Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Knicks Beat Lakers With Familiar Strategy

Power Rankings from Around the Web — Week 15

After collecting all the various rankings and ratings from around the web as they trickled in, I present this week's installment of Power Rankings from Around the Web.

Taking in many of your suggestions from last week, I included a few more objective rankings into this week's rankings.  This allowed for greater analysis and comparisons, some of which surprised me a bit, especially in regards to the Chargers' opponent this coming Sunday.

Read on to find out more.

Star-divide

Methodology

As I was adding the rankings from the various sources, one thing became clear: the subjective and objective ratings and rankings needed to be broken out and compared separately, and then to each other.  I will be doing this in three parts: subjective ratings, objective ratings, and then comparing the ratings to each other.


Subjective Rankings

 

Average Ranking

This week, there's a general consensus that the Saints are the best team in the NFL and the Colts are the second-best, with only 2 of the 10 sites swapping their positions.  The Vikings and Chargers were duking it out for the number-three position, with the Vikings winning out and the Chargers taking the number 4 spot.  Rounding out the top five is Philadelphia.  This week's Chargers opponent, the Bengals, come in at number 7, just barely below the Packers.

After beating the Steelers a week ago, the Cleveland Browns jump 3 places to 29th and are no longer holding strong at the bottom of the list.  Taking their place: the lowly St. Louis Rams.  The Chiefs again are holding strong at that 28th place position.

Subjective Power Rankings
(Click image for larger version)

 

A couple observations:

  • If anyone is going to throw a wrench into any rankings consistency, it's Vegas Insider's LVSC rankings.  Fox isn't too far behind them at times.
  • There is a definite line between what are considered the great teams, the good teams, and the mediocre teams.  An average of almost 2 positions separate the Broncos from the Cowboys, then down below, a full 3.20 positions separate the 49ers and the Panthers.

Standard Deviation

As a refresher, the standard deviation shows us for which teams those making the rankings are in agreement.

Subjective Power Rankings Standard Deviation
(Click image for larger version)

Observations:

  • Just as much is everyone in agreement the Saints and Colts are 1-2, again, conventional wisdom says the Chiefs are the 5th-worst team in the NFL.
  • Statistically speaking, there is a very strong agreement among the subjective rankings of the top 6 teams (Saints, Colts, Vikings, Chargers, Eagles and Packers)
  • The high deviation numbers for the Broncos are due to the one drastically different ranking by Vegas Insider.  Take them out, and the Broncos actually have a very low standard deviation (0.78) and are a 9th-ranked team. 
  • I'd say the same thing about the Steelers, but this week, there is a definite lack of consensus on just how good they are.  Same thing with the Titans, Jets, Jaguars and Redskins just how good (or bad) are they?  Doesn't bode well for the Chargers final two games when the "experts" have trouble pinning them down.  Which team should we expect to show up to play us?

Objective Ratings

Like I mentioned already, I broke out the objective ratings and rankings into their own section and only compared them to other objective rankings.  This week I started with the perennial favorite (or loathed, depending on your point-of-view) DVOA.  I added in two other rankings that were provided to me in the comments of last-week's post: Advanced NFL Stats' Team Efficiency ratings, and USA Today's Sagarin rankings.

I found another site providing objective ratings and rankings, Team Rankings, and they say this about their ratings:

The NFL power ratings model computes unbiased, quantitative ratings that assess both general (e.g. Overall NFL power ratings) and situational (e.g. Home/Away NFL power ratings) performance for every NFL team. The system is complex, unbiased, and dynamic; whenever a new NFL game result comes in, the power ratings of many teams will typically change as a result.

It may seem a bit unnecessary to try and compare the various objective ratings to each other because different inputs are used to come up with each rating, but I'm certainly going to give it a shot.

Average Ranking

Objective Power Rankings
(Click image for larger version)

Observations:

  • What's interesting here is that when using only objective ratings, the Colts are, without the shadow of a doubt, the best team in the league with the Saints in a definitive second-place.
  • The Patriots jump up to 3rd place (from 9th place in the subjective rankings).  The Vikings fall to 6th place (from 3rd), and despite the DVOA weighing them down, the Chargers are a strong 5th-place, well ahead of the Vikings.  The Packers are only rated slightly lower than the Vikings.
  • The lesser-ranked teams are that not because of unlucky breaks or anything, but they just are not producing at all.  There is no major disparity in objective ratings in the bottom-third group of teams that suggests they should be playing better than they are.

Standard Deviation

This is where things can kind of be a stretch in trying to find a correlation between the different ratings sites, but by golly, I'm going to try.

Objective Power Rankings Standard Deviation
(Click image for larger version)

Observations:

  • Guess what? The Colts are not only the best team in the NFL, but the objective stats are the most in agreement about that fact.
  • Remember what I said above about the worst teams are performing like they're the worst teams?  Well, the objective stats are all in agreement.
  • Again, like the subjective rankings pointed out, the Steelers are just entirely too inconsistent this year.  As are the Ravens, Giants, Titans and Dolphins.
  • There's quite a disparity in the Bengals objective numbers and their subjective rankings.

Comparing the Numbers

By breaking out the Objective and Subjective ratings, it allowed me to make some more interesting correlations and comparisons that weren't possible before.

Overall Average

I have it listed as Composite Average in the chart, but it's the same thing.  This is the average (mean) of all the ratings, both Objective and Subjective together.

Overall Average Power Rankings
(Click image for larger version)

Observations:

  • Well would you look at that, the Saints drop to number 2, dragged down by their 5th-place DVOA showing.  The Colts take over their spot at number 1.
  • The Chargers are now all of a sudden number 3.  The Vikings were dragged down to number 5 thanks to their objective rankings.  The Eagles jump into the number 5 spot.
  • The Bengals drop to number 12.
  • The bottom 5 didn't move around much at all.

Overall Standard Deviation

So how does the consistency change once the two sets of numbers are compared to each other? Let's find out.

Overall Power Rankings Standard Deviation
(Click image for larger version)

Observations:

  • Wow. Moreso than the Colts being the number 1 team, the Chiefs are the number 28 team.
  • Chargers are around the middle of the pack in the overall standard deviation rating.  Mostly thanks to DVOA being so different than the rest of the rankings.
  • We have a new most-inconsistent team taking over for the Steelers: the Bengals; and it's not even close.

Differences in Average

This comparison should help to highlight which teams are overachieving and underachieving.  Now, it's not a perfect comparison by any means, but it just goes to show where conventional wisdom just doesn't quite lineup with actual production and statistical ratings.

Difference in Average Ranking
(Click image for larger version)

Observations:

  • I hinted at it in the comments of the Week 14 DVOA ratings that maestro posted up, but the Bengals are greatly overachieving.  Their objective numbers all indicate they should be in the middle of the pack, but conventional wisdom (and their record) proves otherwise.  So is the blowout by Minnesota really that surprising?
  • Same story with the Vikings, but to a much lesser degree.
  • The Chargers are overachieving a little bit, but not by a ton.  They're just being ranked 1.80 spots higher than their stats indicate.
  • Surprisingly, the Broncos are exactly where their stats say they should be: ranked number 10.  Just as consistently ranked are the Chiefs and Browns.  Sorry Chiefs fans, but they just aren't as good as you like to think they are.
  • Based on the numbers, and this should come as no surprise, the Patriots are underperforming, by a fairly large margin.  The Jets too, by almost the same margin.
  • The Texans are the most underperforming team this week.  Should we label them the "biggest disappointment" then?

Conclusions

Again, I turn to you, members of this fine community for your input.  Is this a better way of analyzing the performances?  Do you like the updated format and added stats?  Are there other sites I should look into (or stats I should take out)?

I do have a few other listings I plan to use next week to help with drawing correlations and explaining the numbers.  I'm easing into this series and finding my way as I go along.  I value your input so please, comment away!

This FanPost was written by a member of the Bolts From The Blue community and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Bolts From The Blue editors or SB Nation.

Comment 44 comments  |  12 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Great tables!!

These tables are eye candy!!! I’m luvin the heat maps!! Great job and keep up the good work.

"Having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a Fungo." -Crash Davis

by Peanuts and Beer on Dec 17, 2009 6:25 PM PST reply actions  

Nice rankings

Definitely surprising to see and everyone loves color coded stuff. Looking forward to next weeks.

The one and only AzDuck

by Dude52089 on Dec 17, 2009 6:36 PM PST reply actions  

This is crack.

For a stat junkie.
Enough to make wonko creamium.
Lol jk dont ban!

Loo loo loo, I've got some apples--GO CHARGERS!

by OPIAQ on Dec 17, 2009 8:18 PM PST reply actions  

pffft

What stats? I don’t see any stats.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 17, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions  

quite honestly

i didnt know if the opportunity to say creamium would ever again arise in my lifetime. And to my shortsighted self, that is a deal i have to take no matter how moronic and simple-minded I would sound.

Loo loo loo, I've got some apples--GO CHARGERS!

by OPIAQ on Dec 17, 2009 9:53 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Big rec.

I really love seeing the juxtaposition of the objective and subjective rankings next to each other. And I think you’ve made a lot of interesting observations.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 17, 2009 8:21 PM PST reply actions  

Thanks maestro

I have a couple other ideas I plan on playing with next week. Whether or not they get used, we’ll just have to see what comes of it.

During the off-season, I plan on creating a separate section of my website that is basically a web-based version of these screen-shots. This will allow me to add in features like being able to sort on any column, see a teams rankings throughout the season, and a few other features. And anyone will be able to go and look at the stats, week-by-week.

by creanium on Dec 18, 2009 8:41 AM PST up reply actions  

I think a lot of people

have the impression that the Bengals are overachieving. Their record keeps their perception high, as well as their season sweeps of the Steelers and Ravens. Though, the Steelers and Ravens, Steelers especially, may not be as good as we thought they would be. The Bengals tend to play close games no matter who their opponent is. Not sure what that means, except their offense doesn’t seem to be very good and therefore they tend to struggle to score points no matter who they play.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 17, 2009 8:25 PM PST reply actions  

When it comes to Variance

The Bengals are ranked 26th, meaning they’re the 6th most inconsistent team this year. An offense that’s rated just slightly above average (6.8% – 18th ranked), an average defense (-0.1% 15th-ranked), and poor special teams (-1.3% – 25th-ranked).

They’re also the 3rd-luckiest team in the NFL this year.

Frankly, I’m not too scared. Only once this year has their margin of victory been greater than 10 points. They beat the Browns by a field goal their first meeting, the Steelers by a field goal in their first meeting, and only beat the Lions by 10 points.

They don’t have the offense to compete and frankly, we’ve shredded better defenses (see: Eagles, Broncos). I’m not calling for a blowout, but the Bengals just are not as good as their record indicates.

by creanium on Dec 17, 2009 8:43 PM PST up reply actions  

The thing with variance

Is that you never know what you’re going to get. So they should scare you. In the same way a dark alley known for muggings scares you as much as some guy with a big knife coming your way does. At least you have a pretty good idea what the guy with the knife might do. You got no f****ing clue what’s gonna go down in that alley.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 17, 2009 9:35 PM PST up reply actions  

A boat’s a boat, but a mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat.

Bolts from the Blue // "I have got to be the most boring GM in the league." - A.J. Smith
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate

by Richard Wade on Dec 17, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

While that may be true

But just how strong are the Bengals when they’re good? Will they be able to play up to the level of the Chargers, even on their best day?

To use your analogy, sure they could be the knife-wielding psychopath, but he’s no match for your 9mm.

by creanium on Dec 18, 2009 8:24 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Ha!

Rec’d.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 18, 2009 8:26 AM PST up reply actions  

Two Thoughts

First you do a great job gathering and presenting the info, and your observations are interesting to read. Maybe it would be a pay cut for you but you should do something like this for a living.

Second, I think that most people would have thought that the Patriots would be ranked higher in the subjective and lower in the objective based on most of the medias love of the Pats. But it turns out to be the opposite.

Lastly I am not the greatest typist, that is my only excuse (even though its a lame one) for the above post “Two”. I am not sure what button, or buttons, I may have hit to cause the early post.

by JeromeB on Dec 17, 2009 8:43 PM PST reply actions  

Thanks Jerome

This is just a hobby of mine, and my background isn’t statistical analysis (it’s software engineering, which at least is still a math-heavy field), so I’m not sure I could make a living at all doing statistics.

I’m with you there, even in the NFL there’s a strong east coast bias (and it’s not just ESPN’s homering for Boston-area teams, they ranked the Pats consistently with everyone else). But still, I think the beating by the Saints left a bitter taste in a lot of analysts mouths about the Patriots this year, that and Belicheck’s 4th-down blunder.

No worries, looks like someone already cleaned up your premature post.

by creanium on Dec 18, 2009 8:21 AM PST up reply actions  

What 4th down blunder?

You mean Kevin Faulk’s 4th down blunder.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 18, 2009 9:11 AM PST up reply actions  

I think the decision to go for it on 4th down was correct.

But much of the decision-making around it was suspect.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 18, 2009 9:12 AM PST up reply actions  

I can't argue with that

So I guess if the whole circumstance is the “4th down blunder”, then I can live with that.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 18, 2009 9:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Yes, that's two which I was referring

And it was more of a tongue-in-cheek comment. It may have been the right call at the time, but it still left a bad taste in people’s mouths.

by creanium on Dec 18, 2009 10:11 AM PST up reply actions  

Just about everything around that decision was botched.

If you know you’re going to go for it on 4th down, don’t throw it on 3rd. Run it. First, there’s a decent chance you’ll pick up the first down, or at the least get you closer, letting you run it on 4th. Second, it will keep the clock running.

If you’re going to throw on 4th down, don’t run the exact same play you did on 3rd down.

If you’re Kevin Faulk, and you need two yards, don’t run a one yard route.

If you’re Tom Brady, you have to at least glance at Wes Welker, who’s wide open across the middle. Isn’t that basically his job, to catch short passes and move the chains?

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 18, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Only quibble

Faulk ran a two yard route, he just bobbled the ball as he was getting pushed back a yard.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 18, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, that's probably more accurate.

Then I should say, “If you’re Kevin Faulk, catch the ball when it hits you in the hands.”

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 18, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Either Brady didn't execute OR ...

The play-calling was poor…. Or BOTH…. Yes, Faulk’s bobble was also a problem…. Did they get a good spot, by the way?…

Anyway, I think the decision to go for it on 4th down was fine, but I agree with Maestro: the plays were botched on not only 4th down, but THIRD down…. Brady threw a mediocre ball on 3rd and missed an open receiver about 6-7 yards down the field on 4th…. I honestly don’t remember if it was Welker or not, but I don’t think Brady ever looked at him…. On both 3rd & 4th downs, Brady seemed to rush things; I’d even say he panicked. (He eluded the rush on one play — I think 3rd, and then threw the ball quickly and inaccurately anyway.)

On both plays he only ever considered throwing the ball to the right side, and there were only 1 or 2 receivers in the pattern where he was looking: both poor play-calling and poor execution.

by jctess on Dec 19, 2009 1:45 AM PST up reply actions  

This is a fantastic post...

up to or exceeding the caliber of post I am used on my usual baseball-oriented blog perusals.

The problem with football for the stat minded fan is that is doesn’t provide as many statistical opportunities as baseball. The individual player just isn’t important in football, and it is very difficult to isolate the performance of any one particular player. Even the stats that exist are based on judgment calls, such as who made a tackle or a defended pass.

Therefore, it comes down to a team’s performance. These complex stats are about all a stat-freak can hang his or her respective (baseball) hats on. Thank you for providing this!

by Chilango on Dec 17, 2009 11:58 PM PST reply actions  

Thanks Chilango

Not sure if you read the comments in last week’s Power Rankings post, but there was discussion about how football is so hard to represent statistically. Because the season is so relatively short, there’s just such a small sampling size to make any easy correlations, so no statistical model is perfect. The models are constantly being tweaked to better represent the way teams are winning games and what kind of production and success correlates best to winning.

Like you said, baseball is easier to attribute one players strong (or weak) performance into a team’s success.

by creanium on Dec 18, 2009 8:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Agreed!

And it is also why I have been increasingly unhappy with baseball – an individual sport that has become individual to the point that the team no longer matters. When you follow a team like the A’s where 75% of the team changes from year to year, it becomes difficult to care even on an individual level about the drama on the field.

I think luck is the huge unsung player in football. Since there are so few games, luck ends up playing a role that cannot be evened out due to the small number of games. Of course, everyone is there to take credit when luck goes their way. Which is fine with me – then it all comes down to the human drama, about being a solid human in unforgiving circumstances.

by Chilango on Dec 18, 2009 1:01 PM PST up reply actions  

I wonder

if there is anyway you could throw one of these together reflecting the end of the regular season last year? One of the points of all the rankings is to try and get an accurate feel for how good a team is despite whehter they won or not in the last week or so. Theoritically, this should predict playoff success since you’ve got good teams playing each other with high motivation every week. Those key variables are taken out so actual game results should match projected rankings more closely than they do in the regular season (where the Eagles might look past the Raiders and end up effectively taking a week off). It would be interesting to see if this sort of analysis could have predicted the Cardinals unlikely run to the Super Bowl.

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 18, 2009 9:47 AM PST reply actions  

Do you seriously think

That anything could predict the Cardinals success in the playoffs? Their regular season performance in 2008 was worse than the Chargers.

I do know that DVOA basically predicted the Eagles and Steelers runs though. In fact, the team with the higher DVOA won every playoff game not won by the Cardinals.

Same thing with the Giants the year before where DVOA got every game except the Giants win and the Chargers over the Colts.

The year before that the Saints, Colts and Seahawks gave it troubles.

I don’t think any system is ever going to be able to identify teams that limp into the playoffs and then win a few games in a row. What are you going to base it on? Even human subjective polls aren’t going to like those types of teams.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 18, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions  

in short, yes

The Cards beat those teams because they were better than them. None of their wins were of the flukey, hochuli variety. They almost won the whole thing, and would have deserved it if they did. They clearly had matchup advantages and disadvantages and the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. Is it too much to ask a ranking system to be able to identify these things ahead of time? Isn’t that the whole point of ranking systems and the reality against which they should be judged? Or are we just playing with numbers and putting together pretty charts (and those are some good looking charts)?

In retrospect, the Cards were/are pretty good. They are proving it out this year (on pace for 10-11 wins). I want an objective ranking system to tell me this before the rest of the unwashed masses realize it, before the standings reflect it.

Maybe what I really want is a system that will predict wins for matchups. While a team like the Colts may have been ranked higher than the Chargers last year, we were able to beat them (or at least play them even the whole game and then win it in overtime).

by Stephen (shaynes41) on Dec 18, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions  

DVOA actually had the Chargers as better than the Colts last year

albeit by a very small amount.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 18, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions  

I do think there's merit to match-up considerations, though.

Which is why I’d like our chances against the Colts. Especially if we get the ball last and aren’t down by more than a score.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 18, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions  

The thing that concerns me

Is that assuming their defense is healthy again, how do we match up against the new one because it ain’t the same old Tony Dungy Cover-2 anymore.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 18, 2009 10:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Very true.

Just as a general statement, I think our offense would match up well vs. just about any defense in the league. Especially given how well they’ve adjusted against the blitz. That’s really what killed them in the three games they lost.

But yeah, it’s totally a concern. But I feel like Turner is pretty locked in right now, and is calling all the right plays at all the right times. He’s game-planning really well, and I feel confident as a result of it.

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 18, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Also

Turner may be locked in now, but most likely that game will be played 6 weeks from now.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 18, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Giving him even more time to prepare

Also something of note for Turner and completely unrelated to this discussion. Kassim Osgood did a radio interview yesterday (shameless plug: I blogged about it today on my site, with audio!), and they asked him what’s different about Turner this year.

His response was that Turner is showing a lot more emotion and is much more passionate about the team and the games. Before, he was just more methodical and about the plays and technical aspects of the game, but now he’s more passionate and obviously is emotionally invested in this team now and takes the teams performances personally.

by creanium on Dec 18, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions  

I find that hard to believe

LT last year always said that Norv showed a lot of emotion. I’m not calling KO a liar, but his perception could be different from other players’. Personally, the differences I’ve seen from Turner have been mostly on the field. He’s a better game manager than he used to be.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 18, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Woohoo Chud!

"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds

by Zach (maestro876) on Dec 18, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions  

In retrospect

The Cardinals became very good. They were not a good team in the regular season, they would get blown out with some regularity, which doesn’t normally fly in the playoffs. I’m not sure you can even focus on matchups when you have a team that plays 4 playoff games since the odds of playing 4 straight games against teams you match up well against.

I really, really, really think that with the 2006 Colts, the 2007 Giants and the 2008 Cardinals we saw teams play better than anyone has seen them play before and while matchups factored in (especially the NYG pass rush in a couple of games), it wasn’t the main cause.

Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.

by Wonko on Dec 18, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Teams can gel

at the right time, go on hot streaks or cold streaks, get in or out of rhythm, get put out of rhythm (or into it) by other teams’ surprisingly good or bad play or play-calling, gain or lose focus, etc….

Ultimately, there will almost always be too many variables & too small a sample size; however, there will also always be people predicting & plenty of people making money (& losing it), based on both stats & hunches…. It’s fun…(!)…. But how many people had the Browns beating the Steelers last week?!…

“Any given Sunday” (or Monday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday)…. Can’t forget about injuries either…. Or a player suspension (less frequent or impactful than teams getting hit with multiple injuries).

Yet when all is said and done, as a fan, I love the discussion — and this post: thanks!

by jctess on Dec 19, 2009 2:04 AM PST up reply actions  

As I mentioned above in a reply to maestro

I plan on making all these charts web-based and interactive. Once that’s all done, it’ll be much easier for me to populate the charts and give quicker results and analysis. Once I have it all in place, I do plan on filling in everything going back to the beginning of this season (that is, where I can. A lot of the stats sites don’t have archives available).

If there’s time during the off-season, then I’ll populate 2008’s numbers as well, that way it’ll be nice to have more historical comparisons.

by creanium on Dec 18, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


BFTB Apparel Store

Bftbshirtstore_medium

Facebook

Chargers on Twitter


Managers

Bftbdog_medium_medium_small John Gennaro

Assistant Editors

Dont-panic-thumb_small Wonko

Pomeranian_of_war_small Richard Wade

Close_up4_small Steve Adler

Antonio_small creanium

Columnists

Guybrush_small Zach (maestro876)

Sdclogo2_small Orz

Tn_small Jeff (sliderockmpc)

Wrong_small_small Superduperboltman

Screen_shot_2011-08-05_at_2 jkvandal