Jump to content

Spring Practice Report #3


Recommended Posts

God I hate this. So here's a fun lesson on this. From 2008-2012 there were a total of 13816 kids ranked by Rivals.

158 5* (1.1% of kids)

1754 4* (12.7%)

5939 3*(43%)

5965 2* (43.2%)

So of all the kids ranked, 86.2% were 3* or less, a total of 11,904 kids.

 

So here's a fun chart that shows what % of their numbers ended up as All-American's at some point:

http://www.cbssports.com/images/collegefootball/2008-12_Recruiting-Per_Capita_All-Americans_by_Recruiting_Class.jpg

 

Odds of Becoming an All-American, by Recruiting Ranking

5–Star: 1 in 4.

Top 100: 1 in 6.

4–Star: 1 in 16.

3–Star: 1 in 56.

2–Star: 1 in 127.

All FBS Signees: 1 in 45.

 

So yes, Teddy Two-Star could become the next JJ Watt. But there is a 99.2% chance he won't.

 

This is like spending your last dollar on a goddamn lotto ticket. So while you say, "He could be the next Darqueze Dennard!", odds are he is going to be a practice squad kid and if you're lucky, Joe Schmidt....

 

So making an All-American team is the standard for being a quality player?

 

The reason this argument (the walk-on debate) keeps coming up is that, despite the indignant nature in which the stars mean everything crowd present their case, their data is always flawed and open to interpretation. This chart, for example, is easy enough to pick apart.

 

First off, Rivals isn't the be-all, end-all of recruiting ratings, so this chart gives us a very narrow perspective on the issue. Also, since this chart was compiled by Rivals itself, can it really be considered an unbiased source about it's own success rate ranking recruits?

 

Then there's the question of how media attention affects All-American rankings. Five-star players have all eyes on them before they even set foot on campus. They're anticipated to earn these type of accolades. A two or three-star player has to put up insane numbers just to get noticed.

 

Sticking with the attention theme, one also needs to consider that five-stars are much more likely to end up on an elite team when entering college. Players from Alabama, Ohio State and USC are watched significantly more than their counterparts from Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Colorado. When it comes to postseason honors, how is one supposed to attain them if no one will pay them any mind?

 

Also, it should be noted that those five-stars that choose to go to top-flight football schools are likely receiving a higher quality of coaching that the two-star kid who enrolls at a middle of the road Power Five school. I mean, the odds of success for a player are greater if they're getting their instruction from Nick Saban instead of Brett Bielema, right?

 

And I'm glad you pointed out the ridiculous number of athletes these sites attempt to rank. 11,904 players in a four year span. It was pointed out that 86.2 percent of said players were ranked three-stars or lower, but the large quantity of athletes in that pool suggests to me that it's impossible for any recruiting service to accurately evaluate that many players. The fact that their rankings fluctuate so much throughout each season reflects this as well.

 

Lastly, I'd like to return to my initial question. The poster to which this response was posted stated that walk-ons could be quality players, which seems to imply that only All-Americans meet that standard. While purely subjective on my part, I've seen a multitude of players I'd describe as quality, or even great, that have never made an AA team.

 

This post certainly isn't intended to be a personal slight against Piratey by any means, nor am I implying stars are irrelevant. Rather, I'm just tired of seeing posts declaring any praise or hope for a walk-on is stupid, only to have the poster back up the claim with incomplete data deifying the star system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So making an All-American team is the standard for being a quality player?

 

The reason this argument (the walk-on debate) keeps coming up is that, despite the indignant nature in which the stars mean everything crowd present their case, their data is always flawed and open to interpretation. This chart, for example, is easy enough to pick apart.

 

First off, Rivals isn't the be-all, end-all of recruiting ratings, so this chart gives us a very narrow perspective on the issue. Also, since this chart was compiled by Rivals itself, can it really be considered an unbiased source about it's own success rate ranking recruits?

 

Then there's the question of how media attention affects All-American rankings. Five-star players have all eyes on them before they even set foot on campus. They're anticipated to earn these type of accolades. A two or three-star player has to put up insane numbers just to get noticed.

 

Sticking with the attention theme, one also needs to consider that five-stars are much more likely to end up on an elite team when entering college. Players from Alabama, Ohio State and USC are watched significantly more than their counterparts from Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Colorado. When it comes to postseason honors, how is one supposed to attain them if no one will pay them any mind?

 

Also, it should be noted that those five-stars that choose to go to top-flight football schools are likely receiving a higher quality of coaching that the two-star kid who enrolls at a middle of the road Power Five school. I mean, the odds of success for a player are greater if they're getting their instruction from Nick Saban instead of Brett Bielema, right?

 

And I'm glad you pointed out the ridiculous number of athletes these sites attempt to rank. 11,904 players in a four year span. It was pointed out that 86.2 percent of said players were ranked three-stars or lower, but the large quantity of athletes in that pool suggests to me that it's impossible for any recruiting service to accurately evaluate that many players. The fact that their rankings fluctuate so much throughout each season reflects this as well.

 

Lastly, I'd like to return to my initial question. The poster to which this response was posted stated that walk-ons could be quality players, which seems to imply that only All-Americans meet that standard. While purely subjective on my part, I've seen a multitude of players I'd describe as quality, or even great, that have never made an AA team.

 

This post certainly isn't intended to be a personal slight against Piratey by any means, nor am I implying stars are irrelevant. Rather, I'm just tired of seeing posts declaring any praise or hope for a walk-on is stupid, only to have the poster back up the claim with incomplete data deifying the star system.

 

So much win here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So making an All-American team is the standard for being a quality player?

 

The reason this argument (the walk-on debate) keeps coming up is that, despite the indignant nature in which the stars mean everything crowd present their case, their data is always flawed and open to interpretation. This chart, for example, is easy enough to pick apart.

First off, Rivals isn't the be-all, end-all of recruiting ratings, so this chart gives us a very narrow perspective on the issue. Also, since this chart was compiled by Rivals itself, can it really be considered an unbiased source about it's own success rate ranking recruits?

 

Then there's the question of how media attention affects All-American rankings. Five-star players have all eyes on them before they even set foot on campus. They're anticipated to earn these type of accolades. A two or three-star player has to put up insane numbers just to get noticed.

Sticking with the attention theme, one also needs to consider that five-stars are much more likely to end up on an elite team when entering college. Players from Alabama, Ohio State and USC are watched significantly more than their counterparts from Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Colorado. When it comes to postseason honors, how is one supposed to attain them if no one will pay them any mind?

 

Also, it should be noted that those five-stars that choose to go to top-flight football schools are likely receiving a higher quality of coaching that the two-star kid who enrolls at a middle of the road Power Five school. I mean, the odds of success for a player are greater if they're getting their instruction from Nick Saban instead of Brett Bielema, right?

 

And I'm glad you pointed out the ridiculous number of athletes these sites attempt to rank. 11,904 players in a four year span. It was pointed out that 86.2 percent of said players were ranked three-stars or lower, but the large quantity of athletes in that pool suggests to me that it's impossible for any recruiting service to accurately evaluate that many players. The fact that their rankings fluctuate so much throughout each season reflects this as well.

 

Lastly, I'd like to return to my initial question. The poster to which this response was posted stated that walk-ons could be quality players, which seems to imply that only All-Americans meet that standard. While purely subjective on my part, I've seen a multitude of players I'd describe as quality, or even great, that have never made an AA team.

 

This post certainly isn't intended to be a personal slight against Piratey by any means, nor am I implying stars are irrelevant. Rather, I'm just tired of seeing posts declaring any praise or hope for a walk-on is stupid, only to have the poster back up the claim with incomplete data deifying the star system.

 

It was actually compiled by a writer for CBSSports back in 2013, before 247 became the gold standard and acquired most of rival's staff. Back in that era, Rivals was the best. Now it's 247. :ranger:

 

This is kinda silly because it's not that Vandy, Northwestern and Colorado don't produce All-Americans because of some perceived bias...they don't produce All-Americans because they don't produce good players. At all. They are a trash heap of mediocrity. There has literally been not a single productive player put out by those three universities in a decade plus.

 

There is no scale to use or to quantify a "productivity" ranking. Look, the facts are the facts. I'm not even really talking about three star kids here. I am talking about walk-ons. Mostly two star kids. And you can almost unequivocally say that if you have a former walk-on starting at a position, it is going to be a weak point on your team. There's not much room for debate here. That's the whole point. A two star kid will in 99.9% of the time be either be undersized or slow.

 

JJ Watt was 6'4" 225lbs coming out of HS. He grew 2 inches and put on 65lbs of muscle...That's insane. Exceptions do not make the rule.

 

And to your question of:

"The poster to which this response was posted stated that walk-ons could be quality players, which seems to imply that only All-Americans meet that standard. While purely subjective on my part, I've seen a multitude of players I'd describe as quality, or even great, that have never made an AA team."

 

Name the 20 best fighting Irish players of the last 15 years, how many are lower than 3*? How many former walk-ons? ****. Let's do this. Top 10 former walk-ons of the last 20 years in CFB. Go. Queue it up. Let's see that hot list. I'll even let you use college steroid users like Ryan Mathews for you list. Let's see the Jordan Kovacks and Brand Weedons of the world on this list.

 

Shoot, I wanna see a list of the greatest NFL players to not play college football. Like Antonio Gates. Let's use Antonio Gates like people use JJ Watt as the rule rather than exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So making an All-American team is the standard for being a quality player?

 

If Notre Dame set its sights on eight-win seasons and competing with the likes of Vanderbilt and Northwestern, then it's fine to have a team full of lower ranked kids you hope pan out. Instead, they're setting their sights on 12-0 seasons and national titles, so they need to aim higher than walk-ons, two-stars and three-stars that they hope turn out to be JJ Watt. The teams who get those 12-0 seasons and win national titles sure aren't recruiting at that level.

 

If you're playing that kind of game, a team full of "quality players" isn't going to cut it. You need a team with superstars and quality players who can give you some plays.

 

Name the 20 best fighting Irish players of the last 15 years, how many are lower than 3*? How many former walk-ons? ****. Let's do this. Top 10 former walk-ons of the last 20 years in CFB. Go. Queue it up. Let's see that hot list. I'll even let you use college steroid users like Ryan Mathews for you list. Let's see the Jordan Kovacks and Brand Weedons of the world on this list.

 

Justin Tuck is the only person I can think of who fits that bill. And he's another person like J.J. Watt that looked nothing like the player he would ultimately become while at Notre Dame. He's a fluke that helps prove the rule -- there's no way he gets out of the state of Alabama otherwise.

Edited by ColinKSU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Notre Dame set its sights on eight-win seasons and competing with the likes of Vanderbilt and Northwestern, then it's fine to have a team full of lower ranked kids you hope pan out. Instead, they're setting their sights on 12-0 seasons and national titles, so they need to aim higher than walk-ons, two-stars and three-stars that they hope turn out to be JJ Watt. The teams who get those 12-0 seasons and win national titles sure aren't recruiting at that level.

 

If you're playing that kind of game, a team full of "quality players" isn't going to cut it. You need a team with superstars and quality players who can give you some plays.

 

 

 

Justin Tuck is the only person I can think of who fits that bill. And he's another person like J.J. Watt that looked nothing like the player he would ultimately become while at Notre Dame. He's a fluke that helps prove the rule -- there's no way he gets out of the state of Alabama otherwise.

 

Not at the same level but KLM and Kona Schwenke are other examples. Kona had stick legs in high school and now he is practice squad OG for Seattle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was actually compiled by a writer for CBSSports back in 2013, before 247 became the gold standard and acquired most of rival's staff. Back in that era, Rivals was the best. Now it's 247.

 

Fair enough, though I would like to point out that CBS and Yahoo have been thick as thieves for quite some time, which could possibly lead to a bit of bias in the study.

 

This is kinda silly because it's not that Vandy, Northwestern and Colorado don't produce All-Americans because of some perceived bias...they don't produce All-Americans because they don't produce good players. At all. They are a trash heap of mediocrity. There has literally been not a single productive player put out by those three universities in a decade plus.

 

Thank you for this, as it illustrates my point quite well.

 

From Vanderbilt, Chris Williams, Earl Bennet, Zac Stacy and Jonathan Goff did quite well for themselves in college over the last ten years, and have even done some good things in the NFL. Heck, D.J. Moore, Casey Hayward and Jordan Matthews actually performed well enough to earn All-American status within that decade span, but apparently still weren't either good or productive by your standards.

 

Colorado has also had its fair share of good players in that seemed to have slipped beneath your notice. Jimmy Smith and Nate Solder come to mind right away, though Brad Jones, Terrence Wheatley and Tyler Polumbus also attended Colorado within the last decade as well.

 

Even Northwestern has had Ibraheim Campbell and Corey Wootton thrive at the college level in the last ten years.

 

Of course, it's not your fault that you erroneously believed your claim about those three schools. Your opinion has been so widely accepted throughout the college football world, that few people even question such assertions anymore, which was my point exactly.

 

There is no scale to use or to quantify a "productivity" ranking. Look, the facts are the facts. I'm not even really talking about three star kids here. I am talking about walk-ons. Mostly two star kids. And you can almost unequivocally say that if you have a former walk-on starting at a position, it is going to be a weak point on your team. There's not much room for debate here. That's the whole point. A two star kid will in 99.9% of the time be either be undersized or slow.

 

JJ Watt was 6'4" 225lbs coming out of HS. He grew 2 inches and put on 65lbs of muscle...That's insane. Exceptions do not make the rule.

 

But no one was arguing that successful walk-ons were the rule. Rather, the entire point the poster to which you responded was trying to make with the Clay Matthews comparison is that there are exceptions to the rule that all walk-ons must be flawed in some way. That one example is enough to prove his point.

 

Also, while he obviously had no part in growing two inches, doesn't Watt get some credit for the 65 pounds of muscle. That wasn't some freak accident; it was hard work, which is something people like to point out when noticing it in a player who happens to not be highly regarded. For some reason, such observations tend to bring out the stars mean everything people in full force, with the intention of shutting down any possibility that said player has any chance of being good with flawed or incomplete data.

 

Chris Finke may turn out to be a good player for the Irish, or he may never see the field. Why is the former not even possible in the minds of so many?

 

And to your question of:

"The poster to which this response was posted stated that walk-ons could be quality players, which seems to imply that only All-Americans meet that standard. While purely subjective on my part, I've seen a multitude of players I'd describe as quality, or even great, that have never made an AA team."

Name the 20 best fighting Irish players of the last 15 years, how many are lower than 3*? How many former walk-ons? ****. Let's do this. Top 10 former walk-ons of the last 20 years in CFB. Go. Queue it up. Let's see that hot list. I'll even let you use college steroid users like Ryan Mathews for you list. Let's see the Jordan Kovacks and Brand Weedons of the world on this list.

 

Shoot, I wanna see a list of the greatest NFL players to not play college football. Like Antonio Gates. Let's use Antonio Gates like people use JJ Watt as the rule rather than exception.

 

Nah, I think you should, at the very least, actually answer my question first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Notre Dame set its sights on eight-win seasons and competing with the likes of Vanderbilt and Northwestern, then it's fine to have a team full of lower ranked kids you hope pan out. Instead, they're setting their sights on 12-0 seasons and national titles, so they need to aim higher than walk-ons, two-stars and three-stars that they hope turn out to be JJ Watt. The teams who get those 12-0 seasons and win national titles sure aren't recruiting at that level.

 

If you're playing that kind of game, a team full of "quality players" isn't going to cut it. You need a team with superstars and quality players who can give you some plays.

 

I agree entirely, but I don't think anybody here is arguing to the contrary, either.

 

The point was that Chris Finke, who looked good in the media portion of the last practice, could theoretically work his way into the ND lineup without it being a bad thing. No one is even saying for sure that this will happen, as we've seen very little of him actually playing.

 

No one is claiming we need to alter our recruiting philosophy to target more lower rated guys. Rather, the thought process is that, if a less regarded player steps up, its possible he may have been able to do so for a reason other than the competition ahead of him was weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree entirely, but I don't think anybody here is arguing to the contrary, either.

 

The point was that Chris Finke, who looked good in the media portion of the last practice, could theoretically work his way into the ND lineup without it being a bad thing. No one is even saying for sure that this will happen, as we've seen very little of him actually playing.

 

No one is claiming we need to alter our recruiting philosophy to target more lower rated guys. Rather, the thought process is that, if a less regarded player steps up, its possible he may have been able to do so for a reason other than the competition ahead of him was weak.

 

The issue I see with that line of thinking is that the majority of walk-on players at ND that I can think of that have gotten real time (not just on special teams) haven't played because they were really, really good. They've been forced to play because ND has been bad at a given position. Joe Schmidt is a perfect example. He was not good enough to be getting consistent playing time on a good team, but he had to because of what ND had at the position. While I agree it's "possible" that Finke is just really good, in this day and age that is extremely unlikely. Players that are ready to step in and contribute as true freshmen have at least 1 D-1 offer.

 

PS This isn't directed at anyone it particular, but it's a little unfair to call JJ Watt a walk on in the same way that Finke is a walk on. Finke didn't have a scholarship offer from a D-1 school per what little there is on the internet about him. Watt had offers from lower level power-5 schools, went to Central Michigan on scholarship and then transferred to Wisconsin as a walk on. I would be a lot more excited about all of our walk-on practice stars if they had offers from Minnesota and Colorado and chose to walk on at ND instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue I see with that line of thinking is that the majority of walk-on players at ND that I can think of that have gotten real time (not just on special teams) haven't played because they were really, really good. They've been forced to play because ND has been bad at a given position. Joe Schmidt is a perfect example. He was not good enough to be getting consistent playing time on a good team, but he had to because of what ND had at the position. While I agree it's "possible" that Finke is just really good, in this day and age that is extremely unlikely. Players that are ready to step in and contribute as true freshmen have at least 1 D-1 offer.

 

PS This isn't directed at anyone it particular, but it's a little unfair to call JJ Watt a walk on in the same way that Finke is a walk on. Finke didn't have a scholarship offer from a D-1 school per what little there is on the internet about him. Watt had offers from lower level power-5 schools, went to Central Michigan on scholarship and then transferred to Wisconsin as a walk on. I would be a lot more excited about all of our walk-on practice stars if they had offers from Minnesota and Colorado and chose to walk on at ND instead.

 

No one is even really saying they expect Finke to earn a spot in the rotation. Believe it or not, this whole discussion seems to have sprouted from a comment about how good he looked during the media portion of one practice.

 

To your point, however, I have to ask; if Finke does end up seeing playing time next year, would you attribute that to a lack of talent at receiver. We've really cleaned up in that area, and, regardless of our past history with walk-ons, you'd have a hard time convincing me that his beating out anybody in our two-deep reflects more on those who were previously in front of him.

 

Also, I think Watt just came up as an example of an underrated player who greatly exceeded expectations. Personally, I didn't even realize he had to walk-on at Wisconsin. I always thought he transferred as a scholarship player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was actually compiled by a writer for CBSSports back in 2013, before 247 became the gold standard and acquired most of rival's staff. Back in that era, Rivals was the best. Now it's 247. :ranger:

 

This is kinda silly because it's not that Vandy, Northwestern and Colorado don't produce All-Americans because of some perceived bias...they don't produce All-Americans because they don't produce good players. At all. They are a trash heap of mediocrity. There has literally been not a single productive player put out by those three universities in a decade plus.

 

There is no scale to use or to quantify a "productivity" ranking. Look, the facts are the facts. I'm not even really talking about three star kids here. I am talking about walk-ons. Mostly two star kids. And you can almost unequivocally say that if you have a former walk-on starting at a position, it is going to be a weak point on your team. There's not much room for debate here. That's the whole point. A two star kid will in 99.9% of the time be either be undersized or slow.

 

JJ Watt was 6'4" 225lbs coming out of HS. He grew 2 inches and put on 65lbs of muscle...That's insane. Exceptions do not make the rule.

 

And to your question of:

"The poster to which this response was posted stated that walk-ons could be quality players, which seems to imply that only All-Americans meet that standard. While purely subjective on my part, I've seen a multitude of players I'd describe as quality, or even great, that have never made an AA team."

 

Name the 20 best fighting Irish players of the last 15 years, how many are lower than 3*? How many former walk-ons? ****. Let's do this. Top 10 former walk-ons of the last 20 years in CFB. Go. Queue it up. Let's see that hot list. I'll even let you use college steroid users like Ryan Mathews for you list. Let's see the Jordan Kovacks and Brand Weedons of the world on this list.

 

Shoot, I wanna see a list of the greatest NFL players to not play college football. Like Antonio Gates. Let's use Antonio Gates like people use JJ Watt as the rule rather than exception.

 

There is so much wrong with all this I'm not even sure where to begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was actually compiled by a writer for CBSSports back in 2013, before 247 became the gold standard and acquired most of rival's staff. Back in that era, Rivals was the best. Now it's 247. :ranger:

 

This is kinda silly because it's not that Vandy, Northwestern and Colorado don't produce All-Americans because of some perceived bias...they don't produce All-Americans because they don't produce good players. At all. They are a trash heap of mediocrity. There has literally been not a single productive player put out by those three universities in a decade plus.

 

There is no scale to use or to quantify a "productivity" ranking. Look, the facts are the facts. I'm not even really talking about three star kids here. I am talking about walk-ons. Mostly two star kids. And you can almost unequivocally say that if you have a former walk-on starting at a position, it is going to be a weak point on your team. There's not much room for debate here. That's the whole point. A two star kid will in 99.9% of the time be either be undersized or slow.

 

JJ Watt was 6'4" 225lbs coming out of HS. He grew 2 inches and put on 65lbs of muscle...That's insane. Exceptions do not make the rule.

 

And to your question of:

"The poster to which this response was posted stated that walk-ons could be quality players, which seems to imply that only All-Americans meet that standard. While purely subjective on my part, I've seen a multitude of players I'd describe as quality, or even great, that have never made an AA team."

 

Name the 20 best fighting Irish players of the last 15 years, how many are lower than 3*? How many former walk-ons? ****. Let's do this. Top 10 former walk-ons of the last 20 years in CFB. Go. Queue it up. Let's see that hot list. I'll even let you use college steroid users like Ryan Mathews for you list. Let's see the Jordan Kovacks and Brand Weedons of the world on this list.

 

Shoot, I wanna see a list of the greatest NFL players to not play college football. Like Antonio Gates. Let's use Antonio Gates like people use JJ Watt as the rule rather than exception.

 

I'm not even gonna respond to any other part of this post but this. Plenty of players have come from these programs and not only been very productive college players, but very solid pro players as well. In fact, I would argue mediocre programs land more productive lower star players simply because they have to rely on those players more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bone with the star ranking system is that you could an awesome long snapper or ponter and you get a 2 star rating. They say a players height plays a part as well. We all know 5 star players when we see them but you cant tell me someone can unequivocally say LB number 32 is truly better thenLB 37.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bone with the star ranking system is that you could an awesome long snapper or ponter and you get a 2 star rating. They say a players height plays a part as well. We all know 5 star players when we see them but you cant tell me someone can unequivocally say LB number 32 is truly better thenLB 37.

 

I agree with this (in this officially off topic thread) in that kids should be star rated relative to their position but have different point rankings.

 

5 star punter but gets half the points for team rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an aficionado of recruiting but isn't there a particular allotment for four and five star recruits and don't talent rich states like Florida, Texas, Cali, Ohio, etc have recruits who may be better than their official national rankings simply because they come from one of those talent rich states? I believe I read something like that along the way.

 

I really don't care what a player's recruit ranking is if he can play at the collegiate level. I like to see ND guys succeed at the next level but I care more about what they can contribute to the program.

 

Joe Schmidt, as we all know, was a walk on whose leadership was lost in 2014 and many people fretted because things went downhill after he was lost. Last year, he clearly wasn't the same after a major injury and some people eviscerated him.

 

You will always have great high school football players whose abilities for whatever reason, don't emerge in college, just as you will always have college players who shine at that level but are busts in the NFL.

 

Rankings are a fairly accurate predictor but they don't always predict success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...