DaBallhawk Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 BenJarvus Green-Ellis 0 Fumbles in 4 years (Pats) 5 Fumbles in 2 years (Bengals) Danny Woodhead 2 Fumbles in 3 years (Pats) 2 Fumbles in 1 year (Chargers) Shane Vereen 1 Fumble in 4 years Brandon Bolden 0 Fumbles in 3 yerars Kevin Faulk Was a fumble machine early on in his career. Had only 1 fumble in his last 4 years with NE. I'm leaving out a lot of other players, some with less carries/touches, but it's just painfully obvious that the Patriots for whatever reason just never fumble. Is it coaching? What exactly could they possibly coach different? I'm pretty sure RB's know that they're not supposed to fumble. What can you do to make them hold on to the ball? "Hey, you better not fumble!"? Do they hold the ball different? Doesn't look like it. So what exactly is it? I don't know. But considering Spygate, Deflategate...I wouldn't put it past NE that they somehow doctored the footballs for running backs or did something with the gloves the RB's use, whatever it might be. Here's a good article on this issue with some scary stats that really shouldn't be possible in this day & age. http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-prevention-of-fumbles-is-nearly-impossible I actually went back and researched 5 year periods for the entire NFL over the last 25 years. The Patriots ratio of 187 plays to 1 fumble is the BEST of ANY team in the NFL for ANY 5 year span of time over the last 25 years. Not was it just the best, it wasn’t close: 2010-2014 Patriots: 187 plays/fumble 2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble 2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumble 2005-2009 Colts: 153 plays/fumble 2007-2011 Patriots: 149 plays/fumble 2008-2012 Patriots: 148 plays/fumble 2010-2014 Texans: 140 plays/fumble 2004-2008 Colts: 139 plays/fumble 2006-2010 Jets: 135 plays/fumble 1999-2003 Chiefs: 134 plays/fumble As is apparent, the Patriots are the only outdoor NFL team the last 25 years to average 70 plays/fumble or better, and they did it from 2007-2014 (four, five year periods). Its simply uncanny, as the statistics above similarly showed. I have no clue how NE did it. Was it great coaching? Maybe. It's possible. Maybe the players were fined for fumbling? Who knows. But maybe there's some other reason why they were so much better than the rest of the NFL when it comes to protecting the football. Like I said, if you consider Deflategate and what they did to footballs I'd say there's a good chance they might have done something similar for the RB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongman Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I think there is a smoking gun in the Wells report about this. When the Colts equipment manager was examing the ball that was intercept, he noticed it felt soft AND had a tacky coating on it. It was quite different than the Colts balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Excellent point Op. Let's have Pats fan discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Lying, cheating, scumbag, pieces of sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Excellent point Op. Let's have Pats fan discuss. Sorry, it took me awhile to sift through all the JN propaganda. The Sharp report is flawed. Even Sharp admits it is flawed. When you come with a more sound theory, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keysersoze Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Why wasn't Rob Gronkowski or any of the Pats receivers questioned in the report? Aren't they complicit as well, given that the regularly catch the balls thrown by Brady? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I said that on Day ONE. Why weren't the WR's, TE's and RB's questioned ? But if you look at the media they are busy trying to make this punishment look harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Sorry, it took me awhile to sift through all the JN propaganda. The Sharp report is flawed. Even Sharp admits it is flawed. When you come with a more sound theory, let me know. It's not flawed. It's a train wreck. He throws out a bunch of numbers, says they prove something that they don't, and people who don't understand numbers believe it. It's the same junk you guys are doing trying to discredit the Wells report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenwichjetfan Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Sorry, it took me awhile to sift through all the JN propaganda. The Sharp report is flawed. Even Sharp admits it is flawed. When you come with a more sound theory, let me know. The Sharp statistical analysis was flawed. The raw data he used was derived directly from NFL.com. Are you saying that the following data is flawed? Or are you choosing to ignore it based on the statistical analysis performed on the data being flawed because it goes against your team? BenJarvus Green-Ellis 0 Fumbles in 4 years (Pats) 5 Fumbles in 2 years (Bengals) Danny Woodhead 2 Fumbles in 3 years (Pats) 2 Fumbles in 1 year (Chargers) Shane Vereen 1 Fumble in 4 years Brandon Bolden 0 Fumbles in 3 years Kevin Faulk 0 fumbles since '07 with Pats 21 fumbles before '07 with Pats Corey Dillon Left Patriots right before the '07 season 8 fumbles in three years preceding the season in question The fact is, before '07- the year in which the true deflating is statistically appearing to have started, people on the Pats fumbled just like every other team. Since then? Not so much. Again, this is all raw data from NFL.com, not Sharp's report. It's not flawed. It's a train wreck. He throws out a bunch of numbers, says they prove something that they don't, and people who don't understand numbers believe it. It's the same junk you guys are doing trying to discredit the Wells report. Not saying the numbers prove something, just saying that there's certainly something to infer and look deeply into. Also, trust me when I tell you that your bolded part is untrue. I guarantee I know and understand numbers better than you. If you think that's internet bravado, you can PM me your linkedin profile, and I'll PM you mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 It's not flawed. It's a train wreck. He throws out a bunch of numbers, says they prove something that they don't, and people who don't understand numbers believe it. It's the same junk you guys are doing trying to discredit the Wells report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Not saying the numbers prove something, just saying that there's certainly something to infer and look deeply into. Also, trust me when I tell you that your bolded part is untrue. I guarantee I know and understand numbers better than you. If you think that's internet bravado, you can PM me your linkedin profile, and I'll PM you mine. If you can't defend your ideas on merit, do feel free to qualify yourself, but the number that best expresses the amount of time I'm inclined to spend swapping CVs with the Jets fan equivalent of an ideal gas law troll is real easy to understand: 0. http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710 Spoiler: yep, the data's flawed too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenwichjetfan Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 If you can't defend your ideas on merit, do feel free to qualify yourself, but the number that best expresses the amount of time I'm inclined to spend swapping CVs with the Jets fan equivalent of an ideal gas law troll is real easy to understand: 0. http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710 Spoiler: yep, the data's flawed too. Raw data taken from observation is flawed? So the amount of times you take a sh*t in a day as observed by you is also a flawed statistic? If you're claiming that the numbers of fumbles pre and post '07 taken as observations directly from NFL.com are flawed, then how do you measure anything? That would mean that all of your golden boy's passing yards, tds, games played, games started, etc are all flawed. What you're trying to say is that you don't want to admit that fundamental difference because it discredits your entire pats legacy. You are leaning on a report that claims that the validity of the quantitative analysis performed on the raw data is flawed. No one has argued that the statistical analysis is flawed. The observations of the amount of fumbles however are raw data. They are incontrovertible. They are not analysed or treated numbers. They are in fact, facts. But I'm sure you know that already. It's delicious what's happened to pats fans- after the euphoric high of finally winning a super bowl after spygate to quiet all the naysayers 3 months ago, you're now reduced to blindly discrediting raw observations. Also, I haven't qualified myself. The various institutions of my past and the work that I do have done that for me. If you weren't so ashamed of being wrong, you could take a gander at all of it by PMing me your linkedin profile (I'd never grant a stranger my Curriculum Vitae), and I'll return the favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
operaguy Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 GTFO unless you employ a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Raw data taken from observation is flawed? So the amount of times you take a sh*t in a day as observed by you is also a flawed statistic? If you're claiming that the numbers of fumbles pre and post '07 taken as observations directly from NFL.com are flawed, then how do you measure anything? That would mean that all of your golden boy's passing yards, tds, games played, games started, etc are all flawed. What you're trying to say is that you don't want to admit that fundamental difference because it discredits your entire pats legacy. You are leaning on a report that claims that the validity of the quantitative analysis performed on the raw data is flawed. No one has argued that the statistical analysis is flawed. The observations of the amount of fumbles however are raw data. They are incontrovertible. They are not analysed or treated numbers. They are in fact, facts. But I'm sure you know that already. It's delicious what's happened to pats fans- after the euphoric high of finally winning a super bowl after spygate to quiet all the naysayers 3 months ago, you're now reduced to blindly discrediting raw observations. Also, I haven't qualified myself. The various institutions of my past and the work that I do have done that for me. If you weren't so ashamed of being wrong, you could take a gander at all of it by PMing me your linkedin profile (I'd never grant a stranger my Curriculum Vitae), and I'll return the favor. So you don't do words either. The funds must really be scrambling for back office goofballs these days. As a final postscript, we'll touch briefly on the third post in the series (here). It has its share of issues, like using an aggregated two-sample comparison despite having paired data, and the continued use of the skewed plays per fumble data, but our favorite part of the new post is that the author posts his individual player data, which demonstrates that not only is he using inappropriate methods, but he is also using the wrong data. Can you tell what's wrong the data in this table? Look in the bottom row. Brandon Tate is listed as having 11 fumbles in 35 touches during his time playing for "Non NE". That's absurd. How is that possible? Is Tate a fumbling machine? Of course not. According to NFL.com, all 11 of Tate's fumbles during his four years with the Bengals came on kick or punt returns, and because special teams fumbles use different balls, there is no reason for them to be included in this analysis. In other words, not only was the author using inappropriate methods in all three of his posts, but there is a reason to believe he also wasn't using the correct data, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 It says in the first line that fumbles on special teams are included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenwichjetfan Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 So you don't do words either. The funds must really be scrambling for back office goofballs these days. Oh, if only. You'd finally have a job in that case. Speaking of words: what part of Special Teams is difficult for you to understand? Not once have I referenced that flawed report which you keep referencing, nor have I brought up the ancillary, non-RB players that your bible report brings up. Not once. You continue to, even after I've agreed that it's flawed, because it's the only thing you have to lean on. Alternatively, not once have you addressed the raw data that I've listed (after taking some from daballhawk) directly from NFL.com. I'll post it again: BenJarvus Green-Ellis 0 Fumbles in 4 years (Pats) 5 Fumbles in 2 years (Bengals) Danny Woodhead 2 Fumbles in 3 years (Pats) 2 Fumbles in 1 year (Chargers) Shane Vereen 1 Fumble in 4 years Brandon Bolden 0 Fumbles in 3 years Kevin Faulk 0 fumbles since '07 with Pats 21 fumbles before '07 with Pats Corey Dillon Left Patriots right before the '07 season 8 fumbles in three years preceding the season in question Feel free to ignore, deflect, or otherwise try to make yourself feel better. Also, I'm still waiting on your grand "CV" since you understand numbers so much better than the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM31 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I actually admire Tom Brady taking one for the team here. A little bit anyway. This whole episode has zero to do with Brady's throwing preferences and 100% to do with the correlation between under-inflated footballs and the rate at which fumbles occur with lower-inflated footballs. I think the reason that Brady is not releasing his emails and texts is not because of anything he may have said or texted to the equipment guy but rather because it would implicate others in this conspiracy. Bill Belichick figured out years ago the connection between ball pressure and fumbling and realized that the competitive advantage to be gained from having a huge leg up in the turnover battle was worth the risk. The embarrassing thing is that it took the league 7+ years to figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Alternatively, not once have you addressed the raw data that I've listed (after taking some from daballhawk) directly from NFL.com. Okay. I hereby address the data. That is some data right there. Now what? Your assertion of deflating 'statistically appearing' to have started at some ascertainable time (lol no) or your sample size (lol tiny)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 Okay. I hereby address the data. That is some data right there. Now what? Your assertion of deflating 'statistically appearing' to have started at some ascertainable time (lol no) or your sample size (lol tiny)? I'd like to sell you some peanut butter. I mean it's actually sh*t, but there's a peanut inside so obviously it must be peanut butter then according to your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenwichjetfan Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Okay. I hereby address the data. That is some data right there. Now what? Your assertion of deflating 'statistically appearing' to have started at some ascertainable time (lol no) or your sample size (lol tiny)? Lol omgz took you 5 embarrazzing posts to address clear raw data layed out n the 1th post. you lose you suck so hard at wordz and numberzlol. and to disprove any signs of trends, you put in parenthesis "lol no". Eggseelent rebuttal. lolol kthxbye lol!!!! On a serious note, do you understand what sample size is? 4-7 years of (at minimum) 50 touches as a RB is not a "tiny" sample size. In fact, statistically, anything over 30 is considered a proper sample size, so even only 1 season would do. Teech me moar about numberz plzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Sorry, it took me awhile to sift through all the JN propaganda. The Sharp report is flawed. Even Sharp admits it is flawed. When you come with a more sound theory, let me know. I'm too busy dancing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetCane Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Lying, cheating, scumbag, pieces of sh*t. Don't hold back. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 BenJarvus Green-Ellis 0 Fumbles in 4 years (Pats) 5 Fumbles in 2 years (Bengals) Danny Woodhead 2 Fumbles in 3 years (Pats) 2 Fumbles in 1 year (Chargers) Shane Vereen 1 Fumble in 4 years Brandon Bolden 0 Fumbles in 3 yerars Kevin Faulk Was a fumble machine early on in his career. Had only 1 fumble in his last 4 years with NE. I'm leaving out a lot of other players, some with less carries/touches, but it's just painfully obvious that the Patriots for whatever reason just never fumble. Is it coaching? What exactly could they possibly coach different? I'm pretty sure RB's know that they're not supposed to fumble. What can you do to make them hold on to the ball? "Hey, you better not fumble!"? Do they hold the ball different? Doesn't look like it. So what exactly is it? I don't know. But considering Spygate, Deflategate...I wouldn't put it past NE that they somehow doctored the footballs for running backs or did something with the gloves the RB's use, whatever it might be. Here's a good article on this issue with some scary stats that really shouldn't be possible in this day & age. http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-prevention-of-fumbles-is-nearly-impossible I have no clue how NE did it. Was it great coaching? Maybe. It's possible. Maybe the players were fined for fumbling? Who knows. But maybe there's some other reason why they were so much better than the rest of the NFL when it comes to protecting the football. Like I said, if you consider Deflategate and what they did to footballs I'd say there's a good chance they might have done something similar for the RB's. It's been mentioned any deflation of ball make sit easier for WRs to catch BUT MUCH easier for a RB to hold on to ball..reason why Pat sled league 6 or 8 yerars in row now as least fumbling team, aka , less turnovers, aka, game changing moments. Pats homers say 'what abpout ridley?",I say, Ridley probably fumbles w/deflated ball and ball glued to his hand. Reaosn Belly benche him "Bellt to Ridly: "How the hell u fumble ? the freakin ball is flat?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Whats so foolish is that the Patriots fumble all the time. They almost always recover their own fumbles. Woodhead had 1 fumble in SD and 0 in NE. Wow, something is amiss right there. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/23255/danny-woodhead Blount had 3 fumbles in TB and then 3 fumbles in NE. I know the Pats are up to something. What though? http://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/25569/legarrette-blount Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 Whats so foolish is that the Patriots fumble all the time. They almost always recover their own fumbles. Woodhead had 1 fumble in SD and 0 in NE. Wow, something is amiss right there. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/23255/danny-woodhead Blount had 3 fumbles in TB and then 3 fumbles in NE. I know the Pats are up to something. What though? http://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/25569/legarrette-blount Talk about cherry picking statistics. Like a true Patsie. If it wasn't for Spygate or Deflategate I think the NFL would give you the benefit of the doubt. But you were already caught messing with footballs for better grip. How does Green-Ellis go 4 years in NE without fumbling once and the minute he leaves NE in his first season he has 3 fumbles and the season after that he fumbles 2 times again. What's going on there, Sherlock? By the way, just because one guy maybe did fumble doesn't mean the whole thing didn't happen. Nobody said it was physically impossible for NE players to fumble. They could still fumble, it's just way easier to hold on to the ball and avoid fumbling if the deflator took care of them before the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Talk about cherry picking statistics. Like a true Patsie. If it wasn't for Spygate or Deflategate I think the NFL would give you the benefit of the doubt. But you were already caught messing with footballs for better grip. How does Green-Ellis go 4 years in NE without fumbling once and the minute he leaves NE in his first season he has 3 fumbles and the season after that he fumbles 2 times again. What's going on there, Sherlock? By the way, just because one guy maybe did fumble doesn't mean the whole thing didn't happen. Nobody said it was physically impossible for NE players to fumble. They could still fumble, it's just way easier to hold on to the ball and avoid fumbling if the deflator took care of them before the game. waste of time,,they are desperate now that they know its all been a fraud.. if it was reversed I would be also u lead league in least fumbles 6-8 years in a row cause ball is deflated, LOL smell the bacon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rillo Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Didn't you know every report is "flawed" and "bias" when it doesn't go in the pats* favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shevys Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Sorry, it took me awhile to sift through all the JN propaganda. The Sharp report is flawed. Even Sharp admits it is flawed. When you come with a more sound theory, let me know. Who the **** asked you? You want propaganda? Go take a stroll through PatsFans.com. A wretched hive of scum and villainy and stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Talk about cherry picking statistics. Like a true Patsie. If it wasn't for Spygate or Deflategate I think the NFL would give you the benefit of the doubt. But you were already caught messing with footballs for better grip. How does Green-Ellis go 4 years in NE without fumbling once and the minute he leaves NE in his first season he has 3 fumbles and the season after that he fumbles 2 times again. What's going on there, Sherlock? By the way, just because one guy maybe did fumble doesn't mean the whole thing didn't happen. Nobody said it was physically impossible for NE players to fumble. They could still fumble, it's just way easier to hold on to the ball and avoid fumbling if the deflator took care of them before the game. HA HA Balls were deflated for every game over the last several years and nobody noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 HA HA Balls were deflated for every game over the last several years and nobody noticed. That's horrible. Freakin cheating bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 HA HA Balls were deflated for every game over the last several years and nobody noticed. Considering teams were complaining to the refs about it every week I'd say they kind of did notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 The Sharp statistical analysis was flawed. The raw data he used was derived directly from NFL.com. Are you saying that the following data is flawed? Or are you choosing to ignore it based on the statistical analysis performed on the data being flawed because it goes against your team? BenJarvus Green-Ellis 0 Fumbles in 4 years (Pats) 5 Fumbles in 2 years (Bengals) Danny Woodhead 2 Fumbles in 3 years (Pats) 2 Fumbles in 1 year (Chargers) Shane Vereen 1 Fumble in 4 years Brandon Bolden 0 Fumbles in 3 years Kevin Faulk 0 fumbles since '07 with Pats 21 fumbles before '07 with Pats Corey Dillon Left Patriots right before the '07 season 8 fumbles in three years preceding the season in question The fact is, before '07- the year in which the true deflating is statistically appearing to have started, people on the Pats fumbled just like every other team. Since then? Not so much. Again, this is all raw data from NFL.com, not Sharp's report. Not saying the numbers prove something, just saying that there's certainly something to infer and look deeply into. Also, trust me when I tell you that your bolded part is untrue. I guarantee I know and understand numbers better than you. If you think that's internet bravado, you can PM me your linkedin profile, and I'll PM you mine. Sharp saying his numbers are based on "inexact" data. http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710 There are a few links off of this article that further debunks his analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Who the **** asked you? You want propaganda? Go take a stroll through PatsFans.com. A wretched hive of scum and villainy and stupidity. No, I prefer this hive of scum and villainy and stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted May 15, 2015 Author Share Posted May 15, 2015 Sharp saying his numbers are based on "inexact" data. http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710 There are a few links off of this article that further debunks his analysis. There's nothing "inexact" about Benjarvous Green-Ellis having 0 fumbles in 4 years as a Patriot and then compiling 5 fumbles his first 2 years on a different team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM31 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Whats so foolish is that the Patriots fumble all the time. They almost always recover their own fumbles. Woodhead had 1 fumble in SD and 0 in NE. Wow, something is amiss right there. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/23255/danny-woodhead Blount had 3 fumbles in TB and then 3 fumbles in NE. I know the Pats are up to something. What though? http://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/25569/legarrette-blount You do realize that players recovering their own fumbles is part of the "low pressured footballs help the turnover differential" narrative? Along with being harder to strip out in the first place a more highly pressurized ball will bounce around in a more lively fashion than a lower pressured ball would. We all understand the truth of this. Why then should it be any kind of a surprise then that low pressured balls which come loose are more likely than high pressured balls to be recovered by the fumbling team? In any event the Sharp article accounted for fumbles recovered and fumbles lost I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.