Packers sign Devin Funchess

[bigbubbatd]

Vikings just signed WR Tajae Sharpe to a one year deal. He was someone I thought that the Packers might pursue. Will be interesting to see what we got Funchess for and how much the Vikings shelled out for Sharpe.

I would be surprised if Sharpe's contract was more than Funchess considering Sharpe has done relatively little since a solid rookie year. I didnt realize Sharpe got benched last year. He could be a good reclamation project but his track record isnt impressive.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I would be surprised if Sharpe's contract was more than Funchess considering Sharpe has done relatively little since a solid rookie year. I didnt realize Sharpe got benched last year. He could be a good reclamation project but his track record isnt impressive.

Yes, 2 somewhat similar player outlooks. They both could have upsides or could be out of the NFL in a few years. Both are currently 25 years old and its now or maybe never to prove themselves. Funchess has definitely done more since arriving in the NFL, almost double the stats that Sharpe has in most categories. I might be hoping with bias here, but I think Funchess might have a bigger upside. If he gets on the same page as Rodger, can overcome some of his drops, his catch radius and ability to catch contested catches will become very valuable, especially in the red zone.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I fully expect a rookie selected early in the draft to end up being the #2 receiver with the Packers next season.

I'm less convinced of that now than prior to free agency, and there's more to that than just Funchess.

We can debate the quality or injury risk with these new players, but Gutekunst has plausibly addressed the highest need positions with veterans with some decent resumes: ILB, RT, and now WR.

He's better positioned for "best player available" across a number of need positions through Day 2 or even into round 4 or 5.

Where might Gutekunst go with his first 3 picks?

• Though I'm not panicked over the D-Line as some seem to be, an upgrade is in order. Further, with Clark on a 5th. year option and the insane money attached to his name being thrown around, there is no guarantee he won't be priced out. You'd have to ask Gutekunst about that one. Regardless, the Clark situation may not be clarified by draft day, and that uncertainty provides a second reason that everybody likes when making a decision.

• WR, of course, should still be on the list, but first round is less likely than it was. Rookie WRs have a high tendency to spend a year in on-the-job training. It that pick is deferred to the second or third round it stands to reason that guy is less likely to be #2-like productive than first rounder.

• Right now the Packers do not have a slot corner you could point to with confidence and King is in his contract year. It could a perimeter guy with Alexander taking more slot snaps, a dedicated slot guy, or a guy with potential either way as Alexander was when drafted.

• Bakhtiari is in his contract year which poses a question which I have not seen being asked. If you were forced to choose between extending Bakhtiari or Clark, which do you extend before hitting the market? Also, if you cut or trade Taylor, you have no backup LT and the likely backup RT is Turner which forces a line shuffle. OT is solidly in the conversation even in the first round.

If Taylor were traded or cut before the draft and that money is pooled and applied to another signing, that might shuffle things a bit.

Frankly, I find it hard to prioritize those positions independently of whose on the board.

• Jones and Williams are in contract years. While you wouldn't expect a Day 1 or 2 RB, I would not rule out the 4th. or 5th. round.

• I wouldn't rule out QB from the 4th. round down. 3rd. round would be surprising. First or second would be shocking.

• There's still a need for a base defense ILB to pair with Kirksey who we should assuse is the 3-down guy, that Goodson-type player, preferably one who could add a little more especially in coverage when teams throw against base, which is fairly frequent.

 

[HardRightEdge]

One more note on separation. Graham was the league leader among TEs and WRs.

Some will argue that d*mn Rodgers passed up easy underneath throws for the downfield look or the play extension. While there is certainly some of that, and there always was even when proclaimed the GOAT, it is generally exaggerated. Heck, I've seen people highlight this phenomenon with tape where there's no passing lane or vision is obscured.

I'll share a bit of heresey after watching Graham for two seasons: he was not a savvy and decisive route runner in Green Bay. It doesn't do much good to get separation if it isn't in the right way, in the right place, and on time, as dictated by the QB. Some might call that overdemanding, a QB flaw, I call it a strenght, but there is probably no QB in the league more demanding of receiver route precision than Rodgers. That of course does not mean running the lines drawn in the playbook. Choosing the right route option when the play calls for that, and making subtle adjustments based on defensive positioning come into play on nearly every route. If you mess that up, you get an on-field "lesson", and those lessons are usually reserved for repeat offenders.

In particular, Graham and Allison seemed to get a disproportionate number of balls in odd body positions. Adams almost never.

The QB is always right, as the addage goes in these matters. It just happens to be elevated in Green Bay with less tolerance in the "do your job" department. The object lesson is hire good route runners.

Graham was not a notable tackle breaker either; there were not many occasions where it took two DBs to bring him down. Do you throw to him under the chains trusting he'll get the yards even if he has separation? Not especially. Of course, his most notable catch was an under-the-chains catch for a first down. But one guy dragged him down without much struggle and he made it by inches. Lucky, and pretty typical for Jimmy.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm less convinced of that now than prior to free agencey, and there's more to that than just Funchess.

We can debate the quality or injury risk with these new players, but Gutekunst has plausibly addressed the highest need positions with veterans with some decent resumes: ILB, RT, and now WR.

He's better positioned for "best player available" across a number of need positions through Day 2 or even into round 4 or 5.

Where might Gutekunst go with his first 5 picks?

• Though I'm not panicked over the D-Line as some seem to be, an upgrade is in order. Further, with Clark on a 5th. year option and the insane money attached to his name being thrown around, there is no guarantee he won't be priced out. You'd have to ask Gutekunst about that one. Regardless, the Clark situation may not be clarified by draft day, and that uncertainty provides a second reason that everybody likes when making a decision.

• WR, of course, should still be on the list, but first round is less likely than it was. Rookie WRs have a high tendency to spend a year in on-the-job training. It that pick is deferred to the second or third round it stands to reason that guy is less likely to be #2-like productive than first rounder.

• Right now the Packers do not have a slot corner you could point to with confidence and King is in his contract year. It could a perimeter guy with Alexander taking more slot snaps, a dedicated slot guy, or a guy with potential either way as Alexander was when drafted.

• Bakhtiari is in his contract year which poses a question which I have not seen being asked. If you were forced to choose between extending Bakhtiari or Clark, which do you extend before hitting the market? Also, if you cut or trade Taylor, you have no backup LT and the likely backup RT is Turner which forces a line shuffle. OT is solidly in the conversation even in the first round.

If Taylor were traded or cut before the draft and that money is applied to another signing, that will shuffle things a bit.

Frankly, I find it hard to prioritize those positions independently of whose on the board.

• Jones and Williams are in contract years. While you wouldn't expect a Day 1 or 2 RB, I would not rule out the 4th. or 5th. round.

• I wouldn't rule out QB from the 4th. round down. 3rd. round would be surprising. First or second would be shocking.

• There's still a need for a base defense ILB to pair with Kirksey who we should assuse is the 3-down guy, that Goodson-type player, preferably one who could add a little more especially in coverage when teams throw against base, which is fairly frequent.

Good post, thanks.

I have always been a fan of trying to put as many vets into starting spots and not overly depend on a rookie to just step right in and contribute. Gute appears to feel the same way. Last year we got lucky that both Jenkins and Savage both seemed to do very well as starters, but I think that is easier to do for a S and a LG than it is at some other positions. At QB, WR, ILB, CB, LT I am not so sure I would want to rely on a rookie coming right in and being a solid starter. Those are the positions that IMO you need to plan a year or 2 out for. Your rookies need to be able to play special teams and be ready to jump in if needed at their position, but that first year or 2 is for development. I do recognize that we have a salary cap, injuries and unexpected talent curves, so not everything works out as planned.

This draft class looks like a deep one at WR, but for all those teams and their fans that are convinced that their team is going to draft an instant contributor at WR in rounds 1-3, I think the history of the position should be a cautionary tale.

 

[Fredrik87]

Just limiting to WRs, but you are right. Graham was one of the top ones in the NFL.

Ok then is it Geronimo Alison?

Edit: Oops just saw someone else beat me too it oh well.

 

[tynimiller]

I'm less convinced of that now than prior to free agency, and there's more to that than just Funchess.

We can debate the quality or injury risk with these new players, but Gutekunst has plausibly addressed the highest need positions with veterans with some decent resumes: ILB, RT, and now WR.

He's better positioned for "best player available" across a number of need positions through Day 2 or even into round 4 or 5.

Where might Gutekunst go with his first 3 picks?

• Though I'm not panicked over the D-Line as some seem to be, an upgrade is in order. Further, with Clark on a 5th. year option and the insane money attached to his name being thrown around, there is no guarantee he won't be priced out. You'd have to ask Gutekunst about that one. Regardless, the Clark situation may not be clarified by draft day, and that uncertainty provides a second reason that everybody likes when making a decision.

• WR, of course, should still be on the list, but first round is less likely than it was. Rookie WRs have a high tendency to spend a year in on-the-job training. It that pick is deferred to the second or third round it stands to reason that guy is less likely to be #2-like productive than first rounder.

• Right now the Packers do not have a slot corner you could point to with confidence and King is in his contract year. It could a perimeter guy with Alexander taking more slot snaps, a dedicated slot guy, or a guy with potential either way as Alexander was when drafted.

• Bakhtiari is in his contract year which poses a question which I have not seen being asked. If you were forced to choose between extending Bakhtiari or Clark, which do you extend before hitting the market? Also, if you cut or trade Taylor, you have no backup LT and the likely backup RT is Turner which forces a line shuffle. OT is solidly in the conversation even in the first round.

If Taylor were traded or cut before the draft and that money is pooled and applied to another signing, that might shuffle things a bit.

Frankly, I find it hard to prioritize those positions independently of whose on the board.

• Jones and Williams are in contract years. While you wouldn't expect a Day 1 or 2 RB, I would not rule out the 4th. or 5th. round.

• I wouldn't rule out QB from the 4th. round down. 3rd. round would be surprising. First or second would be shocking.

• There's still a need for a base defense ILB to pair with Kirksey who we should assuse is the 3-down guy, that Goodson-type player, preferably one who could add a little more especially in coverage when teams throw against base, which is fairly frequent.

I'm there with you for sure. WR/TE resigning Lewis, signing Begelton, and now Funchess back us out of a pegged corner there...the same exact way IMO we've done with ILB (Kirksey) and OT (Wagner).

IF I'm magically the GM at draft and I'm sitting at #30 and Swift is still on the board (which is plausible) I would struggle mightedly not picking him despite RB not being a pressing need at all. This Free Agency makes me really hope for a iDL, OL of some kind and a WR with our first three picks. But the freedom Gute has given himself is awesome....if he manages a cheap iDL and CB in veteran FAs out there we REALLY are opened up even more!

 

[GleefulGary]

I'm there with you for sure. WR/TE resigning Lewis, signing Begelton, and now Funchess back us out of a pegged corner there...the same exact way IMO we've done with ILB (Kirksey) and OT (Wagner).

IF I'm magically the GM at draft and I'm sitting at #30 and Swift is still on the board (which is plausible) I would struggle mightedly not picking him despite RB not being a pressing need at all. This Free Agency makes me really hope for a iDL, OL of some kind and a WR with our first three picks. But the freedom Gute has given himself is awesome....if he manages a cheap iDL and CB in veteran FAs out there we REALLY are opened up even more!

Who's the last first round RB to work out well for a team? And by that, I mean, when has it actually been worth it?

Similar value can easily be found later in the draft.

Imo, with some exception of course, taking a RB in the first round is a fools game.

 

[tynimiller]

Who's the last first round RB to work out well for a team? And by that, I mean, when has it actually been worth it?

Similar value can easily be found later in the draft.

Imo, with some exception of course, taking a RB in the first round is a fools game.

You won't get me arguing against that concept...but Swift is special IMO. Incredibly talented.

I love the fat guys, so no doubt Gallimore or Blacklock or another iDL would win the mental argument but it would happen.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If one were to roll all these factors into a score, receivers with high scores are more likely to get throws in tight coverage.

Good post, thanks.

I have always been a fan of trying to put as many vets into starting spots and not overly depend on a rookie to just step right in and contribute. Gute appears to feel the same way. Last year we got lucky that both Jenkins and Savage both seemed to do very well as starters, but I think that is easier to do for a S and a LG than it is at some other positions. At QB, WR, ILB, CB, LT I am not so sure I would want to rely on a rookie coming right in and being a solid starter. Those are the positions that IMO you need to plan a year or 2 out for. Your rookies need to be able to play special teams and be ready to jump in if needed at their position, but that first year or 2 is for development. I do recognize that we have a salary cap, injuries and unexpected talent curves, so not everything works out as planned.

This draft class looks like a deep one at WR, but for all those teams and their fans that are convinced that their team is going to draft an instant contributor at WR in rounds 1-3, I think the history of the position should be a cautionary tale.

I have a little different take. While rookie performance is always uncertain, he didn't have enough Day 1 and 2 picks and cap to cover all the bases even if those picks worked out. Few team do. Rather than spend big on one FA player, or 1 + 1, he opted to spread it around among 3 to cover more bases around the core. We probably should say it was 4 players with Crosby re-upped.

In the end, though, if you want to win the prize, you must get performance out of those rookie contracts. You need the Jenkinses and Savages. If Burks and Jackson had developed into players in line-with their draft status, I'd be scratching two priorities off the list. You may very well need draftees at those positions who can play now. I believe in young player progression, who wouldn't. I do not believe in 3rd. year jumps out of nowhere with no preceding progression of some sort. That's Burks and Jackson. We need guys now who can fill these spots. When you look at the remaining priorities, you'd want your Day 1 and 2 rookies to prove up quick and fill some of those spots immediately given the alternatives.

Further, I don't think it escaped anybody's attention that injury losses were pretty light last season. I wouldn't expect a repeat of that good luck. You need guys who can step in and play, and that might be some of those rookies. To take one example, at this time of year I usually note that you cannot expect 48 for 48 starts from your WRs. I don't know what the average is, but I'd throw out 6 missed games across the starting crew as a reasonable expectation. That #4 WR might get 6 starts, maybe more. If that's a rookie he has to be able to play.

A few weeks back I saw Gutekunst answer a question about the draft saying, to paraphrase, "we want guys who can play." That sounds like a throwaway line but in contact it sounded like there was a message.

In looking for players, I think Gutekunst will be looking more for guys who are more physically mature, demonstrate good technique at their positions, and were productive in college, in contrast to Gary, a physical outlier but a developmental player given low college production and a pre-exisiting shoulder injury. I'm not expecting Combine warriors in the upper rounds at the expense of "play now" characteristics with perhaps less max theoretical upside. In short, no Gary's this time. Players.

 

[Dantés]

I'm wondering why you arent a GM for some team with those impressive analytical skills.

If all that's necessary to be an NFL GM is the ability to recognize that Allison was is not a good player, then everyone on this forum can start applying for openings!

Well... almost everyone.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I guess a better way to look at it. If you have the Packers current roster, as well as their perceived needs (which vary depending on who you ask) and are picking at #30, #62 and #94, what positions are you most optimistic about at finding a guy that will be good enough his rookie season to be deemed a dependable starter?

For the Packers in 2020 the positions where I don't see the immediate need to find a starter in the 2020 draft are QB, RB, OLB, S and probably I would go so far to say the OL. So in "my world" that leaves the Packers with immediate needs at TE, WR, DL, ILB and CB.

I don't think we find a TE, even at #30 that is an immediate starter. So I would place WR and DL as the 2 highest need priorities and most likely to hit successfully at #30 and #62. I would follow that at #94 with a "see what is there approach" and mainly be looking at ILB, CB and TE in the 3rd round.

The whole Best Player Available (BPA) I totally get in the early part of the draft. However, if a RB is sitting there at #30 and he was predicted to go at 20, I would rather see Gute grab a WR or DL that was predicted to go at 30-35, since IMO those 2 positions are a much greater need than a RB in 2020.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm there with you for sure. WR/TE resigning Lewis, signing Begelton, and now Funchess back us out of a pegged corner there...the same exact way IMO we've done with ILB (Kirksey) and OT (Wagner).

IF I'm magically the GM at draft and I'm sitting at #30 and Swift is still on the board (which is plausible) I would struggle mightedly not picking him despite RB not being a pressing need at all. This Free Agency makes me really hope for a iDL, OL of some kind and a WR with our first three picks. But the freedom Gute has given himself is awesome....if he manages a cheap iDL and CB in veteran FAs out there we REALLY are opened up even more!

I'm not a fan of first round RBs unless you plan on being a run heavy/play defense team, either by predisposition or by necessity playing a developmental QB, and then a Barkley comes your way which would not be at #30. Even then you can't count on a shelf life past the rookie contract if you're giving him 300+ touches per season. It the guy plays to expectations for 4 years, too often teams feel compelled to give the second contract and too often that is mistake. High touch/high production running backs that keep on trucking through the second contract are the exceptions.

Anyway, this team does not fit that profile for a first round back, whether Jones was around or not.

Further, the college-to-pro transition is historically easier for RBs than any other position. It seems they are born not made, at least with respect to carrying the ball, as we often see rookies populating the upper ranks of the rushing stats even though few are first rounders.

I don't think there is a particular urgency at the position as Jones seems to have gotten over his knee sprains. He has also not been a high mileage back, only 534 touches over 3 years. All in all, in looking for a backup and a potential FA replacement for next year, it so happens good starting backs are found with frequency down the board. Regardless of college production, though you want some of that, you'd be looking for a guy who fits the blocking scheme and fits the offense, i.e., do you want to throw to him with regularity and do you need that guy to pass block. Those latter characteritics are tough to scout since some guys are capable of it but were never asked to do much of it. It's why they throw them balls at the Combine.

If a back is picked, regardless of the round, I would expect it to be a speed back in the Jones mold. Him getting injured is clearly the larger vulnerability.

 

[tynimiller]

I'm not a fan of first round RBs unless you plan on being a run heavy/play defense team, either by predisposition or by necessity playing a developmental QB, and then a Barkley comes your way which would not be at #30. Even then you can't count on a shelf life past the rookie contract if you're giving him 300+ touches per season. It the guy plays to expectations for 4 years, too often teams feel compelled to give the second contract and too often that is mistake. High touch/high production running backs that keep on trucking through the second contract are the exceptions.

Anyway, this team does not fit that profile for a first round back, whether Jones was around or not.

Further, the college-to-pro transition is historically easier for RBs than any other position. It seems they are born not made, at least with respect to carrying the ball, as we often see rookies populating the upper ranks of the rushing stats even though few are first rounders.

I don't think there is a particular urgency at the position as Jones seems to have gotten over his knee sprains. He has also not been a high mileage back, only 534 touches over 3 years. All in all, in looking for a backup and a potential FA replacement for next year, it so happens good starting backs are found with frequency down the board. Regardless of college production, though you want some of that, you'd be looking for a guy who fits the blocking scheme and fits the offense, i.e., do you want to throw to him with regularity and do you need that guy to pass block. Those latter characteritics are tough to scout since some guys are capable of it but were never asked to do much of it. It's why they throw them balls at the Combine.

If a back is picked, regardless of the round, I would expect it to be a speed back in the Jones mold. Him getting injured is clearly the larger vulnerability.

Clearly you didn't see my response to a similar thought already. I'm about as firmly two feet in the sand on not drafting a RB high like a lot of folks. I'm even part of the camp that it won't be smart most likely what we pay Jones even...

You won't get me arguing against that concept...but Swift is special IMO. Incredibly talented.

I love the fat guys, so no doubt Gallimore or Blacklock or another iDL would win the mental argument but it would happen.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Still haven't seen any Contract #'s for Funchess, but saw this and expect something similar.

Tajae Sharpe signed with the Vikings for one year and $1.5 million, only $675,000 of which is guaranteed.

Word is the Packers were also talking to former Chiefs WR Demarcus Robinson.

Agholor’s one-year contract with the Raiders is worth only $1.0475 million, which includes $910,000 in base salary

 

[GleefulGary]

Still haven't seen any Contract #'s for Funchess, but saw this and expect something similar.

Tajae Sharpe signed with the Vikings for one year and $1.5 million, only $675,000 of which is guaranteed

Since his agent didn't release the numbers, we can assume it's a pretty low number for Funchess.

 

[bigbubbatd]

Still haven't seen any Contract #'s for Funchess, but saw this and expect something similar.

Tajae Sharpe signed with the Vikings for one year and $1.5 million, only $675,000 of which is guaranteed.

Word is the Packers were also talking to former Chiefs WR Demarcus Robinson.

Funchess should get more than Sharpe. He has been quite a bit more productive than Sharpe. Funchess is coming off an injury but Sharpe is coming off losing his starting job on the Titans

 

[gbgary]

i'm good with the signing. young and cheap. just what the doctor ordered for a cap-strapped team.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I could be wrong, but I am guessing that the reportedly strong WR Draft is probably suppressing the market quite a bit for some of these guys that are viewed as #3 and #4 guys. Makes some sense, why pay a FA too much, when you might be able to find a better player in the draft in the 2nd or 3rd round. The counter argument to that might be "take advantage of the lower prices, grab a FA WR and use your top picks elsewhere. I think the Packers pretty much have no choice but to do both.

Allison might be lucky to get an offer of a case of beer and a half eaten pack of Ho Ho's.

 

[Dantés]

I could be wrong, but I am guessing that the reportedly strong WR Draft is probably suppressing the market quite a bit for some of these guys that are viewed as #3 and #4 guys. Makes some sense, why pay a FA too much, when you might be able to find a better player in the draft in the 2nd or 3rd round. The counter argument to that might be "take advantage of the lower prices, grab a FA WR and use your top picks elsewhere. I think the Packers pretty much have no choice but to do both.

Allison might be lucky to get an offer of a case of beer and a half eaten pack of Ho Ho's.

The draft class is certainly a contributing factor, but it's also just a reality that this WR FA class sucks.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The draft class is certainly a contributing factor, but it's also just a reality that this WR FA class sucks.

Definitely a combination of the 2 things, but I can't help to think if the 2020 WR draft class was weak, guys like we have seen snapped up in the last few days, would have been snapped up sooner and at a higher price. Basic Supply/Demand economics. Allison got $2.8 M last year in what was a relatively decent FA market, but a weak draft. I don't know if Funchess is exactly the guy that Gute wanted, but I think he was smart to wait it out a bit and not immediately sign a guy like Cobb ($9M/year). Again, this is hoping that Funchess is right around the same mark as we are seeing with Sharpe and Agholor.

Funny thing....in 2019 Cobb got $5M from Dallas, this year he gets $9M from the Texans. Funchess in 2019 got $10M from the Colts, how much will he get from the Packers?

 

[Dantés]

Definitely a combination of the 2 things, but I can't help to think if the 2020 WR draft class was weak, guys like we have seen snapped up in the last few days, would have been snapped up sooner and at a higher price. Basic Supply/Demand economics. Allison got $2.8 M last year in what was a relatively decent FA market, but a weak draft. I don't know if Funchess is exactly the guy that Gute wanted, but I think he was smart to wait it out a bit and not immediately sign a guy like Cobb ($9M/year). Again, this is hoping that Funchess is right around the same mark as we are seeing with Sharpe and Agholor.

Funny thing....in 2019 Cobb got $5M from Dallas, this year he gets $9M from the Texans. Funchess in 2019 got $10M from the Colts, how much will he get from the Packers?

I'm guessing 2-3M? I guess we will find out. I agree with what's been said-- the lack of news on that front likely means a small number. When agents are proud of a deal, the information usually finds its way onto social media pretty quickly.

That Cobb deal is one of the worst contracts of the offseason. The Texans were flailing in the wake of that terrible trade.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm guessing 2-3M? I guess we will find out. I agree with what's been said-- the lack of news on that front likely means a small number. When agents are proud of a deal, the information usually finds its way onto social media pretty quickly.

That Cobb deal is one of the worst contracts of the offseason. The Texans were flailing in the wake of that terrible trade.

Agreed and honestly, if they could get Gabriel on a real cheap deal, I would be ecstatic. They would have a true slot guy and I think that puts our WR group in a much less desperate situation. It would allow the Packers to take advantage of the deep draft and still grab a quality WR in Round 3. Use the first 2 picks on other positions of need.

1. Adams
2. Lazard
3. Gabriel
4. Funchess
5. Rookie
6. MVS, ESB, Kumerow, Begelton

 

[swhitset]

If all that's necessary to be an NFL GM is the ability to recognize that Allison was is not a good player, then everyone on this forum can start applying for openings!

Well... almost everyone.

Yeah ...as odd as it sounds to me, I think there are still a few in here that are carrying a torch for Allison.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah ...as odd as it sounds to me, I think there are still a few in here that are carrying a torch for Allison.

"My name is Jeff Janis and I support this message....."

You must be logged in to see this image or video!