Mike Greenberg, on ESPN Radios Mike and Mike in the Morning, is trying to argue that Donovan McNabb is a Hall-of-Famer.
His basis for doing this is that:
1) Donovan McNabb will have better numbers than Troy Aikman when he retires.
2) Donovan McNabb will have better numbers than Steve Young when he retires.
3) Both Troy Aikman and Steve Young are Hall-of-Famers.
He also says that Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady are the sure-fire Hall-of-Famers from this era. Does McNabb belong in the same category with these guys?
There is no doubt that players in the current era will have the strongest passing statistics of players in any era ever. So the direct comparison to Young/Aikman is already imperfect.
I'll get to Aikman/McNabb in a minute. Here's Young vs. McNabb in career rate totals.
Completion Percentage
Steve Young 64.3
Donovan McNabb 58.9
Yards per Attempt
Steve Young 8.0
Donovan McNabb 6.8
TD Rate
Steve Young 5.6%
Donovan McNabb 4.5%
Sack Rate
Steve Young 7.94%
Donovan McNabb 6.96%
INT Rate
Steve Young 2.6%
Donovman McNabb 2.1%
Passer Rating
Steve Young 96.8
Donovan McNabb 85.9
I included stats where McNabb was better to show how close it was in comparison to Young, and without coming up with a complicated era regression multiplier to normalize the numbers. On all stats that don't pertain directly to negative plays, McNabb is clearly inferior to Young, and it really isn't even all that close. I don't have any idea how Greenberg is claiming that McNabb has better numbers than Young. Even ignoring the elephant in the room -- the fact that McNabb played in a big passing era on a big passing team -- he's still not even remotely comparable to Steve Young on merit.
But since "compares well to Steve Young" is not necessarily a hall of fame criteria, let's look at Greenberg's other comparison: Troy Aikman.
McNabb actually compares much better to Aikman.
Completion Percentage
Troy Aikman 61.5
Donovan McNabb 58.9
Yards per Attempt
Troy Aikman 7.0
Donovan McNabb 6.8
TD Rate
Troy Aikman 3.5%
Donovan McNabb 4.5%
Sack Rate
Troy Aikman 5.21%*
Donovan McNabb 6.96%
*Well above average for the time, but again, Aikman's protection was particularly outstanding, perhaps the best in history. McNabb's had very good protection by current standards, but nothing like Aikman.
INT Rate
Troy Aikman 3.0%
Donovman McNabb 2.1%
Passer Rating
Troy Aikman 81.6
Donovan McNabb 85.9
Aikman, statistically, is a much better McNabb comparable. Although era-adjusted Aikman would put McNabb to shame, Aikman's best years are concentrated in the six best years in the history of the Cowboys franchise: 1991-1996. In those seasons, he never posted a completion percentage below 63.7. Outside of those seasons, he never got above 59.5. That's unheard of, and probably had everything to do with the talent around him. Aikman's 61.5% career figure is one he not ever came within two points in any single season. Astounding.
But here's the point: A random player with Troy Aikman's numbers is NOT a hall-of-famer. That's the big point here. Troy Aikman is in Canton because and only because he won three Super Bowls, not because he was a particularly great passer. Donovan McNabb is also not a particularly great passer, and happens to have no Super Bowls. If he can win his next two games, he will have a single Super Bowl. And he still won't have anywhere near Aikman's credentials for hall-of-fame selection.
Although, if you want to use the innovator angle on McNabb, he is widely credited with bringing the bounce pass to football. That's got to be worth something, right?
Look, Donovan McNabb is a good player. But if he goes in the Hall-of-Fame for any reason but sympathy, then what do you tell Jeff Garcia?
Or Mark Brunell?
Or Rich Gannon?
Or Chad Pennington?
Or Steve McNair?
Or Trent Green
Or Marc Bulger
Or Matt Hasselbeck?
Or, eventually, (in no specific order) Jay Cutler, Carson Palmer, Phillip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Brady Quinn, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, or Joe Flacco?
Most, if not all, of those guys will never make the hall of fame. But if Donovan McNabb deserves it, don't all those guys deserve at least the same honor, if not a greater one?
Donovan McNabb and Hall-of-Fame, probably the worst thing said this entire football season.
Showing posts with label ESPN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ESPN. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, September 15, 2008
There's a reason Merril Hoge isn't the Commish
So I had Sportscenter on today, and Merrill Hoge was talking about the Broncos-Chargers game this weekend. So the question was, whether or not he liked the gutsy call by Shanahan to go for two at the end of overtime.
Naturally, I expected him to say that he liked it. For one thing, every ESPN commentator that has said anything about it has been singing Shanahan's praises relentlessly, and for another it worked...so of course they take his side.
Hoge decides to take that plan a few steps further, or perhaps several light-years further. Merril Hoge steps up on the soap box and suggests that field goals and extra points be banned entirely during the last 5 minutes of a football game. Go for it on fourth down, even if it's 4th and goal from the 33. Go for two. As he said, "we're not going to do anything to overtime, so let's just keep games from going in to overtime".
Other things that would keep games from going into overtime: if a game ends in a tie, have the coaches whip it out and see who is bigger; if a home team can't win in regulation, the away team should be declared the winner; have Ed Hochuli arm wrestle the coaches, and the coach with less bone and ligament damage be declared the winner. All of those would make more sense than making a team go for it on 4th and goal from the 33 with 10 seconds left, trailing by 3 points. Not to mention: five minutes? How did Hoge come up with that? So if a game is tied 28-28 at the end of the first quarter and there is no further scoring in regulation, then overtime is ok but we can't have a game become tied in the last five minutes?
Oh, and just for the sake of argument, how is taking the strategy out of the coaches hands more exciting than sudden death overtime? Granted there are A LOT of problems with sudden death overtime, but remember this is the instituion that brought us the back-to-back walk-off interception returns for touchdowns by Mike Brown. Honestly, stupid shit like this is why people hated the XFL.
Naturally, I expected him to say that he liked it. For one thing, every ESPN commentator that has said anything about it has been singing Shanahan's praises relentlessly, and for another it worked...so of course they take his side.
Hoge decides to take that plan a few steps further, or perhaps several light-years further. Merril Hoge steps up on the soap box and suggests that field goals and extra points be banned entirely during the last 5 minutes of a football game. Go for it on fourth down, even if it's 4th and goal from the 33. Go for two. As he said, "we're not going to do anything to overtime, so let's just keep games from going in to overtime".
Other things that would keep games from going into overtime: if a game ends in a tie, have the coaches whip it out and see who is bigger; if a home team can't win in regulation, the away team should be declared the winner; have Ed Hochuli arm wrestle the coaches, and the coach with less bone and ligament damage be declared the winner. All of those would make more sense than making a team go for it on 4th and goal from the 33 with 10 seconds left, trailing by 3 points. Not to mention: five minutes? How did Hoge come up with that? So if a game is tied 28-28 at the end of the first quarter and there is no further scoring in regulation, then overtime is ok but we can't have a game become tied in the last five minutes?
Oh, and just for the sake of argument, how is taking the strategy out of the coaches hands more exciting than sudden death overtime? Granted there are A LOT of problems with sudden death overtime, but remember this is the instituion that brought us the back-to-back walk-off interception returns for touchdowns by Mike Brown. Honestly, stupid shit like this is why people hated the XFL.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
One Thing I'll Never Understand
For some reason, sportswriters find it impossible to accept that some times good players are on bad teams, and sometimes bad players are on good teams. Jeffri Chadiha should hardly be blamed for doing something that has become the industry's bread-and-butter, but then again, the world is not fair.
Chadiha compiled a list of the 10 Most Indispensible Players in the NFL. Some of them are picks that he simply has to make: Peyton, Brady, both fine. Some are sort of unconventional. Sure Antonio Gates is a man of spectacular ability, but he's still a tight end and by last years DVOA (via Football Outsiders), not even the most valuable. Even so, Chadiha makes a good point. Likewise, four is Adrian Peterson. He is great, but he is also one of very few running backs to be have fewer in Football Outsider's adjusted yards than actual yards. His five fumbles are steep for someone with so few carries, and he shares the team with a top 20 DVOA back.
Enough of that, let's get completely crazy. Scroll down to number ten and you'll see, of all people, Eli Manning. I'll give you a moment to pick your jaw up off the floor. I'll admit Manning put together a pretty good playoff run, but when you look at the larger sample size of the regular season, he was just awful. Football Outsiders has him listed as roughly the 35th best quarterback. His real performance was possibly not even good enough to start. Just because his team put together a remarkable run and was inspirational and beautiful all that crap doesn't change the fact that Eli Manning was bad. He really was quite bad. It has nothing to do with him not being intense, or being too intense or whatever, he was just bad. He is not the 10th most indispensible player, he is actually, seemingly, very dispensible.
Chadiha compiled a list of the 10 Most Indispensible Players in the NFL. Some of them are picks that he simply has to make: Peyton, Brady, both fine. Some are sort of unconventional. Sure Antonio Gates is a man of spectacular ability, but he's still a tight end and by last years DVOA (via Football Outsiders), not even the most valuable. Even so, Chadiha makes a good point. Likewise, four is Adrian Peterson. He is great, but he is also one of very few running backs to be have fewer in Football Outsider's adjusted yards than actual yards. His five fumbles are steep for someone with so few carries, and he shares the team with a top 20 DVOA back.
Enough of that, let's get completely crazy. Scroll down to number ten and you'll see, of all people, Eli Manning. I'll give you a moment to pick your jaw up off the floor. I'll admit Manning put together a pretty good playoff run, but when you look at the larger sample size of the regular season, he was just awful. Football Outsiders has him listed as roughly the 35th best quarterback. His real performance was possibly not even good enough to start. Just because his team put together a remarkable run and was inspirational and beautiful all that crap doesn't change the fact that Eli Manning was bad. He really was quite bad. It has nothing to do with him not being intense, or being too intense or whatever, he was just bad. He is not the 10th most indispensible player, he is actually, seemingly, very dispensible.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Making Something Out of Nothing
ESPN is on an odd streak of producing insightful content that isn't painful for me to read. Go figure. I think I actually miss the days when the front page articles made me cringe.
Luckily, the magic of ESPN's archives allow me to go back in time, and discover more sub par analysis, courtesy of Dennis Green's favorite son -- Jeremy -- who apparently thinks that the Cleveland Browns are the favorite to win the AFC North this year. Green pimps the job Browns' GM Phil Savage is doing in this article, apparently unaware that perhaps not all personnel moves have positive results.
QB Derek Anderson -- Anderson was a restricted free agent entering the offseason, and the Browns put a first- and third-round tender on him to possibly scare away potential suitors. There was some talk about listening to trade offers for Anderson, but his experience in Baltimore taught Savage that a constant quarterback merry-go-round is not good for an offense.
Derek Anderson was certainly a breath of fresh air in 2007. I won't argue this point. Going forward though, is there any reason to think that Derek Anderson will be a better pro than Brady Quinn.
Consider these facts about Anderson in 2007:
Anderson completed 56% of his passes.
His 19 interceptions ranked him one behind Eli Manning for tops in the NFL (something that his completion percentage would indicate is a very real trend).
Chase Stuart, at PFR, adjusted QB numbers for strength of schedule, and Anderson's totals came out below average -- ranking below both Chad Pennington and Jon Kitna.
KC Joyner's bad decision % totals had Anderson at second worst, ahead of only Jay Cutler with a 4.7% bad decision rate.
Now, consider that Anderson went to the pro bowl in 2007 with all these problems with his game. Is that really a recipe for improvement the next season? If anything, the pro bowl invite seems like it would falsely inflate Anderson's value in his own mind, which can be dangerous for the development of a young QB.
The process here tells Savage to sell high -- try to cash in on his value and grab a few picks. What Green fails to mention is that Savage had no serious offers for Anderson because people are skeptical. The Browns had a soft schedule, and they missed the playoffs in no small part because Anderson imploded down the stretch. 10 wins is nothing to spit on, but as we'll see later, a repeat of that performance remains a pipe dream in Jeremy Green's mind.
RB Jamal Lewis -- The team made it a priority to get a deal done for Lewis, another great move. Lewis is coming off his best season (1,304 yards, 11 touchdowns) since 2003, and his legs looked rejuvenated last season.
Jamal Lewis DVOA (Yards/Carry) 2002-2007:
02- -1.7% (4.3)
03- 3.4% (5.3)
04- 3.5% (4.3)
05- -25.2%(!) (3.4)
06- -9.9% (3.6)
07- 1.9% (4.4)
The numbers absolutely support Jeremy Green's claim that his legs looked rejuvenated last year. Of course, that rejuvenation is who Jamal Lewis is and always has been throughout his career: a league average running back when healthy who is capable of having insane games when he plays the Cleveland Browns defense. He's probably the very best practice back in the NFL.
He will also be 29 before opening day, and with the mileage on his tires, it's safe to assume we've seen his peak. The smart move would have been for the Browns to invest the money they spent on extending Lewis elsewhere, but again, Phil Savage may not be the genius that Green likens him to be.
DTs Shaun Rogers and Corey Williams -- Acquiring Rogers in a trade with the Detroit Lions was one of those risks I talked about earlier.
Williams came over in a trade with the Green Bay Packers and will add more size to a defense that was one of the worst in the league against the run last season.
These are the two moves that will for sure determine how we remember Cleveland's offseason. This is who the Browns dealt their top two picks in the 2008 draft for.
I'm skeptical on Rogers, but KC Joyner pretty much says concisely what I am really thinking here:
Overrated: Shaun Rogers, DT, Detroit -- He was named the NFC player of the week at one point during the 2007 season, but his 4.4 YPA allowed on point-of-attack runs was quite disappointing for a player who had been dominant in that area in the past. And that wasn't all: 30 of the 97 POA runs directed at Rogers gained at least 5 yards, and 11 went for 10-plus yards.
Keep in mind that Joyner wrote this about a month before Rogers was dealt to Clevland: for a third round pick and shutdown corner Leigh Bodden. Cleveland has (or, at least had, prior to Daven Holly's season ending knee injury) corner depth, and though Rogers' impact on the Browns is yet to be seen, it's hard to see a scenario where the Browns' improved their team in this deal.
Also: Getting fleeced by Matt Millen is grounds for dismissal in 40 states.
I think Williams is a good pickup for the Browns D. Keep in mind though, the price on him was a second round pick -- a price that no team was willing to pay the Browns for Derek Anderson. Certainly, Anderson could have been a Packer for the price of Williams, but the Packers certainly don't think Anderson is franchise QB material.
Yes, it's early, but I'll make two predictions: The Browns will win the AFC North, and Savage will be the GM of the year.
Based on his track record this offseason, I'll make a bold prediction also: Dennis Green gets another job in the NFL before Jeremy Green gets a single prediction correct.
Luckily, the magic of ESPN's archives allow me to go back in time, and discover more sub par analysis, courtesy of Dennis Green's favorite son -- Jeremy -- who apparently thinks that the Cleveland Browns are the favorite to win the AFC North this year. Green pimps the job Browns' GM Phil Savage is doing in this article, apparently unaware that perhaps not all personnel moves have positive results.
QB Derek Anderson -- Anderson was a restricted free agent entering the offseason, and the Browns put a first- and third-round tender on him to possibly scare away potential suitors. There was some talk about listening to trade offers for Anderson, but his experience in Baltimore taught Savage that a constant quarterback merry-go-round is not good for an offense.
Derek Anderson was certainly a breath of fresh air in 2007. I won't argue this point. Going forward though, is there any reason to think that Derek Anderson will be a better pro than Brady Quinn.
Consider these facts about Anderson in 2007:
Anderson completed 56% of his passes.
His 19 interceptions ranked him one behind Eli Manning for tops in the NFL (something that his completion percentage would indicate is a very real trend).
Chase Stuart, at PFR, adjusted QB numbers for strength of schedule, and Anderson's totals came out below average -- ranking below both Chad Pennington and Jon Kitna.
KC Joyner's bad decision % totals had Anderson at second worst, ahead of only Jay Cutler with a 4.7% bad decision rate.
Now, consider that Anderson went to the pro bowl in 2007 with all these problems with his game. Is that really a recipe for improvement the next season? If anything, the pro bowl invite seems like it would falsely inflate Anderson's value in his own mind, which can be dangerous for the development of a young QB.
The process here tells Savage to sell high -- try to cash in on his value and grab a few picks. What Green fails to mention is that Savage had no serious offers for Anderson because people are skeptical. The Browns had a soft schedule, and they missed the playoffs in no small part because Anderson imploded down the stretch. 10 wins is nothing to spit on, but as we'll see later, a repeat of that performance remains a pipe dream in Jeremy Green's mind.
RB Jamal Lewis -- The team made it a priority to get a deal done for Lewis, another great move. Lewis is coming off his best season (1,304 yards, 11 touchdowns) since 2003, and his legs looked rejuvenated last season.
Jamal Lewis DVOA (Yards/Carry) 2002-2007:
02- -1.7% (4.3)
03- 3.4% (5.3)
04- 3.5% (4.3)
05- -25.2%(!) (3.4)
06- -9.9% (3.6)
07- 1.9% (4.4)
The numbers absolutely support Jeremy Green's claim that his legs looked rejuvenated last year. Of course, that rejuvenation is who Jamal Lewis is and always has been throughout his career: a league average running back when healthy who is capable of having insane games when he plays the Cleveland Browns defense. He's probably the very best practice back in the NFL.
He will also be 29 before opening day, and with the mileage on his tires, it's safe to assume we've seen his peak. The smart move would have been for the Browns to invest the money they spent on extending Lewis elsewhere, but again, Phil Savage may not be the genius that Green likens him to be.
DTs Shaun Rogers and Corey Williams -- Acquiring Rogers in a trade with the Detroit Lions was one of those risks I talked about earlier.
Williams came over in a trade with the Green Bay Packers and will add more size to a defense that was one of the worst in the league against the run last season.
These are the two moves that will for sure determine how we remember Cleveland's offseason. This is who the Browns dealt their top two picks in the 2008 draft for.
I'm skeptical on Rogers, but KC Joyner pretty much says concisely what I am really thinking here:
Overrated: Shaun Rogers, DT, Detroit -- He was named the NFC player of the week at one point during the 2007 season, but his 4.4 YPA allowed on point-of-attack runs was quite disappointing for a player who had been dominant in that area in the past. And that wasn't all: 30 of the 97 POA runs directed at Rogers gained at least 5 yards, and 11 went for 10-plus yards.
Keep in mind that Joyner wrote this about a month before Rogers was dealt to Clevland: for a third round pick and shutdown corner Leigh Bodden. Cleveland has (or, at least had, prior to Daven Holly's season ending knee injury) corner depth, and though Rogers' impact on the Browns is yet to be seen, it's hard to see a scenario where the Browns' improved their team in this deal.
Also: Getting fleeced by Matt Millen is grounds for dismissal in 40 states.
I think Williams is a good pickup for the Browns D. Keep in mind though, the price on him was a second round pick -- a price that no team was willing to pay the Browns for Derek Anderson. Certainly, Anderson could have been a Packer for the price of Williams, but the Packers certainly don't think Anderson is franchise QB material.
Yes, it's early, but I'll make two predictions: The Browns will win the AFC North, and Savage will be the GM of the year.
Based on his track record this offseason, I'll make a bold prediction also: Dennis Green gets another job in the NFL before Jeremy Green gets a single prediction correct.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Dynamic Running Duos
Jeremy Green, y'all:
One recent trend in the NFL is that teams are creating depth at running back and more and more teams are using a two-back system. Here's a look at [five] duos that will have success this season and [five] others that will struggle.
Five and five here. That's one third of the NFL. Fine. Green mentions Minnesota and Jacksonville at the top of his list. Both are totally deserving tandems. So far so good.
Dallas' Marion Barber and Felix Jones
As soon as the Cowboys selected Jones, I started envisioning how this backfield would shape up in 2008. The rest of the NFC East likely started having nightmares. Now that Julius Jones has left for Seattle, Barber is now the lead back. He is one of the most physical runners in the NFL and leaves a mark when he runs over a defender. Jones' quickness and speed make him the perfect complement. One of the toughest adjustments a defense has to make is when it goes from seeing a physical, between-the-tackles runner to a speed guy. In terms of pure explosiveness when combining strength and speed, this duo is unmatched.
Okay, Marion Barber is very good, runs with power and authority, is a great receiver out of the backfield. But he doesn't break the big run, so we give him...Felix Jones. Who did not start in college. And has never played a down in the NFL.
This would be one think if it was Barber and Darren McFadden. But it's pure speculation right now that Felix Jones will ever be an NFL quality back. Well, whatever. You're stretching here, Jeremy Green, but you still have two more chances to,
Pittsburgh's Willie Parker and Rashard Mendenhall
Pittsburgh wasn't supposed to be on this list. But then the second-best rookie running back in the 2008 class fell into the Steelers' laps. Though Parker is a speed back who has shown he can carry the load, depth has been a concern for the Steelers. Plus, Parker is coming back from a season-ending injury, so adding Mendenhall made sense. He is a physical runner who should provide nice balance in the backfield to "Fast Willie" and a Pittsburgh offense that will try to re-establish its tough, blue-collar mentality this season.
Willie Parker DVOA (2007): -11.3%
Willie Parker DVOA (2006): 1.1%
Willie Parker DVOA (2005): 0.2%
Alright. In Willie Parker's BEST season, he was an average back. Last year, at age 27, he averaged 4.1 yards/carry. He was a probowler the last two seasons, though in 2007, Najeh Davenport was twice as valuable in half as many touches (20.4% DVOA). Willie Parker also broke his leg in December 2007.
Willie Parker is good enough to start somewhere in the NFL, but he's not a top running back in the league. Probably not even top 25.
Mendenhall has never played a down. He's a good prospect with a lot of hype, and that's the kind of player that Jeremy Green wants on his team. Of course he just tried that Felix Jones could improve the Running Back situation in Dallas now that that lazy bum Julius Jones is finally elsewhere.
Seattle's Julius Jones and T.J. Duckett
Unhappy with his backfield, Mike Holmgren decided to shake things up. In a rare move, the Seahawks dipped into the unrestricted free-agent running back market twice in the offseason in an effort to get one star running back via two bodies. A change of scenery will help Jones, who was never given a full opportunity to succeed in Dallas. Once he got the "soft" label, his days of being given the opportunity to carry the load went by the wayside. Duckett is a journeyman but is a proven backup with solid size and the power to run between the tackles.
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Gentlemen, your fifth most feared RB tandem in the NFL today: some guy who got replaced by a rookie in Dallas, and TJ Duckett.
TJ Duckett -- one of the very worst first round running back picks of the last ten years. Literally did not carry the ball 20 times in 2005, his 4th and final season in Atlanta, despite being healthy the whole year. Got traded to Washington, and posted a DVOA of -20.8% in a (rightfully) small sample size. Better last year, still didn't qualify for the DVOA leaderboard.
Now (apparently) part of one of the five best duos in the NFL. Better than Bradshaw and Jacobs. Better than Turner/Norwood. Better than Tomlinson/Sproles. Better than Westbrook/Booker.
For the rest of the article, a good case could be made for each of the five "Destined Duds" to be more successful this year than TJ Duckett and Julius Jones, and especially so with Ronnie Brown who was so good last year before getting injured that his combined rushing and receiving DPAR in seven games ranked fifth for all RBs...over the entire fucking season.
And yes, he is coming off a torn ACL and Ricky Williams can no longer be counted on, but remember: Willie Parker broke his fucking leg.
One recent trend in the NFL is that teams are creating depth at running back and more and more teams are using a two-back system. Here's a look at [five] duos that will have success this season and [five] others that will struggle.
Five and five here. That's one third of the NFL. Fine. Green mentions Minnesota and Jacksonville at the top of his list. Both are totally deserving tandems. So far so good.
Dallas' Marion Barber and Felix Jones
As soon as the Cowboys selected Jones, I started envisioning how this backfield would shape up in 2008. The rest of the NFC East likely started having nightmares. Now that Julius Jones has left for Seattle, Barber is now the lead back. He is one of the most physical runners in the NFL and leaves a mark when he runs over a defender. Jones' quickness and speed make him the perfect complement. One of the toughest adjustments a defense has to make is when it goes from seeing a physical, between-the-tackles runner to a speed guy. In terms of pure explosiveness when combining strength and speed, this duo is unmatched.
Okay, Marion Barber is very good, runs with power and authority, is a great receiver out of the backfield. But he doesn't break the big run, so we give him...Felix Jones. Who did not start in college. And has never played a down in the NFL.
This would be one think if it was Barber and Darren McFadden. But it's pure speculation right now that Felix Jones will ever be an NFL quality back. Well, whatever. You're stretching here, Jeremy Green, but you still have two more chances to,
Pittsburgh's Willie Parker and Rashard Mendenhall
Pittsburgh wasn't supposed to be on this list. But then the second-best rookie running back in the 2008 class fell into the Steelers' laps. Though Parker is a speed back who has shown he can carry the load, depth has been a concern for the Steelers. Plus, Parker is coming back from a season-ending injury, so adding Mendenhall made sense. He is a physical runner who should provide nice balance in the backfield to "Fast Willie" and a Pittsburgh offense that will try to re-establish its tough, blue-collar mentality this season.
Willie Parker DVOA (2007): -11.3%
Willie Parker DVOA (2006): 1.1%
Willie Parker DVOA (2005): 0.2%
Alright. In Willie Parker's BEST season, he was an average back. Last year, at age 27, he averaged 4.1 yards/carry. He was a probowler the last two seasons, though in 2007, Najeh Davenport was twice as valuable in half as many touches (20.4% DVOA). Willie Parker also broke his leg in December 2007.
Willie Parker is good enough to start somewhere in the NFL, but he's not a top running back in the league. Probably not even top 25.
Mendenhall has never played a down. He's a good prospect with a lot of hype, and that's the kind of player that Jeremy Green wants on his team. Of course he just tried that Felix Jones could improve the Running Back situation in Dallas now that that lazy bum Julius Jones is finally elsewhere.
Seattle's Julius Jones and T.J. Duckett
Unhappy with his backfield, Mike Holmgren decided to shake things up. In a rare move, the Seahawks dipped into the unrestricted free-agent running back market twice in the offseason in an effort to get one star running back via two bodies. A change of scenery will help Jones, who was never given a full opportunity to succeed in Dallas. Once he got the "soft" label, his days of being given the opportunity to carry the load went by the wayside. Duckett is a journeyman but is a proven backup with solid size and the power to run between the tackles.
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Gentlemen, your fifth most feared RB tandem in the NFL today: some guy who got replaced by a rookie in Dallas, and TJ Duckett.
TJ Duckett -- one of the very worst first round running back picks of the last ten years. Literally did not carry the ball 20 times in 2005, his 4th and final season in Atlanta, despite being healthy the whole year. Got traded to Washington, and posted a DVOA of -20.8% in a (rightfully) small sample size. Better last year, still didn't qualify for the DVOA leaderboard.
Now (apparently) part of one of the five best duos in the NFL. Better than Bradshaw and Jacobs. Better than Turner/Norwood. Better than Tomlinson/Sproles. Better than Westbrook/Booker.
For the rest of the article, a good case could be made for each of the five "Destined Duds" to be more successful this year than TJ Duckett and Julius Jones, and especially so with Ronnie Brown who was so good last year before getting injured that his combined rushing and receiving DPAR in seven games ranked fifth for all RBs...over the entire fucking season.
And yes, he is coming off a torn ACL and Ricky Williams can no longer be counted on, but remember: Willie Parker broke his fucking leg.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Cellphonegate!
noun: A word used by Qadry Ismail on NFL Live to describe the situation in which photos featuring Matt Leinart and multiple women engaging activities involving boozing and schmoozing with the Cardinals' Quarterback surfaced on the internet.
Forget for a second that this happening is a totally irrelevant story with regards to the Arizona Cardinals, but c'mon. Can't someone--anyone-- come up with a more creative headline for a scandal than a formula that looks like:
A noun that refers to an (non) essential feature of the scandal, + -gate
Spygate was a D- grade name for the Patriots videotaping scandal. Cell phone gate? Cell phone gate? What's next, Finalsgate? Midsummerclassicgate? Applepiegate?
I've got it! The Raiders should poison all the fluids in the Denver Broncos' athletic training center! Then we'll have a really great headline: Watergate!
Forget for a second that this happening is a totally irrelevant story with regards to the Arizona Cardinals, but c'mon. Can't someone--anyone-- come up with a more creative headline for a scandal than a formula that looks like:
A noun that refers to an (non) essential feature of the scandal, + -gate
Spygate was a D- grade name for the Patriots videotaping scandal. Cell phone gate? Cell phone gate? What's next, Finalsgate? Midsummerclassicgate? Applepiegate?
I've got it! The Raiders should poison all the fluids in the Denver Broncos' athletic training center! Then we'll have a really great headline: Watergate!
Monday, April 7, 2008
Old news, but pretty bad
So remember last week when stations like CNN were reporting that Nancy Pelosi was suggesting that President Bush not attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics? That same day, ESPN was reporting that Nancy Pelosi was advocating the boycott of the Olympics.
That's right, if you had watched CNN on Wednesday Morning you probably saw the former story, however, if you were listening to Mike and Mike in the morning, you heard Golic and Greenberg talking about how it would be unfair to forbid athletes from participating in the Olympics simply because of China's government. Golic then proceeded to go on a self-indulgent rant about how athletics transcends politics and about how athletes have to work day and night to get to the Olympics and tells us that an athlete should only boycott if he personally cared about Tibet. Golic expressed the opinion that Pelosi's suggestion fails to take into account an athlete's sacrifice.
Now, I know ESPN doesn't have a huge fact-checking budget. They are just a tiny little network trying to scrape by in today's fast-paced world. I assume that it's just a mom and pop operation (run by Ma and Pa Essen-Penn). BUT FUCKING HELL, didn't their producer have CNN on or something so that he could see the actual story and whisper in Greenberg's earpiece, "hey Mike, tell Golic to shut up or I won't have his usual two dozen low-carb doughnuts waiting for him after the show." I don't know how you can get a story this wrong when it is being reported correctly on the major news networks, let alone rant for several minutes about it.
Pelosi was calling for the President to stay home from the opening ceremony. Have you ever seen one of those opening ceremonies? Someone inspirational says a couple of words, people parade by with flags, China gets to show how awesome they are, and then they light the flame with the other flame. The President is going to fall asleep anyway, does any athlete in their right mind care if Bush is watching the pomp and circumstance in the arena as opposed to back at some hotel?
OH BUT GOLIC IS AN ATHLETE. He understands this shit better than Nancy Pelosi and EVERY MAJOR NEWS ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD. Nice job, fat ass.
That's right, if you had watched CNN on Wednesday Morning you probably saw the former story, however, if you were listening to Mike and Mike in the morning, you heard Golic and Greenberg talking about how it would be unfair to forbid athletes from participating in the Olympics simply because of China's government. Golic then proceeded to go on a self-indulgent rant about how athletics transcends politics and about how athletes have to work day and night to get to the Olympics and tells us that an athlete should only boycott if he personally cared about Tibet. Golic expressed the opinion that Pelosi's suggestion fails to take into account an athlete's sacrifice.
Now, I know ESPN doesn't have a huge fact-checking budget. They are just a tiny little network trying to scrape by in today's fast-paced world. I assume that it's just a mom and pop operation (run by Ma and Pa Essen-Penn). BUT FUCKING HELL, didn't their producer have CNN on or something so that he could see the actual story and whisper in Greenberg's earpiece, "hey Mike, tell Golic to shut up or I won't have his usual two dozen low-carb doughnuts waiting for him after the show." I don't know how you can get a story this wrong when it is being reported correctly on the major news networks, let alone rant for several minutes about it.
Pelosi was calling for the President to stay home from the opening ceremony. Have you ever seen one of those opening ceremonies? Someone inspirational says a couple of words, people parade by with flags, China gets to show how awesome they are, and then they light the flame with the other flame. The President is going to fall asleep anyway, does any athlete in their right mind care if Bush is watching the pomp and circumstance in the arena as opposed to back at some hotel?
OH BUT GOLIC IS AN ATHLETE. He understands this shit better than Nancy Pelosi and EVERY MAJOR NEWS ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD. Nice job, fat ass.
Friday, February 8, 2008
National Signing Day is Over
And the results are in.
Notre Dame's recruiting class ranks well, but some services like it more that others. More specifically, ESPN is being it's usual sourpuss self:
2nd - Rivals
2nd - Scout
2nd - CSTV
9th - ESPN
Notre Dame's recruiting class ranks well, but some services like it more that others. More specifically, ESPN is being it's usual sourpuss self:
2nd - Rivals
2nd - Scout
2nd - CSTV
9th - ESPN
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Wait! There's More!
Scouts Inc. watches games, breaks down film and studies football from all angles for ESPN.com.-Article Footnote
They watch the games! Holy crap. I guess if you watch the games, you are instantly qualified to begin a business selling expert information to the public at a fee. I'm gonna have to get Robocats on the horn, there's a living to be had here.
Anyway, they ranked all the playoff teams in the most intelligent manner one could think of: they gave them a number ranking (quantity 1:12), broke it down by position, and got really tricky when they summoned the gods of addition to come up with an end result. That's right: Scouts Inc. has a team evaluation system that involves not one, but each and every fault of general analysis:
-no scale
-no average or control group
-assumption of equidistant skill level seperation...
-between all tweleve teams...
-at every postion...
-assumption of equivlent position value
-assumption that coach value is perfectly equal to any other position...
-like Quarterback for example
and of course the clincher:
-totally subjective rankings to ensure that no two intelligent people could ever agree on the same rankings.
What I am about to show you here is only their defensive rankings of the twelve playoff teams. Rest assured that the rest of their crap is more of the same.
Anyway, here are the Football Outsiders numbers for all of the defensive data from 2007. FO has about 1/4 the resources of Scouts Inc, works half as hard, and knows roughly thirty eight times more about football.
You don't have to be a big fan of DVOA to use it for a loose standard of actual real defensive power rankings. Here are the 12 playoff teams ranked in order of defensive effeciency (in bold):
1. Tennessee -13.5%
2. Pittsburgh -12.5%
3. Indianapolis -10.8%
4. Tampa Bay -10.2%
5. San Diego -9.8%
6. Washington -7.2%
7. New England -6.1%
8. Dallas -5.8%
9. Seattle -5.4%
10. Jacksonville -3.3%
11. New York Giants -2.9%
12. Green Bay Packers -1.3%
And the Scouts Inc rankings:
1. Dallas Cowboys 12
1. Green Bay Packers 12
3. San Diego Chargers 13
4. New England Patriots 14
5. Indianapolis Colts 18
5. Seattle Seahawks 18
7. Pittsburgh Steelers 20
8. Tennessee Titans 21
9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 24
10. New York Giants 25
11. Jacksonville Jaguars 27
12. Washington Redskins 30
That's actually correct, Football Outsiders system which uses every play of the season as a data point ranks Green Bay's defense as the least effective. Scouts Inc, which uses some anonymous dudes' "professional" opinion, finds them to be the best.
Great system.
They watch the games! Holy crap. I guess if you watch the games, you are instantly qualified to begin a business selling expert information to the public at a fee. I'm gonna have to get Robocats on the horn, there's a living to be had here.
Anyway, they ranked all the playoff teams in the most intelligent manner one could think of: they gave them a number ranking (quantity 1:12), broke it down by position, and got really tricky when they summoned the gods of addition to come up with an end result. That's right: Scouts Inc. has a team evaluation system that involves not one, but each and every fault of general analysis:
-no scale
-no average or control group
-assumption of equidistant skill level seperation...
-between all tweleve teams...
-at every postion...
-assumption of equivlent position value
-assumption that coach value is perfectly equal to any other position...
-like Quarterback for example
and of course the clincher:
-totally subjective rankings to ensure that no two intelligent people could ever agree on the same rankings.
What I am about to show you here is only their defensive rankings of the twelve playoff teams. Rest assured that the rest of their crap is more of the same.
Anyway, here are the Football Outsiders numbers for all of the defensive data from 2007. FO has about 1/4 the resources of Scouts Inc, works half as hard, and knows roughly thirty eight times more about football.
You don't have to be a big fan of DVOA to use it for a loose standard of actual real defensive power rankings. Here are the 12 playoff teams ranked in order of defensive effeciency (in bold):
1. Tennessee -13.5%
2. Pittsburgh -12.5%
3. Indianapolis -10.8%
4. Tampa Bay -10.2%
5. San Diego -9.8%
6. Washington -7.2%
7. New England -6.1%
8. Dallas -5.8%
9. Seattle -5.4%
10. Jacksonville -3.3%
11. New York Giants -2.9%
12. Green Bay Packers -1.3%
And the Scouts Inc rankings:
1. Dallas Cowboys 12
1. Green Bay Packers 12
3. San Diego Chargers 13
4. New England Patriots 14
5. Indianapolis Colts 18
5. Seattle Seahawks 18
7. Pittsburgh Steelers 20
8. Tennessee Titans 21
9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 24
10. New York Giants 25
11. Jacksonville Jaguars 27
12. Washington Redskins 30
That's actually correct, Football Outsiders system which uses every play of the season as a data point ranks Green Bay's defense as the least effective. Scouts Inc, which uses some anonymous dudes' "professional" opinion, finds them to be the best.
Great system.
This one makes me Smile a little Bit
Scouts Inc decided to take their decisive man power and knowledge and apply it towards a good cause: subjectively ranking all twelve playoff coaches.
Just because that wasn't nearly enough, no, they had to drop this gem:
4. Washington Redskins
Joe Gibbs is one of the best coaches of all time and will eventually be in the Hall of Fame
One problem. Joe Gibbs has been in the Hall of Fame. For eleven years.
Just because that wasn't nearly enough, no, they had to drop this gem:
4. Washington Redskins
Joe Gibbs is one of the best coaches of all time and will eventually be in the Hall of Fame
One problem. Joe Gibbs has been in the Hall of Fame. For eleven years.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Scouts Inc rates your team's Quarterback!
Ineffectively.
The reason why is very simple. Simple enough that they admit it themselves, before the list is even seen.
The hardest part was deciding how to rank them. Do we look at just this year? Do we look at their careers and their body of work? We decided it would be a mixture of the two, that we couldn't completely ignore a veteran with a history of great success having a subpar year.
The hardest part is coming up with a method of evalutation. Really? I can give you a ton of ways of evaluating QBs (in no particular order, as Scouts Inc. would prefer it):
yards
touchdowns
yards per attempt
completion percentage
consecutive starts
college starts
drawn out of a hat
drawn out of a shoebox
alphabetically by last name
alphabetically by first name
alphabetically by middle name
numerically
color of teams home jersey
QB DVOA
age
height
weight
stench
and last and most definately least:
Wins!
The point is, if you are going to make a list, you need to have criteria. "A mix" of the criteria does not cut it. Then you just have subjective dribble.
The reason why is very simple. Simple enough that they admit it themselves, before the list is even seen.
The hardest part was deciding how to rank them. Do we look at just this year? Do we look at their careers and their body of work? We decided it would be a mixture of the two, that we couldn't completely ignore a veteran with a history of great success having a subpar year.
The hardest part is coming up with a method of evalutation. Really? I can give you a ton of ways of evaluating QBs (in no particular order, as Scouts Inc. would prefer it):
yards
touchdowns
yards per attempt
completion percentage
consecutive starts
college starts
drawn out of a hat
drawn out of a shoebox
alphabetically by last name
alphabetically by first name
alphabetically by middle name
numerically
color of teams home jersey
QB DVOA
age
height
weight
stench
and last and most definately least:
Wins!
The point is, if you are going to make a list, you need to have criteria. "A mix" of the criteria does not cut it. Then you just have subjective dribble.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Where exactly is the "Hill" again?
Per Len Pasquarelli:
Arguably the best free-agent quarterback still available is Drew Bledsoe, who has fielded more than a few phone calls but remains steadfast in insisting he is retired. Jake Plummer is sitting at home in Idaho, but the Bucs still own his rights and have filed a grievance against him for retiring rather than reporting to camp. Aaron Brooks probably is the next most-accomplished free agent.
"And after that," noted one pro personnel director, whose team has not yet suffered a problem at quarterback, "it really goes downhill."
The best three quarterbacks that a "pro personnel director" could come up with are Bledsoe, Plummer, and Brooks?
I guess Vinny Testaverde was already...oh right.
Arguably the best free-agent quarterback still available is Drew Bledsoe, who has fielded more than a few phone calls but remains steadfast in insisting he is retired. Jake Plummer is sitting at home in Idaho, but the Bucs still own his rights and have filed a grievance against him for retiring rather than reporting to camp. Aaron Brooks probably is the next most-accomplished free agent.
"And after that," noted one pro personnel director, whose team has not yet suffered a problem at quarterback, "it really goes downhill."
The best three quarterbacks that a "pro personnel director" could come up with are Bledsoe, Plummer, and Brooks?
I guess Vinny Testaverde was already...oh right.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Mel Kiper Schools Todd McShay
Mel Kiper is owning Todd McShay right now on Sportscenters NFL Draft Squareoff. Among his points:
-McShay puts too much value on big game arguments. Troy Smith and Chris Leak were wonderful in big games, but are bad prospects.
-Kiper has Quinn 5 on his board, McShay has him at 7. Kiper is trying to figure our how the fuck you can possibly feel the 7th guy on your board is overvalued. Kiper says that if McShay really thought Quinn was overvalued, he'd have him at 20-25. McShay actually claims that hes compensating for where Brady Quinn is going to be drafted. On his own personal draft board. I'm now convinced that one of the reasons he sucks so much is that he doesn't actually know what his job is.
-Per Kiper, McShay is too worried about the accuracy issues. They happen.
-The money due to each player is not an argument. You are trying to draft the best player. Worry about the money later.
This is why I love Mel Kiper. Look, the guy has Russell overrated, like a lot of other people. But rather than try to conform to conventional logic, like McShay, if he knew that Russell was bound to be the next Grossman--he'd put him down at 20-25. Because he's whats known as an "honorable draft analyst".
-McShay puts too much value on big game arguments. Troy Smith and Chris Leak were wonderful in big games, but are bad prospects.
-Kiper has Quinn 5 on his board, McShay has him at 7. Kiper is trying to figure our how the fuck you can possibly feel the 7th guy on your board is overvalued. Kiper says that if McShay really thought Quinn was overvalued, he'd have him at 20-25. McShay actually claims that hes compensating for where Brady Quinn is going to be drafted. On his own personal draft board. I'm now convinced that one of the reasons he sucks so much is that he doesn't actually know what his job is.
-Per Kiper, McShay is too worried about the accuracy issues. They happen.
-The money due to each player is not an argument. You are trying to draft the best player. Worry about the money later.
This is why I love Mel Kiper. Look, the guy has Russell overrated, like a lot of other people. But rather than try to conform to conventional logic, like McShay, if he knew that Russell was bound to be the next Grossman--he'd put him down at 20-25. Because he's whats known as an "honorable draft analyst".
Thursday, April 19, 2007
You can't make this Shit up
I go to my mailbox and despite all my raging defense mechanisms, am still pleased to find the draft preview issue of ESPN the Magazine!
And then I look at the cover and in horribly unessarily giant bold yellow print, well, see for yourself:
Aside from this complete disregard for general marketing principles (I'll be damned the day that "upside" sells in the same way sex does), this cover almost seems like a satirical mockery of an ESPN the Magizine draft issue done by a bunch of sabremetric lowlives. Admittedly, this would have been a very good idea, but once again ESPN beat us to the punch.
The saving grace for ESPN in all this is that fortunately it does not feature a giant smiling mug of JaMarcus Russell on the front, rather has the mean, gritty face of Amobi Okoye (a prospect who we here absolutely love).
I'll check in with more updates once I gather the courage to open this thing up and read the pure shit inside of it.
And then I look at the cover and in horribly unessarily giant bold yellow print, well, see for yourself:
Aside from this complete disregard for general marketing principles (I'll be damned the day that "upside" sells in the same way sex does), this cover almost seems like a satirical mockery of an ESPN the Magizine draft issue done by a bunch of sabremetric lowlives. Admittedly, this would have been a very good idea, but once again ESPN beat us to the punch.
The saving grace for ESPN in all this is that fortunately it does not feature a giant smiling mug of JaMarcus Russell on the front, rather has the mean, gritty face of Amobi Okoye (a prospect who we here absolutely love).
I'll check in with more updates once I gather the courage to open this thing up and read the pure shit inside of it.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
It's Draft Season Everybody!
This time, Chris Low goes down on Jamarcus Russell.
"I've always believed that you measure a quarterback on his bad days, not his good days," said Jimbo Fisher
You're going to get some real shitty numbers if you do that, Jimbo.
"When you're not having your best day, how do you respond? Can you stay into it and manage the game? JaMarcus knew he was a great player with great ability -- and he also knew, if something went wrong or if he messed something up, that he would usually get another chance.
The enormity of it all has yet to sink in, and those who've known him since he was old enough to grip a football aren't a bit surprised.
But, hey, that's vintage JaMarcus Russell.
I, for one, think it's great that Chris Low has such a special, special relationship with JaMarcus Russell. I am sure that Mr. Low will abuse his special relationship to find a fitting definition to the term "vintage JaMarcus Russell" which he will share with us in this piece. I am not completely wasting my time by reading this because this is not going to be just another JaMarcus Russell puff piece.
Ready?
Down two touchdowns or up two touchdowns, he's the same quarterback. Sitting in the pocket with all kinds of time or throwing with guys hanging all over him, he is convinced that his next play will be his best play. Soaking up a record-setting day or suffering through a forgettable day, he still wants the ball at the end.
Basically he does...what every other draft eligible QB does. Good, because for a second there..."I've always believed that you measure a quarterback on his bad days, not his good days," said Jimbo Fisher
You're going to get some real shitty numbers if you do that, Jimbo.
"When you're not having your best day, how do you respond? Can you stay into it and manage the game? JaMarcus knew he was a great player with great ability -- and he also knew, if something went wrong or if he messed something up, that he would usually get another chance.
"If he got that ball at the end of the game, he was going to beat your tail -- and he knew it."
Most QBs strive to lock that game up before that last drive so that they can take a knee. But not JaMarcus Russell. He's got a method already.
Similarly, Russell doesn't flinch at the thought of being the No. 1 overall pick in April's NFL draft. The Oakland Raiders are eyeing him closely with that first selection. Russell has been in Arizona training with some of the best receivers in the draft, including former teammate Dwyane Bowe, Tennessee's Robert Meachem and Southern Cal's Dwayne Jarrett.
I have a sinking feeling that the Raiders no longer eye anyone closely. Because if they did, they probably wouldn't be looking at JaMarcus Russell. But I didn't know he was working out in Arizona with a bunch of other draft prospects! This changes everything!
His take on the whole process?
"I'm just going to chill," said Russell, whose cool demeanor has been mistaken for nonchalance more than a few times during his career.
This is the single greatest piece of information I have ever read.
Never a big talker, Russell really doesn't need to. His teammates say there is a quiet confidence about him that is infectious.
"You just learn to trust that he's going to make big plays," said Bowe, who jokes that his hands are still swollen from catching 95 mph fastballs from the 6-foot-5, 265-pound Russell. "He never talked a whole lot about it. He just went out there and did it. That's why so many respected him. When he's out there, there's no doubt in your mind that we were going to win the game."
You play for LSU. You are going to win the game most of the time because you are almost always the best team on the field. JaMarcus Russell was a part of this equation, but not the entire reason for your success.
Also, way to sneak in a comment about how great his arm is, Chris Low. You'd thought you'd slide that one by us. You dog.
Russell, 25-4 as a starter at LSU, engineered eight comeback victories in the fourth quarter during his career. He capped a scintillating close to the 2006 season by outplaying Brady Quinn and passing for a career-high 332 yards in a 41-14 drubbing of Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl.
1) That was one game. I don't care if it was the Sugar Bowl. One game out of 29 starts (remember this figure, I promise to explain it's significance).
2) Notre Dame's defense blew in 2006. LSU's defense was dominant. JaMarcus Russell should have had the better game. It was to be expected. If Quinn had had the better game, there would have been an upset and JaMarcus Russell would be a 4th round pick right now.
3) The Sugar Bowl was nothing if not a home game for LSU
4) 41-14 is how the game ended, but does not tell the whole story. It was a one TD game at half, tied late in the first half.
The Sugar Bowl is not a great argument as to why JaMarcus Russell should be the first pick in April's draft.
Suddenly, Russell was the most coveted quarterback out there, and the questions about his decision-making and his tendency to rely on his big right arm had been reduced to a murmur.
"What a great QB that Russell is. Look at how he manipulates Terrail Lambert to fall down and Chiedum Ndukwe to completely forget his assignment." Look, he makes one read and throws a touchdown. What decision making! A lot of guys would have passed up that easy touchdown, but not this guy!"
"It's always been my dream to go high in the draft. But to be the first pick in the draft, that's crazy. I still won't believe it until it happens."
You and me both, JaMarcus. You and me both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)