UConn Press Conference (Tuesday 9/2) Quick Hits | Page 2 | The Boneyard

UConn Press Conference (Tuesday 9/2) Quick Hits

Status
Not open for further replies.
06029 said:
I am just saying he has set the expectation for the next two weeks to be improvement. Not competing, not winning, not beating your opponent but on improving and following the process. A process that no one has ever seen or used before (his words, not mine). Did you see anything in the tweets that suggested winning is a reasonable expectation for this week?
Expand ...

Why would I waste my time over tweets? I don't care what coaches say -- they talk all the time without sharing the truth being the primary reason of the communication. I care what coaches do.
 
CTMike said:
Long haul- I think his approach pays dividends. They just might not be realized this season. I'm still not sure how I feel about using real games as a preseason... So, I'll wait to decide and just see how it plays out.
Expand ...
Actually makes some sense considering how badly broken (post-PP) our program was/is... And all the really counts for UConn at this point is winning the American Conference title. We can still do that.
 
businesslawyer said:
Why would I waste my time over tweets? I don't care what coaches say -- they talk all the time without sharing the truth being the primary reason of the communication. I care what coaches do.
Expand ...
Seriously, coaches always talk about winning the next game. Every coach. Even when the odds are huge against them, they talk about game planning to exploit weaknesses/highlight strengths. Right now, Diaco talks about his process, how it will not be short cut and how improvement is the goal. Winning, if it does not follow the process, does not appear to be a good thing for him.

I hope that he talks to the team way differently about improvement and process that includes how important winning games are.
 
joey3$trike$ said:
So are they expected to win next game? or just get better. I assume as a fan they would want to win, but he just wants improvement win lose or draw. Thats nice and everything but how much time will that take, also will UConn Football still be relevant when that process takes place. I'll support the kids but don't agree with the decision making, hopefully it will work out in the end. I expect to be 0-3 going into the conference games.
Expand ...

Both, win and get better, but the focus for the out of conference games is to better collectively as a team.
 
sportsart said:
Edsall built a program, not a team.

PP destroyed the team and the program.

Diaco is rebuilding a program, not the team.
Expand ...

That is well said. I know that using Edsall as an example doesn't end the discussion for everyone here (although it should) but I don't think Edsall walked into either Storrs or College Park primarily focused on winning games from the start. He focused on getting everyone to buy in to doing it his way.

And before anyone asks, no, it would not have been o.k. for P to take the same tack (even though I think he may have). P inherited the defending conference champs, with arguably the best defensive talent in the league, and started 5-7 in a year when he personally gave away a game we had won. If HCBD inherited what P inherited, I would expect HCBD to have played less players on Friday night. But he didn't inherit what P inherited.
 
.-.
06029 said:
Seriously, coaches always talk about winning the next game. Every coach. Even when the odds are huge against them, they talk about game planning to exploit weaknesses/highlight strengths. Right now, Diaco talks about his process, how it will not be short cut and how improvement is the goal. Winning, if it does not follow the process, does not appear to be a good thing for him.

I hope that he talks to the team way differently about improvement and process that includes how important winning games are.
Expand ...

Recognize that you responded to my post asking me why I should care what a coach publicly says by telling me what other coaches normally publicly say.
 
businesslawyer said:
That is well said. I know that using Edsall as an example doesn't end the discussion for everyone here (although it should) but I don't think Edsall walked into either Storrs or College Park primarily focused on winning games from the start. He focused on getting everyone to buy in to doing it his way.

And before anyone asks, no, it would not have been o.k. for P to take the same tack (even though I think he may have). P inherited the defending conference champs, with arguably the best defensive talent in the league, and started 5-7 in a year when he personally gave away a game we had won. If HCBD inherited what P inherited, I would expect HCBD to have played less players on Friday night. But he didn't inherit what P inherited.
Expand ...
Simple question - does Diaco have an expectation to win Saturday? I think he would answer that question with the Process and improvement lines and would never say that winning the game is a part of the process or improvement plan. And I have never heard a winning coach duck out on saying he wanta to win every game the way Diaco has.

Do you have an expectation of a win Saturday? I used to, but now I am not so sure. A win outside of the process might not be what he wants.
 
06029 said:
Simple question - does Diaco have an expectation to win Saturday? I think he would answer that question with the Process and improvement lines and would never say that winning the game is a part of the process or improvement plan. And I have never heard a winning coach duck out on saying he wanta to win every game the way Diaco has.

Do you have an expectation of a win Saturday? I used to, but now I am not so sure.
Expand ...

Do I expect to win Saturday? Yes. Do I believe HCBD wants and expects to win Saturday? Yes. Of course he does. He doesn't want to start 0-3 and lose fan support (and player buy in) already.

I don't care what he says, but do you want an explanation other than yours? He didn't think our odds against BYU or BSU were good enough to be focused on them, and he expects to start 1-2 no matter what he does, so he'd rather the players focus on getting better until we start conference play. But he can hardly pretend that the score doesn't matter against BYU, does matter against SB and then doesn't matter against Boise, so he's just emphasizing process and improvement for the first three weeks.

Seriously, when you're not on the internet, do you just assume everyone is a total idiot when there are rational explanations for their behavior? Why wouldn't you find the rational explanation here and assume that is what HCBD is thinking even if he can't say all of it? At least until the results over a long enough period make you think otherwise?
 
Other than the fact that the QB situation will continue I have no problem with anything that he said. I'm all for developing for the future but that's exactly why the two headed QB situation makes zero sense....one guy is a Senior.

Maybe he thinks it will help with the development of the WRs???

I have no idea, I just hope it ends soon.
 
LRock34 said:
Other than the fact that the QB situation will continue I have no problem with anything that he said. I'm all for developing for the future but that's exactly why the two headed QB situation makes zero sense....one guy is a Senior.

Maybe he thinks it will help with the development of the WRs???

I have no idea, I just hope it ends soon.
Expand ...

Agree. It would be somewhat less weird if it were Cochran and Boyle. At least then there's the possibility of doing it for player development. With Whitmer he's a finished product. What you see is what you get. And unfortunately it's a lot of sacks and INT's.
 
06029 said:
Simple question - does Diaco have an expectation to win Saturday? I think he would answer that question with the Process and improvement lines and would never say that winning the game is a part of the process or improvement plan. And I have never heard a winning coach duck out on saying he wanta to win every game the way Diaco has.

Do you have an expectation of a win Saturday? I used to, but now I am not so sure. A win outside of the process might not be what he wants.
Expand ...

I think the coach has made it pretty clear that getting better is top priority and winning would come in after that, for the first three games. He said that he would not be doing this if BYU or SB or BSU were conference teams. One could simply deduce from all of that, without much thought in fact, that he thinks UConns best chance at winning the conference comes from playing these three games like he is. So to specifically answer your question, Goal number one of his does not appear to be winning against stony brook, but it appears to be getting better to face our conference. I am sure that Coach would think winning would be nice and all, but it is pretty obvious that winning the next game is against stony brook is not what the coaches are coaching for, a conference championship is. If UConn were national championship contenders, this would not be a great plan. If UConn were coming off a horrible 3-9 season, this may be just what the doctor ordered, only time will tell.
 
.-.
06029 said:
Simple question - does Diaco have an expectation to win Saturday? I think he would answer that question with the Process and improvement lines and would never say that winning the game is a part of the process or improvement plan. And I have never heard a winning coach duck out on saying he wanta to win every game the way Diaco has.

Do you have an expectation of a win Saturday? I used to, but now I am not so sure. A win outside of the process might not be what he wants.
Expand ...

This, essentially, is what bothers me about it all. I'm not going to argue against the value of the plan, and what he's doing, until results are in, and they are as of yet, way incomplete, but the bottom line is that we're 1 game below .500 right now, and until we're above .500, no amount of improvement and plan, and process defines winning, and you only get 12 opportunities a year - big risk to be throwing them away, if you are not making decisions based solely on the simple goal - to win. We are a losing program, until the record says we aren't. Where does this process of learning not to make mistakes that lose games, turn into actually coaching and playing to win games? I think it's a valid question, and concern.

I think I'm seeing a young coach that is way overthinking things. Choose your lineup, and go play football. I expect to win on Saturday. Development is a given.
 
businesslawyer said:
Do I expect to win Saturday? Yes. Do I believe HCBD wants and expects to win Saturday? Yes. Of course he does. He doesn't want to start 0-3 and lose fan support (and player buy in) already.

I don't care what he says, but do you want an explanation other than yours? He didn't think our odds against BYU or BSU were good enough to be focused on them, and he expects to start 1-2 no matter what he does, so he'd rather the players focus on getting better until we start conference play. But he can hardly pretend that the score doesn't matter against BYU, does matter against SB and then doesn't matter against Boise, so he's just emphasizing process and improvement for the first three weeks.

Seriously, when you're not on the internet, do you just assume everyone is a total idiot when there are rational explanations for their behavior? Why wouldn't you find the rational explanation here and assume that is what HCBD is thinking even if he can't say all of it? At least until the results over a long enough period make you think otherwise?
Expand ...
Do you regularly resort to ad hominem abusive attacks in your practice of law or do you base your practice, and presumably legal opinions, on what people say in a public forum? At this point, who knows his rationale? I don't and you don't so we can base our opinions on his press conferences. You, me and a whole lot of people want him to succeed. He needs the fan base, he needs the press. So why not say we want to win the game? What is so hard about that? Instead we get process, pre-season, optimism despite poor on field results, self improvement, etc. How does this build the relationship with the casual fan base who have an expectation of trying to win games?

You say you believe BD wants to win the game and I don't disagree with you because ultimately that is his job. But then when he frames the first 3 games as less important than the other 9, when process is more important than results and when he won't say that winning matters or is part of the first 3 week process, I question why I believe it as any sane and rational person might.
 
A certain coach working in Tuscaloosa named Saban has used the word "process" so often since arriving at Bama that it has become something of an inside joke. By it he means each player on the team has a responsibility to do a certain function on each play. That is all an individual player must do, but if he does it correctly the team will win. The individual player is not responsible for winning or losing and should not worry about that. He should just worry about doing his job to the best of his ability on each play. If this is what BD means by that word I for one think he is on the right track.
 
businesslawyer said:
Do I expect to win Saturday? Yes. Do I believe HCBD wants and expects to win Saturday? Yes. Of course he does. He doesn't want to start 0-3 and lose fan support (and player buy in) already.

I don't care what he says, but do you want an explanation other than yours? He didn't think our odds against BYU or BSU were good enough to be focused on them, and he expects to start 1-2 no matter what he does, so he'd rather the players focus on getting better until we start conference play. But he can hardly pretend that the score doesn't matter against BYU, does matter against SB and then doesn't matter against Boise, so he's just emphasizing process and improvement for the first three weeks.
Expand ...
I think you are likely right. And that is a problem. When your head coach takes the position that "the other guys are too good so I'm not gonna put much effort into trying to win," that is a bad mistake, in my opinion. Sets the expectations far too low.At some point he has to change the calculus. He just has to. But how do you do that once you've set expectations that you don't care about winning? A guy misses a block against Army, certainly a winnable game, do you say, "that's ok Bob, your footwork is getting better? Or worse, when you call him on it, he says, "I know coach, but my footwork was getting better so it doesn't matter?" I've been around lots of coaches as a former college level athlete and watching other college level athletes over more than a few years now. I have never, ever heard a coach beyond little league say "I don't care whether we win or lose just that we improve every game." Never. Ever. Even when they know in their hearts they have no chance. If the head coach doesn't give the message that winning is important, part of the culture we are trying to build, then there is a real problem that "improvement" will become the message and an easy excuse to pull out when you lose.

The other point is that UConn wants people to come watch them play. At least I presume they do since they are selling tickets and running ads and such. Why on earth should any borderline fan make any effort to show up when the coach won't even say he wants to win, is trying to win, he intends to win? I think if he starts 1-2 with this same kind of language, same approach, it will be a problem. If he goes 0-3 last year's Memphis will look like New Years Eve in Times Square compared to the crowds we'll draw for Temple and beyond. How can you even get excited about a team that doesn't care whether it wins or loses?
 
.-.
freescooter said:
I think you are likely right. And that is a problem. When your head coach takes the position that "the other guys are too good so I'm not gonna put much effort into trying to win," that is a bad mistake, in my opinion. Sets the expectations far too low.At some point he has to change the calculus. He just has to. But how do you do that once you've set expectations that you don't care about winning? A guy misses a block against Army, certainly a winnable game, do you say, "that's ok Bob, your footwork is getting better? Or worse, when you call him on it, he says, "I know coach, but my footwork was getting better so it doesn't matter?" I've been around lots of coaches as a former college level athlete and watching other college level athletes over more than a few years now. I have never, ever heard a coach beyond little league say "I don't care whether we win or lose just that we improve every game." Never. Ever. Even when they know in their hearts they have no chance. If the head coach doesn't give the message that winning is important, part of the culture we are trying to build, then there is a real problem that "improvement" will become the message and an easy excuse to pull out when you lose.

The other point is that UConn wants people to come watch them play. At least I presume they do since they are selling tickets and running ads and such. Why on earth should any borderline fan make any effort to show up when the coach won't even say he wants to win, is trying to win, he intends to win? I think if he starts 1-2 with this same kind of language, same approach, it will be a problem. If he goes 0-3 last year's Memphis will look like New Years Eve in Times Square compared to the crowds we'll draw for Temple and beyond. How can you even get excited about a team that doesn't care whether it wins or loses?
Expand ...

Look, I've said in other threads that I have no philosophical problem with you or anyone else saying that a coach should play every game to win. I am saying that criticism should be tempered by the fact that not every coach/manager treats every game as a championship. Closers are given days off in June, even when they could go out. Freshman big men start games in November, even when there are guys on the bench better, because the coach thinks the team will be better for it in March. Football players are suspended for a quarter or a half where it might hurt the team but the coach thinks sending a long term message to his players is more important. Rudy Gay and Andre Drummond aren't ever benched to see if chemistry will improve because if they get benched Calhoun fears he'll never get a top five recruit again.

So I understand your point, but you're overstating it as a concern big time. Diaco wants to win, and the players are trying to win. He just isn't making his substitutions with these games only in mind. Just like every coach and manager makes tons of decisions thinking about short, intermediate and long term issues. It's just more noticeable here because of how far away we are from being a competitive program again (and, in part, because HCBD seems to be stumbling over his explanations a bit).
 
06029 said:
Do you regularly resort to ad hominem abusive attacks in your practice of law or do you base your practice, and presumably legal opinions, on what people say in a public forum? At this point, who knows his rationale? I don't and you don't so we can base our opinions on his press conferences. You, me and a whole lot of people want him to succeed. He needs the fan base, he needs the press. So why not say we want to win the game? What is so hard about that? Instead we get process, pre-season, optimism despite poor on field results, self improvement, etc. How does this build the relationship with the casual fan base who have an expectation of trying to win games?

You say you believe BD wants to win the game and I don't disagree with you because ultimately that is his job. But then when he frames the first 3 games as less important than the other 9, when process is more important than results and when he won't say that winning matters or is part of the first 3 week process, I question why I believe it as any sane and rational person might.
Expand ...

You may want to look up the definition of an ad hominen attack and then quote me the attack I made on you.
 
freescooter said:
I think you are likely right. And that is a problem. When your head coach takes the position that "the other guys are too good so I'm not gonna put much effort into trying to win," that is a bad mistake, in my opinion. Sets the expectations far too low.At some point he has to change the calculus. He just has to. But how do you do that once you've set expectations that you don't care about winning? A guy misses a block against Army, certainly a winnable game, do you say, "that's ok Bob, your footwork is getting better? Or worse, when you call him on it, he says, "I know coach, but my footwork was getting better so it doesn't matter?" I've been around lots of coaches as a former college level athlete and watching other college level athletes over more than a few years now. I have never, ever heard a coach beyond little league say "I don't care whether we win or lose just that we improve every game." Never. Ever. Even when they know in their hearts they have no chance. If the head coach doesn't give the message that winning is important, part of the culture we are trying to build, then there is a real problem that "improvement" will become the message and an easy excuse to pull out when you lose.

The other point is that UConn wants people to come watch them play. At least I presume they do since they are selling tickets and running ads and such. Why on earth should any borderline fan make any effort to show up when the coach won't even say he wants to win, is trying to win, he intends to win? I think if he starts 1-2 with this same kind of language, same approach, it will be a problem. If he goes 0-3 last year's Memphis will look like New Years Eve in Times Square compared to the crowds we'll draw for Temple and beyond. How can you even get excited about a team that doesn't care whether it wins or loses?
Expand ...

The coach did not say "The other guys are too good, so I am not gonna put much effort into trying to win" He said "no matter who the other guys are, in the scheme of things, a win or loss against whoever they are does not matter as much as getting better for our conference games" The fact that he has the same exact plan going into next weeks game, against a clearly beatable team should show you that by any logic, he took no consideration into his plan as to whether or not the game was winnable. He has a plan and is sticking with it, and whether you agree or not, don't represent it any different than it actually is.
 
LRock34 said:
Other than the fact that the QB situation will continue I have no problem with anything that he said. I'm all for developing for the future but that's exactly why the two headed QB situation makes zero sense....one guy is a Senior.

Maybe he thinks it will help with the development of the WRs???

I have no idea, I just hope it ends soon.
Expand ...

This is the most obvious reason why I wonder how long Diaco can keep this up with the whole "process" and development thing. Chandler Whitmer has no eligibility left after this season, what is he getting reps for? Why not give him all the reps if he is capable of getting us wins? Why switch? Why is there not a clear decision about who the best player at any position is?

The same applies for any of the upperclassmen and seniors.

My guess is that certain aspects of playing time as the season goes on, was discussed with the entire roster of players, all position groups, prior to the season starting, and that each position group was told that players would get snaps early on in the season, and the coaching staff is sticking with that plan, and simply maintaining a consistent public message about development, and having a plan, and all that. That would be consistent with everything that's happened. The question that arises is: what about actually winning games? and that's exactly where we're at in week 2 against Stony Brook. The fact that we're worried about Stony Brook, and I am, is enough to identify the state of the program after game 1. Do we actually intend to win this game against Stony Brook? Shocking that the question is valid.

If we're still playing 2 QB's come end of September, and claiming victories by having 50+ players getting game time reps, then I will be perplexed, to say the least. For now, I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it.
 
Where, on a scale from -0- to HFD, is Freescooter?

If Former "Coach" Pasqualoni actually did the job for which he was paid, we wouldn't have to be parsing Diaco's words or if he wanted to win. He's trying to re-build something here and wins are a by-product of the process.
 
.-.
businesslawyer said:
Look, I've said in other threads that I have no philosophical problem with you or anyone else saying that a coach should play every game to win. I am saying that criticism should be tempered by the fact that not every coach/manager treats every game as a championship. Closers are given days off in June, even when they could go out. Freshman big men start games in November, even when there are guys on the bench better, because the coach thinks the team will be better for it in March. Football players are suspended for a quarter or a half where it might hurt the team but the coach thinks sending a long term message to his players is more important. Rudy Gay and Andre Drummond aren't ever benched to see if chemistry will improve because if they get benched Calhoun fears he'll never get a top five recruit again.

So I understand your point, but you're overstating it as a concern big time. Diaco wants to win, and the players are trying to win. He just isn't making his substitutions with these games only in mind. Just like every coach and manager makes tons of decisions thinking about short, intermediate and long term issues. It's just more noticeable here because of how far away we are from being a competitive program again (and, in part, because HCBD seems to be stumbling over his explanations a bit).
Expand ...

A great point - short term, intermediate and long term decision making. Absolutely part of it all. The key to it all working though, is balance and priorities, and aside from one decision, among the many, many that happen in a game - that I am 100% certain of put long term priorities over short term - the short term, being actually winning the game at hand - the late FG, that I've discussed elsewhere - there really isn't much I'm comfortable concluding about decision making priorities. I'm concerned about the defensive game plan against BYU seemingly built to evaluate our own players, in our own systems, rather than an actual strategy that was designed to stop the BYU offense, and I'm concerned that our offense was the same way, designed to evaluate our own players in our own system, rather than the best ways to attack the BYU defense - but I have no knowledge of any of that.

The simple fact, is that until we are actually above .500 in the W/L columns, no amount of coach speak, and little victories, amounts to a winning program, and my biggest concern was the fundamnetals break downs of the basics of blocking and tackling. We had penalties, but not the procedural stuff that indicates lack of team discipline, we had personal fouls, illegal physical acts on the field, that need to get cleaned up, and that goes to training of the basics of blocking and tackling.

I'm just concerned we have a young coach that is way over thinking things, and I hope that the PLAN, has us widdled down to a roster of 22 starters on O & D, that are what the staff deems the best players we've got, and that they are getting the majority of the reps, and the backup QB, remains undoubtedly the best player on the team for the fans, because he's on the sideline and not on the field. If you get what I mean.
 
Carl Spackler said:
This is the most obvious reason why I wonder how long Diaco can keep this up with the whole "process" and development thing. Chandler Whitmer has no eligibility left after this season, what is he getting reps for? Why not give him all the reps if he is capable of getting us wins? Why switch? Why is there not a clear decision about who the best player at any position is?

The same applies for any of the upperclassmen and seniors.

My guess is that certain aspects of playing time as the season goes on, was discussed with the entire roster of players, all position groups, prior to the season starting, and that each position group was told that players would get snaps early on in the season, and the coaching staff is sticking with that plan, and simply maintaining a consistent public message about development, and having a plan, and all that. That would be consistent with everything that's happened. The question that arises is: what about actually winning games? and that's exactly where we're at in week 2 against Stony Brook. The fact that we're worried about Stony Brook, and I am, is enough to identify the state of the program after game 1. Do we actually intend to win this game against Stony Brook? Shocking that the question is valid.

If we're still playing 2 QB's come end of September, and claiming victories by having 50+ players getting game time reps, then I will be perplexed, to say the least. For now, I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it.
Expand ...

I think Diaco's words in the latest press conference were that they need to get better, not earth shattering better. He also split the season into quarters, with the first 3 games as the preparation phase. This would lead me to believe that along with building the program for years to come, his version of the long haul may refer also to the long haul of the season. This would explain CW playing and the others, in order to find the best players for the last three quarters of the season, where the games that will really count this year are.
 
businesslawyer said:
You may want to look up the definition of an ad hominen attack and then quote me the attack I made on you.
Expand ...
BTW, I did not say you attacked me nor am I using that to discredit your opinion. It was a carry on from an assumption you made about me that I projected to you. And you did not answer how you practice nor the part about how his press conferences are not going to reach the casual fan.

I always forget that you are one of the posters that has never been wrong and that your assumptions and opinions based on those assumptions are more valid than others.

But until BD says that the process for the game in any given week has the goal of a win, then I will continue to question what his process is about. Right now, he has set the expectation of improvement as being a positive result of the process. Nothing else.
 
freescooter said:
Dear Warde,
Please refund my ticket payments for the 3 pre-season games. You really should make it clear next year that these games don't count. I also would like to suggest that since these are only exhibitions why not schedule Southern, Western, and Eastern? PS I know Eastern doesn't have a football team, but just think how many guys Diaco can play when there is nobody on the other side!
PPS, Stay away form Trinity by all means. They actually take their football seriously. In fact, you might want to contact Coach Devanney and ask him what that means. Stay away from Central, too. they seem to have a coach who actually tries to win games, too. How embarrassing would that be? Lose to both Central & Trinity. Yipes!
Expand ...

What a d&uchebag. Why don't you go back to demanding that Warde fire Ollie?
 
freescooter said:
Dear Warde,
Please refund my ticket payments for the 3 pre-season games. You really should make it clear next year that these games don't count. I also would like to suggest that since these are only exhibitions why not schedule Southern, Western, and Eastern? PS I know Eastern doesn't have a football team, but just think how many guys Diaco can play when there is nobody on the other side!
PPS, Stay away form Trinity by all means. They actually take their football seriously. In fact, you might want to contact Coach Devanney and ask him what that means. Stay away from Central, too. they seem to have a coach who actually tries to win games, too. How embarrassing would that be? Lose to both Central & Trinity. Yipes!
Expand ...
I dont argue on this site, but I think you are taking the wrong approach. The goal is to win long term. HCBD beleives that it will take him some time to build this team up to compete with whoever is standing on the other sideline, and if that means we get an butt kicking from BYU and Boise so be it, as long as the result is that we are a better team every week, week in and week out. I will stand with HCBD as long as we get better because in the long run, I root for the team, win, loose or god forbid draw.
 
06029 said:
I always forget that you are one of the posters that has never been wrong and that your assumptions and opinions based on those assumptions are more valid than others.
Expand ...

BS.

BL has always been one of the most willing posters to admit when he is wrong. However, he doesn't say nearly as much stupid stuff and is more even handed so he doesn't usually have to.

You are the one with their panties in a bunch.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,381
Messages
4,569,627
Members
10,475
Latest member
Tunwin22


Top Bottom