Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Watching the playoffs...

Recommended Posts

for people to think that one player can win the cup or lose the cup is crazy..for all these people to blame koivu for all the losing is crazy..and to think that bringing in sundin( dont see him with any cup rings, and he looks alot worst then koivu)or kovalchulk(his team sucks), lecavaliear( yea got a cup but his team was great this year, and not so great this year)Jokinen( didnt see him on any great teams latly) my point is that all these players are good but wont fix our problem..hockey is a team sport and any one that as play it knows you win as a team and lose as a team..

i think we need to bring in someone to help koivu lead and take some of the bull shit off of him..kovy cant do that and never well i like the guy but his to full of him self..he is a drama queen...we need role players, that work there ass off game in and game out..we need guys that what to win, play together, and that like each other..

i still think one of our biggest problem wasnt the talent on the team but the players being move all around each line..they could go from the top line to the 4th line in a night and this miss with guy heads, the young guys never feel relax, and the older guys get fustrated..i believe our biggest problam was mental..and the fans didnt help it with all the booing...to be the best you got to believe in each other and that your the best team on the ice, and i believe we lost that some where and let frustrated over take us...

:P

First you call me crazy and then you write the exact same thing that I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:P

First you call me crazy and then you write the exact same thing that I did.

the only people that i think are crazy are the people that think one player can win the cup or lose the cup..blaming koviu for losing all these years are crazy..hockey is a team sport...because you dont win the cup doesnt mean your a bad player, it just means you have never play on a great team..that why we have seen so many players sale out at the end of there career to try and sign with a team that got a better chane to win the cup..its like saying that all play that havent won the cup suck or that every player that as won a cup is a great player..there alot of great players on shit teams..its up to gms to sign guys, draft guys..so to blame one player for a shit team when he got no say on who is on his team is just plan crazy and dumb..

Edited by KEEP26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criticism of Koivu in no way absolves the rest of the team for their sh*te year. But the criticism of him is often a 'part-of-the-problem' view.

I don't think anyone is myopic to a degree where they blame the team's defensive strategy on Koivu; or a goaltender's lack of confidence on him. The questions are about what he has left. He wears the 'C', that entails an enormous amount of responsibility. I think it also entails someone who can change the flow of the game with an outstanding play, be it a goal, hustle, a pass, a fight, a critical defensive play, a check, etc etc etc. It doesn't look like he's capable of that anymore. Who of us knows really how he works the dressing room? But if he exudes intangibles, they don't transform the play of the team.

There are often comments made on here by various people saying even if we had _______, we still wouldn't win. I agree, as anyone sensible would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because he has the 'C', it doesn't mean he necessarily has to be a game changer. Being captain is mainly a locker room job, and since we don't know what goes on in the locker room, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he's been doing it for so long without question from his superiors. A team does need leaders who can change the flow of the game, but they don't really need a 'C' on their jersey to be able to do it.

Example: Chris Clark & Alexander Ovechkin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Koivu might be a problem inasmuch as he apparently had a hand in driving out of town two highly talented C who might in the long run have been beneficial to the organization, i.e., Ribeiro and Grabovski. We can speculate on whether he has acted as the Alpha Male chasing away possible rivals at the expense of team success. Beyond that, though, I think the *real* problem with Koivu is simply that he is not an upper-echelon C, and hasn't been since his knee was destroyed in 1996. People confuse THAT with him being a 'problem.' But this isn't his fault; the fault lies in the organization.

There's an echo here of the attack on Brisebois in the Houle era. Brisebois was a good offensive defenceman. But because the Habs were so horrible, they had to use him as a #1 D-man, when he was really a #3-4 guy. The result was that he was massively exposed and the fans blamed him for the team's weakness. In fact he was a victim of that weakness.

Same with the Koivu-bashers. They are blaming him for being what he is, i.e., a good #2 C miscast as a #1 due to organizational weaknesses.

Having said all that, Koivu is clearly in decline - his speed has diminished painfully - and to expect him to function even as a good #2C for an entire season may now be a pretty big stretch. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bingo.

This team and its young players especially are better than they showed.

A new coach, a new system, and a clear turning of the page on all the bad karma from this season are desperately needed. They will make a huge difference, and I wouldn't be surprised if by December of 2010 all of the pessimism around here has been replaced by sunbeams and daffodils.

Having said that, we still won't have the horses to win the Stanley Cup, which was the original point of this thread. So even though I think we're a lot better than we looked this season, we *still* need to be thinking in terms of a talent upgrade. Granted, it could come from within - e.g., the Kostitsyns could take a step forward, Pleks could stop being a little girl afraid of traffic, Latendresse could finally break out offensively; but all of that has to be balanced against the ongoing precipitous decline of Saku Koivu. And if we lose Komisarek without a fully adequate replacement - I'm terrified Bob will sign Ohlund and try to convince us it's a lateral move - then we will have no hope of getting out of the second round under any circumstances.

Of course, as Wamsley has pointed out, the real upgrade could come in 2011. I could see us treading water this season, improving from within (coaching, system, attitude, better young players, Koivu and Kovalev hanging on with credible performances) enough to keep the dogs at bay; and then finally making The Big Move.

Remember the Habs in 92 looked totally lost and Savard made two bold moves that changed the face of the team.

He dumped Corson for Damphousse and Courtnall for Bellows, they let veteran McPhee and Svlvain Turgeon go

and let late season unheralded acquisition Haller usurp a larger role and allowed their youthful core to take over.

Schneider, Desjardins, Leclair, Dionne and Brisebois all took the next step and Roy had a huge rebound in the playoffs

from an average year. All these things allowed them to fly under the radar and lead to the crappy team winning the

Cup on Roy's back theories.

The longer people divest themselves from the overreaction of 6 weeks ago, the better the perspective will become. It is why

it is smart for Gainey to say he will talk about things in 4-6 weeks, then the press is not as livid, nor the fanbase. This team is

not a disaster, some people have the Leafs on equal footing after the habs collapse, last time I checked the Leafs don't have

many prospects to make a real turnaround. The Habs are in strong shape, but the next two off seasons will determine if this

team is going to remain average or become a consistent contender.

As for the assertion that Thomas did not cost the Bruins the series, he didn't. But he is SUPPOSED to be the BEST goaltender

in the NHL. That is why he will be handed the Vezina in a month. Ward outplayed him, and if you flipped goaltenders the

Bruins would have won the series. It is by no means HIS fault, but if he was the best goaltender in the NHL, then the Bruins

would have won the series. All that series was, was a reality check. If the goaltending was a sawoff, then the Canes don't win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because he has the 'C', it doesn't mean he necessarily has to be a game changer. Being captain is mainly a locker room job, and since we don't know what goes on in the locker room, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he's been doing it for so long without question from his superiors. A team does need leaders who can change the flow of the game, but they don't really need a 'C' on their jersey to be able to do it.

Example: Chris Clark & Alexander Ovechkin.

Bringing in a new face doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of Koivu or stripping him of the C. Chris Clark would be a solid addition but really, our biggest weakness is the lack of a #1 C (especially in the long-term). This is what possibly makes Koivu expendable. Not that he's a problem or has played his way out of town or isn't a good enough leader - but that we have him in a role he doesn't belong in. One of Gainey's priorities needs to be finding a centre for the future. Whether that is done while Koivu is still in the lineup or not is open for debate. Do we want Koivu (or Lang) on the 2nd, Plekanec on the 3rd, Lapierre on the 4th, Metro on the bench and Chips in Hamilton? Or do we want Plekanec on the 2nd, Lapierre on the 3rd, Metro on the 4th and Chips as a reserve? In one scenario, we're deeper at C, and in the other we're "developing" Plekanec, Lapierre and Chipchura and have some exrta cash. *shrug* We're fine either way - but we need to get that 1st line C!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting Koivu is a locker-room problem; I don't know if he is or not. But even Chris Clark plays ferocious defense and hits. Koivu doesn't. He can't do much of anything anymore. I liked him between Tanguay and Kovalev (I guess everybody did), allowing those two to take over and having the savvy and skill to chip in with them.

But maybe we can move him down the line, 2nd or 3rd line ctr, with others up top. Wonder what we'd have to offer for Marleau, maybe ship Higgins there so he can coke up Thornton before playoff games and get him more interested. I'm feeling though that whatever anyone wishes, Koivu is almost impossible to move for the team politically. If the team is sold, maybe they'll let him test the market July 1st?

Told my brother at start of 2nd round winner of Wings-Ducks would win it all, looking good now. These remaining teams play at a fierce intensity level, something I'd love to see the Habs get. They don't need fear of God, but fear of coach might be a start.

Edited by tokyohabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been arguing for a while now that Marleau would be a nice acquisition, not the saviour, but an upgrade on Koivu. San Jose is a promising trading partner because a team that fails to meet expectations and wants to 'shake up its core' is actually likely to be receptive to offers for good core players.

The trouble is, who do we send back? In 2007-08 I argued that a Koivu-Marleau trade would be perfect for both clubs: giving San Jose a seasoned warrior hungry for a Cup, and giving us an upgrade at C. Now, with Koivu clearly deteriorating, I would be astonished if San Jose had any interest in that deal. Other than Koivu I see no obvious fit. Maybe Kovalev.

Anyway, after Bob finally gets around to signing the players he's gonna sign, he should certainly snoop around San Jose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been arguing for a while now that Marleau would be a nice acquisition, not the saviour, but an upgrade on Koivu. San Jose is a promising trading partner because a team that fails to meet expectations and wants to 'shake up its core' is actually likely to be receptive to offers for good core players.

The trouble is, who do we send back? In 2007-08 I argued that a Koivu-Marleau trade would be perfect for both clubs: giving San Jose a seasoned warrior hungry for a Cup, and giving us an upgrade at C. Now, with Koivu clearly deteriorating, I would be astonished if San Jose had any interest in that deal. Other than Koivu I see no obvious fit. Maybe Kovalev.

Anyway, after Bob finally gets around to signing the players he's gonna sign, he should certainly snoop around San Jose.

I think SJ would be interested in Koivu. But he's about to become an unrestricted free agent and all we can offer are his rights. Sign and trade? I don't think Bob would do it. It would be depriving Koivu of his UFA right to pick his destination.

But whether it's a signed Koivu or just his rights, we'll definitely have to add to get Marleau. We have some good bait but I'm not exactly sure what San Jose would want. They're in a really tough position; contenders in need of a retool.

(Now that I think about it, Marleau and Tanguay are very similar. Imagine them with Kovalev!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're talking about San Jose possibly dramagically changing their core... heck, what about Joe Thornton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Now that I think about it, Marleau and Tanguay are very similar. Imagine them with Kovalev!)

The All Star Pansy Line? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you referring to the Cleary goal? I thought it was a good goal.

Seriously? How can anybody honestly say that Cleary's goal was a good goal? Let alone being a goal? Upon reviewing the actual rules, ANY contact with a goalie resulting in a goal should be disallowed. Yes, that is the actual rule.

Sure Hillier didnt have control of the puck, but so what? Cleary didnt hit the puck, he hit Hilliers skate which pushed the puck in = contact with the goalie. Period. It really is that simple.

Loose pucks fall behind goalies all the time. However to score in these situations the player must hit the puck in, and not use the goalie as a medium to knock the the puck in. Thats what hockey sticks are for. ^_^

btw whats the crease for? If a goalie cant even stand in their own crease then how can they be a goalie? :rolleyes:

Was I the only one who caught the 2 line pass violation when Kessels was way over the blue line in game 4 of the Habs series? :blink:

In Bettman's NHE the refs dont even know what the rules are. :puke:

Its a sad joke. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously? How can anybody honestly say that Cleary's goal was a good goal? Let alone being a goal? Upon reviewing the actual rules, ANY contact with a goalie resulting in a goal should be disallowed. Yes, that is the actual rule.

Sure Hillier didnt have control of the puck, but so what? Cleary didnt hit the puck, he hit Hilliers skate which pushed the puck in = contact with the goalie. Period. It really is that simple.

Loose pucks fall behind goalies all the time. However to score in these situations the player must hit the puck in, and not use the goalie as a medium to knock the the puck in. Thats what hockey sticks are for. ^_^

btw whats the crease for? If a goalie cant even stand in their own crease then how can they be a goalie? :rolleyes:

Was I the only one who caught the 2 line pass violation when Kessels was way over the blue line in game 4 of the Habs series? :blink:

In Bettman's NHE the refs dont even know what the rules are. :puke:

Its a sad joke. :angry:

I agree with Bob Mackenzie

"You can always make a case for goaltender interference but I think Dan Cleary's series-winning goal against the Anaheim Ducks was a good hockey goal. Once the puck is loose in the crease, the goaltender has a right to go for it and the player has a right to go for it. The question is whether the contact was incidental or intentional."

That goal was fine, he lunged at a LOOSE puck and hit Hiller's skate leg, etc. If Hiller had covered it and he pitchforked

him into the net and it went in, then I can understand the complaint, that was a good hockey play, Cleary's attempt

was at the puck.

Kessel's was so close that an instant replay was needed. I have seen a lot more things worse than those 2 plays.

Edited by Wamsley01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem I have with that play was that first Cleary whacked Hillier's glove while he was standing in the crease, Cleary whacks Hillier's glove. Hillier drops, and the puck drops along his body line to the ice. Cleary may have been going for the puck, but the puck landed between Hillier's legs, and Cleary proceeded to push on Hillier's right pad. At leat a foot and a half from the puck.

This was a bit contraversial, and I have contended that this contact, in the new NHL, should be enforced more strictly. The defender can't interfere with the forward, but the forward can crush the goalie, stand in the crease and interfere with the goalie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Bob Mackenzie

"You can always make a case for goaltender interference but I think Dan Cleary's series-winning goal against the Anaheim Ducks was a good hockey goal. Once the puck is loose in the crease, the goaltender has a right to go for it and the player has a right to go for it. The question is whether the contact was incidental or intentional."

That goal was fine, he lunged at a LOOSE puck and hit Hiller's skate leg, etc. If Hiller had covered it and he pitchforked

him into the net and it went in, then I can understand the complaint, that was a good hockey play, Cleary's attempt

was at the puck.

Kessel's was so close that an instant replay was needed. I have seen a lot more things worse than those 2 plays.

Hahahaha. Seriously that has to be the stupidest explanation of all time for goalie interference.

Before a gaolie clamps down on his glove the puck in "loose" in his glove then? It will be only a matter of time before ass clowns like Avery are digging the puck out of a goalies glove before the goalie can clamp down on the puck.

Do some people not realize that every god damn time the puck is shot at the net that the puck is "loose". ^_^

The only part that Mackenzie says that is remotely correct is that the goaltender has a right to go for it and the player has a right to go for it. :rolleyes:

If you cross check a goalie in the head by accident and it prevents him from making a save and your team scores does the goal count because it was an accident? Of course not. The majority of penalties are accidents, but they are still penalties. It doesnt matter if contact is intentional or not, what matters is that there was contact. Again the actual rule is ANY contact with the goalie the goal is disallowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JT tends to bolster Wamsley's position with kick-ass analysis of why UFAs are seldom a great idea:

http://habsloyalist.blogspot.com/2009/05/r...ree-agency.html

Highly relevant to our ongoing hand-wringing over the Habs' next steps - check it out. :hlogo:

Incidentally, Philly is close to the cap with no goalie under contract...can anyone imagine a deal involving Halak? Just asking.

Edited by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JT tends to bolster Wamsley's position with kick-ass analysis of why UFAs are seldom a great idea:

http://habsloyalist.blogspot.com/2009/05/r...ree-agency.html

Highly relevant to our ongoing hand-wringing over the Habs' next steps - check it out. :hlogo:

Incidentally, Philly is close to the cap with no goalie under contract...can anyone imagine a deal involving Halak? Just asking.

We wouldn't have a chance at Carter or Richards though. It would be more of a Knuble or Briere addition and those players come with pretty heavy contracts. I'd still be interested in Briere though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We wouldn't have a chance at Carter or Richards though. It would be more of a Knuble or Briere addition and those players come with pretty heavy contracts. I'd still be interested in Briere though.

You're right, there is no way the flyers trade Richards or Carters, and frankly, from their forwards, those are really the only two guys who interest me.

As much as I like Halak, i think the habs need to extend him THIS summer or trade him, since he will be a UFA next year. Enough of this BS of losing assets for nothing!!!!

Having said that, I hope the habs do not even think about Briere. The last thing the habs need is another injury prone small centre that is locked up for another 6 years with a ridiculous contract.

If the habs are going to take on somebody else's horribly bad contract mistake, I'd rather Gainey try and kiss and make up with Lawton and go after Lecavalier. At ;east they would finally get some size down the middle and even though it is still a horrible contract to take on, if Lecvalier isn't worth the money in the later years, the buy out for the last three years is at least affordable.

Not sure what it would take to get Lecavalier though. With the number of guys the habs are going to lose to free agency thanks to mis-managment of assets by Gainey, I don't know if the habs could afford to give up much, bcoz, they really don't have too many guys from their roster that are returning. Mid-year the talk was Higgins, Pleks, Gorges/Subban (depending on the reporters), a draft pick and the Lightning wanting either Markov or a signed komisarik.

Well now, Komisarik is out of the equation and lets say for arguments sake, Markov was taken out of the equation, and the habs traded Higgins, Pleks, Gorges S. Kostitysn and Fisher and a draft pick (which IMO is WAY too much to give up for Lecavlier, given the depth of NHL experienced players the habs have).

Who would be left to fill out the roster then???

The only remaining signed or RFA assets with NHL experience that are left would be:

Forwards:

A. Kostiysn, Lapierre, Latendresse, DAgostini, Metropolit, Laraque, Stewart, Pacioretty, Maxwell, Chipucura

Defence:

Markov, Hamrlik, OByrne, Weber

Is that enough of a supporting cast to play with Lecavlier to even make it into the playoffs??? i think Lecavlier had a better supporting cast in Tampa (minus a Markov at D), and they finished 29th in the league. I haven't listed any of the UFA's like Tanguay, bcoz, at this point, is there really any incentive for them to resign with Montreal, rather then just waiting for July 1???

So I don't think that even a trade for Lecavlier is a viable option anymore. If a Lecavlier type trade was going to be done, it needed to be done during the year, so the habs could have at least tried to sign some of their own free agents, or even included one of the UFA's in a trade for an impact player. But now who really is left for the habs to trade???

This is a TERRIBLE situation to be in for a team that has not had any success whatsoever in signing top tier free agents. This year, i think the only UFA player the habs have an honest chance to sign is Beachaman (too lazy to check the spelling).

In recent years, at best, the habs have only been able to sign plan C or D type UFA's, and now they are in a position that they really can't afford to give up much in roster players to make a trade either.

Now if you could make the same trade for Lecavlier AND St. Louis, AND you were certain of bringing back Tanguay AND at least one of - preferably both Koivu or kovolev at a reduced rate AND you could sign at least one of, but preferbably both Beachaman and Komisarik, then the Habs could have a contender.

However that is a lot of buts, ifs and ands, so I'm not overly optimistic about next year.

People can argue that Boston, Philly and other teams have turned things around pretty quickly, but the big differnce there is that both of those teams are attactive destinations for UFA's, whereas montreal is not. This year you can add the ownership and coaching situation onto a nightmare season and I really am not to optimistic about an improvement in the habs chances of signing any free agents this year.

As much as I thought the article had some good points, about teams overpaying for the flavor of the day UFA's, I think since the habs have let most of their assets become Free agents, I think the habs best chance this summer to improve is to roll the dice on Gaborik on a front loaded long term deal and hope that 1) his injury woes have been rectified through surgery and his past ailments were a result of mis-diagnosis and 2) there isn't much compitition to sign him long-term, bcoz other teams may be scared off by his injury history.

Edited by hab29RETIRED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Halak isn't a UFA until he's 27 years old... he's a RFA next year. Only Higgins and Plekanec are UFA eligible next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Halak isn't a UFA until he's 27 years old... he's a RFA next year. Only Higgins and Plekanec are UFA eligible next year.

wasn't free agency reduced to 25 years - or is that only for players with 7yrs of pro experience??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wasn't free agency reduced to 25 years - or is that only for players with 7yrs of pro experience??

Yep. If you're in the league at 18, you can become a UFA at 25. For most, it's 27. Latendresse will be a UFA at 26 if he chooses since he made the NHL at 19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would keep Halak until Price has prove he can run with the ball for an entire season. People seem to forget how important having a good backup is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahahaha. Seriously that has to be the stupidest explanation of all time for goalie interference.

Before a gaolie clamps down on his glove the puck in "loose" in his glove then? It will be only a matter of time before ass clowns like Avery are digging the puck out of a goalies glove before the goalie can clamp down on the puck.

Do some people not realize that every god damn time the puck is shot at the net that the puck is "loose". ^_^

The only part that Mackenzie says that is remotely correct is that the goaltender has a right to go for it and the player has a right to go for it. :rolleyes:

If you cross check a goalie in the head by accident and it prevents him from making a save and your team scores does the goal count because it was an accident? Of course not. The majority of penalties are accidents, but they are still penalties. It doesnt matter if contact is intentional or not, what matters is that there was contact. Again the actual rule is ANY contact with the goalie the goal is disallowed.

Winner of the most nonsensical analogy of the thread.

How you go from Cleary jabbing at a loose puck to cross checking a goalie in the head is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JT tends to bolster Wamsley's position with kick-ass analysis of why UFAs are seldom a great idea:

http://habsloyalist.blogspot.com/2009/05/r...ree-agency.html

Highly relevant to our ongoing hand-wringing over the Habs' next steps - check it out. :hlogo:

Incidentally, Philly is close to the cap with no goalie under contract...can anyone imagine a deal involving Halak? Just asking.

The FA market is a huge scam every year. Just like the trade deadline.

It allows the talking heads to assess the big names moving and declare their final destination the winner even though

5 minutes on google can show you how many have made ZERO impact and eventually become a salary cap albatross.

Philly signed Briere and improved, and the analysis was that Briere and Biron turned the team around, when in essence their

success was attributable to the continuing development of Carter and Richards and the steal of Coburn from the Thrashers.

The heavy lifting of that turn around was done with the Upshall, Hartnell deal at the deadline.

You WILL NOT succeed without growth from within. The Canes won the Cup on the back of Ward and Staal who made a combined

1.5M between them during the 2005-06 Cup run.

The Ducks would not have won the Cup in 2007 without Perry and Getzlaf. The two of them outscored Pronger, Selanne, McDonald

at a cost of around $1.5M.

As much as everybody piled on with their panic solutions in April, this teams future success is tied to the core of Price, Higgins, Plekanec,

Komisarek, Kostitsyn and future pieces McDonagh, Emelin etc. Those players need to outperform their paygrade in order to go out

and acquire a top line talent.

The Habs CANNOT overpay Koivu or Kovalev this off season. If they don't take a discount, they have to make the tough decision to let them

walk and struggle through a developmental season. If both take a one year deal or a discount, welcome back. Komisarek should only be

retained if he takes proper market value. A $1.5M defenseman who blocks shots and takes the body is a fan favourite, a $5M defenseman

who does the same is an albatross and will be the target of the fans venom should things go wrong. $5M defensemen should be able to

defend, start transition and anchor a PP. Does that sound like Komisarek?

The biggest error that Gainey seems to have made if Komisarek was never coming back was that THIS team could contend.

It is to bad this was the 100th Anniversary season, this season may have turned out differently if this was just another year.

Share this post


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.   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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...