• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
krsmith17

Red Wings will Officially Retire Red Kelly's #4

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, kliq said:

I wasn't going to get into stats, but if you are going to excuse me of not understanding something, I will do a deep dive to show you that is not true. Lets use your Coffey/Kelly example:

In 1971, Kelly's best offensive year where he got 70 points, the average goals scored per game was 3.12.

In 1986, Coffey's best offensive year where he got 138 points, the average goals scored per game was 3.97.

Now lets compare years. 1986 showed an increase in goals over 1971 by about 27%. So even if we add 27% to Kelly's best offensive season, that puts him at 89 points. So even using inflation, Coffey still out produced Kelly by 51 points. 

Maybe you will counter that I am using a season late in Kelly's career. Well if you take the best season in the first half of his career, here is what the stats show:

in 1951, Kelly's best offensive year in the first half of his career he got 54 points, the average goals scored per game was 2.71.

If we compare this to Coffey's best year, 1986 showed an increase in goals by about 47%. So even if we add 47% to Kelly's 54 point season, that puts him at 79 points. So again, even using inflation, Coffey still out produced Kelly, but this time by 61 points. 

I don't think most hockey historians put Kelly above Paul Coffey, most historians rank him in respect to his era, because there is no way to compare a player who played that long ago to the players of the modern era. To give you an exact example, if you have ever read "Best of the Best, Ranking the greatest players of all time" by Scott Morrison, Kelly is ranked #3 in the original era, while Coffey is ranked #6 in the modern era. Point being, they are not ranked together.

You talk about how D-men were not as offensive back then, which given that he scored 71 points seems a bit hard to believe. But even excepting that logic, if you are saying it was an entirely different game, how can you say that he is better then then top guys of the modern era? What is your criteria outside of nostalgia and bias? I highly doubt you watched Kelly play. (my apologies if I'm wrong) 

This is why I disagree with you saying he is "top 10 all time" because if you use stats (even with inflation) he doesn't hold up. I admit that is not fair, my point being its better to compare players in respect to their era's. Now if you want to talk about point production in comparison to other players in their era, I guess we can do that, but I dont think Kelly will end up top 10 from what I have seen, and that's not even factoring in the fact that he was not playing against the best of the best.

I will say this, Kelly was a top 5 D-man of the original 6 era.

I'm guessing you don't know this, but Red Kelly played center when he went to Toronto.  He switched positions.  That's why his offensive numbers increased.  I'm also assuming you meant 1961 and not 1971.  Kelly was retired by 1971.  

And if you thought he was a defenseman who scored 70 points in 1961, then you should be anointing him the best defenseman ever, as that would be way above the norm for that era in defensemen.  Nobody at that position could sniff those kind of numbers in 1961.  Not sure how all your adjusted stats didn't catch that anomaly.   

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

I'm guessing you don't know this, but Red Kelly played center when he went to Toronto.  He switched positions.  That's why his offensive numbers increased.  I'm also assuming you meant 1961 and not 1971.  Kelly was retired by 1971.  

And if you thought he was a defenseman who scored 70 points in 1961, then you should be anointing him the best defenseman ever, as that would be way above the norm for that era in defensemen.  Nobody at that position could sniff those kind of numbers in 1961.  Not sure how all your adjusted stats didn't catch that anomaly.   

I actually didnt know he switched to Center, that is impressive.

Yes I did mean 1961, which actually means I used the wrong GPG in that particular part. Either way, the stats from 1951 are accurate, so my point still stands. I will edit later tonight to correct my mistake.

You do know that in 1961 the average goals per game was 3...right? The average last year for example was 2.97. You're making it seem like scoring was so far down back then, it wasn't. The d-men were just not as good offensively, again why you can't compare era's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I don't know much about Kelly's game, but calling Paul Coffey a defenseman is a bit of a misnomer. He was basically a top 6 F playing D. So comparing any true defenseman to Coffey is a moot point IMO.

I don't disagree, but I'm not the one who brought up Coffey as someone Kelly is better then. His stats were insane on the Oilers.

Share this post


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

I actually didnt know he switched to Center, that is impressive.

Yes I did mean 1961, which actually means I used the wrong GPG in that particular part. Either way, the stats from 1951 are accurate, so my point still stands. I will edit later tonight to correct my mistake.

You do know that in 1961 the average goals per game was 3...right? The average last year for example was 2.97. You're making it seem like scoring was so far down back then, it wasn't. The d-men were just not as good offensively, again why you can't compare era's.

 

Kelly finished top 10 in scoring three times during his stint in Detroit.  That's pretty impressive for a defenseman who wasn't good offensively, according to you.  He also twice led the league in shorthanded goals while in Detroit and finished top 10 in that category in eight separate seasons in Detroit.  He scored a lot compared to his peers.  You're just looking at the sexy numbers guys put up in later decades from the blue line and diminishing how good Kelly or Harvey were for their time.  They were trailblazers but still not as aggressive offensively as players at their position later became.    

His overall resume with Detroit is more than worthy of being in the rafters.  Six times on the first All-Star team and two times on the 2nd All-Star team.  Four Stanley Cups.  Only one Norris trophy, but they didn't start handing those out until 1954 (where he was the inaugural winner).  Doug Harvey won seven of the next eight Norris trophies after that.     

The only reason he wasn't already retired in Detroit was because of the way he left the organization.  And yes, Kelly switching to center is impressive, not to mention he was the top centerman on those dynasty Leafs teams in the 1960's.  Getting rid of Kelly was the worst move in Red Wings history.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

I'm guessing you don't know this, but Red Kelly played center when he went to Toronto.  He switched positions.  That's why his offensive numbers increased.  I'm also assuming you meant 1961 and not 1971.  Kelly was retired by 1971.

I edited my post, stats are now accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

 

Kelly finished top 10 in scoring three times during his stint in Detroit.  That's pretty impressive for a defenseman who wasn't good offensively, according to you.  He also twice led the league in shorthanded goals while in Detroit and finished top 10 in that category in eight separate seasons in Detroit.  He scored a lot compared to his peers.  You're just looking at the sexy numbers guys put up in later decades from the blue line and diminishing how good Kelly or Harvey were for their time.  They were trailblazers but still not as aggressive offensively as players at their position later became.    

His overall resume with Detroit is more than worthy of being in the rafters.  Six times on the first All-Star team and two times on the 2nd All-Star team.  Four Stanley Cups.  Only one Norris trophy, but they didn't start handing those out until 1954 (where he was the inaugural winner).  Doug Harvey won seven of the next eight Norris trophies after that.     

The only reason he wasn't already retired in Detroit was because of the way he left the organization.  And yes, Kelly switching to center is impressive, not to mention he was the top centerman on those dynasty Leafs teams in the 1960's.  Getting rid of Kelly was the worst move in Red Wings history.  

First Bold: When did I say Kelly wasn't good offensively? Please share the quote. You brought up Paul Coffey as a player Kelly was better then, and said that I didnt understand the stats from back then. I simply used facts to prove otherwise. I think Kelly was very good for his time, you can quote me as calling him "top 5 D-man of the original 6 era" multiple times in this thread.

Second Bold: That doesn't hold any weight, all I did was adjust for inflation. No "fancy stats" were needed. If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that the whole point I was trying to make was that you can't compare players of that era to players of the modern era. I literally said that multiple times. The game has evolved, and just as its not fair to say that players now are better then Kelly, its equally not fair to say Kelly is better then players today. It applies both ways. You seem to use that as a point to argue people calling modern day players better, but when the narrative shifts to older players being better, saying "you can't compare" seems to disappear from your points. The only thing I said that you could interpret as a negative (which IMO is a stretch) is I did say that if you took D-men from each generation and compare their stats using inflation, I dont think Kelly will end up on the high end of that list.

As far as Harvey goes, I never said his name once, not sure why you think I am diminishing him. Harvey is hands down the best D-man of the original 6 era. He dominated his era, that is the one tool you can use when trying to compare players from different era's, though even that still has flaws.

Third Bold: Never once did I say otherwise. Saying you can't call someone top 10 all time because they played in the original 6 era, and saying they don't deserve their number retired are two different things.

I am not even sure what you are arguing at this point? Everything you are saying makes it seem like I am saying Kelly was mediocre or something. My main point was that you can't compare players from an older era to players of the modern era. I'm sorry I keep repeating this, but you keep ignoring it.

Kelly may have been a trailblazer, but being a trailblazer doesn't give you immunity and a permanent spot as a top player all time forever. Again, Kelly is a top 5 D-man all time in the original 6 era, I would never take that away from him, and I am happy he is getting his jersey raised, that is not a criticism, not sure why you are taking it as one.

If you have a soft spot for older players, that is cool. Some fans diminish what the older generation did, and I think that is sad. But at the same time, we can't put older players on a pedestal acting as if the new generation is so far beneath them, as anytime you rank players using bias/nostalgia, it is just that, a biased and nostalgic list.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, kliq said:

First Bold: When did I say Kelly wasn't good offensively? Please share the quote. You brought up Paul Coffey as a player Kelly was better then, and said that I didnt understand the stats from back then. I simply used facts to prove otherwise. I think Kelly was very good for his time, you can quote me as calling him "top 5 D-man of the original 6 era" multiple times in this thread.

Second Bold: That doesn't hold any weight, all I did was adjust for inflation. No "fancy stats" were needed. If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that the whole point I was trying to make was that you can't compare players of that era to players of the modern era. I literally said that multiple times. The game has evolved, and just as its not fair to say that players now are better then Kelly, its equally not fair to say Kelly is better then players today. It applies both ways. You seem to use that as a point to argue people calling modern day players better, but when the narrative shifts to older players being better, saying "you can't compare" seems to disappear from your points. The only thing I said that you could interpret as a negative (which IMO is a stretch) is I did say that if you took D-men from each generation and compare their stats using inflation, I dont think Kelly will end up on the high end of that list.

As far as Harvey goes, I never said his name once, not sure why you think I am diminishing him. Harvey is hands down the best D-man of the original 6 era. He dominated his era, that is the one tool you can use when trying to compare players from different era's, though even that still has flaws.

Third Bold: Never once did I say otherwise. Saying you can't call someone top 10 all time because they played in the original 6 era, and saying they don't deserve their number retired are two different things.

I am not even sure what you are arguing at this point? Everything you are saying makes it seem like I am saying Kelly was mediocre or something. My main point was that you can't compare players from an older era to players of the modern era. I'm sorry I keep repeating this, but you keep ignoring it.

Kelly may have been a trailblazer, but being a trailblazer doesn't give you immunity and a permanent spot as a top player all time forever. Again, Kelly is a top 5 D-man all time in the original 6 era, I would never take that away from him, and I am happy he is getting his jersey raised, that is not a criticism, not sure why you are taking it as one.

If you have a soft spot for older players, that is cool. Some fans diminish what the older generation did, and I think that is sad. But at the same time, we can't put older players on a pedestal acting as if the new generation is so far beneath them, as anytime you rank players using bias/nostalgia, it is just that, a biased and nostalgic list.

 

 

 

 

 

So you believe all original 6 players cannot be ranked compared to modern players, or just defensemen?  What about Gordie Howe or Jean Beliveau?  What is your phantom cutoff point for the modern era?  

To me comparing Kelly to players from the 80's is no different than comparing players from the 1980's to players today.  It's not like there's just a pre-original 6 era and then everything after that is modern.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GMRwings1983 said:

So you believe all original 6 players cannot be ranked compared to modern players, or just defensemen?  What about Gordie Howe or Jean Beliveau?  What is your phantom cutoff point for the modern era?  

To me comparing Kelly to players from the 80's is no different than comparing players from the 1980's to players today.  It's not like there's just a pre-original 6 era and then everything after that is modern.   

Old-time Hockey ---> 80's Cocaine Hockey --> Red Wings Hockey --> Modern Nancy Boi Hockey

That's the commonly accepted timeline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Old-time Hockey ---> 80's Cocaine Hockey --> Red Wings Hockey --> Modern Nancy Boi Hockey

That's the commonly accepted timeline

That depends on what era you grew up in.  I grew up watching 90's hockey, so I'd take that over anything.  I'd say the early 1990's are the pinnacle of the NHL's greatness. 

Nancy Boi Hockey is definitely last, though.

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GMRwings1983 said:

So you believe all original 6 players cannot be ranked compared to modern players, or just defensemen?  What about Gordie Howe or Jean Beliveau?  What is your phantom cutoff point for the modern era?  

To me comparing Kelly to players from the 80's is no different than comparing players from the 1980's to players today.  It's not like there's just a pre-original 6 era and then everything after that is modern.   

Are you under the impression that I personally made up this Original 6/Modern era narrative? You make it sound with your "phantom cutoff" comment as if I arbitrarily came up with it. If so, I will clarify that I did not, though I do agree with the historians on this one. To answer your question, not based on personal opinion, but rather the opinion of historians from books etc. I have read, the line is typically drawn is 1967 which was the beginning of the expansion era. (I assume they base it off of when a player started their careers, as there will always be crossover).

I don't think its fair to compare players of Kelly's era to modern players. How do you even do it? Its a completely different game. The game back then lacked today's skill, had different rules, had a much stronger emphasis on toughness (not strength to be clear, but I mean guys doing what it took to win), they used different equipment, goalies were barely wearing anything, hell, guys back were able to get a away with smoking and drinking between periods, a player could NEVER keep up with the pace in today's NHL doing that. Then you want to talk about the fact that there was only 6 teams, no Europeans (ie. not playing against the best of the best), it was just IMO way too different. Not to mention, none of us watched the guys back then even play. Most of what we know is based on stories. How can we rationally rank players from back then, to players of today, when all we are going off of is what we have been told my our grandparents, or is based on video's like the one below.

Come on man, how can you compare this what we see in 2018. Its not even close to what we see now a days. Its a different game.

 

 

The emotion in your posts show that you clearly have a strong admiration for the players of the Original 6 era, and that is not a criticism, that is a complement to you. I wish more people had that respect. I hate it when people say things like "guys back then sucked, they would never make it today" as that is a BS thing to say, those guys never had the opportunity to train and learn the game like the kids now a days, and for that reason I dont want to put them low on a list, but at the same time, I dont want to put them high on a list simply out of respect, because IMO that is just not being honest in both situations.

The ONLY ways you could rank these guys IMO, is if your list is ranking players based on their separation from the rest at their position in their respective era, or adjusting stats using inflation. But even doing that, good luck getting people to agree on a standard. Perfect example of that is my Coffey/Kelly post earlier in the thread. The numbers show Coffey was a better player, but then you ironically counter it was a different era. What can I provide you to show you Coffey was a better player then Kelly? I'm guessing there is nothing. You have created a system where you can't rank modern players higher then players of that generation. I have even heard you use this logic before when people bash old players, I'm not pulling this out of my ass here.

I will say this, for me to change my mind, I need you to provide me some kind of tangible proof. Use fact, use a stat, use something that has substance behind it. If you can do that, I will listen. 

If I ask you the same question, my guess is that you will answer that nothing will change your mind. If that is true, then you are arguing with emotion and if that is the case then there is no reason to even have a debate.

Edited by kliq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, kliq said:

Are you under the impression that I personally made up this Original 6/Modern era narrative? You make it sound with your "phantom cutoff" comment as if I arbitrarily came up with it. If so, I will clarify that I did not, though I do agree with the historians on this one. To answer your question, not based on personal opinion, but rather the opinion of historians from books etc. I have read, the line is typically drawn is 1967 which was the beginning of the expansion era. (I assume they base it off of when a player started their careers, as there will always be crossover).

I don't think its fair to compare players of Kelly's era to modern players. How do you even do it? Its a completely different game. The game back then lacked today's skill, had different rules, had a much stronger emphasis on toughness (not strength to be clear, but I mean guys doing what it took to win), they used different equipment, goalies were barely wearing anything, hell, guys back were able to get a away with smoking and drinking between periods, a player could NEVER keep up with the pace in today's NHL doing that. Then you want to talk about the fact that there was only 6 teams, no Europeans (ie. not playing against the best of the best), it was just IMO way too different. Not to mention, none of us watched the guys back then even play. Most of what we know is based on stories. How can we rationally rank players from back then, to players of today, when all we are going off of is what we have been told my our grandparents, or is based on video's like the one below.

Come on man, how can you compare this what we see in 2018. Its not even close to what we see now a days. Its a different game.

 

 

The emotion in your posts show that you clearly have a strong admiration for the players of the Original 6 era, and that is not a criticism, that is a complement to you. I wish more people had that respect. I hate it when people say things like "guys back then sucked, they would never make it today" as that is a BS thing to say, those guys never had the opportunity to train and learn the game like the kids now a days, and for that reason I dont want to put them low on a list, but at the same time, I dont want to put them high on a list simply out of respect, because IMO that is just not being honest in both situations.

The ONLY ways you could rank these guys IMO, is if your list is ranking players based on their separation from the rest at their position in their respective era, or adjusting stats using inflation. But even doing that, good luck getting people to agree on a standard. Perfect example of that is my Coffey/Kelly post earlier in the thread. The numbers show Coffey was a better player, but then you ironically counter it was a different era. What can I provide you to show you Coffey was a better player then Kelly? I'm guessing there is nothing. You have created a system where you can't rank modern players higher then players of that generation. I have even heard you use this logic before when people bash old players, I'm not pulling this out of my ass here.

I will say this, for me to change my mind, I need you to provide me some kind of tangible proof. Use fact, use a stat, use something that has substance behind it. If you can do that, I will listen. 

If I ask you the same question, my guess is that you will answer that nothing will change your mind. If that is true, then you are arguing with emotion and if that is the case then there is no reason to even have a debate.

There is no perfect system of course.  If ranking players from different eras, I think you have to compare them to their peers.  We agree that Harvey was the best defenseman of his era and dominated the original 6.  Kelly is right behind him for that era.  Let's make it more complicated and bring in an Eddie Shore who played several decades before Harvey or Kelly.  He dominated his era and won 4 Hart trophies.  To me, he's the hardest to rank because the position was even more different in those days.  Based on their career accomplishments and their dominance of their era, I have no problem ranking all three of those players in my top 10 defensemen list.    

Bobby Orr was on the cusp of the end of the original 6 era.  I never saw him play a single shift.  However, his numbers for that era (or any era) were absurd.  That's why even people who never saw him play rank him number one.  The guy changed the sport and nobody has caught him since.    

There are some good defensemen today, but I've never heard anyone call them top 10 or top 15 players.  Maybe it's because they don't really dominate the league relative to what their peers are doing.  Since Lidstrom retired, the Norris trophy has been passed around a lot.  Karlsson may be the exception to this because of how much he can score, but he's suspect in his own zone.    

Coffey is an interesting case.  Offensively he's right behind Orr, but he played in the highest scoring era for the highest scoring team, and wasn't much of a defenseman in his own zone.  I can't rank him above the guys I mentioned earlier.  Nobody else seems to either.  Coffey's best peer would be Bourque, who also scored a ton of points, but was much better in his own zone, won more Norris trophies and had something like 19 All NHL appearances.  While he wasn't surrounded with bums in Boston, he still didn't have the supporting cast of some of these other greats.  I'd rank him above Kelly and Harvey, but I'm in the minority on the latter.  

If you're looking for a magic formula, there isn't one.  I look at dominance for the era, All-NHL appearances, stats, and how well rounded they were.  Kelly I have in the top 10 for that reason.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

There is no perfect system of course.  If ranking players from different eras, I think you have to compare them to their peers.  We agree that Harvey was the best defenseman of his era and dominated the original 6.  Kelly is right behind him for that era.  Let's make it more complicated and bring in an Eddie Shore who played several decades before Harvey or Kelly.  He dominated his era and won 4 Hart trophies.  To me, he's the hardest to rank because the position was even more different in those days.  Based on their career accomplishments and their dominance of their era, I have no problem ranking all three of those players in my top 10 defensemen list.    

Bobby Orr was on the cusp of the end of the original 6 era.  I never saw him play a single shift.  However, his numbers for that era (or any era) were absurd.  That's why even people who never saw him play rank him number one.  The guy changed the sport and nobody has caught him since.    

There are some good defensemen today, but I've never heard anyone call them top 10 or top 15 players.  Maybe it's because they don't really dominate the league relative to what their peers are doing.  Since Lidstrom retired, the Norris trophy has been passed around a lot.  Karlsson may be the exception to this because of how much he can score, but he's suspect in his own zone.    

Coffey is an interesting case.  Offensively he's right behind Orr, but he played in the highest scoring era for the highest scoring team, and wasn't much of a defenseman in his own zone.  I can't rank him above the guys I mentioned earlier.  Nobody else seems to either.  Coffey's best peer would be Bourque, who also scored a ton of points, but was much better in his own zone, won more Norris trophies and had something like 19 All NHL appearances.  While he wasn't surrounded with bums in Boston, he still didn't have the supporting cast of some of these other greats.  I'd rank him above Kelly and Harvey, but I'm in the minority on the latter.  

If you're looking for a magic formula, there isn't one.  I look at dominance for the era, All-NHL appearances, stats, and how well rounded they were.  Kelly I have in the top 10 for that reason.  

I agree with a lot of what you said in this post. To be honest, in the Original 6 era, my top 3 after really looking at it were Harvey, Shore and Kelly. We are in agreement there.

In my last post I said to say something tangible, and when it comes to Orr the evidence is there. No argument from me, I also ranking him #1 all time, though I put Lidstrom as a close second (feel free to excuse me of bias there lol)

That lack of a magical formula is why I choose to rank based on era. At the end of the day, to each their own. What I am saying is my opinion, I realize its not fact. I just have a hard time ranking someone like Kelly top 10 all time, but I do have an incredible amount of respect for him and am happy he is getting his due.

Out of curiosity, what other Wings from back then do think they should retire the jersey for? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kliq said:

I agree with a lot of what you said in this post. To be honest, in the Original 6 era, my top 3 after really looking at it were Harvey, Shore and Kelly. We are in agreement there.

In my last post I said to say something tangible, and when it comes to Orr the evidence is there. No argument from me, I also ranking him #1 all time, though I put Lidstrom as a close second (feel free to excuse me of bias there lol)

That lack of a magical formula is why I choose to rank based on era. At the end of the day, to each their own. What I am saying is my opinion, I realize its not fact. I just have a hard time ranking someone like Kelly top 10 all time, but I do have an incredible amount of respect for him and am happy he is getting his due.

Out of curiosity, what other Wings from back then do think they should retire the jersey for? 

Norm Ullman.  He never won the Cup, and didn't play his entire career in Detroit, but 13 seasons of being a great player is a solid accomplishment.  I'd put him there.  Someone mentioned Pronovost earlier.  That's not a bad one, though I admittedly never thought of that one much. 

Larry Aurie is a sad case.  Honestly, the Wings don't seem to honor anybody before the 1950s, though they had other good players during that time like Syd Howe and Ebbie Goodfellow.  Teams like Boston or Montreal do a better job of honoring the early days of the original six.  Of course, then you have a team like the Rangers, which until lately ignored anything that happened before 1994.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Norm Ullman.  He never won the Cup, and didn't play his entire career in Detroit, but 13 seasons of being a great player is a solid accomplishment.  I'd put him there.  Someone mentioned Pronovost earlier.  That's not a bad one, though I admittedly never thought of that one much. 

Larry Aurie is a sad case.  Honestly, the Wings don't seem to honor anybody before the 1950s, though they had other good players during that time like Syd Howe and Ebbie Goodfellow.  Teams like Boston or Montreal do a better job of honoring the early days of the original six.  Of course, then you have a team like the Rangers, which until lately ignored anything that happened before 1994.   

The Aurie thing was pretty crappy. I get that Illitch wanted the HHOF to be the bar, but you don't remove someone who's already been put up because he doesnt meet your standard after the fact.

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