Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Why Warner is a better QB than P. Manning


Furd
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...If I were to start a franchise, I would go with Manning in a heartbeat. If I were coaching one very important game and needed a QB, I would take Warner over Manning just as quickly.

+1

Although, the big question mark for Warner is that no franchise really even tried to make him a 'franchise' QB. The grass was always greener or there was a shinier tool in the shed.

 

The 'Warner lost his starting job and Manning didn't' is a legitimate knock on Warner. We'll never know what Warner would've done as a 'franchise' QB because no team ever tried. He missed most of 2002 due to injury. In 2003, he was pulled after struggling in one game. The Rams dropped him in 2004. Signed with the Giants who had just drafted Eli so Warner was already out before he even played a meaningful snap. Giants dropped him in 2005. Went to the Cards who promptly drafted Leinart.

 

Ever since 2001, it's been part bad luck due to team situations (the Giants were in a stage of rebuilding with a new HC and the Cards were in their usual state of rebuilding) and part bad luck due to injuries. I think it's safe to excuse the injuries during the Cards rebuilding. They've had a long run of crappy OLs until recently. Anyway, Manning doesn't come close to this amount of crappy teams and situations that Warner faced.

Edited by kingfish247
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefaced my statement by basicly saying that it would be a blanket statement. I am just speaking in general terms. In general, Peyton Manning locks up in the the face of playoff adversity. In general, Warner does not. I don't think I'm saying anything eye-opening here. I could be wrong. I can't go game by game or moment by moment, it just seems that from what I remember, Peyton kind of struggled and pressed his way through most post-seasons.

 

I think that was true up until about four or five years ago. I don't know if that statement still applies, especially since the 2006 AFC Championship Game.

 

I don't remember Warner having the same problems.

 

Part of that is because he isn't dragging flawed teams into the playoffs every season. Warner has also benefitted from better playoff defensive support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the 99 and 01 Rams were better defensively than the majority of Colts' Ds... so?

 

What do you mean "so?" Are you saying that a team's defense doesn't affect how its QB plays? Or their chances of winning a playoff game?

 

Say Warner stayed with the Rams... they've fielded some pretty awful Ds ever since.

 

I guarantee that his playoff stats and record go downhill if he did.

 

Manning has had a top 11 or better D in pts AND yds 4 times in 11 years (2008, 2007, 2005, 2002).

 

An above-average defense in just 36% of one's time in the NFL doesn't exactly sound like an asset to me.

 

The Colts D gave up 41 points to the Jets in the 2002 playoffs. Does that sound like a good defense to you? How about the 2005 squad that gave up a quick 14 points to the Steelers in the first quarter? Or how about the 2007 squad that couldn't pass-rush after Freeney broke his ankle and let Billy f'n Volek march 70 yards downfield in the 4th quarter, right after Peyton put them ahead?

 

He's also had, not only one of the greatest HCs ever, but one of the better defensive minded coaches of this era.

 

And their defenses have still been overwhelmingly below-average because Polian has historically spent the vast majority of their cap money of offensive talent. You need TALENT in addition to coaching. Not even Belichick could get a good defensive performance out of a crapfest like the Lions defense.

 

The 2000 Rams D (sandwiched between those apparently epically good 99 and 01 Rams Ds) were 31st in pts and 23rd in yards. Warner still went 8-3 as a starter, made a Pro Bowl, had his 2nd most accurate year, and his best season based on yds per game. BTW, his replacement went 2-3.

 

The Rams were also one-and-done in the playoffs that year. They got beat by the Saints. The f'n SAINTS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean "so?" Are you saying that a team's defense doesn't affect how its QB plays? Or their chances of winning a playoff game?

 

 

 

I guarantee that his playoff stats and record go downhill if he did.

 

 

 

An above-average defense in just 36% of one's time in the NFL doesn't exactly sound like an asset to me.

 

The Colts D gave up 41 points to the Jets in the 2002 playoffs. Does that sound like a good defense to you? How about the 2005 squad that gave up a quick 14 points to the Steelers in the first quarter? Or how about the 2007 squad that couldn't pass-rush after Freeney broke his ankle and let Billy f'n Volek march 70 yards downfield in the 4th quarter, right after Peyton put them ahead?

 

 

 

And their defenses have still been overwhelmingly below-average because Polian has historically spent the vast majority of their cap money of offensive talent. You need TALENT in addition to coaching. Not even Belichick could get a good defensive performance out of a crapfest like the Lions defense.

 

 

 

The Rams were also one-and-done in the playoffs that year. They got beat by the Saints. The f'n SAINTS!

 

I guess we can ignore the Cardinal's awesome defense this year and it's value to Warner?

 

Yards per game - 19th (331.5/game), Touchdowns against - 30th (52), Total points against - 28th (avg 26.6/game), Rushing against - 16th (110.2/game), Passing against - 22nd (221.2/game).

 

Whereas the Colts?

 

Yards per game - 11th (310.9/game), Touchdowns against - 4th (28), Total points against - 7th (298), Rushing against - 24th (122.9/game), Passing against - 6th (188.1/game).

 

I don't believe that the Rams defenses were that good those years. They were one of the highest scoring defenses that year, but hardly a stone wall. If you'll remember, the greatest show on turf was ahead in the majority of the games they played in. No one could run, because they were all too far behind to be able to run and catch up.

 

I like both QB's but I tend to hang on Kurt's nut because the guy does nothing but go out there and play and does it with the right attitude no matter the bad breaks he has gotten because he wasn't the next golden child or because he got hurt. They both have good receivers to throw to and they both have been succesfull. But don't poo poo Warner's success and then ignore when Manning clearly had the better defense this year and didn't capitalize upon it like he did the year they won the Super Bowl, not because Manning carried them in the playoffs, but because the defense stepped up.

 

Now, this "mine is bigger than your's contest" may continue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we can ignore the Cardinal's awesome defense this year and it's value to Warner?

 

Yards per game - 19th (331.5/game), Touchdowns against - 30th (52), Total points against - 28th (avg 26.6/game), Rushing against - 16th (110.2/game), Passing against - 22nd (221.2/game).

 

This is the same defense that gave up 13 points to the Panthers (a top 10 offense) and shut down the Eagles offense for a full half last weekend. I wouldn't completely discount their contribution.

 

Similarly, the 2006 Colts defense was terrible... up until January of 2007.

 

Whereas the Colts?

 

Yards per game - 11th (310.9/game), Touchdowns against - 4th (28), Total points against - 7th (298), Rushing against - 24th (122.9/game), Passing against - 6th (188.1/game).

 

I don't believe that the Rams defenses were that good those years.

 

You didn't do your homework...

 

1999 Rams: 4th in points allowed, 6th in yards allowed

2001 Rams: 7th in points allowed, 3rd in yards allowed

 

The 2008 Colts were also ranked 31st in the league in rushing during the regular season, which was what ultimately cost them in the playoff this year (64 total yds on the ground). Conversely, the Cardinals (also horrible on the ground in the regular season), stepped it up and put up 100-yd efforts in their last two playoff games. The '99-01 Rams ranked 1st and 5th, respectively, in rushing yards.

 

Your comparison of the 2008 Colts to the 2006 Colts is seriously flawed. The '06 squad was rock-solid up front in the playoffs, on both sides of the ball. This year's team was a f'n sponge.

Edited by Bill Swerski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warner = 3 SB trips

Manning = 1 SB trip

 

Does this make Warner better no. But it makes a bold statement for his poise in clutch situations. After a few stinkers in playoffs as the favorite team from manning it is starting to look like he is a great regular season QB and an ok playoff QB. If he has anymore stinkers he may just be tabbed a choker in the clutch. With only his sole SB win and trip helping him out. So to me u have to judge on the whole and a big part of the whole for me is how a guy performs in the clutch in pressure situations in the playoffs. Alot of Mannings stud teams and years werent past the first or second round of the playoffs. Just sayin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's important to point out that the Cardinals have the worst defense (in points allowed -- 426) to ever appear in a Championship game (at least in the Super Bowl era). As far as regular season rating of a playoff team's defense to advance to a league championship game, they are the worst in history (and by extension, I believe the worst defense to ever be in a Super Bowl).

 

The '99 Rams defense wasn't as good as the year ratings would indicate. The offense definitely helped them, but their cushy soft schedule was pretty useful too. I think they played just one playoff team the entire season, and lost that game.

 

And if you want to use the excuse-o-matic, Warner's two playoff losses weren't his fault either. In 2000, he was driving the team back (and if you were watching the game, you KNEW the Rams were going to pull it off) until Hakim muffed a late fourth quarter punt that sealed the outcome. In the SB, he shrugged off a terrible first half to come back and tie the game only to have the defense choke and allow the Patriots to score the FG. My fuzzy memory of that game actually includes a pretty borderline offside call on a blocked FG right before the game winner. Again, things look different when viewed through the excuse-o-matic.

 

Even in '99, in his worst playoff game in his career (vs. TB), he threw the deciding touchdown late in the game to win. He posted a 56something QB rating, tossed some dumb interceptions, but he won the game.

 

I love Manning. I think he's one of the best to play, but he's not had the same luck/karma/ball bounce the right way kind of fortune that some other guys have had. I think it's silly to label people chokers (would you really call guys like Marino or Elway chokers?), but it doesn't change the fact that Warner has absolutely been better in big games. This is not a question or a subjective judgement call, it's a fact. That Warner has been in fewer of them doesn't change the fact that he's been better in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but it doesn't change the fact that Warner has absolutely been better in big games. This is not a question or a subjective judgement call, it's a fact.

 

This analysis would be valid if Warner played the game in a vacuum. But this isn't singles tennis. What those other 21 guys on the team do affect what the QB does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's reverse the argument, and we'll use relatively generic ranks to keep things easy.

 

We know that Warner hasn't been in nearly as many postseason games, so let's start there...

 

He went to the playoffs with the Rams in '99, '00, and '01. He went to the playoffs with Cardinals in '08. The two years he had a defense in the top half of the league in scoring ('99 and '01-- ranked 4 and 7), he went to the Super Bowl. The two times he didnt, the defenses were ranked 31 (of 31) in '00, and 28 in '08. In '00 he was one and done, and in '08 he went to the Super Bowl. In four possible trips to the playoffs, he's been to the Super Bowl three times. When he had a good defense, he went 5-1. When he had a bad defense, he went 3-1 (so far).

 

Manning has gone to the playoffs 9 different seasons with the Colts: '99, '00, '02, '03, '04, '05, '06, '07, and '08. He had a defense in the top half of the league 5 times ('00, '02, '05, '07, '08-- ranked 15, 7, 2, 1, 7). In those 5 seasons, the Colts won zero playoff games. The four seasons he didn't, the defenses were ranked 17, 20, 19, and 23. In those four trips, with the 'bad' defenses, Manning has seven wins. With a good defense, Manning went 0-5. With a bad defense Manning went 7-3.

 

From this, it doesn't appear to be the defenses' fault he can't win. He's had 5 one and dones, and four of them came with him having a top 10 scoring defense.

 

Warner's lone one and done came with the bottom ranked scoring defense in the league, and his third Super Bowl trip came with a team ranked 28th.

 

Like I said, this isn't subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's reverse the argument, and we'll use relatively generic ranks to keep things easy.

 

We know that Warner hasn't been in nearly as many postseason games, so let's start there...

 

He went to the playoffs with the Rams in '99, '00, and '01. He went to the playoffs with Cardinals in '08. The two years he had a defense in the top half of the league in scoring ('99 and '01-- ranked 4 and 7), he went to the Super Bowl. The two times he didnt, the defenses were ranked 31 (of 31) in '00, and 28 in '08. In '00 he was one and done, and in '08 he went to the Super Bowl. In four possible trips to the playoffs, he's been to the Super Bowl three times. When he had a good defense, he went 5-1. When he had a bad defense, he went 3-1 (so far).

 

Manning has gone to the playoffs 9 different seasons with the Colts: '99, '00, '02, '03, '04, '05, '06, '07, and '08. He had a defense in the top half of the league 5 times ('00, '02, '05, '07, '08-- ranked 15, 7, 2, 1, 7). In those 5 seasons, the Colts won zero playoff games. The four seasons he didn't, the defenses were ranked 17, 20, 19, and 23. In those four trips, with the 'bad' defenses, Manning has seven wins. With a good defense, Manning went 0-5. With a bad defense Manning went 7-3.

 

From this, it doesn't appear to be the defenses' fault he can't win. He's had 5 one and dones, and four of them came with him having a top 10 scoring defense.

 

Warner's lone one and done came with the bottom ranked scoring defense in the league, and his third Super Bowl trip came with a team ranked 28th.

 

Like I said, this isn't subjective.

 

Good info here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From this, it doesn't appear to be the defenses' fault he can't win. He's had 5 one and dones, and four of them came with him having a top 10 scoring defense.

 

"He" can't win? Well, first of all, he already has won. Secondly, it's not all about him, it's about how his TEAM plays. If the Colts D can't stop anybody (2002 @ NYJ, 2007 vs. SD), they lose. If the Colts can't run the ball (2008 @ SD, 2004 @ NE), they lose.

 

Mind you, I won't deny that Peyton certainly has had his share of bad games (2003 @ NE, 2006 vs. KC, 2002 @ NYJ). He's also had his share of phenomenal games (2003 vs. DEN, 2003 @ KC, 2004 vs. DEN), his share of decent games (2007 vs. SD, SB 41), games where his numbers are weak but he managed the offense well (2006 @ BAL), and games where he looked like two different QBs at times (2006 vs. NE).

 

The 2008 Colts illustrate a point that's been overwhelmingly overlooked in this thread: the Colts have walked into the playoffs with some serious deficiencies (whether that be the secondary, the D-line, or the O-line) and Peyton has taken the blame for them losing to teams that were playing better fundamental football. Nobody expected the Colts to go deep into the playoffs this year... but Peyton takes the blame when they lose. I can't think of another QB (besides maybe a healthy Brady) who would've gotten the Colts 12 wins and the #5 seed in the AFC this season. On the other hand, I'll bet that a healthy Trent Green would've won several playoff games on the '99-'01 Rams.

 

I have a lot of respect for Warner. He's a gamer and deserves a ton of credit for what he's done this post-season. But I still think that he's been in a higher percentage of favorable situations in his four playoff seasons than Manning's been in his 9 playoff seasons. If he punks the juggernaut Steelers defense with his own defensively-suspect/inconsistent-rushing squad, I might change my tune. But until then, I don't see a major difference in their respective "clutchness."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a HUGH Warner fan but I've also been a fan of Manning. That being said, I think Manning is the 'headier' QB who uses his mind and trickery to make plays. Warner just uses his arm and incredible vision for finding the open guy, no trickery needed. I've heard a few coaches now say that Warner goes through his progressions (reads) better than anyone and I think it's evidenced by the way he plays the game. You don't see Warner audibling or freaking out at the line - he just gets the open guy the ball every time and makes it look like a 7 on 7 drill. My honest opinion, and I'll probably get flamed, is that Warner is the best pure QB to ever play the game - I think he's that good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. What a change in TheHuddle membership about Warner. When I suggested months ago that Warner deserves to be in the HOF, the backlash was unbelievable. Now everybody is comparing him to P.Manning (who everybody and there grandma considers a first ballot HOF'er).

 

You guys crack me up sometimes. God I love this place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. What a change in TheHuddle membership about Warner. When I suggested months ago that Warner deserves to be in the HOF, the backlash was unbelievable. Now everybody is comparing him to P.Manning (who everybody and there grandma considers a first ballot HOF'er).

 

You guys crack me up sometimes. God I love this place.

 

The internet bandwagon is much faster than the real life version.

Edited by WaterMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not mean to suggest that Manning can't ever win, he won a Super Bowl. My point was that whenever the Colts do well, Manning gets praise (see also, the Super Bowl game). When the Colts do poorly, the team is blamed. I was pointing out that the seasons where the Colts have a demonstratably dominant defense, they go nowhere in the playoffs. Your response is that the regular season stats are a lie, and the Colts are flawed.

 

As a Niner fan, all I know is I would *kill* to have a 'flawed' team that got 13 or 14 wins and ranked in the top 3 in both offensive and defensive scoring (Colts in '05 and '07). And why is it those teams are flawed, but the '99 Rams with their pretty crappy run defense and horrible punt and kick-off coverage aren't considered flawed? I'd argue *every* team is flawed, unless you have a perfect team somewhere in history to show me?

 

I suppose the trite notion is that champions overcome the flaws to win, and *that* is something the Colts, in general, and Manning and Dungy, in particular, don't seem to do with any particular frequency. Only twice in nine visits to the postseason have the won more than one game, and five of those nine times they didn't win at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not mean to suggest that Manning can't ever win, he won a Super Bowl. My point was that whenever the Colts do well, Manning gets praise (see also, the Super Bowl game). When the Colts do poorly, the team is blamed. I was pointing out that the seasons where the Colts have a demonstratably dominant defense, they go nowhere in the playoffs. Your response is that the regular season stats are a lie, and the Colts are flawed.

 

No, I'm saying that the Colts defenses have been INCONSISTENT. They can have great regular-season rankings (2002, 2007) and then tank in the playoffs. Conversely, they've also had poor regular-season rankings and have played much better defense in January (2004, 2006). This is obvious to anybody who actually watches the games, rather than basing their analyses solely on what they find at pro-football-reference.com.

 

I've also said several times before that the Colts won SB 41 because they were tough up front, and Manning has nothing to do with that. He was a difference maker at times (especially the 2nd half of the AFC Championship Game), but the stoutness of the O- and D-lines were the overriding difference in the playoffs that year.

 

And why is it those teams are flawed, but the '99 Rams with their pretty crappy run defense and horrible punt and kick-off coverage aren't considered flawed? I'd argue *every* team is flawed, unless you have a perfect team somewhere in history to show me?

 

The '99 Rams were a lot more consistent and balanced than any of the Manning-era Colts teams.

 

I suppose the trite notion is that champions overcome the flaws to win, and *that* is something the Colts, in general, and Manning and Dungy, in particular, don't seem to do with any particular frequency.

 

How many teams win Super Bowls with "particular frequency?" Does Kurt Warner win championships more "frequently?" At the very least, the Colts get to the playoffs with "particular frequency," which is something that can't be said for A LOT of other teams.

Edited by Bill Swerski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to make sure a few things are clear as this continues:

 

1) I like Peyton Manning.

2) I like Kurt Warner.

3) I watch football games-- pretty religously since 1999, kinda spotty before then.

4) I'm evaluating performances solely and specifically in the playoffs.

5) I'm using stats to do a lot of this evaluation because it at least provides a basis of argument that is considerably less subjective.

 

 

With that out of the way, I don't see how you can look at the body of work between the two guys, focused solely and specifically on the playoffs, and come to any conclusion that isn't 'Warner has performed better overall'.

 

I'm not arguing that Warner hasn't been to the postseason as often as Manning. I'm not arguing Warner's been better in the regular season. I'm not arguing Warner hasn't been hurt more, hit more, fumbled more, and lost his job more. All of these are true.

 

However, the point of the original linked article, and what I have been posting raw statistics to back, is that once the playoffs start Warner is better.

 

He has a better playoff record. He has better efficiency stats. He has more wins in fewer playoff appearances. He has more touchdowns in fewer games. In 10 playoff games, he has a passer rating above the league average that year 8 times with one so close as to be a statistical tie (78.3 in 2001, league average 78.5). In 15 playoff games, Manning has a passer rating above the league average that year 7 times, and remarkably only one of those was in 2006 (3 of his postseason games that year were statistically below average). Similarly, all of this is true.

 

And it's not like Warner walked onto established, awesome teams. The Rams were terrible before he took over as a starter. They were the number one team in both scoring and yardage and went to two Super Bowls the three seasons he took all the snaps. Since then, in seven seasons, the Rams have been to the playoffs twice and have a playoff record of 1-2. He's now with the Cardinals, who no one would confuse with a great team, one with 2 playoff wins in it's 88 year history. The last two seasons with Warner taking the majority of the snaps, they've been a top 10 offense (and the best scoring offenses the Cardinals have fielded in 20 years) and they now have 3 playoff wins this season alone. Warner's passer rating is actually four points higher in the playoffs than in the regular season (and he has the fourth highest passer rating in history).

 

Manning took over a bad Colts team, and in 11 seasons (starting immediately as a drafted rookie) has gotten the Colts to the postseason 9 times. Let there be no confusion when I say that's impressive as hell (possibly unprecedented, I don't have the entire history of the NFL in my memory). The issue is that for all the gaudy regular season stats, for all the acclaim, yards, and trophies, the minute it becomes the postseason he, and the Colts, do not perform as well. His passer rating is 10 points lower in the playoffs compared to the regular season (now, given that he's got the 3rd highest passer rating in history, this technically means he goes from amazing to slightly above average). And, as highlighted above, it's more than often below the league average for that year. That pretty clearly says he does worse in the post season.

 

If you want to look at the teams a different way, in 5 of Warner's 10 playoff games his defense allowed 21 points or more. Warner went 4-1 in those games. In the 5 games where Warner's defense allowed less than 21 points, Warner also went 4-1.

 

In 9 of Manning's 15 playoff games his defense allowed 21 points or more. Manning went 3-6 in those games. In the 6 games where Manning's defense allowed less than 21 points, his record is 4-2 (three of those wins in 2006). I think this lends some credence to the consistancy issue that Bill alluded to, and certainly points out that defense certainly helps in the postseason.

 

None of this means Manning sucks, in the same way that (like I said) I don't think you can say guys like Kelly, Marino, hell even McNabb suck because they didn't have as much success in the postseason. All it takes is a ball bouncing the wrong way or one play or another to swing the wrong way for a team to get eliminated in a single elimination playoff system. At the end of the day, the best team and the best players don't always win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll argue that comparing the playoff careers of Warner and Manning isn't just looking at the numbers. The AFC has been a better conference over the past 12 years or so (since about the time Denver won its first SB), so you have to consider that Manning's playoff opponents have been superior to Warner's on average. Nobody can argue that the path to the SB has been easier in the AFC vs. the NFC since somewhere in the mid to late 90s.

 

ETA: This is completely subjective, but I'd speculate that Manning would have been to more than one SB in his career had the Colts been an NFC team this whole time.

Edited by MTSuper7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that out of the way, I don't see how you can look at the body of work between the two guys, focused solely and specifically on the playoffs, and come to any conclusion that isn't 'Warner has performed better overall'.

 

Well, sure. If you don't take into account who has had the better supporting casts and/or who has faced the tougher opponents over the years, I completely agree. That said, when you ignore those peripheral factors (as the retarded author of the cited article did), the conclusion that "Warner is a better playoff QB than Manning" is dubious at best. QB performance (both in the stat column and the standings) is STRONGLY dependent on overall team play.

 

None of this means Manning sucks, in the same way that (like I said) I don't think you can say guys like Kelly, Marino, hell even McNabb suck because they didn't have as much success in the postseason. All it takes is a ball bouncing the wrong way or one play or another to swing the wrong way for a team to get eliminated in a single elimination playoff system. At the end of the day, the best team and the best players don't always win.

 

So apparently we agree? :wacko:

Edited by Bill Swerski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, sure. If you don't take into account who has had the better supporting casts and/or who has faced the tougher opponents over the years, I completely agree. That said, when you ignore those peripheral factors (as the retarded author of the cited article did), the conclusion that "Warner is a better playoff QB than Manning" is dubious at best.

 

Oh, the toughest opponents.

 

What about facing the easiet opponent, the Detroit Lions? Manning got the MVP and got to face the worst team in the league. Warner didn't have that stat pad game on his schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, the toughest opponents.

 

What about facing the easiet opponent, the Detroit Lions? Manning got the MVP and got to face the worst team in the league. Warner didn't have that stat pad game on his schedule.

 

No, Warner had six games against laughably-bad NFC West opponents to pad his schedule. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information