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

Vikings, Cardinals, Bengals- Contender or Pretender?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52981
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ataal wrote:

3. Eagles game I can't criticize too much. It was a decisive victory. If I had to put an asterisk on this game, it would be that Kolb helped the Cardinals beat them last year on the bench. The Eagles didn't change their signals. Well, that's not the only reason they won, but it certainly helped. Perhaps, when on the field at QB, Kolb was able to read some plays better than most QB's would. Don't harp on this too much, it's only a possible asterisk.


First of all, unless we won these games based on blatant blown calls that had nothing to do with the coaching staffs or on field players of either team, you're in no position to be applying asterisks to any team here, Cardinals or otherwise.

Second, how in the HELL is a 21 point win, a game we lead 24-0 at the half, a "possible" asterisk? I am all ears.
_________________


Last edited by stchamp98 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ataal


Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Posts: 2665
Location: Avondale, Arizona
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:

3. Eagles game I can't criticize too much. It was a decisive victory. If I had to put an asterisk on this game, it would be that Kolb helped the Cardinals beat them last year on the bench. The Eagles didn't change their signals. Well, that's not the only reason they won, but it certainly helped. Perhaps, when on the field at QB, Kolb was able to read some plays better than most QB's would. Don't harp on this too much, it's only a possible asterisk.


First of all, unless we won these games based on blatant blow calls that nothing to do with the coaching staffs or on field player you're in no position to applying asterisks to any team here, Cardinals or otherwise.

Second, how in the HELL is a 21 point win, a game we lead 24-0 at the half, a "possible" asterisk? I am all ears.


Good lord. Really? I emphasized it twice. TWICE! "If I had to put an asterisk" and "possible asterisk."

And, I already did explain it. Good day, sir.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52981
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:

3. Eagles game I can't criticize too much. It was a decisive victory. If I had to put an asterisk on this game, it would be that Kolb helped the Cardinals beat them last year on the bench. The Eagles didn't change their signals. Well, that's not the only reason they won, but it certainly helped. Perhaps, when on the field at QB, Kolb was able to read some plays better than most QB's would. Don't harp on this too much, it's only a possible asterisk.


First of all, unless we won these games based on blatant blow calls that nothing to do with the coaching staffs or on field player you're in no position to applying asterisks to any team here, Cardinals or otherwise.

Second, how in the HELL is a 21 point win, a game we lead 24-0 at the half, a "possible" asterisk? I am all ears.


Good lord. Really? I emphasized it twice. TWICE! "If I had to put an asterisk" and "possible asterisk."

And, I already did explain it. Good day, sir.


And yet you still wrote possible asterisk. To a game we won by 3 touchdowns. That's BEYOND ridiculous. Beyond....

Your explanation was just as ridiculous. So because Kevin Kolb, in a league filled with free agent/trade turn over, played for the Eagles 2 years ago we got some sort of mythical advantage over a defense who's coordinator was an offensive line coach during Kolb's Philly tenure? Tell me this is like April's fools in October.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ataal


Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Posts: 2665
Location: Avondale, Arizona
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:

3. Eagles game I can't criticize too much. It was a decisive victory. If I had to put an asterisk on this game, it would be that Kolb helped the Cardinals beat them last year on the bench. The Eagles didn't change their signals. Well, that's not the only reason they won, but it certainly helped. Perhaps, when on the field at QB, Kolb was able to read some plays better than most QB's would. Don't harp on this too much, it's only a possible asterisk.


First of all, unless we won these games based on blatant blow calls that nothing to do with the coaching staffs or on field player you're in no position to applying asterisks to any team here, Cardinals or otherwise.

Second, how in the HELL is a 21 point win, a game we lead 24-0 at the half, a "possible" asterisk? I am all ears.


Good lord. Really? I emphasized it twice. TWICE! "If I had to put an asterisk" and "possible asterisk."

And, I already did explain it. Good day, sir.


And yet you still wrote possible asterisk. To a game we won by 3 touchdowns. That's BEYOND ridiculous. Beyond....

Your explanation was just as ridiculous. So because Kevin Kolb, in a league filled with free agent/trade turn over, played for the Eagles 2 years ago we got some sort of mythical advantage over a defense who's coordinator was an offensive line coach during Kolb's Philly tenure? Tell me this is like April's fools in October.


You sure you know what "possible" means?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=possible

How about asterisk?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=asterisk

I didn't say plausible. I didn't even say probable. I picked the only thing I could think of that could....maybe...put an asterisk there, after saying I couldn't really criticize the game because it was a decisive victory. I get that you want to defend the Cardinals. But, to use your words, this is BEYOND ridiculous.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52981
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:

3. Eagles game I can't criticize too much. It was a decisive victory. If I had to put an asterisk on this game, it would be that Kolb helped the Cardinals beat them last year on the bench. The Eagles didn't change their signals. Well, that's not the only reason they won, but it certainly helped. Perhaps, when on the field at QB, Kolb was able to read some plays better than most QB's would. Don't harp on this too much, it's only a possible asterisk.


First of all, unless we won these games based on blatant blow calls that nothing to do with the coaching staffs or on field player you're in no position to applying asterisks to any team here, Cardinals or otherwise.

Second, how in the HELL is a 21 point win, a game we lead 24-0 at the half, a "possible" asterisk? I am all ears.


Good lord. Really? I emphasized it twice. TWICE! "If I had to put an asterisk" and "possible asterisk."

And, I already did explain it. Good day, sir.


And yet you still wrote possible asterisk. To a game we won by 3 touchdowns. That's BEYOND ridiculous. Beyond....

Your explanation was just as ridiculous. So because Kevin Kolb, in a league filled with free agent/trade turn over, played for the Eagles 2 years ago we got some sort of mythical advantage over a defense who's coordinator was an offensive line coach during Kolb's Philly tenure? Tell me this is like April's fools in October.


You sure you know what "possible" means?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=possible

I didn't say plausible. I didn't even say probable. I picked the only thing I could think of that could....maybe...put an asterisk there, after saying I couldn't really criticize the game because it was a decisive victory. I get that you want to defend the Cardinals. But, to use your words, this is BEYOND ridiculous.


Cute link but I know what the word possible translates to. And being as my wife's an english professor, if I didn't know I could just as soon use one of the 3-4 dictionaries she's got in this house. Possible asterisk means it has the potential to be an asterisk. I'd like to see where in the world that potential is at. Do tell.

Fact is, there's ZERO potential for asterisk there (And even if there was, again, you're in no position to be handing those out anwyay). We dominated that football game from start to finish.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ataal


Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Posts: 2665
Location: Avondale, Arizona
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:

3. Eagles game I can't criticize too much. It was a decisive victory. If I had to put an asterisk on this game, it would be that Kolb helped the Cardinals beat them last year on the bench. The Eagles didn't change their signals. Well, that's not the only reason they won, but it certainly helped. Perhaps, when on the field at QB, Kolb was able to read some plays better than most QB's would. Don't harp on this too much, it's only a possible asterisk.


First of all, unless we won these games based on blatant blow calls that nothing to do with the coaching staffs or on field player you're in no position to applying asterisks to any team here, Cardinals or otherwise.

Second, how in the HELL is a 21 point win, a game we lead 24-0 at the half, a "possible" asterisk? I am all ears.


Good lord. Really? I emphasized it twice. TWICE! "If I had to put an asterisk" and "possible asterisk."

And, I already did explain it. Good day, sir.


And yet you still wrote possible asterisk. To a game we won by 3 touchdowns. That's BEYOND ridiculous. Beyond....

Your explanation was just as ridiculous. So because Kevin Kolb, in a league filled with free agent/trade turn over, played for the Eagles 2 years ago we got some sort of mythical advantage over a defense who's coordinator was an offensive line coach during Kolb's Philly tenure? Tell me this is like April's fools in October.


You sure you know what "possible" means?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=possible

I didn't say plausible. I didn't even say probable. I picked the only thing I could think of that could....maybe...put an asterisk there, after saying I couldn't really criticize the game because it was a decisive victory. I get that you want to defend the Cardinals. But, to use your words, this is BEYOND ridiculous.


Cute link but I know what the word possible translates to. And being as my wife's an english professor, if I didn't know I could just as soon use one of the 3-4 dictionaries she's got in this house. Possible asterisk means it has the potential to be an asterisk. I'd like to see where in the world that potential is at. Do tell.

Fact is, there's ZERO potential for asterisk there (And even if there was, again, you're in no position to be handing those out anwyay). We dominated that football game from start to finish.


Oh, your wife's an English professor, got it. **rolls eyes** My girlfriend is a banker, so yeah, I pretty much know everything about the banking industry. But, let's go with this; you should know that out of the three words: plausible, probable, and possible, possible has the lowest chance of happening.

As for the rest of it....just screams of homerism. Zero chance? I think it's closer to 5% that Kolb, after playing with a team for four years, knows some of the idiosyncrasies of his former teammates, and helped, at least in part, to a better read of the Eagles' defense. Still, 5% is pretty low. I think the Cardinals would have still won, and maybe, just maybe that they may not have dominated if Skelton was at QB.

I can't believe, after all I wrote, the one thing I put the least amount of emphasis on, is the thing that got you all riled up. Chill, dude.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52981
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:

3. Eagles game I can't criticize too much. It was a decisive victory. If I had to put an asterisk on this game, it would be that Kolb helped the Cardinals beat them last year on the bench. The Eagles didn't change their signals. Well, that's not the only reason they won, but it certainly helped. Perhaps, when on the field at QB, Kolb was able to read some plays better than most QB's would. Don't harp on this too much, it's only a possible asterisk.


First of all, unless we won these games based on blatant blow calls that nothing to do with the coaching staffs or on field player you're in no position to applying asterisks to any team here, Cardinals or otherwise.

Second, how in the HELL is a 21 point win, a game we lead 24-0 at the half, a "possible" asterisk? I am all ears.


Good lord. Really? I emphasized it twice. TWICE! "If I had to put an asterisk" and "possible asterisk."

And, I already did explain it. Good day, sir.


And yet you still wrote possible asterisk. To a game we won by 3 touchdowns. That's BEYOND ridiculous. Beyond....

Your explanation was just as ridiculous. So because Kevin Kolb, in a league filled with free agent/trade turn over, played for the Eagles 2 years ago we got some sort of mythical advantage over a defense who's coordinator was an offensive line coach during Kolb's Philly tenure? Tell me this is like April's fools in October.


You sure you know what "possible" means?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=possible

I didn't say plausible. I didn't even say probable. I picked the only thing I could think of that could....maybe...put an asterisk there, after saying I couldn't really criticize the game because it was a decisive victory. I get that you want to defend the Cardinals. But, to use your words, this is BEYOND ridiculous.


Cute link but I know what the word possible translates to. And being as my wife's an english professor, if I didn't know I could just as soon use one of the 3-4 dictionaries she's got in this house. Possible asterisk means it has the potential to be an asterisk. I'd like to see where in the world that potential is at. Do tell.

Fact is, there's ZERO potential for asterisk there (And even if there was, again, you're in no position to be handing those out anwyay). We dominated that football game from start to finish.


Oh, your wife's an English professor, got it. **rolls eyes** My girlfriend is a banker, so yeah, I pretty much know everything about the banking industry. But, let's go with this; you should know that out of the three words: plausible, probable, and possible, possible has the lowest chance of happening.

As for the rest of it....just screams of homerism. Zero chance? I think it's closer to 5% that Kolb, after playing with a team for four years, knows some of the idiosyncrasies of his former teammates, and helped, at least in part, to a better read of the Eagles' defense. Still, 5% is pretty low. I think the Cardinals would have still won, and maybe, just maybe that they may not have dominated if Skelton was at QB.

I can't believe, after all I wrote, the one thing I put the least amount of emphasis on, is the thing that got you all riled up. Chill, dude.


1. I never said I knew everything about the english language, I said I had access to a dictionary. Nice try.
2. That's even better. Kevin Kolb has all of crucial, inside intel on his former teammates from his time as an Eagle? Because last I checked, 2 of Philly's DL were not Eagles during Kolb's tenure. They have 3 new LBs, 3 new CBs (1 of which was an Arizona Cardinal and could just as easily have filled his teammates in on our team. How convenient you didn't bring that up...), 1 new safety and a completely different defensive coordinator running a vastly different defensive scheme featuring that wide 9 of DL coach Jim Washburn.....also new from 2 years ago. So, there goes that.
3. Even if none of the #2 answer was correct, so what? So we're familiar with the Philadelphia Eagles. News flash, NFC teams (Of which there are only 16) play each other every 3 years MINIMUM. With Andy Reid having run that team for over a decade now, there's a pretty good chance that EVERY team in the NFC has some sort of knowledge about the Philadelphia Eagles player/scheme wise. You gonna leave open the possiblity for every team who's ever beaten this team to have an asterisk, which is a symbol that denotes something that shouldn't be applicable, applied to them? Really?
4. It got me riled up because it's ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. How much emphasis was placed on it is irrelevant.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LA Niner Fan


Joined: 20 Oct 2011
Posts: 408
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Um didn't Kolb help last year when the Cards played the Eagles and say that they hadn't changed a lot of their signals they'd relay from the sideline from his time as an Eagle.

Not very likely the Reid would do that AGAIN, but having a former player from a team DOES help most definitely. That's why pretty much every team has guys on their roster who are from division enemies despite not being much more than ST players or PS players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52981
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LA Niner Fan wrote:
Um didn't Kolb help last year when the Cards played the Eagles and say that they hadn't changed a lot of their signals they'd relay from the sideline from his time as an Eagle.

Not very likely the Reid would do that AGAIN, but having a former player from a team DOES help most definitely. That's why pretty much every team has guys on their roster who are from division enemies despite not being much more than ST players or PS players.


Very true. And that's not just limited to players. Coaches change teams just as often. Front office personnel change teams just as often. The Arizona Cardinals director of Pro Player Personnel in 2011, TJ McReight, is now with the New England Patriots. You think he didn't share a little tip here or there?

To add to that, I reiterate my point above, NFC teams play each other on a minimum once every 3 others. Minimum. There's a certain level of familiarity between every NFC team. This year San Francisco plays the New York Giants. That'll be their 3rd game against NYG in 12 months. That's a helluva lot of familiarity. If you guys win, do you deserve a potential asterisk?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LA Niner Fan


Joined: 20 Oct 2011
Posts: 408
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
LA Niner Fan wrote:
Um didn't Kolb help last year when the Cards played the Eagles and say that they hadn't changed a lot of their signals they'd relay from the sideline from his time as an Eagle.

Not very likely the Reid would do that AGAIN, but having a former player from a team DOES help most definitely. That's why pretty much every team has guys on their roster who are from division enemies despite not being much more than ST players or PS players.


Very true. And that's not just limited to players. Coaches change teams just as often. Front office personnel change teams just as often. The Arizona Cardinals director of Pro Player Personnel in 2011, TJ McReight, is now with the New England Patriots. You think he didn't share a little tip here or there?

To add to that, I reiterate my point above, NFC teams play each other on a minimum once every 3 others. Minimum. There's a certain level of familiarity between every NFC team. This year San Francisco plays the New York Giants. That'll be their 3rd game against NYG in 12 months. That's a helluva lot of familiarity. If you guys win, do you deserve a potential asterisk?


Yeah I don't think Kolb being on the Eagles helped a ton and by no means should put an asterisk on a decisive victory that could have been even more of a blowout. Just thought it was funny because last year when the Cards played the Eagles Kolb was able to give them a decisive advantage because Andy was too stupid to change his signals from the sideline.

The only game sthat deserve asterisks are ones that a blown by blatantly terrible officiating or when one player single-handedly blows a game like a kicker missing a chip shot. Games can have asterisks in the sense that someone can qualify a win or loss and attribute it to certain aspects (for instance a blowout does not necessarily mean one said team is WAY better than another) but I don't think it takes away from the final result for who won or lost.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shorty McFast


Joined: 27 Apr 2011
Posts: 759
Location: At the desk
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
If you guys win, do you deserve a potential asterisk?



LOL you sure are getting riled up over a guy basically admitting he's reaching for a reason.

Thank you for the entertainment!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yupyup


Joined: 19 Dec 2010
Posts: 585
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
Ataal wrote:

3. Eagles game I can't criticize too much. It was a decisive victory. If I had to put an asterisk on this game, it would be that Kolb helped the Cardinals beat them last year on the bench. The Eagles didn't change their signals. Well, that's not the only reason they won, but it certainly helped. Perhaps, when on the field at QB, Kolb was able to read some plays better than most QB's would. Don't harp on this too much, it's only a possible asterisk.


First of all, unless we won these games based on blatant blow calls that nothing to do with the coaching staffs or on field player you're in no position to applying asterisks to any team here, Cardinals or otherwise.

Second, how in the HELL is a 21 point win, a game we lead 24-0 at the half, a "possible" asterisk? I am all ears.


Good lord. Really? I emphasized it twice. TWICE! "If I had to put an asterisk" and "possible asterisk."

And, I already did explain it. Good day, sir.


And yet you still wrote possible asterisk. To a game we won by 3 touchdowns. That's BEYOND ridiculous. Beyond....

Your explanation was just as ridiculous. So because Kevin Kolb, in a league filled with free agent/trade turn over, played for the Eagles 2 years ago we got some sort of mythical advantage over a defense who's coordinator was an offensive line coach during Kolb's Philly tenure? Tell me this is like April's fools in October.


You sure you know what "possible" means?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=possible

I didn't say plausible. I didn't even say probable. I picked the only thing I could think of that could....maybe...put an asterisk there, after saying I couldn't really criticize the game because it was a decisive victory. I get that you want to defend the Cardinals. But, to use your words, this is BEYOND ridiculous.


Cute link but I know what the word possible translates to. And being as my wife's an english professor, if I didn't know I could just as soon use one of the 3-4 dictionaries she's got in this house. Possible asterisk means it has the potential to be an asterisk. I'd like to see where in the world that potential is at. Do tell.

Fact is, there's ZERO potential for asterisk there (And even if there was, again, you're in no position to be handing those out anwyay). We dominated that football game from start to finish.


Oh, your wife's an English professor, got it. **rolls eyes** My girlfriend is a banker, so yeah, I pretty much know everything about the banking industry. But, let's go with this; you should know that out of the three words: plausible, probable, and possible, possible has the lowest chance of happening.

As for the rest of it....just screams of homerism. Zero chance? I think it's closer to 5% that Kolb, after playing with a team for four years, knows some of the idiosyncrasies of his former teammates, and helped, at least in part, to a better read of the Eagles' defense. Still, 5% is pretty low. I think the Cardinals would have still won, and maybe, just maybe that they may not have dominated if Skelton was at QB.

I can't believe, after all I wrote, the one thing I put the least amount of emphasis on, is the thing that got you all riled up. Chill, dude.


No, he's right. Your statement is ridiculous and/or stupid.
_________________
Not removing until:

Aaron Rodgers becomes a top 10 QB again [X]
USC looks like a top 15 team []
Todd Gurley becomes a household name []
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 52981
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shorty McFast wrote:
stchamp98 wrote:
If you guys win, do you deserve a potential asterisk?



LOL you sure are getting riled up over a guy basically admitting he's reaching for a reason.

Thank you for the entertainment!


That would get most people upset I would think. If I go into the Texans forum and tell them I think JJ Watt is extremely overrated and don't provide at least some semblance of a valid argument, the reception I get would not be that of happiness.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shorty McFast


Joined: 27 Apr 2011
Posts: 759
Location: At the desk
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LA Niner Fan wrote:
and by no means should put an asterisk on a decisive victory that could have been even more of a blowout.



Wait... wut?

What are you referring to? The Cards got "lucky" on the first TD (2 Eagles touched it) and "lucky" on the last TD (which could have been a Philly TD).

That's a 21 point swing (which was the margin of victory).

Props to the Cards for winning but really this game should have been closer instead of a blowout.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shorty McFast


Joined: 27 Apr 2011
Posts: 759
Location: At the desk
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stchamp98 wrote:
If I go into the Texans forum and tell them I think JJ Watt is extremely overrated and don't provide at least some semblance of a valid argument, the reception I get would not be that of happiness.


A) He's in General NFL so I don't know why you're comparing a Troll situation to his statement.

B) He admitted he was reaching for an excuse. Then he said the only thing he could come up with was perhaps Kolb still knows the Eagles well enough to have an advantage.

Now you're saying he made you unhappy with his opinion?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
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