Jump to content
SportsWrath

WHAT WAS CONFIRMED BY NY vs. NE


BadEgg

Recommended Posts

Very good point, indeed. And if the Giants lose this weekend and Eli plays like he did in at least half of the 2007 regular season games, Eli will be one step closer to legitimizing what his legacy will ultimately be:

 

B-U-S-T

 

Just wanted to remind you of that fun fact. Chew on that while you watch the Chargers advance further than the Giants thanks, in large part, to the theft they committed during the draft several years ago.

 

I am still waiting for the league to punish the Chargers as some rule must have been broken that day.

 

:o

Did I strike a nerve? :(

 

30-26, even with the miserable rookie record; not up to what we're looking for, but not a bust, either.

 

Philip Rivers was just gang-busters this year, huh? And Merriman has done squat off of the juice. But I do regret not having Ray Keating.

 

Last year, you started to slide in December, right? This year...odd...

 

2006: 1-3 in December, 0-1 playoffs

2007: 2-2 in December

 

Kinda scary, ain't it?

 

Not a pre-emptive excuse, just a fact. You take TO away and Dallas is a different team, just like the Giants would be if they lost Burress. Just like the Pats would be if Brady had bad thumb and they lost either Moss or Welker.

 

However, I suspect both Romo and TO will be healthy, and they will be too much for a stingy but outmanned TB defense. So this debate is moot.

 

Injuries are no excuse. You've said that for years, if I recall...besides, you have your defe :LMAO: :LMAO:

 

You guys are so fucked if your offense struggles--Buffalo and Carolina aren't available.

 

That's the great Giants excuse:

 

Nope, that's a damning statement, not an excuse--he said that the Giants played short of their ability for a few games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Parcells put together a great team in Dallas. He believed in a little known guy in Tony Romo and he was right. Although Tony has had his bad games, he is one of the top QBs in the NFC. Marion Barber III, Jason Witten, Demarcus Ware, Terrence Newman, the big boys on the O-line, the Cowboys seem not to have any weaknesses all-around. They have playmakers everywhere on offense and defense. I would be proud if I was a Cowboys fan.

 

For the Giants, it is clear where our weaknesses are, in the secondary and at QB. That said, because of our tremendous front seven and running game in particular, we can mask those weaknesses to a degree. And who knows, maybe Eli got the confidence he needs in that NE game to start to turn things around. Our team was not supposed to compete for the playoffs this year and yet here we are. We are 10-6 despite bad QB play for much of the season. Not many teams would be able to survive what the kind of QB play we've seen this year. SO, now it's the playoffs, and anything can happen. I feel good knowing that my team can beat any team in the NFC. Not saying that will happen, but we have that capability. I would not feel good playing us if I was another team in the playoffs, be it Dallas or whoever. So I will sit back and watch and we will see who comes out on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet Burress was well enough to play. Owens may not be. But if Ownes has the same injury as Burress and the severity is the same, I'm sure that the Cowboys will be fine. Remember, Burress is the poor-man's Owens...

 

The Giants are much better than their records indicates? Tell me, what does getting spanked three times by the two best teams in the conference indicate?

 

Using BadEggLogic, yes, here's why...

 

The Giants have had injuries to key players all season.

 

Burress

Jacobs

Ward

Shockey

Kiwanuka... to name a few.

 

What's fair is fair, the Giants haven't been healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Giants have beaten no one? The Cowboys have beaten the Packers and the Giants and the Redskins in the NFC with winning records. Since the Giants are no one one's, and no credit is given to the Giants for beating the SKins, other than the Packers, I assume we can say the Cowboys have beaten no one either?

 

The entire NFC playoff field is made up of teams that beat no one, some(the Boys) beat all the no one's and played best against the rest of what is the current playoff field.

 

Kudos to the Boys for doing what they did to get the #1 seed, beating all the same shitty teams the Giants, Redskins and Packers did and by also beating them. Also credit the entire NFC east, which far and away was the best divison in the NFC and arguably each team(Eagles included) would have won either the West or South had they played in that division with 6 games against horrendous teams.

 

BTW the Cowboys did not "spank" the Giants. That game was a 3 point game with 5 minutes to go when Romo threw a TD that should never have happened due to an offsides by Patrick Crayton on the 3rd and 7 final TD and the Giants tied that game at home not once, but TWICE in th 4th quarter, only to have the plays called back by what even the most biased fan would call marginal calls at best. Each game was hardly a spanking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the great Giants excuse:

 

If the defense played at a better level against Dallas the first game...

If Manning played at a higher level against Dallas the second game...

If the Giants played at the same level as they did against NE they would have beaten GB or will beat GB.

If the Giants played to the proper level against the Vikings...

If the Giants play at the same level as they did against NE they would have beaten the Skins...

If the Giants played at a higher level against Detroit it would not have been so close...

 

IF THE DOLPHINS HAD PLAYED AT A HIGHER LEVEL ALL SEASON MAYBE THEY WOULD BE IN THE PLAYOFFS

 

The bottom line is that the Giants have not played at a high level against good teams. And most of the teams in the playoffs, while not great, are good.

 

Nothing in the Giants recent history says they are capable of running the table.

 

Nothing.

 

Winning in TB will be a huge challenge.

 

But, anything is possible, if the Giants defense plays at a high level and if the weather is at a high level and if Manning performs at a high level and if____ plays at a high level, and if _____ plays at a high level...

 

You get the picture.

 

Those are not excuses, but rather common sense logic. If you play better, you might win. It holds more weight than a pre-emptive not healthy excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Giants have beaten no one? The Cowboys have beaten the Packers and the Giants and the Redskins in the NFC with winning records. Since the Giants are no one one's, and no credit is given to the Giants for beating the SKins, other than the Packers, I assume we can say the Cowboys have beaten no one either?

 

The entire NFC playoff field is made up of teams that beat no one, some(the Boys) beat all the no one's and played best against the rest of what is the current playoff field.

 

Kudos to the Boys for doing what they did to get the #1 seed, beating all the same shitty teams the Giants, Redskins and Packers did and by also beating them. Also credit the entire NFC east, which far and away was the best divison in the NFC and arguably each team(Eagles included) would have won either the West or South had they played in that division with 6 games against horrendous teams.

 

BTW the Cowboys did not "spank" the Giants. That game was a 3 point game with 5 minutes to go when Romo threw a TD that should never have happened due to an offsides by Patrick Crayton on the 3rd and 7 final TD and the Giants tied that game at home not once, but TWICE in th 4th quarter, only to have the plays called back by what even the most biased fan would call marginal calls at best. Each game was hardly a spanking.

Not to mention, Tony Romo crossing the line of scrimage by nearly two yards wasn't called a penalty. And misteriously, there was no reply available by the network. But yet, we were seeing it on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the great Giants excuse:

 

If the defense played at a better level against Dallas the first game...

If Manning played at a higher level against Dallas the second game...

If the Giants played at the same level as they did against NE they would have beaten GB or will beat GB.

If the Giants played to the proper level against the Vikings...

If the Giants play at the same level as they did against NE they would have beaten the Skins...

If the Giants played at a higher level against Detroit it would not have been so close...

 

IF THE DOLPHINS HAD PLAYED AT A HIGHER LEVEL ALL SEASON MAYBE THEY WOULD BE IN THE PLAYOFFS

 

The bottom line is that the Giants have not played at a high level against good teams. And most of the teams in the playoffs, while not great, are good.

 

Nothing in the Giants recent history says they are capable of running the table.

 

Nothing.

 

Winning in TB will be a huge challenge.

 

But, anything is possible, if the Giants defense plays at a high level and if the weather is at a high level and if Manning performs at a high level and if____ plays at a high level, and if _____ plays at a high level...

 

You get the picture.

 

If Romo doesn't fumble the snap last year, maybe Dallas win the Superbowl.

 

And I'm not poking fun at that but basically countering the non point you're making. I understand the "what if's " my friend, but what is life without him.

 

Fact is, and say what you wish, if the Giants play to their potential, then they should be able to beat those teams. Was there not games this year, where you said to yourself that your Cowboys could have played better?. Did you not think that if they had played up to their potential, they would have beaten the Eagles at home perhaps.

 

And as for the Dolphins, Badegg, playing at a higher level wouldn't help them. Shitty players, shitty GM, shitty coaching, poor drafts, trading stars. They played at their highest level, it won them one game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention, Tony Romo crossing the line of scrimage by nearly two yards wasn't called a penalty. And misteriously, there was no reply available by the network. But yet, we were seeing it on TV.

 

This thread is like a Giants excuse highlight real.

 

Second only to "if we play to our potential" is some issue with officiating...

 

Perhaps Romo's crossing the line of scrimage would not be such a sore spot had the Giants just:

 

sacked him?

 

covered Tony Curtis?

 

protected Eli in the first half?

 

covered TO in the second half?

 

I guess none of these other options were available. I certainly hope the Cowboys play their post season games on that mysterious network that hides the replays.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Romo doesn't fumble the snap last year, maybe Dallas win the Superbowl.

 

And I'm not poking fun at that but basically countering the non point you're making. I understand the "what if's " my friend, but what is life without him.

 

Fact is, and say what you wish, if the Giants play to their potential, then they should be able to beat those teams. Was there not games this year, where you said to yourself that your Cowboys could have played better?. Did you not think that if they had played up to their potential, they would have beaten the Eagles at home perhaps.

 

And as for the Dolphins, Badegg, playing at a higher level wouldn't help them. Shitty players, shitty GM, shitty coaching, poor drafts, trading stars. They played at their highest level, it won them one game.

 

You are right. The Giants may compete for a Superbowl if they play to their potential. But the problem is that, when they play good teams, they never play to their potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory is simple: The Giants are 0-3 against GB and Dallas this year and, if I am not mistaken, maybe beat 1 or 2 teams with a winning record. Even more damning is the fact that one of the teams that the Giants beat with a winning record is Washington. But when Washington got hot and the Giants played them at home with a chance to clinch a playoff birth, they got owned.

 

Do you really think that the Giants can go into TB and win, and then win back to back games against a combo of GB/Dall/Seattle, provided these team are fairly healthy?

All on the road?

 

With what we know about the Giants secondary and QB?

 

Do you REALLY believe that? :huh:

 

 

We're 7-1 on the road this season. And of those teams with losing records, we swept one of them who happens to be the same team that beat you(Philly) recently. Not to mention beating a team who swept the Packers (Bears), and in the game against NE, who BTW we played significantly better than the girlz did, the aforemnetioned "QB", outplayed not only Brady, but the performance by Homo in thier matchup.

 

So the answer to your question.....Yeah, I believe that. Its the NFL. Any given Sunday baby, any given Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is like a Giants excuse highlight real.

 

Second only to "if we play to our potential" is some issue with officiating...

 

Perhaps Romo's crossing the line of scrimage would not be such a sore spot had the Giants just:

 

sacked him?

 

covered Tony Curtis?

 

protected Eli in the first half?

 

covered TO in the second half?

 

I guess none of these other options were available. I certainly hope the Cowboys play their post season games on that mysterious network that hides the replays.

 

The only reason why Tony Curtis was so wide open is because the safety covering Curtis left him when he saw Romo cross the line and went to tackle him. In fact he was the player that susjested the coaches to check the replay.

 

Oh, even Moose Johnson said those two holding penalties and none call were horrible calls, and it cost the Giants the game. The Giants were in the game....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason why Tony Curtis was so wide open is because the safety covering Curtis left him when he saw Romo cross the line and went to tackle him. In fact he was the player that susjested the coaches to check the replay.

 

Oh, even Moose Johnson said those two holding penalties and none call were horrible calls, and it cost the Giants the game. The Giants were in the game....

 

Not to mention that last TD by T.O was not a TD, he wasnt in and no replay to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason why Tony Curtis was so wide open is because the safety covering Curtis left him when he saw Romo cross the line and went to tackle him. In fact he was the player that susjested the coaches to check the replay.

 

Oh, even Moose Johnson said those two holding penalties and none call were horrible calls, and it cost the Giants the game. The Giants were in the game....

 

I really don't want to be confrontational, but arguing "holding"penalties is really the botton of the barrel as far as excuses go. They can be called or non-called on any given play, and the 2007 Giants, while not a championship team, have entirely too much talent to blame losses on "holding" discrepancies.

 

But if you are on this crusade, by all means review the 2000 Superbowl, you may find enough "holding" discrepancies to erase the 24 point deficit between the Giants and Ravens. You never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that the Giants are a bad team, but I can discount their road victories after Dallas. The teams they played are as follows:

 

Redskins

Eagles

Falcons

Dolphines

Lions

Bears

Bills

 

I don't know the exact records of these teams, but I think it's safe to say that the one thing that they all have in common, with the exception of the Skins and maybe the Eagles, is that they SUCKED!

 

And I can't discount that the Giants got owned at home against the Skins with a playoff birth on the line. It is amazing that a win against a sloppy, lack-luster Bills team followed by another home loss erases memories of that skins game.

 

Looks eerily similar to the Cowboys' schedule doesn't it?

 

So tell us, who have the Cowboys beaten? We know they've taken care of the Giants twice, but since you think so lowly of them, it would be hypocritical of you to use them as a measuring stick here.

 

Green Bay? I believe that was the game in which Favre was lost early, wasn't it? I guess they weren't exactly healthy, were they?

 

Nice touch in an earlier post referring to the Eagles and Skins as the only good teams the Giants have beaten. What a coincidence that those two teams have recently won games against the Cowboys. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks eerily similar to the Cowboys' schedule doesn't it?

 

So tell us, who have the Cowboys beaten? We know they've taken care of the Giants twice, but since you think so lowly of them, it would be hypocritical of you to use them as a measuring stick here.

 

Green Bay? I believe that was the game in which Favre was lost early, wasn't it? I guess they weren't exactly healthy, were they?

 

Nice touch in an earlier post referring to the Eagles and Skins as the only good teams the Giants have beaten. What a coincidence that those two teams have recently won games against the Cowboys. :rolleyes:

 

Hmmm...the point of this post is that the Giants will not compete with the top tier offenses because of their poor defensive backfield.

 

I don't think the Giants are a "bad" team. Afterall, they made the playoffs. They could upset Dallas or GB in round two. But, should they get by TB, they will not win back-to-back games in Seattle, GB or Dallas. Obviously, I do not feel the Redskins and their overrated QB are going to the NFC Championship game. In fact, I don't like their overrated QB against the underrated Seattle defense.

 

I am not impressed by the Giants "road" victories. The quality of most of the teams that the Giants played on the road was poor. The Giants would have most likely won these games had they played them at home and, if that were the case, the Giant fan base would have been claiming they are unbeatable at home. Therefore, I don't think the Giants or their fans should take comfort in the fact, as some of you homies are, that the Giants will be on the road in the playoffs.

 

The problem with the Giants, and all of you people know it deep down inside, is not with penalties and injuries. It's the fact that when the Giants had the opportunity to play in big games this season against good teams the Giants consistently fell short.

 

The scores of both Cowboy games, the GB and the NE game, as well as the big game against Washington at the Meadowlands was 0-0 in the first quarter. Yet, somehow and someway, the Giants ended up on the losing end after sixty minutes of football.

 

Why is that suddenly going to change after 16 weeks?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...the point of this post is that the Giants will not compete with the top tier offenses because of their poor defensive backfield.

Is losing to New England by three considered 'not competing with the top tier Offenses'? Just a question?

 

I don't think the Giants are a "bad" team. Afterall, they made the playoffs. They could upset Dallas or GB in round two. But, should they get by TB, they will not win back-to-back games in Seattle, GB or Dallas. Obviously, I do not feel the Redskins and their overrated QB are going to the NFC Championship game. In fact, I don't like their overrated QB against the underrated Seattle defense.

Now Now...no one knows this for a fact huh Egg. The year Pittsburgh won all road games en route to the Superbowl win, there were doubters then. And granted Collins isn't Tony Romo BUT he has led his team to victories lately....who's overrating him?

 

I am not impressed by the Giants "road" victories. The quality of most of the teams that the Giants played on the road was poor. The Giants would have most likely won these games had they played them at home and, if that were the case, the Giant fan base would have been claiming they are unbeatable at home. Therefore, I don't think the Giants or their fans should take comfort in the fact, as some of you homies are, that the Giants will be on the road in the playoffs.

Giants played BETTER on the road than at home...I don't get your 'logic'.

 

The problem with the Giants, and all of you people know it deep down inside, is not with penalties and injuries. It's the fact that when the Giants had the opportunity to play in big games this season against good teams the Giants consistently fell short. Why is that suddenly going to change after 16 weeks?

With the exception of a Miami, didn't MOST teams go thru ups and downs during the season? (minus NE and Dallas too). Washington (in the beginning of the season) wasn't that hot.....but now they are. Reguardless of who they played they are HOT! Tampa Bay has lost 2 out of thier last three games (I believe) but yet you seem to think the Giants will have trouble vs them? Why should anyone think that based on your theory of "why should that suddenly change after 16 weeks?" What would be your theory IF the Giants knock off the Bucs? Or Seattle knocks off the Redskins? I'm curious?

 

And if you are 'dead on' with your theories and beliefs???Who should I bet on to win it all this season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...the point of this post is that the Giants will not compete with the top tier offenses because of their poor defensive backfield.

 

I don't think the Giants are a "bad" team. Afterall, they made the playoffs. They could upset Dallas or GB in round two. But, should they get by TB, they will not win back-to-back games in Seattle, GB or Dallas. Obviously, I do not feel the Redskins and their overrated QB are going to the NFC Championship game. In fact, I don't like their overrated QB against the underrated Seattle defense.

 

I am not impressed by the Giants "road" victories. The quality of most of the teams that the Giants played on the road was poor. The Giants would have most likely won these games had they played them at home and, if that were the case, the Giant fan base would have been claiming they are unbeatable at home. Therefore, I don't think the Giants or their fans should take comfort in the fact, as some of you homies are, that the Giants will be on the road in the playoffs.

 

The problem with the Giants, and all of you people know it deep down inside, is not with penalties and injuries. It's the fact that when the Giants had the opportunity to play in big games this season against good teams the Giants consistently fell short.

 

The scores of both Cowboy games, the GB and the NE game, as well as the big game against Washington at the Meadowlands was 0-0 in the first quarter. Yet, somehow and someway, the Giants ended up on the losing end after sixty minutes of football.

 

Why is that suddenly going to change after 16 weeks?

 

Sooooo are you going to enlighten us as to what impressive victories the Cowboys have had this year? Like I said, they had pretty much the same schedule as the Giants, and the showdown with GB cannot be properly evaluated since Favre went down early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the exception of a Miami, didn't MOST teams go thru ups and downs during the season? (minus NE and Dallas too). Washington (in the beginning of the season) wasn't that hot.....but now they are. Reguardless of who they played they are HOT! Tampa Bay has lost 2 out of thier last three games (I believe) but yet you seem to think the Giants will have trouble vs them? Why should anyone think that based on your theory of "why should that suddenly change after 16 weeks?" What would be your theory IF the Giants knock off the Bucs? Or Seattle knocks off the Redskins? I'm curious?

 

And if you are 'dead on' with your theories and beliefs???Who should I bet on to win it all this season?

 

I wonder if Pittsburgh was asked "why should that change after 16 weeks?" in 2005...

 

Anything can happen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Pittsburgh was asked "why should that change after 16 weeks?" in 2005...

 

Anything can happen!

My point EXACTLY. I mean the Steelers IF they were to play exactly the same for 16 straight weeks (in their Superbowl winning season) what would u have? Teams get hot, teams get cold...it's the NFL.

 

"Oh we were 10 and 6 during the regular season, we won the last 4 of 5 remaining games....why should we hope to win in the playoffs...after all were only 10 and 6..."

 

Read that out loud Egg and see how silly that sounds. I guess only 13-3, 11-5 or 16-0 teams should 'care' about the post season. Obviously (according to Egg) only 'good' teams need apply!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dog has little interest in the debate here, except for the constant whining about penalties...fans of any team can site examples of poor officiating (or at least poor in their opinion...) in most games, and yes sometimes they can be costly...but this is a part of the game...like injuries, the Giant's fans second favorite excuse...

 

holding happens on every ply...there is no conspiracy

Romo was not over the line of scrimmage, and the defined rule that was given right after the play supported the noncall...there is no conspiracy

Owens was in bounds on the catch...there is no conspiracy

 

bad calls are bad calls...stop the whining...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dog has little interest in the debate here, except for the constant whining about penalties...fans of any team can site examples of poor officiating (or at least poor in their opinion...) in most games, and yes sometimes they can be costly...but this is a part of the game...like injuries, the Giant's fans second favorite excuse...
Yup, you are right... Having over 12 players on IR is not an excuse. Any team should be able to win the SB with that many injuries....

 

holding happens on every ply...there is no conspiracy

Romo was not over the line of scrimmage, and the defined rule that was given right after the play supported the noncall...there is no conspiracy

Owens was in bounds on the catch...there is no conspiracy

 

bad calls are bad calls...stop the whining...

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. He was well over the line of scrimmage when he thru the ball. Who defined it right after the play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, you are right... Having over 12 players on IR is not an excuse. Any team should be able to win the SB with that many injuries....

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. He was well over the line of scrimmage when he thru the ball. Who defined it right after the play?

 

Injuries have plagued teams throughout, and there are numerous examples of teams overcoming them to get to and even win Super Bowls...the beloved Giants won with Jeff Hostetler at QB, the Broncos won a Super Bowl after going 5-0 with Bubby Brister as the starter during the season (Bubby Brister?), the Patriots won with a WR playing nickel back, the Redskins won with Doug Williams taking over, the Eagles made it after losing Owens, the Rams...all key injuries to players that impacted the teams...the injury issue has been one for 4 seasons now...stop the excuse and fix the problem...perhaps not giving up as much for a mediocre QB and using the picks to draft depth would be a start...but that is a debate for another time...

 

the officiating is what it is...the Dog grows tired of the excuse cropping up every year the Giants fall short (the Dog's all time favorite was years ago on the other board when one fine poster stated that the Giants lost the game to the 49ers in the playoffs because the officials had been paid off by the mob...really, the mob...)...enough already...watch the play again...Romo was not over the line when he threw the pass, and the announcer (as did several analysts on various news organizations supported that...)...in the end, it is a very rare occassion that an officials bad call loses a game for a team (possibly the Miami-Ohio State national championship is the best example...)...in the end, year after year, game after game, the whining is simply just that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the officiating is what it is...the Dog grows tired of the excuse cropping up every year the Giants fall short ...enough already...watch the play again...Romo was not over the line when he threw the pass, and the announcer (as did several analysts on various news organizations supported that...)...in the end, it is a very rare occassion that an officials bad call loses a game for a team

Question: (I'm just taking an example from a game). For example the Giants are on Defense...playing the BEST perfect team on the planet....it's the fourth quarter....the offense is facing 3rd and 6...QB drops back to pass...gets sacked...brings up 4th down right? Oh no! Holding Defense - - - 1st down Offense. Replay shows that both reciever and DB bumped each other. Mind you in the third Quarter , the refs overlooked a WORSE "holding" situation (the takedown by the DB on a WR in the end zone before the ball arrived). Back to the 'perfect team' staying alive on that drive..... Offense stays alive....gets three points out of it. My question is what makes you think that 'holding' call did NOT affect the game???? And that's just ONE example. Lots of refs calls affect the game. Every game isn't a blowout. Sure lots of games come down to a play or two AND plenty of games come down to a refs 'call' or two also.

NFL network even has a segment where the Assistant commisioner of the refs explains these effed up calls that affect games.....why? If it's so rare that calls affect the outcome of games....why have a segment on it???

 

SO....what makes you think that 'holding' call did NOT affect the game???? :unsure:

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...