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

Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

Ryan Tannehill is...

  1. A terrible QB

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. A below average QB

    2 vote(s)
    4.0%
  3. An average QB

    6 vote(s)
    12.0%
  4. An above average QB

    24 vote(s)
    48.0%
  5. An elite QB

    14 vote(s)
    28.0%
  6. The GOAT.

    4 vote(s)
    8.0%
  1. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    In fact, if you base an average number of offensive plays in the league (63) on an extrapolation from Derrick Henry's two stud playoff games last year -- in which his total EPA was 2.0 on 34 carries against the Patriots, and 3.5 EPA on 30 carries against the Ravens -- the Titans would be expected to score about 5 and a half points in a game by running the ball 100% of the time.

    By contrast if the Titans were to pass the ball 100% of the time and perform the way they have so far in the passing game this season, they'd by expected to score 31 points in a game.

    Now, obviously this is all the land of theory, but it's noteworthy the difference between running and passing efficiency, even with perhaps the best running back in the league. Go ahead and run the ball 100% of the time and see where it gets you. I might be able to beat you with a single touchdown.

    This is why Belichick's approach was intelligent, and why you don't need an all-world defense to implement it successfully.
     
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,131
    8,051
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So following stats, teams would be better off never running at all.
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    There are statistically-informed positions of that nature, yes. Here's one:
    https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/finding-optimal-passrun-ratio
     
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,131
    8,051
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    And this is why we can't actually have a productive discussion. It's simply not a realistic view. If a team DID NOT run, defenses would not come out to defend the run. You'd be throwing at 7 defensive backs every time. The numbers they're getting for passing are what they are with a run game. Passing would be much more difficult if defenses didn't have to worry about the run, and could just drop 7 into coverage. I mean, I guess you could go 5 wide all game every game, but I don't think that would be crazy successful. Regardless, even your quote says that he's not suggesting never running.
     
    Cashvillesent likes this.
  5. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    364
    477
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    You are conflating 2 different arguments here. I'm not saying running every down is the correct way to play on offense and it will win you the game.

    I specifically said they could run 100% IF the team is ignoring your run game to focus on the pass in a some bizarre attempt to put a QB in a bad passing situation despite having done NOTHING defensively to have forced the QB into that position. That type of game just doesn't happen in reality, which is the whole point of my post, your strange idea to defend the Titans is a made up scenario that has no basis in reality.

    So pushing stats based on real NFL defenses and how they tend to play out doesn't work for your argument. You want to force Tannehill to throw and put him in bad situations? You NEED A STRONG RUN DEFENSE. You stop the run and force him to make 2 or 3 big plays a series. Or you need to have elite CBs that allow you to dedicate more people to the run stopping so your team can MIMIC a strong run defense.

    Let me state it again, ANY strategy that involves letting Henry run all over you is a bad strategy. As I pointed out even NE didn't actually do what you claim they did. If you want to restate your argument that what the Patriots actually did do, is what you think teams should do, that's fine, but again, they are the #1 defense and the strategy still failed. They were also a top notch run defense team.

    You seem to get stuck isolating to one stat at a time. You are now acting as if EPA explains everything in the scenario that we are talking about. What does your statistics say your chances of winning are if a RB has 130 yds and 2 TD in the 1st half of a game? What does your statistics say if an offense faces almost exclusively 3rd and short plays for their 3rd downs? And finally what do YOUR STATS tell you will happen if you let Henry run all over your defense and Tannehill only has to throw 20 times a game? Now take into account that NONE of the 20 throws are obvious throwing downs cause you haven't put any effort to stopping the run. Its a recipe for disaster.

    If the scenario you put fourth was true, there would be no reason to invest in a running game cause every time he touches the ball you lower your chance to score points. And there would be no reason to invest in a Dline cause... the QB has to throw eventually... so just play every down like this is the down he throws...

    For the life of me I don't understand how you can still be arguing for your solution for beating the Titans.
     
  6. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    364
    477
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    Well I agree they got to do that as far as the pass offense goes, but The Guy is making some crazy argument based on stats that the best way to defend the Titans is to ignore Henry all together and just sit back waiting for Tannehill to throw... Its just bizarre...
     
    resnor and KeyFin like this.
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That isn't the argument, and in fact what I've said is that they should simply play defense the way they normally do in the league, i.e., defending the pass predominantly, instead of overfocusing on Henry and stacking the box like crazy. Essentially what Belichick did in the playoffs.
     
  8. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,077
    9,250
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I mean, I can argue that green M&M's give you superpowers...but you only learn to unlock those powers by drinking lemon juice. Just because I argue something doesn't mean it's based on sanity or that you have to listen to it. =)

    But hey, eat a green M&M then drink some lemon juice to prove me wrong. Then I can tell you why the experiment didn't work....like you clearly didn't drink enough juice!
     
    Phins_to_Win likes this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I’m not saying you’re wrong, but what is it that tells you that approach wouldn’t be more successful offensively than what we see in the league currently?

    Just because there are seven defensive backs out there for example doesn’t mean the opposing passing offense is going to get shut down. It’s entirely possible that whatever passing they do against such a defense could be more effective in scoring points than a mixture of the pass and the run.

    When perhaps the best running back in the league runs roughshod over a team on 34 carries and nonetheless accumulates only 3.5 EPA in a game, you’re not talking about a real efficient approach.
     
  10. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,775
    2,204
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Instead of just answering let me ask you a question. Do you believe it becomes harder to pass late game when the defense knows you are going to do so?

    Aside from if they are intentionally playing prevent and allowing short passes.
     
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're making a case for unpredictability, but any case in that regard would have to demonstrate that the benefit of unpredictability outweighs the decrease in EPA that occurs as a function of running the ball some percentage of the time. It's entirely possible that a team that's completely predictable with regard to passing the ball 100% of the time would nonetheless be more successful offensively than one that was unpredictable.

    I'm not making a case here for passing the ball 100% of the time, but by the same token we can't successfully argue that the current approach is better than passing the ball 100% of the time just because, in essence, "it's what we've always done." It's entirely possible the league as a whole isn't functioning optimally in that area.
     
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
  13. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,067
    9,545
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    C'mon dude.. it's nuts to even suggest that.

    It's obviously easier to defend against something if you know what's coming!! That's a general principle. Imagine the Allies telling the Nazis precisely when where and how they were going to attack. This would be a message board about the Miami Delphine (German for Dolphins) and the "football" itself would be round lol.
     
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    BTW it's also possible that a team can pass the ball 100% of the time and nonetheless be unpredictable to some degree, by simply having a player in the offensive backfield at the snap.
     
  15. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,775
    2,204
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    The problem is that many things seem optimal until you actually try them and see that they arent and if your job is on the line you arent going to go out and throw the ball 60 or 70 times a game as an experiment.

    If it were that simple Steve Spurrier would have won multiple Superbowls or at least had moderate success.

    Also you're not appreciating other things the run does. Like not have the arm of your QB fall off halfway through the season lol
     
    resnor likes this.
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but my point is that being "easier to defend" as you put it wouldn't necessarily outweigh the increase in EPA that may be afforded by abandoning the run game completely. That's an empirical question. My team could be easier to defend and still play better than it would by running the ball some portion of the time, as long as the difference in EPA gained by passing the ball more outweighed the difference in the opposing defense's ability to defend me.
     
  17. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,775
    2,204
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I wouldnt call that unpredictable necessarily. If you throw every down I'm basically sticking a spy on the HB to cover him and calling it a day. I'll let you have the yards the one time you may or may not run it.

    Especially if we are talking over multiple games and I know you do this every week.
     
  18. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,775
    2,204
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I just find it incredibly more likely that it would be an incredibly bad idea, because it has been thought of by about every fan/coach ever and disregarded as a bad idea.

    Some things look optimal on paper but are a horror show in practice. This in my opinion, is one of them.
     
    resnor likes this.
  19. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,067
    9,545
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well.. there's never been an NFL game in the SB era where one team had 0 rushing attempts. The record for fewest is 6:

    (Team listed first did it in each case):
    New England vs. Pittsburgh in 2004
    Arizona vs. Minnesota in 2006
    Minnesota vs. Buffalo in 2018

    Here are the stats:
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200410310pit.htm
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200611260min.htm
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201809230min.htm

    All lost and in all cases passer rating was MUCH lower for the team with 6 rushing attempts. So this at least gives you some idea of what the stats start to look like when you go way too far in terms of emphasizing the pass. Passer rating itself goes way down, likely due in good part to increased predictability. I mean, one of those was with Tom Brady at QB so it's not like that difference is completely due to the QB being bad.

    Also, it's well known that passer rating increases both as a function of point differential and win probability. Some of that difference is likely due to the winning QB (and passing offense) being better, but it's certainly suggestive of predictability hurting efficiency, and by extension points scored. This is not only intuitive but quite obvious.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  20. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    364
    477
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    Its hard to tell where you are drawing the line now. You have stated that you would be willing to "let" Henry rack up big yardage in a game while you focus on stopping Tannehill. You then said you would do what New England did, but you sited an article that was loaded with Hyperbole saying the Patriots essentially let Henry run on them as if that was NE's strategy going into the game. Next you claimed that you would encourage Tannehill to pass more to trigger your plan to capitalize on the pass. And finally you are now stating that you simply meant return to a more typical defense that you see presented in todays nfl with Dime and Nickel packages.

    Throw in the fact that I was constantly posting what I assumed your strategy was and you never pushed back but instead kept pushing the argument forward. I'm guessing that you were mostly being hyperbolic yourself at this point, which is fine and I apologize if I didn't catch on to it from your post.

    If your stance is simply that you would run the more common defensive models of Nickel packages and Dime packages, thats fine and makes more sense, but none of those defenses are designed to give up a 200 yd rusher. You still need to focus on stopping the running game to have a chance to use those extra DBs as the defense model intends. I think what you might be missing is that most of these teams that are trying to stop Titan's aren't getting past the first part of their plan which is hamper Henry so Titan's move away from the run. Titans are refusing to move away from the run, so The D is having to keep its focus on Henry until either Titan's break from their game plan due to ineffective running, or you have scored enough points that running Henry becomes a detriment to the team.

    Throw in the fact that last year Titan's were so efficient that they were scoring as many points as most of the teams in the league, while still using their run heavy offense, and you run into real problems trying to argue teams are doing it wrong with how they approach this team.
     
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Good data, thank you. What's your take on this article:

    https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/finding-optimal-passrun-ratio
     
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah sorry if I wasn't more clear about it. What I meant was that teams should stack the box against them far less frequently and bite less on play-action. Given that Henry ran so well even against stacked boxes, that for me was the equivalent of "letting Henry run." I would rather take my chances that Henry will reel off a long run than play to stop that and consequently give up the far more likely big passing play.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
    Phins_to_Win likes this.
  23. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    364
    477
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    I assume this works similar to the invisible hand of economics. Teams probably have seen their pass game weaken the more predictable and pass happy it becomes. If they never see that resistance then it makes sense that you would get a creeping upward trend to passing. I don't know to what result its been tested, but I assume most teams have pushed the metric at some point and saw their limit, or at least the hit to return on investment.

    Green Bay Packers had the lowest number of carries per game in 2018 and their offense fell dead in the middle of the pack for scoring. I'm a big believer that Aaron Rodgers might be one of the best QBs to play the game, so middle of the pack is not great for him. Now, there are hundreds of factors that might play into this 1 year, but I suspect you will see this weakness creep in at some point once you push past a certain threshold.

    AND let me go ahead and cut you off that I don't believe Titans found that threshold with Tannehill and that's why he is held to so few carries. The team is still feeling out how good Tannehill can be under their offense. I suspect that we will see a few different things this year, including a few games that they destroy a few teams early with high pass %, just to catch everyone off guard.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex and resnor like this.
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Well they did that this past Sunday, with a 2:1 pass to run ratio in the first quarter, a near-perfect passer rating for Tannehill, 1.37 EPA per passing play, and a 14-0 lead. The question is, how much were the Jaguars defending against Derrick Henry during that time?
     
  25. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,067
    9,545
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    OK.. took me awhile to understand that analysis. So, in that first graph on the x-axis you have pass probability for different 1st and 10 situations. Clearly, the game situations are different for different parts of the x-axis. Pass probability on 1st and 10 is likely very high only when the team is far behind, while pass probability is likely very low only when you're way ahead.

    The author's graphs 3 and 4 show EPA for both low play action percentage (graph 3) and high play action percentage (graph 4) for different pass probabilities. In both graphs the most efficient mix is 100% pass and 0% run, which the author then uses to suggest passing all the time might be best option regardless of game situation.

    That's the problem though: he's ignoring game situation. That is, he's assuming that in ANY game situation all you need to do is change pass probability to obtain the EPA seen in that graph. For example, if you decide to pass 75% of the time, he's suggesting that it's irrelevant whether you're up by 14 or down by 14, EPA is the same. Not sure anyone believes that.

    I think he needs to condition on game situation first, otherwise you get the result he's getting. For example, condition on point differential within a certain range. Change in EPA in the "same" condition would actually have some relevance to determining which run/pass ratio is optimal.
     
    The Guy and resnor like this.
  26. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,775
    2,204
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I'm a bit confused, did you at some point reverse your belief that Tannehill is mostly or only effective due to Henry and the stacked boxes?

    Honest question because the things you've been posting recently proposing would fly in the face of that original position at least to some degree.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, the post you quoted is consistent with my position in that I'm wondering how much of Tannehill's performance in the Jaguars game was due to the Jaguars' possible overemphasis on defending Henry.
     
  28. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,267
    7,683
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    How did that work out for the Patriots? They LOST! The Patriots had the NUMBER ONE RANKED defense in the league and they were still unable to stop the Titans.

    Did Ryan Tannehill have a great statistical game? No, not at all, 8/15 72 yds, 1 TD and 1 Int...but neither did the great Tom Brady 20/37, 209 yds, 1 Int. Did Derrick Henry have a great statistical game? Yes he did 34 rushes for 182 yds 1 TD and averaged 5.4 yards per carry! Did New England's committee of running backs have a statistically great game? Nope, not at all with a combined 22 rushes for 98 yards and 1 TD. Statistically, the Patriots averaged 4.4 yards per carry, with Michel actually leading that mediocre charge with his 14 carries for 61 yards.

    Defensively, the Titans had 6 tackles for losses and 1 interception where the Patriots' NUMBER ONE RANKED defense only had 3 tackles for losses and only 1 interception. Now while the Patriots and the Titans had the same number of interceptions, the significant difference is Patriots were unable to force the Titans into more passing situations. Had the Patriots put more focus on stopping Derrick Henry instead of letting him run all over Foxborough, Tannehill would have been forced to throw the ball more.

    You can look at that game with one of 2 conclusions. Either the Titans were really THAT GOOD of a team or the Patriots and the great Tom Brady were exposed for being overhyped. Seeing how the Titans were 1 game shy of the Super Bowl and are currently 2-0 this season, I'd say its the former and not the latter.
     
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What I will concede at this point, however, is that if a defense is overemphasizing defending Henry, Tannehill has the ability to make it pay and pay big. This article however does a good job of illustrating how that may hinge on the defensive approach the Titans are facing -- note the difference in their performance against stacked versus non-stacked boxes:

    https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/slow-down-derrick-henry-titans-stacked-box/
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Tom Brady's passer rating in that game was 59, well below average. If he has but an average passer rating, the Patriots very likely win going away. Surely you don't believe Ryan Tannehill or the Patriots' defensive approach had anything to do with Tom Brady's passer rating in that game.

    At any rate, the lesson from that game is that if you focus less on Henry and shut down Tannehill, it doesn't take much to beat the Titans, even if Henry runs all over you. You need only avoid having a terrible game offensively yourself.
     
  31. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    364
    477
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    To be clear you mean the lesson from the game is IF YOU HAVE THE PATS #1 DEFENSE, you can focus less on Henry and more on Tannehill? Again this isn't a likely strategy that most teams can pull off. I promise they weren't letting Henry run all over them they were simply trying to stop him with less D capital then other teams have used in the past.
     
  32. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,267
    7,683
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    You know, if you had used the Houston Texans' defensive approach in their regular season win against the Titans, you might've had a stronger argument but instead you use the Bill Belichick/Tom Brady is the Greatest of all Time...but LOST approach and decry that as a success in how to beat the Titans.

    But that argument wouldn't have worked for you either, would it? After all, Tannehill with a 92.2 passer rating against a presumed playoff team would have still been respectable...and God knows, Tannehill has no respect at all on any of your stats sheets.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  33. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    364
    477
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    Well it is football. I think there is a little bit of correlation across the whole game. Obviously some things are less of a modifier then others, but if we are to believe that a speech from a team captain or energy from the crowd has an effect, why wouldn't we put some stalk into other components of the game having a correlation on a QB rating? I mean if you introduce extremes it clearly does. If Pats Defense had returned 5 pick 6s in a row I would hope Brady would play considerably different under those circumstances, leading to a different rating.

    This post doesn't really have anything to do with the argument at hand just a bit of a side bar conversation :)
     
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but even then they held Tannehill to a passer rating of 61, well below average. The Titans would be eminently more beatable if Tannehill were held to merely a slightly below-average passer rating (let's say 90), even if Henry ran all over the field, as long as the opposing team's passer rating was even just slightly above-average (let's say 100). So you don't necessarily need one of league's best defenses, or one of the league's best passing offenses, to make this equation work.
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That's actually a great example and illustrates the point perfectly. Tannehill's passer rating in that game was 92.2, the Titans ran for 163 yards on 28 carries (5.8 yards a carry), and Watson's passer rating was 92.1. The Texans had the 10th-best passing defense in terms of passer rating allowed in 2019, so not one of the league's best.

    Point again is, if you get Tannehill down from his lofty heights, you can let the Titans' running game do its thing and still beat them, as long as your own passing performance isn't horrendous. And you don't need one of the league's best pass defenses, nor a stellar offensive passing performance of your own, to pull it off.

    Again all of this fits with the regression analysis I did earlier -- the Titans are winning with passing, not running.
     
  36. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    364
    477
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    But you would need to see that you could lower his rating with marginally worse effort, you would also need to run a cost analysis on investment to pay off to see where the "break even point" is for such a defensive strategy. Do you need top end CBs, LBs, and Dline to run it?

    Looking at the best Defensive team in the NFL is a bad starting point to see that. For all we know there is a point where Tannehill's efficiency drops off a cliff instead of incrementally downgrading, but that point might be high enough that only high level defenses can reach it.

    You also have to take the circumstances into account. Is it possible Tannehill had a bad game, or was fighting nerves as he moved into playoffs for the 1st time in his career?

    I think at best you are seeing something that could be an effective strategy if you have the defensive talent to pull it off. However, we haven't seen it be done successfully and consistently enough to make the declaration that it would be a successful strategy. In fact, the time it was used the best, resulted in a loss for the team. You will point to Brady having a bad game, but if you have an average offense are you likely to have a good enough game to win with this defensive strategy?
     
  37. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,077
    9,250
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Take that a step further- if Henry was such a dynamic threat in the playoffs, why wouldn't NE key in on him with the league's #1 defense and arguably the top coaching minds? There's not an ounce of logic there, unless....

    Once you finish out that sentence, this entire conversation seems silly at best.
     
    The_Dark_Knight likes this.
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,567
    1,081
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I think if you look at the information in post #9827 and couple that with what was done by New England and Houston (see post #9833), you'll come away convinced that stacking the box less frequently against them and trying to limit Tannehill's performance (i.e., focusing less on Henry and more on their passing game) is the way to go.

    Of course that won't always be successful, but what we're talking about here is what gives teams the strongest likelihood of defending them successfully. What we may be witnessing here is the time it takes for the league to figure out that Tannehill stands a better chance of beating it than Henry, even if Henry runs all over the place. And that stands to reason, given that Tannehill emerged out of nowhere and Henry has always been highly regarded.

    What the league may need a lesson in, however, is the fact that even the best running backs shouldn't be focused on defensively as a rule, unless their quarterback and passing game are especially poor.
     
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,131
    8,051
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Letting Henry kind of have his way up and down the field is fine if you can stop them in the red zone. However, Tannehill has been phenomenal in the red zone.
     
  40. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,480
    2,102
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Another bit of nuance completely lost of some posters......
     

Share This Page