Changes in Strategy, Changes in Talent (we hope)

by Anything but Gatorade on Jul 29, 2009 1:25 PM EDT in Football Comment 21 comments

"...and then I poked him RIGHT IN THE EYE." via cache.daylife.com

I love Jimmy Buffett so I was going for the song thing in the title, but nothing rhymes with "strategy." Moving on...

Recruiting isn't really Tru's thing, I know, and it's not mine, either. I like to pretend that recruiting doesn't actually happen; that the kids that show up at Kirwan I every fall are there because they, you know, like it in Lexington or something. Having to consider what actually happens on the recruiting trail hurts my headspot too much, so I ignore it for the most part. That being said, one of the most profound things I took away from last week's Media Days event was a quote from Georgia defensive tackle Jeff Owens. Owens said (and I'm paraphrasing because Larry Vaught likes to copyright everything he writes) that the problem Kentucky's had with competing in the SEC East comes down to talent.

That's probably true, with some caveats. NFL types, especially scouts, seem to think that all it takes to create a successful college football team is to amass some talent and put it out there on the playing field. NFL types also think that it's acceptable to pay $8.00 for light beer at their games. Talent is very important of course, but to say that it's everything belies the importance of coaching said talent once it reaches said field. Going past the coaching edge, though, and you see why the Kentuckys and Vanderbilts of the SEC have struggled so mightily for so long: they can't get enough of the right kinds of players to fill out a roster.

Kentucky has some geographic and historical mountains to climb, but Coach Brooks recently addressed a sea change in the program's approach to college football's very lifeblood:

Kentucky has never put together great college football talent consistently like the Floridas, Georgias, South Carolinas, Alabamas and Texases of the world. This is a product of an administration that didn't care much about football, having a small state population relative to the rest of the schools in the conference, and the fact that most high school programs in the Commonwealth are working with next to nothing in their budgets with which to spend on football. Those last two factors are also some of the reasons Kentucky high school basketball is so much more important, but that's another post for another day. Adding in the fact that Kentucky, as the SEC's northernmost school, is almost in Big Ten country, and that negatively impacts the state's recruiting base even more. The only way many coaches in the past have dealt with this problem is to pick up a lot of junior college transfers with mediocre degrees of success.

Geographical and socio-economic reasons aside, Kentucky's fielded bad, bad, bad football teams for a lot of years. Sure, there are a few bowl games every decade to pin some pride on, but up until recently, success was...inconsistent. (That was hard to write, it's like saying "President Clinton's attitude toward marital fidelity was...inconsistent.") Kids who are good at stuff want to play with other kids who are also good at stuff. Beating up your sister is fun, but it's not something to be proud of; you want to beat up the kid that's just as big as you or even bigger. The analogy works with Kentucky football: offering talented kids a place to play immediately sounds great at first, but wouldn't you rather work and learn a little bit so you can get noticed by NFL scouts? That wasn't happening in Lexington until Andre Woodson emerged in 2007.

Fast forward two more years to today. If any of you follow my own site (and according to Google Analytics, you probably don't) you'll note that I keep track of Vanderbilt football, too. At this point in the year, Bobby Johnson has already obtained eighteen (18!!!) commitments from high school kids to play in Nashville in 2010. To look at the league as a whole, see hmyah (from Mr. SEC):

School	Total Commits	5-stars	4-stars	3-stars	2-stars	1- or 0-stars	Total Stars	Avg. Stars
LSU	20	0	12	6	0	2	68	3.4
Alabama	18	1	9	6	2	0	63	3.5
Georgia	18	0	8	9	0	1	60	3.3
Florida	16	1	11	3	0	1	59	3.7
Vandy	18	0	0	12	2	4	44	2.4
SCarolina	15	0	3	8	1	3	41	2.7
Auburn	13	0	2	9	0	2	37	2.8
Tennessee	12	0	2	7	0	3	32	2.7
Arkansas	8	0	1	5	1	1	22	2.8
Miss. St.	9	0	1	5	0	3	22	2.4
Kentucky	2	0	0	1	1	0	5	2.5
Ole Miss	2	0	0	1	0	1	4	2.0

Well look at that, Kentucky only has two commitments! And one's a kicker!! Well, we need a kicker, so that's okay. But to see the disparity between our Doormat Bowl compatriots and ourselves in terms of recruiting commitments thus far made me panic. So, I did what any other neurotic, possibly unbalanced Kentucky football fan would do, I asked Rob Gidel from KSR what the hell was going on. Oddly enough, he sent me an email back:

Great site (Ed. note: as if I didn't know that). Thanks for the question and for coming to the site. I cannot answer the 2010 question, because I really think at this point, it's always a crapshoot. Most of the kids that commit, commit on the whim. I've said from the beginning that UK was a leader for [Isaiah] Lewis (as early as last January). I'd be surprised if Michigan State was able to overcome the relationship that UK established from the beginning for him. He will decide soon. Outside of him, it's a crapshoot, as the tea leaves are always few and far between at this time of the year. I'd say, you can sound the alarm if UK goes past September with the same amount of commitments. Right now, it's not nearly as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be. Things change so much in football recruiting and the biggest recruiting pitch is opportunity for UK. Kids cannot see opportunity from a pamplet. They have to get them on campus. Once they do and they see that the fans do take football seriously, things start to swing. In the past, the summer commitments have not nearly been as successful once they arrived on campus, so the lack of verbals at this point is not nearly as painful to take, in my opinion. We just need to be patient and remember that the biggest "gets" for this staff have all been late signees or winter commitments.

(Thanks for the help, Rob.) So that calmed me down a little bit. Then, on Sunday, I saw this gem of a quote from the OLD (Spurrier's not old enough to call himself old yet) Ball Coach himself:

"I think recruiting is going pretty well, better than it has in the past," Brooks said. "We may have had more commitments this time last year, but we also have to be a little more careful about who we get commitments from because we're into some guys that are maybe a little more high-profile."

HT: Chip Cosby on that. What this all means to me is that Kentucky is starting to at least try to get to the next level in recruiting blue chip talent. We Caliparians already know how important that is in basketball, and football isn't any different. What it seems that Kentucky is doing is trying to wait it out with some of the better recruiting targets on its radar rather than just snapping up whatever leftovers it can find like it's done in the past.

It's a gamble, but it is definitely one that I trust Rich Brooks to take. If this works, and Kentucky actually starts reeling in multiple classes of players that could just as easily start at Tennessee, Georgia or Alabama, the possibilities are astounding. I really don't want to get too worked up about it because, as a Kentucky football fan, I am no stranger to disappointment. But if the change in recruiting strategy serves to further improve the level of talent on the field at Commonwealth, I guarantee I'll be laughing maniacally for years to come.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

ABG, I am glad you are a Buffett fan and not the BeeGees

cause if we aint careful the song “Tragedy” may come to mind this year for your rhyme……I pray I am wrong…

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jul 28, 2009 9:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't worry

The importance of the two commitments is being wildly overblown by internet-based fans who are only guessing at what’s actually going on with UK’s football recruiting. In the first place, Coach Brooks himself addressed this recently. Brooks was very candid. UK is “in” with “higher profile” prospects this year. Why should this surprise anyone? The Cats have won three-straight bowl games.

Secondly, what matters is how many…and who….the Cats sign in February. My calendar says the February signing date is still 6 1/2 months away.

Thirdly, the two prospects who have already verballed to UK are both projectible SEC-caliber prospects with big upsides.

Fourthly, I know of at least two….probably three….prospects who are leaning toward UK right now. One is a very fast DB, one is an elite DB, and one is a talented LB. I can’t produce a crystal ball that guarantees anything, but I know what the prospects themselves have told people. I also know of three very good out-of-state RB prospects who all have UK in their final three schools. One of them has UK in his final two.

Finally, I like the way this staff always continues to develop and revise its recruiting board throughout the fall every year. You can do this successfully when your staff has four relentless guys like Joker, Chuck, Randy, and Thurmond who are energetic, experienced recruiters who relate well to prospects and their parents. I guarantee, UK will sign at least 3-4 quality prospects in February whose names most UK fans haven’t even heard yet.

In the meantime, I urge UK fans not to get hung up on Tim Patterson and Miles Simpson. Maybe they will sign in UK’s class or maybe they won’t (I happen to believe the chances are fairly good), but instate prospects definitely won’t be the strength of Brooks’ class this year. Look for the state of Georgia to produce more UK signees than any other state (including Kentucky) in February. Look for a couple of very good ones to come from Indiana, and Ohio, and Tennessee. Probably Florida too. Not to worry. As other SEC programs fill up, there are going to be lots of SEC-caliber prospects who haven’t committed early for a variety of reasons….who end up being patient and selecting UK. But that doesn’t mean the number of UK verbals will stay at two very long. I expect several developments soon. People just need to listen to Brooks and trust him.

by Messenger on Jul 28, 2009 10:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Look who's been paying attention!

The only guy I really know about is Isaiah Lewis, who is apparently on campus right now. Of course what happens in February is way more important than what’s going on in July, but you can’t say that LSU isn’t feeling pretty comfortable with 10 commits, 12 of the 4-star variety. It’s obviously not time to panic, but it is good that people are at least concerned and trying to tune in to Kentucky recruiting in football.

http://anythingbutgatorade.blogspot.com - yet another SEC sports blog

by Anything but Gatorade on Jul 29, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Curious

Everyone has their own preferences. Some fans still like to read “inside information” from “gurus”. There are a handful of folks in the internet-based UK sports community who have formatted themselves as “gurus” with “contacts”. These are the folks who kept assuring us that Michael Cross, Markish Jones, Brandon Newman, Chris Todd, Adrian Cannon, Marvin Arnold, David Gilbert, Ed Hazelett, JK Jay, DJ Stafford, Marckus Boswell, Chris Shiverdecker, Leonard Washington, Marshall Moses, Rotnei Clark, Michael Sanchez, Nemanja Calasan, Beas Hamga, Chris Singleton, and the still-unnamed South American PG would become UK Wildcats. These examples and many others prove the internet “gurus” don’t have foolproof “inside information”.

And that’s why most UK fans want collegial discussion. Most people understand recruiting and team development are dynamic processes with a flow of events. A large and growing number of fans are more interested in understanding the way things work than in taking a “guru’s” word for what will happen.

That’s why thinking, discerning people enjoy these kinds of discussions.

And I would add something else, as well. Within the so-called “Big Blue Nation” we have fans in a number of different categories. Some attended UK. Those folks have been on campus and understand in a first person perspective what goes on there. Many UK alumni….and I fall into this category….still keep in touch with UK officials and maintain an ongoing relationship with the University. Some are season ticket holders and donors. But there are tens of thousands of good, loyal UK fans out there who have never actually set foot on UK’s campus. Many of those don’t even live in the Commonwealth. They depend on printed and internet-based media for their information. A large component of this group continues to search for better and more interesting ways to commune with other UK fans and share thoughts about UK’s athletic programs.

by Messenger on Jul 29, 2009 10:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Your thoughts are really on point there Messenger

our problem exists within the fact that most people out there regard us as a bunch of uneducated lunatics with rifles and confederate flags(which when you think about it is silly, we technically arent even southern).

The stigma may never go away, but this site goes a long way in trying to remove that stereotype, while others have a tendency to perpetuate the fiction.

That having been said, I cannot in good conscience refer to Gilbert and Sullivan and keep a straight face…..lol

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jul 29, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gilbert and Sullivan?

Are they related to Butch and Sundance?

by Ken Howlett on Jul 29, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cousins on Butch's side I believe

but I always thought they were money exchange managers or something…..???…..lol

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jul 29, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Proof is in the Playing

Because we are competing more and more outside Kentucky, focusing on February seems to be a good strategy. Players in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Indiana face choices of in-state schools in major conferences. If the player’s first in-state choice doesn’t materialize or offers less playing time, Kentucky may be a very attractive choice.

Over the years, I think our primary talent problem has been depth. We always seem to get 6-10 competitive players and 20 iffy ones. We need to sign classes where the lowest ranked recruit is damnear as good as the No. 1 guy. I think that’s what Brooks is shooting for. Success seems possible.

As always, you don’t know how good a recruiting class is until it has been on campus at least three years.

by Fortunatus on Jul 29, 2009 1:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Have to agree on the depth problem

Until we bring our average up to 3star , we are going to have problems competing in the SEC. We have always recruited the better 2 stars, but they are usually 20+ lbs. light , 2in short, and somewhat slower than the “Big Boys”

"SPORTS"--Not interested----"CATS"--Pull up a chair,I've got all night.

by kydamcat on Jul 29, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stars are virtually irrelevant

Disagree because it is pointless to assess progress in the staff’s recruiting performance by averaging stars. As has been proven many times, stars are irrelevant. in individual cases. Micah Jones and Yancey Reynolds were four star prospects. (Reynolds was even a five on one recruiting service.) A lot of people don’t remember this correctly, but Keenan Biurton and Jacob Tamme were actually one-star prospects before they verballed to UK. (Their ratings were subsequently increased.) Tamme was an All American, and Burton rewrote many UK receiving records. Mike Aitcheson and Glenn Holt were also one-star prospects at the time UK’s staff started recruiting them.

Now, people like to debate this point. And everyone has a former player who proves their point, regardless of what their point may be. I’m certainly not suggesting UK shouldn’t sign more four-star prospects. On the contrary, there are fewer UK verbals this summer precisely because Brooks and Joker are “in” with more highly-ranked prospects.

But in the meantime, this staff has won three-straight bowl games. I get a kick out of people who seem to think the staff might not know what they are doing. It’s kind of funny.

by Messenger on Jul 29, 2009 1:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Stars are not irrelevant.

There is a ton of research on this, and they do matter.

That isn’t to say that stars are the only thing that matters, but there is a direct and measurable correlation between success and star ratings of the recruits a team brings in. That’s just a fact.

With that said, stars are a very, very blunt instrument. They can’t really measure nuance, or how a player might develop. They really indicate, more than anything, the level of physical maturity in high school, as well as natural ability. But a talented player can be physically immature and wind up with a fairly low star rating, but become all-league material when he grows up.

The way I generally look at it is this — 5* players are usually ready to compete in the SEC right away at a fairly high level. 4*’s sometimes are, but usually are reserve players their first year. 3*’s are like 4*’s, except more of them are not ready to contribute in year 1. 2*’s are rarely able to compete at the SEC level their first year.

That is not a hard and fast rule, merely a broad guidance, in my opinion.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 29, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stars

Truzenzuzex, I did not mean to imply that stars don’t matter. In fact, I indicated I am pleased that UK’s staff is “in” with “higher-profile” prospects this year….thus the delay in numbers of verbals.

Higher-rated prospects tend to become better D-1 players, although all of us can cite exceptions. But here’s the rub. Many players who are not highly-rated have not actually been evaluated sufficiently. Being unknown (for whatever reasons) contributes to their lower ratings. This means some good ones (e.g., Tamme, Holt) are out there for discerning coaching staffs to evaluate and discover. To date, Brooks’ staff has been terrifiv at doing this.

So I don’t buy the idea that Brooks’ staff can be graded or assessed as recruiters by “averaging stars” in their signing classes. That was my point, and I think they have proven this pretty clearly.

by Messenger on Jul 30, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, well ...

…. then I misunderstood you. I guess it was that “stars are virtually irrelevant” at the top that got me and I didn’t get the rest of your point.

Yeah, I agree, you really can’t “average” stars. That doesn’t really work very well as a predictor of how good a team will be, although you can generically say that the teams averaging more than 4 stars are likely to be better than teams averaging three or less. As to the in-betweens, it’s pretty muddy in there. I could not make the case that a 3.8 star “average” would be better than a 3.1 star average.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 30, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stars

It’s an interesting discussion, so let me crystallize this to its essence.

Note, though, that UK’s three of UK’s four most-recent first-team All Americans (Jimmy Whelan, Glann Pakulak, Jacob Tamme) were one-star prospects. Only Tim Couch was highly-rated in HS. Note, also, that Trevard Lindley has received preseason All America mention this summer. Lindley was a two-star athlete when he graduated from Hiram HS.

Thousands of teenage athletes get rated every year. There is no way these rating services see all of these kids play football. Sometimes they rate the athlete on the basis of which D-1 schools (they perceive) have offered scholarships. Now, keep in mind that the schools cannot discuss the athletes under NCAA rules, so this information comes from the kids or their friends/families. It may or may not be first-hand information. It may or may not be accurate. It may even be the service’s composite review of what other internet-based services have written about the athlete. In some cases, it may be based on film snippets sliced together by the kid’s HS coach….and some HS coaches are better at this than others. Some HS staffs don’t even have the resources to do this.

This means there are hundreds of kids out there who have “stars” although the service awarding these “stars” hasn’t actually evaluated the athletes themselves.

Now, in other cases, the service may be accurate. Andre Woodson, for example, had been to the Big Twelve camps the summer before his senior season at North Hardin HS. Andre’s athletic tools and skills were well known. His four-star rating was accurate.

In hundreds of individual cases, stars are irrelevant. Examples: Micah Jones (four stars), Jon Logan (four), Yancey Reynolds (four), Demetrius Goode (four), James McKinney (four), Earl Heyman (four), Jeremy Jarmon (two), Myron Pryor (two), Jacob Tamme (one), Keenan Burton (one), Glenn Holt (one).

Moreover, averaging “stars” obviously isn’t a valid way to rate a coaching staff’s evaluation and recruiting skills. Quite obviously, winning a series of bowl games is a more valid reflection of a staff’s acquisition and development of athletic talent.

With that said, as a general rule, you want to be recruiting talent from successful HS programs and competitive HS football hotbeds. Everyone wants to see UK attempt to sign outstanding HS players from excellent programs. This is where we all agree.

It is important for everyone to understand that UK’s staff is currently recruiting about 15 uncommitted “four star prospects” and about 50 “three star prospects”. The math tells us that Brooks cannot sign all of them. But when February rolls around, I think most UK fans will be happy with Brooks’ class.

And unlike most other internet-based observers, I always believed MSU was the favorite for Isaiah Lewis and I said so publicly….

www.visualboxscore.com/forum.tm.aspx?m=3001 (See third comment on thread.)

by Messenger on Jul 30, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Substantially Correct In Judging Subjectivity

There is little doubt that ratings of individual football players is for the most part subjective, more so than, say, basketball primarily due to the number of players to be adjudged. However by selecting certain individuals and their rankings and using them to prove that the rating system is irrelevant is faulty science and violation of the rules of logic. It seems to me the very fact that the elite football programs annually reap a bountiful harvest of highly rated players and coach them into elite performers with routine on-the-field team success provides some confirmation that player rankings — taken as an overall measurement — have considerable validity. I would hope that sometime in the future — but I’m not holding my breath — that UK could match UF, UGA, LSU, et al in 4 & 5-star signees and then compare on-the-field, W-L results.

"The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of its political cares."

--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 12, 27 November 1787

by Wild Weasel on Jul 30, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Logic vs leaps

The faulty elements of logic here lie in:

Assuming a one- or a two-star prospect has been evaluated as thoroughly as a four- or five-star. This simply isn’t true. Many one- and two-star prospects simply haven’t been evaluated by the rating service. Many times, a prospect’s “star rating” actually rises once he has been evaluated more thoroughly.

Assuming a rating service knows as much about a prospect as a coaching staff that has evaluated him more thoroughly.

Suggesting (as an earlier poster did) that a coaching staff’s recruiting prowess can be assessed by averaging “stars”.

I agree with your suggestion that highly-rated prospects tend to develop well. It’s not always true (Micah Jones, John Logan, Yancey Reynolds), but it tends to be true more often than not. However, there is this other side of the discussion (represented by Tamme, Burton, Lindley, Jarmon, Pryor, and many others) that worshippers of star ratings cannot grasp. The fact is that none of those five ever received a thorough evaluation by anyone but UK’s staff and perhaps a few other energetic coaching staffs. These are NFL caliber players. That’s why averaging stars is irrelevant. It’s why you pay attentuion to a coaching staff’s evaluation of a prospect in preference to a rating system.

Last, but not least, it would be great if every football recruiting class could be like Calipari’s most recent basketball class. Some fans just seem to think Brooks and Joker should go out and sign a bunch of four- and five-star priospects. Wouldn’t that be terrific? It gets harder when every other school in the SEC ACC, and Big Ten is trying to do the same thing in your recruiting region. This is where the harder-working staffs have an advantage by more thorough scouting and evaluation.

The evidence is out there that Brooks’ staff excels at this. Three straight bowl victories. Development of unknown prospects like Tamme, Pryor, Lyons, Locke, Jenkins, Masthay, Jarmon, Lindley, Maxwell, and so forth.

I agree with your other thoughts. The opportunity for UK to compete on the recruiting trail with Florida, Georgia, and LSU is a matter of Ws and Ls. It’s a chicken-and-egg kind of thing. The better the recruiting and player development, the more games they win. The more games they win, the better their recruiting opportunities will be. As you are suggesting, this takes (1) hard work, (2) superior evaluation skills, and (3) time.

by Messenger on Jul 31, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Civility Appreciated

Messenger, I value the civil and rational discussion; something that’s all too rare in Internet discussions although less so here on ASoB. I would add a fourth item to your list of requirements: UK cease being perceived exclusively as a basketball school. That will, as you denote, require time, lots of time, maybe more than a generation or two.

--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 12, 27 November 1787

by Wild Weasel on Jul 31, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think its safe to say that

if you recruit and coach 3&4 star athletes consistently you will be able to show the results of that. We are not yet getting 3&4 stars regularly, and only the occasional 5 star. We get 2’s regularly, 3’s somewhat consistently….above that, we have a lot of room to grow. Look at the Alabamas and Floridas and LSUs of the world…..consistent 3-4-5 star athletes. Our coaches are pretty good, our recruiting is improving, but my mouth waters at the thought of what this staff could accomplish with the caliber of recruit that those schools get every day just by being who they are…..If we could consistently land 15 3-4 star recruits every year, we would be competitive in our league. And its the toughest in the land.

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jul 29, 2009 4:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Are the number of 5 star players set....

…or is it an ever expanding number. If the number is set at say 100 each year nationally. Then a myriad (and more than likely a number that is growing each year) of high school players who are at the same physical maturity, (i.e. strength, speed, weight, height, finesse, etc ) as these 100 are being rated 4 stars based on lack of positioning in the system (ie exposure of the HS program, etc.) The same “Trickle Down” theory would work for 3 star recruits. The growing population, increased participation in sports, more schools, etc would see to that…while the number of BCS teams has stayed relatively constant.

If it is ever increasing, then there are more opportunities for the Kentucky’s of the world to get one.

Will there be 6 star athlete soon to differentiate even further?

Sign me …a CPA with too much time on his hands.

by cpacat on Jul 29, 2009 7:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the 5 star ranking ...

… represents a finite number of spots. In basketball, it is generally the top 25. I’m sure there are more in football, but not sure how many more.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 30, 2009 7:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Class of 2009

I really think the class of 2009 will be good for Kentucky. Despite stars and rankings -I think you got a good crop of players that will be significant for the next few years.

http://fourthdownand5.blogspot.com/ — a playoff blog

by socmaniam on Jul 30, 2009 12:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs