Watch the white hare...

by Guest Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:35 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Everywhere you go lately it seems somebody is stuffing an article up yo' ass talking about what a *priority* it is to pay Aaron Rodgers. Look at the contract given to Flacco--has become the prevailing rationale... Who can argue he is a better QB than Aaron Rodgers--so therefore Aaron Rodgers is taking the deep bone if his contract status isn't addressed immediately. However, a basic review of the contract status of those on the Packers roster reveals far greater priorities presently for those precious cap dollars--starting with Clay Matthews and James Jones--who are both entering the final year of their contracts. Rodgers is making ten jumbo already and has TWO more years on his deal. He's not going anywhere regardless...nor is he one prone to whining or becoming a distraction over it. It'll simply cost the Pack more once they finally get around to it...

Negotiation is about leverage. Rodgers now has none--so absent so many other prevailing priorities, a deal to extend him now could be expected to equate to a better value for the Pack and therefore make sense. However, in Matthews, Jones, Finley and Raji--the Pack has a quartet of players just entering their prime who form a huge piece of their core entering their contract years. One thing I can tell you absolute certainty--there's no way given their CAP situation that all these players are retained if they inastutely allocate the resources to the asset (Rodgers) that the clock tells us is not the priority to presently focus on. If they go about this right--they can run this gauntlet without the loss of a single one of these key warriors.

Duck/others here like to think of TT and MM as A players in their respective roles. This decision on Rodgers alone is fucking HUGE because it impacts the structure of so many other pieces of the puzzle--and, the last time I checked, football is a TEAM sport. It's decisions like this that separate the men from the boys--no matter how many white hairs they have... We shall see if the albino warrants a tan... Cool

by milani Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:47 pm

We have the best person in place to orchestrate all this in TT.

It is ironic that in the Favre years I cannot ever remember this being an issue with our QB. Favre wanted to be on the stage and flaunt his stuff no matter what.

by duck Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:27 pm

_HD_ wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Everywhere you go lately it seems somebody is stuffing an article up yo' ass talking about what a *priority* it is to pay Aaron Rodgers. Look at the contract given to Flacco--has become the prevailing rationale... Who can argue he is a better QB than Aaron Rodgers--so therefore Aaron Rodgers is taking the deep bone if his contract status isn't addressed immediately. However, a basic review of the contract status of those on the Packers roster reveals far greater priorities presently for those precious cap dollars--starting with Clay Matthews and James Jones--who are both entering the final year of their contracts. Rodgers is making ten jumbo already and has TWO more years on his deal. He's not going anywhere regardless...nor is he one prone to whining or becoming a distraction over it. It'll simply cost the Pack more once they finally get around to it...

Negotiation is about leverage. Rodgers now has none--so absent so many other prevailing priorities, a deal to extend him now could be expected to equate to a better value for the Pack and therefore make sense. However, in Matthews, Jones, Finley and Raji--the Pack has a quartet of players just entering their prime who form a huge piece of their core entering their contract years. One thing I can tell you absolute certainty--there's no way given their CAP situation that all these players are retained if they inastutely allocate the resources to the asset (Rodgers) that the clock tells us is not the priority to presently focus on. If they go about this right--they can run this gauntlet without the loss of a single one of these key warriors.

Duck/others here like to think of TT and MM as A players in their respective roles. This decision on Rodgers alone is fucking HUGE because it impacts the structure of so many other pieces of the puzzle--and, the last time I checked, football is a TEAM sport. It's decisions like this that separate the men from the boys--no matter how many white hairs they have... We shall see if the albino warrants a tan...

Well HD, as usual, your analysis of the contract situation in Green Bay makes good sense and I would have to agree with you. It would be virtually impossible to retain Matthews, Jones, Finley and Raji if we throw a big chunk of change at Rodgers prematurely in 2013.

However, let me play devil's advocate for a moment and hypothesize what the Packers might be thinking... and paint a scenario in which case money would be saved in the long run. First of all, the Packers may not have any intention of signing all four of the players you mentioned. Clearly they will sign Matthews, as he's as important to the defense as Rodgers is to the offense. Raji I think would be the next priority, as productive beef like that is hard to find. The receivers... i don't know. Even though I really like our group, to some extent when you have a great QB, he makes all of his receivers look a little better than they really are. There has been lots of discussion about cutting ties with Finley anyway. Jones would be nice to keep, but for the money, I bet TT thinks he can find a reasonable replacement in the draft. (Not saying I necessarily agree... but just following this train of thought.)

Since all of these players might not be in the Packers' long term plans anyway, TT may try to lock up Rodgers early to save a few bucks. As you point out, if we wait until 2015, Rodgers would have the leverage and the price would be a lot higher. Any way you look at it, his new salary is going to be substantial... but that also means that any kind of discount or savings TT can get on it with an early signing will result in significantly more available cap money in the remaining years of Rodgers' contract.

So, it seems like it all boils down to a math problem. TT has to weigh how much he thinks it would it would additionally cost in the two years prior to 2015 vs. the savings he'd get in all the subsequent years from the reduced rate.

Of course, two important variables are 1) Rodgers' health and 2) the fact that Green Bay is presently still in a Super Bowl "window." The longer Rodgers stays healthy the more advantage there is to locking him in early at a reduced rate. However, the more money we divert from other players now, the less we optimize the Super Bowl window.

It's a tough one for sure.

It will be interesting to see what TT does.

by Guest Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:31 pm

milani wrote: We have the best person in place to orchestrate all this in TT.

Not really... My guess is he ponies up Rodgers first...

You see--TT shines in the draft. At his core--he's nothing more than a very good scout. Contract negotiation/decision-making is not his strength but he may know this--since he has set up a program that systemically protects him from eggregious error--in limiting his focus primarily on extending the contracts of his own players he knows intimately. Performance risk is significantly reduced in this manner and the only real risk inherent is brought into play through the proper valuation of that player's likely future production...which again--he is in a better position to know than most anyone else...

by RingoCStarrQB Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:13 pm

Favregettabout Super Bowl talk until we get the LBs and Defensive Line shored up.........and more than 5 capable offensive linemen on the roster.........and a running back or backs that can handle the grind of the 19 game season. And that assumes a first round playoff BYE. GO PACKERs

by Guest Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:09 pm

duck wrote:
_HD_ wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Everywhere you go lately it seems somebody is stuffing an article up yo' ass talking about what a *priority* it is to pay Aaron Rodgers. Look at the contract given to Flacco--has become the prevailing rationale... Who can argue he is a better QB than Aaron Rodgers--so therefore Aaron Rodgers is taking the deep bone if his contract status isn't addressed immediately. However, a basic review of the contract status of those on the Packers roster reveals far greater priorities presently for those precious cap dollars--starting with Clay Matthews and James Jones--who are both entering the final year of their contracts. Rodgers is making ten jumbo already and has TWO more years on his deal. He's not going anywhere regardless...nor is he one prone to whining or becoming a distraction over it. It'll simply cost the Pack more once they finally get around to it...

Negotiation is about leverage. Rodgers now has none--so absent so many other prevailing priorities, a deal to extend him now could be expected to equate to a better value for the Pack and therefore make sense. However, in Matthews, Jones, Finley and Raji--the Pack has a quartet of players just entering their prime who form a huge piece of their core entering their contract years. One thing I can tell you absolute certainty--there's no way given their CAP situation that all these players are retained if they inastutely allocate the resources to the asset (Rodgers) that the clock tells us is not the priority to presently focus on. If they go about this right--they can run this gauntlet without the loss of a single one of these key warriors.

Duck/others here like to think of TT and MM as A players in their respective roles. This decision on Rodgers alone is fucking HUGE because it impacts the structure of so many other pieces of the puzzle--and, the last time I checked, football is a TEAM sport. It's decisions like this that separate the men from the boys--no matter how many white hairs they have... We shall see if the albino warrants a tan...

Well HD, as usual, your analysis of the contract situation in Green Bay makes good sense and I would have to agree with you. It would be virtually impossible to retain Matthews, Jones, Finley and Raji if we throw a big chunk of change at Rodgers prematurely in 2013.

However, let me play devil's advocate for a moment and hypothesize what the Packers might be thinking... and paint a scenario in which case money would be saved in the long run. First of all, the Packers may not have any intention of signing all four of the players you mentioned. Clearly they will sign Matthews, as he's as important to the defense as Rodgers is to the offense. Raji I think would be the next priority, as productive beef like that is hard to find. The receivers... i don't know. Even though I really like our group, to some extent when you have a great QB, he makes all of his receivers look a little better than they really are. There has been lots of discussion about cutting ties with Finley anyway. Jones would be nice to keep, but for the money, I bet TT thinks he can find a reasonable replacement in the draft. (Not saying I necessarily agree... but just following this train of thought.)

The relatively rare WR who makes it to within sniffing distance to the league's elite takes a minimum of two seasons to get there, Duck. Jones is a good example...so is Jordy Nelson. You don't draft a receiver who can step into a system--particularly one as complicated as the Pack's--with all the timing routes and play-action, and have them produce like a Nelson or Jones have the past 20 or so games...

e players might not be in the Packers' long term plans anyway, TT may try to lock up Rodgers early to save a few bucks. As you point out, if we wait until 2015, Rodgers would have the leverage and the price would be a lot higher. Any way you look at it, his new salary is going to be substantial... but that also means that any kind of discount or savings TT can get on it with an early signing will result in significantly more available cap money in the remaining years of Rodgers' contract.

That's, however, only half the equation... You're forgetting about the $10M you save in each of the next two season's if you wait to extend a player like Rodgers who is prone to loyalty anyway. Don't forget--the Packers are the team that saved him from the cameras up his ass in the green room waiting to catch him cry on draft day... It's basically a wash... What you save on the front end gets tacked onto the back...and you further benefit by two years in having to look at tearing up his contract again with further elite performance. Finally--the ever-present risk of injury doesn't cripple you so bad if that player is only making $10M/season as opposed to $20M+. Like I said... The astute wait on Rodgers...

math problem. TT has to weigh how much he thinks it would it would additionally cost in the two years prior to 2015 vs. the savings he'd get in all the subsequent years from the reduced rate.

Of course, two important variables are 1) Rodgers' health and 2) the fact that Green Bay is presently still in a Super Bowl "window." The longer Rodgers stays healthy the more advantage there is to locking him in early at a reduced rate. However, the more money we divert from other players now, the less we optimize the Super Bowl window.

It's a tough one for sure.

It will be interesting to see what TT does.

by MB20 Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:53 pm

_HD_ wrote:

[color=blue]That's, however, only half the equation... You're forgetting about the $10M you save in each of the next two season's if you wait to extend a player like Rodgers who is prone to loyalty anyway. Don't forget--the Packers are the team that saved him from the cameras up his ass in the green room waiting to catch him cry on draft day... It's basically a wash... What you save on the front end gets tacked onto the back...and you further benefit by two years in having to look at tearing up his contract again with further elite performance. Finally--the ever-present risk of injury doesn't cripple you so bad if that player is only making $10M/season as opposed to $20M+. Like I said... The astute wait on Rodgers...

And, they extended Rodgers eight games into his actual playing career. That was a huge risk and a huge leap of faith. The Bills did that with Fitzpatrick and got badly burned.

by duck Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:35 am

It's basically a wash... What you save on the front end gets tacked onto the back.

That's assuming the amounts are equal. It might be that there would be a significant overall savings by locking Rodgers in early. For example, let's just say, hypothetically, he signs in 2013 for $15M per year and he lasts for 8 more years. That's $120M spent on him for the duration of his career. But let's say he gets $10M in 2013 and 2014 but then resigns for $20M in 2015 and plays for 6 more years after that, making the same 8 year time period. The total expense would be 2 x $10M plus 6 x $20M = $140M total. I'm not saying we should resign Rodgers now. I actually like your strategy of waiting, factoring in the type of player he is and the fact that it gives us more money to work with during this Super Bowl window. However, I'm just pointing out that there could be some scenarios in which signing him early could save money overall.

by Guest Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:22 am

duck wrote:It's basically a wash... What you save on the front end gets tacked onto the back.

That's assuming the amounts are equal. It might be that there would be a significant overall savings by locking Rodgers in early. For example, let's just say, hypothetically, he signs in 2013 for $15M per year and he lasts for 8 more years. That's $120M spent on him for the duration of his career. But let's say he gets $10M in 2013 and 2014 but then resigns for $20M in 2015 and plays for 6 more years after that, making the same 8 year time period. The total expense would be 2 x $10M plus 6 x $20M = $140M total. I'm not saying we should resign Rodgers now. I actually like your strategy of waiting, factoring in the type of player he is and the fact that it gives us more money to work with during this Super Bowl window. However, I'm just pointing out that there could be some scenarios in which signing him early could save money overall.

Sure Duck--but you don't need a Princeton MBA to understand timeline risk along with the time value of money. In the next two seasons while the Pack has very little priority benefit to extract from the premature extension of Rodgers...he could blow out his right shoulder or his knee or compress a disc in his spine. Don't forget...his GM is apparently content having the likes of Marshall fucking Newhouse protecting the blind side of the QB who only just produced the most prolific season at QB in like the history of the MOTHER fucking league. Are you trackin' the groove with me here? It's the judgment of risk in various dynamic scenarios that make you a rock star in life regardless of the scenario you face...and I don't give a shit if your ass is planted in Hershey, PA and you oversee the production of chocolate chips or you are advising your niece on where she is most likely to thrive in her selection of a college--you can't fucking teach it and you can't fucking build it...it's either there or it's not--and it doesn't matter what you apply it to if it's there...BECAUSE IT'S THERE for those who have it... It's merely the facts specific to the scenario that are required to be plugged in...

Yes, with regard to Rodgers--anything can happen. He could toast a capacitor and decide in two years that he desperately wants to leave the NFL and become the fucking pin-cushion man at the next circus side-show that rolls through Oaklland and entertains your ass. You re-up him now--and you become the insurance company for a $0 premium that that, along with ten times a thousand other things don't come along and fuck up (depreciate) the risk profile that you accepted when you prematurely signed him to a contract that significantly elevated your risk exposure when you had very little reason to expect benefit from it. We're not talking about a back-up Safety here. We're talking about a player who will be assured the highest contract in the history of a fucking league that caps (restricts) what collectively you can pay to build your squad.... On it's face...it's fucking no brainer. Add in all the other priority signings that time has no tolerance for--and you know why the game is no longer played primarily on the field. It's played on the fucking white board in the front office. If you disagree--you'll find a friend in Jerry Jones. He dug holes in the ground and resultingly bought a football team to jack his limp noodle in real-life fantasy football. He's learned from the experience to better appreciate the earth and what can just bubble out of it... Cool

by RingoCStarrQB Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:37 am

Hey.........HD is correct. I am a shareholder (and a season ticket holder nyuk nyuk! Smile

) and it's my money you are talking about LOL LOL LOL LOL.

Spend some money on basic brick and mortar too fellas. Get some offensive and defensive linemen in there to a) protect Rodgers, b) create a viable running game, c) keep the defense off the field and tire out the opposing defense, d) put pressure on the opposing QB to help create turnovers, e) and basically take care of the line of scrimmage so no matter how bad your LB corp is (can't be that bad with Hawk, Clay, is Bishop coming back soon?, and last year's draft pick. This concept of relying on a great safety like Woodson and Robinson (and Butler) to pull off successful blitzes and create fumble recoveries is a great concept but cannot be relied up each week in the crazy NFL. Basic brick and mortar up front and a running game the as Max would always say "control the ball and possess the ball".

Wait a month.........if you spend too much on Rodgers the ticket price may increase LOL LOL.

by RingoCStarrQB Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:52 am

Don't forget...his GM is apparently content having the likes of Marshall fucking Newhouse protecting the blind side of the QB who only just produced the most prolific season at QB in like the history of the MOTHER fucking league. Are you trackin' the groove with me here? --you can't fucking teach it and you can't fucking build it...it's either there or it's not--and it doesn't matter what you apply it to if it's there...BECAUSE IT'S THERE for those who have it... It's merely the facts specific to the scenario that are required to be plugged in...

He dug holes in the ground and resultingly bought a football team to jack his limp noodle in real-life fantasy football. He's learned from the experience to better appreciate the earth and what can just bubble out of it... Cool

[/quote]

Yes.........Ron did the same when he picked up Brett and Reggie and Santana and Sean and Eugene and Keith and Wilkerson and that goofy WR Andre. You gotta get the people in there working to make the scene happen. No different than an engineering team assembled to design and build and new gizmo (IPod for example), or engaging in a new relationship with some chick that happenstanced in for a look and see. As HD stated: "it's either there or it's not". When it is there it can be a beautiful thing..........as Jimmy Taylor would say............both on the field and off the field. This is NFL football at Lambeau Field in Green Bay Wisconsin (where you can get cheese curds and Spotted Cow)........not a spaceship in Texas somewhere. Thank you very very much..........welcome to my house Razz

:twisted:

by duck Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:56 am

Don't forget...his GM is apparently content having the likes of Marshall fucking Newhouse protecting the blind side of the QB who only just produced the most prolific season at QB in like the history of the MOTHER fucking league.

I hear ya, HD. It's not just about the QB... we need to sign other players as well. The problem with having a superstar QB is that he's eventually going to suck up a lot of money that is going to create weaknesses in other positions. Not to repeat myself, but I agree with your bottom line that there's no immediate need to resign Rodgers and in fact there's a downside to it.

As I understand it, the way the cap functions, every team has to expose itself with underpaid players at some position(s) and thus have weak areas. (Since injuries randomly decimate players on every team, depth is critically important -- and in this sense, TT's drafting and procuring serviceable plug-ins on the cheap is a huge asset.) However, from the get go, the GM essentially decides which elements of the game his team will be strong at and which it will be weak at. Thompson has cast his dice with the passing game and, considering we have the best QB in the game, wisely so. That's where the Packer dollars go. The flip side is that TT allowed the defensive side of the ball to go undernourished for too long and that's what happened in the 2011 season. You had a handful of solid players and a bunch of stiffs. The result? A shitty defense. Well, TT has since tinkered with his formula a bit in an effort to correct that glaring weakness.

We've seen at various times already that TT is not committed to the running game. He simply will not allocate any significant resources to it and seems content to let a carousel of retreads and unknowns fill that hole.

Sticking with Marshall Newhouse baffles me. If you're going to commit to the passing game, you'd damn well better fortify the second most important position in blindside tackle. Four good receivers and a mediocre LT makes no sense. You're better off with a strong LT and fewer good receivers.

As always, our best hope is that TT scores in the draft and gets some quality young players who will provide a good production-per-dollar value.

by milani Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:20 pm

Sticking with Marshall Newhouse baffles me

Sometimes TT goes with the flow. If some player seems to be " adequate " he stays with him until he dissipates. E.G. Brandon Chillar. Don Barclay could be the next cheapie to stay on the roster and yet get plenty of PT. I suspect he does this because going after someone historically good will simply throw the cap into a frenzy down the road.

by milani Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:27 pm

This decision on Rodgers alone is fucking HUGE because it impacts the structure of so many other pieces of the puzzle-

I sense that if ARod does not get the best deal in football many think he'll bolt. Could happen.

When the team gave Favre his last long term deal #4 admitted he'd never be around long enough to play out the last year or two but he was satisfied. And he was willing to give up some knowing he could get the world thrown at him somewhere else. He knew money had to be available for the rest of the team. He was less concerned about being paid the best than being recognized "as" the best. And true to form he called out both Mike McKenzie and Jevon Walker for not honoring the contract they signed pointing out that he, too, had signed a contract and was responsible for fulfilling it.

by milani Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:31 pm

RingoCStarrQB wrote:Hey.........HD is correct. I am a shareholder (and a season ticket holder nyuk nyuk!) and it's my money you are talking about LOL LOL LOL LOL.

Spend some money on basic brick and mortar too fellas. Get some offensive and defensive linemen in there to a) protect Rodgers, b) create a viable running game, c) keep the defense off the field and tire out the opposing defense, d) put pressure on the opposing QB to help create turnovers, e) and basically take care of the line of scrimmage so no matter how bad your LB corp is (can't be that bad with Hawk, Clay, is Bishop coming back soon?, and last year's draft pick. This concept of relying on a great safety like Woodson and Robinson (and Butler) to pull off successful blitzes and create fumble recoveries is a great concept but cannot be relied up each week in the crazy NFL. Basic brick and mortar up front and a running game the as Max would always say "control the ball and possess the ball".

Wait a month.........if you spend too much on Rodgers the ticket price may increase LOL LOL.

Great insight! It's the parts under the hood that carry a beautiful chassis down the highway. And they cannot be ignored. Fortunately, we have ticketholders such as the above who are willing to pay the price for more than just a few Spotted Cows.

by RingoCStarrQB Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:47 pm

Ah Milani........no need to cite Ringo for 'great insight'. We have plenty of that coming form the likes of Milani, HD, Duck and JnC. But for sure it is really about the offensive line winning the battle up front. With Rodgers at the helm we'll make enough big plays to win any game anytime anywhere. It's the O-Line and D that troubles us all. Now as the ole Allman Bros 'Trouble No More' sang "But someday baby, you ain't gonna trouble, poor me, anymore. Trouble no more" meaning that is incument on TT and Murphy to remove the current trouble spots. This is the NFL..........which stands for Not For Long. GO PACKERs

by Guest Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:45 pm

duck wrote:Don't forget...his GM is apparently content having the likes of Marshall fucking Newhouse protecting the blind side of the QB who only just produced the most prolific season at QB in like the history of the MOTHER fucking league.

I hear ya, HD. It's not just about the QB... we need to sign other players as well. The problem with having a superstar QB is that he's eventually going to suck up a lot of money that is going to create weaknesses in other positions. Not to repeat myself, but I agree with your bottom line that there's no immediate need to resign Rodgers and in fact there's a downside to it.

Yup... To the point--look at the Ravens already... As a result of the King's riches they paid Flacco...they have now submitted a pay cut or release ultimatum to Anquan Boldin. He's only making $6M next season--and who will argue that the Ravens would have even come close to reaching the Super Bowl--let alone win it without the repeated incredibly clutch plays Boldin made right when they needed them most. Boldin told them to go piss themselves through a cocktail straw--just as he should...and the systemic dismantling will continue. They can't even pay their draft class in the cap position they are in right now. Mark my words--Ravens are one/done before training camp is even scheduled...

by MB20 Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:54 pm

_HD_ wrote:
duck wrote:Don't forget...his GM is apparently content having the likes of Marshall fucking Newhouse protecting the blind side of the QB who only just produced the most prolific season at QB in like the history of the MOTHER fucking league.

I hear ya, HD. It's not just about the QB... we need to sign other players as well. The problem with having a superstar QB is that he's eventually going to suck up a lot of money that is going to create weaknesses in other positions. Not to repeat myself, but I agree with your bottom line that there's no immediate need to resign Rodgers and in fact there's a downside to it.

Yup... To the point--look at the Ravens already... As a result of the King's riches they paid Flacco...they have now submitted a pay cut or release ultimatum to Anquan Boldin. He's only making $6M next season--and who will argue that the Ravens would have even come close to reaching the Super Bowl--let alone win it without the repeated incredibly clutch plays Boldin made right when they needed them most. Boldin told them to go piss themselves through a cocktail straw--just as he should...and the systemic dismantling will continue. They can't even pay their draft class in the cap position they are in right now. Mark my words--Ravens are one/done before training camp is even scheduled...

For as brilliant as everyone tells me Ozzie Newsome is, he sure did a great job of tying his hands behind his own back with that Flacco deal. One-and-done is right.

by RingoCStarrQB Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:28 pm

So does that mean my trip up to Baltimore next season will result in a Packers win? Boldin is my favorite receiver in the entire NFL. The man just gets it done ala Sterling Sharpe back in the day. If Boldin is making $6M......then Jennings should just re-sign with the Packers for $5.5M (same number Cullen Jenkins signed with the Eagles approximately). No word yet on the concession stand price changes yet.

by Sponsored content

Watch the white hare...

Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...

Re: Watch the white hare...