Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Qb for next year/QB class of 2021 (merge)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I love how good people are at reaching conclusions, based on absolutely no information at all.    First, we were definitely getting Stafford. Now, we're definitely not. (And we will definite

Stafford was always my #1 choice among veteran options. (He was my preferred choice last offseason, someone posted a poll and I picked him.)   I'M ALL IN ON STAFFORD YALL.

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yep and people seem to be holding the next game performance against him even though it's very likely he played hurt in that one too. I really like Fields. I think if he indeed starts falling like some draft analysts are mocking nowadays, Ballard should strike and trade up. No guarantees with young QBs, but all the traits and skill is there to be nurtured and developed. 

 

I haven't watched a whole lot of him besides that one game, but it was a monster of a performance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PRnum1 said:

 

I think if Fields falls to 15 or so and not drafted, Ballard has to trade up and pull the trigger.

 

You would then have your QB for the next 10 years.

The problem is... we might enter the draft without our 1st round pick. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, compuls1v3 said:

If that's the case, doesn't that mean we have our new QB then?

Probably. 

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I haven't watched a whole lot of him besides that one game, but it was a monster of a performance. 

It's hard to beat that game. Don't set your expectations based on that game, but yeah... I think he's got high level traits and talent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

 

I think if Fields falls to 15 or so and not drafted, Ballard has to trade up and pull the trigger.

 

You would then have your QB for the next 10 years.

I don't see him falling out of the top 10.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

If SF gets Stanford I could see us going after Jimmy G. He might be a good bridge to see what Eason has and we could strike gold with him. He is younger then Stafford so if it worked out you could have him for 8 to 10 years. I haven’t really looked at his stats though.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy G numbers are pretty decent.  He is very accurate. Could expect him to have around the same numbers as rivers. My only question is he good enough to go run you games. Our defense is not as good as SF. In s two minute drill can he drive the field to win the game. Just saw his agent wants to know where SF stands with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, stitches said:

Probably, yes...  I don't think he's bad with his anticipation and awareness... I just don't think he's elite  enough with it that he can survive substantial drop in physical ability. 

 

I agree Stafford is more physically talented than Ryan. I don't agree he's close to the QB Ryan is. I don't know how to prove that. It's a very subjective thing... although one does have a Superbowl appearance and an MVP and the other one has zero playoff wins. The wins I don't want to use as an argument because I don't believe in QB wins and it's still a team game. I guess... do you value PFF? Like do you think they give some reasonable approximation of level of play? If you look at their grades for their careers... Matt Ryan has 2 seasons in the 90s(the MVP season and the one after), Ryan has other seasons rated at 85, 84.6, 84.8, 84.3, 83.1... Stafford's highest rated season was 2019 (short season for him) with 82.6. Ryan has SEVEN seasons rated higher than Stafford's best season. Ryan also rated higher this last season than Stafford. And I'm not even looking at the low end where Stafford has multiple stinkers of seasons and Ryan has a single season he was rated lower than 75. Take it for whatever it's worth. 

 

I guess we are getting a bit off-topic here with the Ryan comparison. 

 

Fair enough. I guess at the end of the day we can summarize it that you are more willing to go the Stafford route precisely because you expect him to be high level player for longer than me(maybe you also think a bit higher of him than I do too) . Either way, I don't want people to come out of my objections with the idea that I don't like Stafford. As I've said before - I still think Stafford is probably our best chance to win in the immediate and I still think he's one of the preferable paths we can take this off-season(just not the most preferable for me). I just think we should be more skeptical about his ability to play at high level deep into his 30s. And that's why I think the window with him is shorter and why I think if you get him you have to go all in now or not get him at all. 

 

I have a muted appreciation for PFF's grades. Their charting is far more valuable to me; their grades are very subjective, and based on partial information. But comparing their grades between players, and especially for one player over time, has a certain value for me. So them grading Ryan consistently higher than Stafford is noteworthy. Still, I think it's hard to account for circumstance when grading a QB.

 

Just as an aside, QB1 plays with a receiving corps that generally provides him an option on the first or second read. When they get open, he delivers the ball on time and accurately, and gets graded positively for doing so. QB2 plays with a group that gets open far less consistently. PFF grades account for that. But when QB2 goes to the third read, then doesn't hit the dump-off because now he's under pressure and there's no lane, but the dump-off was open after the second read, he'll get dinged. It's hard to account for those circumstances in grading. But if QB1 has a better coaching staff and receiving corps than QB2, he's probably going to have more positively graded plays than QB2.

 

As for Stafford, I'm not burying my head in the sand and pretending that there isn't a real possibility that he falls off due to age, fails to perform, or falls apart physically. But I think he's more capable of performing at a high level, even in his mid 30s, than it seems you do.

 

For a drafted player, that's obviously ideal. You get the rookie contract, a player who can reach great heights, and can do so for a longer period of time. But there's a great deal of risk, and it costs more in draft capital, and the timeframe is undetermined (how long do you give a young QB to perform?)

 

If we traded up and took whoever -- Fields, Wilson, etc. -- there would be a great deal of celebrating, everyone would proclaim that we have our next QB... but nobody really knows. You could be getting an immediate bust (Josh Rosen), an eventual bust (Sam Darnold), a guy who needs three years to be good (Josh Allen), or a guy who probably is good enough but still has some long term question marks (Baker Mayfield). All four of those guys went top ten three years ago, all four of their teams celebrated their drafting, and not even the Bills are ready to commit to a big extension for Allen. The Rams and Eagles were convinced enough on Wentz and Goff to pay them, and both teams are ready to move on after five years.

 

Just saying, striking on "your guy" is still very risky, and very costly, and even when you think you've hit, it's still not certain. And teams are generally reluctant to move on from a young QB, so it tends to cost them another year or two longer than it should (Jets talking about keeping Darnold, Bears with four years of Trubisky, even the Niners hanging on to JG, and he's 29). I think it's less risky to bet on Stafford playing well for five years than it is to go hard after a draft QB.

 

The reward if you hit on a draft QB is greater. And by "hit," we're talking about a foundational player for 12-15 years. But most drafted QBs, including in the first round, don't hit. Most of them cost you picks, years, and money that you can't get back.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I have a muted appreciation for PFF's grades. Their charting is far more valuable to me; their grades are very subjective, and based on partial information. But comparing their grades between players, and especially for one player over time, has a certain value for me. So them grading Ryan consistently higher than Stafford is noteworthy. Still, I think it's hard to account for circumstance when grading a QB.

 

Just as an aside, QB1 plays with a receiving corps that generally provides him an option on the first or second read. When they get open, he delivers the ball on time and accurately, and gets graded positively for doing so. QB2 plays with a group that gets open far less consistently. PFF grades account for that. But when QB2 goes to the third read, then doesn't hit the dump-off because now he's under pressure and there's no lane, but the dump-off was open after the second read, he'll get dinged. It's hard to account for those circumstances in grading. But if QB1 has a better coaching staff and receiving corps than QB2, he's probably going to have more positively graded plays than QB2.

 

As for Stafford, I'm not burying my head in the sand and pretending that there isn't a real possibility that he falls off due to age, fails to perform, or falls apart physically. But I think he's more capable of performing at a high level, even in his mid 30s, than it seems you do.

 

For a drafted player, that's obviously ideal. You get the rookie contract, a player who can reach great heights, and can do so for a longer period of time. But there's a great deal of risk, and it costs more in draft capital, and the timeframe is undetermined (how long do you give a young QB to perform?)

 

If we traded up and took whoever -- Fields, Wilson, etc. -- there would be a great deal of celebrating, everyone would proclaim that we have our next QB... but nobody really knows. You could be getting an immediate bust (Josh Rosen), an eventual bust (Sam Darnold), a guy who needs three years to be good (Josh Allen), or a guy who probably is good enough but still has some long term question marks (Baker Mayfield). All four of those guys went top ten three years ago, all four of their teams celebrated their drafting, and not even the Bills are ready to commit to a big extension for Allen. The Rams and Eagles were convinced enough on Wentz and Goff to pay them, and both teams are ready to move on after five years.

 

Just saying, striking on "your guy" is still very risky, and very costly, and even when you think you've hit, it's still not certain. And teams are generally reluctant to move on from a young QB, so it tends to cost them another year or two longer than it should (Jets talking about keeping Darnold, Bears with four years of Trubisky, even the Niners hanging on to JG, and he's 29). I think it's less risky to bet on Stafford playing well for five years than it is to go hard after a draft QB.

 

The reward if you hit on a draft QB is greater. And by "hit," we're talking about a foundational player for 12-15 years. But most drafted QBs, including in the first round, don't hit. Most of them cost you picks, years, and money that you can't get back.

Yes.  I think people think it would be easy to find the next Manning or Luck.  The Colts got those 2 by having the top pick in 2 years where there was low risk of missing on the QB.  That is almost never the case when you are drafting outside the top 5.  It would cost the Colts too much draft capital for them to do that.   Look at what the Jets gave us to move up 3 spots and draft Darnold.  Now they may be entering their 4th year with him.   They gave up lots of draft picks and 3 seasons taking that risk.   I'd rather bring in Stafford and take what you know you will get.  

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

Yes.  I think people think it would be easy to find the next Manning or Luck.  The Colts got those 2 by having the top pick in 2 years where there was low risk of missing on the QB.  That is almost never the case when you are drafting outside the top 5.  It would cost the Colts too much draft capital for them to do that.   Look at what the Jets gave us to move up 3 spots and draft Darnold.  Now they may be entering their 4th year with him.   They gave up lots of draft picks and 3 seasons taking that risk.   I'd rather bring in Stafford and take what you know you will get.  

Not that I want him, but how ironic would it be if we ended up with Darnold....coming full circle from that draft with the number 3 pick, of Darnold, Nelson, Smith, and Leonard.  lol

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Superman said:

As for Stafford, I'm not burying my head in the sand and pretending that there isn't a real possibility that he falls off due to age, fails to perform, or falls apart physically. But I think he's more capable of performing at a high level, even in his mid 30s, than it seems you do.

OK, lets skip the comparisons with Ryan and other QBs... Here's a hypothetical. Lets say we get Stafford for a 1st and conditional 2nd. What are your next moves as a GM? Do you go all in and try to restructure deals so you can get immediate high level help or do you play it more conservatively and safely(fill up holes but no more splash signings)? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stitches said:

OK, lets skip the comparisons with Ryan and other QBs... Here's a hypothetical. Lets say we get Stafford for a 1st and conditional 2nd. What are your next moves as a GM? Do you go all in and try to restructure deals so you can get immediate high level help or do you play it more conservatively and safely? 

I think you try to address the positions you needed to anyway.   LT, Edge most importantly.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stitches said:

OK, lets skip the comparisons with Ryan and other QBs... Here's a hypothetical. Lets say we get Stafford for a 1st and conditional 2nd. What are your next moves as a GM? Do you go all in and try to restructure deals so you can get immediate high level help or do you play it more conservatively and safely(fill up holes but no more splash signings)? 

 

I'd keep Rhodes, TY and Houston, try to get a FA LT, see if I could land Ertz or Henry, and cross my fingers that the defense can get a little more pressure (because there are no FA pass rushers I think would make a difference). Maybe Bud Dupree? Restructure Ryan Kelly and Stafford to add a little cap space if necessary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think you try to address the positions you needed to anyway.   LT, Edge most importantly.  

 

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'd keep Rhodes, TY and Houston, try to get a FA LT, see if I could land Ertz or Henry, and cross my fingers that the defense can get a little more pressure (because there are no FA pass rushers I think would make a difference). Maybe Bud Dupree? Restructure Ryan Kelly and Stafford to add a little cap space if necessary.

I've been thinking... rumor is Dallas might go OT in the 1st... and they might want to trade or release Tyron Smith to make space for Dak. Lets say you can get him for a 4th on his current contract(about 15-16M a year)... do you do that? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, stitches said:

The problem is... we might enter the draft without our 1st round pick. 

 

I guess what I'm saying is keep the 21st pick.

 

If Detroit demands it, walk away.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stitches said:

 

I've been thinking... rumor is Dallas might go OT in the 1st... and they might want to trade or release Tyron Smith to make space for Dak. Lets say you can get him for a 4th on his current contract(about 15-16M a year)... do you do that? 

 

Nope. I don't trust Smith to stay healthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

 

I guess what I'm saying is keep the 21st pick.

 

If Detroit demands it, walk away.

 

So how do you think we would be able to get Stafford?

 

They would walk away without a 1st.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iuswingman said:

 

So how do you think we would be able to get Stafford?

 

They would walk away if without a 1st.

Yep.   I think Stafford is worth a 1st as well.   especially the 21st pick.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Gotlieb on his show today brought up the possibility of Luck returning.  Thought it was very interesting how Irsay talked about him yesterday.  He even went as far to say he might have had someone ask him the question so he could respond in public.  Doug thinks Luck, after seeing what Rivers accomplished this year, might actually be open to returning.  He thinks Irsay's comments were meant to reach Luck and attempt to have him rethink the possibility.  He thinks Irsay should reach out considering how desirable our team is right now for a veteran QB to make a SB run.  Signing Luck would save draft capital to be used on improving the team even more.  He's got a point.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

Doug Gotlieb on his show today brought up the possibility of Luck returning.  Thought it was very interesting how Irsay talked about him yesterday.  He even went as far to say he might have had someone ask him the question so he could respond in public.  Doug thinks Luck, after seeing what Rivers accomplished this year, might actually be open to returning.  He thinks Irsay's comments were meant to reach Luck and attempt to have him rethink the possibility.  He thinks Irsay should reach out considering how desirable our team is right now for a veteran QB to make a SB run.  Signing Luck would save draft capital to be used on improving the team even more.  He's got a point.

Luck isn't coming back 

People need to move on 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone on the SF reddit runs a SF podcast. They have been right about a lot of stuff with SF. They say SF is just hammering out final details with Stafford. I am going to bet he goes to SF and we are stuck with a bunch of left overs. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stitches said:

Yep and people seem to be holding the next game performance against him even though it's very likely he played hurt in that one too. I really like Fields. I think if he indeed starts falling like some draft analysts are mocking nowadays, Ballard should strike and trade up. No guarantees with young QBs, but all the traits and skill is there to be nurtured and developed. 

I think Ryan Day is trying to get Ohio State QB’s more NFL ready (starting with Fields).  The first half of the championship game, it looked like Day wanted to showcase Fields’ ability to throw from the pocket.  Manipulate safeties and take more intermediate shots off of play action. That plan went out the window when RB1 Sermon was hurt on the very first play.  The running game with RB2 Teague was a joke.  Looked like he had the speed of a fullback.  No fear of a running game allowed Alabama to just crowd the throwing lanes.  Fields struggled but still battled.  
 

2nd half Day implemented more rollouts and Fields had a much better 2nd half.  With 2 beautiful NFL caliber TD passes called back on review.  One was like a 30 plus yard corner route to the front pylon that the receiver caught but was juggling as he went out of bounds.  It was maybe even more impressive than the two 50-60 yard bombs in the semifinal game.  The 2nd was one of those shots up the seam in the redzone where you have to get it up over the linebackers and back down so the receiver can toe drag before going out of bounds.  Looked like the receiver got the one foot in before the other touched out.  They ruled incomplete but the throw was perfect regardless.  
 

If the reports are true (and not just gamesmanship), I can easily see why Ballard and staff would be enamored with Fields.  And if the next “Golden Boy” Trevor is coming to the division, why not get his high school rival Justin?  Fields somehow keeps finding ways to hang with and outplay the next “can’t miss prospect” on all the biggest stages (Elite 11 passing competition, back to back semifinals games, & better career and seasonal stats).  I just hope he drops to where we can go up and get him.  
 

The zone reads with him, Taylor, & Hines would be so explosive...  Also his ability to throw the deep ball, comeback routes, and scramble plays once again make TY an effective weapon.  I kept showing the stats in other threads that showed when we ran more than we threw it we were undefeated last year.  And when Rivers was forced to pass it 60% of the time or more we only won 1 game.  We need to be more of a running team and maximize the effectiveness of our all pro OLine.  Fields would bring that to the table and would be less likely to abandon the running game for the short passing game being only a rookie.  Frank & Brady would be able to mold and groom him and the offense around him as they saw fit.  Allowing them to all share the same vision. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, danlhart87 said:

Luck isn't coming back 

People need to move on 

Probably isn't coming back.

We shouldn't depend on it, but it is good to keep the gates open.  

We should pursue Stafford, but there isn't anything wrong with trying to plant the seed in Lucks mind.  It would be a poor choice if Irsay didn't throw an offer to Luck.   Odds are very poor, but if there is a chance, it can't hurt to offer.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Myles said:

Probably isn't coming back.

We shouldn't depend on it, but it is good to keep the gates open.  

We should pursue Stafford, but there isn't anything wrong with trying to plant the seed in Lucks mind.  It would be a poor choice if Irsay didn't throw an offer to Luck.   Odds are very poor, but if there is a chance, it can't hurt to offer.

I honestly wouldn't want him back

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Myles said:

Probably isn't coming back.

We shouldn't depend on it, but it is good to keep the gates open.  

We should pursue Stafford, but there isn't anything wrong with trying to plant the seed in Lucks mind.  It would be a poor choice if Irsay didn't throw an offer to Luck.   Odds are very poor, but if there is a chance, it can't hurt to offer.


Totally understand your perspective, but I’ve heard that Ballard really doesn’t like the Luck talk and believes that ship has definitively sailed.  Heard Chappie discussing that today on air.  
 

Bowen had to at least ask the question, and Jim is the eternal optimist.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zibby43 said:


Totally understand your perspective, but I’ve heard that Ballard really doesn’t like the Luck talk and believes that ship has definitively sailed.  Heard Chappie discussing that today on air.  
 

Bowen had to at least ask the question, and Jim is the eternal optimist.

Just posted this common sense in another thread, but it belongs here as well.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zibby43 said:


Totally understand your perspective, but I’ve heard that Ballard really doesn’t like the Luck talk and believes that ship has definitively sailed.  Heard Chappie discussing that today on air.  
 

Bowen had to at least ask the question, and Jim is the eternal optimist.

It's low odds, but if Luck said he wanted to come back, it would make Ballards job much easier.  They could use the 21st pick on a LT and be in good shape.   I don't think it will happen but leave the option open and let Luck choose.  I don't think anyone thinks it will actually happen, but leave the door open.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smoke317 said:

I think Ryan Day is trying to get Ohio State QB’s more NFL ready (starting with Fields).  The first half of the championship game, it looked like Day wanted to showcase Fields’ ability to throw from the pocket.  Manipulate safeties and take more intermediate shots off of play action. That plan went out the window when RB1 Sermon was hurt on the very first play.  The running game with RB2 Teague was a joke.  Looked like he had the speed of a fullback.  No fear of a running game allowed Alabama to just crowd the throwing lanes.  Fields struggled but still battled.  
 

2nd half Day implemented more rollouts and Fields had a much better 2nd half.  With 2 beautiful NFL caliber TD passes called back on review.  One was like a 30 plus yard corner route to the front pylon that the receiver caught but was juggling as he went out of bounds.  It was maybe even more impressive than the two 50-60 yard bombs in the semifinal game.  The 2nd was one of those shots up the seam in the redzone where you have to get it up over the linebackers and back down so the receiver can toe drag before going out of bounds.  Looked like the receiver got the one foot in before the other touched out.  They ruled incomplete but the throw was perfect regardless.  
 

If the reports are true (and not just gamesmanship), I can easily see why Ballard and staff would be enamored with Fields.  And if the next “Golden Boy” Trevor is coming to the division, why not get his high school rival Justin?  Fields somehow keeps finding ways to hang with and outplay the next “can’t miss prospect” on all the biggest stages (Elite 11 passing competition, back to back semifinals games, & better career and seasonal stats).  I just hope he drops to where we can go up and get him.  
 

The zone reads with him, Taylor, & Hines would be so explosive...  Also his ability to throw the deep ball, comeback routes, and scramble plays once again make TY an effective weapon.  I kept showing the stats in other threads that showed when we ran more than we threw it we were undefeated last year.  And when Rivers was forced to pass it 60% of the time or more we only won 1 game.  We need to be more of a running team and maximize the effectiveness of our all pro OLine.  Fields would bring that to the table and would be less likely to abandon the running game for the short passing game being only a rookie.  Frank & Brady would be able to mold and groom him and the offense around him as they saw fit.  Allowing them to all share the same vision. 
 

I agree that Fields has a world of potential but IMO he won't be ready to start as a rookie, at least not on a team that is allegedly in a "Super Bowl window," which most Colts fans apparently think the team is now in (I don't).

 

The Fields I saw vs IU showed, for such an outstanding athlete, pretty average in-pocket awareness/mobility, and like Jones at Alabama, it looked like he was so spoiled with having athletically superior receivers that he struggled when he had to go beyond the first read in his progressions and gave up some interceptions as a result.

 

The Clemson game showed that he has plenty of potential to overcome that, but to think it will happen immediately next fall is IMO a bit optimistic. Fields is a developmental QB--one with a potentially "elite" ceiling, to be sure, but a developmental QB nonetheless. If the Colts were to move up to draft him, that tells me Ballard thinks the team is not in the proverbial "SB window" after all, but is more like 2-3 years away (regardless of what the owner says publicly).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From Reddit:

Lions total defense

09: 32

10: 32

11: 19 Playoffs, Pro Bowl

12: 23

13: 15

14: 3 Playoffs, Pro Bowl

15: 23

16: 13 Playoffs, pro Bowl

17: 21

18: 16

19: 26

20: 32

 

Lions total rushing

09: 24

10: 23

11: 29

12: 23

13: 17

14: 28

15: 32

16: 30

17: 32

18: 23

19: 21

20: 30

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

So someone on the SF reddit runs a SF podcast. They have been right about a lot of stuff with SF. They say SF is just hammering out final details with Stafford. I am going to bet he goes to SF and we are stuck with a bunch of left overs. 

Wouldn't surprise me.  Lynch is one heck of a GM.  He's a man of action.

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

So far Campbell, ouch?? I hope he pans out for our sake.

This is what's going to happen. Luck decides he wants to come out of retirement...the Colts trade him straight up for Watson. Andrew goes back home and Watson gets his new team.happy fangirl GIF by Jim Gaffigan

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

This is what's going to happen. Luck decides he wants to come out of retirement...the Colts trade him straight up for Watson. Andrew goes back home and Watson gets his new team.happy fangirl GIF by Jim Gaffigan

Then Luck retires again before season 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...