Quarterback Decision Looms

Cards232

Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
230
Reaction score
0
You just made my point. Yes he had plenty of time to get the ball off and when his first two reads were gone simultaneously he could have thrown the ball out in the flat for at worst an incompletion at the feet of the fullback. Instead he froze and took an unnecessary sack which is why he was ran out of St louis and eventually New York.

I do kind of have a problem with the playcall. I understand coaches don't call plays with the mindset of players not doing their job, but it would seem evident that they were asking alot of an unproven player (Patrick blocking backside) and an immobile Kurt Warner. Not to mention big goofy ass Pope.

You must have missed my previous post. On that play, Warner had about 3 seconds to throw. It took 2 seconds for the options to blow up, leaving approx. 1 second for Warner to locate & throw to the THIRD option. A qb just doesn't have the time neccessary to make a third read w/ 3 seconds & an unabated defender baring down on him. I would submit no one in the NFL makes that play. No one!

Again, as far as the play call, you may have a point. But do take into consideration that Haley had called a good enough game up to that point for Warner to throw for almost 500 yards. It seemed Pope had done his job in pass paterns up to that point. I don't recall any other missed assignments or wrong patterns but that would be hard to tell. Play calling in your own endzone is by far the most difficult. I thought Haley made the right call. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Out of curiosity, what if they would have called the play you suggest, & Pope runs into another player & blows up the play, would it have made any difference? I don't really believe it mattered what play was called. If the players don't do their job, it's doomed for failure. If we go 3 & out w/ that field position, we're in big trouble anyway you look at it.
 

moklerman

Rise from the Ashes III
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
5,318
Reaction score
811
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Kurt was half as good last year as he was in 99. I base that on first half TD passes because as we all know they were so good in 99 they routinely had huge leads and let up in the 2nd half. Warner had 29 TD's passing in the first half of games that season, 12 in the 2nd half.
Okay, this is a new one on me. 1st half TD's are worth more than 2nd half TD's? And how does his total from last year equate to what he did in 1999? The Cardinals weren't jumping out to huge leads last year were they?

His TD% last year was 6.0. In 00 & 01 it was 6.1 & 6.6.
(If you're willing to play would/coulda/shoulda, 2007 would have been 6.6 if he duplicated what Rattay got)
His INT% last year was 3.8. In 00 & 01 it was 5.2 & 4.0.

His fumbles are still the overall issue but his passing numbers are right there with his MVP numbers of '01. If he reduces the fumbles just a little bit more, I wouldn't choose to sit the passing numbers he's currently providing.
 

clif

ASFN Addict
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Posts
8,967
Reaction score
214
Location
Phoenix, az
You must have missed my previous post. On that play, Warner had about 3 seconds to throw. It took 2 seconds for the options to blow up, leaving approx. 1 second for Warner to locate & throw to the THIRD option. A qb just doesn't have the time neccessary to make a third read w/ 3 seconds & an unabated defender baring down on him. I would submit no one in the NFL makes that play. No one!

Again, as far as the play call, you may have a point. But do take into consideration that Haley had called a good enough game up to that point for Warner to throw for almost 500 yards. It seemed Pope had done his job in pass paterns up to that point. I don't recall any other missed assignments or wrong patterns but that would be hard to tell. Play calling in your own endzone is by far the most difficult. I thought Haley made the right call. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Out of curiosity, what if they would have called the play you suggest, & Pope runs into another player & blows up the play, would it have made any difference? I don't really believe it mattered what play was called. If the players don't do their job, it's doomed for failure. If we go 3 & out w/ that field position, we're in big trouble anyway you look at it.


We could take this in another direction and talk about how quickly a QB is supposed to get rid of the ball in certain drops, but I really don't have any more time. Gotta go to work. Just look at the clip and tell me you wouldn't have gotten rid of the ball.
 

Diamondback Jay

Psalms 23:1
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Posts
4,910
Reaction score
1
Location
Mesa
First off, I'm a huge Kurt Warner fan. In the current game, there are few players I support or respect more than him.

However, this in mind, I think Arizona HAS to give the reigns as starter to Leinart on an uncontested basis. The Cardinals have got to start thinking for the future here, and they've got a potential gem in Hollywood Matt. The only way they're going to know for sure however what he's capable of doing in a 16 game schedule is if they give him the ball and let him run with it. And when I say run with it, I mean let him take his lumps, let him know the job is his regardless of if he throws for 289 yards and 3 TDs one game and 135, 0 TD and 2 INT the next. If nothing else, that builds his confidence and that allows him to LEARN from his errors and mistakes, and grow from them.

I dunno about you guys, but the musical chair game at QB has gotten Arizona nowhere. I think it's high time they start looking to give some stability there. They've finally got one who CAN BE, but they have to work with him to see if he WILL BE.

The late, great Bill Walsh once said it best: it takes 32 starts to fully know what your QB has. I think we all can agree, Walsh seemed to have a clue when it comes to QB development. In a recent example, what would have happened if the Giants had played musical chairs at QB with Eli Manning? They stuck with him, through the mistakes, the turnovers, the errors.. Now, they've got a franchise QB to build around and a Super Bowl for their troubles.
 

Cards232

Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
230
Reaction score
0
BTW here is the clip I'm referring to. In fact you even hear Deion telling him to get rid of the ball.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80484a70

O.K., so does Sanders know what play was called & what the options were at the time? Was he looking at Pope running into Boldin, or just Warner holding onto the ball? He couldn't have physically seen both simultaneously. His comments lead me to believe he was just watching Warner, oblivious to what was happening downfield.

That being said, the video is sickening. So many missed opps. Morey getting caught, Rackers missing a chip shot, the D giving up all the homerun runs by Gore, etc........
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
88,559
Reaction score
40,364
Okay, this is a new one on me. 1st half TD's are worth more than 2nd half TD's? And how does his total from last year equate to what he did in 1999? The Cardinals weren't jumping out to huge leads last year were they?

QUOTE]


Lost me again. My point was the best Warner ever was IMHO was 99. The best measure of how good he was is 29 TD's in first halves of games because they were so far ahead he often didn't get a chance to pad his stats in the 2nd halves.

That's why I compared halves, not because first halves are worth more but the best measure of how good he was in 99 was the first half stats because he was not being held back by the coaches at all they were going all out for scores in the first half.

Presumably we weren't telling him not to score in either half last year and he was just under half of 29 in either half.

Point is he's not even close to being as good as he was during the GSOT days. He was so good then they actually had to hold him back to keep them from scoring more and running the score up too much.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
88,559
Reaction score
40,364
O.K., so does Sanders know what play was called & what the options were at the time? Was he looking at Pope running into Boldin, or just Warner holding onto the ball? He couldn't have physically seen both simultaneously. His comments lead me to believe he was just watching Warner, oblivious to what was happening downfield.

That being said, the video is sickening. So many missed opps. Morey getting caught, Rackers missing a chip shot, the D giving up all the homerun runs by Gore, etc........

Correct me if I'm wrong but Deion was commenting on game highlights not talking live during the game. So he did see the whole play and decided to say Warner needs to get rid of the ball. He saw the same highlight you watched and his comment was get rid of the ball.
 

joeshmo

Kangol Hat Aficionado
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Posts
17,247
Reaction score
1
You must have missed my previous post. On that play, Warner had about 3 seconds to throw. It took 2 seconds for the options to blow up, leaving approx. 1 second for Warner to locate & throw to the THIRD option. A qb just doesn't have the time neccessary to make a third read w/ 3 seconds & an unabated defender baring down on him. I would submit no one in the NFL makes that play. No one!

After watching the play again thanks to Clifs link it was in fact 3 seconds according to the clock, but he IMO did have plenty of time to throw in to the flat to the FB or out of bounce in the FB's direction so he didnt get a grounding penalty. His line of sight was already in that direction and that side of the field, but it looks like once Boldin and Pope ran into each other Warner immediatly turned his head to the other side of the field. There was a reason the coach called a play with three routes to the same side of the field, so Warner could get the ball off quickly while in his own redzone. Warner has to know as a veteran there is a certian clock in your head to get rid of the ball. Option one goes down, Option two goes down, it is probably time to throw it to the dump off guy especially in the endzone were you know a rush will be coming. It was a 3 second play and Warner turning his head looking for Fitz all the way on the other side of the field he turned it into a 5 second play when it shouldnt have been.
 

Cards232

Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
230
Reaction score
0
We could take this in another direction and talk about how quickly a QB is supposed to get rid of the ball in certain drops, but I really don't have any more time. Gotta go to work. Just look at the clip and tell me you wouldn't have gotten rid of the ball.

Not for the play called. You're missing the point, if Pope doesn't run into Boldin, it's the perfect drop & release of the ball timing wise. Once it blew up, there was no time for other options. Once he had to pull back from the throw, his options were done.

And actually, having seen the video again, I think he had less than a second to make a decision once the play blew up.
 

moklerman

Rise from the Ashes III
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
5,318
Reaction score
811
Location
Bakersfield, CA
BTW here is the clip I'm referring to. In fact you even hear Deion telling him to get rid of the ball.
Thanks for posting the link. Man, I love the internet and the quality of some of these sites nowadays. On demand football highlights are just too great for an old fogey like me that used to have to wait until halftime highlights of MNF just to get to see my team at all.

On the play in question, Warner should have tried to ditch it at the feet of his fullback in the right flat. He was well covered though and appears to be the fourth option so I can understand him not getting back to him. Also, even if he did there were two defenders right on Warner's right shoulder by then. The RB, WR and TE were all on the ground when Warner still had a chance to throw and he was looking away from where the FB was. He's gotta at least try to throw it away in that situation though and hope he doesn't get called for a penalty. Taking a sack is an automatic loss. Throwing it would have been a chance.

This is, of course, boiling this game down to just that play. The Frank Gore untouched into the end zone play(s)(yes, plural), the Bryant Johnson out at the 1 the Molasses Morey play, the no team will sign him might as well retire Dilfer missed tackle for a long TD to some receive I don't even remember his name, etc.

Laying this one at Warner's feet is prejudiced to say the least.
 

Cards232

Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
230
Reaction score
0
After watching the play again thanks to Clifs link it was in fact 3 seconds according to the clock, but he IMO did have plenty of time to throw in to the flat to the FB or out of bounce in the FB's direction so he didnt get a grounding penalty. His line of sight was already in that direction and that side of the field, but it looks like once Boldin and Pope ran into each other Warner immediatly turned his head to the other side of the field. There was a reason the coach called a play with three routes to the same side of the field, so Warner could get the ball off quickly while in his own redzone. Warner has to know as a veteran there is a certian clock in your head to get rid of the ball. Option one goes down, Option two goes down, it is probably time to throw it to the dump off guy especially in the endzone were you know a rush will be coming. It was a 3 second play and Warner turning his head looking for Fitz all the way on the other side of the field he turned it into a 5 second play when it shouldnt have been.

First of all, he wasn't sacked in 5 seconds, it was 3 as you initially pointed out. As a qb, you're trained that if there's confusion in an intial part of the field, your read is away from the confusion, thus the look towards Fitz' side. We're talking about literally a split second here. You're expecting Warner to be super human on that play in a SPLIT SECOND. I'll repeat, no one in the NFL makes that play under the circumstances. His look to the left was b/c of years of training to do so. He did all that he could. It just wasn't to be.
 

moklerman

Rise from the Ashes III
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
5,318
Reaction score
811
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Point is he's not even close to being as good as he was during the GSOT days.
I just gave you the actual statistics. He certainly isn't matching the peak of his GSOT days but even if it's just his 01 MVP numbers it still illustrates that he was producing at a high level in 2007.
 

Cards232

Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
230
Reaction score
0
Correct me if I'm wrong but Deion was commenting on game highlights not talking live during the game. So he did see the whole play and decided to say Warner needs to get rid of the ball. He saw the same highlight you watched and his comment was get rid of the ball.

I'll repeat, did Deion know what play was called & what the options were? I doubt it. Did he even mention the receivers running into each other, thus indicating that he actually saw it? That was a major play in the game as well as a major mistake by Pope. One would think if he recognized it, he would have commented on it.

Also, Deion wasn't ever the brightest bulb in the pack. A great athlete w/ great instincts, but not a great intellect.
 
Last edited:

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
88,559
Reaction score
40,364
I just gave you the actual statistics. He certainly isn't matching the peak of his GSOT days but even if it's just his 01 MVP numbers it still illustrates that he was producing at a high level in 2007.

as opposed to the madeup stats I used? All I'm saying is his best year IMHo was 1999, he probably would have broken the then Marino record for TD passes if not for them having so many huge leads and then letting up.

Thats why I used the first half stats.

he was very good last year but not nearly as good as 99 when he was as good as any QB who'd ever played(for one year).

Imagine how good he'd have been in '99 with the gloves.
 

Pariah

H.S.
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Posts
35,345
Reaction score
18
Location
The Aventine
I think what's getting lost in this thread is that nobody dislikes Warner. He did a great job for us last year, but there ARE a couple of compleling reasons why he might not be the best choice as our starter: he IS prone to turnovers and on a non-superbowl contender it's short-sighted to not give Leinart the experience and/or see if he is indeed the long-term answer at the position.

JMHO
 

Cards232

Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
230
Reaction score
0
After watching the play one more time, (thanks for the link Cliff) one notices that the guy in the flat was right where the rush was coming from & ultimate sack. It's quite possible Warner never even saw the guy due to the rusher obstructing his view.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
88,559
Reaction score
40,364
I just gave you the actual statistics. He certainly isn't matching the peak of his GSOT days but even if it's just his 01 MVP numbers it still illustrates that he was producing at a high level in 2007.

FYI he didn't match his 01 numbers either.

01 8.8 YPA 101. rating, 36 td's.

Last year 7.6 YPA, 90 rating. he was good but he wasn't GSOT good.

that's all I meant I in no way am saying he didn't play better last year than he has in years. I'm just not sure that means it'll happen again this year.

I feel the same way about Favre by the way.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
88,559
Reaction score
40,364
I'll repeat, did Deion know what play was called & what the options were? I doubt it. Did he even mention the receivers running into each other, thus indicating that he actually saw it? That was a major play in the game as well as a major mistake by Pope. One would think if he recognized it, he would have commented on it.

Also, Deion wasn't ever the brightest bulb in the pack. A great athlete w/ great instincts, but not a great intellect.

I have no idea but you also said you thought he was just watching Warner and not downfield. I was just pointing out he didn't say that as it was happening live, he said it as part of their highlight package. So out of all the things he could have said, he chose to say that.

I agree Deion is no genius, but he did play the game and earlier you mentioned that anybody who blamed Warner there obviously hadn't played or coached the game. Deion has and he singled out Warner.
 

Cards232

Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
230
Reaction score
0
I think what's getting lost in this thread is that nobody dislikes Warner. He did a great job for us last year, but there ARE a couple of compleling reasons why he might not be the best choice as our starter: he IS prone to turnovers and on a non-superbowl contender it's short-sighted to not give Leinart the experience and/or see if he is indeed the long-term answer at the position.

JMHO

Although I disagree that no one here dislikes Warner, I would agree there are very, very few. Warner can be prone to t.o.'s but that has always been the case. He was prone in circa 99-01 as well as he was winning a SB & 3 MVP awards. Many of the greats have been prone to t.o.'s as well such as Favre etc.

Here's a point I don't Know has been brought up. With an open offense like that of which Warner is famous for, it puts enormous pressure on opposing offenses. Teams know for the better part they are going to have to put up a lot of points regardless of the Warner's turnovers. Warner has a history of liting up the scoreboard despite his turnovers. That creates a lot of anxiety & pressure on opposing offenses.

I remember hearing interviews w/ opposing teams when Warner was w/ the Rams. Often they stated they felt like they had to score almost every possesion just to keep up. That often led to critical mistakes on their part. So, yes, Warner's to's are a factor, but I would submit that the pressure he puts on other teams outweigh the negatives from the to's which are not nearly as much as some here would claim.

When considering Warner, one has to look at the whole picture, on both sides of the field, not just one isolated area.

When going through life, whatever be your goal, keep your eye upon the doughnut, not upon the hole.
 

Pariah

H.S.
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Posts
35,345
Reaction score
18
Location
The Aventine
With an open offense like that of which Warner is famous for, it puts enormous pressure on opposing offenses.
Then Warner should be playing for Martz in SF, because that's not the offense Whiz wants to run here.

...but even Martz didn't want Warner starting for him anymore.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
88,559
Reaction score
40,364
Although I disagree that no one here dislikes Warner, I would agree there are very, very few. Warner can be prone to t.o.'s but that has always been the case. He was prone in circa 99-01 as well as he was winning a SB & 3 MVP awards. Many of the greats have been prone to t.o.'s as well such as Favre etc.

Here's a point I don't Know has been brought up. With an open offense like that of which Warner is famous for, it puts enormous pressure on opposing offenses. Teams know for the better part they are going to have to put up a lot of points regardless of the Warner's turnovers. Warner has a history of liting up the scoreboard despite his turnovers. That creates a lot of anxiety & pressure on opposing offenses.


I don't know of a single person here who dislikes Warner, I don't I used to argue with people when he was a Ram that he was NOT a product of the system he was acutally good.

I think some of what you see is because Moklerman has made it perfectly clear that he's not a Card fan he's a Warner fan and if Kurt were playing somewhere else, he'd be on that board not here.

I'm glad we have Kurt, I just don't think it's logical to assume that 2007 is what we should expect this year after his 2002-2006. I'm not a huge believer that gloves can make that big of a difference. I think it's a real gamble to make a decision based on a 36 year old having a great year after several really shaky ones.

I feel the same way with Favre he was great last year, and not good at all the 2 prior years. The Pack would have been very wrong IMHO to dump their plans and commit to Favre for another year the odds were he wasn't going to repeat his 07 level of play.
 

Cards232

Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
230
Reaction score
0
I have no idea but you also said you thought he was just watching Warner and not downfield. I was just pointing out he didn't say that as it was happening live, he said it as part of their highlight package. So out of all the things he could have said, he chose to say that.

I agree Deion is no genius, but he did play the game and earlier you mentioned that anybody who blamed Warner there obviously hadn't played or coached the game. Deion has and he singled out Warner.

I guess the point is that we really don't know what he saw or didn't see, or know for that matter. We don't even know if that was his first view of the play for that matter. It's not like he did a Jaws deal where he diagrammed the play, pointing out all that happened. I respect your point of view however, & see where you're coming from. Good points.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
92,477
Reaction score
71,154
It was 2 interceptions, 50% completion and 102 yards but it was only his 12th game so everything else doesn't count. Can you please tell me the line at which "it's only his ___ game" isn't an argument so I'll know?

I'd give ANY high first round QB at least TWO seasons worth of games to see if he's got anything... as would pretty much EVERY SINGLE TEAM IN THE LEAGUE. Anything after that and I think you're begging for problems.

So, poor production and turnovers are acceptable into the player's 2nd year? When is Leinart going to be considered something other than young?

when he actually gets more than 17 games under his belt, or pretty much this season. I've said many times, I think it's sink or swim time for Matty and Whiz will (and should) have him on a short leash.

I don't understand why you're so willing to accept circumstances, tolerate them and consider the big picture when it comes to the youth of a QB but somehow equate a kicker missing an extra point(again) to a QB that's playing with a dislocated elbow.

I can look at the big picture with Matt because I don't know what the big picture is yet. I do with Warner - it's mediocrity at best and patheticness at worst. As far as equating a kicker missing blah, blah, Rackers and Warner both sucked in that game and I think the fact that either or them is on the team and on the field means you're headed to mediocrity.

Going into it I expected and understood that Warner would likely have some miscues.

and there's the difference between you and me. Going into ANY GAME, I expect that Warner will likely have more miscues that outweight the positives and 65% of the time over his last 40 starts, I've been right, whatever excuse you may come up with.

It was on the road, it was vs. a good defense and he had a bionic arm to go along with whatever else he normally does when he's at 100% healthy. With all of that, his knowledge and timing with the offense still gave the team the best chance to win since Rattay hadn't been there more than a week. Warner handled, I don't know, 50+ snaps and had 3 turnovers. Not great

not great? It sucks, just like Rackers, who apparently also had injuries and holder problems and all kinds of excuses you could make if you were a homer for him. Wouldn't change my opinion that Rackers, like Warner makes too many mistakes to depend on to be your starter on a team with playoff aspirations. You keep making it seem like I have a double standard, letting Rackers off the hook, while curcifying Warner. I think both are what they are - mediocre players at their position who kill a team with big mistakes repeatedly.

When the team is trying a field goal on the last play and they win if it goes through, it doesn't count when Warner was the QB? He did complete 2 passes to get them where they were after the onside kick. When the young guy does it, it isn't expected so it's lauded but when the old guy does it, it doesn't even count and it wasn't Rackers fault? C'mon.

again, you ignore the fact that Kurt's 3 turnovers (one for a TD) put us in a 13 point hole from which he had to dig himself out of as opposed to Matt who played well throughout the game, leading the team to more points against the Bears than anyone else had at that point, while putting his kicker in a much better position to win the game than a prayer of a FG. Again, Matt played well, threw for 2 TDs, had one turnover and led a potential game winning drive after Edge and the Special Teams gave up two TDs in a five minute span. Warner got us down immediately and kept us down for the majority of the game before his partner in crime missed a very long FG. How you think both situations are the same is beyond me.
 

Cards232

Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Posts
230
Reaction score
0
I don't know of a single person here who dislikes Warner, I don't I used to argue with people when he was a Ram that he was NOT a product of the system he was acutally good.

I think some of what you see is because Moklerman has made it perfectly clear that he's not a Card fan he's a Warner fan and if Kurt were playing somewhere else, he'd be on that board not here.

I'm glad we have Kurt, I just don't think it's logical to assume that 2007 is what we should expect this year after his 2002-2006. I'm not a huge believer that gloves can make that big of a difference. I think it's a real gamble to make a decision based on a 36 year old having a great year after several really shaky ones.

I feel the same way with Favre he was great last year, and not good at all the 2 prior years. The Pack would have been very wrong IMHO to dump their plans and commit to Favre for another year the odds were he wasn't going to repeat his 07 level of play.

Again, good points. But w/ Warner, as w/ Favre, their level of play had more to do w/ their surrounding team than w/ any declining abilities. Warner played reasonably well w/ an absolutely putrid Giants team. He did likewise his first couple of year w/ us on, lets face it, putrid teams. Favre had a similar experience for the last few years.

How is it that both did soooo well last year even as they got older? Could it be that the skills were always there, but the surrounding teams weren't? One rarely, if ever, hears about great qb's on crappy teams. Great qb's normally are on great TEAMS. Neither Warner nor Favre have had that for some time. This year MAY be different for Warner. Hope springs eternal.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
92,477
Reaction score
71,154
I remember hearing interviews w/ opposing teams when Warner was w/ the Rams. Often they stated they felt like they had to score almost every possesion just to keep up. That often led to critical mistakes on their part. So, yes, Warner's to's are a factor, but I would submit that the pressure he puts on other teams outweigh the negatives from the to's which are not nearly as much as some here would claim.

we aren't the Rams and this isn't 7 years ago so whatever players worried about facing Warner then has nothing to do with why he should be playing now.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
558,145
Posts
5,452,834
Members
6,336
Latest member
FKUCZK15
Top