Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Jul 23, 2014 at 19:40 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Marvel Smith, the OL  (Read 1520 times)
jonzr
Asst. VP, Jonzring
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 11361
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,393


Have a cup o' joe.


WWW
« on: Feb 10, 2009 at 11:16 »

So, he says that he could have played in the Super Bowl if needed.  That now he's at 100 percent and *really* got the problem fixed this time.

So, is that like saying in August that "Bettis is in the best shape of his career?"

I wonder what they could get him for?  Is it really an either/or situation with he and Starks?  Wouldn't Smith/Starks bookends and Colon moved to RG with *anyone else* at LG be an improvement over last season?

And still plan on drafting plenty of big uglies.
Logged

"I like David Bowie, he was always my favorite member of Tin Machine."
- Rodney Anonymous

It's a Steeler Nation
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,793



WWW
« Reply #1 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 11:20 »

If Marvel stays, which would be nice since I just got a Marvel-autographed helmet for Christmas, I still think they should move him to right and keep Starks at left.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
aj_law
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5532
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,970


« Reply #2 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 11:26 »

That now he's at 100 percent and *really* got the problem fixed this time.

Of course he does.  A "gently used, in excellent condition" LT will get considerably more on the open market than a "refurbished, engine rebuilt...multiple times; at the very least, salvagable for parts" LT would.

Smith/Starks...Don't let the door hit ya...

Hopefully they go to a team that Pittsburgh faces in '09.  Harrison and Woodley might hit double digit sacks in those games.
Logged

We suck because our drafts have been THE SUCK.
DCSteelers
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 553
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,460


WWW
« Reply #3 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 11:30 »

I don't know...  Feasibilty wise, re-upping Marvel with an incentive laden deal for a couple years makes sense, if he is truly 100%.  How do we know he won't have another back issue?

I like the idea of Marvel and Starks at the tackles if the price is right.  Move Colon to a guard spot.  Re-up Hartwig.  Now the drafting of an OL is not as pressing, but still should be a priority.  If a franchise type of Guard is available late in 1st round, go for it, otherwise focus on a NT or a groomable DL.  (BTW, I liked Nick Eason's play this year, at least in a back-up capacity)
Logged
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12188
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,189



« Reply #4 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 11:36 »

As a player, Starks '09 > Smith '09, IMO.  But... Starks '09 $$$ > Smith '09 $.  Somebody will overpay Starks.  If we can keep Smith for 3 years at a number close to minimum, we'd have a guy who can potentially start at LT while a rookie is learning, or could slide to RT and move Colon in, and at worst would be a swing backup.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
jonzr
Asst. VP, Jonzring
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 11361
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,393


Have a cup o' joe.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 11:44 »

As a player, Starks '09 > Smith '09, IMO.  But... Starks '09 $$$ > Smith '09 $.  Somebody will overpay Starks.  If we can keep Smith for 3 years at a number close to minimum, we'd have a guy who can potentially start at LT while a rookie is learning, or could slide to RT and move Colon in, and at worst would be a swing backup.

People didn't even look at Starks last season, but he was restricted then and had that tag.  Yeah, somebody probably will pay the starting LT of the SB winner.

I can't see them getting Smith so cheaply though.  Close to vet min?  Isn't that under $1M per?  Hell, somebody is bound to pay him twice that just to see what he's got left and serve as a backup if nothing else.
Logged

"I like David Bowie, he was always my favorite member of Tin Machine."
- Rodney Anonymous

It's a Steeler Nation
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12188
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,189



« Reply #6 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 11:57 »

As a player, Starks '09 > Smith '09, IMO.  But... Starks '09 $$$ > Smith '09 $.  Somebody will overpay Starks.  If we can keep Smith for 3 years at a number close to minimum, we'd have a guy who can potentially start at LT while a rookie is learning, or could slide to RT and move Colon in, and at worst would be a swing backup.

People didn't even look at Starks last season, but he was restricted then and had that tag.  Yeah, somebody probably will pay the starting LT of the SB winner.

I can't see them getting Smith so cheaply though.  Close to vet min?  Isn't that under $1M per?  Hell, somebody is bound to pay him twice that just to see what he's got left and serve as a backup if nothing else.

With Starks being tagged, we have no idea what teams would have paid, but as you say, he got the world stage this season.  IMO, he'll be in that second tier of OTs, probably go play RT somewhere. 

Yeah, at 10 years, the vet minimum is $845,000.  I'm not suggesting we get him for 3/$2.7M, but I think the league sees him as done due to injuries.  Maybe throw a deal like 3/$4.5M, with maybe $3M salary and $1.5M guaranteed.  If he doesn't like it, let him walk.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
aj_law
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5532
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,970


« Reply #7 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 11:57 »

Man, they go out and win a measely 6th Lombardi and everybody starts having second thoughts about the Gashes.

You guys are gettin' soft.

 B)

Seriously, Starks made 7 million last year and had numerous opportunities to sign a long term deal, but they couldn't come to terms.  He ain't gonna sing for a deal now that pays him anything less than that per; especially after having started at LT down the stretch, through the playoffs and in the SB.  Don't forget that this is his second SB where he was a part of the starting lineup.

Smith, even if viewed as a backup contributor/stopgap veteran fill-in as they groom a rook, will command some good coin.  I just don't see him singing a deal that pays him anywhere near the minimum.  I don't even see him singing a Hartwig like deal that averages a couple million a season which IMO, would still be too much, but I could at least stomach it.  A move like that would essentially equate to him taking a 50% paycut though.  He does that and I'll eat my hat.

Somebody will give Starks a big 5 year deal in the 35 million dollar range.  Somebody will give Smith a 3 year deal in the 12-15 million dollar range.

Those guys are gone and I say, good riddance.  We've been saying that the front five was due for some wholesale changes for years now.  Well, here's your chance, Pittsburgh...
« Last Edit: Feb 10, 2009 at 11:59 by aj_law » Logged

We suck because our drafts have been THE SUCK.
jonzr
Asst. VP, Jonzring
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 11361
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,393


Have a cup o' joe.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:02 »

Yeah, I see what you mean aj, esp re:  Starks.  However, I could live with finny's 3yr/$4.5M contract for Smith.

Just what does this Tony Hills guy have?   Seemed an odd pick considering the injuries he's had.  Is he 100% healthy now?  Hmmm.
Logged

"I like David Bowie, he was always my favorite member of Tin Machine."
- Rodney Anonymous

It's a Steeler Nation
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #9 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:05 »

Just what does this Tony Hills guy have?   Seemed an odd pick considering the injuries he's had.  Is he 100% healthy now?  Hmmm.

Best shape of his career!
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12188
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,189



« Reply #10 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:06 »

Bingo.  Hills is the wild card.

Hell, I'd say Smith, Starks, and Essex are all around the same general worth to us as players.  I'd rather they just pay Essex the low money and shitcan Smith.  At least Essex can play guard as well.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
jonzr
Asst. VP, Jonzring
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 11361
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,393


Have a cup o' joe.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:12 »

Maybe it's time to see what Bruce Arians wants to do.  And then, well, you know.
Logged

"I like David Bowie, he was always my favorite member of Tin Machine."
- Rodney Anonymous

It's a Steeler Nation
DCSteelers
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 553
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,460


WWW
« Reply #12 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:13 »

I guess part of this is the fear of the unknown.

We won the SB with Stapleton at RG.  The Colts won in 2006 w/ Ugoh at LT (protecting Manning's blindside) after Glenn retired after 05'.

A suitable line can be build with a combination of youth and veterans.
Logged
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #13 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:15 »

It is absolutely Marvel's time to go. Actually, last year was. Can Hills play? Sure hope so, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Smith jumped the shark a couple of years ago. DARFTING an OL should be priority 1.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,793



WWW
« Reply #14 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:19 »

I'm with Finny on Marvel as far as the $ is concerned.  Make the offer.  If he gets more somewhere else, let him walk.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #15 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:21 »

I'm with Finny on Marvel as far as the $ is concerned.  Make the offer.  If he gets more somewhere else, let him walk.

Ok. If we can get him on the cheap, then I would be for it as well. I doubt that will happen.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12188
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,189



« Reply #16 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:23 »

I wonder if Hills wouldn't be better suited to LG than OT?  Consider:

LT - Beatty/Britton, Essex
LG - Hills, Simmons/rookie
C - Hartwig, Stapleton
RG - Colon, Simmons/rookie
RT - Parrish/Watkins/rookie, Colon
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Steelerdipwad
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3673
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,656



« Reply #17 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:29 »

I wonder if Hills wouldn't be better suited to LG than OT?  Consider:

LT - Beatty/Britton, Essex
LG - Hills, Simmons/rookie
C - Hartwig, Stapleton
RG - Colon, Simmons/rookie
RT - Parrish/Watkins/rookie, Colon

Hills had so much baby fat on him last year, that's it's impossible to tell what he looks like underneath. He may have the body of a tackle, or a guard. Either way, he did nothing to even hint of any pass blocking skills when I saw him, so I'd like to have a safety net in case he gets cut. But I'm with AJ on this one, jettison them, and look elsewhere.
Logged

"Fanatics are picturesque. Mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reason." - Friederich Nietzsche
aj_law
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5532
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,970


« Reply #18 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 12:30 »

However, I could live with finny's 3yr/$4.5M contract for Smith.

Oh, I could live with that number too...as long as it's in a backup capacity.  I just don't see it happening though.  Essex got a million last year to wear a uniform and carry a helmet on Sundays.  I think it'll be a cold day in hell before Smith accepts a deal anywhere close to that.

Logged

We suck because our drafts have been THE SUCK.
bamf16
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1267
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097


« Reply #19 on: Feb 10, 2009 at 19:50 »

Is now an OK time for me to criticize Colbert and the other decisionmakers regarding our O-line picks in the draft the past couple years?  Wasn't Essex a 3rd round pick?  Wasn't Hills a 3rd round pick?  Am I wrong for expecting third round O-line picks to be starting in year 2 or 3, especially with the weak line this team has?  Kemo I think was round 5 or 6, so maybe a pass there.  Starks I think was a 3rd or 4th.
Logged

No one wants to hear about the labor pains, they just want to see the baby.
--Lou Brock
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,793



WWW
« Reply #20 on: Feb 11, 2009 at 06:35 »

Quote
Is now an OK time for me to criticize Colbert and the other decisionmakers regarding our O-line picks in the draft the past couple years?  Wasn't Essex a 3rd round pick?  Wasn't Hills a 3rd round pick?  Am I wrong for expecting third round O-line picks to be starting in year 2 or 3, especially with the weak line this team has?  Kemo I think was round 5 or 6, so maybe a pass there.  Starks I think was a 3rd or 4th.

Is NOW an OK time???  You're about two years late!!!  But please, criticize away!

Go back to some of Finny's data, and you'll see that our average draft position for Oline is something like lower round 4, and that's over the last 10 years.  We are more than past time to get something done about this.

Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
bamf16
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1267
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097


« Reply #21 on: Feb 11, 2009 at 12:03 »

Tough to criticize a GM after two straight division titles and a Super Bowl Preach...superficiall y, people say we're nuts to do so.  I bet some people in Detroit would break our kneecaps for criticizing a GM with Colbert's record.  I asked if now was ok or if I had to wait until the O-line issues REALLY cost us.

I remember Finny's post, but it dealt more with WHEN we take O-linemen, more so than who we've taken and what they've done.  Let's face it, we hope 6th and 7th rounders develop into sound ST contributors and spot starters when injuries necessitate them seeing time.  If they get cut, no one's going to lose sleep over it.  We expect 3rd rounders to start pretty early.  Not seeing it with Essex and not much good news reported on Hills this year.  If Kemo is a bust, we wasted a 6th round pick.  If Essex and/or Hills bust, we wasted 3rd round picks.  Big difference.
Logged

No one wants to hear about the labor pains, they just want to see the baby.
--Lou Brock
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12188
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,189



« Reply #22 on: Feb 11, 2009 at 12:42 »

Bam, I generally agree.  Colbert has more to commend than damn, and the results bear that out.  Though we, as fans, demand nothing less than excellence because we don't want the last Super Bowl win, but rather greedily, the next.

Yes, my breakdown was of when we took OL: in what year, and in what round.  So the point of that was that we've not invested in OL in any substantial way in the past decade.  IMO, the old draft demarcation (day 1 = R1-3) more clearly identified top talent.  Some case can be made for grabbing the talent that slipped through the cracks at R4.  Beyond that, you're gambling.  We've seemingly gambled better on UDFA talent than, say, R4 and later. 

But, not counting comps, you have 30 "day 1" talent picks available per decade.  Of 22 starters, offense and defense, 5 are OL, or about 22.7% of your starters.  Not that we should apply a formula to who we pick and when, but just applying that same percentage to 30 day 1 picks would say that we would likely have drafted 7 (6.8, actually) OL in R1-3.  Of course, free agents come in to play (Hartings was a big plus), but I would unscientifically argue that we've lost more OL than gained via free agency.

So, our last 10 years actually had 31 R1-3 picks, which would still say we should have invested 7 picks in the OL, which is to say we value the OT exactly as much, say, as a TE, which is a whole other discussion.  In descending order of investment:

1. WR (6; 19.35%) - Troy Edwards (1), Plaxico Burress (1), Antwaan Randle El (2), Willie Reid (3), Santonio Holmes (1), Limas Sweed (2).  With three first rounders and two second rounders, we've invested more heavily in WR than even LB.
1 (tie). LB (6; 19.35%) - Joey Porter (3), Kendrell Bell (2), Alonzo Jackson (2), LaMarr Woodley (2), Lawrence Timmons (1), Bruce Davis (3).  LB rises only of late, with Tomlin's 3 picks.
3. S (4; 12.90%) - Scott Shields (2), Chris Hope (3), Troy Polamalu (1) Anthony Smith (3).
3 (tie). OT (4; 12.90%) - Kris Farris (3), Marvel Smith (2), Max Starks (3), Trai Essex (3).  Mostly third rounders.
5. CB (3; 9.68%) - Hank Poteat (3), Ricardo Colclough (2), Bryant McFadden (2).
6. RB (2; 6.45%) - Amos Zereoue (3), Rashard Mendenhall (1).
6 (tie). TE (2; 6.45%) - Heath Miller (1), Matt Spaeth (3).
6 (tie). NT (2; 6.45%) - Kendrick Clancy (3), Casey Hampton (1).
9. G (1; 3.23%) - Kendall Simmons (1).
9 (tie). QB (1; 3.23%) - Ben Roethlisberger (1).

So, that's 4 OTs and 1 G, or 5 total.  Am I splitting hairs then?  since dumb luck distribution should say that we'd only use 7 top picks?  Well, not if you believe that you build a team through the draft, and you start with the lines.  You can start to parse this further by weighting those rounds, and by subjectively grading out duds.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,793



WWW
« Reply #23 on: Feb 11, 2009 at 12:57 »

Quote
So, that's 4 OTs and 1 G, or 5 total.  Am I splitting hairs then?  since dumb luck distribution should say that we'd only use 7 top picks?  Well, not if you believe that you build a team through the draft, and you start with the lines.  You can start to parse this further by weighting those rounds, and by subjectively grading out duds.

What Finny said. 

I am not criticizing Colbert's overall performance.  He's made good moves and bad ones, good picks and bad picks.  But I am critical of his decisions regarding the particular area of offensive line; and, to some degree, defensive line.

I used to think that OL drafting and free agent selection were not all that important, that you could select any schmuck with size, strength and a little athleticism, then develop that person into a good OL.  Then, I watched what happened when Jamaine Stephens took over for the departed John Jackson.  My views changed.  Dramatically.

I now believe that you build good teams from the inside-out.  From that perspective, Colbert has not done a great job.  We won this year in spite of our OL, not because of them.  And we thankfully got away with a lack of DL depth because Eason improved and we stayed relatively healthy.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
aj_law
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5532
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,970


« Reply #24 on: Feb 11, 2009 at 13:04 »

Damnit, I had a saved post about the direct correlation between their lack of top OL draft picks and the O-line's demise in the last 10 years or so, but I can't friggin' find it.  Think it might be another Invision move victim.

Shit.

Anyway, long and short of it, when this group was considered "elite," they had something like 3 or 4 R1 picks.  No coincidence that as those players aged, retired and/or got cut and they were replaced with band-aid solutions, the quality of the group has deteriorated accordingly.

The Fantastic Five Meandering Meat Curtains.
Logged

We suck because our drafts have been THE SUCK.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12188
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,189



« Reply #25 on: Feb 11, 2009 at 13:33 »

Just for the geek factor, I took all the draft picks from the past 10 years and broke them out by groups, then added up the values of when they were selected (using the standard draft value chart).  By this rendering, Fred Gibson flunking out is only a 41 point gamble lost, and Keisel being a late R7 doesn't cost us anything in terms of real investment.  (I added OLB and ILB together; if you break them out, it's pretty close to an even numerical split.)

Here then is where we've really invested in the past decade; the only argument for this method would be the law of diminishing returns, which would have each year lose some point value (we don't have anyone starting from the '99 class except Aaron Smith).  The counter-argument would be that most players take a year, two years, even three years to come up to any kind of value, so you'd have to weight each year's point total on some utterly subjective Bell curve.  And, ya know, fuck that, I did enough with the value chart thingey.

WR   Pts.
Sweed   370
Baker   0
Reid   120
Gibson   41
Randle El   284
Mays   10.6
Taylor   4.2
Burress   1400
Farmer   88
Edwards   1150
Johnson   25
   3492.8

LB   Pts.
Davis   150
Humpal   16.2
Timmons   1050
Woodley   440
Wallace   25
Adibi   33.5
Jackson   310
Foote   44
Bell   510
Knight   18.6
Haggans   37.5
Porter   225
Kelsay   3.8
   2863.6

S   Pts.
Mundy   13.8
Smith   175
Polamalu   1000
Hope   124
Shields   310
   1622.8

QB   Pts.
Dixon   29
Jacobs   25.8
Roethlisberger   1250
St. Pierre   26.2
Martin   26.2
   1357.2

OT   Pts.
Hills   42
Colon   41
Essex   128
Starks   215
Lacy   20.6
Nkwenti   72
Smith   520
Farris   220
   1258.6

NT/DT   Pts.
Taylor   6.6
Hampton   875
Clancy   230
Dingle   5.8
   1117.4

CB   Pts.
Gay   23.4
McFadden   284
Colclough   520
Taylor   47
Glover   6.6
Poteat   205
   1086

RB/FB   Pts.
Mendenhall   760
Humes   0
Herron   0
Wall   0
Haynes   25
Zereoue   120
   905

TE   Pts.
Spaeth   205
Davis   24.6
Miller   620
Kranchick   0
Gavadza   9.8
Tuman   38
   897.4

OG/C   Pts.
Stephenson   29
Philip   11
Kemoeatu   9.8
Caylor   12.6
Simmons   620
Okobi   33
   715.4

DE   Pts.
McBean   40
Harris   39.5
Nua   0
Keisel   0
Bailey   19
Combs   22.2
Smith   76
   196.7

P/PK   Pts.
Sepulveda   70
Brown    0
   70

We've put a lot into WR, some might argue to compensate for Kordell and Maddox; we've gotten better return on a heavy LB investment.  IOL and DE are obviously hurting, and IMO the importance of OTs cannot be understated.  We've invested more in safeties than tackles, which is great when you have a Polamalu... the rest on that list... well, Hope was OK.  Point being, I think OT has been undervalued.  Not that you compensate purely on some formulation like this, but it shows the lacunae.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1270
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,466



« Reply #26 on: Feb 11, 2009 at 15:02 »

I don't see SH listed with the WR draft picks. Throwing in his 1st round pick would further distance the WR's.
Logged
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12188
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,189



« Reply #27 on: Feb 11, 2009 at 15:16 »

I don't see SH listed with the WR draft picks. Throwing in his 1st round pick would further distance the WR's.

I know I should have saved that Excel...
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,793



WWW
« Reply #28 on: Feb 12, 2009 at 06:48 »

Quote
Keisel being a late R7 doesn't cost us anything in terms of real investment

We got Keisel in round 7???  Da-nang, forgot that.

What a steal.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!