Villain The Foe Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 So I wondered this given the continuous back and forth that Im having in regards to Baker Mayfield and him playing in the Big 12 vs guys playing in the Pac 12. However, it seems like SEC is the college Standard. Thats where the Big dogs play. That's the conference that everyone says "Well, if he played in the SEC it would have been different". Well, I had to look into this and it makes me wonder, if the SEC is really the proving ground for QB's then why is it that the SEC rarely produces Starting NFL Caliber QB's? Sure, Peyton and Eli have come from the SEC but really that's all I can think of off the top of my head. We would have to go all the way back to Joe Namath and Bart Starr to find any relevance. It seems like folks continue to pick on conferences, but the conference that is considered "The Standard" produces no QB's. Even if we go further and talk about schools specifically. Sure, Oklahoma hasnt really produced much outside of Sam Bradford...and that's not saying much. However, USC is a school where the NFL teams numerous times have took a guy high in the draft and it didnt pan out. Guys like Matt Barkley would have been a top 5 pick if he came out his Junior season but stayed for his senior season and I think fell down to the 4th or 5th round...and you know what? His peformance in the NFL fits that draft spot. How about UCLA? UCLA hasnt produced anything since Troy Aikman. It seems to me like isolating schools and/or conferences is purely based on having to also dismiss the overall facts when it comes to college football, conferences QB's and SEC dominance. How did we get to the point where Playing in the PAC 12 can garner excuse after excuse, playing in the Big 12 means you're garbage but putting up mediocre stats & W/L record...but having a BIG ARM out in the Mountain West Conference grants you a serious consideration at the 3rd pick of the draft? Is it me or is there something wrong. That last I checked, either you dominated where you were or you didnt. You played big in big games or you didnt. You were efficient or you werent. What is all of this "But if he played in the SEC or for this or that team...etc., etc.,...."....what is that really? It's hard to understand that position then watch as folks dont do it for Josh Allen. I'd love to talk about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 This thread may not be SEC-level. Sounds more PAC12 level to me (i.e. the draft forum). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerfish Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 One issue is that the offenses for all team sin some confrere just destroys the defuses. The defenses are so bloody awful that it makes it tough to evaluate, this is one issue with your fave QB. It is not his fault he is being asked to execute a certain offense and it is not his fault other teams are so awful on defense but it makes it harder to evaluate him. I mean the big deal last year was 'Oh, Oklahoma finally plays a D with a pules, Tex christian (whom they squashed). Fun football that is entertaining and being executed well? Yes. but when I watched Okl last year it was a long ways from watching NFL style games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted March 28, 2018 Author Share Posted March 28, 2018 25 minutes ago, Beerfish said: One issue is that the offenses for all team sin some confrere just destroys the defuses. The defenses are so bloody awful that it makes it tough to evaluate, this is one issue with your fave QB. It is not his fault he is being asked to execute a certain offense and it is not his fault other teams are so awful on defense but it makes it harder to evaluate him. I mean the big deal last year was 'Oh, Oklahoma finally plays a D with a pules, Tex christian (whom they squashed). Fun football that is entertaining and being executed well? Yes. but when I watched Okl last year it was a long ways from watching NFL style games. I can respect this. But how then is it okay to think that Josh Allen is worth of a top 3 pick coming from the Mountain West Conference? I couldnt tell you specifically the offensive scheme he was operating, but whatever it was, it wasnt like the kid was lights out dominating the competition. The guy was "okay". How does that work? When do we get to the point to where we can simply look at a player, no matter the scheme, and conclude a player is simply better than another. Sure, OU wasnt playing in an pro-style offense, however, looking at Allen and Mayfield just from a Football standpoint, how can anyone say that Allen is a better prospect, a better QB, a better Football player? I just seems like this particular class we over complicate things to discredit one guy, but excuse facts and create pedestals based on potential/upside for another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 I think the best HS players want to play against the best. To prove how good they are. That's why the SEC is regarded as the best conference year after year. I remember when the SEC went to a playoff format. Every said "they'll never have a National Championship from the SEC again." Well I guess they were wrong because they rolled off 9 out of the last 12 between Bama, Florida, LSU and Auburn. Best players = Best conference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted March 28, 2018 Author Share Posted March 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, Thai Jet said: I think the best HS players want to play against the best. To prove how good they are. That's why the SEC is regarded as the best conference year after year. I remember when the SEC went to a playoff format. Every said "they'll never have a National Championship from the SEC again." Well I guess they were wrong because they rolled off 9 out of the last 12 between Bama, Florida, LSU and Auburn. Best players = Best conference True, but why arent the best QB's going to that conference then? I mean, when it comes to the pro QB's the best guys most of the time are not coming from the SEC. What I think is this. The best Defensive players are probably coming from the SEC, while the best offensive players, primarily the QB's are coming from everywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiFtheOracle Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 10 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said: True, but why arent the best QB's going to that conference then? I mean, when it comes to the pro QB's the best guys most of the time are not coming from the SEC. What I think is this. The best Defensive players are probably coming from the SEC, while the best offensive players, primarily the QB's are coming from everywhere else. Agreed the conference is not known for producing top QB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derp Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 I’d say a couple of things. Playing quarterback in the NFL at a high level is more mental than it is physical, and I think those mental traits are harder to discern at a lower level. Tough to tell if your mind moves fast enough to successfully make the jump from high school to college. And even if you can, you’ve got to project physical development on top of that, since there are general thresholds for things like size and arm strength that can be challenging to project from a given age. Also, guys want to play and get better playing. Alabama only starts one quarterback a year for the most part. And they’re dominant enough defensively and in the trenches they can effectively be successful with a game manager. They’ve done this for years. There’s enough talent disparity at other positions in college that quarterbacks aren’t the separator they are in the pros. Building on that a little, quarterbacks want to throw. Which tends to lend to less pro style offenses that are becoming more common but aren’t quite there yet for all teams in the big conferences. There are also several quarterbacks from outside the major conferences too. Flacco, Dalton (TCU wasn’t in the B12 yet), Roethlisberger, Bortles and Keenum if you want to count them, Carr, Alex Smith at the time I believe, Wentz, Garoppolo. That’s seven locked in starters and a couple who are likely to as well out of 32 teams and a bunch I skipped because they’re looking for a franchise QB still (Jets with McCown for example). Interestingly there aren’t a ton of B12 guys, I’m blanking beyond Bradford who’s never been healthy enough to be truly established and Mahomes who I loved but is unproven. The ACC (Ryan, Rivers, Watson, Winston), P12 (Luck, Mariota, Goff, Rodgers), SEC (Newton, Stafford, Manning, Prescott), and B10 (Brady, Cousins, Brees, Wilson) are all pretty well represented. If you count the 9 small school guys and those 16 you’re left with the Dolphins (Tannehill, B12 at the time I think, looking for QB), Bills (McCarron, SEC, looking for QB), Jets (McCown, small school, looking for QB), Browns (Taylor, ACC, looking for QB), Chiefs (Mahomes, B12, promising but unestablished), Bears (Trubisky, ACC, unestablished), and Cardinals (Bradford, B12, glass). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adoni Beast Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 So many variables. The important thing is those first 3-4 seasons. Is the QB in a situation to not only succeed but develop while starting. It all takes time, and if you don’t have the right organization, coaching, and talent for your qb, you’ll stunt his growth and ruin his career. None of that other stuff matters, conferences, strength of opponent schedule in college, spread system, etc. you can play or you can’t . You can process information quickly as a play unfolds and produce or you can’t. Those natural abilities, coupled with being in the right environment is critical to taking your game to the next level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said: True, but why arent the best QB's going to that conference then? I mean, when it comes to the pro QB's the best guys most of the time are not coming from the SEC. What I think is this. The best Defensive players are probably coming from the SEC, while the best offensive players, primarily the QB's are coming from everywhere else. And that's exactly why top QB's won't go to school there. Why would you want to go to a league that traditionally tosses QB's around like rag dolls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYs Stepchild Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said: This thread may not be SEC-level. Sounds more PAC12 level to me (i.e. the draft forum). Yes we need to save this space for "These are my mostest favoritest 3 QBs" "Jets won't draft player X because he wore a hat (I hate the Jets)" and "If you don't like Jackson best your probably a redneck" threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-met57 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 It makes you project the player on individual games, plays, skills and intangibles as opposed to being impressed with production. Throughout this process the fact that Baker had big numbers hasn't really been a talking point much...reason being is because the numbers are generally inflated, windows are generally bigger, and the defenses generally stink. Case and point....1300 yards, 12 TD's and 1 INT...between 2 QB's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UntouchableCrew Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 In recent years the ACC and Pac-12 seem to be producing the most QB talent, to be honest. I have no problem with people being skeptical of Big 12 numbers. There's good reason to be. I think dismissing Big 12 talent on principle is ridiculous -- it makes no more sense than saying Darnold and Barkley are no good because USC QBs and Penn State RBs have a history of busting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTownsell1 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Big Ben went to Miami of Ohio, Carson Wentz went to North Dakota State and Jimmy G went to Eastern Illiinois. All small schools. Drew Brees, Cousins and Brady went to Big 10 schools, Rodgers went to Pac 10 school, Cam, Eli and Peyton went to SEC schools, Whether a QB succeeds in the NFL is dependent on that player, not the school he comes from. With that said, the bashing of the Big 12 comes from the inflated stats that many QBs have while playing in that conference. But if Aaron Rodgers or Brady had gone to the Big 12, they'd still be amazing. It's just that we should be leery of 70pct comp pct's from players that come from that conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted March 28, 2018 Author Share Posted March 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said: And that's exactly why top QB's won't go to school there. Why would you want to go to a league that traditionally tosses QB's around like rag dolls? This could be the case. And if this is the case, then folks suggesting that a QB isnt good because they didnt play against SEC defenses is pretty much a moot point when the QB's that those folks covet didnt play in the SEC themselves. Then trying to convince folks that the Pac 12 is somehow tougher than the Big 12 is pretty much a toss up, especially when you can provide some info to show otherwise. And when you look at the stats, behold...it looks like the Pac 12 and Big 12 are like twin siblings. This is why it confuses me so much that folks just throw around conference-talk like they really have a clue. High-scoring games only part of Big 12's defensive story Nov 22, 2017 Seth Walder Brian Burke Facebook Twitter Facebook Messenger Pinterest Email pThe incessant knock against the Big 12 this fall has been that the conference doesn't play defense. According to FPI, that criticism is vastly overstated. It's not that the teams in the Big 12 play the best defense or that the conference has stout units across the league. The Big 12 just isn't the worst at it -- not in the Power 5 -- and other conferences seem to skate by for their respective weaknesses by comparison. One way to make this comparison is to look at the average Football Power Index (FPI) ratings for every defense in a conference, which at this point in the season are largely based on performance in previous games given the strength of the opponents faced. It's an objective measure of team or unit strength, and is expressed in points relative to the average FBS team per game. So if we want to know how good the average defense is in the Big 12, FPI is the stat to ask. As of Tuesday, here are the average FPI ratings for every FBS conference. We've been letting the Pac-12 off the hook! The Big 12 has the fourth-best average defense among FBS conferences and is less than 1.3 points per game worse than the vaunted SEC. So while not great, the Big 12's defenses aren't really all that terrible. By comparison, let's look at how the conferences stack up by average offense FPI. Look at the Big Ten. Not only is that conference the worst of the Power 5 in offense (and worse in offense than the Pac-12 is on defense), but it also actually ranks below the American Athletic Conference. Yet, there doesn't seem to be nearly the same narrative about the Big Ten lacking offensive firepower compared to what the Big 12 has to put up with on defense. So why does the Big 12 have its reputation? One possible explanation is that the conference has had the worst defenses among the Power 5 over the two previous seasons. However, those units were not -- on average -- lacking collectively the way the Big Ten's offenses are now. Additionally, perhaps the general perception of these conferences is disproportionately shaped by the best overall teams in those conferences. If that's the case, it might hurt the view of the Big 12. Because if we look at just the three best overall FPI teams in each conference, the Big 12 does rank last in defense. That's based on Oklahoma, TCU and Oklahoma State though. If we look at only the three best overall teams in the Big Ten, it actually ranks second-best among Power 5 conferences in offense. And so those teams, most notably Ohio State and Penn State, perhaps are skewing the narrative around the Big Ten and obfuscating the fact that the conference as a whole frankly is not good on offense. It's important to distinguish between a conference's level of play at the top and overall because conference reputations are often thrown around in evaluations of top teams. The fact that Oklahoma, for example, had to face Big 12 teams does not necessarily mean the Sooners faced an overly easy set of defenses while Ohio State may have faced a weaker set of offenses than most imagine. In general, it's better to consider the strength -- on all sides of the ball -- of a schedule overall, but since performance in conference play is something bandied about, we ought to be sure we know which conferences are best at what. So ease off the defenses of the Big 12. And if you are in the mood to poke holes in conference strength, maybe cast an eye toward the Pac-12's defenses or the Big Ten's offenses. For more from ESPN Analytics, visit the ESPN Analytics Index. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenwichjetfan Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 The entire point of this thread is to dismiss the dismissal of Baker because he played in a conference with generally dismissable QBs? I'll root for him and hope he proves me wrong, but if Rosen or Darnold are sitting there when we pick, I really hope Mac does better than the midget flag football QB that we're hoping can go against all of the odds of his conference and his height to become our first FQB in forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said: This could be the case. And if this is the case, then folks suggesting that a QB isnt good because they didnt play against SEC defenses is pretty much a moot point when the QB's that those folks covet didnt play in the SEC themselves. Then trying to convince folks that the Pac 12 is somehow tougher than the Big 12 is pretty much a toss up, especially when you can provide some info to show otherwise. And when you look at the stats, behold...it looks like the Pac 12 and Big 12 are like twin siblings. This is why it confuses me so much that folks just throw around conference-talk like they really have a clue. High-scoring games only part of Big 12's defensive story Nov 22, 2017 Seth Walder Brian Burke Facebook Twitter Facebook Messenger Pinterest Email pThe incessant knock against the Big 12 this fall has been that the conference doesn't play defense. According to FPI, that criticism is vastly overstated. It's not that the teams in the Big 12 play the best defense or that the conference has stout units across the league. The Big 12 just isn't the worst at it -- not in the Power 5 -- and other conferences seem to skate by for their respective weaknesses by comparison. One way to make this comparison is to look at the average Football Power Index (FPI) ratings for every defense in a conference, which at this point in the season are largely based on performance in previous games given the strength of the opponents faced. It's an objective measure of team or unit strength, and is expressed in points relative to the average FBS team per game. So if we want to know how good the average defense is in the Big 12, FPI is the stat to ask. As of Tuesday, here are the average FPI ratings for every FBS conference. We've been letting the Pac-12 off the hook! The Big 12 has the fourth-best average defense among FBS conferences and is less than 1.3 points per game worse than the vaunted SEC. So while not great, the Big 12's defenses aren't really all that terrible. By comparison, let's look at how the conferences stack up by average offense FPI. Look at the Big Ten. Not only is that conference the worst of the Power 5 in offense (and worse in offense than the Pac-12 is on defense), but it also actually ranks below the American Athletic Conference. Yet, there doesn't seem to be nearly the same narrative about the Big Ten lacking offensive firepower compared to what the Big 12 has to put up with on defense. So why does the Big 12 have its reputation? One possible explanation is that the conference has had the worst defenses among the Power 5 over the two previous seasons. However, those units were not -- on average -- lacking collectively the way the Big Ten's offenses are now. Additionally, perhaps the general perception of these conferences is disproportionately shaped by the best overall teams in those conferences. If that's the case, it might hurt the view of the Big 12. Because if we look at just the three best overall FPI teams in each conference, the Big 12 does rank last in defense. That's based on Oklahoma, TCU and Oklahoma State though. If we look at only the three best overall teams in the Big Ten, it actually ranks second-best among Power 5 conferences in offense. And so those teams, most notably Ohio State and Penn State, perhaps are skewing the narrative around the Big Ten and obfuscating the fact that the conference as a whole frankly is not good on offense. It's important to distinguish between a conference's level of play at the top and overall because conference reputations are often thrown around in evaluations of top teams. The fact that Oklahoma, for example, had to face Big 12 teams does not necessarily mean the Sooners faced an overly easy set of defenses while Ohio State may have faced a weaker set of offenses than most imagine. In general, it's better to consider the strength -- on all sides of the ball -- of a schedule overall, but since performance in conference play is something bandied about, we ought to be sure we know which conferences are best at what. So ease off the defenses of the Big 12. And if you are in the mood to poke holes in conference strength, maybe cast an eye toward the Pac-12's defenses or the Big Ten's offenses. For more from ESPN Analytics, visit the ESPN Analytics Index. No one should be making blanket statements based on a QB's conference. But it's no secret that Big 12 QB's have struggled in the NFL, and it's something to consider when evaluating a QB. Since 2000, the only remotely successful pro QB from the Big 12 has been Ryan Tannehill. That doesn't mean Baker Mayfield or Mason Rudolph are automatic busts. But they'd have to buck a pretty significant historical trend in order to be good pros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted March 28, 2018 Author Share Posted March 28, 2018 46 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said: No one should be making blanket statements based on a QB's conference. But it's no secret that Big 12 QB's have struggled in the NFL, and it's something to consider when evaluating a QB. Since 2000, the only remotely successful pro QB from the Big 12 has been Ryan Tannehill. That doesn't mean Baker Mayfield or Mason Rudolph are automatic busts. But they'd have to buck a pretty significant historical trend in order to be good pros. You can throw Andy Dalton (TCU) and Marc Bulger (WV) in there, but overall you make a very good point. I guess the most that I can say is that the overwhelming majority of QBs coming from the Big12 weren't considered 1st round talent to begin with and they have struggled in the league as you've stated. The Pac12 have burnt teams in a different way, by way of 1st round picks. Sure...Aaron Rodgers and Andrew luck are great...but the way Pac 12 QBs are coveted you would think they would be the standard, but ouside of those two the best we have is Carson Palmer, the rest are all busts. Speaking of Palmer, two schools that have repeatedly burnt teams over the past decades are USC and UCLA. Both schools over the past couple decades have a sad history when it comes to qb's in the nfl. That doesnt mean that Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen are automatic busts, but like Mayfield and Rudolph, those guys will have to also buck a pretty historical trend in order to be good pros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Why does the Big 12 get credit for QB's who weren't playing in the conference when they were in school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 o have been the big prospects in the big 12 though? Tannehill was a top 10 pick but that was more a gamble based on potential. Manziel wasn't a sure thing and he really didn't get much of a shot thanks to his off field issues, who are the guys that were big time prospects that didn't do anything? Bradford has been good when healthy, he just can't stay healthy. Vince Young maybe? Geno wasn't a big time prospect and he played 3 of his 4 years outside the Big 12. Mahomes is TBD but KC is all in w/ him. RG III did have one great year before he got hurt and never recovered. To me the only can't miss type of guy was Bradford and his career has been more about injuries. There's only been a few top of the 1st rd QBs from that conference. I don't think any of those guys that weren't really good from the big 12 have anything to do w/ Mayfield. Mayfield is the best prospect from that conference since Bradford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said: You can throw Andy Dalton (TCU) and Marc Bulger (WV) in there, but overall you make a very good point. I guess the most that I can say is that the overwhelming majority of QBs coming from the Big12 weren't considered 1st round talent to begin with and they have struggled in the league as you've stated. The Pac12 have burnt teams in a different way, by way of 1st round picks. Sure...Aaron Rodgers and Andrew luck are great...but the way Pac 12 QBs are coveted you would think they would be the standard, but ouside of those two the best we have is Carson Palmer, the rest are all busts. Speaking of Palmer, two schools that have repeatedly burnt teams over the past decades are USC and UCLA. Both schools over the past couple decades have a sad history when it comes to qb's in the nfl. That doesnt mean that Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen are automatic busts, but like Mayfield and Rudolph, those guys will have to also buck a pretty historical trend in order to be good pros. Dalton has been much better than Tannehill but he wasn't a 1st rd pick. Bulger went to WVU but they were in the Big east back then. I always remember they used to say stuff like this about Cal QBs then Aaron Rodgers came along. every QB, every situation is different. it would be silly to judge him based on his conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenwichjetfan Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said: Why does the Big 12 get credit for QB's who weren't playing in the conference when they were in school? #Agenda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Also love how Mariota somehow gets ignored in the Pac-12 evaluation too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted March 28, 2018 Author Share Posted March 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, nyjunc said: Dalton has been much better than Tannehill but he wasn't a 1st rd pick. Bulger went to WVU but they were in the Big east back then. I always remember they used to say stuff like this about Cal QBs then Aaron Rodgers came along. every QB, every situation is different. it would be silly to judge him based on his conference. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 can we see what Mayfield did in non conf? freshman yr at Tex tech didn't play any non conf games against top conf's. soph year(1st yr at OU): 2nd game ever at OU on the road at Tennessee. UT was 9-4 that year, they lost to Bama by only 5 pts. Their other 3 losses combined were by 10 pts. vs. OU they lost by 7. Mayfield was 19-39, 187 yds, 3 Tds, 2 INts, 104.1 rating. Led OU to 31-24 win. 31 was the most pts allowed by UT all season. Bowl game vs. Clemson(CFB playoff): 26-41, 311 yds, 1 TD, 2 INts, 125.4 rating lost 37-17. was shut out in 2nd half. Jr year(2nd yr at OU): vs. Ohio State. 17-32, 226 yds, 2 TDs, 2 INts, 120.6 rating. lost 45-24 vs. Auburn in Sugar Bowl: 19-28, 296 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, 180.2 rating. Led OU to 35-19 win Sr. year(3rd yr at OU): at Ohio State 27-35, 386 yds, 3 TDs, 0 INts, 198.1 rating. led OU to 31-16 win vs. Georgia CFB Playoff: 23-35, 287 yds, 2 TDs, 1 INT, 147.7 rating. Lost 54-48 Looks like he did pretty well against the other top conferences especially the SEC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.