Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, w3junky said:

No FD won't be making any changes to existing positions. They are pushing it pretty hard on their social media pages to play Hill, even in the FD app under his analysis. They obviously don't want users complaining that they did not know about his status. I don't see how you don't play him at $4500 on FD in the flex spot. Sure you can plug him in within the TE spot but I think it makes most sense to use the flex spot with him. Or not....

TE is an armpit.  I think most will use him there (at TE) and stick with the three RB approach that is used most weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Another gpp win. Wow! What a sweat. I scored 183 pts. 2nd place was 182 pts.  $2000. Thanks Taysum!

Raked $.25 in the free NBA draft contest yesterday. Yeah, that's how we roll 

Good point. Taysum was 80% owned. All my guys were above 13% except Thielen at 8%. Which is surprising.  Herbert, MDavis, Gibson, KAllen, Thielen, DJohnson, Taysum, Ballage, Steelers.     

26 minutes ago, FatNate said:

TE is an armpit.  I think most will use him there (at TE) and stick with the three RB approach that is used most weeks.

True dat! But it is crazy what lineups look like also when you put Taysom in the flex and use another decent priced TE in the normal spot. It's gonna be an interesting weekend of building lineups with this news. I just hope Payton isn't messing with us even though news says otherwise. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, w3junky said:

True dat! But it is crazy what lineups look like also when you put Taysom in the flex and use another decent priced TE in the normal spot. It's gonna be an interesting weekend of building lineups with this news. I just hope Payton isn't messing with us even though news says otherwise. 

I think using him at TE also helps protect you against Payton out-smarting us all.  TE is a hard spot to peg anyway and is the lowest value of the skilled spots.  Let's assume Taysom bums it up and get pulled at halftime.  He only needs about 40-yds rushing and 50-yds passing, as a TE, to not be a complete bust at about 6-pts for $4.5 spend at TE.  Obviously, we are expecting double that, for a bad performance, but if he bombs and is in your TE slot you are most protected.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FatNate said:

I think using him at TE also helps protect you against Payton out-smarting us all.  TE is a hard spot to peg anyway and is the lowest value of the skilled spots.  Let's assume Taysom bums it up and get pulled at halftime.  He only needs about 40-yds rushing and 50-yds passing, as a TE, to not be a complete bust at about 6-pts for $4.5 spend at TE.  Obviously, we are expecting double that, for a bad performance, but if he bombs and is in your TE slot you are most protected.

Especially if you have Kamara in your LU also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, Anyone NOT playing THill at TE this week will be at a disadvantage.  I expect everyone will start him.  His potential combined with the low salary makes him a no brainier.

Im using him and combining him with K Johnson ($4800) gives me a lot of flexibility.

Current league lineup:

Big Ben /  Dalvin / Hines / Julio / JuJu  / Jakobi / Taysom / K Johnson / ATL

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

FWIW, Anyone NOT playing THill at TE this week will be at a disadvantage.  I expect everyone will start him.  His potential combined with the low salary makes him a no brainier.

Im using him and combining him with K Johnson ($4800) gives me a lot of flexibility.

Current league lineup:

Big Ben /  Dalvin / Hines / Julio / JuJu  / Jakobi / Taysom / K Johnson / ATL

K Johnson over Peterson?   Looks like most projections favor Peterson.  

Edited by FatNate
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FatNate said:

K Johnson over Peterson?   Looks like most projections favor Peterson.  

I realize Peterson will get the bulk of the carries.  I see his role mostly between the 20s.  I think Johnson will be used in Red Zone and the passing game, he still may be a good value.  Going with my gut on this one.  Besides, nothing is set in stone until kickoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FatNate said:

Loving the double stack QB-WR this week.  Stacking Taysom with Thomas to go along with my ‘real’ QB and WR stack. 

 

I am also considering stacking Ryan/Julio with Tayson/Thomas as a good way to get a large number of points from the ALT-NO game.  My only concern is that Thomas has disappointed this season (mostly due to injury).  Still, I'm not sure I trust Thomas (especially at his price).  I think Kamara would be a safer choice to stack. Hill will need his security blanket.  I have to think further on this one.

FWIW, I do see New Orleans taking some deep shots down the field.  Trouble is, I am not sure who it favors.  Thomas? TreQuan? Dionte Harris?  Definitely NOT E Sanders.

:2cents:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another great podcast about building a gpp LU for the week HERE.  

This is usually a good one they do each week because they focus on the SE or 3max strategy.   Like the other one that talks about leverage and how to get away from chalk, they go more into it here and talk about when to avoid and not avoid chalk.  IE - M.Davis last week and M.Andrews this week.   Probably be good chalk to avoid because their chances of hitting their gpp winning score is much lower than their ownership %.     I also thought it was interesting that they talked about basically never having a RB in your stack unless it's somebody with a ridiculous usage like Kamara (10+ catch upside) and get a decent amount of reception usage in the red zone as far as targets go.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Solomon Grundy said:

What reasons did he cite, just ownership?

Basically.  I think statistically he doesn't have an 80% chance at returning gpp value, but is predicted to be 75-80% owned.  

Like he said, there is a path in the game where he throws for 150 and runs for 50, gets 0tds, and Kamara smashes.  By not having him in a gpp lineup, you are already different than 75%+ of entries in a tournament which is huge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess after thinking about it when you put it in context of a simple gpp 2v2 swap.    Cook is at 38% ownership and Hill is at near 80%.    Is that combo THAT much more likely to outscore something like Kamara + Hurst.  There is correlation in that 2nd combo + they are at 20% and 2% predicted ownership.  

Also - from a LU construction standpoint, it also means that a ton of LUs would look the similar.  If 80% are using HIll as a cheap TE, then that probably means a vast majority are also paying up for Cook, Kamara, M.Thomas, Lamar.   Gotta spend somewhere.   So if you took a different approach at TE, it might get you off that build too, which separates you even more in gpps.  

 

Or if you go that route still, maybe look at other pivots instead.  IE Lamar is at 18%, but Rodgers is at 3%.   Not sure he is 6x more likely to get there in a gpp than Rodgers.  

:shrug:   Thoughts like these are what I am trying to get better at for gpps.  

Edited by KarmaPolice
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2020 at 7:04 AM, FatNate said:

We have spent a lot time here this season discussing the high point game totals, so I spent more time than usual this week looking at the game totals.  It appears this week that the range is from 51pts to 45.5pts.  I have no idea if that spread is statistically in line with what we see most weeks, but I know I was surprised that the gap from the highest game total of the week to the lowest game total of the week, was not more (please note I only looked at the main slate games).  GB/IND is the highest total at 51 and MIA/DEN & DET/CAR are both the lowest totals at 45.5.  My point to all this is that I think it is great to use game total points to help cull the player pool, but I would hesitate on just eliminating all those lower game total teams.  A perfect example might Davis from CAR this week.  He gets the touches and faces a bottom defense, but the game total is the lowest of the week.  Furthermore I found that it might be more important to look at implied team totals instead game totals.  For example, GB/IND is the highest game total of the week, but individually IND ranks as the 6th highest implied team total and GB as the 9th highest implies team total of the week.  The other end of that example is the PIT/JAX game has a game total of 46.5, but PIT implied team total is 28.25 (the highest of the week).  High game totals are great when identifying games to stack, which is very popular and can be successful.  I also think it is important to note that if we look at implied team totals, we can see a much wider gap from the top (PIT at 28.25) to the bottom (JAX at 18.25).  I would argue we need to have some PIT players in the lineups this week, but I I see no reason to run it back with a JAX player.  I hope this rambling made some sense, but I wanted to share my thoughts and I hope it might help someone as they dig into the numbers.  Listed are the top 11 highest implied team totals of the week:  1 PIT 28.25     2 LAC 27.5     3 NOS 27.25     4 BAL 27.25     5 MIN 27.25     6 IND 26.5     7 NEP 25.25     8 CLE 25     9 GBP 24.5     10 MIA 24.5     11 WAS 24.

Yep.  This should always be one of the first things we look at each week.   I think you need to look at both, like you said - team totals and game totals with close spreads.   IMO Team totals is a bit more important for cash games (and pairing that with stats like %of touches, etc..).   You are way behind in a cash game if you are using a RB on a team with a 22 implied total that only gets 55% of the touches vs. a RB on a team with a 28 implied total and gets 70% of the touches.     

For gpps, I like to look at those game totals and close games.   Like you said, this week that's GB/Indy, Atl/NO, and NE/Houst  the implication is Vegas thinks it's slightly more probably to stay close and shoot out, so in theory those are the games to look at for game stacks.     What I like to look at and hope it matches is up is the pace of play for the games.  So this week the top 5 for pace on the slate are:  Jets/Chargers, Cincy/Wash, Dallas/Minn, Philly/Clev, and NE/Houst.    Slowest couple are GB/Indy, Mia/Denv, and Det/Car.   Again, theory is simple - faster pace = more plays = more opps for your players to score points.   Looks like the one that fits both is NE/Houst, and that is a pretty popular game.  Maybe if you do that game, but don't have T.Hill in the LU....? 

ETA:  I do like to use those pace of play games for secondary correlations too.  Stuff like  K.Allen + Perriman, Gibson + Higgins, Jefferson + Shultz.   There are some low owned players in those games that could help in a chalkier primary game stack.  

Edited by KarmaPolice
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yep.  This should always be one of the first things we look at each week.   I think you need to look at both, like you said - team totals and game totals with close spreads.   IMO Team totals is a bit more important for cash games (and pairing that with stats like %of touches, etc..).   You are way behind in a cash game if you are using a RB on a team with a 22 implied total that only gets 55% of the touches vs. a RB on a team with a 28 implied total and gets 70% of the touches.     

For gpps, I like to look at those game totals and close games.   Like you said, this week that's GB/Indy, Atl/NO, and NE/Houst  the implication is Vegas thinks it's slightly more probably to stay close and shoot out, so in theory those are the games to look at for game stacks.     What I like to look at and hope it matches is up is the pace of play for the games.  So this week the top 5 for pace on the slate are:  Jets/Chargers, Cincy/Wash, Dallas/Minn, Philly/Clev, and NE/Houst.    Slowest couple are GB/Indy, Mia/Denv, and Det/Car.   Again, theory is simple - faster pace = more plays = more opps for your players to score points.   Looks like the one that fits both is NE/Houst, and that is a pretty popular game.  Maybe if you do that game, but don't have T.Hill in the LU....? 

ETA:  I do like to use those pace of play games for secondary correlations too.  Stuff like  K.Allen + Perriman, Gibson + Higgins, Jefferson + Shultz.   There are some low owned players in those games that could help in a chalkier primary game stack.  

I love these discussions. It allows for people to throw viewpoints out there. So the way I view GPPs is as follows: You need to have the highest scoring players in order to win big. Winning small is not the goal. The highest scoring players do two things: score TDs and get lots of yardage. If you break this down into simplest terms, that means you need players from games with high scores. High scores are representative of two things: lots of TDs and lots of yardage. So, by the associative property, you want the players from the highest scoring games. Vegas has already helped us figure out what those games are by giving us over/unders for each NFL game. I don't try to out-think people who are PAID to figure this stuff out. I just take their word for it. So, in short, you want the players form the games vegas say will be the highest scoring, plus high-volume RBs from other games (there are only a handful). Ownership simply differentiates the one or two players from each LU that are dart throws. As a very type-A personality who is a tax accountant, I just have a hard time justifying trying to out guess the professionals. That said, if this week is a bust for me, I'm going to change away from QB-RB-WR stack and just go QB-WR stacks...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem I have with picking teams like this week's Steelers is that I have found shootouts to be the places where you get big scores. A blowout by one team doesn't necessarily give you a game stack scenario. I like game stacks scenarios. But, maybe I should take a week and pick GPP LUs using only QBs from the 4 vegas-projected highest scoring TEAMS, not games. This week that's PIT - LAC - NOS - BAL. I guess where I differ is I LOVE stacking the opposing WR1, and in the case of the PIT-CIN game, that may not be the best idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Solomon Grundy said:

The biggest problem I have with picking teams like this week's Steelers is that I have found shootouts to be the places where you get big scores. A blowout by one team doesn't necessarily give you a game stack scenario. I like game stacks scenarios. But, maybe I should take a week and pick GPP LUs using only QBs from the 4 vegas-projected highest scoring TEAMS, not games. This week that's PIT - LAC - NOS - BAL. I guess where I differ is I LOVE stacking the opposing WR1, and in the case of the PIT-CIN game, that may not be the best idea.

I think something that is differentiating a week like this week vs. the past few is that we also don't have 5-6 games over 50pts.    That makes me more likely to take shots at some of the teams that are in that 21-22 point range.   Looks like if we look at the teams in the top 1/2 of implied totals we get to something like Detroit at 24pts?   So yeah, that only puts GB/Indy as two in the top half playing each other.  But if we go a tad lower to 22.8 we get a cluster of teams like Houst, Atl, Cinci.  And then we get some of those comeback teams.   

IMO I don't worry a ton about the implied totals with WR in a stack for the opposing team.  I look more to air years and big splash plays.  Do we care if Jax only has a 18 point implied total if they are going to be behind all game and we are looking for something like 6-110-TD from Chark?   Where I give pause to the implied totals is when I am on the opposite side and doing a double stack for the game.  Ie I would don't do QB-WR-WR or QB-RB-WR on a team with a low total because you need 3-4 TDs for that to do damage.  

Those are the types of things I try to keep in mind.  The theory about the high totals but big spreads is it's riskier because there is more of a chance the team starts handing it off, giving your QB-WR stack a lower % of hitting more, and then also grinding down the pace of the game and running out clock for more plays for the guys in your LU.   So that is part of the decision process.  Do I stack up Pitts and hope that Ben +WR gets theirs before possibly handing off to Conner (if they get to a big lead like Vegas thinks), or go for a game they are predicting to be closer but with lesser totals like Cinci/Wash or NE/Houst and hope they go back and forth?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another thing to consider is stats/charts like THIS.    I need to find similar for when teams are in the lead, and when they are in the RZ how much they pass.  That should factor into thoughts on stacking and with how many players.   If a team only passes the ball 48% of the time like NE does, those usually aren't the teams I do QB-WR-WR + opp WR for.   I did notice after I ordered it for the last 3 games that Pitts is passing almost 70% of the time during that stretch.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only play GPPs so T. Hill at TE at 4500 is really interesting.  Before I read this thread I was thinking about playing him at flex (and not stack with any other NO players) if I like a different TE.  Playing him at flex should offer some diversification, especially if your TE smashes.  OTOH, fading pretty much anyone at ~80% ownership is the right thing to do in GPPs.

I haven't looked at anything yet this week so figuring out what to do with Hill will obviously be the first thing to figure out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Basically.  I think statistically he doesn't have an 80% chance at returning gpp value, but is predicted to be 75-80% owned.  

Like he said, there is a path in the game where he throws for 150 and runs for 50, gets 0tds, and Kamara smashes.  By not having him in a gpp lineup, you are already different than 75%+ of entries in a tournament which is huge. 

I have 12 lineups this week.  Only three do not include Hill. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Basically.  I think statistically he doesn't have an 80% chance at returning gpp value, but is predicted to be 75-80% owned.  

Like he said, there is a path in the game where he throws for 150 and runs for 50, gets 0tds, and Kamara smashes.  By not having him in a gpp lineup, you are already different than 75%+ of entries in a tournament which is huge. 

At 150 & 50 with no TDs still equals 11-pts.  At $4.5 that is over 2x value.  Not smash worthy, but the upside is undeniable and I think the floor is also very safe.  Not using Hill is a way to differentiate, for sure, but, I also think it’s a situation where we might be making it more complicated than it really is. Plug him in and take the free square.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steeler said:

I only play GPPs so T. Hill at TE at 4500 is really interesting.  Before I read this thread I was thinking about playing him at flex (and not stack with any other NO players) if I like a different TE.  Playing him at flex should offer some diversification, especially if your TE smashes.  OTOH, fading pretty much anyone at ~80% ownership is the right thing to do in GPPs.

I haven't looked at anything yet this week so figuring out what to do with Hill will obviously be the first thing to figure out.

 

5 hours ago, FatNate said:

At 150 & 50 with no TDs still equals 11-pts.  At $4.5 that is over 2x value.  Not smash worthy, but the upside is undeniable and I think the floor is also very safe.  Not using Hill is a way to differentiate, for sure, but, I also think it’s a situation where we might be making it more complicated than it really is. Plug him in and take the free square.

Pretty sure we were just talking about that M.Davis free square a week or two ago. ;) 

What I bolded in Steeler's quote is exactly right.  Gpps are a different way of thinking and there is a reason why ownership projections are some of the most important info (and that was the big reason a few people on the sites got in trouble several years back as they were illegally using that).     I think T.Hill was a decision point like Steeler said.  IMO at that high of an ownership, you either should go 100% with him, or basically fade him.   You were leaning more the 100% thinking, which is a strategy.   Also, there is a difference between types of contests, if those 12 LUs are all in the same contest, etc..     If I had him in a LU I would make sure that I had 2-3 very low owned players in there too, if you have a LU without him and Cook - you basically wouldn't have to even consider ownership % for anybody else.  

Gpps are about getting to the top 1%+, and at that point look at the leaderboard - 1 point or less could be the difference between $500 and $5K.  Yes, there are 9 positions to do consider, but what I said is accurate - all else being equal if T.Hill is 80% owned and gets those 11-15pts, and let's just say L.Thomas decides to show up for 15.5 points today.  Those LUs are in a huge advantage, and the first group is splitting money between 1000s of people.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to enter 150 lineups ($0.05 GPP) and decided to go with 50% T. Hill as he is projected to be on 94% of rosters.  Going 100% doesn't make much sense to me as you are only going to gain leverage on 6% of the field.  A complete fade would immediately kill your week if Hill smashes so that's out too.  I guess 50% is a hedge but I think it's the best move here as you still have a chance if Hill smashes, but if he underperforms you gain an advantage on 46% of the lineups.

I also decided to build 4 lineups for the 1PM only slate, all with T. Hill, all were entered into a $0.25 GPP.  I have the expected roster percentage listed after each player, but that is the expected percentage for the full slate, so it won't be 100% accurate for the smaller 1PM slate.  Anyway, here are my lineups and thoughts:

A. Smith (8), D. Henry (11)N. Chubb (3),M. Thomas (16),T. McLaurin (18),T. Boyd (5),T. Hill (94),L. Thomas (0.1),Steelers (20)
$300 Salary Remaining (another easy way to get more uniqueness in GPP is to not use all the salary)
Wash QB, WR, TE stack bringing it back with T. Boyd (low overall ownership).  Hill stacked with M. Thomas, Steelers chalk, Henry and especially Chubb offer low ownership.

 A. Smith (8),A. Kamara (17),D. Johnson (14),D. Johnson (12),T. McLaurin (18),T. Boyd (5),T. Hill (94),L. Thomas (0.1),Steelers (20)
$2700 remaining :lol:  
Similar idea to the first one with Wash/Cin stack - Hill paired with Kamara, Duke Johnson and Dionte Johnson round out this lineup

Ben R. (4),J. Conner (17),A. Peterson (11),J. Jones (15),JuJu (6),D. Chark (1),T. Hill (94),A. Kamara (17),Browns (7)
$300 remaining
PIT stack with QB, RB, WR + opposing WR1, Hill and Kamara stack + J. Jones run back.  A. Peterson against CAR at only 11%, Browns because I couldn't fit the Steelers

Ben R. (4),D. Henry (11),N. Chubb (3),D. Johnson (12),C. Claypool (5),D. Chark (1),T. Hill (94),M. Davis (15),Browns (7)
PIT QB, WR, WR + WR1 runback, Hill is alone in this lineup, and I have 3 stud RBs at low ownership Henry, Chubb, Davis
$200 remaining
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that ownership % is a bit of a shorthand for % you think they can get gpp winning points.   Ie by taking Cook at 30% ownership you think it's reasonable to say that he has about a 30% chance of getting that 25pts+ you need for climbing the boards.  Sometimes the chalk is good - ie if I remember right, Cook's smash probability % this week was close to 50%, so his 30% ownership might actually be low.  Last week M.Davis was the opposite - he was 40% owned or something, but his gpp odds were more like 10-15%, which made that more of a bad play.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, w3junky said:

Wonder how some of these industry “experts” are feeling about fading Taysum? Or maybe it was just gamesmanship on their end. 😉 

Statistically it's still the right call in gpps.  :shrug:

I never do well in gpps on weeks where chalk hits.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting early slate.  Lot of low scoring games, including a shutout by my Panthers. Taysom broke the TE position. Ben was Ben. DeShaun went off against NE (How no one started him in the league surprises me).

Going into the late games, I'm down but in striking distance.  Need a big game from Cook and hope that my 2d dart throw does better than my first

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

Interesting early slate.  Lot of low scoring games, including a shutout by my Panthers. Taysom broke the TE position. Ben was Ben. DeShaun went off against NE (How no one started him in the league surprises me).

Going into the late games, I'm down but in striking distance.  Need a big game from Cook and hope that my 2d dart throw does better than my first

I hate Ben.  I should have known better than to start him.  

Of course I had Watson as my Qb in LU for our league all week and changed it last night for whatever reason.   I do that way too many times during a season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, w3junky said:

Another gpp win. Wow! What a sweat. I scored 183 pts. 2nd place was 182 pts.  $2000. Thanks Taysum!

That's awesome! 

To be fair, at 70% owned, it wasn't T.Hill that got you that money.   Probably had Watson, a low owned D like Clev that scored well?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

That's awesome! 

To be fair, at 70% owned, it wasn't T.Hill that got you that money.   Probably had Watson, a low owned D like Clev that scored well?  

Good point. Taysum was 80% owned. All my guys were above 13% except Thielen at 8%. Which is surprising. 

Herbert, MDavis, Gibson, KAllen, Thielen, DJohnson, Taysum, Ballage, Steelers. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, w3junky said:

Good point. Taysum was 80% owned. All my guys were above 13% except Thielen at 8%. Which is surprising. 

Herbert, MDavis, Gibson, KAllen, Thielen, DJohnson, Taysum, Ballage, Steelers. 
 

 

Nice lineup.  Congratulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I hate Ben.  I should have known better than to start him.  

Of course I had Watson as my Qb in LU for our league all week and changed it last night for whatever reason.   I do that way too many times during a season. 

Me too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2020 at 6:50 AM, FatNate said:

I am pretty excited about not finishing at the complete bottom this week!  I am going to setup a Thanksgiving day only contest for week 12.  I will also setup the usual main slate contest, on Friday week 12.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, FatNate said:

Another crappy week for me.  100 in and 40 out.

Hang in there. If I can take down two GPP's in a month anyone can, lol. My advice, don't get too cute with lineups. A lot of people believe you have to differentiate with a bunch of guys. But really you don't. Look at the millionaire contest winner. That dude's lineup was anything but crazy (Herbert, Henry, Gibson, Allen, Thielen, DJohnson, Taysum, MWilliams, Saints). You only need that 1 guy who is slightly under owned. I've also noticed that quite often most of the winners have a QB,WR,WR stack.   (San Diego and Minnesota this week)

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...