Caleb Williams News and Rumor thread

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
thunderspirit
Head Coach
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 526 times

HurricaneBear wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:03 pm
Moriarty wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:00 pm Bowers comes up from time to time.

As much as I like 2TE sets (esp for a team that is weak at WR), I don't think this makes sense at all.

You can't go 12 90% of the time and planning to sit Kmet or a top 10 pick 40% of the time is not a good plan.
I will have to agree to disagree with you on this one. Surrounding the QB with as many weapons as possible is always the best plan, in my opinion.(with that said I would prefer a WR but I'd be on board for Bowers so we aren't totally on opposite pages here)
The reason most of the time you want a 3rd WR instead of a 2nd TE is the ability to hit explosive plays with that guy.

Most TEs don't have great speed. A tight end who runs a 4.50 40-yard dash, like Noah Fant or our old buddy Greg Olson, is in the 96th percentile. A WR who runs a 4.50 is in the 54th percentile. That's a pretty significant difference.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11584
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1101 times
Been thanked: 1905 times

Heinz D. wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:12 pm
dplank wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:36 pm Yea I was referring to last nights game specifically. I’m not on board with acting like Mahomes greatness won them that game last night - far from it. He played fine, but that wasn’t one of those games that have earned him the reputation he has. The rest of the team carried the day, defense, OL (the key to the screen game), and Andy Reid’s play calling mastery were all more impactful to last nights outcome.
Yeah...I'm not going to claim that you don't have a point, there. But I'm not sure the Chiefs actually make it to the Super Bowl with Mahomes.

And none of what either one of us has said gives any weight to anything resembling a compelling argument for the Bears to keep Fields.
Well, agree on the first part. On the second part, you're missing my point. When you say stuff like "Hey, look at Mahomes as proof that we should replace Fields with a new QB because great QB's drive Super Bowls" - the obvious corner that you've painted yourself into here is this idea that you have to "out QB people to win a super bowl", which by simple logic in today's Mahomes landscape means "land a QB better than Mahomes or you're screwed". We watched the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best QB's go down - so "Top 5" doesn't seem to matter if you have this approach, it's 1st or bust. And I believe that this is a fools errand. And the better move is to build strength all over the field and beat him as a team, not by trying to "out QB the new GOAT". So I'd keep Fields and build a monster ass defense and kick ass OL/running game that keeps Mahomes off the field. SF almost pulled it off with this methodology. I'm accepting that we aren't going to out QB Mahomes and focusing on an alternative way to achieve the goal we all want.

Frankly, if not for an absolutely elite defense, KC isn't making the SB either.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4568
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 407 times
Been thanked: 588 times

Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:28 pm Cross-posting here because it definitely would be a part of Build Around Caleb.

Justin and 75 for 20?

Take Caleb, Rome, and Jackson Powers-Johnson.

I don't think you could get that, but if you could that would be great.

Maybe you pick 51 and Diontae Johnson. Don't know how much I like the idea of getting a WR from them that we hope a change of teams makes him perform like people think he should. But if you did, then you could take Caleb at 1 go Bowers or DE at #9 and address center at 51.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5583
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1515 times

For those new to the forum, here's a quick recap of the history between dplank and RichH55:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
User avatar
The Cooler King
Head Coach
Posts: 4893
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1102 times
Been thanked: 318 times

People enjoy watching boxing matches though 😂
User avatar
thunderspirit
Head Coach
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 526 times

The Cooler King wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:50 pm People enjoy watching boxing matches though 😂
Well played :toast:
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
southdakbearfan
Head Coach
Posts: 4467
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Dakota
Has thanked: 600 times
Been thanked: 282 times

But Carl Weathers died, in the movies and now in real life. So who is Carl in this scenario?
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5583
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1515 times

Well hopefully neither of course. The recent civil discourse between the two has been a real boon around these parts.

Image
User avatar
Ditka’s dictaphone
Head Coach
Posts: 3805
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 662 times
Been thanked: 791 times

I like to think of it more like this :



Or given @dplank ’s avatar , maybe it’s this

(26/09/2023) Winner of the inaugural

Image
User avatar
Heinz D.
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 832 times
Been thanked: 134 times

dplank wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:31 pm Well, agree on the first part. On the second part, you're missing my point. When you say stuff like "Hey, look at Mahomes as proof that we should replace Fields with a new QB because great QB's drive Super Bowls" - the obvious corner that you've painted yourself into here is this idea that you have to "out QB people to win a super bowl", which by simple logic in today's Mahomes landscape means "land a QB better than Mahomes or you're screwed". We watched the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best QB's go down - so "Top 5" doesn't seem to matter if you have this approach, it's 1st or bust. And I believe that this is a fools errand. And the better move is to build strength all over the field and beat him as a team, not by trying to "out QB the new GOAT". So I'd keep Fields and build a monster ass defense and kick ass OL/running game that keeps Mahomes off the field. SF almost pulled it off with this methodology. I'm accepting that we aren't going to out QB Mahomes and focusing on an alternative way to achieve the goal we all want.

Frankly, if not for an absolutely elite defense, KC isn't making the SB either.
I'm actually not in the "Fields must go!" camp...but I have to admit, after spending a great deal of time pondering all this, I have come around to Poles' way of thinking.

Urlacher was a little harsh in his assessment of the overall situation--but that doesn't mean he's wrong. If you're still having questions about youir QB after three seasons, then he's probably not the guy. If you have a chance to draft one of the most touted college QBs ever, and replace someone who may not be the guy...then you do that, eight days a week, and twice on Sundays.

And the main reason I keep on this stuff, keep bringing it up...is because it's gonna happen. Poles is going to draft Caleb Williams...maybe Maye, or maybe Daniels...and he's going to trade Fields. THAT is what's going to go down, and it doesn't matter if we love the idea or hate it. I firmly believe it's what's in the cards.
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11584
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1101 times
Been thanked: 1905 times

Heinz D. wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:41 pm Urlacher was a little harsh in his assessment of the overall situation--but that doesn't mean he's wrong. If you're still having questions about youir QB after three seasons, then he's probably not the guy. If you have a chance to draft one of the most touted college QBs ever, and replace someone who may not be the guy...then you do that, eight days a week, and twice on Sundays.
Well, by this logic the Packers should have traded Jordan Love last offseason and drafted a QB. 3 years isn't a hard rule as numerous examples have shown us, and with our context of dealing with a coaching change, two different offenses, and playing through a brutal tear down season last year - it's not to be unexpected. Waiting out one more season is not a terrible idea.
User avatar
Ditka’s dictaphone
Head Coach
Posts: 3805
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 662 times
Been thanked: 791 times

Say for example Caleb does love a move to the Commandos more than the Bears, is there a chance he deliberately screws up his interview with the Bears?
Has that ever happened?
(26/09/2023) Winner of the inaugural

Image
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5583
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1515 times

dplank wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:51 pm Well, by this logic the Packers should have traded Jordan Love last offseason and drafted a QB. 3 years isn't a hard rule as numerous examples have shown us, and with our context of dealing with a coaching change, two different offenses, and playing through a brutal tear down season last year - it's not to be unexpected. Waiting out one more season is not a terrible idea.
Your thinking on this point is flawed dplank. Love didn't play at all in his first year and started only 1 game in the subsequent two years, throwing just 83 passes. The Packers hedged their bets with what amounted to a 1 year contract extension beyond his rookie deal rather than pick up his 5th year option. They had little game film from which to draw conclusions about Love and it made sense to give him a shot. He wouldn't have had much trade value then due to his lack of playing time and they did draft a QB albeit in the 5th round.

That's a world away from Fields' situation with his 38 starts and 958 passing attempts.

Your points about the circumstances under which Fields has had to play are significant though and if it wasn't for the Bears owning the first overall pick of the draft it would undoubtedly make sense to give him one more year. That isn't the situation though and the brutal truth is Fields didn't do enough last season to prove he has what it takes to be a top QB.

Poles is therefore faced with a simple but difficult choice: draft the QB being touted as a rare elite-level prospect and offload Fields or prioritise high draft capital for the next few years in order to keep adding a stream of young talent to improve the team. I don't envy him that choice. If only Fields had set the world on fire last year or this year's QB class was considered poor, then the decision would be easy.
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona
Has thanked: 830 times
Been thanked: 148 times

..just show up in the dress...and dis Walter or Butkus..

Should be enough..but goosing Ginny should seal the deal..
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11584
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1101 times
Been thanked: 1905 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 7:07 pm
dplank wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:51 pm Well, by this logic the Packers should have traded Jordan Love last offseason and drafted a QB. 3 years isn't a hard rule as numerous examples have shown us, and with our context of dealing with a coaching change, two different offenses, and playing through a brutal tear down season last year - it's not to be unexpected. Waiting out one more season is not a terrible idea.
Your thinking on this point is flawed dplank. Love didn't play at all in his first year and started only 1 game in the subsequent two years, throwing just 83 passes. The Packers hedged their bets with what amounted to a 1 year contract extension beyond his rookie deal rather than pick up his 5th year option. They had little game film from which to draw conclusions about Love and it made sense to give him a shot. He wouldn't have had much trade value then due to his lack of playing time and they did draft a QB albeit in the 5th round.

That's a world away from Fields' situation with his 38 starts and 958 passing attempts.

Your points about the circumstances under which Fields has had to play are significant though and if it wasn't for the Bears owning the first overall pick of the draft it would undoubtedly make sense to give him one more year. That isn't the situation though and the brutal truth is Fields didn't do enough last season to prove he has what it takes to be a top QB.

Poles is therefore faced with a simple but difficult choice: draft the QB being touted as a rare elite-level prospect and offload Fields or prioritise high draft capital for the next few years in order to keep adding a stream of young talent to improve the team. I don't envy him that choice. If only Fields had set the world on fire last year or this year's QB class was considered poor, then the decision would be easy.
Nope, yours is flawed bud. The Packers gave him 4 years, not 3, and by all accounts he was simply not ready to play any sooner - if he was they'd probably have moved on from Aaron a year sooner where they'd have made out a TON better. The simple fact here is that we saw a guy go from zero to hero in Y4, and absolutely no one saw it coming. No one knows how Love would have performed had he been thrust into action before he was ready, and then asked to play QB for a team doing a total rebuild that had no line and no WR's. And changed offenses. Love may very well have completely collapsed under that pile of shittary. The only fact we KNOW, is that Love took off in Y4. Fields is just as talented a player if not more. I'd like to see it through properly, and I guarantee you that Packers fans are happy they didn't bail on Love early.
Last edited by dplank on Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Atkins&Rebel
Head Coach
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:56 pm
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 113 times

thunderspirit wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:26 pm
HurricaneBear wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:03 pm

I will have to agree to disagree with you on this one. Surrounding the QB with as many weapons as possible is always the best plan, in my opinion.(with that said I would prefer a WR but I'd be on board for Bowers so we aren't totally on opposite pages here)
The reason most of the time you want a 3rd WR instead of a 2nd TE is the ability to hit explosive plays with that guy.

Most TEs don't have great speed. A tight end who runs a 4.50 40-yard dash, like Noah Fant or our old buddy Greg Olson, is in the 96th percentile. A WR who runs a 4.50 is in the 54th percentile. That's a pretty significant difference.
I'm not a huge Bowers fan from the strict point that it takes 2-3 years for TEs to develop more often than not.
Last year being the exception, if the Bears take him I wouldn't be mad or anything.
BUT, they absolutely could run 12 personnel a majority of the time just like the Rams did for 3 years with Goff to help him in a play action offense. Ironically, it was us in 2018 that gave the blueprint to stop that offense by selling out to stop the run and forcing Goff to beat ya throwing the ball.
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11584
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1101 times
Been thanked: 1905 times

southdakbearfan wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:14 pm But Carl Weathers died, in the movies and now in real life. So who is Carl in this scenario?
Which one had the hots for Queen Latifah? I’ll be that one.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5583
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1515 times

dplank wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:51 pm Which one had the hots for Queen Latifah? I’ll be that one.
Neither ever got hit hard enough in the head for that to happen. :sick:
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5583
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1515 times

dplank wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:08 pm
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 7:07 pm

Your thinking on this point is flawed dplank. Love didn't play at all in his first year and started only 1 game in the subsequent two years, throwing just 83 passes. The Packers hedged their bets with what amounted to a 1 year contract extension beyond his rookie deal rather than pick up his 5th year option. They had little game film from which to draw conclusions about Love and it made sense to give him a shot. He wouldn't have had much trade value then due to his lack of playing time and they did draft a QB albeit in the 5th round.

That's a world away from Fields' situation with his 38 starts and 958 passing attempts.

Your points about the circumstances under which Fields has had to play are significant though and if it wasn't for the Bears owning the first overall pick of the draft it would undoubtedly make sense to give him one more year. That isn't the situation though and the brutal truth is Fields didn't do enough last season to prove he has what it takes to be a top QB.

Poles is therefore faced with a simple but difficult choice: draft the QB being touted as a rare elite-level prospect and offload Fields or prioritise high draft capital for the next few years in order to keep adding a stream of young talent to improve the team. I don't envy him that choice. If only Fields had set the world on fire last year or this year's QB class was considered poor, then the decision would be easy.
Nope, yours is flawed bud. The Packers gave him 4 years, not 3, and by all accounts he was simply not ready to play any sooner - if he was they'd probably have moved on from Aaron a year sooner where they'd have made out a TON better. The simple fact here is that we saw a guy go from zero to hero in Y4, and absolutely no one saw it coming. No one knows how Love would have performed had he been thrust into action before he was ready, and then asked to play QB for a team doing a total rebuild that had no line and no WR's. And changed offenses. Love may very well have completely collapsed under that pile of shittary. The only fact we KNOW, is that Love took off in Y4. Fields is just as talented a player if not more. I'd like to see it through properly, and I guarantee you that Packers fans are happy they didn't bail on Love early.
Sorry dplank but comparing Love's situation to Fields' is like comparing apples to oranges. They're so completely different it's pointless. Nobody can know what would have happened if their situations were reversed.

Love had 1 start after 3 years. Fields has had 38.

Love was basically a largely unknown quantity going into his 4th season and the Packers simply weren't in a position to make a move for one of the top 3 QB prospects in the draft who all went to QB needy teams in the first 4 picks.

Fields is a known quantity with a ton of tape. The problem is there isn't a lot of great tape. Sure there are moments of excellence, even the odd game or two from time-to-time, but in 3 years as a starter he hasn't proven himself. Might he still do so? Yes, but it would be a gamble for Poles and one he simply may not be able to afford to take. It may be better for him to gamble on the "generational" draft prospect instead and Poles doesn't have to make a move for him because the Bears own the first pick.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11584
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1101 times
Been thanked: 1905 times

The point is your harshly judging one player for gutting it out before he was ready, and for a team that didn’t have a competitive roster while tearing it down - while giving a free pass to Love for riding the pine for 3 years. The fact is stubborn here, Love didn’t mature until Y4 and there’s plenty of reason to believe that Fields can do the same. Those 38 starts, mostly under harsh circumstances, only make that more probable IMO.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29340
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 1742 times

I read something today about keeping Fields vs moving on and it made me think.

Do you keep Fields and be ok with running back 2018 every once in a while, or do you want more?
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5583
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1515 times

dplank wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:48 pm The point is your harshly judging one player for gutting it out before he was ready, and for a team that didn’t have a competitive roster while tearing it down - while giving a free pass to Love for riding the pine for 3 years. The fact is stubborn here, Love didn’t mature until Y4 and there’s plenty of reason to believe that Fields can do the same. Those 38 starts, mostly under harsh circumstances, only make that more probable IMO.
I'm not judging, I'm just laying out the facts and the obvious choice Poles faces. Whichever direction he goes will be a gamble. Which one gives him the better odds of success and retaining his job? Comparing the pasts of two players in entirely different situations is irrelevant to that question.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5583
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1515 times

wab wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:54 pm I read something today about keeping Fields vs moving on and it made me think.

Do you keep Fields and be ok with running back 2018 every once in a while, or do you want more?
An interesting perspective on the day Trubisky was cut by the Steelers.

Of course the argument is that Fields having not taken a leap in Year 3 a la Josh Allen will do so in Year 4 and, combined with a haul of draft picks from trading the first overall pick, this will catapult the Bears into perennial contention.

The counter argument is that Fields won't take that leap, not every extra pick will pan out and the Bears will still be searching for that elusive franchise QB having passed on the best prospect in years who will go on to enjoy enormous success with another team and torment Bears fans the way Mahomes has.

Pick your poison.
Magilla_Gorilla
Journeyman
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 66 times

What examples do we have of NFL QB's who had 30+ starts of bad to mediocre play who then 'matured' in Years 4 or 5.
User avatar
thunderspirit
Head Coach
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 526 times

Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:06 pm What examples do we have of NFL QB's who had 30+ starts of bad to mediocre play who then 'matured' in Years 4 or 5.
This has been covered before. There aren't a ton, but there are some. They're outliers, but they're there.

Look, if you are ready to give up on Fields, that's fine. You're playing the odds rather than betting on an outlier, and I can't fault that.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
Atkins&Rebel
Head Coach
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:56 pm
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:06 pm What examples do we have of NFL QB's who had 30+ starts of bad to mediocre play who then 'matured' in Years 4 or 5.
Specifically in year 4-5, not sure. But there are examples of guys who started out ugly and had some success:

Jacoby Brissett, Tyrod Taylor, Geno Smith, Baker Mayfield, Doug Flutie, Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer

Not an overwhelming list. But that's what I came up with from recent memory.
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!
The Kaiser
Player of the Month
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:49 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:06 pm What examples do we have of NFL QB's who had 30+ starts of bad to mediocre play who then 'matured' in Years 4 or 5.
Steve Young is the ultimate "don't trade Fields" comp for JF1.
User avatar
Heinz D.
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 832 times
Been thanked: 134 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:17 pm Of course the argument is that Fields having not taken a leap in Year 3 a la Josh Allen will do so in Year 4 and, combined with a haul of draft picks from trading the first overall pick, this will catapult the Bears into perennial contention.

The counter argument is that Fields won't take that leap, not every extra pick will pan out and the Bears will still be searching for that elusive franchise QB having passed on the best prospect in years who will go on to enjoy enormous success with another team and torment Bears fans the way Mahomes has.

Pick your poison.
Josh Allen has never had a season as bad (overall) as Justin Fields had last year, So, there's that...
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
Heinz D.
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 832 times
Been thanked: 134 times

wab wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:54 pm I read something today about keeping Fields vs moving on and it made me think.

Do you keep Fields and be ok with running back 2018 every once in a while, or do you want more?
I've decided I'm comfortable wanting more.

In Poles we trust.
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona
Has thanked: 830 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Plank ? You got a strange desire for the jumbo Queen,,
OMG...
Post Reply