Page 1 of 90 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 1789
  1. #1

    2022 MBB Transfer Portal Thread

    In addition to a recruiting thread, it seems like we'll need this thread every offseason as well.

    Looking at the projected roster for next season, most of the starting and rotation spots will be filled with the usual group of talented freshmen with a select group of returning veterans. First, let's take a look at the current roster and who will or maybe won't leave:

    Definitely gone: Theo John, Bates Jones (ineligible/graduated), Mark Williams, Paolo Banchero, and AJ Griffin (NBA)
    Maybe/probably gone: Joey Baker (graduation/transfer) Wendell Moore, and Trevor Keels (NBA)
    Probably returning: Jeremy Roach, Jaylen Blakes
    Class of 2022: Dereck Lively II, Kyle Filipowski, Mark Mitchell, Christian Reeves, Jaden Schutt, and Dariq Whitehead

    I feel most confident that Jeremy Roach will be back next season. He has the starting PG spot basically waiting for him. His role on offense should expand as well, which his recent play has warranted. It's not clear if Joey Baker will return and it is possible that either of Wendell Moore or Trevor Keels could as well. I'd be delighted if one of Moore or Keels decides to stick around for another season. My guess is they won't, but who knows? Reeves, from what I've heard, is going to redshirt as a freshmen or play very little minutes at most. He's a longer-term prospect that may contribute as an upperclassman. Blakes could get more minutes next year as a backup PG. Of course, the portal is open he could see more PT at another venue. I hope he returns and grows into a solid contributor, but we'll see.

    If I had to guess, the lineup and depth chart looks like this:

    PG: Roach, Blakes
    SG/W: Whitehead, Schutt
    SF: Mitchell, Baker (?), Whitehead
    PF: Filipowski, Mitchell
    C: Lively, Filipowski

    There are some obvious holes in this lineup. It's quite thin at the G and F/C spots and lacks experience. Having Roach as a junior PG will help. I think having Baker around would help as well if he only provides shooting and leadership. Any further improvement from him would be found money at this point. My guess is that the coaching staff would love to have Keels back or, if that doesn't happen, an experienced guard that can either start or play rotational minutes. Shooting, secondary ball-handling, and defense would be ideal there. They could also use a F/C type to spell Lively and Whitehead and provide toughness/shot-blocking (when paired with Filipowski). If the F/C can stretch the court a little with jumpers, all the better. Duke might need to add another wing if Baker departs. Again, shooting and defense would be very much in need at that position.

    I do not expect that we'll see Duke land a starter through the portal. The primary approach for building the roster continues to be through recruiting from the high school ranks. Duke is adding 3 of the 4-5 most talented freshmen in the country in Lively, Filipowski, and Whitehead as well as another 5-star that should see significant minutes in Mitchell. Schutt, if he can get up to speed in the college game, may also be a contributor. If they add two rotation players through the portal, then we're talking about a 10 or 11-man rotation, as deep as any Duke has had in decades. Adding two guys is about all that I expect, at least, barring a transfer or otherwise unexpected departure (Blakes or Baker seem like the only options here). My guess is that we'll see more grad transfers rather than freshmen or sophomores departing mid-majors for greener pastures. We shall see what comes through the portal...

  2. #2
    And the first name that appears tied to Duke is former Ivy League big man Jaylan Gainey, a 6'9" C from Brown that has been 2-time Ivy League DPOY. He is long and bouncey with a body like Oscar Tshiebwe. I'm not saying he's the second coming of Big O, just making a physical comparison. Anyway, he seems like an ideal fit alongside the freshmen frontcourt next season.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Don't forget Christian Reeves.
    "This is the best of all possible worlds."
    Dr. Pangloss - Candide

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Is it for sure that the one year sit out rule is never coming back? I thought it was originally waived last year due to Covid but was not expecting this change to be permanent.

    I'm hoping Jon uses the portal more aggressively than K. I understand the reasons against it, but this year our roster will be decimated and it's a perfect opportunity to bring in a few pieces to compliment the stud freshmen as there is playing time to be had. Of course my first preference would be to get Moore or Keels back.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by chrishoke View Post
    Don't forget Christian Reeves.
    I did not. He's included above.

    I think the plan is for him to redshirt next season. I might be wrong on that, but that's what I've heard.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    Is it for sure that the one year sit out rule is never coming back? I thought it was originally waived last year due to Covid but was not expecting this change to be permanent.

    I'm hoping Jon uses the portal more aggressively than K. I understand the reasons against it, but this year our roster will be decimated and it's a perfect opportunity to bring in a few pieces to compliment the stud freshmen as there is playing time to be had. Of course my first preference would be to get Moore or Keels back.
    There's a permanent one-time transfer waiver for all players moving forward. Last year, the NCAA instituted it for the summer of 2021 as a COVID thing. It's not a permanent thing as of this year. All players that were active in the 2020-21 season were granted an additional year of eligibility.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    I have a major disagreement with your depth chart. To me, the chart should look closer to this:

    PG: Roach, Blakes
    SG: Schutt
    SF: Whitehead, Baker (?), Mitchell
    PF: Filipowski, Mitchell
    C: Lively, Filipowski

    Here is the Whitehead scouting report from ESPN:

    A 6-foot-6 small forward from New Jersey who attends Montverde Academy (Florida), Whitehead is ranked No. 6 overall in the ESPN 100 for the 2022 class. He's the No. 3 small forward, behind elite prospect Emoni Bates and versatile wing Chris Livingston. Whitehead was outstanding for Team Durant on the Nike EYBL circuit this summer, averaging 16.5 points, 6.0 rebounds and 3.0 assists -- including a 26-point, 12-rebound, four-assist effort against fellow top-10 recruit Shaedon Sharpe and UPlay Canada.

    Whitehead has developed into one of the most complete and well-rounded prospects in the class. He's a high-level athlete who possesses a burst in the open floor and explosiveness when attacking the rim.

    His game starts with defense. At Montverde, guarding the likes of Scottie Barnes, Caleb Houstan, Cade Cunningham and others has turned him into a committed defender. Whitehead excels as a switch defender who can keep the ball in front or chase a shooter off a screen to contest shots.

    An active rebounder, he will take it off the glass and be a playmaker in the open floor. He owns the mindset, physical tools and talent to be a centerpiece of Duke's roster next year and a projected first-round pick in the 2023 NBA draft.
    It sounds like he can do nearly everything except excel at shooting. While everything I've read states he's getting better at shooting, he's not there yet.

    And with this description, he strikes me more as a wing who can exploit bigger, slower defenders moreso than a big SG who can back down an opposing SG.

    The bigger issue with Whitehead at the 2, however, is the clear lack of shooting.

    -Roach is not a good 3pt shooter. He's improving, but he's clearly nowhere near a first option at the 3pt line.
    -Whitehead is becoming a better shooter, but I'm not convinced this is an asset for him
    -Mitchell doesn't really shoot from deep
    -Filipowski is a good shooter for his size, but it sounds like he is more "inside-out" than "outside-in". His footwork in the post is what makes him such a good offensive player
    -Lively is a good shooter...for a 5. I'm not expecting anywhere near 40% from him.

    Now, Schutt is known as a good shooter, but his ranking isn't great. Will he get playing time?

    If we do start Roach/Whitehead/Mitchell/Flip/Lively, I think our team is very easy to defend. Basically, pack the paint and dare us to shoot 3s. Without a solid 3pt shooter, I'm do not like this strategy.

    Hence, I think there is a real need for a starting 2 who can shoot 3s. We have size (the 3-5), playmaking (Roach), and defense (Roach, Whitehead, Lively). We need shooting.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    I have a major disagreement with your depth chart. To me, the chart should look closer to this:

    PG: Roach, Blakes
    SG: Schutt
    SF: Whitehead, Baker (?), Mitchell
    PF: Filipowski, Mitchell
    C: Lively, Filipowski

    Here is the Whitehead scouting report from ESPN:



    It sounds like he can do nearly everything except excel at shooting. While everything I've read states he's getting better at shooting, he's not there yet.

    And with this description, he strikes me more as a wing who can exploit bigger, slower defenders moreso than a big SG who can back down an opposing SG.

    The bigger issue with Whitehead at the 2, however, is the clear lack of shooting.

    -Roach is not a good 3pt shooter. He's improving, but he's clearly nowhere near a first option at the 3pt line.
    -Whitehead is becoming a better shooter, but I'm not convinced this is an asset for him
    -Mitchell doesn't really shoot from deep
    -Filipowski is a good shooter for his size, but it sounds like he is more "inside-out" than "outside-in". His footwork in the post is what makes him such a good offensive player
    -Lively is a good shooter...for a 5. I'm not expecting anywhere near 40% from him.

    Now, Schutt is known as a good shooter, but his ranking isn't great. Will he get playing time?

    If we do start Roach/Whitehead/Mitchell/Flip/Lively, I think our team is very easy to defend. Basically, pack the paint and dare us to shoot 3s. Without a solid 3pt shooter, I'm do not like this strategy.

    Hence, I think there is a real need for a starting 2 who can shoot 3s. We have size (the 3-5), playmaking (Roach), and defense (Roach, Whitehead, Lively). We need shooting.
    I posted that depth chart to, in part, highlight the need for shooting.

    Personally, I wouldn't go off of what ESPN writes about prospects. They are the least tapped into the scene. Whitehead is probably closer to Keels as a shooter from what I've read and seen of him in game action. He's a decent shooter. It's not a strength at this point, but he can and does shoot. Filipowski can and will shoot as well, more than Paolo. Lively can shoot, but I wouldn't expect more than 2-3 attempts per game from him. He's going to be most effective around the rim. None of these guys are knock-down shooters. Roach looks a lot better of late, hitting 43.8% from 3 over the last 9 games. Can he hit better than 38% for a whole season? That would really help.

    Also, Mitchell is far more likely to start than Schutt. Mitchell is physically ready to play high major college ball. I don't think Schutt is. I like Schutt's long-term potential, but I think he'll see the court for 10-15 MPG as a freshmen in a best-case scenario. There are very few examples of a recruit in the ~top 50-75 range coming to Duke and starting as a freshmen. It hasn't happened in a long time.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Van Nuys, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    Is it for sure that the one year sit out rule is never coming back? I thought it was originally waived last year due to Covid but was not expecting this change to be permanent.

    I'm hoping Jon uses the portal more aggressively than K. I understand the reasons against it, but this year our roster will be decimated and it's a perfect opportunity to bring in a few pieces to compliment the stud freshmen as there is playing time to be had. Of course my first preference would be to get Moore or Keels back.
    I would rather have had Coleman and Goldwire on Duke than John and Jones. John and Jones may have been assets in practice,but disappointing on the court. If Keels is gone, Blakes shows great improvement, then find a transfer portal guard. Perhaps 2. The new freshman seem to give us the necessary centers,power forwards and wings. I think Scheyer, Carrawell,Smith and Jefferson will be keeping the program elite and Winning.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidBenAkiva View Post
    And the first name that appears tied to Duke is former Ivy League big man Jaylan Gainey, a 6'9" C from Brown that has been 2-time Ivy League DPOY. He is long and bouncey with a body like Oscar Tshiebwe. I'm not saying he's the second coming of Big O, just making a physical comparison. Anyway, he seems like an ideal fit alongside the freshmen frontcourt next season.

    Andrew Slater says the 6-9, 220 Gainey has heard from: Oklahoma, Marquette, Pittsburgh, Duke, Arkansas, GA Tech, BC, Ole Miss, VA Tech, Florida St, N.C St, Loyola Chicago, Loyola Marymount, Temple, Penn St, Seton Hall, Georgetown, Virginia, Butler, UNCG, UNCC, Creighton, and Iowa St.

    He will have only 1 year of eligibility. He averaged 9.3ppg, 6.9rpg, and 2.1bpg this season at Brown. He shoots better than 70% from the floor but just 51.9% from the FT line.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidBenAkiva View Post
    If they add two rotation players through the portal, then we're talking about a 10 or 11-man rotation, as deep as any Duke has had in decades. Adding two guys is about all that I expect.
    My understanding of the word “rotation” may differ from yours. I’d guess we have a returning/recruited 5 in the rotation (Roach, Lively, Whitehead, Filipowski, Mitchell), and 2-3 returning/recruited players who might play some (Blakes, Schutt, Baker??), but in each case more like a .5-rotation guy than easily predicted to be fully in the rotation.

    Seems highly likely that Scheyer will want to find a minimum of 2 players in the portal, at least one of whom is a perimeter shooter. For different reasons, Blakes, Schutt, and Baker are all questionable rotation guys for next season.

    I don’t see anything approaching a 10-11-man rotation. And as FDD says:

    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    We need shooting.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidBenAkiva View Post
    I did not. He's included above.

    I think the plan is for him to redshirt next season. I might be wrong on that, but that's what I've heard.
    That might have been the plan, but I'm not sure that plan sticks. I don't think he's ready to be a high quality starter next year. But I do think he's ready to be a solid bench player to the tune of 5-10 mpg even in conf play. He's a lot better than folks think. Very raw on O, but probably capable of solid minutes based on D and rebounding. Beyond that, I think he'll improve plenty next year, which we'll need the year after that.
    .
    Regardless, I think his presence strongly discourages a big man transfer. We've got 4 guys across two positions (PF/C). And Whitehead could absolutely handle minutes at PF if needed. This assumes another guard/wing transferring in. If I were a big looking for minutes, Duke would look awfully hostile wrt mpg.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidBenAkiva View Post
    I posted that depth chart to, in part, highlight the need for shooting.

    Personally, I wouldn't go off of what ESPN writes about prospects. They are the least tapped into the scene. Whitehead is probably closer to Keels as a shooter from what I've read and seen of him in game action. He's a decent shooter. It's not a strength at this point, but he can and does shoot. Filipowski can and will shoot as well, more than Paolo. Lively can shoot, but I wouldn't expect more than 2-3 attempts per game from him. He's going to be most effective around the rim. None of these guys are knock-down shooters. Roach looks a lot better of late, hitting 43.8% from 3 over the last 9 games. Can he hit better than 38% for a whole season? That would really help.

    Also, Mitchell is far more likely to start than Schutt. Mitchell is physically ready to play high major college ball. I don't think Schutt is. I like Schutt's long-term potential, but I think he'll see the court for 10-15 MPG as a freshmen in a best-case scenario. There are very few examples of a recruit in the ~top 50-75 range coming to Duke and starting as a freshmen. It hasn't happened in a long time.
    We will desperately need outside shooting next year based on how our team is currently constituted for next year. I look for JS to pick up a transfer or two as a sixth man 3pt specialist or a strong shooting wing. Agree with a previous post that we will be challenged to find a solid SG starter in the portal with all the OAD-ish talent coming in. Bonus if Lively or Flip turn out to be legit stretch 5s or Mitchell is a better shooter than advertised.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    My understanding of the word “rotation” may differ from yours. I’d guess we have a returning/recruited 5 in the rotation (Roach, Lively, Whitehead, Filipowski, Mitchell), and 2-3 returning/recruited players who might play some (Blakes, Schutt, Baker??), but in each case more like a .5-rotation guy than easily predicted to be fully in the rotation.

    Seems highly likely that Scheyer will want to find a minimum of 2 players in the portal, at least one of whom is a perimeter shooter. For different reasons, Blakes, Schutt, and Baker are all questionable rotation guys for next season.

    I don’t see anything approaching a 10-11-man rotation. And as FDD says:
    If you add 5 freshmen, 3 returning players, and 2 portal players, that's 10. If Moore of Keels comes back, I'm not sure if that number expands or contracts now that I think about it...

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    My understanding of the word “rotation” may differ from yours. I’d guess we have a returning/recruited 5 in the rotation (Roach, Lively, Whitehead, Filipowski, Mitchell), and 2-3 returning/recruited players who might play some (Blakes, Schutt, Baker??), but in each case more like a .5-rotation guy than easily predicted to be fully in the rotation.

    Seems highly likely that Scheyer will want to find a minimum of 2 players in the portal, at least one of whom is a perimeter shooter. For different reasons, Blakes, Schutt, and Baker are all questionable rotation guys for next season.

    I don’t see anything approaching a 10-11-man rotation. And as FDD says:
    This is very early in the transfer cycle. A lot will change over the next 1.5 months. During that time, some players on some teams will blow up and go pro early. This will cause some players who remain on that team to reassess their own future. It is one thing to be Robin alongside a Batman. But if Batman leaves, maybe Robin should search out greener pastures. Some coaches will get fired, meaning some coaches will move on, meaning their former rosters will look around.
    .
    Right now, there are "known" transfers. If not already announced, then highly probable transfers.
    .
    There are also a number of kids really happy where they are, secure in their coaching staff and teammates going into next year. These guys have no interest in transferring. It isn't even on their radar. Over the next 2 months their basketball futures will be completely upended. Those coaches, and or those teammates, will be gone or altered. And they'll look around given the new transfer years.
    .
    While we do need this thread, the relevant info won't kick into high gear for another month, and it will get crazy after that for the next 2-3 years.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Andrew Slater says the 6-9, 220 Gainey has heard from: Oklahoma, Marquette, Pittsburgh, Duke, Arkansas, GA Tech, BC, Ole Miss, VA Tech, Florida St, N.C St, Loyola Chicago, Loyola Marymount, Temple, Penn St, Seton Hall, Georgetown, Virginia, Butler, UNCG, UNCC, Creighton, and Iowa St.

    He will have only 1 year of eligibility. He averaged 9.3ppg, 6.9rpg, and 2.1bpg this season at Brown. He shoots better than 70% from the floor but just 51.9% from the FT line.
    The question is: will he be a Theo John type of transfer, ready to come in and contribute, or a Patrick Tape type of transfer, who clearly was not. I'd be kinda skeptical of another Ivy League big man. Have any of the other Ivy League big men transfers in the last couple of years made a real impact at high-major schools? I guess grad transfer Paul Atkinson from Yale wasn't bad at Notre Dame, but is that it? Maybe I'm forgetting one or two others but none come to mind. Smaller players, yes. Big guys?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    I have a major disagreement with your depth chart. To me, the chart should look closer to this:

    PG: Roach, Blakes
    SG: Schutt
    SF: Whitehead, Baker (?), Mitchell
    PF: Filipowski, Mitchell
    C: Lively, Filipowski

    Here is the Whitehead scouting report from ESPN:



    It sounds like he can do nearly everything except excel at shooting. While everything I've read states he's getting better at shooting, he's not there yet.

    And with this description, he strikes me more as a wing who can exploit bigger, slower defenders moreso than a big SG who can back down an opposing SG.

    The bigger issue with Whitehead at the 2, however, is the clear lack of shooting.

    -Roach is not a good 3pt shooter. He's improving, but he's clearly nowhere near a first option at the 3pt line.
    -Whitehead is becoming a better shooter, but I'm not convinced this is an asset for him
    -Mitchell doesn't really shoot from deep
    -Filipowski is a good shooter for his size, but it sounds like he is more "inside-out" than "outside-in". His footwork in the post is what makes him such a good offensive player
    -Lively is a good shooter...for a 5. I'm not expecting anywhere near 40% from him.

    Now, Schutt is known as a good shooter, but his ranking isn't great. Will he get playing time?

    If we do start Roach/Whitehead/Mitchell/Flip/Lively, I think our team is very easy to defend. Basically, pack the paint and dare us to shoot 3s. Without a solid 3pt shooter, I'm do not like this strategy.

    Hence, I think there is a real need for a starting 2 who can shoot 3s. We have size (the 3-5), playmaking (Roach), and defense (Roach, Whitehead, Lively). We need shooting.
    You think Schutt will start and Mark Mitchell won't? I do not agree. For one thing, Mitchell is being undersold around here. He's a pretty big time prospect. But Schutt won't be ready to start at this level as a freshman from all I have read. I think we would be able to plausibly pitch major playing time, including an opportunity to start at the 2-guard, to high level transfer prospects at that position. And frankly we should be doing exactly that. Assuming neither Keels nor Moore is on the roster, sliding an experienced knockdown shooter into that starting lineup is just what we need.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidBenAkiva View Post
    If you add 5 freshmen, 3 returning players, and 2 portal players, that's 10. If Moore of Keels comes back, I'm not sure if that number expands or contracts now that I think about it...
    You’re right if —

    1. All 5 frosh are rotation guys. Schutt may or may not play 10-12 mpg.
    2a. We have 3 returning players, (2b.) all 3 of whom are fully in the rotation. Roach, yes. Blakes, unclear whether he’ll play 10 mpg. Baker, returning??
    3. We get 2 rotation guys from the portal.

    I think you’re adding things that are far from certain, or even likely. And I continue to think we mean somewhat different things by “rotation.” If Moore or Keels returns, that would cause a lot of transfer portal perimeter guys to look elsewhere, yes?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    You think Schutt will start and Mark Mitchell won't? I do not agree. For one thing, Mitchell is being undersold around here. He's a pretty big time prospect. But Schutt won't be ready to start at this level as a freshman from all I have read. I think we would be able to plausibly pitch major playing time, including an opportunity to start at the 2-guard, to high level transfer prospects at that position. And frankly we should be doing exactly that. Assuming neither Keels nor Moore is on the roster, sliding an experienced knockdown shooter into that starting lineup is just what we need.
    No no. It’s not that I think Schutt will start over Mitchell. It’s that I think neither still start. My depth chart was created to reflect the glaring hole at the 2. A Roach/Whitehead/Mitchell/Flip/Lively starting line up spells disaster on the shooting side of the ball.

    I also think Whitehead is a college 3 who can play up to the 4 due to his body type and toughness.

    I feel the coaching staff NEEDS an experienced starting 2 who can shoot.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA

    Also…

    The starting line up above features 4 frosh. With a frosh coach.

    I’m pretty sure Duke doesn’t want their spanking brand new coach to fail, and I think having 4 frosh starting is a solid way to accomplish that.

    Duke needs experience next year. Transfers are a must.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

Similar Threads

  1. Transfer portal players 2021
    By MarkD83 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 03-16-2022, 11:58 AM
  2. Duke Football Transfer Portal Watch 2021
    By CameronBornAndBred in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: 02-02-2022, 03:22 PM
  3. Brakefield in transfer portal
    By jaywilliams22 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 224
    Last Post: 04-21-2021, 02:16 PM
  4. 2020 Off season transfer thread
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 286
    Last Post: 07-21-2020, 03:04 PM
  5. Portal and Braid
    By billybreen in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 02:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •