Pragmatic Drafting

by Ron From NM on Jan 8, 2009 3:26 PM EST Comment 55 comments

In the 2008 draft, Buffalo didn't get their topped ranked DE, their top ranked WR, their top ranked TE or top ranked C. Instead, Buffalo got their top ranked DB, possibly their top rated WR (Thomas was picked ahead of Hardy), god knows what ranked DE (10th off the board), a TE (7th off the board) who must have been way down their list, and no C at all. It didn't work out to well for Buffalo last season. McKelvin came on in the end and Fine was a good blocking TE when he was healthy. Ellis and Hardy contributed almost nothing.

If mock drafts are to be believed 2 DEs will be picked 1-10 and about 4 more 12-41. No Cs will go top 10 and 1 will go 12-41. 2 LBs will go 1-10 and likely 2 more between 12-41. No TEs will go top 10 and about 2 will go 12-41.

If Buffalo goes C at #11 there's no doubt the team will have picked their top rated C and wind up with their #5-#7 ranked DE (7th off the board), or their #3 ranked TE, or #4-#5 ranked LB (5th off the board).

If Buffalo goes TE at #11 the team will get their #1 ranked TE and can get their #2 (possibly #1) ranked C in the 2nd round. If, on the other hand, OBD conspires to cause me to have a seizure by not taking a C in the first 2 rounds, they will be taking the #6 DE or #5 LB off the board.

If Buffalo goes DE at #11 they'll get the third one off the board, possibly rated higher than #3 by OBD. Their #2 rated C should be available in the 2nd, along with the 5th LB off the board and #3 TE.

If Buffalo goes LB at #11 they'll get the third LB in the draft. In the second round, Buffalo's 2nd rated C, 3rd TE off the board or 7th DE off the board are all options.

So, putting aside free agency and trades for the moment, should Buffalo take their top guy at a position (C or TE) in the first, or make the 3rd DE or LB pick at #11?

Poll

Should Buffalo get their top rated guy at a position or take the 3rd choice (after 2 LBs and 2 DEs are taken 1-10)?

Go with C or TE as Buffalo will have their pick of those positions at #11.

39 votes

Go with LB or DE even though Buffalo will have 2 less options due to LBs and DEs being picked 1-10.

31 votes

70 votes | Poll has closed

This FanPost was written by a registered user of Buffalo Rumblings. Its views do not necessarily reflect the views of Rumblings' editorial staff, but are just as valued as our own.

1 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

As much as I want a center....

Buffalo getting their top TE and (no worse than) their 2nd rated C would make for a good Saturday. Flipping the order would leave Buffalo with their top rated C and no better than the 3rd selection of TEs.

by Ron From NM on Jan 8, 2009 3:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If you want to take a risk on TE, it might be worth taking a look at Travis Beckum in the third round or later. I’ve seen him play the last few years at Wisconsin, and he’s still learning the position and had a pretty serious injury this season that will drop him a couple of rounds, but he’s a pretty good pass catching TE. If the Bills could get him in the third or fourth round, it might be worth focusing on C and DE first.

by rexob on Jan 8, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

good point

Gresham is very good, probably the best in the draft, but how much better is he than a 3rd or 4th round prospect? Is it really worth taking a receiving TE at #11 or waiting until round 3 or 4 for Beckum, Chase Coffman, James Casey, Dennis Pitta or Shawn Nelson, etc???? We need a guy that is a receiving threat at the position, which can be had in the mid rounds. Utilizing the #11 at a different position is much wiser, IMO.

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 8, 2009 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes Sir!!

Both Coffman & Nelson both look good. Actually this year’s draft looks pretty deep at the TE position if you are lookng for a “pass-catching” type specimen.

Center or DE

BEAST MODE, During the week plan on it & on game day thrive on it!
GO BILLS!
Section 336 Row 13

by keysh67 on Jan 9, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

EXACTLY!

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 10, 2009 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

One special guy at a crucial position can entirely change your team, and I think Gresham is special. He was the one consistent performer against a very good and very fast Florida D. I would be ecstatic if we landed Gresham and Mack/Luigs with the first two.

by PozDispenser on Jan 10, 2009 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think this actually makes DE look like a better idea in the first. I would much rather OBD get their #2 (or maybe 3) DE in the first and round and still be able to get their #2 C or TE in the second round and their #3 C or #4ish TE in the third round as opposed to settling for the 6th or 7th best DE in the second round.

by kaisertown on Jan 8, 2009 3:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I like that breakdown too

by MattRichWarren on Jan 8, 2009 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Very very livable

Now if only this gopher could play DE, we would be doing better, I mean, who couldn't play better than the corpse brothers Kelsay and Denney?

by WABillsfan on Jan 9, 2009 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A few things I agree with Ron, but only if Gresham comes out, I do not think there is any other TE I would take that high, maybe Pettigrew, but not sure. If they cant/wont trade down then you could take a C, but I still might go with maybe Taylor Mays -S out of USC. As for DE, Orakpo and Brown seem to be the best 2 by far, after that it seems the talent drops off and mixed reviews on who is left, rather take a shot in the 2nd or 3rd. So to summarize, if a top DE is there I think that is the obvious pick, if not then Gresham if he comes out.

by billsfan69 on Jan 8, 2009 3:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

that's my argument

getting a game-changing TE, the #1 in the draft, is hard to pass up. we need DE’s. But listen, DE’s are guys that need to be athletic and substituted frequently. WE need a 5 man rotation. So why not go TE Round #1, C Round #1. Get a vet DE if possible. Draft a DE round 3 again, a DT #4 or what have you. I just think getting that Center, pass-catching TE, means

a) offense can win more Time of Possession battles, leaving Defense more fresh
b) 5 man DE rotation, with a rookie, Ellis and vet FA, would do wonders to getting after the passer

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Jan 8, 2009 3:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i can definately get on board with this idea

but getting two first rounders to do that means we must have DE and LB wrapped up pre-draft. Keep Crowell and make one major signing. Throw in Lorenzo Neal and Anderson on one year deals and Im all for going TE/C in round 1 and sacrificing rd 2 and 3

Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.

by poz on Jan 8, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would Buffalo need 2 first rounders?

Gresham will be there at #11, unless someone goes nuts and jumps past the Bills specifically to get him. Right now it looks like no more than 1 C will come off the board before pick #42. So, at worst, Buffalo could get their top rated TE in the first round and their 2nd ranked C in the second round without giving anything up.

Don’t get me wrong: if Mack is all that he’s said to be then I hope Buffalo lands him (even if it means moving back up into the first round)….but we’ve all seen consensus can’t miss prospects (Leaf, Mandrich, M Williams [the OT or the WR], Courtney Brown) fail utterly in the NFL.

Also, why sign Lorenzo Neal? Are there no true fullbacks in the draft that Buffalo could snag in the fourth round? Try this four round draft on for size:

1st: highest rated TE
2nd: 2nd highest rated C (possibly highest rated C if the Steelers pass on Mack)
3rd: 10th or so rated DE or LB (reserve/developmental guy)
4th: highest rated FB

I think that’s easily attainable without any draft movement at all. It would bring immediate improvements at 3 positions of need (TE/C/FB). Buffalo could preface this draft by extending Crowell and making a run (though admittedly unlikely to succeed) at a high priced free agent DE like Suggs.

by Ron From NM on Jan 8, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Steelers just might pass on Mack IF Duke Robinson is available.

everything goes better with a BIG MACK

by keuka121 on Jan 8, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree. I think OT and OG could both bigger needs for PIT. Tackles Marvel Smith, Max Starks and Trai Essex are all soon to be free agents. Willie Colon, a RFA, is the other experienced tackle on the roster. RG, Chris Kemoeatu is also a potential FA and LG, Kendall Simmons ruptured his achilles this season.

The problem with Mack making it to the Bills is teams like Kansas City, St. Louis and Cincinatti drafting before Buffalo in the second round.

Also Ron, Poz was saying you would need two first round picks in reference to this quote from Marv:

So why not go TE Round #1, C Round #1

Although, I’m not sure if that’s a typo.

Are there no true fullbacks in the draft that Buffalo could snag in the fourth round?

None that are worth a fourth round pick. I’m not sure if any of the fullbacks in this draft can come in and be an impactful blocker right away. Brannon Sutherland is the closest thing in this draft, but nobody will touch him until the fifth round at the very earliest.

by kaisertown on Jan 8, 2009 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather take a FB in the 4th...

….than wait until the 5th and see the next McClain snatched before us.

by Ron From NM on Jan 8, 2009 9:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So you want a big FB that is a better halfback?

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 8, 2009 9:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, and I would too if there was a McClain or Owen Schmitt (who I was a huge proponent of taking), but there isn’t a McClain this year. There is a good chance that nobody drafts a fullback until the 7th round this year. There simply isn’t a FB that stands out from the crowd and the guy that the Bills like most could be the 4th or 5th best FB on other teams boards. There are just a bunch of decent options this year.

by kaisertown on Jan 8, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Quinn Johnson

Is a bruiser FB, great lead blocker. Less of a passing threat but who cares. I’m sure Johnson will be available in the 7th or even maybe go un-drafted.

BEAST MODE, During the week plan on it & on game day thrive on it!
GO BILLS!
Section 336 Row 13

by keysh67 on Jan 9, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would love a player like that. He is more of a short yardage type of fullback, but I think he might be athletic enough to be an every down player if Buffalo uses him right. I’m on the Quinn Johnson in the 7th round band wagon with you.

He could be a standout blocker on kick returns too.

by kaisertown on Jan 9, 2009 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, one draft pick set in stone

7th round – Quinn Johnson, FB……..check!

"The Bills have no playoff aspirations"

by Joe P. on Jan 9, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

FB

Should we really be drafting a FB in the 4th?

I think we should look at rounds 1-4 for immediate impact for critical needs and then FBs and developmental types later. Just a thought. I think we need major depth at LB and even in the backfield. We saw how useful depth was for us in the defensive backfield with McKelvin and Corner and if we loose Greer we may need to shore up with an immediate impact type . . . unless of course there’s a decent veteran out there that’s cheap.

by Ono on Jan 8, 2009 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Very Pragmatic

I like this approach a lot. I’m sure it will change based on the free agency. I also liked the approach of drafting two players of the needs positions that aren’t addressed in the first. I don’t mind having the 10th rated DE or LB if they also draft another one in the 6th or 7th. It worked with Corner and Johnson.

And as low as FB’s get drafted, there is no reason to not end up with the best one in the draft if he’s worth it. I mean, we’re talking about 4th round vs 5th round, by then your debating between like the 20th best LB and the best FB, or the 23rd best LB and the 2nd best FB. I bet there are plenty of LB’s that grade out about the same by the 4th and 5th rounds.

by south123 on Jan 8, 2009 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t mind having the 10th rated DE or LB if they also draft another one in the 6th or 7th. It worked with Corner and Johnson.

But the Bills DID end up with their #1 CB and one of their top 2 or 3 WRs. The Bills also took their 7-12th best options at DE and LB (Ellis and Bowen) and it DIDN’T work.

I think it makes much more sense to take the player you have rated 2nd or 3rd best at every position you need as opposed to taking your top guy at a couple spots and some guys you have rated in the middle of the pack later.

by kaisertown on Jan 8, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s the way it seems to work out for the good teams. It is an attempted balance between best player available and need. Need (position) wins, so you take the best player available at your top position of prioritized need. Hope that makes sense.

everything goes better with a BIG MACK

by keuka121 on Jan 8, 2009 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That makes sense, I see your points. Having two or three lower rated guys doesn’t add up to one higher rated guy.

by south123 on Jan 9, 2009 8:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that makes sense too. I guess it is just how you look at it. Or maybe more importantly how much better the best guy at his position is then the guys who are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best options and other things which will be different every year. I guess how other teams view players is a big factor too. Say Eric Woods, the center from Louisville, is the Bills second rated center and there is a big, but not huge gap between them. Buffalo can most likely grab Woods in the third, but would have to grab Mack with the first. Situations like that make it tough to apply this type of pragmatic thinking to the draft with our limited knowledge compared to what the Bills will know the week before the draft.

by kaisertown on Jan 9, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How are you supposed to plan for that?

Getting your 2nd or 3rd ranked player at more than 1 position? Wouldn’t every team want to do that? I don’t know how you can plan for the opportunity to grab your 2nd or 3rd rated guy at many positions in the draft. Teams have no idea if the guys they like will be picked before they get to pick!!!! I’d rather go with my highest ranked players if possible.

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 9, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, this is my viewpoint as well. I mean, I guess if you KNOW you can get that value at all of your need positions you go for it, but how can you justify taking your 2nd or 3rd option on your big board and still ending up with your 7-12th best options at your secondary needs because of the way the draft shook out?

Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more

by Brian Galliford on Jan 9, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And how can you predict it? It’s not like a team can go into the draft and say: “Well, we can take our 2nd rated TE now because we will probably get to take our 3rd rated Center in the next round”….It’s unpredictable. Teams can guesstimate where they think guys will be drafted, but it’s no certainty. That’s why the draft is such an inexact science. There’s no way to predict when to best draft positions going into the draft….

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 9, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s unpredictable

It’s not that unpredictable

by kaisertown on Jan 9, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Call me when you nail every draft pick! Haha

Oh. That came out wrong….

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 9, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.

by poz on Jan 9, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are on a roll K

You outed Brian’s super secret mock draft, and now kaisertown :-)

"The Bills have no playoff aspirations"

by Joe P. on Jan 9, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He’s fired. :P

Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more

by Brian Galliford on Jan 9, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When center is one of those secondary needs you can know for a fact that you can wait and still get one of your top options. Same with TE, depending on who they like.

by kaisertown on Jan 9, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is C a secondary need though? If you think it is, what are the primary needs? DE and LB maybe?

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 9, 2009 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think DE is the only primary need. The line I used before is that I think there is a grand canyon sized gap betwen DE and every other need on this team. You can win Super Bowls with average LBs, centers, TEs etc… but good luck being a great team without a great pass rush(er). If Buffalo does a bad job of addressing every need other than DE, but signs Bertrand Berry and drafts the next Justin Tuck or John Abraham, I would consider the offseason a success. I think the position is that important.

by kaisertown on Jan 9, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You know I agree with that

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 9, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, calling something primary vs. secondary doesn’t really work unless we are defining the terms the same way.

by kaisertown on Jan 9, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

to be a great team you do need a pass rush but I don’t think we are on the verge of being a great team yet. To be a good team you need a center who isn’t terrible. I think our first step should be to become a good team. With our running backs, I think we can be a good team with great interior blocking.

Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.

by poz on Jan 9, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Like you said, you need a great pass rush to have a great defense. You don’t even need to a great center to have a great rushing attack. I want to do whatever puts this team in the best position to win a Super Bowl and that thing is to get a great DE at any and all costs. What kind of strategy is it to worry about the less important positions first and the more important positions after we fill all the less important ones? If this team needed a QB instead of a DE, would you still want to address center first?

by kaisertown on Jan 9, 2009 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if there were potentially great stopgap free agents at QB like there are at DE this year (Berry and Suggs) I just might to be honest. For example, if I’m the Lions this year, I think I am taking offensive linemen with my first three picks. despite the fact that they need a quarterback.

As much as we need a pass rush, or in your scenario a QB, what good are they if we can’t do the basics right? Preston and Fowler were so bad, it hampered our offense all season and by default killed our defense by putting it in impossible situations

Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.

by poz on Jan 9, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points.

I definitely would not consider Suggs to be stopgap FA, he is a guy you give a 6 year deal to use him as one of your defensive building blocks.

The Lions actually have a better OL than people give them credit for, but I get what you are saying there.

what good are they if we can’t do the basics right?

The Bills were a league average team running the ball, so it isn’t like they can’t get anything right because the centers were so bad. They only gave up a handful of sacks to interior defensive lineman too, so it isn’t like Trent didn’t have enough time to throw because of poor center play. Kurt Warner didn’t exactly struggle this year with awful center play. Carson Palmer did pretty well for a few season with terrible centers. I don’t think there is much correlation between QB play and center play.

You didn’t exactly make this argument, but it is one I don’t agree with at all so I’m going to dispute it right now even though you didn’t actually make it. That is the point that we need a new center because of how awful Preston and Fowler were. It doesn’t matter how bad they were, they aren’t under contract and they are getting replaced. A lot of people will say leading up to the draft that center is the biggest need because they were the biggest weakness last year. The Bills have two centers who aren’t under contract and those two centers might as well be HOF players who Buffalo can’t afford to bring back. Their will be at least one (God, I hope 2) new centers on the team next year. Since they don’t have anyone under contract they have to address the need by default.

by kaisertown on Jan 9, 2009 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

interesting take

That is a very interesting perspective to take on the issue. Essentially, the Bills are going to address center anyway so it technically isn’t a position in need of an upgrade as its going to happen anyway. I haven’t thought of it that way, and it actually does offer a semblance of comfort knowing that.

I would guess Preston comes back next year. I would re-phrase my need for a center as a need for a center who can IMMEDIATELY replace him as the starter. Does that make sense? My fear is that we either get a draft pick who find can’t unseat him yet, or we sign another mediocre player at the position. To me that would be an utter failure of the highest degree.

It just seems like we know that Alex Mack or Matt Birk is an immediate upgrade and I have this unsettling feeling that, knowing the front office, if they don’t treat center as a serious, if not urgent priority, they may find themselves in a situation in which Preston is the man again for one more year (or someone comparable to him).

Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.

by poz on Jan 10, 2009 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

C is NOT a secondary need

It’s a huge need. Quibble as we might, C is the only position of need that we’ve discussed will be on the field for every snap. DEs rotate and TEs play maybe 25 snaps. LBs can play every snap but I’ve yet to hear a convincing case that LB is as big of a need area as C, TE and/or DE.

by Ron From NM on Jan 9, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry Ron, I know you will disagree, but I don’t think center can ever be considered a primary need. I honestly think it might be the least important player on offesne. I don’t care if they play every snap because their job is pretty basic on pass downs when the opponent doesn’t blitz and run downs that go outside. Unlike a DE who may only play 60-70% of the snaps but is one of the most important players for a defenses success on almost every one of those plays.

An average player at center is all this team needs to succeed and with that line of thinking, I just can’t consider it to be that big of a need.

by kaisertown on Jan 9, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe where we disagree most is where ‘average’ centers can be found. I find the idea that pretty much any schlub can play center to be laughable. How many starting quality centers are in any given draft? I don’t know the answer to that question but I’m guessing the number is quite small. Preston was a 4th round draft choice. Give me a Mangold in the first any day.

by Ron From NM on Jan 9, 2009 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Completely agree.

Alex is the next coming of Mike Webster only bigger. What did he mean to the Steelers? We need a GOOD center. Oh please, football gods, let him fall to us in the second.

everything goes better with a BIG MACK

by keuka121 on Jan 9, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree Ron, and the reason being is this

3-4 D’s, we face them a MINIMUM of 6 times a season, nearly half of our games. We NEED a C who can handle fat ass NTs every game when they get smacked as soon as they snap the ball. It IS easier to find a C who can handle assisting the Guards with a 4-3 DT or get up on a LB. If we played in any other conference except the AFC North I would say it was secondary, but we don’t thus to me it is a primary need.

Now if only this gopher could play DE, we would be doing better, I mean, who couldn't play better than the corpse brothers Kelsay and Denney?

by WABillsfan on Jan 9, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Biggest impact would be in the redzone

Our medium to short yardage production was awful this year. Di you know that Marshawn only got 12 carries within 2y or less? I cannot find a site with redzone statistics but I do know habving watched every game that we often went to the air because our running game stalled i the redzone. A great Center would change that. A great Center would almost guarantee 2 yard when you need them.

We actually were pretty good at moving the ball by ground or air up to the redzone where we failed miserably this year. This is the biggest reason for wanting a STUD center, to be able to finish drives and have a power running game that opponents need more than 3-4 guys to stop. We need to dictate the rules of the game and the only way to stop our running game should be to stack 8 men in the box so Trent can then pick them apart. Last year teams were able to stop our ground assault with 3 or 4 guys leaving 7-8 in coverage, no wonder Trent had to dump off so often!

BEAST MODE, During the week plan on it & on game day thrive on it!
GO BILLS!
Section 336 Row 13

by keysh67 on Jan 10, 2009 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know how you can plan for the opportunity to grab your 2nd or 3rd rated guy at many positions in the draft.

That’s true, unless a couple of the positions you are drafting are center and tight end. If the Bills go DE first and then center and tight end in either order, how could they not get one of the top 3 DEs on the board, a top 3 center and a top 4 TE?

by kaisertown on Jan 9, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That is true, but in the big scheme of things, I don’t think it works that way. C and TE are two positions where the higher rated guys can still be had in the mid rounds. FB is like that with the later rounds.

I do agree we can probably get one of our top 2-3 DE’s, top 3 C and a top 5 TE. Whether it’s a good idea to rely on that prediction is another story altogether.

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 9, 2009 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs