Jump to content
Farns01

Lucks calf injury

Recommended Posts

Takes on a new perspective since Kevin Durant injured his achilles.  Now I can see why Coach Reich is in no rush to hurry Luck back.  On ESPN NFL Live both the Hassleback brothers were commenting about calf strains can turn into achilles injuries if not properly handled.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farns01 said:

Takes on a new perspective since Kevin Durant injured his achilles.  Now I can see why Coach Reich is in no rush to hurry Luck back.  On ESPN NFL Live both the Hassleback brothers were commenting about calf strains can turn into achilles injuries if not properly handled.

No doubt!! Reich even called it a no-brainer (that even sitting out the mini-camp that he would be ready for full-throttle training camp). He's about to get 6 weeks to let that thing heal.  He turns 30 when the season starts, we don't need Luck to add insult to injury... that "A" word is just a bad, bad word in any sport.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, chrisfarley said:

No doubt!! Reich even called it a no-brainer (that even sitting out the mini-camp that he would be ready for full-throttle training camp). He's about to get 6 weeks to let that thing heal.  He turns 30 when the season starts, we don't need Luck to add insult to injury... that "A" word is just a bad, bad word in any sport.

I agree. When I seen Durant go down last night the 1st thing I thought of was Luck. A Calf injury is nothing to mess around with because of the Achilles. As long is Luck 100% by Pre-season that is all that matters to me. The rest of this stuff is meaningless. Luck and Ebron looked liked they played together for 10 years before last season and they didn't have much work together. No way I risk an major injury to our franchise QB to participate in anything now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Farns01 said:

Takes on a new perspective since Kevin Durant injured his achilles.  Now I can see why Coach Reich is in no rush to hurry Luck back.  On ESPN NFL Live both the Hassleback brothers were commenting about calf strains can turn into achilles injuries if not properly handled.

I know I worried about that when I saw Durant go down. The Colts need to use extreme caution in this situation and it sounds that’s what there doing. This makes me worry a little this season is counting on a healthy Luck. So if means no workouts on that calf until 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Farns01 said:

Takes on a new perspective since Kevin Durant injured his achilles.  Now I can see why Coach Reich is in no rush to hurry Luck back.  On ESPN NFL Live both the Hassleback brothers were commenting about calf strains can turn into achilles injuries if not properly handled.

:scoregood:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes!   Really didn't need this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Myles said:

Yikes!   Really didn't need this.  

I am not worried about this. I think the Colts are just being cautious and it is only June 12th. If he strains his calf in week 1 vs the Chargers then it is time to worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Unfortunately yes, why I do I have no idea confused homer simpson GIF

 

What's unfortunate about people watching and liking the NBA?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Superman said:

What's unfortunate about people watching and liking the NBA?

 

IMO it's because of what the NBA has turned into.  The highlight plays are exciting, and the last minute of the game is exciting if it's close.  So highlight reels on ESPN are fun to watch.

 

But if you're a fan of the game of basketball (scheme, strategy, matchups, actually playing defense) you're better off watching college and high school basketball.

 

There's also not as much parity.

 

:2c:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

What's unfortunate about people watching and liking the NBA?

Because I am looking at it from a Pacers fan point of view. Our owner refuses to go over the Salary Cap to build a super team so I have to sit around knowing the Pacers will never win a championship. To answer your question even better, the NBA needs a hard cap otherwise most teams have 0 chance to win the NBA championship going into a season. Raptors lucked into to getting Leonard because the Spurs were dumb enough to trade him. Reason I still watch, I love basketball but the NBA needs a hard cap otherwise I can't take it serious in today's game.

 

When the Cavs had LeBron, they were 35-40 million over the Salary Cap to keep them winning. What is the point of having a Salary Cap in reality in the NBA when 2 or 3 owners will just go over it to have stacked teams? You have to pay a luxury tax for going over but who cares if you are a billionaire owner. Dan Gilbert did it for the Cavs and he still has more money than he will ever spend. The Pacers owner will not though. I guess he never wants to win the big one like the Cavs did in 2016. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't need a new perspective.  I knew why the Coaches were holding him out of non essential OTAs and minicamp.  But I also don't have any illusions that somehow his time will be less with guys like Funchess and Paris because he did not get those 50 throws a day in during that time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

IMO it's because of what the NBA has turned into.  The highlight plays are exciting, and the last minute of the game is exciting if it's close.  So highlight reels on ESPN are fun to watch.

 

But if you're a fan of the game of basketball (scheme, strategy, matchups, actually playing defense) you're better off watching college and high school basketball.

 

There's also not as much parity.

 

:2c:

 

Okay, that's your opinion. I agree with some of it, disagree with some of it. But I still like and watch the NBA, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it, don't watch. 

 

No salt, just wondering why it's considered "unfortunate" that people still enjoy something that you don't. I don't like soccer, and don't watch it, but it doesn't bother me that others do. Hockey, no thanks, but knock yourself out. Regular season baseball, I'll pass, but you feel free. I don't find it unfortunate that someone else finds enjoyment in any of these things that aren't interesting to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Because I am looking at it from a Pacers fan point of view. Our owner refuses to go over the Salary Cap to build a super team so I have to sit around knowing the Pacers will never win a championship. To answer your question even better, the NBA needs a hard cap otherwise most teams have 0 chance to win the NBA championship going into a season. Raptors lucked into to getting Leonard because the Spurs were dumb enough to trade him. Reason I still watch, I love basketball but the NBA needs a hard cap otherwise I can't take it serious in today's game.

 

When the Cavs had LeBron, they were 35-40 million over the Salary Cap to keep them winning. What is the point of having a Salary Cap in reality in the NBA when 2 or 3 owners will just go over it to have stacked teams? You have to pay a luxury tax for going over but who cares if you are a billionaire owner. Dan Gilbert did it for the Cavs and he still has more money than he will ever spend. The Pacers owner will not though. I guess he never wants to win the big one like the Cavs did in 2016. 

 

Wrong thread for this, so sorry to derail, but let me respond.

 

The reason you can't have a hard cap in the NBA is because you have fully guaranteed contracts. It wouldn't work (also the reason people need to stop clamoring for fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL; they're bad for NBA and MLB, and would be worse for the NFL). 

 

Another reason: This is how the NBA owners want it. Small market owners (not all, but most) want to be subsidized by the revenue sharing from big market teams, and they are okay with those big market teams going into the luxury tax and repeater tax because it increases the profits for the smaller market teams. Then, every few years or so, a small market team that has drafted a star or two can make a big run for a couple years, then tear it back down in the name of fiscal responsibility, even though they've been well in the black for multiple consecutive seasons. 

 

And this is not new. The cap is relatively new in the NBA (30 years or so); before that, it was the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, Sixers, and basically anyone else was just regular season fodder. You think there's no parity now, it's 50 times better than it used to be. And the fact that the Bucks and Raptors were in the ECF while the Knicks and Lakers can't get in the playoffs for many years speaks volumes to parity. It also illustrates what an NBA team in a small market has to do to contend -- draft well, embrace change, empower your star players on the court, and add well rounded players to complement them. And the Pacers would have been in the mix if not for a freak injury to their best player.

 

End of the day, I just took exception to the initial post because I don't get why there's something wrong with other people liking something that you don't enjoy. The NBA is incredibly popular right now; they must be doing something right, and the perceived lack of parity must not be as off-putting to NBA fans in general as it is to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What's unfortunate about people watching and liking the NBA?

 

They should change the name to the NFA - National Flop Association 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Because I am looking at it from a Pacers fan point of view. Our owner refuses to go over the Salary Cap to build a super team so I have to sit around knowing the Pacers will never win a championship. To answer your question even better, the NBA needs a hard cap otherwise most teams have 0 chance to win the NBA championship going into a season. Raptors lucked into to getting Leonard because the Spurs were dumb enough to trade him. Reason I still watch, I love basketball but the NBA needs a hard cap otherwise I can't take it serious in today's game.

 

When the Cavs had LeBron, they were 35-40 million over the Salary Cap to keep them winning. What is the point of having a Salary Cap in reality in the NBA when 2 or 3 owners will just go over it to have stacked teams? You have to pay a luxury tax for going over but who cares if you are a billionaire owner. Dan Gilbert did it for the Cavs and he still has more money than he will ever spend. The Pacers owner will not though. I guess he never wants to win the big one like the Cavs did in 2016. 

Simon is extremely tight with his money despite all the city does to accommodate him with millions of dollars a year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What's unfortunate about people watching and liking the NBA?

I'm one who watches it too and idk why either especially when I know every year the Pacers have a 0% chance to win a championship. I honestly dont blame people that dont watch anymore I'm getting to the point where I can barley tolerate it myself it sucks being a fan of any team not in a big market totally different from football where any team can win.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

They should change the name to the NFA - National Flop Association 

 

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, though...

 

Don't get me wrong, there are things about the NBA that drive me crazy. Flopping is one of them, or manipulating the refs in any way. The refs are also pretty bad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I'm one who watches it too and idk why either especially when I know every year the Pacers have a 0% chance to win a championship. I honestly dont blame people that dont watch anymore I'm getting to the point where I can barley tolerate it myself it sucks being a fan of any team not in a big market totally different from football where any team can win.

Agreed, I'm a Nuggets fan, and they finally have a decent enough team to win a playoff series. I don't know if this year was an outlier or the new norm. Also have had to dealt with the Braves on a 17 year streak without winning a playoff series because they were mid/low market. They might finally win something this year. Makes it hard to invest time into anything but football.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic, when your best and most important player is nursing a nagging injury in the offseason, you prioritize his health over everything else. I don't care if they cancel OTAs and minicamp practices, if it meant the team came into training camp 100% healthy.

 

Especially Luck. This guy didn't practice or throw at all in the offseason in 2017 or 2018, and still won Comeback Player of the Year and had a really strong season in 2018. If anyone can afford to miss practices in June, it's him. The real work begins in late July.

 

And by the way, don't rule out some private throwing sessions with some receivers in the next few weeks, assuming his calf is 100%.

 

The KD injury is dramatically different, and doesn't really apply. But it doesn't take much analysis to see that light practices in the middle of the offseason have much different stakes than Game 5 of the NBA Finals, when your team is down 3-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I saw somewhere  before the injury he was planning to see the throwing coach he saw last summer.  With the injury does that now curtail his plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

 

 

And this is not new. The cap is relatively new in the NBA (30 years or so); before that, it was the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, Sixers, and basically anyone else was just regular season fodder. You think there's no parity now, it's 50 times better than it used to be. And the fact that the Bucks and Raptors were in the ECF while the Knicks and Lakers can't get in the playoffs for many years speaks volumes to parity. It also illustrates what an NBA team in a small market has to do to contend -- draft well, embrace change, empower your star players on the court, and add well rounded players to complement them. And the Pacers would have been in the mix if not for a freak injury to their best player.

 

 

I totally disagree with that.   It's just parity done differently.   In 1981 there were only 23 teams as opposed to 30, so it makes sense to get some of the same teams doing well.   The lack of parity back then was mostly due to several franchises being the big dogs.   Today the lack of parity may change, but it is still ruled by the super teams.   Who didn't have the Warriors in the finals to start the season?   Toronto was one of 3 in the East most had going.   We knew the ceiling for the Pacers was the Eastern Finals before Dipo went down.  I'm sure there are exceptions.   But once the super teams are formed after FA, we'll be able to guess who will be the top 4-5 teams in the league again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sad at the change in the NBA, because it is all about TV coverage (FA's), and shoe deals. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Myles said:

I totally disagree with that.   It's just parity done differently.   In 1981 there were only 23 teams as opposed to 30, so it makes sense to get some of the same teams doing well.   The lack of parity back then was mostly due to several franchises being the big dogs.   Today the lack of parity may change, but it is still ruled by the super teams.   Who didn't have the Warriors in the finals to start the season?   Toronto was one of 3 in the East most had going.   We knew the ceiling for the Pacers was the Eastern Finals before Dipo went down.  I'm sure there are exceptions.   But once the super teams are formed after FA, we'll be able to guess who will be the top 4-5 teams in the league again. 

 

Just because you know who the best teams will be at the beginning of the season doesn't mean there's no parity. Especially when we're talking about the small market / big market disparity.

 

Parity in sports isn't about unpredictability. It's about leveling the playing field -- to an extent -- so that bad teams can get better, and so that it's not as easy for dominant teams to stay dominant. In 1981, there was no salary cap, free agency wasn't a thing, and there were no max contracts. Parity really didn't exist.

 

And specific to Indiana, it's telling that the two teams that would have probably beat them in the playoffs are smaller market teams that are more traditionally built through the draft and trades, not a bunch of veteran players coming together in their primes. Toronto is not a super team, Milwaukee is not a super team. The only team that would have been projected as something resembling a super team in the East was Boston, and they played better without their veteran stars.

 

The Warriors actually built organically. Being able to add KD was an anomaly due to a sudden sharp increase in the salary cap. And they are the rare team that could reasonably keep their superstar core together for an extended period of time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, superrep1967 said:

Simon is extremely tight with his money despite all the city does to accommodate him with millions of dollars a year.

 

Honestly this is starting to irk me a bit. I love the Pacers, but sweet Murphy the city and state basically bend over backwards for Simon (and being honest it’s not just Pacers oriented, either.)

 

Simon is ok with getting close, but he won’t hit the gas pedal even for a minute. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Durant was out about, before the NBA playoffs started, So not knowing the extent of his injury, other than the team report given, "A calf strain", each time it was brought up in the media, one wonders if they knew it was much more serious than the team let on. Being down 3-1 and seeming in a disarray, they seemed desperate. But being the competitor Durant is maybe he thought he was ready. But for him after being out so long instead of easing back in it, he looked like he tried to do too much too fast. We all know what happened to Luck when he tried to rehab ahead of schedule.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Waylon said:

 

Honestly this is starting to irk me a bit. I love the Pacers, but sweet Murphy the city and state basically bend over backwards for Simon (and being honest it’s not just Pacers oriented, either.)

 

Simon is ok with getting close, but he won’t hit the gas pedal even for a minute. 

Well. I love the Pacers to but not as much as the Colts. I'm just thankful that Irsay will spend whatever it takes to bring home a winner and you can say what you want about him and it's probably all true but he's a great owner Simon not so much and he's probably richer than Irsay to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Wrong thread for this, so sorry to derail, but let me respond.

 

The reason you can't have a hard cap in the NBA is because you have fully guaranteed contracts. It wouldn't work (also the reason people need to stop clamoring for fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL; they're bad for NBA and MLB, and would be worse for the NFL). 

 

Another reason: This is how the NBA owners want it. Small market owners (not all, but most) want to be subsidized by the revenue sharing from big market teams, and they are okay with those big market teams going into the luxury tax and repeater tax because it increases the profits for the smaller market teams. Then, every few years or so, a small market team that has drafted a star or two can make a big run for a couple years, then tear it back down in the name of fiscal responsibility, even though they've been well in the black for multiple consecutive seasons. 

 

And this is not new. The cap is relatively new in the NBA (30 years or so); before that, it was the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, Sixers, and basically anyone else was just regular season fodder. You think there's no parity now, it's 50 times better than it used to be. And the fact that the Bucks and Raptors were in the ECF while the Knicks and Lakers can't get in the playoffs for many years speaks volumes to parity. It also illustrates what an NBA team in a small market has to do to contend -- draft well, embrace change, empower your star players on the court, and add well rounded players to complement them. And the Pacers would have been in the mix if not for a freak injury to their best player.

 

End of the day, I just took exception to the initial post because I don't get why there's something wrong with other people liking something that you don't enjoy. The NBA is incredibly popular right now; they must be doing something right, and the perceived lack of parity must not be as off-putting to NBA fans in general as it is to you.

 

I would agree with this pretty much to the t (big NBA/Pacers fan myself). Only thing that I would add is that because of how the NBA/NCAA has worked out the eligibility of collegiate players (one and done), it has become even tougher for small market teams to nail their draft picks. A good portion of the players that come out of college aren't fully developed players yet and a number of them spend years on the bench or in the G-League.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I agree. When I seen Durant go down last night the 1st thing I thought of was Luck. A Calf injury is nothing to mess around with because of the Achilles. As long is Luck 100% by Pre-season that is all that matters to me. The rest of this stuff is meaningless. Luck and Ebron looked liked they played together for 10 years before last season and they didn't have much work together. No way I risk an major injury to our franchise QB to participate in anything now.

If he isn't participating in practice by the start of TC or second week of I will be very worried.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • we are in a division that likes to run too.   the titans and texans ranked 7th and 8th in rushing yards, while the colts and jaguars were 19th and 20th.  that was down year for the jaguars, the previous year they were top 5
    • People love to prognosticate. My crystal ball broke so I don't have any insight into the future, but Ballard is using particular criteria (data) that has shown to be better predictors than merely guessing. Let's watch to see whether his approach to dealing with the unknown is better than other teams. I think we will be surprised.
    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
  • Members

    • IndySouthsider

      IndySouthsider 232

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jal8908

      jal8908 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • twfish

      twfish 1,516

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • tdblue17

      tdblue17 3

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • rob220

      rob220 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • aaron11

      aaron11 2,014

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • lincolndefan

      lincolndefan 2

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • brently76

      brently76 17

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...