The OtherArena Forum IndexThe OtherArena Forum IndexThe OtherArena Forum Index The OtherArena
"Best not to think about it. I know that's a problem for you... not thinking. " -Steve Yohe
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Dr. Z...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The OtherArena Forum Index -> Sports
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dave Hogg



Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 84
Location: Pontiac, MI

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frank_Jewett wrote:
Really you've both ignored 80% of the garbage he spewed, though I sympathize.


*blink*

You said he hadn't offered a replacement standard and I simply quoted the one he offered.

As it happens, I don't agree with the system - I've never understood his fascination with yards-per-completion - and I think Johnny Unitas was massively overrated.

I do happen to agree with him about kneel-downs and spikes - I don't put either in the Lions database I keep - but the quarterback rating I use is nothing like his.

Going into today, the NFL rating's top 10 was Brady, Garcia, Manning, Garrard, Roethlisberger, Romo, Warner, Kitna, Schaub, Palmer.

Mine (which takes rushing and sacks into account) was Brady, Garcia, Manning, Garrard, Romo, Anderson, Roethlisberger, Hasselbeck, Palmer, Schaub.

A quick-and-dirty take at Dr. Z's goes Brady, Roethlisberger, Warner, Romo, Garrard, Manning, Garcia, Anderson, Palmer, Hasselbeck.

(I ranked each qualifying QB from 1-33 in each of his four rate categories and added the ranks. I gave double weight to yards-per-completion, since that's what he says is the key.)

The biggest difference is Kitna. The NFL has him 8th, "Z" has him 11th and I have him 20th, because of the sacks and turnovers. I have Cutler and Jason Campbell ranked much higher than the others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Bob Morris



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2886
Location: New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing about any QB rating system is it's going to be flawed in some form.

Should one distinguish between an incompletion that is a result of a bad ball thrown, a receiver dropping a well thrown ball, and a defender batting the ball away?

If sacks are included, does one distinguish between the quarterback holding the ball for too long or the offensive line melting down?

If we included rushing, what happens when we get a Michael Vick type QB? We still have one in Vince Young.

There's so many intangibles one can argue with regards to what makes a good QB rating system.

Not saying one version is better than the other.

I will say this, though: If I was going to name the top 5 QBs based on what I've observed this season, it would be in this order: Brady, Peyton, Romo, Garcia and Roethlisberger.

The next five? Palmer and Garrard would go in somewhere. The other three are a bit trickier, but I know I wouldn't put Kitna, Warner or Schaub in there. Anderson, perhaps. Hasselbeck is a bit iffy.

I might consider Rivers in the top 10. Cutler and Favre, probably not, given their weaknesses. Same goes with Eli. And I don't think I'd be putting McNabb in there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 17247

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dave Hogg wrote:
Frank_Jewett wrote:
Really you've both ignored 80% of the garbage he spewed, though I sympathize.


*blink*

You said he hadn't offered a replacement standard and I simply quoted the one he offered.


*ding* *ding* *ding*

The vibe I had of the Bob.com guys coming over in the old days saying we don't talk about wrestling positively at all. And looking around to see positive stuff on the boards.

John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jeremy Billones



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 523
Location: Alexandria, VA

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(There was a fumble-six in Pats/Skins, so I'm claiming my Mulligan :)

Through week 7, FO had Brady,Manning, Garcia,Romo,Garrard,Favre,Anderson,Palmer,Hasselbeck,Schaub, with Kitna at 19.

Back in 2004, they did a "greatest QB seasons ever" article for ESPN. (It was updated in PFP 2007.) Manning's 2004 projection did come out as #1, with the rest of the list as:

2) Otto Graham 1953
3) Dan Marino 1984
4) Bert Jones 1976 (I think this came out #1 in the update)
5) Warren Moon 1990
6) Donovan McNabb 2004 projection
7) Ken Anderson 1975
8) Kurt Warner 1999
9) Rich Gannon 2002
10) Kurt Warner 2001

Unitas 1967 came in at #20.

He's Otto-matic: Manning's #1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frank_Jewett
Site Admin


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1282

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't think Z's "standard" was a serious offer, particularly since it was surrounded by bullshit that his changes didn't address. *shrug*

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tdcheetah



Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 487
Location: The Cheetah's Lair (aka Clarendon VA)

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeremy Billones wrote:
(There was a fumble-six in Pats/Skins, so I'm claiming my Mulligan :)

Through week 7, FO had Brady,Manning, Garcia,Romo,Garrard,Favre,Anderson,Palmer,Hasselbeck,Schaub, with Kitna at 19.

Back in 2004, they did a "greatest QB seasons ever" article for ESPN. (It was updated in PFP 2007.) Manning's 2004 projection did come out as #1, with the rest of the list as:

2) Otto Graham 1953


My AAFC roots surface and I cheer madly. No, I never saw him play, I've only read about him and I can't even tell you what book it originally was in, but even words and stats on paper *can* convey just how far above everybody else he (and the Browns, and Paul Brown) was at the time. To wit:

Quote:
"Jim Brown may have been the greatest NFL player ever at his peak, and Jerry Rice the greatest over the course of an entire career, but neither of them can claim the title "Babe Ruth of football." Otto Graham can, because he revolutionized the game like nobody before or since. Like Ruth, his statistics look ludicrous when normalized for their era because he was playing the modern game while the rest of the league was in the dead-ball era. Cleveland was the first team whose offensive linemen formed a passing pocket instead of trying to block a pass play like a running play. Coach Paul Brown also originated timing routes, sideline passes, the draw play, and the concept of players keeping their own playbooks. Graham turned the new ideas into points on the scoreboard.

Graham had a very low number of passing touchdowns, because Cleveland preferred to go into the end zone on the ground. [Picture inset: Graham also rushed for six TDs in 1953.] (One of Graham's halfbacks, "Dub" Jones, would later father a pretty good quarterback named Bert.) Otherwise, Graham's 1953 line looks like a modern quarterback. Except he was completing 65 percent of his passes in a league where quarterbacks completed only 47 percent of their passes. He averaged 10.5 yards per pass attempt; nobody has averaged more than 10 since. Every single year Otto Graham played professional football, his team made the championship game. But they didn't win it in Graham's best season, falling to Detroit 17-16."


In other words, if you can't beat the AAFC, make their one good team join you so that at least then if you get beat, it's by someone in your own NFL. :P

I rooted for the Browns because they were Paul Brown's old team. I rooted for the expansion Bengals because they were Paul Brown's new team. Maybe every GM/head coach eventually loses his mind (a la Al Davis or Buddy Ryan), or simply gets passed by by newer, more flexible coaches (Don Shula, Mike Ditka, Bill Parcells, all call your agents), but still, thank you, Paul Brown, a rebel before there was the AFL, and God bless.

Quote:
3) Dan Marino 1984


My AFC roots (which connect to my AAFC roots via my AFL roots) surface and I cheer madly... I can't even add anything to this historic season that wasn't already said ad nauseum during Peyton's record year and which isn't being repeated even more ad naus now during the "Brady, Brady, Brady All The Time And A Hundred Yards Wide -- Or Long Now That I've Got A Randy Moss Era". What did ol' Tom *do* before there were receivers, anyway? :P

Quote:
4) Bert Jones 1976 (I think this came out #1 in the update)

"Unfortunately, history does not look kindly upon quarterbacks who lose in the first round of the playoffs for three straight seasons, lose most of two years to injury, and eventually get traded to the Rams and rot on the bench behind Vince Ferragamo."


Damn frickin' straight. :)

Difference: Baltimore Colts fans would kill for Unitas. They would just plain kill Bert Jones. It was like having a Ron Jaworski or Steve Bartkowski, only worse. The Eagles' Jaworski at least got *to* the Super Bowl once. The Falcons' Bartkowski never teased his teammates by being so good and yet failing so quickly and consistently the moment he heard the words "Playoffs". Trust me, when Seattle got Jim Zorn, I sure admired his arm, but I already anticipated how the franchise was going to suffer from it. :)

Quote:
5) Warren Moon 1990

"Ah, the run and shoot. Some might object to the presence of Moon on this list, since he was playing in an offense that allowed him to throw, throw, and throw some more. It is hard to take a football strategy seriously when it is invented by a guy named "Mouse." But Moon's performance was more than just some gimmick offense. No team ran less often than the Oilers, so opposing defenses could play with extra defensive backs the whole game. Moon led the league in completion percentage anyway. Despite the run and shoot, he only led the league in pass attempts by 30. But he had an astonishing 700 more yards than the quarterback in second place, Jim Everett.

Here's the scary thing: if he played today, Moon might be throwing more. The average NFL team today passes 5 percent more often than in 1990, with a higher completion percentage and more yardage. Imagine the run and shoot with stricter pass interference calls making things easier on the receivers."


Yikes, Jim Everett. *shudder* That was a really bad time for quarterbacks.

But I am kinda surprised no one's updated the run and shoot into the 21st century. ;)

Quote:
6) Donovan McNabb 2004 projection


Hmm, Donovan... you know, I am feeling like one can't really comment about McNabb, as far as the historical record goes? Unless there's some sudden surprise in the next year or two, it's mostly going to be a lot of "What If?" NcNabb seems sadly closer to the eventual path of Randall Cunningham (or the projected career of a less lunatic, more disciplined Michael Vick) versus a known and substantial quantity like a Steve McNair or a Steve Young. Somewhere among all the "dids" and the "oughtas" and the "mightabeens" are pieces of a lost career.

Quote:
7) Ken Anderson 1975


My AFC roots (which connect to my AAFC roots via my AFL roots) surface and I cheer madly...

Quote:
"To understand how a quarterback with only 228 completions and 3169 yards can somehow project to 348 completions and 4480 yards under current conditions, you have to remember how much different the NFL was before the liberalization of passing rules in 1978. In 1975, the average quarterback barely completed half his passes. Teams averaged 4.5 fewer passes a game than today, but ran the ball eight more times a game. But a few quarterbacks stood head-and-shoulders above the rest of the league: Anderson, Fran Tarkenton and Bert Jones. Tarkenton won the MVP this season but Anderson threw for 175 more yards on 48 fewer attempts. The Bengals had to play in Oakland in the first round of the playoffs, and Anderson led a two-touchdown comeback in the fourth quarter, but the Bengals couldn't recover the onside kick and lost 31-28."


Ok, actually, I sob loudly. This offense, I saw. If you didn't see it, you don't understand how beautifully precise it was and how purely Ken threw. (Not to mention being amazingly mobile for someone not the size of Fran Tarkenton.) And then he had that incredible comeback year in 1981, and... I hate Joe Montana all over again. Grr.

BTW, Kenny is listed in Wikipedia as being Ben Roethlisberger's QB coach this year. Why did Ben get him while Eli Manning got Kevin Gilbride? Yep, life is not fair.

Quote:
8) Kurt Warner 1999
10) Kurt Warner 2001


Oh, the glory years of The Greatest Show On Turf. That system made Kurt, but also wrecked him (watching Kurt hold onto the ball just a fraction of a second too long relative to the offensive line he's got is one of the many perennially painful sights of watching the 200x Arizona Cardinals).

Is he a HoF? I'd like to see the comparables. I think Warner might be the definitive dividing line between the short-burst QBs and the long-haul QBs.

Quote:
9) Rich Gannon 2002


"Hi, remember me? A couple of years ago, I set an all-time record for pass completions in a season. I led my team to the Super Bowl and was voted league MVP at the ripe old age of 37. Since then I've injured myself in roughly 40 different places and now you'll find me on the side of a milk carton. Even though I broke a vertebra in my neck this season, I'm considering a comeback in 2005. Can I quarterback your team?"[/quote]

*giggle* Poor Gannon. Jeff Hostetler has a Super Bowl ring. Mark Rypien has a Super Bowl ring. Even Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring because Kerry Collins lost to the Ravens defense. Jim Plunkett, bless his soul, has two rings because Al Davis actually used to be a football genius. Who do you lose your Super Bowl to? Brad "Don't Call Me Rob, Just Call Me Back, Please, Coach Chuckie?" Johnson. Brad Johnson has a Super Bowl ring and you don't. I almost feel like I should feel sorry for you whenever I see you in the announcer's booth, and I don't just mean because you're stuck with the J games (i.e., not quite bad enough to be Q or Z/Arizona).

(And hey, at the rate QBs are dropping this year, Rich, you may yet feel your cell phone vibrate during a game and hear those magic words...)


Lee, who missed watching football this weekend (AM radio substitutes ok, but not real well)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dave Hogg



Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 84
Location: Pontiac, MI

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob Morris wrote:
Should one distinguish between an incompletion that is a result of a bad ball thrown, a receiver dropping a well thrown ball, and a defender batting the ball away?

If sacks are included, does one distinguish between the quarterback holding the ball for too long or the offensive line melting down?


True, but that's true of just about any individual stat in sports. You have to take every purely-statistical system with several grains of salt.

Quote:
If we included rushing, what happens when we get a Michael Vick type QB? We still have one in Vince Young.


He comes off as a more productive, useful player than he does if you don't take them into account, but not as a superstar.

I plugged Vick's 2006 numbers into the three systems above, since they all work with rate stats. He would be 25th in NFL Passing Rating, which doesn't use rushing or sacks or fumbles, and 17th in my system - barely ahead of Harrington. He's 11th in the pseudo-Z system, because he's a high-risk, high-reward guy.

Young's not even on the same planet as Vick. He's the most productively mobile QB in the league in my system, but at about +10 yards per game, where Vick was at +50 last year. Kitna's the worst, at about -45.

As for Johnny Unitas, his career stats in Doc's four categories are a damn close match to Derek Anderson's 2007 season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Frank_Jewett
Site Admin


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1282

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see two challenges when rating quarterback running.

The first challenge is how effective running is at achieving a goal. For example, Vick would sometimes put his head down and run for seven yards on third and ten. A seven yard average is phenomenal, but if it doesn't result in first downs leading to scores, it is as meaningless as Frank Gore's 24 yard run at midfield as time expired that I cited earlier.

The second challenge is how much value to assign to quarterback running. If it was a competitive advantage, as folks claimed with Vick, I expect we'd see more of it. Check the race card at the door. Several white quarterbacks including Bobby Douglass, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Theismann, Doug Flutie, and Steve Young were known as running quarterbacks. They didn't popularize the concept of a running quarterback. Even scrambling ability isn't as significant as height in scouting QB prospects.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dave Hogg



Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 84
Location: Pontiac, MI

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frank_Jewett wrote:
I see two challenges when rating quarterback running.

The first challenge is how effective running is at achieving a goal. For example, Vick would sometimes put his head down and run for seven yards on third and ten.


Yes, but that's equally true of any football counting stat. Joey Harrington throwing for seven yards on 3-and-10 isn't any better.

The way around that is to use a point system like the one in Pete Palmer's book 100 years ago - a seven-yard run on 3rd-and-10 would get 0 points, where it would get a point on 1st-and-10.

For a couple years, I kept a database like that for the Lions, and it was interesting to see which players had the highest percentage of useful plays.

Quote:
The second challenge is how much value to assign to quarterback running. If it was a competitive advantage, as folks claimed with Vick, I expect we'd see more of it.


Vick's clearly the best running quarterback in NFL history, and that's only enough to move him from below-average to average. Vince Young's probably the best now, and he only adds 10-15 yards a game over an average quarterback.

Is it an advantage? Sure, but not enough to base a career on it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 17247

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



Jeremy Billones wrote:
4) Bert Jones 1976 (I think this came out #1 in the update)

He's Otto-matic: Manning's #1


Take that, Cheetah~! :P


John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frank_Jewett
Site Admin


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1282

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to think scrambling (running to buy time to throw the ball rather than running to gain yardage) is important, but there have been too many successful quarterbacks who couldn't run or scramble very well.

I think Vince Young is a scrambler who is getting stuck with the "runner" tag simply because he is black. Donovan McNabb said people complained to him that he "played too white" because he didn't try to run like Vick.

It's as if Warren Moon, Doug Williams, and the mature version of Randall Cunningham never existed. History is too full of great black scramblers and passers to assume that black quarterbacks have to be runners.

Vick gave up on passing plays too quickly. That was a problem that fans of his running usually missed. He had other problems with accuracy, touch, and reading defenses, but looking to run was his biggest flaw.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dave Hogg



Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 84
Location: Pontiac, MI

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeremy Billones wrote:
Back in 2004, they did a "greatest QB seasons ever" article for ESPN. (It was updated in PFP 2007.) Manning's 2004 projection did come out as #1


I've always thought Manning should get an asterisk for 2004, or they shouldn't have counted the Thanksgiving game against Detroit. He had 6 TDs and didn't play the 4th quarter.

tdcheetah wrote:
But I am kinda surprised no one's updated the run and shoot into the 21st century. ;)


You didn't see Appalachian State against Michigan? ;-)

Quote:
8) Kurt Warner 1999
10) Kurt Warner 2001

Oh, the glory years of The Greatest Show On Turf. That system made Kurt, but also wrecked him (watching Kurt hold onto the ball just a fraction of a second too long relative to the offensive line he's got is one of the many perennially painful sights of watching the 200x Arizona Cardinals).


SEE ALSO: Kitna, Jon.

The Mississippi River Coast Offense (tm) is great to watch, especially now that the Lions have actually figured most of it out, but Kitna is going to get killed. They have a bad OL, and they didn't have a running game until Jones got healthy, but yeesh.

(Tatum Bell turned out to be another Broncos RB fraud. Who knew?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jeremy Billones



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 523
Location: Alexandria, VA

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But I am kinda surprised no one's updated the run and shoot into the 21st century. ;)


"The wonderful thing about Tiggers, is Tiggers are wonderful things..."

The parts of the R&S that didn't stand the test of time were (a) reliance on undersized WRs and (b) a philosophical refusal to use a TE. (I've never been clear on the precise degree to which the route patterns relied on play calling rather than hot reads.) The parts that remain, and are incorporated into most of the high-octane offenses today, are the use of 4 and 5 receiver sets to spread the field and the use of a successful passing game to force the safties out of the box to improve the running game.

Quote:
I plugged Vick's 2006 numbers into the three systems above, since they all work with rate stats. He would be 25th in NFL Passing Rating, which doesn't use rushing or sacks or fumbles, and 17th in my system - barely ahead of Harrington. He's 11th in the pseudo-Z system, because he's a high-risk, high-reward guy.


Vick's 2006 is 37th (!) as a passer according to the FO stats, rated as 6 points below a replacement-level quarterback. That was due to a 10 point strength-of-schedule adjustment, though. (Drew Brees got docked 10 points too, enough to drop him behind Bulger for 3rd overall. 5-10 points is a typical shift.)

His running was worth 32 points, while McNabb was second with 11 points. Combined, 26 points above replacement would put him about 19th, depending on whether folks like Garcia, Eli Manning and Leinart lost points due to their running stats.

"Each player's performance is then translated into an approximate number of actual points that such success (or failure) is worth when compared to a generic bench scrub (also called a "replacement player," or, by his parents, "Billy Joe")."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 17247

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeremy Billones wrote:
Quote:
But I am kinda surprised no one's updated the run and shoot into the 21st century. ;)


"The wonderful thing about Tiggers, is Tiggers are wonderful things..."

The parts of the R&S that didn't stand the test of time were (a) reliance on undersized WRs and (b) a philosophical refusal to use a TE. (I've never been clear on the precise degree to which the route patterns relied on play calling rather than hot reads.) The parts that remain, and are incorporated into most of the high-octane offenses today, are the use of 4 and 5 receiver sets to spread the field and the use of a successful passing game to force the safties out of the box to improve the running game.


One actually sees a lot of variations of the R&S in college, with some extremely successful teams such as Florida. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a comeback in the pros down the road.

Big receivers can work in the run & shoot, and I don't think it ever was an issue where R&S offenses refused to use big receivers who otherwise had the *talents* a R&S offense was looking for. Haywood Jeffires did with the Oilers, though the other two prime receivers were small (Ernest Givins & Drew Hill). If you put Rice, Moss and James Lofton as the primary three in a run & shoot, the club would light up the scoreboard.

It's a bit like the Greatest Show On Turf - Martz had talented, speedy, "lightweight" WR's in Bruce and Holt (lightweight in the sense of not liking to take a pounding rather than being Smurfs). It was the speed and talent that Martz wanted, rather than looking for undersized. In DET this year, he happens to have Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson, a pair of bigger WR's. Williams fits the system already, and over time they'll figure out how to get Johnson fully involved.

The tight end seems is a reasonable issue, especially with the defensive packages and speed these days. On the other hand, having to defense 4 WR *and* the RB out of the back *and* the possibility of the RB running the ball on inside handoffs does cause issues in return for the defense.

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised to see some guru bring it back in the right setting. The resistance to it now is exactly the same as the resistance to it back then.


John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dave Hogg



Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 84
Location: Pontiac, MI

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeremy Billones wrote:
(I've never been clear on the precise degree to which the route patterns relied on play calling rather than hot reads.)


The Lions R&S, in the short period they ran the "pure" system, was almost exclusively hot reads. That was the reason that Mel Gray The Younger could never get on the field as a wide receiver - he couldn't remember the reads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The OtherArena Forum Index -> Sports All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
The OtherArena topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group