Curd is the Word: Right on Schedule

The offseason check boxes are nearly full leading to the 2025 season

Every offseason, NFL fans have a checklist leading up to the next season. There's the start of free agency, the scouting combine, the draft, offseason workouts, the schedule release, OTAs, and then Training Camp. As of this week, we only have two checkboxes left until the 2025 season officially gets underway. Some might say the season doesn't start until early September, but they're robbing themselves of some quality football content by skipping Training Camp and Preseason. That's when the action begins. That's when we get our first look at the latest version of the Green Bay Packers. This past week, we received one of the only pieces of the offseason puzzle that the players, coaches, and general managers have nothing at all to do with. The schedule release. 

I'm going to say it. You know, back in my day, you didn't see the Packers' schedule until either the newspaper posted it or someone handed them out at a parade or something. Teams weren't releasing special productions for them. Okay, I'm only 38, and if I'm being honest, I thought the Packers' release was pretty good. As we've all been saying lately, the Packers have really stepped up their social media game, and it's been great to see. But honestly, though, I was in attendance at the NFL Draft just three weeks ago, and before one of the picks was announced, they had two women on the stage come out and announce in a very hyped up fashion that the schedule would be released in 2.5 weeks. 

You would've thought they announced the draft grounds were switching from Budweiser products to Miller, the way the crowd erupted. All to only find out what date and times teams are playing each other this season. I get it, it's the excitement of the new season being closer. You can buy your tickets, you can book your hotels, you can plan your game-watching parties. Football is so close that our noses are starting to pick up the scent. It won't be long until we're packing the stands at Ray Nitschke Field for Training Camp. And back to that Budweiser vs Miller comment, I was so glad a few of the beer vendors were carrying "Beer Hug" by Goose Island brewery at the Draft, it was a literal lifesaver. 

But back to the schedule release. There are a few things to like about it, and a few things not to like. Right off the bat, this is the first time the Packers have opened the season at home since 2018. That's right, for the first time in seven seasons, for the first time in the Matt LaFleur era, I don't have to complain about starting the season on the road. And then guess what? We're at home again for week 2! Home cooking for everybody for two weeks! But it doesn't come without a cost. The first game is against the Detroit Lions. Talk about your "prove it" games coming early. Right off the bat, you get the division champs and the chance to show if you're a threat to dethrone them. And as if that's not enough, you then get the team that knocked the division champs out of the playoffs, the Commanders, in week 2, just four days later on Thursday night. We may be at home, but those teams coming to visit are no joke, and we had better be ready.

Among the other things to dislike comes a week 5 bye. Which, let's be honest, anything before week 7 should be banned. How is that an effective rest week when you have to return to 13, and maybe more, straight weeks of games? Even though having to visit the Lions on Thanksgiving once again this season annoys me a bit, I have to admit that the 10-day break to follow before the final five games of the season will be a nice little bonus. 

Elgton Jenkins' Absence

When the Packers signed their new offensive lineman, Aaron Banks, to a four-year deal, part of the move was said to have been made to move star offensive guard, Elgton Jenkins, over to Center to replace the recently departed Josh Myers. Sounds like a good move, right? Well, no one told Elgton Jenkins this, and now Jenkins is making some business decisions to ensure his future.

When Jenkins signed his second contract in 2022, it was done under the assumption that eventually Jenkins may kick over to left tackle eventually. Instead, he's kicking over in the opposite direction, to Center. Center is not as appealing contract-wise as a left tackle would be, and Jenkins is looking to ensure his 2026 season, which is the last on his contract, is not in jeopardy before he fully commits this season. 

As a fan, these situations can look a little silly. Players are paid millions of dollars to live out their dream of playing pro football. What's a few thousand or million dollars?  Many of us will never see that amount of money in our lifetimes, and here a player is complaining about that? No way. 

It may not be the popular response to the situation, but admittedly, I don't blame Jenkins for the move. He wants to ensure that his cooperation and move to the Center position are rewarded and not just done to eventually phase him out of Green Bay altogether. Sure, the dollar amounts are different, but this is like anyone trying to ensure their job security. Which I'll say, I consider a good thing. Jenkins seems to want to make sure he stays in Green Bay. He could just as easily wait to see what the team does and try to cash in on free agency elsewhere, but he's trying to solidify his future in Green Bay instead of just walking away. 

How the Packers will reach a reassurance with Elgton Jenkins is anyone's guess. It could be simple, it could be complex, but either way, we're hoping it moves in a positive direction as the Packers are a better team with Jenkins on the field paving the way for running backs and protecting our franchise quarterback. 

 

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

Greg Meinholz is a lifelong devoted Packer fan. A contributor to CheeseheadTV as well as PackersTalk. Follow him on Twitter @gmeinholz and Bluesky @gmeinholz.bsky.social for Packers commentary, random humor, beer endorsements, and occasional Star Wars and Marvel ramblings.

__________________________

NFL Categories: 
0 points
 

Comments (46)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
LambeauPlain's picture

May 18, 2025 at 07:53 am

If you don't ask, you don't get. I don't blame Jenks for asking for more money guarantees on his already fat contract. He's paid quite handsomely now. He's definitely using his leverage with the hole at C that the team does not want Tom to fill...so I expect some tweaking on Jenk's deal. But nothing major.

He's also been a warrior & plays when other players with similar aches and pains would be on the sideline. Jenks always surprises by getting back on the field far sooner than later. The Packers tend to reward players with his availability and production and leadership.

And the Packers have (better have!) a long memory about the largesse that turned out to be Bakht's last deal. This should be resolved soon.

0 points
0
0
Guam's picture

May 18, 2025 at 08:10 am

"If you don't ask, you don't get."

I'm afraid Jenkins is asking for 2026 guaranteed money and that is going to be a problem. See my comment below. How this gets resolved will shed some light on Packer thinking about 2026. As a fan I am afraid it may not go Jenkins way.

0 points
0
0
Starrbrite's picture

May 18, 2025 at 02:43 pm

I believe you are right Guam.

0 points
0
0
dblbogey's picture

May 18, 2025 at 08:17 pm

I don't get the argument that he's worried that as a center, he'll be paid less as a FA, when everybody in the league knows he can play any position on the line.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 18, 2025 at 08:32 am

I think the Bakhtiairi example is a poor one. It only fits in that they gave him a third deal. They didn't pay a declining player or a player who was recovering from significant injury. They paid a healthy player at the top of his game, and the cruel reality of a physical sport kicked them in the nuts.

If we want to follow this analogy, no player should ever get a third deal or an extension on their second.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 18, 2025 at 09:06 am

I would submit, dobber, that if you didn't sign or extend players over 30, that you'd probably be ahead. Yes, you'd miss out on some well-seasoned veterans who have gas in their tank yet. You'd also avoid some very bad mistakes.

It's a young man's game.

I think that many of our personnel moves, especially on offense, have to be viewed from the perspective of the Love Window. He's got a couple of years to get us to the Super Bowl, after which we'll be on another plan. His contract expires after the 2028 season, but he's a $74M hit on the salary cap that year. In 2027....that's TWO years from now, his salary is "only" $43M, but then it jumps by a whopping $31M for the next year.

If you've got a piece like Jenkins, or Tom, or Jacobs, or several others, who are solid veteran players who can help you on offense during this brief window, you probably have to try to hang onto them. The guys like Golden and Williams and Morgan and Belton will be coming up on the end of their rookie deals.

This is the Love Window. It doesn't last until he's 38.

It's 2025. Three years from today we could be the defending Super Bowl champions, or we could be starting over.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 18, 2025 at 11:31 am

"I would submit, dobber, that if you didn't sign or extend players over 30, that you'd probably be ahead."

Sounds like a good way to never play in a SB.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

May 18, 2025 at 11:57 am

The reverse can be true as well. As ever, the answer lies in who you choose to extend and for what percentage of cap. In this case, it’s a borderline decision in my view.

The tipping points are health (remember Jenkins takes regular rest days so they are nursing something) and how he performs at C and how seriously others push him.

He was paid as a T capable guy last time. That’s probably in the past, but he’s probably a little ahead over production due to his injury, despite being an above average G.

So what is his argument for a new deal now, before proving himself as a permanent C? He’s due to be paid well this year. Is he wanting to reduce that in return for guarantees? I suspect not, but we don’t know.

If he wants a comparable contract to the current one for longer, the reality is that I’d probably decline. If he doesn’t react well to that, then trade him and move Rhyan or a SFA into the mix at C. I think his CB position would be relatively weak and get weaker the longer he’s absent.

On the other hand if he’s seeking to just restructure to lengthen and obtain guarantees within the context of a reasonable overall deal under present circumstances, then this is a non event really.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 18, 2025 at 07:22 pm

My point was in general not about Jenkins per se. Even the 90's Cowboys had some 30 year old holdovers from the Landry years and Haley was 28 when they traded for him and 29 when they won the SB that year. Take Newton, Tuinei, Jeffcoat and Haley off that team do they win a SB?

You don't want a team loaded with 30 year olds, 4-6 is probably a good number. Especially if one or two of them are truly special athletes like Woodson was. Saying resigning 30 year olds is a vague and silly statement.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 18, 2025 at 12:22 pm

I would love to see the team you'd put on the field. I would love to walk up to you with 45 guys and say "This is your team.. First scrimmage is next Thursday." I have no doubt it would be funny as hell.

Who were the over 30 guys on our last Super Bowl team? We had four of them....Woodson, Driver, Pickett and Clifton. Woodson and Driver both were injured during the Super Bowl, so I guess it was Pickett and Clifton that made the difference. Certainly not Rodgers, or Collins, or Matthews, or any of the other guys who were under 30.

Two years later, the over 30 guys were gone except for Pickett. We also had Jeff Saturday. Everybody else was 30 or younger. Philadelphia had two guys over 30 last year, Slay and Johnson, who were clearly two of the biggest reasons they won, right? Not Hurts and Barkley, according to Coach Chesty. Their opponent, the KC Chiefs, had two guys over 30. One is a future HOFer, Kelce, and the other is an OL, Thuney.

Instead of signing guys who are over 30 to a third deal, I think you're probably way ahead to use the money to get a FA.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 18, 2025 at 02:00 pm

Did they win another SB two years later?🤔 You certainly don't want an Over the Hill Gang but veteran leadership is important. It sure seemed like the Eagles DL was happy to have Brandon Graham back on the field for the SB but he's 37, no need for him to be on the roster right?

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 18, 2025 at 02:07 pm

You don't have to be over 30 to be a veteran.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 18, 2025 at 04:59 pm

So you think the Eagles win the SB without Lane Johnson and Brandon Graham on the roster? They were both 35. Or the Packers minus Charles Woodson?

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 18, 2025 at 07:10 pm

I think Woodson played very little in the Super Bowl win for us because he was injured, and didn't help us as much that day as Nick Collins or Sam Shields. I know you wouldn't know that because you don't watch the games. I think that Hurts and Barkley were more important to the Eagles than Johnson and Graham, yes.

You don't seem to understand that these teams are mostly younger guys. You may have a QB, or a kicker, or an Olineman over 30, but very, very few of your players will be on third contracts, and if they aren't QBs then they probably aren't worth signing to another contract. I know you'll find an exception, like Kelce, but it's better to bet on the rule, and not the exception.

I would like to see Jenkins and Clark remain on the Packers as long as they're good players for us, but that doesn't change the fact that betting on guys over 30 is a bad bet more often than not.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 18, 2025 at 07:37 pm

You can't be dumb enough to think they MAKE the SB without Woodson's play and leadership. Driver was hurt during the SB as well, I guess they should have let him go before then. He was 36, what were they thinking?

Lane Johnson the 5 time All Pro isn't an important reason why they won a SB and Barkley had 2000 yards? Barkley had less yards after contact than Jacobs. Yards before contact? 1328 to 592 for Jacobs. But you insist the Packers OL doesn't get credit for their good season instead of giving credit where credit is due and acknowledging the special season Jacobs had or how good Love was at avoiding turning pressures into sacks.

You want a younger team in general but saying resigning any 30 year old is a bad idea is an unserious statement.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 19, 2025 at 08:44 am

We barely made the playoffs that year. I'm not smart like you so I can't say what mighthave/couldhave/wouldhave happened.

You like to show your wits by picking at nits. The POINT that the grownups here understand is that third contracts for guys over 30 are going to have alot of problems and they're probably unnecessary.

Here's what you say: '''saying resigning any 30 year old is a bad idea is an unserious statement."""

Here's what I say: Third contracts, for guys over 30, are more likely to work out poorly for the team than they are to work out well for the team. That's pretty much indisputable, even if you're a nitwit.

0 points
0
0
Guam's picture

May 18, 2025 at 09:25 am

I did an "analysis" a couple of years ago that looked at Packer O-linemen and third contracts. If my memory serves, the last third contract given by the Packers other than Bahk was either Clifton or Tauscher. The Packers passed on third contracts for Bulaga, Sitton, Linsley, Lang and a number of other starting offensive linemen. The more important point is that only one of that large number of ex-Packers completed their third contract with the team that signed them. Their careers were either ended prematurely by injury or they were cut for underperformance.

Former Packer offensive linemen on third contracts haven't fared well in the NFL. I strongly suspect if that analysis were extended to other teams, you would find similar results. There is a very good reason the Packer FO rarely extends third contracts to offensive linemen. I'm not sure why Jenkins would be an exception.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 18, 2025 at 09:53 am

Jenkins would be an exception if he's healthy and playing like one of our best offensive linemen.

We don't have to extend Jenkins. He's under contract for two more years and then he'll be a FA. He turns 30 the day after Christmas.

Generally speaking, though, I'm on the same boat as you are on this. Third contracts aren't generally a real good idea.

0 points
0
0
GregC's picture

May 18, 2025 at 10:00 am

I don't think it would be a good idea to work out a big third contract, but a lesser deal could make sense, as others have discussed below. It is an unusual situation, with Jenkins switching positions. Also, these kinds of discussions normally don't occur with two years left on the current contract, which is why I think they are looking at a shorter term deal--maybe just enough to make it palatable for both parties to have Jenkins play in Green Bay through 2026, or 2027 at the latest.

If they can't work anything out, Jenkins will play out the season and then probably go elsewhere.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 18, 2025 at 11:42 am

If they had taken advantage of the depth of last year's center class they could have saved themselves a lot of dough. 8 rookie centers had a better pressure rate allowed than Myers. That doesn't mean they are all going to be successful but it does show how easier it would have been to find a cheap improvement.

0 points
0
0
GregC's picture

May 18, 2025 at 02:28 pm

Yeah, I was surprised they waited till the 5th round to draft a second O-lineman last year (Monk). The Ty'Ron Hopper pick in the third round appears to be, if anything, even odder than it did at the time.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 18, 2025 at 05:23 pm

Beaux Limmer was taken about 50 picks after Monk and played 917 snaps for the Rams. Would have been an improvement over Myers and hit all their athletic thresholds.

0 points
0
0
Bitternotsour's picture

May 18, 2025 at 08:58 pm

Hindsight has entered the chat

0 points
0
0
Guam's picture

May 18, 2025 at 08:00 am

The Jenkins situation is going to throw some early light on the Packer's thinking for 2026. They have a slew of good, young players coming up for their second contract (Tom, R. Walker, Rhyan, Watson, Doubs on offense alone) and they are already over the cap for 2026 on existing contracts. The cap will certainly increase in 2026 and the first year of new contracts can be managed to keep the number low, but they are going to have trouble resigning a number of players.

There are three guys on the roster who have large contracts and have either underperformed their contracts or are aging out or both. Jenkins is one of those three (Clark and Alexander being the other two) and his issue is age, not underperformance. Jenkins will be 30 this year and 31 at the end of his second contract in 2026. The Packers rarely give third contracts to offensive linemen and the last time they did so was to Bahk and that was a disaster.

The fan in me would like to see a loyal Packer draftee and good performing player like Jenkins rewarded with an extension. The cap analyst in me doesn't think that is going to happen since they need 2026 cap space and they could just as easily move Rhyan or Monk to center. How the Packers handle Jenkins in the next few weeks will be telling about Packer plans for 2026.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 18, 2025 at 08:29 am

Jenkins' 2025 cap hit is driven by $11.7M in cash value and '26 by $18.5M in cash value...none of which isn't guaranteed, which makes it flexible/pliable compensation. That's what Jenkins is trying not to lose...and if it's converted to bonus, he still gets it.

I agree that there are personnel routes that allow the Packers to cut ties with Jenkins and get him off the books in '26 altogether, but they're largely projections and unknowns. I can see where that feels like the more risky route given they're trying to contend now. Monk might come in and play great guns in camp and allow the Packers to move on from Jenkins. Rhyan would need a new contract in 2026. It could be this all falls apart and forces the Packers to either draft a top center in '26 or buy one on the open market.

It feels like they are flying by the seats of their pants a little here, and I'd put more value in the proven player and continuity.

0 points
0
0
Guam's picture

May 18, 2025 at 09:41 am

There are 2025 reasons for keeping Jenkins and 2026 reasons for letting him go.

I suspect the Packers may just tell Jenkins to play to his current contract. He is well paid under that contract and likely won't get better paid elsewhere. I doubt he will withhold services and lose $11.7 MM in cash this year. I think the Packers hold most of the high cards here and Jenkins may just have to accept the contract his professional agent negotiated and he signed a couple of years ago.

That may sound harsh, but Bahk collected tens of millions while not playing almost at all for a couple of seasons under his contract. The Packers nonetheless fully honored that contract. Sometimes contracts favor the players, sometimes the team. Jenkins, his agent and the Packers negotiated this contract in good faith. Honor it.

0 points
0
0
Bitternotsour's picture

May 18, 2025 at 09:09 am

younger, bigger, faster, cheaper. no third contracts for 30 year olds...

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

May 18, 2025 at 08:04 am

"Okay, I'm only 38, and if I'm being honest, I thought the Packers' release was pretty good. As we've all been saying lately, the Packers have really stepped up their social media game, and it's been great to see."

Hmmm...Maybe that's it then. I'm 65 and I thought the Packers Schedule Release was horrible, absolutely horrible. Maybe I didn't fully get it but I though it was pretty bad, embarrassing even.

https://www.packers.com/schedule/

I mean WTF!!!!

0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

May 18, 2025 at 10:54 am

NP, I'm with you. I turn 71 three weeks and I didn't even FINISH watching the Packers schedule release video because it just seemed so F' ing stupid (the F in the video included). My reaction was also WTF?!

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

May 18, 2025 at 12:00 pm

Designed for those seeking entertainment not football fans. Then again, we are the ones often taken for granted by pro teams. They know we will be interested now and through the season.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

May 18, 2025 at 12:14 pm

I'm about the same age. The schedule release used to be a couple of column inches in the Sunday edition of the Milwaukee Journal. We used to memorize it, because back in the day, we were taught to memorize things because it was good for our brain.. There were no bye weeks, Monday Night games, Thursday night games, Sunday night games.

You played your division opponents twice. so when we were in a 5 team division with Tampa Bay, half your schedule was your own division.

You have to play the schedule, better or worse, fair or foul. Just like the other 31 teams. You'll win some and lose some....hopefully you'll win enough to make the playoffs.

0 points
0
0
barutanseijin's picture

May 18, 2025 at 05:55 pm

I just waited until the liquor store or somebody had them out by the cash register.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

May 19, 2025 at 05:37 am

Hi Spock...LOL...I'm not even sure age has anything to do with it. Bad is BAD right?

0 points
0
0
TKWorldWide's picture

May 18, 2025 at 08:04 am

They could extend him a year while creating cap space. Win-win.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 18, 2025 at 08:20 am

That's easiest way to make everyone happy.

Add two years to his deal, drop his cap hits in 2025 and '26 in the process, get him another bolus of guaranteed money, build a structure that makes '27 and '28 escapable (i.e. unguaranteed bonuses and cash values). Teams use these tactics all the time...but it does marry the Packers to Jenkins for at least two seasons, yet.

0 points
0
0
Bitternotsour's picture

May 18, 2025 at 09:10 am

or, they could wait and see if he can play 17 games effectively at center and then decide?

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 18, 2025 at 04:05 pm

I think part of the attraction is to get a chunk of that extension on the 2025 cap so it doesn't amortize over the rest of the deal. I think they're pretty sure they know what they have.

0 points
0
0
Alberta_Packer's picture

May 18, 2025 at 11:05 am

I have empathy for late round players on absurdly cheap rookie contracts. And practice squad players who - year after year - strive to make the roster - on $225,000 per year (or less). For a near 30 yr.old veteran - who has reached his peak - with career earnings of over 45 M and still under contract for 2 more years - not so much. Therefore I would respectfully and politely tell Jenkins and his agent to "pound sand" - knowing that a holdout is highly unlikely once fines can be levied.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

May 18, 2025 at 11:37 am

Personally, I don't believe any player on the Packers have proven themselves to get a third contract, whether due now or coming. If you're drafting well, those players should be making it easy to move forward, and not having to use the argument of veteran presence. Paying aging veterans because your youth isn't progressing fast enough isn't the issue, it's drafting, coaching, scheme etc., and keeping the old will not get you where you want to get to. Is there an outlier at times, sure, but it seems many always believe the veteran should get a third contract. It's hard enough to figure out who gets a second and find the money for them, and third contract deals hinder both as to that problem.

This isn't the window of Love, as many believed it to be or become, as 18-15, or half-and-half seasons isn't the open window expected after 5 seasons of learning and playing. When the ORG figures out what all Love needs to succeed, the team window opens, though Love will likely be the one that keeps them from getting through it.

I read that the recent Purdy deal let the Packers off the hook for overpaying a QB. I disagree, because Purdy has achieved much more than Love, even if Purdy proves to be much less than the money going forward.

What scares me is how many other teams have surpassed the Packers in growth, and quickly, whereas we're still clamoring about the same stuff, and thinking that jogging in place is forward movement.

Just commenting on some points made in other comments.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 18, 2025 at 11:37 am

He wants some assurances he's not going to make this move only to get cut next Spring. That probably means a one year extension and a little guaranteed money but to get that he has to be willing to lower his cap hit in '25 IMO.

I like how people complain about players talking at the end of their deals without realizing it's the Packers that structure the deals so they won't ever be completed without some kind of restructuring.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 18, 2025 at 04:06 pm

" it's the Packers that structure the deals so they won't ever be completed without some kind of restructuring."

It's how the league works now.
Don't cry for the players, though. Every time there's a restructure or a cut (and a new deal elsewhere) there's a new bolus of guaranteed money coming their way.

Why was JA OK with, even wanting, getting cut? Cuz he knows there's more signing bonus coming his way on an open market deal.

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 18, 2025 at 08:38 pm

There are other ways to make contracts more of a pay as go type of deal. Guaranteed roster bonuses and such that the Packers don't like to hand out. We'll see if they use some more modern tactics when they have a few players to resign next year.

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

May 18, 2025 at 01:33 pm

Assurances?

If Gute didn't show, "Boss" is a 4 letter word.
No one on this team would Seek assurances.
There is a shift in chemistry.
What use to be "one" of the family.
Has turned into peril.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

May 18, 2025 at 03:16 pm

I feel like this is a failed quatrain from Nostradamus' writings, like he just couldn't make it through editing and get it down to 4 lines.
What does it mean?

0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

May 18, 2025 at 05:25 pm

It means Stocky has been licking frogs again. 😉

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

May 19, 2025 at 05:36 am

A irrational effort to challenge the result.

If they're unhappy or create
a negative atmosphere within the team.
They hurt the friends they've chosen.

0 points
0
0