Jump to content

Kyle Smith


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, ripsean21 said:

I just can’t see Them making a McVay level mistake again if they do they will waist the build hes been the one constant for!!! He’s got the stones to take the Gibson and Terry’s who other teams weren’t as high on. I’d give this guy not only the Brinks truck but he’d pretty much get the Mahomes like deal for a FO executive because he and his staff are clearly in sync and they are showing that Reguardless of popular opinion in the initial moment they have a plan that is clearly backed by the coaches and the coaches are making the most of his additions. This is what good teams do and it There’s no way I think Snyder much less Ron would even allow this guy to take a interview!!!

Snyder has already made the same mistake he made with McVay. Snyder/Allen didn’t fire Gruden & promote McVay in 2017 when he could have bc Snyder didn’t have a clue or Bruce Allen of McVay’s potential & Jay’s limitations as a HC.

Snyder gave Rivera total control over the football side of the organization and didn’t give Kyle Smith that control last January/February bc he doesn’t realize Kyle Smith’s potential as a GM in the league.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that Kyle had stones in suggesting Bruce Allen/Rivera take Gibby or Terry in the 3rd round, both players fell to round 3 and it made sense to draft them there. They both should’ve gone higher, we’re lucky they fell to round 3 and they were great selections by Kyle/Allen/Gruden/Rivera etc but I wouldn’t say they took chances in drafting either in the 3rd round. That’s like giving credit to the Patriots/Belicheck for taking Tom Brady in round 6 when the truth is they are just lucky he fell that far and if they thought anything about Brady as a prospect in 1999 they would’ve taken him in the first 5 rounds rather than waiting till round 6. They don’t get credit for that, they were just lucky he fell that far.

 

Edited by turtle28
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ripsean21 said:

I just can’t see Them making a McVay level mistake again if they do they will waist the build hes been the one constant for!!! He’s got the stones to take the Gibson and Terry’s who other teams weren’t as high on. I’d give this guy not only the Brinks truck but he’d pretty much get the Mahomes like deal for a FO executive because he and his staff are clearly in sync and they are showing that Reguardless of popular opinion in the initial moment they have a plan that is clearly backed by the coaches and the coaches are making the most of his additions. This is what good teams do and it There’s no way I think Snyder much less Ron would even allow this guy to take a interview!!!

I think the Haskins situation made it pretty clear that Rivera has full control.  If he wants to bring in someone else, I don't expect Snyder to stop him.  But this is one of those situations where I sure hope Snyder at least pushes Rivera to consider keeping Kyle.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Snyder has already made the same mistake he made with McVay. Snyder/Allen didn’t fire Gruden & promote McVay in 2017 when he could have bc Snyder didn’t have a clue or Bruce Allen of McVay’s potential & Jay’s limitations as a HC.

Snyder gave Rivera total control over the football side of the organization and didn’t give Kyle Smith that control last January/February bc he doesn’t realize Kyle Smith’s potential as a GM in the league.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that Kyle had stones in suggesting Bruce Allen/Rivera take Gibby or Terry in the 3rd round, both players fell to round 3 and it made sense to draft them there. They both should’ve gone higher, we’re lucky they fell to round 3 and they were great selections by Kyle/Allen/Gruden/Rivera etc but I wouldn’t say they took chances in drafting either in the 3rd round. That’s like giving credit to the Patriots/Belicheck for taking Tom Brady in round 6 when the truth is they are just lucky he fell that far and if they thought anything about Brady as a prospect in 1999 they would’ve taken him in the first 5 rounds rather than waiting till round 6. They don’t get credit for that, they were just lucky he fell that far.

 

I will say this in defense (I guess?) of the narrative you presented.  Yes, he gave Rivera some form of control over things beyond the football field.  Snyder gave it to Rivera over Rick Smith, opting to go with what he calls a "head coach" centered approach.  

I've argued quite a few times that the "head coach" approach that most people cite aren't really "head coach" centered approaches.  The only one with sustained success in that role is Belichick.  A lot of people consider the Seahawks and Chiefs to be head coach centered organizations, when they've really blended the two.  In Seattle, both Carroll and Schneider were hired within a month of each other, and Schneider has the GM title, as well as EVP title. In Kansas City, Hunt gave Reid the power of football control, but he ceded it a week later when Reid hired John Dorsey as GM with full control over personnel, a role that Brett Veach has continued with.  

So the million dollar question here is whether or not Rivera can swallow his pride and give up that control and make things work with Kyle Smith.  From the far-reaching power that Rivera has accumulated, including things in the non-football realm, that is not a bet I am willing to take right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@naptownskinsfan I think that Rivera sees the value in Kyle Smith and keeping him around for as long as as Rivera is our HC. They worked together well last offseason IMO, at least it seemed that way and we’ve had FAs who’ve been good as well as draft picks so I’d say it worked for one offseason and they’ve both said good things about each other.

Its definitely a question if that will continue moving forward long term. I think Rivera sees the value in Kyle but, Rivera knows he has final say and total control over football decisions.

So, to me the question becomes this offseason or one in the future if Kyle is offered to have total control of football operations for another franchise. If that happens - which I think it will eventually - then, that’s where I see Kyle leaving. I don’t see Rivera firing him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, turtle28 said:

@naptownskinsfan I think that Rivera sees the value in Kyle Smith and keeping him around for as long as as Rivera is our HC. They worked together well last offseason IMO, at least it seemed that way and we’ve had FAs who’ve been good as well as draft picks so I’d say it worked for one offseason and they’ve both said good things about each other.

Its definitely a question if that will continue moving forward long term. I think Rivera sees the value in Kyle but, Rivera knows he has final say and total control over football decisions.

So, to me the question becomes this offseason or one in the future if Kyle is offered to have total control of football operations for another franchise. If that happens - which I think it will eventually - then, that’s where I see Kyle leaving. I don’t see Rivera firing him.

So you don't foresee Rivera checking his ego like Andy Reid did and offering control over to Kyle Smith?  Or a situation like Seattle occurring where both work out their realms of control and report equally to ownership? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

So you don't foresee Rivera checking his ego like Andy Reid did and offering control over to Kyle Smith?  Or a situation like Seattle occurring where both work out their realms of control and report equally to ownership? 

I think it will remain as is. Rivera will allow Kyle to do his scouting work for the draft and Rivera will take that into account using Kyle’s big board and taking into consideration Kyle’s scouting departments evaluation of players. 
 

I think Rivera will report to Snyder. 
 

I don’t see Kyle being allowed to go over Rivera to report to ownership and I don’t see Rivera taking a step back like Reid did and offering control over to Kyle.

That's why if Kyle ever gets offered a GM job by another franchise where he’s allowed to have total control, hire his own HC, build his own roster through the draft and free agency with final say, I think he’s out of here bc I don’t think for as long as Rivera is here that Snyder/Rivera will give Kyle that kind of control in the next 5-10 years.

The best we can hope for in order to keep Kyle long term is for no other team to offer him full control but, if we start becoming a contender to win the division every year and playoff games then eventually Kyle is going to get GM consideration from another team if he doesn’t already get it this offseason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, taylor made said:

Well with this organization it is hard to say who gets credit for what. I do believe he doesn't have that much control with Rivera in town. Yes, let's give him credit for the Montez Sweat & trade because that is looking like a great selection. But then he gets a pass because Dan Snyder selected Haskins? Did he have no input on that? Who knows. Let's just sweep Derrius Guice and Ryan Anderson under the rug? My point being, it is just hard to evaluate draft classes with the team-centric approach with Gruden/Bruce Allen/Rivera post McCloughan.  He's just so held highly regarded among fans, my reaction when I first hear Kyle being interviewed was "This guy... really?" Kyle strikes me as the super-fan frat bro in my fantasy football league. He's doing a decent job, but I just think its funny a lot of fans think he is the savior of the team while he's been here the last 3 years and we've showed little promise.

You raise some interesting points here. 

Ryan Anderson was a failed pick, for sure. That was an odd draft, because it came a few months after McCloughan got canned. There was always talk about that draft running on McCloughan’s board, and I have to say the Ryan Anderson pick reeks of some sort of Bruce/Scotty Mac combo. Terrible physical profile, no upside at all, but a “football player’s football player” from the big school they’d just drafted their star DE out of. 

For me, I’m treating 2018 and on as the period when Smith was really in charge of the board.

It’s been pretty good since then. Looks like 3 hits in the 1st round out of 4 picks, and obviously we all have our doubts about how the 4th one got chosen.

Day 2 has probably somehow been the weakest spot, with Guice and Christian looking like washouts, though on pure talent, I still think Guice was a star. And the other day 2 picks? Two borderline ROY candidates in Gibson and McLaurin, who is probably the best draft pick we’ve made in decades. 

And then you’ve got day 3, where they’ve come up with a really surprising amount of talent during that span. Tim Settle, Cole Holcomb, Kelvin Harmon, Jimmy Moreland, and Kamren Curl is a lot of contribution in 3 years, and that’s not even taking into account the three talented 4th rounders who basically haven’t gotten on the field yet due to injury. Holding out hope that one or two of those guys could be a contributor before it’s all said and done. 

I think they’ve brought in a lot of good talent under his watch. As with everything in this sport, the amount of success they eventually achieve will hinge almost entirely on hitting on the QB position. But if they continue bringing in a couple front-line starters in each draft, they’re going to put themselves in a helluva position to succeed if they do get The Guy™️ into the building. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2020 at 8:13 PM, turtle28 said:

 

On 12/11/2020 at 9:05 PM, RSkinGM said:

Also, Lucas and Schweitzer and Darby . Great F A class for the expenditure ! .

I have to push back a little bit on the overall concept here. No knock on their talent evaluation, as they did a surprisingly good job at bringing in under-the-radar contributors. But it was just such a low-ceiling approach to FA — where’s the upside, where’s the long-term impact?

I say low-ceiling in two respects. First, obviously, because they went for sort of a “quantity over quality” approach, they ended up with a lot of guys who had a reason best-case outcome of “decent starter.” A lot of those guys hit that best-case outcome — which is to their credit, and that’s made the team better this season. But if we’re going to be competing at the highest level, we’re going to have to do better than “decent starter” at a lot of these positions, so a lot of these guys will inevitably have to be upgraded and replaced. 

The second reason is that they were very conservative with the contracts they gave these guys. Fuller got 4 years, Schweitzer of all people got 3 years, and everybody else got a short term deal. That frustrated me at the time, and it still does. If you think you have a good read on the value of someone like Logan Thomas or JD McKissic or (the one that really gets under my skin) Ronald Darby, believe in your scout! Take a chance and bet on your belief, because if you’re right, you want a nice payoff. They clearly nailed the Darby call — and what do they get for it? One good season, followed by the opportunity to try to keep him for FA market value in March. Same with a lot of these guys.

So I guess where I’m at is sorta torn into two minds. On one hand, I’m very impressed with the amount of contribution they’re getting from a pretty low-cost FA class. They proved a lot of people wrong, to some degree at least, myself included. But on the other hand, I just keep wondering where the long-term impact is here. Which of these guys will still be here as a key piece in 2022 when our window will hopefully be wide open? Fuller, for sure, but I’m not sure about anybody else. And if they are still around, it’ll be on another (bigger) contract.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, e16bball said:

I have to push back a little bit on the overall concept here. No knock on their talent evaluation, as they did a surprisingly good job at bringing in under-the-radar contributors. But it was just such a low-ceiling approach to FA — where’s the upside, where’s the long-term impact?

I say low-ceiling in two respects. First, obviously, because they went for sort of a “quantity over quality” approach, they ended up with a lot of guys who had a reason best-case outcome of “decent starter.” A lot of those guys hit that best-case outcome — which is to their credit, and that’s made the team better this season. But if we’re going to be competing at the highest level, we’re going to have to do better than “decent starter” at a lot of these positions, so a lot of these guys will inevitably have to be upgraded and replaced. 

The second reason is that they were very conservative with the contracts they gave these guys. Fuller got 4 years, Schweitzer of all people got 3 years, and everybody else got a short term deal. That frustrated me at the time, and it still does. If you think you have a good read on the value of someone like Logan Thomas or JD McKissic or (the one that really gets under my skin) Ronald Darby, believe in your scout! Take a chance and bet on your belief, because if you’re right, you want a nice payoff. They clearly nailed the Darby call — and what do they get for it? One good season, followed by the opportunity to try to keep him for FA market value in March. Same with a lot of these guys.

So I guess where I’m at is sorta torn into two minds. On one hand, I’m very impressed with the amount of contribution they’re getting from a pretty low-cost FA class. They proved a lot of people wrong, to some degree at least, myself included. But on the other hand, I just keep wondering where the long-term impact is here. Which of these guys will still be here as a key piece in 2022 when our window will hopefully be wide open? Fuller, for sure, but I’m not sure about anybody else. And if they are still around, it’ll be on another (bigger) contract.

Yet, we’ve won 3 in a row, are w/in 8 points of winning 5 game games in a row, and are coming off just beating the last undefeated team left in the NFL. 
 

Seems like we’re competing at the highest level to me and a lot of that has to do with development & progression of our own drafted/UDFA players, nit just these few FAs.
 

I think Darby, Logan Thomas, McKissic & Scherweitzer could be around in 2022 and of course Fuller. The only of those 4 who’d be over 30 in 2022 is Thomas and given the shape he’s in and this is the only season he’s taken a starters beating on his body, I consider him a young 29. When he’s 32 I don’t see it being the same as when Chris Cooley was 32 for example as Thomas hasn’t had the same beating on his body as Cooley had in his early 20s.
 

It made sense to sign Darby to a “one-year prove it contract” and, he probably was looking to sign a one- year prove it contract as well so this year he could get a bigger long term deal if he had a season like what had this year.

On top of that 3 years from now in 2022 I would hope that Saadiq Charles is our answer at LT or LG, we’ve found another long term answer at the other position and we drafted a long term answer at TE. So, I’m not really that concerned about if Thomas is our starter in 2022 - in fact I hope he’s not and someone under 25 is. I think whenever McKissic is gone they can find a replacement in the draft or FA for that role rather easily as they have in succession w/ CT & now McKissic and we may already have that guy as Gibson looks  like a CP type, a 3 down back.

I had absolutely no problem with the Scherweitzer contract, from the moment he was signed I said it was a good signing as he is a solid serviceable interior OL who can play all those positions and has played some RT as well. I also was on board with the Lucas signing as a good one and well yeah, McKissic too as the perfect replacement for the CT role. I’m totally shocked by Thomas, but not shocked that any of the others have done what they’ve done.

Edited by turtle28
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Yet, we’ve won 3 in a row, are w/in 8 points of winning 5 game games in a row, and are coming off just beating the last undefeated team left in the NFL. 
 

Seems like we’re competing at the highest level to me and a lot of that has to do with development & progression of our own drafted/UDFA players, nit just these few FAs.

Ah okay, sorry, that must be my mistake. I was thinking there might be a higher level a team could aspire to than 5-7, with a 40% chance to win the worst division in NFL history, and consensus underdogs against a reeling 5-7 SF team playing a “home game” out of state. I was thinking there might be some teams out there competing at a “Super Bowl contender” type of level.

But since we’ve already arrived at the highest level, might as well just stick with what we got. We’ll surely just keep striking gold (well, more like bronze, maybe) on day 3 picks, UDFAs, and bottom-tier FAs. 

3 hours ago, turtle28 said:

I think Darby, Logan Thomas, McKissic & Scherweitzer could be around in 2022 and of course Fuller. The only of those 4 who’d be over 30 in 2022 is Thomas and given the shape he’s in and this is the only season he’s taken a starters beating on his body, I consider him a young 29. When he’s 32 I don’t see it being the same as when Chris Cooley was 32 for example as Thomas hasn’t had the same beating on his body as Cooley had in his early 20s.
 

It made sense to sign Darby to a “one-year prove it contract” and, he probably was looking to sign a one- year prove it contract as well so this year he could get a bigger long term deal if he had a season like what had this year.

On top of that 3 years from now in 2022 I would hope that Saadiq Charles is our answer at LT or LG, we’ve found another long term answer at the other position and we drafted a long term answer at TE. So, I’m not really that concerned about if Thomas is our starter in 2022 - in fact I hope he’s not and someone under 25 is. I think whenever McKissic is gone they can find a replacement in the draft or FA for that role rather easily as they have in succession w/ CT & now McKissic and we may already have that guy as Gibson looks  like a CP type, a 3 down back.

I had absolutely no problem with the Scherweitzer contract, from the moment he was signed I said it was a good signing as he is a solid serviceable interior OL who can play all those positions and has played some RT as well. I also was on board with the Lucas signing as a good one and well yeah, McKissic too as the perfect replacement for the CT role. I’m totally shocked by Thomas, but not shocked that any of the others have done what they’ve done.

You’re pretty much making my point here. 

Yes, they got some players who have played well for us this year. But it’s just not like they’ve moved the needle very much long-term. 

Regardless of whether Darby would only have signed a one-year deal, the bottom line is he’s either gone next season or re-signed to a very risky starting CB market value contract. Which is the same position we would have been in had we not signed him this year. Signing him to a one-year deal was a good “eye for talent” achievement, but it hasn’t really advanced our position long-term.

As you say, we’d like to upgrade Logan Thomas. But let’s say he continues to progress and we decide to keep him as our top TE. Great scouting find. Fantastic, actually. But we’ve got him for one more season at a low price, and then we’re in the position of trying to decide whether to re-sign an ascending but 31-year-old starting TE in the FA market. Again, not much long-term value gained from a 2-year deal. 

The same goes for McKissic as Thomas: great job of scouting, not much long-term value gained on a 2-year deal at the game’s most easily replaceable position. However, because he likely wouldn’t have a tremendous market, he’s the one I could actually see remaining in his current role (Darby could as well, but I think he’s gone in FA) on a contending team in 2022 or 2023.

Schweitzer is a decent LG, probably a marginally below-average starter. They pretty much got what they paid for with him. If they manage to upgrade all the other OL positions (except RG, obviously), I suppose I could see him as a starter on a very good to excellent OL. He would be the weak link on any good OL though, and easily replaceable.

The point is, they got better on a short-term basis in FA. Which I guess was their goal, so full credit to them. They nailed that goal. But I just can’t see it as a terrific FA class when I really only see Fuller as a long-term starting piece here, with McKissic perhaps sticking as a quality niche piece. The rest were pretty much just upgrading from “terrible” to “decent” — a big win in terms of 2020 performance, but we still need to go a step beyond most of them to reach the eventual goal. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MikeT14 said:

To beat a dead horse, 100% failed. 

Absolutely. 

Though I will say — basically just to make the point of how impressive the late round hit rate has been — if you look at the 10 guys surrounding the Anderson pick, there wasn’t much impact talent in that range. Joe Mixon is a star, from the pick right before Anderson, but aside from that it’s a lot of backups and borderline starters at best. And that’s the mid-2nd round. For them to come out with several good starters from the later rounds in just a couple years, that’s a very impressive achievement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, e16bball said:

Ah okay, sorry, that must be my mistake. I was thinking there might be a higher level a team could aspire to than 5-7, with a 40% chance to win the worst division in NFL history, and consensus underdogs against a reeling 5-7 SF team playing a “home game” out of state. I was thinking there might be some teams out there competing at a “Super Bowl contender” type of level.

But since we’ve already arrived at the highest level, might as well just stick with what we got. We’ll surely just keep striking gold (well, more like bronze, maybe) on day 3 picks, UDFAs, and bottom-tier FAs. 

You’re pretty much making my point here. 

Yes, they got some players who have played well for us this year. But it’s just not like they’ve moved the needle very much long-term.

Regardless of whether Darby would only have signed a one-year deal, the bottom line is he’s either gone next season or re-signed to a very risky starting CB market value contract. Which is the same position we would have been in had we not signed him this year. Signing him to a one-year deal was a good “eye for talent” achievement, but it hasn’t really advanced our position long-term.

As you say, we’d like to upgrade Logan Thomas. But let’s say he continues to progress and we decide to keep him as our top TE. Great scouting find. Fantastic, actually. But we’ve got him for one more season at a low price, and then we’re in the position of trying to decide whether to re-sign an ascending but 31-year-old starting TE in the FA market. Again, not much long-term value gained from a 2-year deal. 

The same goes for McKissic as Thomas: great job of scouting, not much long-term value gained on a 2-year deal at the game’s most easily replaceable position. However, because he likely wouldn’t have a tremendous market, he’s the one I could actually see remaining in his current role (Darby could as well, but I think he’s gone in FA) on a contending team in 2022 or 2023.

Schweitzer is a decent LG, probably a marginally below-average starter. They pretty much got what they paid for with him. If they manage to upgrade all the other OL positions (except RG, obviously), I suppose I could see him as a starter on a very good to excellent OL. He would be the weak link on any good OL though, and easily replaceable.

The point is, they got better on a short-term basis in FA. Which I guess was their goal, so full credit to them. They nailed that goal. But I just can’t see it as a terrific FA class when I really only see Fuller as a long-term starting piece here, with McKissic perhaps sticking as a quality niche piece. The rest were pretty much just upgrading from “terrible” to “decent” — a big win in terms of 2020 performance, but we still need to go a step beyond most of them to reach the eventual goal. 

First of all, great post all around.  I called some of these role players like McKissic, but definitely didn't see much coming from Darby or Thomas.  

Second, I want to focus on the bold.  This is our problem.  We can't commit to a direction.  I'll be the first to say that it isn't just QB.  Even if we weren't "in the hunt" there was a time period in the middle of the season where we should've gone to Alex Smith.  He is putting players into positions to win with his knowledge of the game, as far as preparation and calls on the field goes.  

But right now, giving snaps to guys who aren't going to be here long-term isn't doing it for me.  Is the juice really worth the squeeze?  Ideally, a consistent winner year in and year out isn't bringing in backup RB, TE and OG at the AAV that McKissec, Thomas and Schweitzer came in at.  That depth is acquired during the draft. 

As I've outlined in other posts, we've still got guys who won't be a part of our future getting some serious snaps right now.  I'm not bullish on our team long-term with a lot of these things, and it will be even worse if Kyle Smith is replaced with Marty Hurney because Rivera refuses to check his ego. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, e16bball said:

Regardless of whether Darby would only have signed a one-year deal, the bottom line is he’s either gone next season or re-signed to a very risky starting CB market value contract. Which is the same position we would have been in had we not signed him this year. Signing him to a one-year deal was a good “eye for talent” achievement, but it hasn’t really advanced our position long-term.

Honest question: would you:

  1. Let Darby walk to get a top contract somewhere else, and then reach a bit to draft a Surtain or Farley?
  2. Pay the big contract for Darby, and draft Pitts or Smith? or,
  3. Let Darby walk to get a top contract somewhere else, roll the dice with Moreland or Moreau (or Stroman?) at the #2 corner, and draft Pitts or Smith?
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Woz said:

Honest question: would you:

  1. Let Darby walk to get a top contract somewhere else, and then reach a bit to draft a Surtain or Farley?
  2. Pay the big contract for Darby, and draft Pitts or Smith? or,
  3. Let Darby walk to get a top contract somewhere else, roll the dice with Moreland or Moreau (or Stroman?) at the #2 corner, and draft Pitts or Smith?

It’s an important question that I know we will be asking a lot in February and early March. 

I honestly can’t answer it at the moment because I haven’t watched nearly enough of Surtain or Farley to get a sense of how good I think they are.

I do know that I generally hate drafting CBs high or paying big money for them. They’re just so unpredictable from year to year, and (to me at least) all but the truest superstars are really dependent on everyone around them to be successful. So in a perfect world, instead of investing heavily in a potential star CB, I’d rather have a stable of solid CBs and use my resources to build up the players they lean on — specifically great pass rush and reliable safety play — to make their job as easy as possible. 

Darby scares me because of the injury history. He’s played pretty well this season, and I believe he’ll continue to play at that level — if he’s healthy. And that’s a big risk. But overall, I think it’s a gamble whichever choice we make, so without having seen the top draft prospects enough to really judge me, my lean is to try to get Darby back on a manageable but healthy raise. 

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...