Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Bears at Packers GDT (MNF)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22290
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CBears019 wrote:
LaxBroBearsFan wrote:
What are your guys thoughts on Mel finally joining the team on the sideline?? I for one enjoyed that angry look on his face whenever the cameras found him lol only wish it wasnt justified by 200 yards on the gruond....I can't imagine him having the same impact from the box, i think as DC he should be down there commanding his troops.


I prefer to have all the coaches on the field. Sure, they get a better view of what the opposition is doing from above, but when on the field they can get in their players' ears much better and actually coach them rather than just from a headset. More of a hands-on approach.


I think this is especially true with Tucker…I don’t think he is a great Xs & Os coach…I think he is a much better man manager and motivator for his players and the best way for him to do that is to be down on the field.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2013…Martellus Bennett…65 Rec…759 Yards…11.7 Avg…5 TDs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 5549
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
I thought opinions didn't matter? That's exactly what I've been saying, you were saying earlier that opinions that couldn't be backed up with facts don't matter.

If you made the claim that Eddie Lacy played great, his yards and his yards per carry would not be enough to back that up. Circumstantial evidence wouldn't play in at all. Eddie Lacy played great, I think we all agree with that, but it is an opinion, albeit an opinion that is backed up by what we witnessed and some factual backing. That does not mean that "Eddie Lacy played great" is a fact.

My only issue with your post is your opinions that there's no way to say one way or another how the presence of Rodgers would have affected the game. There's a ton of statistical evidence saying that Aaron Rodgers is WAY better than Seneca Wallace.

Why the difference?


Man how can you not see this? lol…

I said that unsubstantiated opinions don’t matter when you are talking about “what ifs”…because they don’t…if you have an opinion about something where there is no way of backing it up you are just talking for the sake of talking…you aren’t providing a reason as to why you hold that opinion…in the case of Lacy we all seen that he had a great game and we all can see the stats that prove he had a great game…that is evidence to back up why you hold that opinion…if you can’t see the difference between the two then I’m not sure what else to tell you…

And of course Lacy’s stats would be enough to back that up…had someone not seen the game asked you how Lacy played and you said he went for a buck fifty and averaged 6.8 YPC the person asking would know he had been good in the game…you even just said yourself it is an opinion backed up by not only what we witnessed but also some factual backing…making it a fact…

Your issue with my post is that I am right that there is no way to prove one way or the other how Rodgers would have affected the game…doesn’t matter if he is better than Wallace or not…the point is no one knows what would have happened had Rodgers stayed in the game…sure you can make assumptions but that’s all they are…if you can’t tell the difference between assumption and fact then again I’m not sure what else I can say to make you understand.


I really don't see the difference. Based exclusively on Lacy's stats you can say he had a great game.

Based on the contrast in statistical production between Rodgers and Wallace over the course of their careers, you can't?

I guess I don't understand the distinction. In both situations you're coming to a conclusion based off of numerical data. Why is one piece of numerical data matter more than the other, other than that you say so?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ConVict90


Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Posts: 2208
Location: San Diego
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
I thought opinions didn't matter? That's exactly what I've been saying, you were saying earlier that opinions that couldn't be backed up with facts don't matter.

If you made the claim that Eddie Lacy played great, his yards and his yards per carry would not be enough to back that up. Circumstantial evidence wouldn't play in at all. Eddie Lacy played great, I think we all agree with that, but it is an opinion, albeit an opinion that is backed up by what we witnessed and some factual backing. That does not mean that "Eddie Lacy played great" is a fact.

My only issue with your post is your opinions that there's no way to say one way or another how the presence of Rodgers would have affected the game. There's a ton of statistical evidence saying that Aaron Rodgers is WAY better than Seneca Wallace.

Why the difference?


Man how can you not see this? lol…

I said that unsubstantiated opinions don’t matter when you are talking about “what ifs”…because they don’t…if you have an opinion about something where there is no way of backing it up you are just talking for the sake of talking…you aren’t providing a reason as to why you hold that opinion…in the case of Lacy we all seen that he had a great game and we all can see the stats that prove he had a great game…that is evidence to back up why you hold that opinion…if you can’t see the difference between the two then I’m not sure what else to tell you…

And of course Lacy’s stats would be enough to back that up…had someone not seen the game asked you how Lacy played and you said he went for a buck fifty and averaged 6.8 YPC the person asking would know he had been good in the game…you even just said yourself it is an opinion backed up by not only what we witnessed but also some factual backing…making it a fact…

Your issue with my post is that I am right that there is no way to prove one way or the other how Rodgers would have affected the game…doesn’t matter if he is better than Wallace or not…the point is no one knows what would have happened had Rodgers stayed in the game…sure you can make assumptions but that’s all they are…if you can’t tell the difference between assumption and fact then again I’m not sure what else I can say to make you understand.


I really don't see the difference. Based exclusively on Lacy's stats you can say he had a great game.

Based on the contrast in statistical production between Rodgers and Wallace over the course of their careers, you can't?

I guess I don't understand the distinction. In both situations you're coming to a conclusion based off of numerical data. Why is one piece of numerical data matter more than the other, other than that you say so?


You do realize you're hands down the most obnoxious person ever to post in theis Bears forum ever right? I'm starting to think you're just being annoying to build your post statistics. You guys loss.. it's over.. move on.. go back to your Packet forum and say whatever you have to say because they're all in denial just like u Smile
_________________
Adopt-A-Bear: Big Al Jeffery
Rec: 80
Yds: 1265
TD: 7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chisoxguy7


Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 2417
Location: Chicago
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ConVict90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
I thought opinions didn't matter? That's exactly what I've been saying, you were saying earlier that opinions that couldn't be backed up with facts don't matter.

If you made the claim that Eddie Lacy played great, his yards and his yards per carry would not be enough to back that up. Circumstantial evidence wouldn't play in at all. Eddie Lacy played great, I think we all agree with that, but it is an opinion, albeit an opinion that is backed up by what we witnessed and some factual backing. That does not mean that "Eddie Lacy played great" is a fact.

My only issue with your post is your opinions that there's no way to say one way or another how the presence of Rodgers would have affected the game. There's a ton of statistical evidence saying that Aaron Rodgers is WAY better than Seneca Wallace.

Why the difference?


Man how can you not see this? lol…

I said that unsubstantiated opinions don’t matter when you are talking about “what ifs”…because they don’t…if you have an opinion about something where there is no way of backing it up you are just talking for the sake of talking…you aren’t providing a reason as to why you hold that opinion…in the case of Lacy we all seen that he had a great game and we all can see the stats that prove he had a great game…that is evidence to back up why you hold that opinion…if you can’t see the difference between the two then I’m not sure what else to tell you…

And of course Lacy’s stats would be enough to back that up…had someone not seen the game asked you how Lacy played and you said he went for a buck fifty and averaged 6.8 YPC the person asking would know he had been good in the game…you even just said yourself it is an opinion backed up by not only what we witnessed but also some factual backing…making it a fact…

Your issue with my post is that I am right that there is no way to prove one way or the other how Rodgers would have affected the game…doesn’t matter if he is better than Wallace or not…the point is no one knows what would have happened had Rodgers stayed in the game…sure you can make assumptions but that’s all they are…if you can’t tell the difference between assumption and fact then again I’m not sure what else I can say to make you understand.


I really don't see the difference. Based exclusively on Lacy's stats you can say he had a great game.

Based on the contrast in statistical production between Rodgers and Wallace over the course of their careers, you can't?

I guess I don't understand the distinction. In both situations you're coming to a conclusion based off of numerical data. Why is one piece of numerical data matter more than the other, other than that you say so?


You do realize you're hands down the most obnoxious person ever to post in theis Bears forum ever right? I'm starting to think you're just being annoying to build your post statistics. You guys loss.. it's over.. move on.. go back to your Packet forum and say whatever you have to say because they're all in denial just like u Smile


I'm glad we're keeping the mood in here

_________________


RIP Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7846
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
Anyone notice a ton of Bears fans at this game? I heard a lot of cheering when McCown threw his TDs...


Our homefield advantage sucks. All the people that have tickets are old and don't make any noise. Add in the bad weather and a lot of people will sell their tickets online. Good for your fans for buying them up.
Come to Soldier Field for a Packer game. There will be at least twice the percentage of fans rooting for the Pack as were fans rooting for the Bears last night. In dismal times even more.


I've been actually, Bears fans relatives brought me. I underestimated how bad the wind was and just about froze solid. Only good thing about it was that my cousin's friend (good looking gal had to have been only about 17 but I was 14 at the time and smitten) felt bad for me and kept hugging me and stuff.
That worked out pretty well, then. When the wind off the Lake is at its peak the ball does weird things. My son got to go to the game last night (he lives in GB) and I came up here for a few days. He was not going to go even though it was a free ticket but his wife convinced him to take it. None of us thought the Bears had a chance, though I, as a 35+ yr season ticket holder for the Bears, should have known better given the weird crap that often happens in these games. My DiL was so nervous at game's end she was shaking. She is a Bears fan by marriage being from Tacoma. I let my boy wear my magic Bears hat which lights up. It worked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7846
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ConVict90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
I thought opinions didn't matter? That's exactly what I've been saying, you were saying earlier that opinions that couldn't be backed up with facts don't matter.

If you made the claim that Eddie Lacy played great, his yards and his yards per carry would not be enough to back that up. Circumstantial evidence wouldn't play in at all. Eddie Lacy played great, I think we all agree with that, but it is an opinion, albeit an opinion that is backed up by what we witnessed and some factual backing. That does not mean that "Eddie Lacy played great" is a fact.

My only issue with your post is your opinions that there's no way to say one way or another how the presence of Rodgers would have affected the game. There's a ton of statistical evidence saying that Aaron Rodgers is WAY better than Seneca Wallace.

Why the difference?


Man how can you not see this? lol…

I said that unsubstantiated opinions don’t matter when you are talking about “what ifs”…because they don’t…if you have an opinion about something where there is no way of backing it up you are just talking for the sake of talking…you aren’t providing a reason as to why you hold that opinion…in the case of Lacy we all seen that he had a great game and we all can see the stats that prove he had a great game…that is evidence to back up why you hold that opinion…if you can’t see the difference between the two then I’m not sure what else to tell you…

And of course Lacy’s stats would be enough to back that up…had someone not seen the game asked you how Lacy played and you said he went for a buck fifty and averaged 6.8 YPC the person asking would know he had been good in the game…you even just said yourself it is an opinion backed up by not only what we witnessed but also some factual backing…making it a fact…

Your issue with my post is that I am right that there is no way to prove one way or the other how Rodgers would have affected the game…doesn’t matter if he is better than Wallace or not…the point is no one knows what would have happened had Rodgers stayed in the game…sure you can make assumptions but that’s all they are…if you can’t tell the difference between assumption and fact then again I’m not sure what else I can say to make you understand.


I really don't see the difference. Based exclusively on Lacy's stats you can say he had a great game.

Based on the contrast in statistical production between Rodgers and Wallace over the course of their careers, you can't?

I guess I don't understand the distinction. In both situations you're coming to a conclusion based off of numerical data. Why is one piece of numerical data matter more than the other, other than that you say so?


You do realize you're hands down the most obnoxious person ever to post in theis Bears forum ever right? I'm starting to think you're just being annoying to build your post statistics. You guys loss.. it's over.. move on.. go back to your Packet forum and say whatever you have to say because they're all in denial just like u Smile
This guy is not even nearly as obnoxious as some of the Bears fans who post here. They make a point of being rude when you disagree with them and happily insult you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22290
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
I thought opinions didn't matter? That's exactly what I've been saying, you were saying earlier that opinions that couldn't be backed up with facts don't matter.

If you made the claim that Eddie Lacy played great, his yards and his yards per carry would not be enough to back that up. Circumstantial evidence wouldn't play in at all. Eddie Lacy played great, I think we all agree with that, but it is an opinion, albeit an opinion that is backed up by what we witnessed and some factual backing. That does not mean that "Eddie Lacy played great" is a fact.

My only issue with your post is your opinions that there's no way to say one way or another how the presence of Rodgers would have affected the game. There's a ton of statistical evidence saying that Aaron Rodgers is WAY better than Seneca Wallace.

Why the difference?


Man how can you not see this? lol…

I said that unsubstantiated opinions don’t matter when you are talking about “what ifs”…because they don’t…if you have an opinion about something where there is no way of backing it up you are just talking for the sake of talking…you aren’t providing a reason as to why you hold that opinion…in the case of Lacy we all seen that he had a great game and we all can see the stats that prove he had a great game…that is evidence to back up why you hold that opinion…if you can’t see the difference between the two then I’m not sure what else to tell you…

And of course Lacy’s stats would be enough to back that up…had someone not seen the game asked you how Lacy played and you said he went for a buck fifty and averaged 6.8 YPC the person asking would know he had been good in the game…you even just said yourself it is an opinion backed up by not only what we witnessed but also some factual backing…making it a fact…

Your issue with my post is that I am right that there is no way to prove one way or the other how Rodgers would have affected the game…doesn’t matter if he is better than Wallace or not…the point is no one knows what would have happened had Rodgers stayed in the game…sure you can make assumptions but that’s all they are…if you can’t tell the difference between assumption and fact then again I’m not sure what else I can say to make you understand.


I really don't see the difference. Based exclusively on Lacy's stats you can say he had a great game.

Based on the contrast in statistical production between Rodgers and Wallace over the course of their careers, you can't?

I guess I don't understand the distinction. In both situations you're coming to a conclusion based off of numerical data. Why is one piece of numerical data matter more than the other, other than that you say so?


It’s pretty ridiculous having to go to these lengths to explain the difference between the reality of what happened and the assumption of what could have happened…

I can say based on the fact that Lacy ran for 150 yards with an average of 6.8 YPC that he had a good game because that actually happened…we all seen it…it’s fact…that is reality…

I have never said that Rodgers isn’t much better than Wallace…my issue is you making the assumption that had Rodgers played the entire game the outcome would have been different…when the truth is you…me…or anyone else can’t possible make that statement with any kind of certainty…the same as we can’t make a statement of what could have happened if any one of a number of other players had played in the game…it’s assumption…

There is a very clear difference between both.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2013…Martellus Bennett…65 Rec…759 Yards…11.7 Avg…5 TDs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22290
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Shea McClellin had a breakout performance Monday night in Green Bay, and the Chicago Bears' second-year defensive end was recognized for it Wednesday.

McClellin was named the NFC Defensive Player of the Week after recording three sacks in the Bears' 27-20 victory over the Packers.

_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2013…Martellus Bennett…65 Rec…759 Yards…11.7 Avg…5 TDs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nads786


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 4156
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
Quote:
Shea McClellin had a breakout performance Monday night in Green Bay, and the Chicago Bears' second-year defensive end was recognized for it Wednesday.

McClellin was named the NFC Defensive Player of the Week after recording three sacks in the Bears' 27-20 victory over the Packers.


I read Brad Bigg's film review and he credits the 3 sack performance due to his speed agility and awareness.

I'm cautiously optimistic that he may abe able to turn it around.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7846
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nads786 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
Quote:
Shea McClellin had a breakout performance Monday night in Green Bay, and the Chicago Bears' second-year defensive end was recognized for it Wednesday.

McClellin was named the NFC Defensive Player of the Week after recording three sacks in the Bears' 27-20 victory over the Packers.


I read Brad Bigg's film review and he credits the 3 sack performance due to his speed agility and awareness.

I'm cautiously optimistic that he may abe able to turn it around.
It is amazing how quickly people turn on players when expectations are not meet immediately. This is a second year player not a ten year vet. People seem to forget that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadrunner


Joined: 20 Mar 2013
Posts: 807
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
Quote:
Shea McClellin had a breakout performance Monday night in Green Bay, and the Chicago Bears' second-year defensive end was recognized for it Wednesday.

McClellin was named the NFC Defensive Player of the Week after recording three sacks in the Bears' 27-20 victory over the Packers.


I read Brad Bigg's film review and he credits the 3 sack performance due to his speed agility and awareness.

I'm cautiously optimistic that he may abe able to turn it around.
It is amazing how quickly people turn on players when expectations are not meet immediately. This is a second year player not a ten year vet. People seem to forget that.


I see where you are coming from, but he has CLEARLY not played with the ability and impact expected from a first round player, for the most part. Now, whether that is his fault or the fault of those who are charged with putting him in the best position to succeed is a different question. altogether.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7846
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roadrunner wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
Quote:
Shea McClellin had a breakout performance Monday night in Green Bay, and the Chicago Bears' second-year defensive end was recognized for it Wednesday.

McClellin was named the NFC Defensive Player of the Week after recording three sacks in the Bears' 27-20 victory over the Packers.


I read Brad Bigg's film review and he credits the 3 sack performance due to his speed agility and awareness.

I'm cautiously optimistic that he may abe able to turn it around.
It is amazing how quickly people turn on players when expectations are not meet immediately. This is a second year player not a ten year vet. People seem to forget that.


I see where you are coming from, but he has CLEARLY not played with the ability and impact expected from a first round player, for the most part. Now, whether that is his fault or the fault of those who are charged with putting him in the best position to succeed is a different question. altogether.
Almost everything takes time to develop. Dent was not a first year wonder, nor Hampton, nor McMahon, not even Walter. AJ did nothing his first year last year. Occasionally a first year guy shows himself to be amazing: Sayers, Butkus, Ditka, Singletary but these are exceptions. Any expectation that SM was going to be great immediately is just silliness. Especially since he barely played last year. We are all stunned that Long and Mills have been so good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadrunner


Joined: 20 Mar 2013
Posts: 807
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
Roadrunner wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
Quote:
Shea McClellin had a breakout performance Monday night in Green Bay, and the Chicago Bears' second-year defensive end was recognized for it Wednesday.

McClellin was named the NFC Defensive Player of the Week after recording three sacks in the Bears' 27-20 victory over the Packers.


I read Brad Bigg's film review and he credits the 3 sack performance due to his speed agility and awareness.

I'm cautiously optimistic that he may abe able to turn it around.
It is amazing how quickly people turn on players when expectations are not meet immediately. This is a second year player not a ten year vet. People seem to forget that.


I see where you are coming from, but he has CLEARLY not played with the ability and impact expected from a first round player, for the most part. Now, whether that is his fault or the fault of those who are charged with putting him in the best position to succeed is a different question. altogether.
Almost everything takes time to develop. Dent was not a first year wonder, nor Hampton, nor McMahon, not even Walter. AJ did nothing his first year last year. Occasionally a first year guy shows himself to be amazing: Sayers, Butkus, Ditka, Singletary but these are exceptions. Any expectation that SM was going to be great immediately is just silliness. Especially since he barely played last year. We are all stunned that Long and Mills have been so good.


Not that there is not some stiff competition around here, but you are king of the straw man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sugashane


Joined: 06 Jan 2013
Posts: 876
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
Roadrunner wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
Quote:
Shea McClellin had a breakout performance Monday night in Green Bay, and the Chicago Bears' second-year defensive end was recognized for it Wednesday.

McClellin was named the NFC Defensive Player of the Week after recording three sacks in the Bears' 27-20 victory over the Packers.


I read Brad Bigg's film review and he credits the 3 sack performance due to his speed agility and awareness.

I'm cautiously optimistic that he may abe able to turn it around.
It is amazing how quickly people turn on players when expectations are not meet immediately. This is a second year player not a ten year vet. People seem to forget that.


I see where you are coming from, but he has CLEARLY not played with the ability and impact expected from a first round player, for the most part. Now, whether that is his fault or the fault of those who are charged with putting him in the best position to succeed is a different question. altogether.
Almost everything takes time to develop. Dent was not a first year wonder, nor Hampton, nor McMahon, not even Walter. AJ did nothing his first year last year. Occasionally a first year guy shows himself to be amazing: Sayers, Butkus, Ditka, Singletary but these are exceptions. Any expectation that SM was going to be great immediately is just silliness. Especially since he barely played last year. We are all stunned that Long and Mills have been so good.


None of those players were playing as weak links on their side of the ball for the better half of their seasons either. And Jeffery at least showed flashes his rookie year, even with his injury. Shea has been terrible for most of the year, then played like a young Jason Taylor against GB. With most 1st rounders, you are drafted that high to come in and make an impact, or are drafted for what appears to be an extremely high ceiling. Shea just simply has not really shown flashes in all but a few instances, and he overall has been a poor player for us against the run and pass. It is not surprising to see that so many (including myself) are not overly optimistic about how he will turn out. I am excited to see how he plays this week and am guardedly optimistic in hoping he may play with some confidence and aggressiveness. As I've said before, if he can prove me wrong, I would admit being wrong and be ecstatic about it.
_________________
2013 Kyle Long Rookie Poster of the Year

Next year I'm adopting all the NFC North rivals


Thanks to chisoxguy7 for the awesome sig!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44
Page 44 of 44

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group