Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

Christian McCaffrey 2022 Outlook


Flyman75
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, kp96 said:

If you're not going to take CMC at 2, who you going to take?  (Outside of PPR where I suppose Kupp is an option). 

The other two RBs who you could plausibly take at 2 are Dalvin and King Henry.  Both of these guys actually have a higher chance of injury this year than CMC, according to Draft Sharks injury predictor, so you can't argue health.  And despite how awesome they are, CMC inarguably has the highest ceiling of the 3.

Just my personal opinion but I'm much more worried about CMC getting hurt than Henry. Cook is closer but I still feel a little more confident. Then as mentioned, I think Harris is a safer pick. I don't think CMC's injury risk is factored into someone picking him at 2. That has to drop him IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. JT- best team of the top 5, no competition for carries, safe with upside in the reception department.

2. Henry- No competition for carries, in the worst division in the NFL so you've got 6 cream puff match-up which he will destroy. Also was slightly more involved in the passing game. Handcuff for free 4th round rookie with talent. 

 

3. Harris- I put Henry over him because of how easy Henry division is and I a not sure who his handcuff is (snell?). Harris is super safe no competition and the talent on offense wr/te and defense is pretty great. Young low miles, wouldn't bat and eye if you picked him at 2.

 

4. Kupp or Ekeler or CMC will be the debate.

 

I would probably play it safe with Kupp.

 

I don't like CMC because now he has 2 legit backups so there is no insurance at all. Foreman and Chubba would canalbize each other and split carries. Ekeler has a clear backup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nmartinez12443 said:

I don't like CMC because now he has 2 legit backups so there is no insurance at all. Foreman and Chubba would canalbize each other and split carries. Ekeler has a clear backup.

As someone who doesn't subscribe to the Handcuffing theory, it was quite funny that you deduct CMC for not having one (unlike JT, Henry and Harris I guess) but reading better I think your implicit point is that CMC has more injury risk (after what we saw the past 2 seasons) than JT and Harris. I agree there.

I still wouldn't call either Chubba or Foreman legit backups though, but I guess that depends on your definition of "legit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boudewijn said:

As someone who doesn't subscribe to the Handcuffing theory, it was quite funny that you deduct CMC for not having one (unlike JT, Henry and Harris I guess) but reading better I think your implicit point is that CMC has more injury risk (after what we saw the past 2 seasons) than JT and Harris. I agree there.

I still wouldn't call either Chubba or Foreman legit backups though, but I guess that depends on your definition of "legit".

Your first sentence shows you havent adapted to fantasy football. Handcuffs are  a must. Mattison, pollard, Barkleys backup, chubba was good for spot starts, penny was a league winner, McKinnon had a lot of value, Justin Jackson, Foreman was good for Henry, list goes on and on. Rbs are so hard to find and get hurt a ton that even if you get rb2 value that's enough to keep you afloat while they heal. 

 

Yes chubba and Foreman could easily siphon off carries from cmc. Foreman especially looked great at times last year. Don't get me wrong I still have cmc in the top 10, but I would rather have Ekler or Kupp and would heavily consider JJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, nmartinez12443 said:

Handcuffs are  a must.

no-donkeys.gif

Handcuffs are a waste. They're a hedge, and hedging bets by nature isn't an optimal strategy. But this is a semi-religious debate and I don't expect us to reach an agreement here.

40 minutes ago, nmartinez12443 said:

Your first sentence shows you havent adapted to fantasy football.

Well, I would argue that with the NFL moving more to RBBC in almost every modern team, I think handcuffs become less and less relevant - they just don't exist, with very few exceptions.

But I like being painted as the person who doesn't adapt :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Boudewijn said:

They're a hedge, and hedging bets by nature isn't an optimal strategy. But this is a semi-religious debate and I don't expect us to reach an agreement here.

They can be an optimal strategy. As with any insurance, whether you should buy it depends on whether you can afford not to have it. Can you afford to buy a new tv or computer if it's destroyed? Yeah, skip the additional warranty. Can you afford to buy a new house if it's destroyed? No, buy the insurance. 

Hint: the handcuffing decision has to do with your RB depth

The one thing that's 100% right in your post is nobody here will find common ground on the topic but I still need to hit my 2x per month quota talking about it

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, owenmills said:

but I still need to hit my 2x per month quota talking about it

Hey, I resemble that! ;)

34 minutes ago, owenmills said:

As with any insurance, whether you should buy it depends on whether you can afford not to have it

I like the comparison. You are correct that this is the main question ("afford").

(Car) rental companies generally try to get away with as little insurance as they can; so I guess we can extend the comparison, and say that if you would have many leagues (and/or only care about winning) then Handcuffing is not optimal; if you care more about not losing, then it makes more sense.

I just rail against the notion that I "must" do a strategy which I have reviewed extensively (charts were involved ;) ) and which I have decided is not to my benefit. I will also review that decision with every new bit of info I get (I'm stubborn, not stupid) but so far, the balance for me is on "I must not."

Edited by Boudewijn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, owenmills said:

They can be an optimal strategy. As with any insurance, whether you should buy it depends on whether you can afford not to have it. Can you afford to buy a new tv or computer if it's destroyed? Yeah, skip the additional warranty. Can you afford to buy a new house if it's destroyed? No, buy the insurance. 

Hint: the handcuffing decision has to do with your RB depth

The one thing that's 100% right in your post is nobody here will find common ground on the topic but I still need to hit my 2x per month quota talking about it

Like insurance, it also has to do with the payout.

If you have a 250k house and buy a policy that covers up to 300k, then go for it.

A policy that only pays out 50k though should leave you shopping for a new policy.

Likewise if the handcuff would be a good player if given the opportunity he might be worth rostering.  But you don't want to get a backup just to get a backup if he isn't.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Like insurance, it also has to do with the payout.

If you have a 250k house and buy a policy that covers up to 300k, then go for it.

A policy that only pays out 50k though should leave you shopping for a new policy.

Likewise if the handcuff would be a good player if given the opportunity he might be worth rostering.  But you don't want to get a backup just to get a backup if he isn't.

And like insurance, you get value even if you never file a claim....you get peace of mind.  That might be the most important thing you get, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kp96 said:

And like insurance, you get value even if you never file a claim....you get peace of mind.  That might be the most important thing you get, honestly.

Well, comparing the nature of RB injury to the rate of property destruction requiting an insurance claim, the houses may be located in a warzone.

Take a look at this chart and tell me how many RBs you see that played in 17 games.  Even finding those that played 15+ is a bit of a challenge.

https://www.lineups.com/nfl/player-stats/running-back-rb-touches

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nmartinez12443 said:

Your first sentence shows you havent adapted to fantasy football. Handcuffs are  a must. Mattison, pollard, Barkleys backup, chubba was good for spot starts, penny was a league winner, McKinnon had a lot of value, Justin Jackson, Foreman was good for Henry, list goes on and on. Rbs are so hard to find and get hurt a ton that even if you get rb2 value that's enough to keep you afloat while they heal. 

 

Yes chubba and Foreman could easily siphon off carries from cmc. Foreman especially looked great at times last year. Don't get me wrong I still have cmc in the top 10, but I would rather have Ekler or Kupp and would heavily consider JJ.

Some of these names arent even handcuffs, just guys in ambiguous backfields. RBs arent that hard to find. Chuba, Booker, Penny, Foreman, Mitchell and McKinnon were all on waivers at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Savatage79 said:

Is there any realm you like Najee over JT? 

I don't want to start a crazy storm, especially in a thread if someone who is neither player in question...

But realistically, there's no logical argument that makes JT 'automatically' a better pick than Najee, in PPR.

JT went 232 1169 11 + 39 36 299 1, for 254 fantasy points, 17ppg in his rookie year 2020.

Najee went 307 1200 7 + 94 74 467 3, for 300 fantasy points, 17.7ppg in his rookie year 2021.

The reason we will all rank JT higher is because he's coming off a fantastic season.  332 1811 18 + 53 40 360 2, for 377 fantasy points, 22.2ppg.

That's studly and he absolutely deserves the be the consensus #1 overall.

But realistically speaking, TDs are the only thing that separated JT and Najee last year.  20 vs 10, 60 points, and they're 17 points apart. Najees rookie year was better than JTs, so if he takes the same step forward then he's just as likely to be the consensus #1 pick this time next year.

Statistically speaking, projecting for the 2022 season, there's nothing concrete that makes me believe Najee isn't just as likely to be the #1 RB in PPR scoring, as JT.  From a skill, talent, age, and usage scenario... They're indifferent.

Their offensive situations in the other hand... Not so much.  I know Matt Ryan can be sufficient to maintain an NFL offense, and produce a stud RB.  I can't say that for Trubisky or Pickett.  So while I believe these 2 players have the same potential to succeed, I have to be honest and account for the fact that (assuming health for both) Najee has significantly more paths to a lower floor, because of the unknowns.  Maybe the Steelers collapse without Big Ben.  Personally I don't think very highly of Big Ben, but I think even lower if Trubisky and I don't have a clue what to think about Pickett.  These 2 guys could pull this offense so far down, that no matter the usage Najee gets, the TDs may not be there.

I think he'll be fine, but I rank and project players in all of the potential outcomes and weigh them together.

I believe Najee has the same ceiling, arguably higher due to his pass game involvement for PPR, than JT.  But (in health) I don't really see a way for JT to not be a top 12 RB even if everything goes wrong.

For Najee... There are a few variables that he can't control, that I do believe can prevent him from being an RB1.

That's is why I have JT ranked above him.  But if you asked me, assuming everything goes right for BOTH of them, who has the better fantasy season... I'm leaning Najee, but would say it probably a coin flip.

Last year's stats are only worth so much.  Factor them in, but don't let them blind you to the regression of TDs for JT, or Najee making the same progress from year 1 to 2, that we just saw JT make, which made him a league winner.

I just got the #2 pick in the Rotoworld Forum League.  We start in a few days.  If Cleats (1st pick) takes JT, I'm taking Najee.  If he takes Henry, I'm taking JT.

Ekeler, Henry, CMC, Najee, JT... They're all fine as #1 off the board to me.  My personal pick, for #2 is Najee.  It's not a hill I'm going to die on though, or fight people over.  Just what my instinct says feels right.

If I had 1st pick overall, and wanted Najee, I don't think there's anything wrong with that either, I'd do it and not think twice about what the consensus says.  I couldn't care less about overall ranks or "experts" opinions.

Remember... The rankings list and ADPs, they will be completely rewritten week 1 before Monday Night Football even kicks off.  Every expert, forum poster, pundit, and media personality will abandon anything they said in July\August because 1 game of real football is worth more than 6 months of off season speculation.  Don't get anchored to ADPs or rankings.  Make your own, and trust your analysis.  Half of the "experts" will get 60% of their calls wrong, 90% of this forum will get 70% of theirs wrong.

Fantasy success is more about adapting during the 17 week season, and how quickly you can move on from the preconceived notions you had before the season started.  Not about the preconceived notions we created back in July\August.  A good draft is obviously a great headstart though.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, FFCollusion said:

And drafting a guy who's played 10 games in 2 years is... What exactly?

A calculated risk that could easily win your league. CMC will outscore Najee if he plays 70% of the season. Im also drafting Kupp, Chase, JJ and Kelce over Najee. 

Edited by Evincar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, afl5013 said:

Never understood why people are so against handcuffing, but are all for stashing lottery tickets from other teams. When your star player goes down, isn't that the best possible time to cash in a backup RB lottery ticket? 

A few thoughts here.  Personally, I'm a fan of handcuffing IF there's a significant reason to do so.  If there's a clear back-up who is highly likely to 1) get the majority of work in the absence of the starter and 2) will be effective with that work.  It doesn't do any good to own a back-up RB if they give you like 6 points when they get their shot.  Plus, I think there's only a handful of "true" handcuffs available.  For example, I don't really see a handcuff for someone like Jonathan Taylor or Najee Harris.  If Taylor goes down who benefits? Lindsay? Hines? Tough to say.  Benny Snell seems like the clear back-up to Najee, but is he really worth starting even if Najee is hurt? Even a guy like Jamaal Williams, who's the clear #2 behind Swift and been a proven RB, gave you only like 7-8 points in he 2 games he played without Swift last year. So there's a ton of backfields that either don't have a clear #2, or have an uninspiring #2.

Another reason is ceiling.  Owning the backup to your starting RB gives you an insurance policy, so that you at least have a "starter" to plug in in case of injury, but it limits the overall ceiling of your roster because the handcuff will almost never be used while your starting RB is playing.  He's essentially a dead spot on your roster that you can only access if an injury happens, which usually does at RB, but you could essentially be holding a lesser player for the majority of the season without ever coming close to starting them.  When you add backups from other teams, you improve your ceiling.  For example, having Alexander Mattison on your bench even if you don't own Cook, at least gives you the potential to increase the ceiling of your team.  If Cook goes down, you now have a starting RB to add to your line-up, plus your regular starters at RB.  

Then add in the fact that a couple of handcuffs are actually decent RBs independently, and will cost high draft capital to acquire.  AJ Dillon, Tony Pollard, Kareem Hunt, are all guys who have proven it in the NFL, and would undoubtedly be the #1 if there's an injury, but all 3 of those guys cost some decent capital to acquire, so are you really going to spend a high pick on that type of guy just to insure your starter?

If you go team by team, there aren't many typical handcuffs in my opinion.  On most teams, the #2 RB is either uncertain, underwhelming, or expensive.  

Looking at the Top 12 RBs currently:

Jonathan Taylor - unknown who benefits most if Taylor goes down

CMC - Dont'a Foreman now in town plus Hubbard still there.  Can't say for sure who the #2 is.  Foreman was decent last year but Hubbard pretty underwhelming.  Are you going to burn 2 draft picks on Foreman and Hubbard to lock up the potential handcuff?

Austin Ekeler - Isaiah Spiller seems like the clear #2, but he hasn't proven anything in the NFL yet and was a late round draft pick.

Derrick Henry - Who's the #2 here?  Hilliard? Haskins?

Dalvin Cook - Mattison is the clear #2 and has proven it before - one of the true handcuffs in fantasy.

Najee Harris - Benny Snell stinks

Joe Mixon - Samaje Perine is OK but a lot of talk about Chris Evans taking over #2 role.  Are you going to burn 2 draft picks on both guys?  Plus if it's Chris Evans, he hasn't proven anything. 

D'Andre Swift - Jamaal Williams is clear cut #2 and proven it in the NFL, but had some underwhelming performance last season when he had the backfield to himself.  Still a decent handcuff.

Nick Chubb - Kareem Hunt would be a great option if Chubb went down, but costs high draft capital.  Hunt is used even with Chubb around and makes a decent FLEX play, so he's startable even with Chubb around, but starting both guys in your lineup severely limits the ceiling of your team.  

Aaron Jones - Same story as Chubb/Hunt.  Dillon costs a high pick, and can be used independently as a FLEX, but starting both or owning both limits the ceiling of your roster.

Leonard Fournette - Rachaad White? Unproven rookie.  Keshaun Vaughn? Unproven.  Gio Bernard? Seems washed.

Alvin Kamara - Mark Ingram seems like the clear #2 and was decent last year when given the starting gig.  Seems like a decent handcuff option with very low draft capital, but at 32 years old who knows what's left in the tank.

So at best, I see 3 handcuffs?  Williams, Mattison and Ingram? So I don't think it's necessarily people being against handcuffing, I just don't see that many handcuffs in the league that you would feel comfortable about plugging in if the starter got hurt.  For example, I would rather start a guy like Chase Edmonds, Melvin Gordon or Devin Singletary, who will most likely be the RB3 or even RB4 on teams, over guys like Benny Snell or Dontrelle Hilliard.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fort4242 said:

A few thoughts here.  Personally, I'm a fan of handcuffing IF there's a significant reason to do so.  If there's a clear back-up who is highly likely to 1) get the majority of work in the absence of the starter and 2) will be effective with that work.  It doesn't do any good to own a back-up RB if they give you like 6 points when they get their shot.  Plus, I think there's only a handful of "true" handcuffs available.  For example, I don't really see a handcuff for someone like Jonathan Taylor or Najee Harris.  If Taylor goes down who benefits? Lindsay? Hines? Tough to say.  Benny Snell seems like the clear back-up to Najee, but is he really worth starting even if Najee is hurt? Even a guy like Jamaal Williams, who's the clear #2 behind Swift and been a proven RB, gave you only like 7-8 points in he 2 games he played without Swift last year. So there's a ton of backfields that either don't have a clear #2, or have an uninspiring #2.

Another reason is ceiling.  Owning the backup to your starting RB gives you an insurance policy, so that you at least have a "starter" to plug in in case of injury, but it limits the overall ceiling of your roster because the handcuff will almost never be used while your starting RB is playing.  He's essentially a dead spot on your roster that you can only access if an injury happens, which usually does at RB, but you could essentially be holding a lesser player for the majority of the season without ever coming close to starting them.  When you add backups from other teams, you improve your ceiling.  For example, having Alexander Mattison on your bench even if you don't own Cook, at least gives you the potential to increase the ceiling of your team.  If Cook goes down, you now have a starting RB to add to your line-up, plus your regular starters at RB.  

Then add in the fact that a couple of handcuffs are actually decent RBs independently, and will cost high draft capital to acquire.  AJ Dillon, Tony Pollard, Kareem Hunt, are all guys who have proven it in the NFL, and would undoubtedly be the #1 if there's an injury, but all 3 of those guys cost some decent capital to acquire, so are you really going to spend a high pick on that type of guy just to insure your starter?

If you go team by team, there aren't many typical handcuffs in my opinion.  On most teams, the #2 RB is either uncertain, underwhelming, or expensive.  

Looking at the Top 12 RBs currently:

Jonathan Taylor - unknown who benefits most if Taylor goes down

CMC - Dont'a Foreman now in town plus Hubbard still there.  Can't say for sure who the #2 is.  Foreman was decent last year but Hubbard pretty underwhelming.  Are you going to burn 2 draft picks on Foreman and Hubbard to lock up the potential handcuff?

Austin Ekeler - Isaiah Spiller seems like the clear #2, but he hasn't proven anything in the NFL yet and was a late round draft pick.

Derrick Henry - Who's the #2 here?  Hilliard? Haskins?

Dalvin Cook - Mattison is the clear #2 and has proven it before - one of the true handcuffs in fantasy.

Najee Harris - Benny Snell stinks

Joe Mixon - Samaje Perine is OK but a lot of talk about Chris Evans taking over #2 role.  Are you going to burn 2 draft picks on both guys?  Plus if it's Chris Evans, he hasn't proven anything. 

D'Andre Swift - Jamaal Williams is clear cut #2 and proven it in the NFL, but had some underwhelming performance last season when he had the backfield to himself.  Still a decent handcuff.

Nick Chubb - Kareem Hunt would be a great option if Chubb went down, but costs high draft capital.  Hunt is used even with Chubb around and makes a decent FLEX play, so he's startable even with Chubb around, but starting both guys in your lineup severely limits the ceiling of your team.  

Aaron Jones - Same story as Chubb/Hunt.  Dillon costs a high pick, and can be used independently as a FLEX, but starting both or owning both limits the ceiling of your roster.

Leonard Fournette - Rachaad White? Unproven rookie.  Keshaun Vaughn? Unproven.  Gio Bernard? Seems washed.

Alvin Kamara - Mark Ingram seems like the clear #2 and was decent last year when given the starting gig.  Seems like a decent handcuff option with very low draft capital, but at 32 years old who knows what's left in the tank.

So at best, I see 3 handcuffs?  Williams, Mattison and Ingram? So I don't think it's necessarily people being against handcuffing, I just don't see that many handcuffs in the league that you would feel comfortable about plugging in if the starter got hurt.  For example, I would rather start a guy like Chase Edmonds, Melvin Gordon or Devin Singletary, who will most likely be the RB3 or even RB4 on teams, over guys like Benny Snell or Dontrelle Hilliard.  

 

Yeah I think you are better off thinking of your "handcuff" options as lotto tickets most likely to be churned, and not to spend expensive draft capital on them.

Everyone will need some, even from the beginning, because if you want any kind of RB depth you're going to have to take your shots at what appears at the outset to be the low end of a committee, the committee leaders will be among the top 35 or so backs taken and we all should aim to have more than 3 RBs on the roster at all times.

But that doesn't mean that I want to take AJ Dillon over my WR2.  Would much rather take a guy after pick 100 who is in a potentially murky situation where he could emerge as a guy who gets volume.

Not in love with the Bears offense or team in general?  Welcome to the club, but there is no downside to rostering Khalil Herbert at pick 152 and seeing if Montgomery gets hurt.

Kenneth Walker III was a tremendous athlete at Michigan State, single handedly beat Michigan by himself, and everyone seems to be forgetting that Pete Carroll loves to run the ball when leaving him on the board until pick 91.

I have no earthly idea why Mattison is lasting 60 picks longer than Dillon, but I'll take it.

Any of these don't work out I don't feel the least bit bad for cutting any of them for a week 2 WW pickup.  Or even if I just hear an alert before the 1 PM games that first Sunday that such and such dude looks like he is getting a majority of the work in pregame warmups.

If you draft a handcuff to "your guy" you are married to him, and you lose the most important asset in my mind in the early game - roster flexibility.

https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/adp/rb.php

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The G Man said:

Assuming Baker wins the starting gig, I think that's gives CMC a little bump. Gives you a little more confidence drafting him if nothing else.

I'd still prolly take JT over CMC, but no one else.

I have him in a keeper.  The quarterback situation wasn't a huge concern to me, he's been able to be a monster with the dregs of the league.  Darnold is turrible but week 1 last year he looked like he could crush it all year even if they ran the wishbone.

It's all about how risk averse you are to his soft tissue injury recurrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Darnold is turrible but week 1 last year he looked like he could crush it all year even if they ran the wishbone.

It wasn't just week 1.  I feel like people so quickly forget, that Sam Darnold was absolutely killing it for the first quarter of the season.

Through the first 4 weeks of the year, Darnold was 99 of 146, for 68% completion rate.  (Burrow lead the league with 70%, Rodgers 69%) He threw for 1,189 yards, and had 10 TDs.  He was averaging 297 yards passing and 2.5TD a game.  He was the 5th best QB in fantasy and won 3 if their first 4 games.

That's a 17 game season pace of 5,053 passing yards (2nd to only Brady) and 42 total touchdowns. (Also 2nd to only Brady)

And then... Christian McCaffrey got hurt, and the Panthers season went down the drain with him.  I don't know if that's a valid excuse for Darnold to suck as bad as he did from week 5 forward, but there's a direct correlation between McCaffrey's health and Darnold's production, so decide for yourself.

CMC came back week 9, the same week Darnold fractured his scapula, and was out for weeks, CMC season was over, the Panthers season was over, etc etc.

I'm not defending Darnold, I'm not going to say he's better than Baker... I'm just going to say, there was a window of opportunity, and for those 4 game Darnold looked better than Baker ever has in his life.  If that's what he can do with a healthy team, then Baker will never win this job.  If it was just a fluke, the CMC injury is just an odd coincidence, and what really happened was the league got caught off guard by Darnold for a few weeks before they adjusted... I would also believe that to be a very logical outcome as well.

I don't think this is as black and white as people are making it out to be with Baker being assumed as the starter.  Darnold has never played a full season, and the Panthers need a quality backup, not desperation off the street signings Matt Barkley and Cam Newton.

I think it's too soon to write off Darnold.  At least from the Panthers perspective.  They know how good things were before McCaffrey went down, and they understand how important CMC is to their entire organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...