How confident are you | Page 2 | The Boneyard

How confident are you

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we should go after Jahlil Okafor. Get Emeka on the phone we need this kid in Storrs.
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
How much college basketball do you watch? If there's one thing Pastner can do, it's recruit. Calhoun didn't outrecruit Josh Pastner.
Expand ...
Pastner can recruit, but I'm not sure he can coach. And lots of his success with the 2013 class (4 ESPN Top 100)came as a result of Memphis going to the Big East. he didn't do nearly as well last year (1 top 100) or the year before . It also doesn't hurt that Memphis allows you to fill out your application in crayon.
 
freescooter said:
Pastner can recruit, but I'm not sure he can coach. And lots of his success with the 2013 class (4 ESPN Top 100)came as a result of Memphis going to the Big East. he didn't do nearly as well last year (1 top 100) or the year before . It also doesn't hurt that Memphis allows you to fill out your application in crayon.
Expand ...

Correct. UConn would have locked up Kuran Iverson if his grades were up to UConn par. They weren't, so we stopped pursuing him.
 
freescooter said:
And lots of his success with the 2013 class (4 ESPN Top 100)came as a result of Memphis going to the Big East.
Expand ...

How do you possibly demonstrate that? He's been an ace recruiter since he was a toddler at Arizona. He had the no. 1 ranked class in 2010 and top 5 classes two other years there.
 
CTBasketball said:
Correct. UConn would have locked up Kuran Iverson if his grades were up to UConn par. They weren't, so we stopped pursuing him.
Expand ...

Oy. I know that we stopped pursuing him, but "would have locked up"?
 
.-.
Not gonna address the other mumbo jumbo in this post regarding Facey & Samuel because you've been corrected numerous times on that but refuse to acknowledge it, but on the subject of Nolan being a low level recruit, he had offers from very major programs from BCS conferences, Clemson, Marq as has been discussed during the trip back home to play them, Baylor, Arizona. For comparison's sake he was rated higher and had much better offers than Hilton did.

freescooter said:
Fair question. I'd say Daniels, Drummond were Big time recruits. Whether they are big time players at UConn is a different question, obviously, but all were highly rated recruits. I think Boatright was a high recruit too, certainly played that way. I don't remember where he ranked.
On the other end of the spectrum, Nolan and Tolsdorf strike me as very low level recruits. Calhoun is a high level guy.
Facey & Samuel, from what I can gather are high mid-major, low major recruits. Facey seems to have come up a good deal since we first found him, and that is a good example of what I meant by sometimes getting lucky. he might be one of those cases. At the time he announced for UConn he was ranked around 100 (99 in at least one, Yahoo I think and high 80s in another) Now he's 60s. Samuel is 125 plus. He was mostly being looked at by A-10ish and some of the Big East Catholics (the lower level ones) To me he's an A-10 recruit. I don't think either of them are what you'd consider blue chip. Now you do need some role players to be successful. The perfect examples I guess would be Kevin Freeman or Ricky Moore. Neither had significant if any NBA careers. Both played crucial roles in our 1999 title run. So maybe Facey or Samuel become that kind of player.

If I were going to rank players by say top 100, I guess i would have 4 groups:
Super elite: 1-10. Maybe 1-20 depending on a particular year/position...so let's say 1-20. those are the guys everyone wants and if you land 2point guards you figure out a way to deal with it. the 5 star guys. Drummond was in this group.

Top Level D-1 players: 21-50ish. these are the guys you figure can come in and either start or play significant minutes as a true freshman, add significant value. Calhoun is a good example actually. He was ESPN low 30s. On the 2011 team he is definitely an off the bench guy. This year he sees significant time. Again, maybe it goes a little higher than 50 some years.

Low Major-High Mid-majors: 51-100 Guys that are going to start at A-10 schools, but have a shot to play at higher level schools but may be more of a project/have a high learning curve at one of the elite programs like Louisville, North Carolina or (formerly) UConn. some of them become really good players over time.

Mid-major: Over 100. Not to say you can't have hidden gems or guys can't improve significantly with good coaching, or become significant role players. But if you sign these guys and they make major contributions, especially early in their careers, you are either a genius or exceptionally lucky.
Let me also say that these lines aren't firm fixed and a #23 guy can't turn out to be elite and a #19 just an ordinary player. As with any rankings, some of it is subjective and some is trying to project what a guy will do at the next level with better coaching, more consistent training regimen and so forth. And sometimes people don't completely agree. Facey is a good example. I think he's 68 on 1 ranking, 99 on another . In any case its pretty clear he isn't top 20 but different evaluators see different things. the other think you have is the guys who don't fall into an easy ranking. Thabeet is a great example. Big, athletic but little basketball skill. Actually lots of foreign players fall into this pot. Who knows really?
Expand ...
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
How do you possibly demonstrate that? He's been an ace recruiter since he was a toddler at Arizona. He had the no. 1 ranked class in 2010 and top 5 classes two other years there.
Expand ...

He'll do the usual and refuse to acknowledge this, lol @ moving to the BE helping Pastner.
 
Terrence Samuels will be a great point guard. Watch.
 
aceboon said:
Not gonna address the other mumbo jumbo in this post regarding Facey & Samuel because you've been corrected numerous times on that but refuse to acknowledge it, but on the subject of Nolan being a low level recruit, he had offers from very major programs from BCS conferences, Clemson, Marq as has been discussed during the trip back home to play them, Baylor, Arizona. For comparison's sake he was rated higher and had much better offers than Hilton did.
Expand ...
ace, I just looked up Facey. he is now #100 on the ESPN Top 100. Look it up. He has moved up and down within that list,but he's mostly been in the 90s. He is ranked better in the rivals 150, #65 I think.. The ESPN 100 is linked. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/b...rankings/_/view/espnu100/sort/rank/class/2013

Samuel is not rated in the ESPN and is something like 115 on rivals. that is a move up from 125 a few weeks ago. Again, here's the link. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/rankings/rank-2752
Nolan was unranked by ESPN and he was 120 or so on Rivals. Not sure what Hilton has to do with any of this. He was one of those guys who wasn't highly rated but developed under the tutelage of a hall of fame head coach. I admitted that those things happen but Nolan isn't Hilton and Ollie isn't Calhoun. So we'll see how it works out. I haven't gone back to check box scores, but I think Hilton saw more action as a freshman on a team that had better front court players. make of that what you will.
I accept your apology.
 
freescooter said:
Fair question. I'd say Daniels, Drummond were Big time recruits. Whether they are big time players at UConn is a different question, obviously, but all were highly rated recruits. I think Boatright was a high recruit too, certainly played that way. I don't remember where he ranked.
On the other end of the spectrum, Nolan and Tolsdorf strike me as very low level recruits. Calhoun is a high level guy.
Facey & Samuel, from what I can gather are high mid-major, low major recruits. Facey seems to have come up a good deal since we first found him, and that is a good example of what I meant by sometimes getting lucky. he might be one of those cases. At the time he announced for UConn he was ranked around 100 (99 in at least one, Yahoo I think and high 80s in another) Now he's 60s. Samuel is 125 plus. He was mostly being looked at by A-10ish and some of the Big East Catholics (the lower level ones) To me he's an A-10 recruit. I don't think either of them are what you'd consider blue chip. Now you do need some role players to be successful. The perfect examples I guess would be Kevin Freeman or Ricky Moore. Neither had significant if any NBA careers. Both played crucial roles in our 1999 title run. So maybe Facey or Samuel become that kind of player.

If I were going to rank players by say top 100, I guess i would have 4 groups:
Super elite: 1-10. Maybe 1-20 depending on a particular year/position...so let's say 1-20. those are the guys everyone wants and if you land 2point guards you figure out a way to deal with it. the 5 star guys. Drummond was in this group.

Top Level D-1 players: 21-50ish. these are the guys you figure can come in and either start or play significant minutes as a true freshman, add significant value. Calhoun is a good example actually. He was ESPN low 30s. On the 2011 team he is definitely an off the bench guy. This year he sees significant time. Again, maybe it goes a little higher than 50 some years.

Low Major-High Mid-majors: 51-100 Guys that are going to start at A-10 schools, but have a shot to play at higher level schools but may be more of a project/have a high learning curve at one of the elite programs like Louisville, North Carolina or (formerly) UConn. some of them become really good players over time.

Mid-major: Over 100. Not to say you can't have hidden gems or guys can't improve significantly with good coaching, or become significant role players. But if you sign these guys and they make major contributions, especially early in their careers, you are either a genius or exceptionally lucky.
Let me also say that these lines aren't firm fixed and a #23 guy can't turn out to be elite and a #19 just an ordinary player. As with any rankings, some of it is subjective and some is trying to project what a guy will do at the next level with better coaching, more consistent training regimen and so forth. And sometimes people don't completely agree. Facey is a good example. I think he's 68 on 1 ranking, 99 on another . In any case its pretty clear he isn't top 20 but different evaluators see different things. the other think you have is the guys who don't fall into an easy ranking. Thabeet is a great example. Big, athletic but little basketball skill. Actually lots of foreign players fall into this pot. Who knows really?
Expand ...


Thanks, that does clear things up a good bit. I agree there is some room to argue where exactly the cut off is. I do think things change year to year, so I won't hold it to you exactly.

UConn has never exactly been a destination school. UConn isn't UK, Duke, UNC, UCLA, Indiana, etc. when it comes to recruiting. I would be pretty happy if UConn is filling it's roster with guys 51-100 every year.

That said, I would be shocked if Ollie doesn't get a top ten-top twenty guy in 2014, or 2015, but it really is all opinion right now because there is zero evidence on either side.
freescooter said:
ace, I just looked up Facey. he is now #100 on the ESPN Top 100. Look it up. He has moved up and down within that list,but he's mostly been in the 90s. He is ranked better in the rivals 150, #65 I think.. The ESPN 100 is linked. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/b...rankings/_/view/espnu100/sort/rank/class/2013

Samuel is not rated in the ESPN and is something like 115 on rivals. that is a move up from 125 a few weeks ago. Again, here's the link.http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/rankings/rank-2752
Nolan was unranked by ESPN and he was 120 or so on Rivals. Not sure what Hilton has to do with any of this. He was one of those guys who wasn't highly rated but developed under the tutelage of a hall of fame head coach. I admitted that those things happen but Nolan isn't Hilton and Ollie isn't Calhoun. So we'll see how it works out. I haven't gone back to check box scores, but I think Hilton saw more action as a freshman on a team that had better front court players. make of that what you will.
I accept your apology.
Expand ...

It should be noted that if you count Facey and Samuel as Calhoun recruits, then you also have to note that they may be better than their rankings, maybe even considerably so.

I'm not sure when espn last updated their rankings, but I'm pretty sure Facey has never been higher and he should move up next time they rank players. He is currently almost criminally underranked by ESPN.

Samuel, I can see not ranking him, he doesn't wow in a lot of AAU games. He does a lot of facilitating and isn't always the main PG on the team. I think if he were more ball dominate he would be higher up the lists because he is quite good. He may never be an all american or an NBA player but he should be a solid 4 year player at worst, IMO.

We shall see where things go in 2014...until KO actually signs someone...
 
John Calipari's starting backcourt on the vacated UMass Final Four team was a couple of 25-year-old semi-pros from Puerto Rico with fabricated high school transcripts. The transcripts themselves were virtual carbon copies - same classes, same grades, even the same damn birthdate! I still can't believe they were ever allowed to play. I lost all faith in the NCAA after that.
 
.-.
As to the topic of recruiting rankings - they're fun for internet arguments but their value as actual predictors of ability is poor at best.

After you get past the top 40, recruiting rankings become a complete crapshoot. The guys who compile them are doing nothing more than WAG'ing.
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
As to the topic of recruiting rankings - they're fun for internet arguments but their value as actual predictors of ability is poor at best.

After you get past the top 40, recruiting rankings become a complete crapshoot. The guys who compile them are doing nothing more than WAG'ing.
Expand ...
I follow recruiting and I'd say the cut off is more like top 20-25. After that kids 26-100 could be jumbled any way. Go through some old rankings and take a look at the top 100. I went through one and more kids ranked in the 50-70 range ended up in the NBA than 30-50. As I always said I used to trust JC way more than the rankings. It's still to be determined if Ollie has that same eye for talent.
 
if we could pick up a center who could rebound,block shots and get some garbage baskets we could be in great shape especially if bazz and boat come back. i think omar is going to be a stud for the next 3 years (will be great college player not sure if he has the quickness for the nba) so with omar bazz and boat scoring a ton of points all you need is some rebounding and defense at the 4 and 5 and we could make a serious run next year. college is all about guard play just look at 2011
 
ace,
Looked it up last night. Hilton started 22 games and played in 32 on a team that had a much better front court, including Okafor, Hazleton, Marcus White (who was a hell of a rebounder) Tooles, any one of whom would start for us now. That was a much better front court team than the current group. On a team with a weak front court Nolan saw time in 10 of 13 and averaged about 9 minutes/game. Hilton averaged 11 his first year. So let's not try and compare Hilton and Nolan based on recruiting ranking. Hilton was a much better player.
 
freescooter said:
ace,
Looked it up last night. Hilton started 22 games and played in 32 on a team that had a much better front court, including Okafor, Hazleton, Marcus White (who was a hell of a rebounder) Tooles, any one of whom would start for us now. That was a much better front court team than the current group. On a team with a weak front court Nolan saw time in 10 of 13 and averaged about 9 minutes/game. Hilton averaged 11 his first year. So let's not try and compare Hilton and Nolan based on recruiting ranking. Hilton was a much better player.
Expand ...

Yes, Hilton was a better player. But Nolan was the more highly ranked player. Just one of a million examples suggesting that rankings mean next to nothing, especially once you get past the truly elite tier.
 
freescooter said:
ace,
Looked it up last night. Hilton started 22 games and played in 32 on a team that had a much better front court, including Okafor, Hazleton, Marcus White (who was a hell of a rebounder) Tooles, any one of whom would start for us now. That was a much better front court team than the current group. On a team with a weak front court Nolan saw time in 10 of 13 and averaged about 9 minutes/game. Hilton averaged 11 his first year. So let's not try and compare Hilton and Nolan based on recruiting ranking. Hilton was a much better player.
Expand ...

Dude, you missed the entire point, you said Nolan was a low level recruit. Who knows how Nolan will turn out(I like him and feel he has alot of potential), the point was Nolan had offers from programs in major conferences, unlike Hilton who I believe had a next best offer from LaSalle besides UConn. Nolan was not a low level recruit.
 
.-.
TheChamps990411 said:
if we could pick up a center who could rebound,block shots and get some garbage baskets we could be in great shape especially if bazz and boat come back. i think omar is going to be a stud for the next 3 years (will be great college player not sure if he has the quickness for the nba) so with omar bazz and boat scoring a ton of points all you need is some rebounding and defense at the 4 and 5 and we could make a serious run next year. college is all about guard play just look at 2011
Expand ...

Pretty much how I feel, Boat, Bazz, Omar & DeAndre should all be better than what they are this year, except possibly Bazz who is already playing at a very high level. That should be one of the best perimeter cores in the country next year. All we need is bigs to rebound, set screens, defend and score the occasional garbage bucket and I think we'll be fine on that end. Obviously the biggest issue is rebounding and defending the paint tho, Wolf seems to be trying to get there but consistency and avoiding fouls is his biggest issue. Another offseason of putting in work and hopefully he'll get to the point where he is reliable.
 
freescooter said:
ace,
Looked it up last night. Hilton started 22 games and played in 32 on a team that had a much better front court, including Okafor, Hazleton, Marcus White (who was a hell of a rebounder) Tooles, any one of whom would start for us now. That was a much better front court team than the current group. On a team with a weak front court Nolan saw time in 10 of 13 and averaged about 9 minutes/game. Hilton averaged 11 his first year. So let's not try and compare Hilton and Nolan based on recruiting ranking. Hilton was a much better player.
Expand ...

Leaving out Okafor, as he played the 5 that year.

White was a great rebounder, he only played in 23 games as a freshman. He got lost in the shuffle and didn't show enough in practice. Showed a lot once Blaney put him in. One of the best moves Blaney ever made with Calhoun out. Ended up with 17 minutes per game and took most of Hilton's minutes after he got a chance.

Tooles played 11 minutes per game in 02-03 and averaged 2 and 2.

Hazelton got 12 minutes per game in 02-03 and averaged 5 and 2.

Aside from White, I don't think any of those players comes close to starting over Daniels at the 4 and none are big enough for the five spot. The only reason White might start is because of his rebounding and even then it's not a sure thing IMO.

Hilton started because the rest of the fours were pretty bad when he was a freshman. That said, I do think Hilton started at a higher point than Nolan, not much higher, but higher.
 
Without a doubt, Nolan was higher rated than Armstrong. No question. Higher rated than Boone as well.
 
My only point was that Hilton was a better player. Played more minutes on a team that had better front court players. That Nolan was marginally higher rated is interesting but not really important. I said those guys in the group over 100 are at best a crap shoot. Some are better than they seem. Some are not as good. Even as a freshman Hilton played more games, more minutes on a better team with better front line players. Who knows, maybe Nolan develops and in a couple of years he is as good as Hilton was as a freshman. Boone was far and away a superior player to Nolan. Not even close. Hilton was a low level recruit too. Just that he was under-rated. Nolan it appears is not under-rated. I've said right along it happens. Hilton was a hidden gem. Nolan is what you'd expect at that level. Over time maybe he develops into a solid role player.
 
freescooter said:
My only point was that Hilton was a better player. Played more minutes on a team that had better front court players. That Nolan was marginally higher rated is interesting but not really important. I said those guys in the group over 100 are at best a crap shoot. Some are better than they seem. Some are not as good. Even as a freshman Hilton played more games, more minutes on a better team with better front line players. Who knows, maybe Nolan develops and in a couple of years he is as good as Hilton was as a freshman. Boone was far and away a superior player to Nolan. Not even close. Hilton was a low level recruit too. Just that he was under-rated. Nolan it appears is not under-rated. I've said right along it happens.
Expand ...

Far and away superior? The Boneyard was on Scout back then. Hilton was a TO machine his freshman year, he actually stumbled a lot. He provided a body out there, he was very Olander-ish. And no, Marcus White could not spell Okafor when Emeka came out of games. In fact, the coaching staff back then did an amazing job turning Armstrong into a shot blocking presence who could hit a J his senior year. Talking about how Armstrong was "far and away" superior back then is revisionist history at best, or a joke.
 
upstater said:
Without a doubt, Nolan was higher rated than Armstrong. No question. Higher rated than Boone as well.
Expand ...
Not true about Boone.

Boone was rated number 54 by Rivals: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/rankings/rank-220

He was number 65 by Scout.com: http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=4&cfg=bb&pid=88&yr=2003

I haven't seen Nolan that high on any rankings. On Rivals he was #116 (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/rankings/rank-2509). Scout.com he was outside the top 100 and a 3 star recruit.
 
.-.
HooperScooper said:
Not true about Boone.

Boone was rated number 54 by Rivals: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/rankings/rank-220

He was number 65 by Scout.com: http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=4&cfg=bb&pid=88&yr=2003

I haven't seen Nolan that high on any rankings. On Rivals he was #116 (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/rankings/rank-2509). Scout.com he was outside the top 100 and a 3 star recruit.
Expand ...

I remember on initial interest that Boone was outside the top 100 until he committed to UConn. It was his commitment that raised him in the rankings.

UConn was on top of Boone early. He couldn't get any decent D1 offers as a senior, so he prepped. That's when UConn offered and he committed. Suddenly he blew up--he was a late bloomer. If we're talking final rankings, then yes Boone was higher. When he committed, he was practically an unknown gem. In fact, Gary Williams had to answer about missing on him many years later in articles in the Washington Post. That's how low ranked Boone was back then.
 
upstater said:
Far and away superior? The Boneyard was on Scout back then. Hilton was a TO machine his freshman year, he actually stumbled a lot. He provided a body out there, he was very Olander-ish. And no, Marcus White could not spell Okafor when Emeka came out of games. In fact, the coaching staff back then did an amazing job turning Armstrong into a shot blocking presence who could hit a J his senior year. Talking about how Armstrong was "far and away" superior back then is revisionist history at best, or a joke.
Expand ...
I didn't say he was "far superior" I said Hilton was better. Played more minutes on a better team with better front court players. It was Boone who was far and away superior to Nolan. I don't even think that's open to debate. Hilton was merely better. Jeez, look at our current front line...and the guy barely sees the floor. Hilton was a regular part of the rotation on a team that made a solid run in the NCAA tournament. He was a superior basketball player than you would have expected to get at his place. Nolan is about what you'd expect from a 115-120 level player. He'd probably start at most A-10 schools and all MAAC schools, while at a top level program, even one going through a difficult period, he is a bit player. We all hope that in a year or two he improves and gives us significant minutes. He's most likely a 4-year player if he doesn't transfer to Hofstra or someplace.
 
upstater said:
I remember on initial interest that Boone was outside the top 100 until he committed to UConn. It was his commitment that raised him in the rankings.

UConn was on top of Boone early. He couldn't get any decent D1 offers as a senior, so he prepped. That's when UConn offered and he committed. Suddenly he blew up--he was a late bloomer. If we're talking final rankings, then yes Boone was higher. When he committed, he was practically an unknown gem. In fact, Gary Williams had to answer about missing on him many years later in articles in the Washington Post. That's how low ranked Boone was back then.
Expand ...
Something like that. As a senior he was unranked and had mid-major offers and Rutgers. He decided to prep and UConn offered him after seeing him at the AAU Nationals down in Orlando that summer before going to West Nottingham. Kansas, Georgetown and Virginia (visited all 3 and UConn) were the other schools heavily in the mix before he chose UConn in October 2002. Based on his summer play he was on the radar and once the recruiting analysts saw him play for West Nottingham they put him into the top 100. Not sure if it was the offer list, the UConn commitment or his play that got him ranked, but yes you are correct he wasn't ranked until after the UConn commitment.
 
freescooter said:
I didn't say he was "far superior" I said Hilton was better. Played more minutes on a better team with better front court players. It was Boone who was far and away superior to Nolan. I don't even think that's open to debate. Hilton was merely better. Jeez, look at our current front line...and the guy barely sees the floor. Hilton was a regular part of the rotation on a team that made a solid run in the NCAA tournament. He was a superior basketball player than you would have expected to get at his place. Nolan is about what you'd expect from a 115-120 level player. He'd probably start at most A-10 schools and all MAAC schools, while at a top level program, even one going through a difficult period, he is a bit player. We all hope that in a year or two he improves and gives us significant minutes. He's most likely a 4-year player if he doesn't transfer to Hofstra or someplace.
Expand ...

I would not say he was a regular part of the rotation. He got most of his minutes early in the season in OOC play. In 10 out of the last 13 games, he played less than 10 minutes, in the last 5 games he played 2, 8, 4, 3, 3 minutes, and though clearly that team was excellent, Armstrong was Emeka's backup. Marcus White was not. Mike Hayes, in fact, took Armstrong's minutes during BE play even though he was very undersized. I remember thinking that Armstrong would never make it that freshman year. He was totally lost. And Calhoun was hard on him. He got those minutes almost by default.
 
upstater said:
I would not say he was a regular part of the rotation. He got most of his minutes early in the season in OOC play. In 10 out of the last 13 games, he played less than 10 minutes, in the last 5 games he played 2, 8, 4, 3, 3 minutes, and though clearly that team was excellent, Armstrong was Emeka's backup. Marcus White was not. Mike Hayes, in fact, took Armstrong's minutes during BE play even though he was very undersized. I remember thinking that Armstrong would never make it that freshman year. He was totally lost. And Calhoun was hard on him. He got those minutes almost by default.
Expand ...
All I can tell you is he played in every game but 1 as a freshman compared to Nolan playing in 10/13 and he averaged more minutes than Nolan has to date. And we had a better front line than the current group. Now you are trying to argue that our current front line is comparable to that one? Why don't you just admit that Hilton was a better player than Nolan, which he was, and be done with it? He was one of those guys who was better than his recruiting rank. Nolan is about what you'd expect at his. Not sure why you are so insistent that is not so. And how can you say he was not part of the rotation when he started 22 games and played in 32 of 33. The only DNP came early in the year. You're just denying things for the sake of denying them at this point.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,369
Messages
4,568,659
Members
10,472
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom