Typical TBD Guy Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 This thread is why I love Two Bills Drive. Such emotion over an undrafted rookie free agent! Although I could do without the strange obsession over the "avian race." Now onto the topic at hand, we have 10 WR's currently on the roster. I expect us to keep 6, with a 7th relegated to the practice squad. Who we keep: 1. Lee Evans - the closest thing we have to a #1 WR, though I'd like to see him improve more on his route-running skills in the middle of the field. 2. Andre' Davis - I seem to be among the few around these parts who is really high on this guy's potential. I think he'll fit in perfectly with the agressive, vertical style of offense the Bills plan on implementing this season. He just needs to stay healthy... 3. Peerless Price - a similar type of receiver as Davis, just slightly smaller but more experienced. Another of this downfield receiver type is needed for the new Rams-style offense. 4. Josh Reed - despite all the hate he receives around here, the fact of the matter is that he's the best blocking WR on this team and one of the few who can actually run some underneath routes worth a damn. For these reasons alone, he makes the team. He is what he is. If he wasn't drafted 36th overall, no one would be complaining so much about his production. 5. Roscoe Parrish - will make the team on return abilities alone. His speed, agility, and unique size will provide for the interesting occasional mismatch on offense (and...<shudders>....gadget play), but for the most part he's a special teamer. 6. Sam Aiken - experienced special team gunner, with the hope that he may still eventually develop into a nice red-zone clutch target. Who we cut: 7. Jonathan Smith - I don't see him as ever being a threat on offense (note to "Fast Freddie" - don't call yourself that if you run a 40-yd dash in the 4.7 range). His only hope is on return duty, but I think Parrish is going to clearly surpass him in this department by August. 8. George Wilson - isn't fast and doesn't play special teams. His only chance is to play the "Chrebet" role, which Reed plays. Reed beat him out last preseason. Expect the same again this preseason. 9. Chris Denney - is tall and has good hands. That's about it. Can't run routes worth schit. Can get downfield about as quickly as Bennie Anderson could. We've already met our quota of 1 subpar Denney (thanks to our Mormon friend on D). Who goes to practice squad: 10. Martin Nance - took me a while, but I finally got to him! Compared to the other WR's I have down as being cut, Nance has the most potential. But all in all, he wasn't drafted for a reason. Some will claim he wasn't drafted because of his small college, the injury history, the poor combine performance, etc... IMO, it had nothing to do with the college or injuries, and very little with the combine performance. I think the scouts looked at the tapes and saw a guy who just didn't perform as well against the better cornerbacks he did face. He tends to be too slow to get off the line of scrimmage (a death wish for an NFL WR), doesn't run the best routes, doesn't increase separation from the DB's very well, and certainly isn't "fast" by NFL WR standards. I won't take the absolutist position our good friend LaDairis has taken; many of Nance's problems have more to do with inexperience, inattention to detail, and maybe poor college coaching than with a lack of raw physical talent. But just going by the statistical odds, guys like Nance aren't given as much time to learn on the job as are day 1 draft picks. His success depends largely on his ability to pick up the nuances of football in a short amount of time (unless Levauron is unusually patient by NFL standards).
Commander Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 I'm a little late to this thread, but just wanted to say I love the separation Nance was getting during mini-camp.
LaDairis Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 "IMO, it had nothing to do with the college or injuries, and very little with the combine performance. I think the scouts looked at the tapes and saw a guy who just didn't perform as well against the better cornerbacks he did face" Translation: I've never seen him play a down, but... "Nance has the most potential" Translation: Because I have no clue WTF I'm talking about, I'll equate height to potential... "George Wilson - isn't fast and doesn't play special teams" LOL!!! Not that I'm suggesting that Wilson will ever be more than a good #4 WR and gunner/STs guy, but to say "he doesn't play special teams" is to confuse "Wilson appeared in two games and was credited with one ST tackle" with whatever just farted out of the bunghole. http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/493743/gamelogs/2005 http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20050911_HOU@BUF That's game one... and Wilson gets credited with a solo tackle on the Second Half kickoff... In fact, Wilson had three ST tackles in preseason as well, not including one in the opener called back by penalty... http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20050813_BUF@IND 9-R.Lindell kicks 65 yards from BUF 30 to IND 5. 33-D.Rhodes to IND 18 for 13 yards (15-G.Wilson). PENALTY on BUF-29-E.King, Offside on Free Kick, 5 yards, enforced at BUF 30 - No Play. 9-R.Lindell kicks onside 13 yards from BUF 25 to BUF 38. 59-C.June to BUF 33 for 5 yards (15-G.Wilson). PENALTY on BUF-91-C.Ritzmann, Offside on Free Kick, 5 yards, enforced between downs. Wilson did some gunner as a Razorback as well, as was good at it. And hence some retard who posts that "Wilson doesn't play Special Teams" is a what?? LOL!!! Yeah...
Typical TBD Guy Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 "IMO, it had nothing to do with the college or injuries, and very little with the combine performance. I think the scouts looked at the tapes and saw a guy who just didn't perform as well against the better cornerbacks he did face" Translation: I've never seen him play a down, but... "Nance has the most potential" Translation: Because I have no clue WTF I'm talking about, I'll equate height to potential... "George Wilson - isn't fast and doesn't play special teams" LOL!!! Not that I'm suggesting that Wilson will ever be more than a good #4 WR and gunner/STs guy, but to say "he doesn't play special teams" is to confuse "Wilson appeared in two games and was credited with one ST tackle" with whatever just farted out of the bunghole. http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/493743/gamelogs/2005 http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20050911_HOU@BUF That's game one... and Wilson gets credited with a solo tackle on the Second Half kickoff... In fact, Wilson had three ST tackles in preseason as well, not including one in the opener called back by penalty... http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20050813_BUF@IND 9-R.Lindell kicks 65 yards from BUF 30 to IND 5. 33-D.Rhodes to IND 18 for 13 yards (15-G.Wilson). PENALTY on BUF-29-E.King, Offside on Free Kick, 5 yards, enforced at BUF 30 - No Play. 9-R.Lindell kicks onside 13 yards from BUF 25 to BUF 38. 59-C.June to BUF 33 for 5 yards (15-G.Wilson). PENALTY on BUF-91-C.Ritzmann, Offside on Free Kick, 5 yards, enforced between downs. Wilson did some gunner as a Razorback as well, as was good at it. And hence some retard who posts that "Wilson doesn't play Special Teams" is a what?? LOL!!! Yeah... 710203[/snapback] Awesome! Another internet tough guy! Regarding Nance, nowhere in my post did I equate "potential" with "height." I said he had the most potential compared to Denney, Wilson, and Smith, and I'm basing that opinion on much more than height alone. Denney is just as tall, so why didn't I rate him as high as Nance? And yes, I've seen Nance play. A few of my relatives are big Steeler fans, and so I've seen some college ball tapes of Ben R. (w/Nance) with them around the time Ben was drafted. Maybe I'm not the expert you are on him... As for Wilson, every rookie in the NFL plays special teams during the preseason. And every college player has played special teams in college. And most backup WR's get assigned to special teams play...doesn't prove anything, and it doesn't mean they're particularly good at it. Wilson obviously wasn't good enough at it to demand a roster spot for the full 2005 season. And that's my point. Aiken and Parrish (and maybe Smith) can secure roster spots on special teams play alone; Wilson can't, going by last year's play. PS: Keep this abrasive schit going. I'm enjoying your meltdown and soon-to-follow boot from the board...
LaDairis Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 "And yes, I've seen Nance play. A few of my relatives are big Steeler fans, and so I've seen some college ball tapes of Ben R. (w/Nance) with them around the time Ben was drafted" Sure... and Worf beamed over with them into your living room... "As for Wilson, every rookie in the NFL plays special teams during the preseason" LOL!! Did Losman? Did Willis? "And every college player has played special teams in college." More likely, every time you open your trap, another load of @#@@ comes out... "And most backup WR's get assigned to special teams play...doesn't prove anything" The fact that he played STs proves just that. The fact that Wilson is actually good at running down the field, either as a gunner or KR cover guy, and makes solo tackles on a regular basis is a bit more than "he was just out there." Sam Aiken is perhaps a better ST guy, but Wilson is hardly ineffective as a cover guy, something anyone who has paid the slightest attention to George knows... which clearly excludes you... "Wilson obviously wasn't good enough at it to demand a roster spot for the full 2005 season" It is a certifiable fact that Wilson did stay on the Roster the entire year - another one out your rear... "And that's my point" Translation: BAWK, in fact a factless coach knows best BAWK... "Regarding Nance, nowhere in my post did I equate "potential" with "height." " LOL!!! It is absolutely incredible to believe that, given the factless dribble out of your parroting pie hole so far, that you don't think that...
Matt in KC Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/493743/gamelogs/2005http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20050911_HOU@BUF That's game one... and Wilson gets credited with a solo tackle on the Second Half kickoff... In fact, Wilson had three ST tackles in preseason as well, not including one in the opener called back by penalty... http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20050813_BUF@IND 9-R.Lindell kicks 65 yards from BUF 30 to IND 5. 33-D.Rhodes to IND 18 for 13 yards (15-G.Wilson). PENALTY on BUF-29-E.King, Offside on Free Kick, 5 yards, enforced at BUF 30 - No Play. 9-R.Lindell kicks onside 13 yards from BUF 25 to BUF 38. 59-C.June to BUF 33 for 5 yards (15-G.Wilson). PENALTY on BUF-91-C.Ritzmann, Offside on Free Kick, 5 yards, enforced between downs. Wilson did some gunner as a Razorback as well, as was good at it. And hence some retard who posts that "Wilson doesn't play Special Teams" is a what?? LOL!!! Yeah... 710203[/snapback] LaDairis Today, 01:42 PM Post #183 Rookie Group: Members Posts: 204 Joined: 1-May 05 Member No.: 6,151 When was George Wilson signed? April 2005? I've liked Wilson the few times I've seen him. In trying to look up when he was signed, I stumbled accross these quotes I hadn't seen before. It says they're from the Bills iste, but I didn't see them there.... must have missed them: http://www.profantasysports.com/reports/in...r&value=1052213 According to the Bills team website, "George Wilson was on the receiving end of two of them, one each from Losman and Nall. He ran a nice route and got just enough separation from the defender on his first one. On his second score he took advantage of a mismatch with a linebacker covering him. Wilson, who spends a ton of time in Buffalo in the offseason, sees the hard work he puts in paying dividends. "I've spent a lot of time with all three quarterbacks here this offseason," said Wilson. "I've tried to make a point to be around here every day to build that chemistry and continuity because we're in a new system with new routes. So to build that rapport again it's like starting over with a new scheme. So I'm putting the time in with the quarterbacks." Insight: The Arkansas product is excited about how offensive coordinator Steve Fairchild's system is designed. "I love the system," said Wilson. "It's wide receiver friendly. We can attack multiple coverages on any different pass play that's called. I now know why the receivers in St. Louis have been so successful in this system. There are going to be a lot of open guys."
Ramius Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 "IMO, it had nothing to do with the college or injuries, and very little with the combine performance. I think the scouts looked at the tapes and saw a guy who just didn't perform as well against the better cornerbacks he did face" Translation: I've never seen him play a down, but... "Nance has the most potential" Translation: Because I have no clue WTF I'm talking about, I'll equate height to potential... "George Wilson - isn't fast and doesn't play special teams" LOL!!! Not that I'm suggesting that Wilson will ever be more than a good #4 WR and gunner/STs guy, but to say "he doesn't play special teams" is to confuse "Wilson appeared in two games and was credited with one ST tackle" with whatever just farted out of the bunghole. http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/493743/gamelogs/2005 http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20050911_HOU@BUF That's game one... and Wilson gets credited with a solo tackle on the Second Half kickoff... In fact, Wilson had three ST tackles in preseason as well, not including one in the opener called back by penalty... http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20050813_BUF@IND 9-R.Lindell kicks 65 yards from BUF 30 to IND 5. 33-D.Rhodes to IND 18 for 13 yards (15-G.Wilson). PENALTY on BUF-29-E.King, Offside on Free Kick, 5 yards, enforced at BUF 30 - No Play. 9-R.Lindell kicks onside 13 yards from BUF 25 to BUF 38. 59-C.June to BUF 33 for 5 yards (15-G.Wilson). PENALTY on BUF-91-C.Ritzmann, Offside on Free Kick, 5 yards, enforced between downs. Wilson did some gunner as a Razorback as well, as was good at it. And hence some retard who posts that "Wilson doesn't play Special Teams" is a what?? LOL!!! Yeah... 710203[/snapback] BAWK! BAWK! keep parroting stats there.
EC-Bills Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 ... 710222[/snapback] For a second there, I thought the link said www.profanityfootball... And then to read that Wilson was on the receiving end of two of them from Losman and Nall
Typical TBD Guy Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 "And yes, I've seen Nance play. A few of my relatives are big Steeler fans, and so I've seen some college ball tapes of Ben R. (w/Nance) with them around the time Ben was drafted" Sure... and Worf beamed over with them into your living room... "As for Wilson, every rookie in the NFL plays special teams during the preseason" LOL!! Did Losman? Did Willis? "And every college player has played special teams in college." More likely, every time you open your trap, another load of @#@@ comes out... "And most backup WR's get assigned to special teams play...doesn't prove anything" The fact that he played STs proves just that. The fact that Wilson is actually good at running down the field, either as a gunner or KR cover guy, and makes solo tackles on a regular basis is a bit more than "he was just out there." Sam Aiken is perhaps a better ST guy, but Wilson is hardly ineffective as a cover guy, something anyone who has paid the slightest attention to George knows... which clearly excludes you... "Wilson obviously wasn't good enough at it to demand a roster spot for the full 2005 season" It is a certifiable fact that Wilson did stay on the Roster the entire year - another one out your rear... "And that's my point" Translation: BAWK, in fact a factless coach knows best BAWK... "Regarding Nance, nowhere in my post did I equate "potential" with "height." " LOL!!! It is absolutely incredible to believe that, given the factless dribble out of your parroting pie hole so far, that you don't think that... 710218[/snapback] Stop being a dick. You know what I meant when I said "all rookies play special teams." And yes, Wilson was on the roster all year...but why was he inactive for virtually the entire time? Could it be that he's not as good as you claim him to be? Is he perhaps not the ST guru April cannot live without? And your insinuation that I've lied about my Steeler fan relatives.... . Not only do you claim to know everything about obscure college WR's, you claim to know my family too! Wow, you're a diligent amateur scout! You not only scout the players in your free time, but you attempt to scout the families of the fans of the players! Kudos! Honestly, I don't know what your deal is. Did Nance play with your private parts when you were little? Did your pet parrot not call for help, but just sat and stared as you were repeatedly violated by Nance? Is this why you hate parrots so much? Did George Wilson run off to try and get help for you, and this is why you love Mr. Wilson so much? Too bad for you, Wilson - like he is today - was too slow to flag down the nearby police car, and too short so they wouldn't have seen him anyway. Your childhood trauma aside, here's what I predicted for our WR corps: Evans, Davis, Price, Reed, Parrish, Aiken make the team Nance makes the PS Wilson, Denney, Smith cut Just curious, what of the above don't you agree with?
LaDairis Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 "And yes, Wilson, was on the roster all year...but why was he inactive for virtually the entire offseason?" Why was Bennie starting the entire season? Oh, yeah... Coach knows best !! Got it... "Could it be that he's not as good as you claim him to be? Is he perhaps not the ST guru April cannot live without?" I have made two claims about Wilson. The first is that he is a good ST/4th WR prospect and nothing more. The second is that he is superior to Martin Nance in every aspect except height. Since I think Nance is pretty much worthless, that must mean I think Wilson is Pro Bowl material, right? Wilson may be a better WR than Aiken, but since Aiken is world class at STs, he got active duty and George did not. None of that is relevant to the factually inaccurate claim you made that Wilson "doesn't play ST." Rather, Wilson doesn't play STs as well as Aiken, who is pretty good at STs and may be the Bills' best STer. Wilson is a darn good STer and to say otherwise is to fib... "I don't know what your deal is" I don't like liars. I don't like parrots. I don't like being asked to document the drops I saw Nance make as a Redskinhawk. I don't like it when a clueless parroting moron insults a good kid like George Wilson with a factually challenged insult... And I don't even dispute your roster projection. Nance may indeed go to the PS and Wilson, since he's a two year vet, goes completely. That, by itself, won't prove much. The old regime valued ST play and hence kept both Aiken and Wilson. Every team needs that outside cover guy, either the gunner or wide on kickoffs, to go down and make the tackle. Wilson is very good at that. Aiken is better. Nance is useless...
Typical TBD Guy Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 I don't like it when a clueless parroting moron insults a good kid like George Wilson with a factually challenged insult... 710235[/snapback] What a strange system of morals you have. So no one should insult George Wilson (by "insult" I assume criticize football ability since I don't think anyone here has attacked his character, personality, intelligence, etc...). However, Martin Nance is more than fair game, as is every other member of this message board . The scary thing is, that by calling Wilson "kid," we can all assume you're an adult? Because I've never heard a teenager or younger person call an older adult a "kid." LaDairis an adult...!@#$ing scary. With your personality and communication skills, you must be perenially unemployed. And single, because I can't imagine any woman putting up with your schit.
Mikie2times Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 And single, because I can't imagine any woman putting up with your schit. 710247[/snapback] I bet he has no problem opening up a pickle jar
Ramius Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 What a strange system of morals you have. So no one should insult George Wilson (by "insult" I assume criticize football ability since I don't think anyone here has attacked his character, personality, intelligence, etc...). However, Martin Nance is more than fair game, as is every other member of this message board . The scary thing is, that by calling Wilson "kid," we can all assume you're an adult? Because I've never heard a teenager or younger person call an older adult a "kid." LaDairis an adult...!@#$ing scary. With your personality and communication skills, you must be perenially unemployed. And single, because I can't imagine any woman putting up with your schit. 710247[/snapback] what also disturbs me is how he claims that the majority of NFL coaches and GM's are "clueless morons" because of some bust draft picks, and that LaDumbass knows best. Why isnt he a big time NFL talent evaluator? Also, in contradiction to himself, these same "clueless morons" didnt draft Nance, so all of a sudden these personnel guys are geniuses? I'm confused. So when they agree with ladumbass, coaches are posters are correct and brilliant, but when they dont agree with him, they are idiots and "parrots" WTF? And i sincerely hope he's a 13 year posting, because if thats an adult posting that gibberish, someone has some serious mental issues.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 There is one thing in all this nonsense that hasn't been brought up that probably deserves to be. I have never seen George Wilson play much so I have little to say about his talent or lack thereof as an NFL player or prospect. But one thing seems certain to me, the previous coaches and front office guys REALLY must have seen something significant in him because we kept SEVEN WRs last year. Six is a lot. Seven is unheardof. The 7th guy, who they refused to release for fear of losing him (there is NO other possible reason for it) was George Wilson. On a team they thought was going to be in the playoffs, keeping George Wilson as the #7 WR in a valuable roster spot almost says more about him than the #5 they kept, Sam Aiken, or the #6 they kept, Jonathan Smith because of their previous ST's abilities. Every year there are a few or several players that coaches want to keep but they simply don't have roster spots available for them, but they cut them nonetheless in the "numbers game". Keeping a 7th WR they knew was not going to be dressed says a lot about Wilson. Parrish being hurt early in the season, and not realizing how long it was going to take to get him back in the lineup could have explained the #6, or even the #7 for a few weeks. But they kept Wilson even after Parrish returned. Without saying a lot, it said a lot about the talent or potential of Wilson.
Dan Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 There is one thing in all this nonsense that hasn't been brought up that probably deserves to be. I have never seen George Wilson play much so I have little to say about his talent or lack thereof as an NFL player or prospect. But one thing seems certain to me, the previous coaches and front office guys REALLY must have seen something significant in him because we kept SEVEN WRs last year. Six is a lot. Seven is unheardof. The 7th guy, who they refused to release for fear of losing him (there is NO other possible reason for it) was George Wilson. On a team they thought was going to be in the playoffs, keeping George Wilson as the #7 WR in a valuable roster spot almost says more about him than the #5 they kept, Sam Aiken, or the #6 they kept, Jonathan Smith because of their previous ST's abilities. Every year there are a few or several players that coaches want to keep but they simply don't have roster spots available for them, but they cut them nonetheless in the "numbers game". Keeping a 7th WR they knew was not going to be dressed says a lot about Wilson. Parrish being hurt early in the season, and not realizing how long it was going to take to get him back in the lineup could have explained the #6, or even the #7 for a few weeks. But they kept Wilson even after Parrish returned. Without saying a lot, it said a lot about the talent or potential of Wilson. 710253[/snapback] Or is says alot about the inadequecies of our previous coaching staff.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 Or is says alot about the inadequecies of our previous coaching staff. 710256[/snapback] Possible. Still, Tyke Tolbert seems to be a good evaluator of talent. Mularkey may have lost the team and called stupid plays but he is a good offensive football mind. I just always thought it was insane to keep Wilson as a #7 WR last year and always wondered what that guy did to make them do that. It must have been something.
Commander Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/09/31/48/image_1848319.jpg www.fanball.com/buzz/article.cfm?id=5202 Martin Nance is THE MAN! Just ask Ben Rothlisberger (or Mark May in the attached article). He will be a Pro Bowler in the future. Aiken and Wilson will be selling insurance.
Dan Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 Possible. Still, Tyke Tolbert seems to be a good evaluator of talent. Mularkey may have lost the team and called stupid plays but he is a good offensive football mind. I just always thought it was insane to keep Wilson as a #7 WR last year and always wondered what that guy did to make them do that. It must have been something. 710260[/snapback] I agree completely. I was surprised that we retained 7 wr's as well. Especially, given that I thought we were "supposed" to be a ball control, run-oriented offense. So, I tend to agree, it seems fair to assume Wilson must have something we haven't seen. Otherwise, my previously flippant comment may not be completely off the mark. Either way, though, I completely agree with KH's post - we keep 6 WR's this year on the active roster and Wilson doesn't quite make the cut. At the risk of being called a parrot (although I've been called a parrot head before and was quite proud of it), I'll admit that I am biased, of course, against Wilson; because I can't say that I've seen him play much.
Typical TBD Guy Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 Or is says alot about the inadequecies of our previous coaching staff. 710256[/snapback] Or it simply testifies to the lack of depth we had at other positions last season. The Parrish injury situation was a factor, but maybe Wilson was just the best of the marginal talent left competing for a roster spot? I guess Wilson as a 7th WR was much better than whomever was competing for the 4th DE spot? PS: Nice to see a good thread move back towards civility. In the future, when someone's facts are incorrect, correct them and move on. Don't have a mental breakdown over it. This is directed primarily towards my new internet pal, LaDairis, in case he hasn't yet been banned.
Dibs Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 PS: Nice to see a good thread move back towards civility. In the future, when someone's facts are incorrect, correct them and move on. Don't have a mental breakdown over it. This is directed primarily towards my new internet pal, LaDairis, in case he hasn't yet been banned. 710320[/snapback] Just to add to that point... We all make generalizations(like that one I just made). If every generalization was picked up on & argued over, discussions would never get anywhere. Basically I implore people(LaDairis) to not just argue semantics to simply divert the issue away from a good point. This is what politicians do. My only advice to people when this happens is to stay focused & re-iterate the point until it is properly acknowledged or simply don't respond. I am genuinely interested in what most here have to say....I'm getting a bit sick of not being allowed to hear it due to 'distractions'.
Recommended Posts