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 vs. Seahawks GDT - :( no bueno
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7953
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TexasBearsFan wrote:
This is so pathetic. I didn't hear one bit of any of this a few weeks ago when the defense was playing out of its mind and shutting down every team we played. Then all I heard was "Well, man, what a defense! Tillman for MVP! This defense still has it! Woooooo!!!!"

Then we lose a few and all of sudden the defense is old and the architect of the defense that was one of the best in the league as little as a month ago needs to be replaced.

Chicago fans, I tell ya.
Yeah, none of us could figure out that we should call a timeout or two when the defense was gassed.

Sure it had surprised us with the quality of its play against the tomato cans but every intelligent fan knew that the last half of our schedule was what would determine our year particularly December.

That would be the test and so far, we are failing it spectacularly.

BTW many have CONSISTENTLY been warning about the lack of offense and the inability of the D to keep up that pace. This is not a surprise to those without rose colored glasses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bears2308


Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 2436
Location: Indianapolis
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
bears2308 wrote:
We lose in OT and now Lovie should be fired? Is this the Packer forum? Wow. Who in here thought the defense would be as good as it is? Lovie will not lose his job.
We have lost three out of the last four with two of those loses being humiliation. There is little chance of winning two of the next four games to even make the playoffs.

No one is urging Smith's firing based on ONE game but because of the pattern of losing to good teams and not winning consistently.

We have won 14 games in Smith's tenure when we were behind at the half.
That is just poor game day coaching.


Three out of the last 4 being a humiliation? We barely lost to the Texans with Jason Campbell for a half. We were embarrassed by the 9'ers but who thought Campbell would honestly lead us to a win? I wouldn't call the loss to the Seahawks a humiliation by any means.

Smith HAS won consistently. You realize we are 8-4 and have the same record as the Packers? Hell, if Earl caught that touchdown all of this talk wouldn't have happened and everyone would still be looking toward the play-offs. Now we have "little chance" to win two out of the next four? Arizona and Detroit are all of the sudden favorites? Talk about an over-reaction. Smith took us to the damn Superbowl and NFC Championship game just two years ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TexasBearsFan


Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 1240
Location: Waco, TX
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
TexasBearsFan wrote:
This is so pathetic. I didn't hear one bit of any of this a few weeks ago when the defense was playing out of its mind and shutting down every team we played. Then all I heard was "Well, man, what a defense! Tillman for MVP! This defense still has it! Woooooo!!!!"

Then we lose a few and all of sudden the defense is old and the architect of the defense that was one of the best in the league as little as a month ago needs to be replaced.

Chicago fans, I tell ya.
Yeah, none of us could figure out that we should call a timeout or two when the defense was gassed.

Sure it had surprised us with the quality of its play against the tomato cans but every intelligent fan knew that the last half of our schedule was what would determine our year particularly December.

That would be the test and so far, we are failing it spectacularly.

BTW many have CONSISTENTLY been warning about the lack of offense and the inability of the D to keep up that pace. This is not a surprise to those without rose colored glasses.


So are you saying that the team is bad or the coach is bad or is it the usual Chicago fan histrionics and all of a sudden *both* are.

I can tell you right now why Lovie didn't call time out. Because, had he done so, and Seattle had managed to score with 30 seconds left, we'd have heard nothing but fans belly-aching about how he gave them extra time by stopping the clock! He can't win in that situation. On the 4th and 1 early in the game, if it worked and they end up scoring a touchdown he's heralded as a gutsy coach who believed in his guys and who made a ballsy call that won the game. If it fails, he's second-guessed into infinity. This is why coaches so rarely go for it on 4th down; they know if it fails, THEY are the ones who take the heat, not the offensive line or Michael Bush.

You know why the defense lost that game? Because they couldn't get stop on ANY of the third downs. The gameplan worked to perfection: get them to throw short of the chains and get stops. However the PLAYERS missed way too many tackles in the open field. Go back and watch. Golden Tate, their QB and others spun and danced their way past defender after defender. Lovie can't make the team execute.

And I'm sorry, but coaching isn't as important as you think it is. Coaches with good players who execute look brilliant. Coaches with bad players look stupid. You think Bill Bellichek had just didn't know what he was doing when he was in Cleveland and his teams stunk up the field? He got to New England where he ended up with Tom Brady and all of a sudden he look brilliant. Although, when we're judging by this absurd notion that successful coaches get their teams to the Super Bowl and win it, they haven't won a Super Bowl in 7 years. And if you asked a Pats fan if they should fire Bellichek they'd look at you like you'd lost your freakin' mind.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TexasBearsFan


Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 1240
Location: Waco, TX
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bears2308 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
bears2308 wrote:
We lose in OT and now Lovie should be fired? Is this the Packer forum? Wow. Who in here thought the defense would be as good as it is? Lovie will not lose his job.
We have lost three out of the last four with two of those loses being humiliation. There is little chance of winning two of the next four games to even make the playoffs.

No one is urging Smith's firing based on ONE game but because of the pattern of losing to good teams and not winning consistently.

We have won 14 games in Smith's tenure when we were behind at the half.
That is just poor game day coaching.


Three out of the last 4 being a humiliation? We barely lost to the Texans with Jason Campbell for a half. We were embarrassed by the 9'ers but who thought Campbell would honestly lead us to a win? I wouldn't call the loss to the Seahawks a humiliation by any means.

Smith HAS won consistently. You realize we are 8-4 and have the same record as the Packers? Hell, if Earl caught that touchdown all of this talk wouldn't have happened and everyone would still be looking toward the play-offs. Now we have "little chance" to win two out of the next four? Arizona and Detroit are all of the sudden favorites? Talk about an over-reaction. Smith took us to the damn Superbowl and NFC Championship game just two years ago.


And lets not forget, we would have almost certainly made the playoffs last year had Jay Cutler not been injured on a flukey play trying to tackle someone.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 9856
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TexasBearsFan wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
TexasBearsFan wrote:
This is so pathetic. I didn't hear one bit of any of this a few weeks ago when the defense was playing out of its mind and shutting down every team we played. Then all I heard was "Well, man, what a defense! Tillman for MVP! This defense still has it! Woooooo!!!!"

Then we lose a few and all of sudden the defense is old and the architect of the defense that was one of the best in the league as little as a month ago needs to be replaced.

Chicago fans, I tell ya.
Yeah, none of us could figure out that we should call a timeout or two when the defense was gassed.

Sure it had surprised us with the quality of its play against the tomato cans but every intelligent fan knew that the last half of our schedule was what would determine our year particularly December.

That would be the test and so far, we are failing it spectacularly.

BTW many have CONSISTENTLY been warning about the lack of offense and the inability of the D to keep up that pace. This is not a surprise to those without rose colored glasses.


So are you saying that the team is bad or the coach is bad or is it the usual Chicago fan histrionics and all of a sudden *both* are.

I can tell you right now why Lovie didn't call time out. Because, had he done so, and Seattle had managed to score with 30 seconds left, we'd have heard nothing but fans belly-aching about how he gave them extra time by stopping the clock! He can't win in that situation. On the 4th and 1 early in the game, if it worked and they end up scoring a touchdown he's heralded as a gutsy coach who believed in his guys and who made a ballsy call that won the game. If it fails, he's second-guessed into infinity. This is why coaches so rarely go for it on 4th down; they know if it fails, THEY are the ones who take the heat, not the offensive line or Michael Bush.

You know why the defense lost that game? Because they couldn't get stop on ANY of the third downs. The gameplan worked to perfection: get them to throw short of the chains and get stops. However the PLAYERS missed way too many tackles in the open field. Go back and watch. Golden Tate, their QB and others spun and danced their way past defender after defender. Lovie can't make the team execute.

And I'm sorry, but coaching isn't as important as you think it is. Coaches with good players who execute look brilliant. Coaches with bad players look stupid. You think Bill Bellichek had just didn't know what he was doing when he was in Cleveland and his teams stunk up the field? He got to New England where he ended up with Tom Brady and all of a sudden he look brilliant. Although, when we're judging by this absurd notion that successful coaches get their teams to the Super Bowl and win it, they haven't won a Super Bowl in 7 years. And if you asked a Pats fan if they should fire Bellichek they'd look at you like you'd lost your freakin' mind.


Not that I totally disagree, but Belicheck has not won a Superbowl in 7 years and Lovie has made the playoffs once in the last 5 years so hard to compare them.

I am not going to attack Lovie for his in game decisions. Even though I have 1 complaint. Why Marinelli and Lovie continued to have the end crash down and Urlacher scrape outside to the zone option plays was idiotic. How many times did Wilson need to run by Urlacher before the figured out he is to slow to execute the play and adjust to have the DE stay home and Urlacher fill the run lanes.

I am going to criticize him for not having a team that consistently performs on both sides of the ball.

The Seahawks game was a game that we should have won, unlike Green Bay and SF, and some of the blame must be placed on the coaches. I blame the defense, I blame the coaches, I blame Matt Forte for his lame run on 3rd and 2 before he 4th an inches, I blame Earl Bennett for not making a play and earning his 4 million this season.
_________________
Adopt a Bear: DT Will Sutton [T, S, TFL, FF]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
C


Joined: 02 Dec 2012
Posts: 114
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something I've noticed is that the defense plays well against teams we face often and get scorched by teams we've never seen before. True, we've played Seattle 3 years in a row, but not with Wilson at the helm. Interestingly, we've seen a lot of Michael Vick and handle him quite well, but Wilson and Kapernick...clueless.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bears2308


Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 2436
Location: Indianapolis
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

C wrote:
Something I've noticed is that the defense plays well against teams we face often and get scorched by teams we've never seen before. True, we've played Seattle 3 years in a row, but not with Wilson at the helm. Interestingly, we've seen a lot of Michael Vick and handle him quite well, but Wilson and Kapernick...clueless.


Welcome to the forums.

Urlacher losing a step (or four) is a major reason we can't contain these QB's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
C


Joined: 02 Dec 2012
Posts: 114
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bears2308 wrote:
C wrote:
Something I've noticed is that the defense plays well against teams we face often and get scorched by teams we've never seen before. True, we've played Seattle 3 years in a row, but not with Wilson at the helm. Interestingly, we've seen a lot of Michael Vick and handle him quite well, but Wilson and Kapernick...clueless.


Welcome to the forums.

Urlacher losing a step (or four) is a major reason we can't contain these QB's.


Thanks!

Sunday wasn't on the LBs. Either Marinelli had our ends stunting on most plays or the ends simply disregarded their containment responsibility. It was ridiculous how many times Wilson got outside the tackles and no one was home to force him back. Wide open space and passing lanes.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7953
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bears2308 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
bears2308 wrote:
We lose in OT and now Lovie should be fired? Is this the Packer forum? Wow. Who in here thought the defense would be as good as it is? Lovie will not lose his job.
We have lost three out of the last four with two of those loses being humiliation. There is little chance of winning two of the next four games to even make the playoffs.

No one is urging Smith's firing based on ONE game but because of the pattern of losing to good teams and not winning consistently.

We have won 14 games in Smith's tenure when we were behind at the half.
That is just poor game day coaching.


Three out of the last 4 being a humiliation? We barely lost to the Texans with Jason Campbell for a half. We were embarrassed by the 9'ers but who thought Campbell would honestly lead us to a win? I wouldn't call the loss to the Seahawks a humiliation by any means. I call long drives allowing your opponent to win humiliation, whatever you call it. Losing to teams you should beat is humiliation. I clearly said TWO of the last four games was humiliation. But people can't understand clear statements.



Smith HAS won consistently. No, he has won INTERMITTENTLY. A "consistent" winner wins almost every year not every OTHER year. You realize we are 8-4 and have the same record as the Packers? I also realize the Pack is trending up and the Bears are trending DOWN. Hell, if Earl caught that touchdown all of this talk wouldn't have happened and everyone would still be looking toward the play-offs. IF I had as much money as Warren Buffet, I could buy a team and show the world how wrong I am, too. Now we have "little chance" to win two out of the next four? Arizona and Detroit are all of the sudden favorites? While I did not say that, Detroit will definitely be favored. Talk about an over-reaction. Well I never believed we would win at Mn or Detroit. That isn't the problem, I just never thought we would lose to Seattle. That will be the game which marks Smith's downfall. Smith took us to the damn Superbowl and NFC Championship game just two years ago.
Yes, his team was in both those games and I have no beef with his coaching during the Super Bowl or that year (you do realize that was six years ago?) but the NFC Championship game was terrible.

First of all he was INCREDIBLY lucky to even get to that game. I have never seen the kind of luck the Bears had that year. Not only did the Bears have few injuries but there was a stretch there where almost every QB we faced was either crippled or out. When that happens Smith can win games.

Second, his record shows he has little chance of winning games when behind at the half ( only 14 during his tenure). This has several implications: the team had better NOT get behind for one. Compounding this is the tendency for the team to start slowly in most games. Given this, the Bears cannot afford to defer to GB as long as Rodgers is QB - unless the game is in a monsoon. So what does our coach do but concede? I knew the game was lost then and there. Sure, enough two quick td drives and the game was over. It was lost before Cutler.

Third, everyone seems to ignore his role in personnel selection after the post-Super Bowl extension. These players are as much or more his picks as Angelo's. You cannot ignore this and pretend that he doesn't win because of bad players. THESE ARE HIS PLAYERS.

Fourth, this was his defense which got absolutely humiliated yesterday and they will tell you it got humiliated. And the excuse that he has nothing to do about the offense won't fly here.

You should be clear. No firing need be done before the year is up and it won't be. There is no point to that.

If a team is satisfied with mediocrity, then there is no need to fire Smith ever. If a team wants a championship, then he has to go. We need an offensive minded coach.

I NEVER go into a game believing we have a coaching advantage over ANY experienced coach. Only under Neil Armstrong and Smith have I not wanted to attend games. Now we don't have the Old Man anymore to pick another Ditka so I don't know who we should have next (as I did then.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7953
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TexasBearsFan wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
TexasBearsFan wrote:
This is so pathetic. I didn't hear one bit of any of this a few weeks ago when the defense was playing out of its mind and shutting down every team we played. Then all I heard was "Well, man, what a defense! Tillman for MVP! This defense still has it! Woooooo!!!!"

Then we lose a few and all of sudden the defense is old and the architect of the defense that was one of the best in the league as little as a month ago needs to be replaced.

Chicago fans, I tell ya.
Yeah, none of us could figure out that we should call a timeout or two when the defense was gassed.

Sure it had surprised us with the quality of its play against the tomato cans but every intelligent fan knew that the last half of our schedule was what would determine our year particularly December.

That would be the test and so far, we are failing it spectacularly.

BTW many have CONSISTENTLY been warning about the lack of offense and the inability of the D to keep up that pace. This is not a surprise to those without rose colored glasses.


So are you saying that the team is bad or the coach is bad or is it the usual Chicago fan histrionics and all of a sudden *both* are. We have a good team with severe limitations which a coach has to both know and accommodate. We do not have a fully developed offense which can consistently put up 25 or 30 points a game so we have to understand that we will scratch and claw for EVERY point. We cannot afford to have coaching mistakes lose games for us particularly since Smith wants to play low scoring games which depend on the defense to hang on. Hence, yesterday we have to take the 3.

Smith does not seem to have the awareness during the game to make the right decisions. And they are not all momentous. Take a time out when the defense is gassed. Make sure return men do NOT try to run the ball out from the end zone in critical situations.

He is also weak in player evaluation. Everyone here has been screaming about the Oline for two years. Apparently he does not share that concern or they would have put more into that area. Do you believe him to be right about that?

The Chicago Bears deserve and need a GREAT Coach.


I can tell you right now why Lovie didn't call time out. Because, had he done so, and Seattle had managed to score with 30 seconds left, we'd have heard nothing but fans belly-aching about how he gave them extra time by stopping the clock! He can't win in that situation. Of course, he can. Since Seattle had to stop the clock and did just call a time out at the end of their timeout. Come on this isn't difficult. On the 4th and 1 early in the game, if it worked and they end up scoring a touchdown he's heralded as a gutsy coach who believed in his guys and who made a ballsy call that won the game. If it fails, he's second-guessed into infinity. This is why coaches so rarely go for it on 4th down; they know if it fails, THEY are the ones who take the heat, not the offensive line or Michael Bush. My problem is less with the going for it as it is not running the sneak. Bring in four receivers spread the field then have Cutler signal the snap by touch or first sound. No brainer. Smith is not afraid of the fan reaction in any case that is not one of his problems.

You know why the defense lost that game? Because they couldn't get stop on ANY of the third downs. The gameplan worked to perfection: get them to throw short of the chains and get stops. However the PLAYERS missed way too many tackles in the open field. Go back and watch. That is the risk of that strategy. Exhaust the d and they can't tackle. Golden Tate, their QB and others spun and danced their way past defender after defender. Lovie can't make the team execute. He is hardly the only coach to drop into that Prevent defense and lose but the way it came was totally unacceptable. Our Dline is pretty young and should have been on the field rather than more backs. Our d is good when it ATTACKS not when it is on its heels and hoping for a break.

And I'm sorry, but coaching isn't as important as you think it is. Coaching is an absolutely critical element. After watching Bears coaches flounder around for a decade I saw the difference when Ditka arrived. NIGHT AND DAY. Coaches with good players who execute look brilliant when they are allowed to execute and don't pull in their horns and put it all on the defense that is. Coaches with bad players look stupid. You think Bill Bellichek had just didn't know what he was doing when he was in Cleveland and his teams stunk up the field? He was learning his craft in that job like a lot of newly hired coaches. He got to New England where he ended up with Tom Brady and all of a sudden he look brilliant. Although, when we're judging by this absurd notion that successful coaches get their teams to the Super Bowl and win it, they haven't won a Super Bowl in 7 years. And if you asked a Pats fan if they should fire Bellichek they'd look at you like you'd lost your freakin' mind.
I don't think you want to compare the records of BB with Smith. How many years did BB have a losing record? None?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7953
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TexasBearsFan wrote:
bears2308 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
bears2308 wrote:
We lose in OT and now Lovie should be fired? Is this the Packer forum? Wow. Who in here thought the defense would be as good as it is? Lovie will not lose his job.
We have lost three out of the last four with two of those loses being humiliation. There is little chance of winning two of the next four games to even make the playoffs.

No one is urging Smith's firing based on ONE game but because of the pattern of losing to good teams and not winning consistently.

We have won 14 games in Smith's tenure when we were behind at the half.
That is just poor game day coaching.


Three out of the last 4 being a humiliation? We barely lost to the Texans with Jason Campbell for a half. We were embarrassed by the 9'ers but who thought Campbell would honestly lead us to a win? I wouldn't call the loss to the Seahawks a humiliation by any means.

Smith HAS won consistently. You realize we are 8-4 and have the same record as the Packers? Hell, if Earl caught that touchdown all of this talk wouldn't have happened and everyone would still be looking toward the play-offs. Now we have "little chance" to win two out of the next four? Arizona and Detroit are all of the sudden favorites? Talk about an over-reaction. Smith took us to the damn Superbowl and NFC Championship game just two years ago.


And lets not forget, we would have almost certainly made the playoffs last year had Jay Cutler not been injured on a flukey play trying to tackle someone.
Coaches have to live with that kind of crap all the time. Detroit lost their QB at one point and still had one of the top offenses in the league.

It is an unforgiving league. Indy lost Manning and the team stunk. Their coach was canned at the end of that year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7953
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

C wrote:
Something I've noticed is that the defense plays well against teams we face often and get scorched by teams we've never seen before. True, we've played Seattle 3 years in a row, but not with Wilson at the helm. Interestingly, we've seen a lot of Michael Vick and handle him quite well, but Wilson and Kapernick...clueless.
That is a very interesting point. Welcome
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7953
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bears2308 wrote:
C wrote:
Something I've noticed is that the defense plays well against teams we face often and get scorched by teams we've never seen before. True, we've played Seattle 3 years in a row, but not with Wilson at the helm. Interestingly, we've seen a lot of Michael Vick and handle him quite well, but Wilson and Kapernick...clueless.


Welcome to the forums.

Urlacher losing a step (or four) is a major reason we can't contain these QB's.
Urlacher went out with a hamstring so I am not sure this was him losing steps. Who knows he was out there and wouldn't admit it was slowing him? You know how he is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaMike


Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 5635
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bears2308 wrote:
C wrote:
Something I've noticed is that the defense plays well against teams we face often and get scorched by teams we've never seen before. True, we've played Seattle 3 years in a row, but not with Wilson at the helm. Interestingly, we've seen a lot of Michael Vick and handle him quite well, but Wilson and Kapernick...clueless.


Welcome to the forums.

Urlacher losing a step (or four) is a major reason we can't contain these QB's.
McClellin couldn't do it either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronMike84


Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 7126
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was having flashbacks to the 2002 playoff game vs. Phili where the lumbering Bears line could not contain McNabb.

Enough about the defense being old or the lack of contain though; bottom line is that there were numerous missed opportunities in this game. Major Wright could have sealed the game with the INT he dropped, Earl Bennett could have added an extra TD to the board with the pass he dropped, Gould could have added 3 if the offense hadn't tried to convert that 4th and 1, and there could have been another TD in it if Bush and the offense had converted. Again though, we can say "if" all day; it doesn't change anything.
_________________
Rotoworld.com wrote:
...internet mock drafts, which have ridiculously become the measuring stick for where players are "supposed" to go.
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 ... 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
Page 33 of 35

 
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