Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BurpleBull

Beane's Counterbalance to Missing on Josh Allen: Great Trades, Drafting, and Free Agent Pickups.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

McD has only been here for 1 year, granted that was one hell of a year but the results are limited. Tons of coaches who had fantastic opening years but then went on to not have a good long-term tenure. Now I like most of the moves on paper this regime has made. But 2018 might be a rough 6-10 type year and 2019 this new regime might be on a shorter leash.

I agree again. My conclusion was that last season you could count on defense getting the job done for the most part. A couple of touchdowns away from the next round of the playoffs. With a better offence I think the Bills would have a real shot at Superbowl. I believe McDermott was a factor when it comes to the amount of turnovers defense forced. 

 

In my mind it's all about the OC and what the offense becomes. If the offense becomes a threat then we are on are way. When you say 6-10 you got to be thinking more of an offence that can't score point then a defense that gives up the games. At least that is my thoughts as to why the record might not be good. 

 

Edited by Lfod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 3:03 AM, Nihilarian said:

 

...Both Mularkey and Marrone quit on the team for different reasons and in Saint Doug's case, I don't blame him for not wanting to work under Whaley...

 

 

Mularkey quit when Marv became GM, saying he didn't think the team was being set up to succeed.  

 

From espn:

Sources said that, while family considerations played a large role in Mularkey's decision, his views on the future of the franchise were also a significant factor. Since the end to a dismal season, the Buffalo organization has undergone a quick overhaul, and people in the NFL have questioned the Bills' direction.

A source close to Mularkey told ESPN.com's John Clayton the primary reason for Mularkey's resignation was professional. According to the source, Mularkey didn't think the way the Bills were being set up would create an environment in which he could be successful.

 

Mularkey may have been the first person to sense what a dumpster fire of a front office we'd have for the next 11 years.  

 

Consider:

  • GM Marv Levy - 2006, 2007
  • GM Russ Brandon - 2008, 2009
  • GM Buddy Nix - 2010, 2011, 2012
  • GM Doug Whaley - 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

All of these guys were among the worst, if not the undisputed worst (Brandon?) GMs in the league during their respective tenures.  

 

Abso****inglutely rigod****diculous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Why? It's one year and we could get really bad if we keep missing.

 

McDermott has won my heart. Beane has yet to earn it.

 

I think McDermott and Beane work well together, they are a duo, a very solid duo as I see it.

 

What has McDermott done that Beane hasn't?

 

Is Beane winning your heart, contingent on Josh Allen being proven to be a franchise QB?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Mularkey quit when Marv became GM, saying he didn't think the team was being set up to succeed.  

 

From espn:

Sources said that, while family considerations played a large role in Mularkey's decision, his views on the future of the franchise were also a significant factor. Since the end to a dismal season, the Buffalo organization has undergone a quick overhaul, and people in the NFL have questioned the Bills' direction.

A source close to Mularkey told ESPN.com's John Clayton the primary reason for Mularkey's resignation was professional. According to the source, Mularkey didn't think the way the Bills were being set up would create an environment in which he could be successful.

 

Mularkey may have been the first person to sense what a dumpster fire of a front office we'd have for the next 11 years.  

 

Consider:

  • GM Marv Levy - 2006, 2007
  • GM Russ Brandon - 2008, 2009
  • GM Buddy Nix - 2010, 2011, 2012
  • GM Doug Whaley - 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

All of these guys were among the worst, if not the undisputed worst (Brandon?) GMs in the league during their respective tenures.  

 

Abso****inglutely rigod****diculous.

Dude Mularkey was Donahoe's toadie.  How has old Tommy fared?  ESPN couldn't even get him hired despite advocating for him over and over.

Share this post


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

 

I think McDermott and Beane work well together, they are a duo, a very solid duo as I see it.

 

What has McDermott done that Beane hasn't?

 

Is Beane winning your heart, contingent on Josh Allen being proven to be a franchise QB?

  

 

McDermott coached us to the playoffs. He was also here for the Poyer and Hyde signings while Beane wasn't.

 

Not contingent on Josh Allen panning out, but pretty darn close. We won't be very good for a while if this is the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2018 at 7:13 AM, 4merper4mer said:

Dude Mularkey was Donahoe's toadie.  How has old Tommy fared?  ESPN couldn't even get him hired despite advocating for him over and over.

 

It's almost as if you've mistaken me for a Mike Mularkey fan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Buffalo86 said:

 

It's almost as if you've mistaken me for a Mike Mularkey fan. 

No.  But glorifying or expunging Donahoe's record misses a lot of failing.  He was awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

No.  But glorifying or expunging Donahoe's record misses a lot of failing.  He was awful.

 

There were other bad Bills GMs I didn't mention, but not because I was trying to glorify or expunge.  They weren't a part of that 11 year span of hiring from within.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 7:38 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

Agreed but if Mahomes is a stud and Allen isn’t, it wasn’t worth it.  

 

What makes you think Mahomes being a stud is a for sure thing?

 

Dude the Bills robbed the Chiefs in that trade BTW. We got White, Milano and Edmunds!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not high on Allen either but to automatically count this as a miss at this point is the height of arrogance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 7:30 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

Allen missed more games in college than Rosen.

 

Don't confuse fanboys with facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 1:29 AM, Albany,n.y. said:

I would think that in the hopefully unlikely chance that Allen is a bust, Beane would understand it quickly enough to take another swing at getting a QB.  Not double down like Whaley did, trading away way too much in hopes that he can turn around a bad QB pick like EJ was.  There were some QBs available the year after EJ was drafted like Carr, Garoppolo & Bridgewater. If Whaley had shown any ability to see how bad EJ was after a year here, he could have corrected Nix's error.  If Allen fails & Beane sees it quickly enough, he gets a 2nd shot.  To me that means if Allen isn't showing enough, Beane would be wise to spend a 1st or 2nd on another QB in next year's draft.  Unconventional going after a QB a year after trading up & drafting one, sure, but better to hedge the bet than put all your eggs in the Allen basket if he hasn't shown enough to be entrenched as the 2019 starter.  It's not like teams haven't hedged on the franchise QB bet before.  Many years ago the Jets had 2 rookie QBs in camp, Joe Namath & Heisman winner John Huarte.  More recently in 1989 the Cowboys drafted Troy Aikman #1 overall, then spent a #1 in the supplemental draft on Steve Walsh.  Eventually they recouped the #1 by trading Walsh to the Saints when Aikman proved to be the franchise QB they were looking for.  Other hedges have included Washington trading a ton to St.Louis for RGIII at pick #2 overall, then taking Cousins in the 4th round.  The Redskins also hedged when they drafted Heath Schuler & Gus Frerrotte in the same draft.  In both cases the #1 pick bombed & the other guy ended up starting. 

Excellent post my friend!!!

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:00 PM, Buffalo86 said:

 

Mularkey quit when Marv became GM, saying he didn't think the team was being set up to succeed.  

 

From espn:

Sources said that, while family considerations played a large role in Mularkey's decision, his views on the future of the franchise were also a significant factor. Since the end to a dismal season, the Buffalo organization has undergone a quick overhaul, and people in the NFL have questioned the Bills' direction.

A source close to Mularkey told ESPN.com's John Clayton the primary reason for Mularkey's resignation was professional. According to the source, Mularkey didn't think the way the Bills were being set up would create an environment in which he could be successful.

 

Mularkey may have been the first person to sense what a dumpster fire of a front office we'd have for the next 11 years.  

 

Consider:

  • GM Marv Levy - 2006, 2007
  • GM Russ Brandon - 2008, 2009
  • GM Buddy Nix - 2010, 2011, 2012
  • GM Doug Whaley - 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

All of these guys were among the worst, if not the undisputed worst (Brandon?) GMs in the league during their respective tenures.  

 

Abso****inglutely rigod****diculous.

Fantastic post!!!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 8:50 AM, BurpleBull said:

 

How?

 

The way I see it, only the giving up of future draft picks ---which Beane didn't do---could set the Bills back the way you suggest.

 

 

 

 

 

That's an amazingly ignorant statement.   Current year draft picks aren't chopped liver, and giving up top notch young veterans who have already been signed to multi-year contracts aren't, either.   The Bills gave up a cartload of picks to move into position to take a QB, and it's likely that at least 2 or 3 of those picks will turn out to be good or maybe even great pro players which the Bills won't have going forward for 3-5 years and maybe more.  How is that NOT "mortgaging the future"?

 

The only way that the Glenn trade won't set the Bills back several years is if Glenn is finished, Dawkins continues to progress, and Allen is a stud.  If Glenn is finished and Allen is a flop, it's a wash.   If Dawkins doesn't improve from his rookie performance -- and not infrequently good rookies don't develop into better players -- then the Bills have a gaping hole at LT and still have a below average RT (the position that Dawkins was drafted to fill) which will impact both their passing and running games going forward -- and Allen's prospects for success.

 

On 7/11/2018 at 7:54 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

Glenn had his issues - the injuries are piling up and beginning to linger, no doubt. But when he was on the field he was an absolute rock solid top 10 left tackle and bordering top 5 or 6, equally adept in pass protection and the run game. If you are talking his time in the league and people at the position who have outshone him over that period, it is a very, very elite little group. To me other than Shady he was, when healthy, the best player on this football team in both 2015 and 2016.  Injuries really hurt in 2017 and that forced them to bring Dawkins along faster than most expected... and that is why he was expendable.  But he was no throw away piece. If Cincy get a healthy Cordy Glenn their line will instantly get a major, major upgrade. Glenn was underrated around here throughout pretty much his whole stay.  

 

Well said.  Bills fans buy into the myth that Glenn was "washed up" because of injury because they want to believe that the Bills FO is doing a good job.  However, the reality is that  Glenn's injury issues only began about mid-2016, and that he basically had one injury that lingered, probably because Glenn/the Bills took a conservative approach to it rather than immediately opting for surgery.  In hindsight, that was a mistake but nobody knew that in 2016 or 2017.

 

9 hours ago, mschifano said:

 

What makes you think Mahomes being a stud is a for sure thing?

 

Dude the Bills robbed the Chiefs in that trade BTW. We got White, Milano and Edmunds!!!!

 

It's a little early to declare the 2017 trade a "steal" for anybody.

  • It will be all KC if Mahomes is a stud and Allen is not, even if Allen becomes a decent NFL starter on a level with Dalton or Flacco.
  • It will be a wash or slightly favoring KC if Mahomes and Allen are about the same.  Yes, the Bills got White, but Milano isn't anything special and Edmunds is unproven.  More importantly, the Bills gave up a whole lot more to get Allen than the Chiefs gave up to get Mahomes.
  • Only Mahomes being a bust while Allen becomes a decent NFL will give the Bills the advantage in this trade.
  • It will be a steal for the Bills only if Allen becomes a near elite NFL QB while Mahomes does not.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

That's an amazingly ignorant statement.   Current year draft picks aren't chopped liver, and giving up top notch young veterans who have already been signed to multi-year contracts aren't, either.   The Bills gave up a cartload of picks to move into position to take a QB, and it's likely that at least 2 or 3 of those picks will turn out to be good or maybe even great pro players which the Bills won't have going forward for 3-5 years and maybe more.  How is that NOT "mortgaging the future"?

 

The only way that the Glenn trade won't set the Bills back several years is if Glenn is finished, Dawkins continues to progress, and Allen is a stud.  If Glenn is finished and Allen is a flop, it's a wash.   If Dawkins doesn't improve from his rookie performance -- and not infrequently good rookies don't develop into better players -- then the Bills have a gaping hole at LT and still have a below average RT (the position that Dawkins was drafted to fill) which will impact both their passing and running games going forward -- and Allen's prospects for success.

 

 

Well said.  Bills fans buy into the myth that Glenn was "washed up" because of injury because they want to believe that the Bills FO is doing a good job.  However, the reality is that  Glenn's injury issues only began about mid-2016, and that he basically had one injury that lingered, probably because Glenn/the Bills took a conservative approach to it rather than immediately opting for surgery.  In hindsight, that was a mistake but nobody knew that in 2016 or 2017.

 

 

It's a little early to declare the 2017 trade a "steal" for anybody.

  • It will be all KC if Mahomes is a stud and Allen is not, even if Allen becomes a decent NFL starter on a level with Dalton or Flacco.
  • It will be a wash or slightly favoring KC if Mahomes and Allen are about the same.  Yes, the Bills got White, but Milano isn't anything special and Edmunds is unproven.  More importantly, the Bills gave up a whole lot more to get Allen than the Chiefs gave up to get Mahomes.
  • Only Mahomes being a bust while Allen becomes a decent NFL will give the Bills the advantage in this trade.
  • It will be a steal for the Bills only if Allen becomes a near elite NFL QB while Mahomes does not.

 

Thanks for posting this rational analysis. I really don't understand how so many here are dazzled by Beane's moves and talent evaluation. I just do not see the evidence.  In my mind he gave away tons of talent for the right to take a flyer on a dicey QB. I hope it works, but so far I have not seen any vast improvements to the roster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, matter2003 said:

I'm not high on Allen either but to automatically count this as a miss at this point is the height of arrogance.

 

In the event that he misses on Allen...

 

If Allen can read a defense and not be pressured into making bad decisions regularly, then I think he has as good a shot as anyone.

 

I think most would agree that he's high risk, high-reward, nonetheless I still point out how Beane drafting Allen made sense, despite it being largely unpopular when done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

Don't confuse fanboys with facts.

That is because "fans" like yourself dont understand that a broken collarbone is a entirely different type of injury which is going to cause more games to be missed to heal......but is not a reoccurring injury like a concussion.

 

But hey.....dont let facts get in the way.

Share this post


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

 

That's an amazingly ignorant statement.   Current year draft picks aren't chopped liver, and giving up top notch young veterans who have already been signed to multi-year contracts aren't, either.   The Bills gave up a cartload of picks to move into position to take a QB, and it's likely that at least 2 or 3 of those picks will turn out to be good or maybe even great pro players which the Bills won't have going forward for 3-5 years and maybe more.  How is that NOT "mortgaging the future"?

 

The only way that the Glenn trade won't set the Bills back several years is if Glenn is finished, Dawkins continues to progress, and Allen is a stud.  If Glenn is finished and Allen is a flop, it's a wash.   If Dawkins doesn't improve from his rookie performance -- and not infrequently good rookies don't develop into better players -- then the Bills have a gaping hole at LT and still have a below average RT (the position that Dawkins was drafted to fill) which will impact both their passing and running games going forward -- and Allen's prospects for success.

 

 

Well said.  Bills fans buy into the myth that Glenn was "washed up" because of injury because they want to believe that the Bills FO is doing a good job.  However, the reality is that  Glenn's injury issues only began about mid-2016, and that he basically had one injury that lingered, probably because Glenn/the Bills took a conservative approach to it rather than immediately opting for surgery.  In hindsight, that was a mistake but nobody knew that in 2016 or 2017.

 

 

It's a little early to declare the 2017 trade a "steal" for anybody.

  • It will be all KC if Mahomes is a stud and Allen is not, even if Allen becomes a decent NFL starter on a level with Dalton or Flacco.
  • It will be a wash or slightly favoring KC if Mahomes and Allen are about the same.  Yes, the Bills got White, but Milano isn't anything special and Edmunds is unproven.  More importantly, the Bills gave up a whole lot more to get Allen than the Chiefs gave up to get Mahomes.
  • Only Mahomes being a bust while Allen becomes a decent NFL will give the Bills the advantage in this trade.
  • It will be a steal for the Bills only if Allen becomes a near elite NFL QB while Mahomes does not.

 

 

I pretty much agree with you on Glenn. Though I don't think Dawkins was drafted to solve the RT slot.  I think he was drafted with the idea he would play there his rookie year and then flipped to the left side a some point.  Whether they intended that to be LT or saw him as a potential long term replacement for Richie at guard (a lot of people had him projecting as a G at the next level coming out) I'm less sure. But personally I think it was always the intention he ended up on his favoured side of the line.  

 

I'm not sure I quite buy your rational on working out who wins the Mahomes trade. On the second bullet specifically Milano isn't in the equation (I actually think Milano is going to be a really good player for us). The Chiefs gave us a 1st in 2018 and a 3rd in 2017.  We used the 3rd to go back up for Zay Jones in the 2nd round. Also Edmunds won't be unproven by the time we know about Mahomes and Allen. If the two Quarterbacks are about the same and the Bills get White (stud), Edmunds (stud) and Jones can become a solid starter then they have won that trade. If Edmunds is no better than Preston Brown and Zay Jones is a backup at best then sure, KC wins it. As for we gave up a whole lot more.... we gave up two second round picks to swap 1sts and picked up a 7th.  The Chiefs gave up a future 1st and a 3rd.  I know they came a lot further up the board but I don't think the overall values really equate to the Bills giving up "much more".

 

Ultimately who won that trade depends on whether either of the QBs becomes "the guy".  If they are both at a similar level then it comes down to "what did the Bills do with those additional picks?" If Edmunds and White are both studs the Bills win the trade.  

 

 

EDIT: Oh and by the way... I had 3rds on both Mahomes and Allen and thought they were both big NFL projects (though for different reasons).  So I don't have any interest at play here beyond being a Bills fan and wanting Josh to be the best he can possible be for Buffalo.  

Edited by GunnerBill
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

 

In the event that he misses on Allen...

 

If Allen can read a defense and not be pressured into making bad decisions regularly, then I think he has as good a shot as anyone.

 

I think most would agree that he's high risk, high-reward, nonetheless I still point out how Beane drafting Allen made sense, despite it being largely unpopular when done.

 

Nobody  knows if any QB taken in the draft will be able to "read a defense and not be pressured into making bad decisions regularly" at any time in his pro career until he proves he can do ii, and that's the problem that GMs face.   Their only clues are how QBs play as collegians, but that play can be influenced by a myriad of factors.  It's why almost half of all QBs drafted in the first round fail.

 

Aside from his size and his arm, Allen doesn't have a lot to recommend him to be a top ten pick, especially one that a team trades up to get. He simply doesn't have the "pedigree"  that a blue chip QB is expected to have.  It's why so many fans do not like the Allen pick; if he'd been taken in the late first or in the second -- or if the Bills had not traded so much to move up to get him -- most fans wouldn't have a problem with taking him.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

That is because "fans" like yourself dont understand that a broken collarbone is a entirely different type of injury which is going to cause more games to be missed to heal......but is not a reoccurring injury like a concussion.

 

But hey.....dont let facts get in the way.

 

Concussions are not "reoccuring" injuries.   There is evidence that suffering one concussion can make some individuals more susceptible to suffering more concussions but that's not true for everyone because there are a lot of factors that determine how/why players suffer head injuries.  Certainly a QB playing behind a crappy OL (which the Bills have until they prove otherwise) is more likely to suffer a concussion than one playing behind a solid offensive wall that gives the QB a clean pocket (which the Patriots have given to Brady for years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't fret too much over what was paid to draft Josh Allen.  Trading up in the top half of round one is expensive, no ifs ands or buts, but if there is a player you need and feel can be an important difference maker to your team, you do it.  Beane made a judgment call and I'm fine with that.  In general, I like the moves he has made.  However, the NFL is all about winning.  If Josh Allen is a big time bust, and Buffalo doesn't have a quality starter on the roster at QB, it will make winning difficult.  If the team is not winning, fans will be grumbling.  Grumbling fans make for unhappy owners.  Unhappy owners tend to make for a lack of job security.  I'm not necessarily calling for Beane's head if Allen doesn't work out, but I think that would raise the tension around OBD considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Concussions are not "reoccuring" injuries.   There is evidence that suffering one concussion can make some individuals more susceptible to suffering more concussions but that's not true for everyone because there are a lot of factors that determine how/why players suffer head injuries.  Certainly a QB playing behind a crappy OL (which the Bills have until they prove otherwise) is more likely to suffer a concussion than one playing behind a solid offensive wall that gives the QB a clean pocket (which the Patriots have given to Brady for years).

You are wrong.....there is ample evidence to prove that you are wrong.....and it is a particular concern when it comes to quarterbacks. (note.   Not one concussion.....but a qb that has had more then one concussion IS suseptable)

Edited by John from Riverside

Share this post


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

 

Concussions are not "reoccuring" injuries.   There is evidence that suffering one concussion can make some individuals more susceptible to suffering more concussions but that's not true for everyone because there are a lot of factors that determine how/why players suffer head injuries.  Certainly a QB playing behind a crappy OL (which the Bills have until they prove otherwise) is more likely to suffer a concussion than one playing behind a solid offensive wall that gives the QB a clean pocket (which the Patriots have given to Brady for years).

 

The bolded is correct. Not all concussions are born equal. I'm less sure on the o-line comparison with the Pats.  Part of what has made their o-line look so great over the years is Brady gets the darn ball out and gets it out on time.  Over the two years that the Next Gen stats on time to throw are available Brady was getting the ball out on average half a second faster than Tyrod Taylor.  That doesn't sound like a lot but it is.  Two years ago Taylor was the slowest time to throw of any qualifying Quarterback.  Last year he was 3rd slowest.  I'm not telling you our o-line was great last year - it had some stinkers - but it didn't totally suck.  Maybe with the losses this offseason it will totally suck, who knows? But the last time people thought we had a decent pass protecting offensive line was the Fitz era... cos Fitz got the ball out.  If Josh Allen can get the ball out on time that will be half of the battle....... then it is can he get it to a Bills receiver..... that might be harder. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Nobody  knows if any QB taken in the draft will be able to "read a defense and not be pressured into making bad decisions regularly" at any time in his pro career until he proves he can do ii, and that's the problem that GMs face.   Their only clues are how QBs play as collegians, but that play can be influenced by a myriad of factors.  It's why almost half of all QBs drafted in the first round fail.

 

Aside from his size and his arm, Allen doesn't have a lot to recommend him to be a top ten pick, especially one that a team trades up to get. He simply doesn't have the "pedigree"  that a blue chip QB is expected to have.  It's why so many fans do not like the Allen pick; if he'd been taken in the late first or in the second -- or if the Bills had not traded so much to move up to get him -- most fans wouldn't have a problem with taking him.

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously.

 

The reason I point those two traits out is because I felt those were the biggest areas of concern from what I watched on Allen.

 

Some worry about his footwork and accuracy a great deal but I think it's his understanding of what he sees on the field and the level of poise that he plays with that could ultimately determine how he ends up.

 

He's exceeded expectations as far as accuracy goes early on in minicamp, so perhaps Beane knew there was more to Allen than meets the eye.

 

Beane was a former QB after all.

 

Aside from his size and arm strength, Allen does seem to have a genuine passion for the game and to his credit he had one, maybe two winning seasons playing for a program that wasn't heavy-laden with talent.

 

You never know, perhaps Allen is far more accurate than anyone imagined and capable of excelling from the pocket.

 

If so, I'm pretty sure the Bills have finally landed that ever-elusive franchise QB.

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×