1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Shocking Danny stat

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by dirtylandry, Jul 6, 2017.

  1. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Well, lets look at the era, 87 he was 2nd in yds and TDs, 4th in rating, because back in 1987 26 TDs was upper echelon, 88 he led the league in yds and was 2nd again in TDs, 10th in rating, 89, 3rd in yds, 4th in TDs, 11th in rating.

    88 and 89, Dan was basically trying to win every game himself, the team is a mess, and he's still one of the top performers in the league.

    90, 4th in yds, 8th in TDs and 7th in rating, 91, 2nd in yds, 4th in TDs 5th in rating, 92, 1st in yds, 2nd in TDs, 8th rating, 93, injury, 94, 2nd in yds, 3rd in TDs, 4th in rating, 95, 9th in yds, 8th in TDs and rating.

    Being consistently in the top 10 in all the major QB categories makes you upper echelon, and he was doing this with no run game and no D, which puts him in the upper stratosphere imo, because no QB in NFL history, with the possible exception of ARod, could duplicate that, again, imo.
     
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Damn straight, Finster.
     
    danmarino and Finster like this.
  3. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Being top 10 in various categories over the years make you Eli Manning. Being #1 by 30% over the next guy made you Dan Marino.
     
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Only on this forum was Marino average for most of his career, but Brady is GOAT.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  5. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Who said he was average? Not me. Who said it?
     
  6. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,816
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    You must have a VERY comfortable sofa
     
  7. VanDolPhan

    VanDolPhan Club member Club Member

    13,057
    8,875
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Hamilton, Ontario Canada
    The big rule change was the change to how DB's were allowed to play. After the Indy/Patriots playoff games and whining about WR's being mugged they changed the rules. Pretty much destroyed the concept of a "lockdown" corner beyond a few guys.

    That is the single biggest reason why QB's are putting up these kinds of numbers. Allow DB's to play like they did in the 90's and those #'s plummet.
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    Let us not forget Miami was probably the most statistically unbalanced teams under Marino. Just a guess, but I am willing to gamble. So his numbers without a run game are more impressive


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You've said repeatedly he was magical, then fell to earth.

    That sounds like saying he was average.
     
    Rickysabeast and danmarino like this.
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The best way to adjust year-by-year stats across eras is to report how many standard deviations above or below the mean the stat was in that year. We can convert those standard deviations into percentiles which might be more intuitive. What's stated below includes only those years where a QB started at least 8 games.

    Marino had more years than other "great" QB's where he performed in percentiles that were average or below average. In Marino's last 3 years the percentiles were: 56.9%, 54.1% and 16%. He also had a 49.9% in 1989. I don't know where you want to put the cut-off for "average" but he also had a 62.4% in 1990 and 66.8% in 1988.

    Young had only one year where he started at least 8 games where it was less than 82.7%!!!! And that was in 1986 (his 2nd year) with Tampa where he had a 16.7%.

    Really.. there's never been a more efficient QB than Young in the history of the NFL when measured by passer rating. His career standard deviation above the mean is 1.78 which translates to a shocking 96.3%, meaning across his entire career he was on AVERAGE in the top 4th percentile. Seriously, no QB comes remotely close. The only knock on Young is he has only 9 years where he started 8 games or more while other "great" QB's in the modern era started ~5 more years.

    Marino's career standard deviation is 0.73 which translates to 76.7%, meaning Marino was on average in the top 24% of QB across his career. Take away his last 3 years where he was average or far worse than average and the numbers go up to 0.96 standard deviations and 83.2% meaning he was in the top 17 percentile across his career if you ignore his last 3 years.

    Anyway.. just to show how remarkable Young really is, compare his career 96.3% to Montana's career 91.2%, Brady's career 86.3% and Peyton's career 86.1%. So Marino is worse overall than these guys.

    Just so it's clear, this only adjusts passer rating for era, not stuff like defense or running game which can also be done. In fact I did that long ago but I can't remember which post that was haha. Was a bit of work so I'm not going to redo it now.

    To the other claim about how magical a particular year was, yes Marino had one magical year in 1984 where he was in the top 0.005% lol. However, what is maybe not as well known is that other QB's had a magical year too, and of course this is only measuring by passer rating. Young in 1994 was in the 0.0006% haha (that's really 3 zeros before the 6)! Montana in 1989 was in the top 0.001%, Brady in 2007 was in the top 0.004% and Peyton in 2004 was in the top 0.004%.

    So Marino, Brady, Peyton and Montana all had one year where they were in the stratosphere. Young had one year where he was in the upper stratosphere lol.

    Again.. this only compares passer rating and doesn't adjust for running game etc.. so take it however you want, but it's a great measure of overall efficiency, and on that measure no one beats Young in NFL history. I don't have the comparable analysis for TD's or TD/INT ratio or YPG.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
    jdang307 and danmarino like this.
  11. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    i need the cliff notes
     
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    lol

    Well OK.. adjusted career passer rating that doesn't take running game, etc.. into account:

    Young = top 4 percentile
    Montana = top 9 percentile
    Brady and Peyton = top 14th percentile
    Marino = top 24th percentile

    Marino has more "average" passer rating years that pull him down than the others. For example, take away his last 3 underperforming years and he's more similar to Brady and Peyton in career efficiency.

    Regarding "magical years": all 5 had one year where they were similarly "magical" measured by passer rating. Don't have the comparable stats for TD's, TD/INT ratio or YPG.

    Simple enough? (and if you want the qualifiers go back to the non-cliff notes version).
     
  13. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Does it? in 16 Eli was top 10 in 1 out of the 3,
    15, 2 out of 3,
    14, 2 of 3,
    13, 0 of 3,
    12, 1 0f 3,
    11, 3 of 3,
    10, 2 0f 3,
    09, 2 of 3,
    08, 1 of 3,
    07, 0 of 3,
    06, 1 of 3,
    05, 2 of 3.

    So obviously they don't equate, as Dan was 3 for 3 every year for his first 13 seasons with the exception of one year where he was 2 of 3, and that 1 that was out was 11th.

    Eli's rating is usually in the high teens or 20's, but that makes him a good example of why efficiency is not an end all stat, he's a winner even though he has low efficiency.

    That's what made Dan so special, a high volume passer that was always top 10 in efficiency without the help of D or a run game, Eli can't make that claim.
     
  14. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Eli was just someone I pulled out. INT's kill a team, and Dan had A LOT OF them. I mean, 24 TDs and 22 INTs? 30 and 21. 28 and 23.

    Also, someone mentioned Montana. Dan, probably from trying to do too much, but still, in 18 playoff games threw two INTs in 10 of them, and they went 1-9 in those games. When Dan was throwing 40 TDs, 20 ish INTs was okay. When you're throwing for 24, 22 INTs is NOT okay. No stat you quote me is going to cut it.

    As I said before, he went from magical to pretty good. Top 10 is pretty good. He went from, nobody has ever seen this before, to in the top 10. He is the best arm the league has ever seen. Too bad he didn't have the brains to match it (and the team around him thanks to Shula the GM in his latter years).

    Our drafting around then really sucked.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  15. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    You are glossing over the fact that most QBs threw a lot of INTs at that time, 20 INTs was common, and your analogy of Eli was wrong, regardless.

    As far as Bill Walsh's QB's in SF, Montana, Young and Garcia, were products of Walsh's tutelage and system, and Walsh himself said that Dan was the greatest passer the game had ever seen and was fully fascinated by his flawless QB techniques.

    Both Young and Garcia were markedly worse outside that system, Young flat out sucked on a bad team.
     
    resnor and danmarino like this.
  16. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,976
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    I like using passer rating to compare, and I like the way you figured in era. However, if you looked at those other QB's teams I think we'd see how much more Marino was asked to do and with a lot less around him. Young could hand the ball off or count on his defense to keep a lead. Same with Brady. Marino had to always keep "slinging" it in order to win. Young was a fantastic QB and most likely top 10 all-time. I don't, much to the chagrin of some, have Brady as top 10 (more like top 20), but Marino is top 5 and I doubt there is much debate for that.
     
    resnor and dirtylandry like this.
  17. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,976
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    One other thing. Marino's athletic ability was better than Peyton's, on par (overall) with Young's, and light years better than Brady's. Marino's arm was better than Peyton's, better than Young's, and better than Brady's. Peyton is better than Dan in regards to brains and preparation. Same with Young and Brady.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and dirtylandry like this.
  18. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    Marino's acting ability far surpassed Peyton and Tom Brady too. Peyton in the insurance commercials? Awful? And Brady in the mattress one? Worse.

    I could watch Ace Ventura everyday, as well as his HCA commercials with Don and old Isotoner commercials
     
    danmarino likes this.
  19. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    "Most QBs"

    You proved my point.
     
  20. Rickysabeast

    Rickysabeast Royale With Cheese

    941
    556
    93
    Jul 26, 2016
    WHY ARE WE TEARING OUR HERO APART????? LIKE WHY? LEAVE DAN ALONE!!!!!!!!!!
     
    The_Dark_Knight likes this.
  21. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    You're talking about 2 years, so that doesn't prove your point.
     
  22. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Like most here (and across the NFL) I consider Marino top 5 all time. Doesn't mean he was great at everything. If you only looked at efficiency or longevity Marino isn't an all-time great is all those stats show.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  23. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I agree. And I don't see acknowledging that Marino wasn't great at everything as tearing him apart. I see it as an honest assessment. I hate when people want to pretend their heroes are perfect. I think we can learn as much or more from their imperfections and how they overcame them as we can from the examples of excellence they provided.
     
    danmarino, eltos_lightfoot and cbrad like this.
  24. Dolphin North

    Dolphin North Well-Known Member

    366
    387
    63
    Apr 30, 2017
    Any reference to Brady I automatically discard, sorry and I won't go there again on this board. Great post outside of that. I had somebody years ago telling me that the knock on Graham was that he had Brown so he was not in the running for GOAT lol. I probably should have looked into it at the time because as I said earlier, I read an interview in a magazine with Graham and he was well into his 70's IIRC and many times saw Jim Brown on TV and he was quite a bit younger. Anyway, one can always go on forever when talking about the GOAT, because you are comparing different eras and there is more to it than stats. Why did Otto Graham play so few years, but now we appear to be set to have QB's into their 40's playing well? They were beating the crap out of Graham most likely. You once could keep hitting a QB with forearms even after he threw the ball and you had him on the ground and I believe that was in Graham's era if I remember that article. Either way it was pretty crazy compared to today where you need to send a urine sample in before you wrap up and carefully lower the QB to the ground, while cradling his head and neck and tenderly caressing his hair and telling him how it hurts you to have to bring him down. Anyway, I do think Graham was awesome and is so far back in time that it's hard to prove anybody today is better. I also think about the same for Marino. He was just so far ahead in his time and elevated the team as we said. His records stood for decades and then we had 2 or 3 TD records in a handful of years just after rule changes in 2005 ish. I like Rodgers now for the same reason. It's a team sport so you look at the whole team for success, but if I am picking a guy first and have no control over who I can put around him, I'm with Rodgers or Marino, because no matter what **** pile you end up having around them, you will always have a very good chance to win.
     
    danmarino and resnor like this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    OK.. so I now have the comparable data from post #130 for TD, TD:INT ratio and YPG. And in some measures Marino does come out on top. I added Rodgers to the comparison and he does really well overall.

    So, once again I'm looking at average standard deviations (called z-scores) above the mean. There are two tables and the categories are: PR = passer rating, YPG = yards per game started, TDG = TD's per game started, and TD:INT = TD:INT ratio per game started.

    The top table shows career averages (adjusted year-by-year then averaged) and the bottom table shows the z-score for the best year. I kept these in z-scores instead of converting to percentiles because z-scores are directly comparable, as in if your z-score is twice as high then you did something twice as impressive so to say:
    http://img.pixady.com/2017/07/723736_qb_z_scores.png

    Several observations:

    1) z-scores for YPG are in general lower for the best QB's than z-scores for other measures. This suggests it's harder to stand out from other QB's on YPG compared to other stats.

    2) Career passer rating you see Young > Rodgers > Montana followed by the rest. Young is best for best-year PR (1994).

    3) Marino and Manning are the best on career YPG, and Marino is best for best-year YPG (1984).

    4) Rodgers and Manning are the best on career TD's per game, but Marino and Manning are best for best-year TDG (surprisingly for Marino it's 1986 that's more impressive relative to the league than 1984 but only by a tad.. with Manning it was his record-setting year in 2013).

    5) Rodgers is all by himself on career TD:INT ratio, but for best-year TD:INT ratio there is a virtual tie between Rodgers in 2011 and Brady in 2016. Actually, this is the MOST surprising result because Brady in 2016 had 28 TD's and 2 INT's in 12 games while Rodgers had 45 TD's and 6 INT's in 15 games. Brady's raw TD:INT ratio is almost twice that of Rodgers!! But check out the rest of the league and you'll see why relatively speaking they were similar.

    Anyway.. this gives a better picture of where which QB's were best relative to their competition.
     
    Dolphin North likes this.
  26. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Told you guys Peyton Manning is overrated.
     
  27. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,976
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    If you really did say that, you're wrong. lol...

    Manning is right there with and arguably above Marino and Rodgers. And there really is no argument that he wasn't above Brady.

    Saying Peyton is overrated has to be one of the dumbest things ever uttered in regards to the game of football. Seriously.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
    Dolphin North and resnor like this.
  28. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,976
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    I'm not understanding your "raw TD:INT" ratio comment and implying that this made Brady's 2016 season better than Rodgers' 2011.

    Brady threw 2.3 TD's and .5 INT's per game that season. With a 6.5 TD%, a .5 INT%, and an 8.2 Y/A with a 112 passer rating.

    Rodgers threw 3.75 TD's and .4 INT's per game in his season. With a 9.0 TD%, a 1.2 INT%, and a 9.2 Y/A with a 123 passer rating.

    Rodgers clearly had the better season and it really wasn't that similar. If Brady had a great season, which he did, then Rodgers had a phenomenal season.
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Your numbers are off. In 2016 Brady threw 2/12 = 0.167 INT's per game, not 0.5. And Rodgers threw 45/15 = 3 TD's per game in 2011 not 3.75. Either way when you calculate TD:INT ratio the "per game" cancels out so you can directly calculate 45/6 = 7.5 for Rodgers and 28/2 = 14 for Brady. Brady was almost twice as good in raw stats.

    But as I said, take a look at the rest of the league and you'll see TD:INT ratio was way higher across the league in 2016 than in 2011. Average TD:INT ratio for starting QB's in 2011 was 1.77 while the average in 2016 was 2.82. Standard deviations also increased: in 2011 it was 1.28 and in 2016 it was 2.54.

    So relative to the rest of the league in those years, Brady and Rodgers were similar even though raw numbers suggest Brady was almost twice as good. It's maybe the most surprising result I've seen in adjusting raw numbers.
     
  30. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Judging by cbrad's response to you, you obviously didn't understand his numbers ;)

    Did you click through the link?

    TD:INT Manning is low (so is Dan which I've been saying, he threw a lot of INTs). These are adjusted for seasons so Manning never had a good TD/INT ratio and I've always pointed that out. Look at Rodgers Brady and Young.

    Even just singling out their best season, Manning doesn't catch up. "Overrated" is for those who think he's the top QB of all time, or top 3. I disagree. If you have him top 6-7'ish, then he's not overrated, he's about there.

    [​IMG]
     
  31. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,976
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Sh!t...lol

    I used Brady's number of games played (12) in regards to Rodgers TD's (45) and that's how I got to 3.75. Also, I was trying to do too many things at once (new baby) and accidently wrote .5 (Brady's INT%) as his INT's per game.

    Anyhow, their Y/A and passer ratings were relatively far apart. Hence the reason for the "great" and "phenomenal" comment.
     
    resnor and cbrad like this.
  32. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,976
    113
    Sep 4, 2014

    I understand his numbers. My typo and transposing error doesn't show misunderstanding.

    However, anyone who believes P. Manning was "overrated" knows nothing about the game of football. ;)
     
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah overall Rodgers in 2011 was more impressive than Brady 2016. I was only commenting on TD:INT ratio.

    Here are the z-scores for Rodgers 2011:
    PR: 2.962
    YPG: 1.448
    TD: 2.766
    TD/INT: 4.475

    For Brady 2016:
    PR: 1.913
    YPG: 1.290
    TD: 1.693
    TD/INT: 4.396
     
    resnor and danmarino like this.
  34. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    .6 SD above median TD/INT while Rodgers is almost 2. Brady and Young 1.5.

    Meh. He's overrated by anyone who runs he is the best or top 3. If you want regular season wins he is your guy.

    Playing in a dome padded his stats.
     
  35. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I have to agree with JD, post season performance knocks Peyton off the summit, he was just as likely to be the reason you lose as win, and most of his playoff victories came vs overmatched teams.

    Also, in this QB debate, direct comparisons of high volume passers vs low volume passers isn't an even playing field.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There are actually two factors at play in trying to adjust dome stats to outdoor stats:

    1) Stats for QB's tend to go up playing in a dome because of ideal conditions. This is true even for most outdoor QB's.
    2) Dome teams play worse outdoors than outdoor teams play in a dome, so a dome QB is effectively playing on a "worse" team when playing outdoors.

    Those two factors should work against each other. How to do the calculations?

    First, we need stats on how dome QB's do indoors vs. outdoors. I hope the 4th table from the top here is accurate:
    https://www.patspulpit.com/2014/10/22/7036067/mythbusting-with-mr-marowni-pudge-controls-the-weather

    That table of QB's that started at least 40% of their games in a dome shows the average difference in passer rating is 11.7 PR points in a dome vs. outdoors. OK.. problem is there's a home/away effect here hidden in that because they're padding their stats at home not away.

    Look at league splits and you'll see that on average home vs. away PR difference across years is ~5 PR points, so take that away and we can maybe estimate ~6-7 PR points advantage for dome QB's. That takes care of point #1.

    For point #2, first note that the average slope of the best-fitting line between wins (adjusted to 16 games) and passer rating across NFL history is 0.156 wins per unit increase in passer rating points. In other words, increase passer rating by 10 and you can expect 1.56 extra wins. I did that analysis on my own so I trust it more than link above.

    Combine that with this:


    where (assuming the data is correct) dome teams do worse outdoors than outdoor teams do in domes, and outdoor teams are better at home than dome teams at home. You're seeing ~0.05 difference in winning percentage, which translates to 0.8 extra wins for outdoor teams. Using the best-fitting line analysis I did, that translates to 5 PR rating points adjustment.

    In other words point #1 suggests you should subtract 6-7 PR points from dome QB's while point #2 says you should add 5 PR points to dome QB's.

    Almost a wash eh? So maybe we don't have to adjust dome QB passer rating by much or at all. The big weakness data-wise here is that first link because even if the data is accurate that's only 6 QB's and there's no question those 6 QB's are NOT representative of starting NFL QB's: Peyton, Warner, Brees, Ryan, Culpepper, Bulger. So that 6-7 PR adjustment might be a bit too much, further suggesting the two effects cancel out.

    Summary: It looks like you don't need to adjust PR for dome QB's because #1 and #2 seem to cancel out.
     
  37. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    This is all good stuff, but only Peyton's stats in and out of dome are relevant, and he has a 99.1 rating in a dome or with a roof, and a 94 rating outside, better across the board, comp%, TD/INT ratio, YPA.
     
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Like I pointed out, you can't just look at any given QB's dome vs. outdoor stats to answer the question because there's a home vs. away effect hidden in that (most of Peyton's dome games were home games).

    Which means you have to figure out what the average effect of dome vs. outdoors is on whatever stat you're interested in while adjusting for home vs. away. Two factors not one come into play when you do the adjustment, and for both you need to look at effects on as many QB's as possible, not just on the one you're interested in.
     
  39. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Having just a 4 point increase in passer rating playing in a dome, and at home, is not much, right? That should be double benefit.
     
  40. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    These are mechanisms for determining avgs, but we are interested in the stats of one man, Peyton has home and away stats in domes or with roofs.

    However, this is something you needn't go beyond common sense, I mean, he played a lot of games in a dome, lol.

    Domes eliminate the weather factor, wind, cold, heat, snow, rain, and the effects that they can have on the ground are not things a QB has to work around in a dome, so we know full well that playing in a dome is better for QBs, it's not a secret or something that has yet to be determined.

    So, by virtue of this that we know to be fact, the more games you play in a dome, the more beneficial it will be to your stats.
     

Share This Page