you envision. I don't believe teams have a strict adherence to BPA unless they feel he's a true difference maker or grades out much higher than what's left on the their board. More often than not there is probably a group of players that have a similar grade when it's your team is on the clock. But what do I know....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...