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

Tannehill's Play and How it Affects the Outcome of Games

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by AdamC13, Nov 23, 2015.

  1. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    There has been an ongoing debate whether a QB has a Win / Loss record. It is definitely a statistic that is kept:

    http://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html (one site of many that refer to a QBs Win/Loss record and/or winning percentage)

    First of all, to claim the stat does not exist is like claiming the moon doesn’t exist as anyone can plainly see by clicking on the link above it does exist.

    Now whether someone likes it or not is another matter and appears the answer correlates to whether that person is a fan of Tannehill or not. At least when it comes to most boisterous in the general forum. I've even been told I can't post a QBs Win/Loss record on the forum :) by a self-appointed moderator?

    Second, I think there needs to be a clarification as to what a QBs Win/Loss record actually refers to. For those opposed to the stat it appears they think it is being used to say “ONLY” the QB determines whether the team wins or loses the game.
    As someone that refers to the statistic, NOT SO. For me, it’s “slang” for “When QB starts his team’s record is .” It is easier (perhaps lazy even) to type the QBs Win/Loss record is rather than the longer sentence above.

    No one I know of when using that vocabulary is under the belief the outcome of games is solely on the QB. It is a team sport. However (I’ll speak for myself), referring to a QBs Win/Loss record is 1) a reference to the QBs leadership and impact on the outcome of a game, 2) great QBs lead to significant more team wins than losses over time, average QBs lead to relatively average team records over time and bad QBs lead to more losses than wins over time, and 3) acknowledgement the QB position is the most influential position in football and that position is so important that if a QB is not able to lead the team to victory it is a really, really good sign the team is in need of a QB upgrade.

    Some who oppose the use of referring to a QBs win/loss record argue I need to provide a formula showing a QB significantly affects the outcome of games (or something along this line of reasoning). So here is my response:


    First, to deny a QB Win/Loss record does not exist because it has not been determined what % is a result of the QB play means “LOGICALLY” they would also have to deny “ALL” QB related stats…completions, attempts, yards, TDs, int, QB rating, etc...

    After all, a QB is not solely responsible for any of the above…the play called, the OL, the WR, the weather, etc… may all play a part in each and every play. For example, the same quality pass can be thrown to the same WR , 10 yards beyond the line-of-scrimmage and in one case the WR can’t secure the catch and in the other the WR makes a good catch, breaks a tackle takes it a total of 50 yards for a TD.

    In the first example everyone would say the QB is 0 for 1, 0 yards, QB rating 39.58

    In the second example everyone would say the QB is 1 for 1, 50 yards, 1 TD pass, QB rating 158.3

    No one would say that in both situations the QB is 1 for 1, 10 yards, QB rating 108.33 or that the QB’s pass was on target, but not perfect so they are credited with .723 completion on 1 pass attempt…absurd


    Second, I believe there is a way to look at the impact of how much a QB influences the game… I looked at Tannehill in particular. To do so I have correlated Tannehill’s QBR with Miami Dolphin Wins and Losses during his career.

    In a nutshell, QBR is a complex system ESPN utilizing algorithms (using algorithms is almost always complex) based on 10 years of in-depth analysis of every single game played in the NFL. It takes into account how the QB on every play makes an impact toward a team winning or losing. It factors in “clutch” play by looking at the context in which the QBs play occurred (e.g., a TD pass on 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5 from the 20 yard line with 30 seconds left to play and the team trailing by 4 points is going to have significantly more weight than a QB throwing a 1 yard TD pass in the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] quarter with the team trailing by 28 points). It also has trained personnel making judgement as to how much a sack falls on the OL or the QB, or whether an incomplete pass is the fault of a WR, the QB, or both, etc…

    To summarize, a QBR of “50.0” is considered the play of the AVERAGE QB…perhaps it helps to think the QB ranks 16[SUP]th[/SUP]-17[SUP]th[/SUP] among all starting QBs and with all things being equal would lead the team to an 8-8 record. Below a 50 QBR the QB is more likely to negatively affect the outcome of the game and over time lead to more losses than wins if the QB has more games below a 50 QBR than above. Above a 50 QBR the QB is more likely to positively affect the outcome of the game and lead to more wins over time if the QB has more games above a 50 QBR than below. Of course, the lower or higher the QBR deviates from the 50 QBR the greater the affect.

    Here are the results that I found when cross-referencing Tannehill’s QBR over the course of his career with Miami Dolphins winning and losing football games when Tannehill starts. Also, the impact on the outcome of games in comparison of head-to-head play with the opposing team’s QB:

    POINT A)

    During Tannehill’s career he has 26 games in which he had over a 50 QBR in that game…Tannehill has 31 games in which he had under a 50 QBR. Tannehill has 1 game in which he had exactly a 50 QBR.

    Miami Dolphins projected record if it were based on Tannehill being above 50 QBR or below 50 QBR = 26-31-1 for a (45.61 winning %).

    Miami Dolphins overall record when Tannehill has been the starting QB = 27-31 (46.55 winning %)

    Notes:
    Uncanny…so even though there are continuous debates game-by-game on whether it was Tannehill gets the fault for losing or credit for winning, “over time” the Miami Dolphins record is almost EXACTLY matches Tannehill’s game log in which he plays below or above the average QB.

    POINT B)

    When Tannehill had above a 50 QBR Miami’s record is 18-8 (69.32 winning %)

    When Tannehill had below a 50 QBR Miami’s record is 8-23 (25.8 winning %)

    So overall, whether Tannehill was above a 50 QBR or below a 50 QBR there was a direct relationship to Miami winning or losing the game 71.9% (41-16).

    Notes:
    In 5 of the losses when Tannehill had above a 50 QBR the opposing team’s QB was Brady, Rogers, P Manning, Newton, or Luck. Another loss against the Cardinals (Kolb, QB) in which a Tannehill lost a fumble at the end of the 4h quarter leading to OT and interception in OT leading to the loss. Another loss was to the Bucs (Glennon, QB) in which Miami led 19-15 and Miami’s offense was completely shut down in 4[SUP]th[/SUP] quarter as Tannehill threw an interception on Dolphins last drive. Final loss, was to the Jags this year in which offense failed to score in 4[SUP]th[/SUP] quarter when it was tied 20-20 to start the quarter.

    In the 8 games in which Tannehill had below a 50 QBR and Miami won the opposing team’s QBs were Brady (Dolphins D did a number on him), Bradford, Sanchez, Bortles, Orton, Geno, Rivers, Luck, and Sanchez (the one game Tannehill left early with injury and Moore led Miami to victory).

    Clear indications that Tannehill can play above average and Miami can still lose to teams with elite QBs and when they don’t score in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] quarter or commit costly turnovers to teams with less than elite QBs. And when Tannehill plays below average Miami can still win games when they play against teams with less than elite QBs or Brady gets shut down J
    The one game that Tannehill played average (50 QBR) was against the Redskins this year that appropriately enough the offenses ended the game tied 10-10 and Miami won after Landry returned a punt for the winning score in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] quarter.

    POINT C)

    When comparing Tannehill’s QBR with the QBR of the opposing team’s QB, the team with the QB who had the better QBR that game resulted in a record = 48-10 (82.76 winning %)

    BOTTOME LINE:

    Looking strictly at whether Tannehill plays above average or below average it correlates with Miami winning or losing 71.9% of the time.

    Miami Dolphins record based on Tannehill being above 50 QBR or below 50 QBR = 26-31-1 for a (45.61 winning %). Miami Dolphins overall record when Tannehill has been the starting QB = 27-31 (46.55 winning %)…leading to an overall correlation of 97.98%.

    In head-to-head competition with the opposing team’s QB, the team with the QB who has the higher QBR correlates to a 82.76 winning %.

    CONCLUSION:

    So how much does Tannehill’s play significantly affect the outcome of games? I would say at least 70%.

    And I think I will keep posting QBs Win/Loss records as I see fit, unless of course it falls under the TOS not to.
     
    mlb1399, CashInFist, Sceeto and 2 others like this.
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Would it be absurd to claim that one QB was better than the other, based purely on this one hypothetical situation?

    I believe it would.

    I'll continue reading the rest of the post now.
     
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So, the first example is the best: if other players don't do their job, does that negatively affect Tannehill's QBR? So, if a receiver dropped a td, or stepped out of bounds on a td, would that negatively affect his QBR? It has to, as there was no td, no catch.

    So, all you've done is go through great lengths, to come back to the same argument. Is Tannehill hampered more by other players than the team is hampered by him? Last season, especially, Tannehill was hampered by some really bad drops, and, yes, he also missed some too.

    I'm clicking Thanks on your post though, as I appreciate you trying to back up stuff with actual numbers.
     
    cuchulainn and AdamC13 like this.
  4. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    The point being those claiming a QB Win/Loss record does not exist b/c the QB does not win the game without the play from the other players will then refer to other QB stats when they also don't happen without the play from other players.
     
  5. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    And last season was the only season in which Tannehill had QBR higher than 50 for the season, ending with 58.0.

    A QB can have poor stats as result of other play but still have a good QBR as the QBs play is separated from that of the other players. For example, Tannehill does not get affected negatively in QBR when the throw is on target and the WR drops the ball.

    On the flip side a QB can put up good stats accumulated in garbage time and not end up with a good QBR. Case being, Tannehill ended up with a respectable 90.3 QB rating against the Cowboys, but ended up with a 18.3 QBR...deservedly so imo.
     
    Sceeto and resnor like this.
  6. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    Funny how that works right? It's a team sport, but they'll cite you his individual stats until they're blue in the face - particularly as a testament to his "progression".
     
    dolphin25, Fin-O and AdamC13 like this.
  7. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    What's also funny, and I've been watching recently due to a debate about it here and in Club, is ESPN sometimes heavily adjusts their ratings after the game is over.

    So I'll just go ahead and continue to ignore it as a valid representation of the QB's impact on the game.

    And this is in NO WAY a defense of Tannehill. Has absolutely ZERO to do with him. It's the rating and how it's used by ESPN.
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. Dorfdad

    Dorfdad Well-Known Member

    3,158
    1,640
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    Wow crazy numbers and statistics to back it up.... all I can say is WOW we paid 98 Million for this!!!!!
     
    dolphin25 and AdamC13 like this.
  9. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    Of course they have to wait for after the game as film watching to assign responsibility is part of it.

    What do you think is more accurate based on the Dallas game...the QB rating where Tannehill had 90.3 or QBR in which Tannehill had 18.3? How many games is a team going to win when a QB leads them to 14 points, throws a pick 7 and the team is 1 for 10 on 3rd down?
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  10. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,521
    8,910
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    AdamC13.. hate to do this to you because I agree with you that W/L record is a useful measure of QB ability (I'll go into that later), but seriously.. your post shows you have absolutely NO understanding of what a correlation is. Like NONE.

    Let's just take this for starters:

    OK.. just for argument's sake, let's suppose those numbers are identical: 27-31 when you predict the outcome based on above/below 50 QBR vs. actual record. I'm guessing you'd say the correlation is 100%. It's not. The correlation depends on which individual games were correctly predicted and which were not.

    For example, suppose for simplicity the record is 2-3 and the actual sequence of wins/losses was [W,W,L,L,L]. The correlation is 100% ONLY if you predicted [W,W,L,L,L]. The correlation would be less if you predicted [W,L,L,W,L] and very small if you predicted [L,L,W,W,L]. Point is, even though the records are in all cases 2-3, you cannot somehow infer from that what the correlation is.

    Worse.. correlation has no mathematical meaning when you look at "single" data points, which is how 27-31 is being treated (because you ignore the individual sequence of wins/losses). I could go on and on, but let me just say that everything you say about correlation, including claiming to have calculated one (you calculated no correlation anywhere) is wrong, and it's patently wrong.

    The math that would be more appropriate for analyzing how good a model QBR 50 above/below is would be something like signal detection theory where you count up the number of "hits" vs. "false alarms" etc.. but that's for another discussion.


    Anyway, .. now that that's out of the way, I do agree with everything you said before you talked about correlations. The proper way to argue W/L is useful from a statistical point of view is to point out that only correlation, not causation matters if you want to claim something is a useful measure of something else. For example, if the price of castella (a very tasty Japanese sponge cake) at a specific store in Tokyo perfectly predicts Tannehill's Y/A, then it's a perfect measure of Tannehill's Y/A even if there's no causal mechanism. All that's required is that it correlates well. And as many have pointed out, W/L correlates well with how most of us intuitively rank QB's (that have started enough games).
     
  11. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    It's too bad they don't do it for ALL of the offensive players as well...then there may be some substance/context involved. In essence, they're treating it such as the QB is the only player expected to do his job.

    One example I saw last week, the QB was 81 most of the game, into the fourth quarter of a blowout win, and after the game he's dropped to 21 after not throwing another pass. The other example was Jarvis Landry's 95 QBR for his off-target pass to RT that RT caught and got a first down with against the Jills. I know, small sample and all, but RT bailed out the pass, but Landry got a near perfect rating for it.

    Just doesn't jive.
     
  12. Bumrush

    Bumrush Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    22,778
    21,688
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    The Dallas game is a bad example. He also led the team to two TD's when we absolutely needed them.

    We lost to Dallas because they dominated our linebackers, Romo made clutch throws and they dominated TOP. We barely had the ball the entire game.
     
  13. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    I thought he had some bad play in there...no doubt...but 18.3 I don't see. 1 for 10 on 3rd when many if not most were 3rd and 10+? I dunno. Not a lot of dudes are going to have a high conversion % with the penalties that were killing some of those drives.

    There was just so much wrong with that game...him included...but he certainly doesn't own the loss by himself.

    Edit: I will say his accuracy was uncharacteristically off in that game. He's usually very accurate lately, even if he's making other mistakes, and there's been plenty. Not so, except for some exceptions, this last weekend...the underthrow on Landry's deep'ish drop was a killer for me.
     
    resnor likes this.
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No one wants to answer whether one QB is better than the other in that hypothetical example?
     
  15. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    Point well taken. Lol...when I was typing, I actually had the thought "is correlation the term I am looking for?" and ended up going with it. Been a long time since college statistics class and was using correlation inappropriately for the career records. I may have used the wrong terminology, but the numbers speak for themselves. A "direct relationship" might of been the appropriate terminology if I recall correctly.

    I look at it similar to playing at a casino. The odds are always in favor on the side of the casino. Not every time is the casino going to win. However, over time those odds will play out. Like a QB that plays below average, there are games when the team will win despite poor play, but there will also be times when the team will lose with quality QB play. The majority of the time the QB play will directly affect the outcome of the game.
     
    resnor and cbrad like this.
  16. muskrat21

    muskrat21 Well-Known Member

    1,361
    831
    113
    May 11, 2014
    BRB getting popcorn
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  17. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    Naturally. He touches the ball every play. And there will be times others will have more of an impact on a win, but ya the QB is pretty important to it. Which is NOT to say the W/L should = the QB. There's just too much involved for that to be reality IMO.
     
  18. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    The offense was only +7 points (scored 14 - 7 on pick)...how many games is a team going to win when the offense is +7 points?

    We needed TDs at the end. Tannehill was non-existent for 29 minutes in the 1st half and then disappeared again with 5+ left in the 3rd. In the 4th quarter Miami had 3 drives, 11 plays for a total of -2 yards.

    When the offense only converts 1 of 10 plays the other team usually dominates TOP.
     
  19. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    :lol:
     
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Really unfair characterization, imo. For instance, in the fourth, Tannehill runs for a first. Called back because dumbass Fox, I think, had a holding penalty. Negates first, gives them third and like 12. Pick up what, 6 in the next play, then they punt.

    Or, get a big defensive stop, only to have it negated by a Taylor hold, and then they drive the length of the field for a td.
     
    Shane Falco likes this.
  21. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Not really unfair. They only scored 14, which isn't good enough and I'm ignoring the 7 they spotted.
     
    dolphin25 and Fin-O like this.
  22. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    It happens (I actually didn't think Taylor's was a hold). Part of the game. A lot of QBs overcome that. Look at the play Romo was almost sacked and did a Houdini and got the 1st down. But I am not defending Fox's play. Dumb.

    I thought the OL, as a whole, played a pretty good game. The late sacks, imo Tannehill had time to get rid of the ball and with pocket presence could have moved out of the pocket. He did that on the 1st TD and I thought, "awesome, do that some more," but then when the opportunity presented itself again, didn't happen.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  23. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    Ya that statuesque sack he took was infuriating...completely. But comparing him to Romo? That dude is Whodini...not many can escape like he does.
     
  24. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah, and our oline got away with nothing, where Dallas' oline got away with murder mostly all game.
     
  25. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    I thought Miami's DL made the Cowboys OL look ordinary at best.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  26. yoge

    yoge New Member

    195
    60
    0
    Dec 29, 2013
    yes
     
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    They should have looked worse, but they got away with plenty. Our, conversely, ours would have looked better if not getting called for seemingly everything.
     
  28. Shane Falco

    Shane Falco Banned

    916
    468
    0
    Nov 22, 2015
    Why are people putting so much stock in a made up stat that ESPN created??
     
    Stitches, Steve-Mo and Fin D like this.
  29. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,521
    8,910
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No one should until ESPN publishes their method.
     
    muscle979, Stitches, resnor and 2 others like this.
  30. muskrat21

    muskrat21 Well-Known Member

    1,361
    831
    113
    May 11, 2014
    bc it proves tannehill sucks (regardless of validity) and anything that does that is going to be worshiped
     
    Shane Falco likes this.
  31. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I have to disagree with your logic here, his correlation is based on causality, not on prediction, I do understand what you're saying, the problem is that it's not what he's saying.

    What he's pointing to is if you compile Tanne's QBR for his career it adds up to 26-31-1, based on the QBR itself, and how ESPN correlates it to W/L record, and that the actual record of the Fins during that time is 27-31, further backed up by showing how when Tanne is under 50QBR there is a strong losing record and conversely how when he has a QBR above 50 he has a strong winning record.

    So there is a definite correlation there based on QBR and W/L, at least in the case of the Fins, it just seems like you're saying there can be no correlation without prediction, but when the correlation is based on causality then prediction is relevant.
     
  32. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Why do people put so much stock in a made up stat site from a business consultant(PFF)?
     
  33. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,521
    8,910
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No there isn't. There is a precise mathematical definition of correlation and that's what I was referring to. You're understanding the word "correlation" in some non-mathematical, colloquial way. Mathematically speaking, there is no correlation there.

    The language he should have used was "the model predicts the data with X% accuracy".
     
  34. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Here is the Websters definition of correlation;

    So, I'm not quite sure what your referencing, unless correlation has a particular definition in your line of work, which certainly does happen, but that is the basic definition of correlation.
     
  35. Shane Falco

    Shane Falco Banned

    916
    468
    0
    Nov 22, 2015
    I am watching Brady looking super average right now, Buffalo is getting all sorts of pressure on him. Pressure affects all QBs. It's not that hard to understand.
     
    resnor and Fin D like this.
  36. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    I knew it wouldn't be long before these posts started.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  37. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,521
    8,910
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Problem with the word "correlation" is that it immediately has mathematical significance. It's not like the word "topology" which has a clearly different meaning colloquially than in mathematics and both are acceptable (in math, two surfaces have the same topology if you can deform one into the other without any tears.. of course we'd say a mountain range has a different "topology" than a desert.. while in mathematics they have the same topology).

    Correlation immediately implies this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence

    The precise calculation for that very common Pearson correlation coefficient is what is implied unless otherwise stated. So it's actually using the word "incorrectly" when you don't mean it in the precise mathematical sense.
     
    DolphinGreg likes this.
  38. Shane Falco

    Shane Falco Banned

    916
    468
    0
    Nov 22, 2015
    Well, there's nothing else on

    #tvisboring

    edit: just found Horrible Bosses 2 on HBO.
     
  39. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    The best prediction, as you refer to it, is not Whether Tannehill plays above average (> 50 QBR), but whether he plays better than the opposing team's QB...82.6% of the time the team whose QB had a higher QBR that team won.

    Out of those 8 games when Tannehill performed above the average QB, he didn't out-perform against the QBs that played GREAT.

    Brady 87.4 QBR over Tannehill 55.9 QBR
    Rogers 78.5 QBR over Tannehill 66.6 QBR
    P Manning 93.7 QBR over Tannehill 89.6 QBR
    Bortles 89.8 QBR over Tannehill 54.4 QBR
    Luck 90.0 QBR over Tannehill 55.4 QBR

    On the other 3 games a familiar pattern with Tannehill. The three games in which Tannehill had a higher QBR Miami collapsed late in the game.

    Miami up 2:51 in game 21-14, Tannehill fumble led to Cardinals 51 yard drive and tie game with 22 seconds left. In OT Tannehill int lead to Cardinals winning FG
    Tampa Bay scored TD in 4th quarter with 10:19 left. Miami final two drives...6 plays 13 yards and punt, and an interception on final drive.
    Game against the Panthers, Cam Newton did what he does which is lead the Panthers to a TD drive with 43 seconds left to steal the win...the Dolphins did NOT score in the second half.

    On the flip side, Miami has also won 8 games when Tannehill played below average...so in the end that balances out...Whereas overall, 41 of the 57 games Miami Won or Lost in alignment with Tannehill's QBR rating.
     
  40. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    And anything that shows he does (even when it has validity) in the slightest is despised.
     

Share This Page