Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Habsfan1989

I am watching these playoffs and can't help to think

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Nashville is getting this done with a legit #1 C in Johansen, but.... their #2 C in Fisher has 0 points in the playoffs, and their #3 C in Jarkrok has 2 points in the playoffs.

 

Which makes me think that a centre group of

Galchenyuk

XXXXXXXX

Danault

 

Is not that bad and is better 1-3 than Nashville is rolling out (but obviously won't have Nashville's D)

 

The acquisition doesn't even have to be that great, but it still needs to be made. 

 

Yeah. I've been saying for a while that it's not absolutely necessary to fixate on the Stud #1 C, nice as acquiring one would be. ANY legitimate top-6 C would represent a substantial improvement.

 

Re: Nashville, that they could trade Jones for Johansen illustrates why MB finds it so tough to make a deal to fix the holes. Nashville drafted and developed surplus talent. We don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illWill    395
5 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

What I've gathered from this thread is that the outcome of our season is the fault of both the players as well as management.

 

Both parties are arguing the same thing. 

 

The first side says it's up to the players to perform. The issue with that is that management should provide the players with the actual ability to perform. If we had better players, the team would have performed better. That's on management and the way the team has been built. On the other hand, some players on the squad underperformed this year (Gal(l)y Squared) while two definitely exceeded expectations (Danault, Byron).

 

The other side blames management. Acquiring people at the deadline can be a real boost to the team and we didn't do enough. Yet the truth is that Bergevin acquired more players than most teams. We can quote their stats but no anyone would have predicted that the 3 players acquired would have combined for the same amount of points that Bergevin had himself in his 98-99 season with the Blues. He's the most active GM we've had since Savard and many long before that. The pickings were slim at the deadline and anyone who thinks that any single one of the players who were acquired would have built us into an immediate contender is not arguing a fact. Who did we want who is still in the playoffs and were acquired at the deadline? Burrows? Eaves? Stalberg? Streit? Hainsey? We're still out with any one of those forward players. Then other teams are being quoted as having been "helped" by Hanzal and Vanek and Stafford and yet those teams are out. Did we really need just a little less help than every other team?

 

As for previous seasons, Bergevin has acquired plenty of high end talented forwards who have been able to put the puck in the back of the net in general throughout their careers. Ryder, Vanek, Semin, Briere, Fleischmann, Sekac, Radulov, PA Parenreau (if you don't like that one, you Nashville fans picked him up at the deadline). One can use those names as ammunition against Bergevin but the point is that he has previously gone the route most people are complaining about and more often than not, he got burned. The only one on that list that an overwhelming majority of fans didn't like at the time was the Briere deal. 

 

I am am not a Bergevin defender. He has made mistakes. But what I see is a man going a different route as a result of learning from personal experience and people are ready to torch him 12 months into this transition. At least bring up some solid reasons. Even the people are arguing it have two different thesis statements going.

 

Great post. When a team loses there are going to be fingers pointed, and people are going to be pointing them in different directions 

 

 

5 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

We scored 1 less goal (non empty net) than the New York Rangers in our series.  Yes it wouldn't have taken much to put us over them. 

 

So you're saying that if our best goal scorers Galchenyuk and Pacioretty would have scored just 1 goal each that would have made the difference. Glad we cleared that up

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    134
4 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Savard may have been active, but he went out and made bold moves for core players like Damphousse, bellows, Courtnell, bobby smith, turgeon.  He didn't just trade for junk.  In fact he traded junk like kordic for a front liner like courtnell.  

He had mistakes like trading chelios and Lemieux, but the only really big blockbuster trade that MB made in his 5 years was a mistake. 

 

He also had a steady stream of guys he drafted that came into the NHL lineup.  Other than galchenyuk, who has MB drafted that is a regular?  Saverd was ruthless with his coaches, he didn't keep his mediocre foxhole buddies around that can't develop players (MT and lefebve).

 

i don't get the hate for galachenyuk.  They play the guy as a winger for over three years and are surprised he can't play centre???   Idiots!!!!

 

and sorry, yeas we could have predicted that his deadline pickups were useless (as was his signing of a washed up briere)- because most here said as as much.  He brought in ostriches, and you are surprised that they didn't fly???

The truth is if we go by their career stats, those 3 should have combined for 15 points in 50 games. We keep hearing the fact that they combined for 2 points in 50 games but that's an underachievement. It's what actually happened but one would have to be a Debbie Downer to have actually predicted those totals in advance. I wouldn't even call it being a realist.

 

It's all a moot point though because regardless of what side you're on, everyone knows he didn't acquire those players to be go to guys. That's what people are complaining about. That doesn't mean they should have been expected not to chip in and contribute at all though. At the time, I would have been fine if MB got a goal scorer at the deadline. Why wouldn't I be? There was no home run answer though. Vanek probably would have been the best option and that would have had reasons to be questioned as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    606

Even 15 points in 50 games isn't good.  Its not even a good 3rd liner and thats combining the three together.  So what did we get, 3 fourth liners.

 

The lowest scoring team in the NHL in February needed more than fourth liners. 

In fact with Andrighetto and Desharnais out the door, we were a less offensive team after the deadline.  This is NOT to stay that we should have kept those two.  They needed to go. However, they also needed to ADD better players than them.  Not replace them with fourth liners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueKross    26
4 hours ago, Commandant said:

Even 15 points in 50 games isn't good.  Its not even a good 3rd liner and thats combining the three together.  So what did we get, 3 fourth liners.

 

The lowest scoring team in the NHL in February needed more than fourth liners. 

In fact with Andrighetto and Desharnais out the door, we were a less offensive team after the deadline.  This is NOT to stay that we should have kept those two.  They needed to go. However, they also needed to ADD better players than them.  Not replace them with fourth liners. 

I would contribute, but you seem to be carrying the ball fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    134

I can agree that our pickups didn't pan out. 

 

I also wouldn't assume that the way the trade deadline went was Bergevin's plan A or even plan B. I think the goal was certainly to improve our back end depth as well as to try and find some scoring help. When this wasn't realistic, for whatever reason, he still felt as though the team still needed a shakeup, so he acquired, yes, 3 bottom 6 players rather than one in order to inject new blood into the locker room.

 

The part of the debate that the other side has me lost on is assuming that there was any single player out there who really would have made a difference. We only needed one more goal against the Rangers? That shouldn't have been too much to ask from any one of our players and just demonstrates how close our team was, with its current roster, to being able to advance. (Yes I watched and saw how difficult it was for us to score - and I doubt any one pickup would have changed that)

 

Personally, the only names that circulated around deadline time that I was interested in were Shattenkirk and Duchene. One is a right handed defenseman and didn't fill any of our biggest needs and the other would have required one of the biggest returns out of any teams that made a move. 

 

To those laughing at the idea that all teams don't have the same needs, don't you think the other GMs are just as aware of this? Our price is as steep as it would be for any team due to our desperation. 

 

It's a fine line. Getting a goal scorer was on all of our wish lists but on the other hand, the names out there this year were the worst in recent memory. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hab29RETIRED    164
8 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

The truth is if we go by their career stats, those 3 should have combined for 15 points in 50 games. We keep hearing the fact that they combined for 2 points in 50 games but that's an underachievement. It's what actually happened but one would have to be a Debbie Downer to have actually predicted those totals in advance. I wouldn't even call it being a realist.

 

It's all a moot point though because regardless of what side you're on, everyone knows he didn't acquire those players to be go to guys. That's what people are complaining about. That doesn't mean they should have been expected not to chip in and contribute at all though. At the time, I would have been fine if MB got a goal scorer at the deadline. Why wouldn't I be? There was no home run answer though. Vanek probably would have been the best option and that would have had reasons to be questioned as well. 

Your'e looking at career stats when we picked up washed up guys like Ott, or  King and Martinson who were having lousy years to begin with.  Those guys MAY have contributed if we didn't already have enough 4th liners to fill two lines. Given the number of garbage depth getting chances to play on the top two lines, we had zero need for any of the guys he acquired with the exception of Benn - and even that was as a 6th/7th depth defenceman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illWill    395
18 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

Trades are hard. Drafting is hard. Developing is hard. Not everyone can win. This isn't a videogame you know. Not everyone gets a chance at the Cup. Be happy with regular season results. They will soon be putting division winner banners up in the rafters to celebrate this team.

 

Trades are easy, you can magically acquire whoever you want for whatever crap you want to give. Drafting is even easier, predicting the future on a kid who has yet to fully grow into a man is no problem. Only the Montreal Canadiens are entitled to win the Cup each year, if they don't, it's a huge upset. Regular season results mean nothing, who cares about all of those happy moments in your life when they won and how good it felt to be leading the division all season. I want a Cup and if they don't win it I am going to flip out and trash the team that I love. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illWill    395

Perhaps my line of thinking has been wrong this whole time. If only Bergevin was able to acquire the mighty Martin Hanzel this team would be still playing and on it's way to the Cup. His 1 point in the playoffs could have been the difference against the Rangers. And it would have only cost a 1st, 2nd, a conditional pick and a prospect for him and his buddy Ryan White. 

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/minnesota-wild-owner-wishes-team-didnt-make-martin-hanzal-trade/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, illWill said:

Only the Montreal Canadiens are entitled to win the Cup each year, if they don't, it's a huge upset. 

 

I'm sorry but if you're not rebuilding and you run the Montreal Canadiens, your goal better be to win the Stanley Cup. Nothing else matters. 

 

I would extend that to any team but it goes tenfold for one of the most celebrated sports teams in North America. Heck the world. 

 

I supported Bergevin quite aggressively in previous years (2015-16 is where he lost me) because I felt he was trying to do what it took to win. The goal was the Cup. And then in 15-16 he did nothing to fix the goaltending when we were still in first and gave up on the year early. Trading Subban was the final straw. It was clear he didn't know how to build a Stanley Cup winning franchise. He just knew how to tweak an existing franchise to his liking.

 

If you are fine with winning divisions and meaningless games in October that's you. Keep doing you. But I will never accept a "very good" team. Go for a Cup or suck until you have the team to go for a Cup. In between is just a slow death.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

I'm sorry but if you're not rebuilding and you run the Montreal Canadiens, your goal better be to win the Stanley Cup. Nothing else matters. 

 

I would extend that to any team but it goes tenfold for one of the most celebrated sports teams in North America. Heck the world. 

 

I supported Bergevin quite aggressively in previous years (2015-16 is where he lost me) because I felt he was trying to do what it took to win. The goal was the Cup. And then in 15-16 he did nothing to fix the goaltending when we were still in first and gave up on the year early. Trading Subban was the final straw. It was clear he didn't know how to build a Stanley Cup winning franchise. He just knew how to tweak an existing franchise to his liking.

 

If you are fine with winning divisions and meaningless games in October that's you. Keep doing you. But I will never accept a "very good" team. Go for a Cup or suck until you have the team to go for a Cup. In between is just a slow death.

 

:thumbs_up:

 

Bergevin's defenders seem to fixate on the 'trade deadline' issue. This is missing the forest for the trees. This GM inherited a good core and has been absolutely unable to improve it. Meanwhile the farm system is a desert. That's crap performance, period.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me be clear on something and I think it's the line between myself and a lot of others.

 

If the Habs sucked, like really sucked, for five years, with the intention of stockpiling prospects, I would be fine with it. It would suck to be a laughing stock for a while but at least it's a goal. There's a clear intended goal of building a team that works. 

 

And not only would I be fine with it, I would prefer it over a club that was good in the regular season and could make the playoffs but rarely am I ever saying that it's a team that should win the Cup. Nobody says should with the Habs. They need to or else you're wishing on a star.

 

And if the past 15 years have taught me anything it's that underdog teams are a lot of fun and they get your heart racing, but they never truly satisfy. I got friends who are Kings fans, they've seen their club at the top twice now, and they look at the current club and they want it burned to the ground. They got Anze Kopitar and Jeff Carter and Drew Doughty and if the next GM isn't gonna pull something to make the club a Cup contender again they want them all traded for picks and prospects to start the process all over again. Because they've been through it. And it was worth it.

 

It doesn't always work. Washington is still Cupless. Not even a Cup final. And some teams like Nashville have never really done a rebuild but just drafted and made good trades. But I would rather be Washington, go for it all, and fail, than be the current Habs and just go for a little. Because that's what this team feels like. Content to be good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habsfan1989    4

I think it's not only our weak centres but our week d-core that cost us in the playoffs. Outside of Weber, markov and benn the rest of the guys did nothing. 

If you look at playoff runs its strong goaltending and strong play from the back end.

 

we don't need a elite centre we can get by with 2 guys that can create space. Which plekanec and galchenyuk don't seem to do come playoff time.

 

we also need to revamp our d-core. Get some fast puck moving guys in there. I think that's what cost us the most.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    134
43 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

:thumbs_up:

 

Bergevin's defenders seem to fixate on the 'trade deadline' issue. This is missing the forest for the trees. This GM inherited a good core and has been absolutely unable to improve it. Meanwhile the farm system is a desert. That's crap performance, period.

And what about his defenders who defended things like signing a washed up Semin to a very reasonable deal and then letting him go for nothing when the team had no internal replacement for him, even though he admittedly may have not been the solution himself. There seemed to be a rational for that one from everyone even though I didn't like it. He's still that same GM. Most fans here are explaining how they had a final straw with Bergevin but the truth is most fans who don't like Bergevin only had one straw to pick from and quite frankly, they'll always hate him because of that one straw. 

 

Thats where they lose me, because it's obvious. We can keep saying it wasn't this years trade deadline but his "body of work as a whole" but what that really means is I hate him because of the Weber trade. That's fine, but stop grasping at the other invisible straws.

 

When it comes drafting, I think Bergevin has to trust Timmins and his scouting staff just a little bit, no? It's funny that it's brought up as a criticism because one would think that actually falls more on the scouting staff as well as the coaches who develop the players more than Bergevin. I know, but Bergevin won't fire his AHL coach. Finally, a legitimate criticism that has some basis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Habsfan1989 said:

I think it's not only our weak centres but our week d-core that cost us in the playoffs. Outside of Weber, markov and benn the rest of the guys did nothing. 

If you look at playoff runs its strong goaltending and strong play from the back end.

 

we don't need a elite centre we can get by with 2 guys that can create space. Which plekanec and galchenyuk don't seem to do come playoff time.

 

we also need to revamp our d-core. Get some fast puck moving guys in there. I think that's what cost us the most.

 

This is all part of the problem. It's not like we are super-strong in some area (other than goal) and weak in another. If we were, we could trade from strength to bolster weaknesses. But we can't. We have a good, not great, D-corps, very heavily reliant on a 38-year-old Markov and (less alarmingly) a 32-year-old Weber. We lack the depth to sustain a serious injury to Weber, Markov, or Petry. If Sergachev steps in as a major contributor next year, that will help a lot. If he doesn't, it's a bit ramshackle back there. Trading Sergy or even Juulsen would basically destroy the prospect pool. Meanwhile, we still have the comically pathetic situation at C. What I'm trying to say is that this organization has zero surplus talent, because of its chronic ineptitude at drafting and development. We are relying on everyone staying healthy as they did this season; and even then the team is clearly inadequate. So, you bet it's going to be 'tough' - Bergy's motto - to address the problems. Maybe a good GM could figure something out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

And what about his defenders who defended things like signing a washed up Semin to a very reasonable deal and then letting him go for nothing when the team had no internal 

replacement for him even though he wasn't the solution himself either? There seemed to be a rational for that one from everyone even though I didn't like it. Most fans here are explaining how they had a final straw with Bergevin but the truth is most fans who don't like Bergevin only had one straw to pick from and quite frankly, they'll always hate him because of that one straw. 

 

Thats where they lose me, because it's obvious. We can keep saying it wasn't this years trade deadline but his "body of work as a whole" but what that really means is I hate him because of the Weber trade. That's fine, but start grasping at the other invisible straws.

 

 

 

Not sure I see your point here. What I'm saying is that we can debate this or that specific move all we want, but what really matters is the big picture. Despite a bunch of moves, Bergevin's team is not one iota better right now than it was in 2015. All it is is older. And the development system is crap. That's the big picture. The cheerleaders can rah-rah that all they want - just like Leafs fans from the pre-Babcock era. I'll opt out, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    134
13 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Not sure I see your point here. What I'm saying is that we can debate this or that specific move all we want, but what really matters is the big picture. Despite a bunch of moves, Bergevin's team is not one iota better right now than it was in 2015. All it is is older. And the development system is crap. That's the big picture. The cheerleaders can rah-rah that all they want - just like Leafs fans from the pre-Babcock era. I'll opt out, thanks.

I'm not a cheerleader but I'm not sure what your point is either. Some teams are also worse than they were 5 years ago. Do you really think every team's path is / over a 5 year period? That's not how it works and the only difference between three years ago and today is that Price wasn't the best player in the league. Unfortunately, even if we do acquire a top 6 center, Price is still going to have to play better than Condon did last season and also better than he did this season in February. The aura around the team was never about Pacioretty or even Subban. 3 years ago, teams came into our barn knowing they would be hard pressed to get a puck by Price even if they skated circles around our team. That aura is the main difference between 3 years ago and today. Not the players in front of him.

 

I definitely think Bergevin has made mistakes but I also think most GMs have as well. It's part of the business and extremely difficult to not have happen. He's not the best GM in the league but he's also not the first one in the league who should be fired as much as my passionate side actually did have a little bit of a negative outlook heading into next season after we lost to the Rangers. I will be joining the negative side of the fence if no moves are made this summer to address our top 6 center issue and will also be joining those with the pitchforks by the end of next year if there's a similar outcome. I do think it's too early in this most recent wave of change to criticize him fully.

 

We could have doubled down on speed but instead he traded Andrighetto (who I liked more than anyone on here) and Desharnais (who is certainly an NHLer but had to go) and picked up players with size. We have a clear picture of what he's trying to do. If that method doesn't work and you were right about how we should have doubled down on speed, then you will have been right. The writing isn't on the wall yet though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Habsfan1989 said:

we don't need a elite centre we can get by with 2 guys that can create space. Which plekanec and galchenyuk don't seem to do come playoff time.

 

Kind of hard for Galchenyuk to create space at centre in the playoffs when he's being placed as a third/fourth line winger.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illWill    395
1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Kind of hard for Galchenyuk to create space at centre in the playoffs when he's being placed as a third/fourth line winger.

 

Maybe Julian is still secretly working for the Bruins and is trying to sabotage the Habs by playing Galchenyuk as a 4th line winger. 

 

Orrrrr, maybe he is trying to do his job to win hockey games and he thought that they had a better chance of winning by doing that.

 

It's one or the other 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

Maybe Julian is still secretly working for the Bruins and is trying to sabotage the Habs by playing Galchenyuk as a 4th line winger. 

 

Orrrrr, maybe he is trying to do his job to win hockey games and he thought that they had a better chance of winning by doing that.

 

It's one or the other 

 

He undoubtedly thought it was the right thing to do. He was wrong. So it's quite appropriate to call him out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illWill    395
8 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

He undoubtedly thought it was the right thing to do. He was wrong. So it's quite appropriate to call him out.

 

Just because the team lost doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do...He could have put him as the first line center and they could have been swept . It's easy to say they lost because of that coaching decision, they lost because of the lack of scoring acquisitions at the deadline, they lost because they can't develop talent, they lost because Subban is awesome and better than Weber. They simply lost as a team. They were right there in every game and had a chance to win but they didn't get it done, plain and simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

Just because the team lost doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do...He could have put him as the first line center and they could have been swept . It's easy to say they lost because of that coaching decision, they lost because of the lack of scoring acquisitions at the deadline, they lost because they can't develop talent, they lost because Subban is awesome and better than Weber. They simply lost as a team. They were right there in every game and had a chance to win but they didn't get it done, plain and simple. 

 

I didn't say they lost because Galy was on the 4th line. The key factor was their inability to score, though, and demoting Galy clearly did not help. Rational examination therefore suggests it was a mistake, at least in pure hockey terms. (Maybe it was a necessary 'message' to the player, that I don't know).

 

Your apparent disinterest in the causes of this team crapping out would certainly explain your forgiving attitude toward management. After all, if nothing is ever anyone's fault, if no one ultimately has any responsibility for how things transpire, then of course pointing out that the GM has done a sh*t job of developing talent and improving on the core he inherited would be irrelevant. Then again, by this logic, we may as well hire Youppi!! to run the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    606

Again, lets look at the team Bergevin took over in 2012.  What was the biggest need? Centre.

 

 

For four straight years he started the season with a centre group of Plekanec, Desharnais, Eller.   Four straight seasons those were our top 3 centres on day one of the year. 

 

In the fifth year he had Galchenyuk, Plekanec, Desharnais starting the season. 

and Danault, Plekanec, Shaw (injured so Flynn came in, but I'm gonna say Shaw cause he would have been the centre if not hurt). finishing the season. 

 

So for 4 years he did nothing to help the problem, and in year 5 he re-arranged the deck chairs on the titanic. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illWill    395
3 hours ago, Commandant said:

Again, lets look at the team Bergevin took over in 2012.  What was the biggest need? Centre.

 

 

For four straight years he started the season with a centre group of Plekanec, Desharnais, Eller.   Four straight seasons those were our top 3 centres on day one of the year. 

 

In the fifth year he had Galchenyuk, Plekanec, Desharnais starting the season. 

and Danault, Plekanec, Shaw (injured so Flynn came in, but I'm gonna say Shaw cause he would have been the centre if not hurt). finishing the season. 

 

So for 4 years he did nothing to help the problem, and in year 5 he re-arranged the deck chairs on the titanic. 

 

I am on board with the fact he did not acquire help at center since he's been here. What I'm saying is that he drafted Galchenyuk who made the NHL the very first year he was eligible to do so 5 years ago. So, in theory he should have been able to transition to center from the wing in those 5 years. He also had Plekanec 5 years ago who was one of the better 2nd line centers in the league, and up until this year was a fine #2. So my only beef per say was him not filling a hole in the top 6 before Galchenyuk was supposed to develop. I put the blame mostly on Galchenyuk for not being the center he was supposed to be by now. I agree there is a level of blame on the coaches for dicking him around, but there's a point where you have to look at the player himself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    606

While no one could have picked the exact year that Plekanec would decline, the fact he did decline was predictable. 

 

I admit I thought he would have been good another year or two, but the fact he got worse with age was predictable.

 

And he never put a possible replacement in place. 

 

 

 

As for Galchenyuk.  For 3.5 years he wasn't allowed to play centre.  This year he showed great strides, got hurt, then regressed a bit.  We immediately pulled him off centre. 

show me what young player developped in a linear way.  Which guy didn't have peaks and valleys.  The moment Chuck has a valley, they panic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×