What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official*** 2012 FBG Subscriber Contest Thread (3 Viewers)

Had Graham and Bennett as my TE for almost every roster change but then on the last few changed it to pettigrew and gates thinking I would have more stability. It cost me $2 more and has so far underperformed. Hopefully gates gets healthy and these guys turn it around. To be fair though my $2 would have been spent on taiwan jones who has done nothing also

 
'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
'Jed said:
Thoughts on the flyer vs backup strategy?
Click to expand...
I don't like taking backups in this contest, with a few rare exceptions. First of all, you shouldn't plan on your studs getting injured. When you pick your key players you just have to hope/assume they stay healthy. If they don't, you're probably finished no matter how you choose to mitigate that risk. If McCoy goes down, is Dion Lewis really going to replace the production you were getting from McCoy? Probably not. He might keep you afloat for an extra couple of weeks but he's unlikely to carry you to a championship.Plus, that highlights the other problem - Lewis only has value if McCoy goes down. It's not like they're both going to be great at the same time. I'd much rather have a flyer with the potential to blow up on the same week that my studs are also performing well, not one that only has that potential if my stud gets hurt. On your roster, for example, you have six RBs, but you really only have four, if that makes sense. You have Rice, McCoy, Benson, and Jones. Lewis and Pierce only get added to that list if you simultaneously remove Rice or McCoy. Meanwhile, other people with six RBs on their roster actually have all six with the potential to put up points every week.As I said, there are usually a few borderline exceptions. As we saw last week, a guy like Ben Tate can have value, whether or not you own Foster, and whether or not Foster is healthy. In that sense, though, I would view him more as a "flyer" than a "backup" anyway. I like your team, though, especially if Gates returns healthy and performs up to expectations. You could potentially flex a ton of points out of the TE position all year long with those two.
Click to expand...
I went with back-ups for the 1st time in this league -- M. Bush for Forte and Thomas for R. Bush. My thought process was that those respective back-ups are talented enough to be solid starters if they had the opportunity. Those guys might enable me to survive the loss of a "stud". The only 2 other obvious situations that I thought were similar were: Foster/Tate (but that would have cost more than I was willing to spend) and Jackson/Spiller (ditto).Of course I'm looking like a genius with the M. Bush call, but not so much with the Thomas call. I imagine it's like anything else -- if the players you pick do well, you made the right call; if they don't, you didn't.
 
'Tennessee_ATO said:
'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
'Jed said:
Thoughts on the flyer vs backup strategy?
Click to expand...
I don't like taking backups in this contest, with a few rare exceptions. First of all, you shouldn't plan on your studs getting injured. When you pick your key players you just have to hope/assume they stay healthy. If they don't, you're probably finished no matter how you choose to mitigate that risk. If McCoy goes down, is Dion Lewis really going to replace the production you were getting from McCoy? Probably not. He might keep you afloat for an extra couple of weeks but he's unlikely to carry you to a championship.Plus, that highlights the other problem - Lewis only has value if McCoy goes down. It's not like they're both going to be great at the same time. I'd much rather have a flyer with the potential to blow up on the same week that my studs are also performing well, not one that only has that potential if my stud gets hurt. On your roster, for example, you have six RBs, but you really only have four, if that makes sense. You have Rice, McCoy, Benson, and Jones. Lewis and Pierce only get added to that list if you simultaneously remove Rice or McCoy. Meanwhile, other people with six RBs on their roster actually have all six with the potential to put up points every week.As I said, there are usually a few borderline exceptions. As we saw last week, a guy like Ben Tate can have value, whether or not you own Foster, and whether or not Foster is healthy. In that sense, though, I would view him more as a "flyer" than a "backup" anyway. I like your team, though, especially if Gates returns healthy and performs up to expectations. You could potentially flex a ton of points out of the TE position all year long with those two.
Click to expand...
I went with back-ups for the 1st time in this league -- M. Bush for Forte and Thomas for R. Bush. My thought process was that those respective back-ups are talented enough to be solid starters if they had the opportunity. Those guys might enable me to survive the loss of a "stud". The only 2 other obvious situations that I thought were similar were: Foster/Tate (but that would have cost more than I was willing to spend) and Jackson/Spiller (ditto).Of course I'm looking like a genius with the M. Bush call, but not so much with the Thomas call. I imagine it's like anything else -- if the players you pick do well, you made the right call; if they don't, you didn't.
Click to expand...
In general, I think taking your stud's back up in a losing strategy. It could work out, as Tennessee_ATO points out, with Spiller and Bush both playing well. However, the reason I really don't like it is that you need so much to go right for you to win this contest. You need your studs to be studly and your flyers to fly. When you start taking your back ups you're limiting your upside, which is what is needed to win in the final 3 weeks. For Tate or Bush or Spiller to be really useful for your team, that means Foster, Forte and Jackson are most likey hurt. Which means you have a good chunk of your salary space sitting on the side line. A decided disadvantage against the other top 249 teams. A much better strategy, imo, is to take other studs (meaning the ones not on your team) backups. That way you're maximizing your upside. Consider this example:4 TeamsTeam 1 has Foster and M. Bush Team 2 has Foster and TateTEam 3 has Forte and M. BushTeam 4 has Forte and TateFor the final 3 weeks lets assume the following possibilitiesA) Foster is hurt, Forte is not.B) Forte is hurt, Foster is not.C) Niether are hurt.D) Both are hurt.In scenario A, Team 4 has the biggest advantage, followed by Team 3 (only because he has 2 players not hurt), then team 2, and finally team 1.In Scenario B, Team 1 has the biggest advantage, followed by team 2, then team 3 and finally team 4.In Scenario C and D, there is no advantage gained by rostering one backup over the other. So if you're goal is winning, then Teams 1 and 3 are your best shot. If your goal is to finish in the money, then teams 2 and 3 are your best shot. Obviously this is a simplified example, but the conclusion is the same. Why waste money on a player who will only be worthwhile when your team has a decreased probability of winning?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My team's not terribly unique, but I just found out I'm one of only 2 entries with the "core 5" of

Ryan-Foster-Lynch-Julio-Dez and the other entry is radically different than mine. So there's a tiny bit of hope.

(on the flip side there were 2 more with these 5 that have already been eliminated :unsure: )

-QG

 
'Modog814 said:
In general, I think taking your stud's back up in a losing strategy. It could work out, as Tennessee_ATO points out, with Spiller and Bush both playing well.

However, the reason I really don't like it is that you need so much to go right for you to win this contest. You need your studs to be studly and your flyers to fly. When you start taking your back ups you're limiting your upside, which is what is needed to win in the final 3 weeks. For Tate or Bush or Spiller to be really useful for your team, that means Foster, Forte and Jackson are most likey hurt. Which means you have a good chunk of your salary space sitting on the side line. A decided disadvantage against the other top 249 teams.

A much better strategy, imo, is to take other studs (meaning the ones not on your team) backups. That way you're maximizing your upside. Consider this example:

4 Teams

Team 1 has Foster and M. Bush

Team 2 has Foster and Tate

TEam 3 has Forte and M. Bush

Team 4 has Forte and Tate

For the final 3 weeks lets assume the following possibilities

A) Foster is hurt, Forte is not.

B) Forte is hurt, Foster is not.

C) Niether are hurt.

D) Both are hurt.

In scenario A, Team 4 has the biggest advantage, followed by Team 3 (only because he has 2 players not hurt), then team 2, and finally team 1.

In Scenario B, Team 1 has the biggest advantage, followed by team 2, then team 3 and finally team 4.

In Scenario C and D, there is no advantage gained by rostering one backup over the other.

So if you're goal is winning, then Teams 1 and 3 are your best shot. If your goal is to finish in the money, then teams 2 and 3 are your best shot.

Obviously this is a simplified example, but the conclusion is the same. Why waste money on a player who will only be worthwhile when your team has a decreased probability of winning?
Click to expand...
Like I said, I wrestled with the concept somewhat this year. Changing my rationalization around to fit your matrix, this is basically what I determined.Using your oversimplified matrix (in which I think there is a typo, I think you mean Teams 1 and 4 are the "best", not teams 1 and 3), you are basically arguing all-or-nothing for each RB. The problem is you are ignoring the reality that any reasonable team would have other RB options available besides the 2 in your matrix. Use my team as an example -- R. Bush, Thomas, Forte, M. Bush, S. Jackson, Benson. Forte gets hurt and you still have 4ish (Benson is a little iffy, IMO) starting RBs. Replacing M. Bush with Tate takes you down to 3ish starting RBs. Staying with Tate instead of M. Bush, if Forte is healthy and Foster is out, I now have 5ish starting RBs.

So the real question, in my mind anyway, becomes:

What is the marginal value of a back-up Tate minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 4ish? [i have Tate, Forte hurt, Foster healthy]

PLUS

What is the marginal value of a starting Tate minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 5ish? [i have Tate, Forte healthy, Foster hurt]

vs.

What is the marginal value of a starting M. Bush minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 3ish? [i have M. Bush, Forte hurt, Foster irrelevant]

PLUS

What is the marginal value of a back-up M. Bush minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 5ish? [i have M. Bush, Forte healthy, Foster irrelevant]

I concluded that it is better to have as many starting RB options each week because the marginal value of a replacement RB decreases when you increase the overall pool. In my mind, adding that 4th starting RB in the form of Bush was worth more than adding that 5th starting RB in the form of Tate. I gave a marginal value of each as a back-up, at least when judged against a pool of 4-5 starters (of course M. Bush scored for me in week 1 and Tate would have scored for me in week 2).

The above obviously excludes the entire flex position because that starts to get into the value of WRs and TEs for that next marginal step.

Also, while we can debate the value of uniqueness as a general concept, I think that uniqueness has real value in 1 situation -- injured players. If the Forte herd is culled by a significant percentage while he is out and if (big "if" of course) I manage to survive while Forte is out, his performance upon return will give me a greater marginal return than it would otherwise.

 
'wollac said:
'HairySasquatch said:
Has there been any week 2 projections put out yet? Or did I miss them in the 2+ pages of coin flips and dice rolls?
Click to expand...
Not sure if DD wants me posting this and stealing his thunder, but this link seems to work...Week 2 Sim
Click to expand...
#3 and #6 from the week 2 sim did not make it to week 3.By the way, is there a week 3 sim?

Also, #3 and #7 from the week 1 sim are OUT

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't see a Week 3 sim... I'll send a PM to Drinen asking if he'll do this. I know last year there were some time constraints and he wasn't able to post them.

 
I'm taking a beating on the injury front -- Forte already, S. Jackson gimpy (at best), and now R. Bush. Not surprisingly, these players appear on my actual teams in various combos.

 
'Tennessee_ATO said:
'Modog814 said:
In general, I think taking your stud's back up in a losing strategy. It could work out, as Tennessee_ATO points out, with Spiller and Bush both playing well.

However, the reason I really don't like it is that you need so much to go right for you to win this contest. You need your studs to be studly and your flyers to fly. When you start taking your back ups you're limiting your upside, which is what is needed to win in the final 3 weeks. For Tate or Bush or Spiller to be really useful for your team, that means Foster, Forte and Jackson are most likey hurt. Which means you have a good chunk of your salary space sitting on the side line. A decided disadvantage against the other top 249 teams.

A much better strategy, imo, is to take other studs (meaning the ones not on your team) backups. That way you're maximizing your upside. Consider this example:

4 Teams

Team 1 has Foster and M. Bush

Team 2 has Foster and Tate

TEam 3 has Forte and M. Bush

Team 4 has Forte and Tate

For the final 3 weeks lets assume the following possibilities

A) Foster is hurt, Forte is not.

B) Forte is hurt, Foster is not.

C) Niether are hurt.

D) Both are hurt.

In scenario A, Team 4 has the biggest advantage, followed by Team 3 (only because he has 2 players not hurt), then team 2, and finally team 1.

In Scenario B, Team 1 has the biggest advantage, followed by team 2, then team 3 and finally team 4.

In Scenario C and D, there is no advantage gained by rostering one backup over the other.

So if you're goal is winning, then Teams 1 and 3 are your best shot. If your goal is to finish in the money, then teams 2 and 3 are your best shot.

Obviously this is a simplified example, but the conclusion is the same. Why waste money on a player who will only be worthwhile when your team has a decreased probability of winning?
Click to expand...
Like I said, I wrestled with the concept somewhat this year. Changing my rationalization around to fit your matrix, this is basically what I determined.Using your oversimplified matrix (in which I think there is a typo, I think you mean Teams 1 and 4 are the "best", not teams 1 and 3), you are basically arguing all-or-nothing for each RB. The problem is you are ignoring the reality that any reasonable team would have other RB options available besides the 2 in your matrix. Use my team as an example -- R. Bush, Thomas, Forte, M. Bush, S. Jackson, Benson. Forte gets hurt and you still have 4ish (Benson is a little iffy, IMO) starting RBs. Replacing M. Bush with Tate takes you down to 3ish starting RBs. Staying with Tate instead of M. Bush, if Forte is healthy and Foster is out, I now have 5ish starting RBs.

So the real question, in my mind anyway, becomes:

What is the marginal value of a back-up Tate minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 4ish? [i have Tate, Forte hurt, Foster healthy]

PLUS

What is the marginal value of a starting Tate minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 5ish? [i have Tate, Forte healthy, Foster hurt]

vs.

What is the marginal value of a starting M. Bush minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 3ish? [i have M. Bush, Forte hurt, Foster irrelevant]

PLUS

What is the marginal value of a back-up M. Bush minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 5ish? [i have M. Bush, Forte healthy, Foster irrelevant]

I concluded that it is better to have as many starting RB options each week because the marginal value of a replacement RB decreases when you increase the overall pool. In my mind, adding that 4th starting RB in the form of Bush was worth more than adding that 5th starting RB in the form of Tate. I gave a marginal value of each as a back-up, at least when judged against a pool of 4-5 starters (of course M. Bush scored for me in week 1 and Tate would have scored for me in week 2).

The above obviously excludes the entire flex position because that starts to get into the value of WRs and TEs for that next marginal step.

Also, while we can debate the value of uniqueness as a general concept, I think that uniqueness has real value in 1 situation -- injured players. If the Forte herd is culled by a significant percentage while he is out and if (big "if" of course) I manage to survive while Forte is out, his performance upon return will give me a greater marginal return than it would otherwise.
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph is key imo. It's not that bush helps you win the playoffs, its that he may keep you around during a forte injury and forte could help win it.
 
160 and change right now with Benson and Ray Rice left.

After AJ Green and Julio Jones had solid years last year, I couldn't pass up the chance to get Justin Blackmon. Oops.

 
'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
THE CONTEST IS NOW LOCKED.

Useful Links:

LIVE SCORING! - Fellow FBG OrganizedChaos puts this together every year on his own time and on his own dime. He is once again providing this wonderful service for free, so definitely check it out, and if you like it I encourage you to use the donation links on his site to send him a few bucks to show your appreciation.

Ownership stats

Querier

Click here to see your team.
Click to expand...
Just bumping this.So far, I think I am good this week. Thank you Heath Miller.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
172.65 with Benson, James Jones and the Seachickens D/ST on deck.

Nice week for my terrible team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
By my count, 192.7 so far (Cedric Benson -5.4 and Torrey Smith -12.1). By OC's Live Scoring, I show 200.7 pts. He has New Orleans Def at 17, I have them at 9. Am I missing something?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'wollac said:
By my count, 192.7 so far (Cedric Benson -5.4 and Torrey Smith -12.1). By OC's Live Scoring, I show 200.7 pts. He has New Orleans Def at 17, I have them at 9. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing the OT fumble return for TD that got called back is still showing up.
 
179 with benson -5.40 left to go.

Fun Fact... My "bye week filler" for Stafford ($26)... Luck ($11)... has had his number play twice now to stafford's one.

 
'[icon] said:
179 with benson -5.40 left to go. Fun Fact... My "bye week filler" for Stafford ($26)... Luck ($11)... has had his number play twice now to stafford's one.
Click to expand...
Heh, isn't it funny how that works. I took Fred Davis as a TE 1 and still haven't had him count.
 
Sitting at 173.2 + (Benson/Lynch - 5.4/19.9) by my calc

Sorta cobbled points together in dribs and drabs. Looks like a high cut line though this week :scared:

-QG

 
'Gawain said:
'[icon] said:
179 with benson -5.40 left to go. Fun Fact... My "bye week filler" for Stafford ($26)... Luck ($11)... has had his number play twice now to stafford's one.
Click to expand...
Heh, isn't it funny how that works. I took Fred Davis as a TE 1 and still haven't had him count.
Click to expand...
Gates and Hernandez, combined, have counted less for me than Dwayne Allen. Damn good thing I took Dwayne Allen.My RBs are killing me with the Bush injury now. I may not make it out of this week, even with Torrey Smith finally doing something. :scared:
 
164.65 with Benson and Lynch (-19.5 and 5.4) to go. Feeling pretty good, but not sure I am totally safe. Looks like it will be a big number for the cut.

 
150 with Benson and Lynch going tomorrow night...gotta figure I end up with at least 160+, should be plenty. Calvin, Bowe, and A.Brown are just killing it as my trio at WR. My RBs are not good, just matter of time before it ends but fun while it lasts.

 
I'm safe with 180.5 and Benson (-1.1) and Cobb (-12.1) still to go.

Players to count every week so far:

RB - McFadden (probably Benson as long as he beats 1.1)

WR - Harvin & Wayne

TE - Pettigrew

PK - Hanson

My WR's are great, QB is OK, TE has me slightly concerned (where's Gates?), and RB is a disaster with Fred Jackson hurt and Wilson a no-show so far.

 
Only have 10 rb/wr/te players going this week and got 150 points from the 7 spots. :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
51 points from my $11 combo of Heath Miller and Jason Hanson.

I really need to start getting more production from my RBs though. I know Forte is hurt, but I expected a bit more from my RB corp of Forte, Murray, BJGE, Pierre Thomas, Cedric Benson and David Wilson (wish I had that $9 back :( )

 
'Tennessee_ATO said:
Like I said, I wrestled with the concept somewhat this year. Changing my rationalization around to fit your matrix, this is basically what I determined.

Using your oversimplified matrix (in which I think there is a typo, I think you mean Teams 1 and 4 are the "best", not teams 1 and 3),
Click to expand...
Yes, you're correct, that was a typo.
'Tennessee_ATO said:
you are basically arguing all-or-nothing for each RB. The problem is you are ignoring the reality that any reasonable team would have other RB options available besides the 2 in your matrix.
Click to expand...
The number of RB's is irrelevant.
'Tennessee_ATO said:
Use my team as an example -- R. Bush, Thomas, Forte, M. Bush, S. Jackson, Benson. Forte gets hurt and you still have 4ish (Benson is a little iffy, IMO) starting RBs. Replacing M. Bush with Tate takes you down to 3ish starting RBs. Staying with Tate instead of M. Bush, if Forte is healthy and Foster is out, I now have 5ish starting RBs.
Click to expand...
This is my point, so I don't see your counter argument.You're comparing 2 possible teams here: R.Bush, Thomas, Forte, M.Bush, S.Jackson and Benson Vs. R.Bush, Thomas, Forte, Tate, Jackson and Benson.

Taking M.Bush is the safe thing to do. But I think the best chance to win is to end up with as many starting RB's as possible. That means taking Tate over M.Bush. You seem to be viewing things in terms of floors, while I'm viewing in terms of ceiling. In this contest I'd rather have a team with a higher ceiling than a higher floor.

'Tennessee_ATO said:
So the real question, in my mind anyway, becomes:

What is the marginal value of a back-up Tate minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 4ish? [i have Tate, Forte hurt, Foster healthy]

PLUS

What is the marginal value of a starting Tate minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 5ish? [i have Tate, Forte healthy, Foster hurt]

vs.

What is the marginal value of a starting M. Bush minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 3ish? [i have M. Bush, Forte hurt, Foster irrelevant]

PLUS

What is the marginal value of a back-up M. Bush minus the #2 RB out of a pool of 5ish? [i have M. Bush, Forte healthy, Foster irrelevant]

I concluded that it is better to have as many starting RB options each week because the marginal value of a replacement RB decreases when you increase the overall pool.

In my mind, adding that 4th starting RB in the form of Bush was worth more than adding that 5th starting RB in the form of Tate. I gave a marginal value of each as a back-up, at least when judged against a pool of 4-5 starters (of course M. Bush scored for me in week 1 and Tate would have scored for me in week 2).
Click to expand...
It's your right to come to your own conclusion. I disagree with it though and don't see anything you've written as anything that would even make me reconsider my position. We simply disagree and that's fine.
'Tennessee_ATO said:
The above obviously excludes the entire flex position because that starts to get into the value of WRs and TEs for that next marginal step.

Also, while we can debate the value of uniqueness as a general concept, I think that uniqueness has real value in 1 situation -- injured players. If the Forte herd is culled by a significant percentage while he is out and if (big "if" of course) I manage to survive while Forte is out, his performance upon return will give me a greater marginal return than it would otherwise.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree. What makes this contest so difficult to come up with a perfect strategy for is, at least in my opinion, that it's actually 2 contests. The first is to get to the top 250, the 2nd is the last 3 weeks. Depending on which aspect you emphasize, your strategy will be totally different. I think this is where we take different roads, your stance seems to be focused on surviving to the top 250. Mine on having as much possible firepower as possible once there.
 
OC > Your site is showing the current cutoff at 165.50. By my calculations, though, it's only at 154.95 right now. I think the discrepancy is that you're still calculating the cutoff based on all 13,318 entries, instead of removing staff and those that were eliminated last week.

 
I hope the cut line is showing higher than it is or I will be out. I have 155.05 with Benson (-5.4) and Seattle (-8).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
OC > Your site is showing the current cutoff at 165.50. By my calculations, though, it's only at 154.95 right now. I think the discrepancy is that you're still calculating the cutoff based on all 13,318 entries, instead of removing staff and those that were eliminated last week.
Click to expand...
That is a gigantic cut line for being the 2nd elimination week.
 
'BroadwayG said:
'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
OC > Your site is showing the current cutoff at 165.50. By my calculations, though, it's only at 154.95 right now. I think the discrepancy is that you're still calculating the cutoff based on all 13,318 entries, instead of removing staff and those that were eliminated last week.
Click to expand...
That is a gigantic cut line for being the 2nd elimination week.
Click to expand...
If everyone scores exactly what Dodds has them projected to score tonight, the cut line will move up to 163.15. So that's a rough ballpark for how much it can move tonight.
 
'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
'BroadwayG said:
'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
OC > Your site is showing the current cutoff at 165.50. By my calculations, though, it's only at 154.95 right now. I think the discrepancy is that you're still calculating the cutoff based on all 13,318 entries, instead of removing staff and those that were eliminated last week.
Click to expand...
That is a gigantic cut line for being the 2nd elimination week.
Click to expand...
If everyone scores exactly what Dodds has them projected to score tonight, the cut line will move up to 163.15. So that's a rough ballpark for how much it can move tonight.
Click to expand...
Oof. Here I sit at 163.1Benson -7.2 and Seahawks D -5 remain. :unsure:
 
'BroadwayG said:
'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
OC > Your site is showing the current cutoff at 165.50. By my calculations, though, it's only at 154.95 right now. I think the discrepancy is that you're still calculating the cutoff based on all 13,318 entries, instead of removing staff and those that were eliminated last week.
Click to expand...
That is a gigantic cut line for being the 2nd elimination week.
Click to expand...
It sure does seem to be pretty high. A bet alot of solid teams get bounced this week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheWinz
  • Sticky
2025 FBG Subscriber Contest
38 39 40
Replies
2K
Views
41K
SeniorVBDStudent
SeniorVBDStudent
TheWinz
2024 FBG Subscriber Contest
56 57 58
Replies
3K
Views
107K
Stray Doug
Stray Doug
TheWinz
2022 FBG Subscriber Contest is ON - Update - 1st place is $10k + $5k to food bank of their choice
72 73 74
Replies
4K
Views
123K
Puppies
Puppies

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top