Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

30 Sep 2005

The NFL's Smartest Team

In today's Wall Street Journal, Sam Walker looks at Wonderlic scores to see if he can tell which NFL team is the smartest, and which is -- there's no other way to put this -- the dumbest. The smartest team, apparently, is St. Louis, followed by Oakland. Clearly, they are measuring players, and not fans. The dumbest teams? Your 0-3 Green Bay Packers and Arizona Cardinals. (Hat tip: Deadspin)

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 30 Sep 2005

43 comments, Last at 05 Oct 2005, 7:40am by someone

Comments

1
by B (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 1:48pm

I guess you really do need to be a genius to understand Mike Martz's offense.

2
by DavidH (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 1:50pm

Crossword puzzles in an NFL locker room? I guess it beats the hell out of a stump an axe.

3
by Browns Dude (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 2:18pm

Has Rodney Harrison seen this yet?

4
by Carl (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 3:02pm

The most trouble I ever got in on a radio show was when I suggested (well, declared) that the typical NFL player is smarter than the fans watching him.

But I challenge anyone to decipher the Steelers' equally "algebraic" defensive schemes for DBs and tell me how you'd do.

5
by zach (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 3:23pm

i was just talking about this with my co-worker and she brought up a good point. the fact that these players understand schemes that seem incredibly complex to fans like us is really not all that remarkable, when you think of the fact that these are men who have been focusing on nothing but football for all or most of their lives.

so a player that can seem stupid in so many other ways (for instance, openly bitching about the people who pay his salary) can still have plenty of "football smarts", just because his entire career is dedicated to developing those skills.

6
by M (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 4:04pm

Zach, I whole-heartedly agree. Looking at your point from the opposite direction, I believe it is quite common for 'intelligent' people to be incredibly inept at certain tasks, merely because they have never devoted any time or energy to learning it.

I have no statistics/studies to back this conjecture up. But don't we all know someone brilliant who can't do a task that seems incredibly simple?

7
by aurumaeus (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 4:05pm

Seriously, I'm a packers fan, and every year Sherman has drafted athletic freaks with little football acumen and terrible wonderlic scores, and somehow most of his first-round picks don't work out...

The late round 'value' picks always seem to be great. Look at William Whitticker, now starting guard, 7th round pick, vs. Ahmad Carrol, barely able to keep the starting job at all.

Here's to hoping the Ted Thompson era is better.

8
by pawnking (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 4:10pm

The problem with the Packers and the Cards is the coaches there don't want anyone around smarter than they are.

9
by Ima Pseudonym (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 4:15pm

"The most trouble I ever got in on a radio show was when I suggested (well, declared) that the typical NFL player is smarter than the fans watching him.
But I challenge anyone to decipher the Steelers’ equally “algebraic� defensive schemes for DBs and tell me how you’d do."

Carl, lets compare apples to apples. Are you saying that if taken off the practice field and plunked down in the average fan's dental office, courtroom, boardroom, garage, workshop, postal sorting center, etc. that the football player would do better understanding legal briefs, transmission diagrams, arcane dmv paperwork, etc. than the fan would do interpreting defensive schemes he is seeing for the first time? It will take a lot more than a comparison of Wonderlic scores collected from football players who have seen the tests in advance to the Wonderlic scores of mechanics who haven't to get me to believe that.

10
by Danko (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 4:38pm

There is also the influence of job specialization: football players do not necessarily need to understand the entire scheme to do their jobs effectively. They merely need to understand their element within the scheme, which varies wildly depending on position. If you're a QB or a MLB, then yes, you do need to understand most of the strategy and play design on your side of the ball... but if you're a lineman, all you need to know is what you've been ordered to do on this particular play.

Regardless, with 60 hours a week devoted to football for 26 weeks a year, it isn't necessarily that hard to get a grasp on it.

11
by johnnycakes (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 4:42pm

"The late round ‘value’ picks always seem to be great. Look at William Whitticker, now starting guard, 7th round pick, vs. Ahmad Carrol, barely able to keep the starting job at all."
Ahahaha, what? Are you seriously suggesting that Whitticker is a better player than Carrol? Look at the game against Tampa: Carrol makes the biggest GB play of the game while Whitticker again proves to be a liability in both the runnign and passing games. I know people like to come up with any reason on earth to hate Sherman, but if he were still GM the Packers would still have Mike Whale in GB. This article
http://www.jsonline.com/packer/news/sep05/359402.asp
will tell you that much.
Bottom line, Carrol has played well this season while Whitticker has yet to prove that he is worth starting for any reason other than default.

12
by LnGrrrR (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 4:49pm

Ima, haven't seen you around in awhile...aren't you a Packers fan? Is that why? :)

And the Wonderlic test is pretty much a joke from what I've seen and read about it online. I took the online test that's supposedly like it and got like a high 30 or something. I mean, look at the sample questions. A middle schooler should be able to get those. :p

13
by S (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 4:51pm

#7

Part of the reason Sherman has been drafting "athletic freaks with little football acumen and terrible wonderlic scores" is because that was also a Ron Wolf strategy. Antonio Freeman, Bill Schroeder, Donald Driver, etc., were all pure athletes with little football experience. And, somehow, I doubt Favre's wonderlic score set the world on fire (not that I think Favre is dumb, but from what I have heard I can't see a young Favre being all that interested in doing well on an intellegence test). The thing is that these guys were all given time to develop. More recently, however, the constant changing of DC's plus the lack of veteran leadership of defense has forced the athletes to perform before they are ready, especially in the secondary.

Seriously, I wonder how predictive the wonderlic is of NFL success. Wasn't there a discussion on this site a few months back about the wonderlic and how effective a measure of intellegence it actally is?

14
by S (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 4:56pm

#13
Sorry for the double post, but if the online version of the wondferlic your talking about is the one that was posted on ESPN.com a few years back, you should know that:
a) that was a partial test, and
b)the time in which you complete the exam is also used to calculate your score.

But you are right in saying that the part that was posted wasn't exactly difficult material (or shouldn't be for a "college educated" adult).

15
by zach (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 5:12pm

well #11, after having read that FO article in the offseason about the changing responsibilities of linemen before and after the snap, i have a newfound respect for the complexity of those positions. but again, their entire job consists of:

1) knowing those schemes, and;
2) being in a physical condition to execute them.

your average fan could do the former with no problem, if he had the time to devote to it; it's the latter that's out of reach for most people.

16
by Ima Pseudonym (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 5:21pm

Hi LnGrrrR, I've been around - I just don't tend to post a whole lot (think of me as the anti-Carl).

Yup, the Wonderlic looks pretty useless as an indicator of intelligence. It may have some value as a means of evaluating football players, though surely a test developed to judge football intelligence would be better (why not just test them on how well they can memorize playbooks etc.?). Interestingly enough, though, I don't think the allegations of rampant cheating on the wonderlic really diminishes its value. Players who memorize the test answers are still showing a skill important for the job.

For the record, I'm actually a Pats fan - though you at least got the first couple letters right.

17
by BVowns Dude (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 6:25pm

Javon Walker scored a 9.

And he was described as "Frugal", and not concerned about money.

18
by MdM (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 6:34pm

Intelligence is useful in any occupation, but the problem is that it is not possible to define it. IQ measures a small cross-section of the possible mental abilities, and doesn't even touch "emotional intelligence," which may be even more important in most jobs. The intellectual skills/abilities of a rocket scientist would be useless in almost any football job. On the other hand, Wonderlic scores may correlate with some sort of football specific mental ability--why count out that possibility ?

I have always done well on IQ tests and SAT, GMAT type of things, but I gots no streetsmarts! Just because you can read well and have mastered basic math and analogy doesn't mean you are "smart". My brother beat me at just about every sport because he just "got it"--not physically superior but in some way, mentally superior... the scars :(

19
by Mr. Obvious (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 7:21pm

*think of me as the anti-Carl*

Mr. Obvious says you posted three times and Carl once, and what he said was true.

20
by masocc (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 10:55pm

Alas, even taking the plethora of 9s and 10s on the Wonderlic in the NFL, Carl is probably right.

There's a half decent study of the Wonderlic test and how it does (or doesn't) relate to performance and compensation linked to my name.

Somewhere on his site, the author also gives us this tidbit of info:
"So, I have been reading a lot of threads about the relationship between a player's Wonderlic score and his SAT. Here is what I found comparing scores of quarterbacks in my data: Take your base 820 points (which you essentially get for bubbling in your name) and then add 11 points for each question correctly answered on your Wonderlic test. ~Mac"

Which seems about right. A "dumb" NFL player scores 919, and a "genius" such as Ryan Fitzpatrick of Harvard would have an SAT score of 1370.

Oh, and FWIW, Dan Marino apparently scored a 14, Jeff George a 10 (no shock there ;) ), McNabb a 12 & 16.

Steve Young got a 33, which explains why he's 2.3571428571428571428571428571429 times more entertaining as a commentator than Marino.

21
by masocc (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 11:08pm

Almost forgot my point there. Green Bay is the 'dumbest' team with a 19.1 average. Convert that to SAT and you get about 1030. Which, coincidentally, is about where the national average for the SAT hovers every year.

Sooo... MANY high school students don't bother to take the SAT because they have no college aspirations. I'm going to make the assumption that the majority of non-SAT taking HS'ers would be somewhere between slightly and significantly below average if they took the SAT. (Let the flames commence).

So, the average NFL Wonderlic converted SAT is 1030+, while the national average SAT is easily sub 1030. Makes a strong case for Carl's assertion, eh?

22
by Ted (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 11:11pm

To me, saying the Raiders are the second smartest team in the NFL completely invalidates this whole exercise. No team in the NFL has as many self inflicted bullet wounds to the feet as these guys.

23
by masocc (not verified) :: Fri, 09/30/2005 - 11:24pm

To further grind home Carl's point, I refer you to California, and the failure of HS seniors to achieve 8th grade competency in math, and 9th or 10th grade competency in English.

(linked to name)

24
by Ima Pseudonym (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 12:28am

Mr. Oblivious: I posted once (the server doubled it) and then posted again in response to a question. My assertion that my ratio of posts made/posts read is very different from Carl's was not intended to be limited to this thread - read back through the years since I registered and I'm sure you'll find Carl outposting me by at least 20:1. By the way, which part(s) of my post did you think were false?

Masocc: How about this quote from the article you link: "Wonderlic scores vary by position, though NFL draftees have averaged a score of 19 over the last 20 years. A Wonderlic score of 20 indicates the test taker has an IQ of 100, which is the average intelligence (Wonderlic.com)."

Since nobody has cited any data on whether football fans are, on average, dumber/smarter than the population at large lets assume the two are comparable. The author of your study asserts that football players, on average, are just slightly dumber than the average person. An even stronger claim than I was making (I only claimed that football players weren't smarter). Reasoning through SAT's rather than the direct correlation between wonderlic and IQ is far more tendentious, since it assumes SAT itself is a good indicator of intelligence (as I recall it is a good predictor of freshman year college gpa, by not much else).

This also still ignores the widely reported claims that players are coached on the Wonderlic before the combine, using past (or possibly even present) versions of the test. When the relationship between Wonderlic and IQ/SAT was established, the subjects presumably were not coached on the test.

Also, what does the CA HS data have to do with this? Did no football players go to highschool in california?

25
by masocc (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 2:30am

Actually Ima, as this linked study shows, the SAT (up until changes made this year, at least) IS a good measure of general intelligence, and can be translated fairly accurately into IQ through a simple formula.

High school students are also coached on the SAT. Potential grad students are coached for the GRE, LSAT, etc. Heck, even Mensa members take multiple iterations of the IQ test, either for fun, or just to make it. So I think that point is fairly moot.

Sure, NFL draftees (key word there) may have averaged 19. But look at the WSJ journal averages (lowest team averaged 19.1). Either the WSJ couldn't dig up the Wonderlics for the REAL dolts in the NFL, or, more likely, the less intelligent people aren't sticking around for very long in the NFL.

What do CA HSers have to do with this? Well, for one, I guarantee you that every recent NFL player has at least passed their competency exams. Unless you know of some that went straight from dropping out of HS to the NFL. For another, it serves to point towards the general lack of intelligence our country is beginning to display.

I mean seriously. Do you deal with the general public every day? Have you spent any significant time on a college campus lately? Have had the *pleasure* of working at a writing center on such campuses lately? There are a LOT of 'less than intelligent' people running around out there. Personally, I blame television and this bloody internet. Oh, and Microsoft, of course.

26
by masocc (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 2:31am

Oops, forgot the link to the SAT/IQ study, sorry. Here it is.

27
by Dervin (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 5:10am

Well, I think it's obvious that you'd be getting smarter players in the Pro's than the population at large. In HS the best players are the ones who reached puberty first. In College it's those who are most physically gifted dominate. In the pro's where everybody is on the same physical plane, you need either a freakish instinct (like LT) or discipline and intelligence.

28
by Ima Pseudonym (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 11:01am

Warning: Long post

Masocc: I think you are missing my point. I am not saying that the general public is intelligent. My view is that the stupidity of the average american borders on dangerous. I am not saying Joe fan is plenty smart and football players are dumber. I just doubt Carl's claim that football players are smarter. I especially wanted to challenge Carl's stated reason for the claim - that the average fan would have a hard time reading a playbook.

I spend plenty of time on college campuses, in fact I'm a college professor. Anecdotally (though I am not asserting anything based on this anecdotal evidence), my experience has been that more "student athletes" have a hard time grasping the material in my classes (especially crticical thinking type stuff) than do other students (despite the fact that where I teach athletes have resources, like one-on-one tutoring not freely available to other students).

Regarding the WSJ article, the author notes that they only had Wonderlic data on 60% of players. The data came from "web sites, published reports and people close to the NFL." That does not strike me as an especially random sampling method and seems to risk the underreporting of low scores by, for example, players who don't want the team web site to list their 7 on the Wonderlic, or at least the relative over-reporting of high scores by teams/players who want to boast. The lack of a representative sample may be less of an issue for what the WSJ author is doing - comparing across sub-populations of the sample - but it makes it very hard to use that data to draw comparisons with the population at large. Though I only read your linked study very quickly, I didn't notice a similar qualifier.

The average Wonderlic of 19 reported by the other study is for all draftees, but it goes back 20 years, which may help smooth out some inflation due to coaching/cheating (if coaching is more common now than 20 years ago). Because it averages over all draftees, while not all draftees stay in the league for the same amount of time, it may not reflect the average among current players (though, in my defense, Carl's claim was not limited to current players). Interestingly enough, though, the study concludes that QB performance/compensation does not correlate with Wonerlic score - so there is no reason to think that a QB draftee with a low wonderlic is less likely to stick with his team than a QB draftee with a high wonderlic. Is there any evidence that suggests draftees with a lower wonderlic are more likely to washout?

You are also missing the point regarding the effect of coaching to the test. Sure people get coached on the SAT's (even more reason not to use the indirect connection from Wonderlic to IQ through SAT, given that a direct correlation is reported). Maybe even Mensa people (Mensars, Mensatyrs, Mensarians?) take the test repeatedly (usually they use their old SAT scores to qualify, though, not IQ tests). But we have a reported value for average IQ: 100. I do not believe that there is enough nation-wide coaching for the IQ test to be raising this number up significantly. On the other hand, there is (allegedly) widespread coaching of the Wonderlic to draft prospects. Since coaching to the test (for almost any test) will boost performance on that test without a comparable boost on overall IQ, it is natural to think that football players' Wonderlics are inflated relative to their overall IQ. (Though keep in mind, I only need for the wonderlics to be inflated in order to support my claim if the WSJ sample of players was a representative one).

Thanks for the link to the SAT-IQ study, the last report (not distributed by ETS) that I saw claimed that the SAT only predicted freshman year grades, and was useless once the student chose a major. But my point still stands: One can only presume a less accurate prediction of IQ based on first a less than perfect correlation between Wonderlic and SAT and then a less than perfect correlation between SAT and IQ, than by simply using the established (all be it less than perfect) correlation between Wonderlic and IQ. So a wonderlic of 20 = average intelligence, and over the last 20 years the people who have played professional football have an average wonderlic of 19.

If it turns out that, for whatever reason, the average football fan has a below average IQ, then I am happy to concede the point. What I am not convinced of so far is that football players have above average IQ's.

Dervin: The first study linked by Wasocc concludes (with some caveats due to sample size) that at the QB position, one that many people think requires the most intelligence, there is no significant correlation between Wonderlic and passing performance. What seems "obvious" is not always born out by closer scrutiny.

29
by Ima Pseudonym (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 11:16am

Sorry, one last point and a question:

If we want to ignore the draftee data on the grounds that many draftees don't last long and the makeup of current teams is different from the makeup of the draftee pool, we should also take into account the effect of the blows to the head/ concussions suffered by those who do stick around in the league.

Carl, any data on the effect of playing pro football on IQ - are wonderlics ever given to retiring/retired players?

30
by MdM (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 5:03pm

Intelligence is not IQ! The IQ is a measure of certain arbitrary skills and knowledge such as analogy, vocabulary, English reading comprehension, geometry--in the 50's, I guess this was understood as "intelligence", but I would hope that a more nuanced definition would be widespread by now. But I guess most of the readers here are football fans, so we can't really expect much, can we?

If you want to define intelligence as an amalgamation of certain cultural-specific skills, which are rather unlikely to be highly developed in other sub-cultures (for example, poor black neighborhoods), then you could probably prove something. But there is nothing to prove, because "g", or "general intelligence", has never been isolated--probably because it doesn't exist. there are all sorts of types of intelligence, and the IQ only purports to measure one of them.

31
by max (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 6:52pm

Hey Aaron,
I take offense to your stament. It sounds like a bit of a slap to Rams fans. That's my take on your comment:

"Clearly, they are measuring players, and not fans."

And what do you base your statement on? Either support your comment or retract it.

32
by Whatever0 (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 7:09pm

Linked is an article from ESPN, comparing Wonderlic scores by position, to scores from a variety of other professions. The average NFL player is about as smart as anyone else applying for any job. However, there is significant differences by position: Your average QB or O-lineman has above-average intelligence, your average RB is dumber than your average security guard.

I'll also agree that intelligence is almost impossible to define. Too many contributing factors, and deciding how to weight them is impossible to do except arbitrarily. Does math skill count more than artistic ability? How about self control and concentration?

Still, it's a bit like defining a "good" book. There's no way to perfectly define what makes a "good" book, but you can identify some contributing factors. Different people will rate books differently, but there are some books most everyone can see are good, some which are obviosuly bad, some have great strengths and great flaws, often intertwined, and some are just solid, if mediocre, works. It's the same way with intelligence: Some are obviously smart, some are obviously stupid, but you can't really pin a number or a ranking to them.

33
by Aaron (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 9:09pm

Max, that's not a joke about Rams fans, that's a joke about Raiders fans (the Black Hole, specifically).

34
by max (not verified) :: Sat, 10/01/2005 - 9:47pm

Aaron,
Got it. Guess you're not wary of the Black Hole boys taking umbrage. Brave man are you.

35
by NFC Central Freak (not verified) :: Sun, 10/02/2005 - 12:04am

The only real use for this test is if the player in question scores abysmally low. (Single digits) If nothing else that tells me the player in question will at minimum have a longer development period then the "typical" NFL player. And what coach can wait 2 plus years for a guy to "get it"?

If Walker's score was that low then the fact that he didn't really start making an impact until halfway through his second year in the league now makes more sense.

I do recall Brent Fullwood scored a 1. THAT I believe. That guy was a box of rocks.

By the way, Ron Wolf ALWAYS looked for intelligence in his later round draft picks. He was quoted as saying the high talent guys have a higher margin for error which I took to mean that if you are a first round pick and maybe a bit slow being a first round pick the team will wait on you to learn. But if you are a fifth rounder you better get with the program or hit the road.

Antonio Freeman, Dorsey Levens, and Donald Driver are all fairly bright guys. Driver has both a B.S. and Master's degree from Alcorn State if I recall correctly. Very articulate guy.

36
by Fast Eddy (not verified) :: Sun, 10/02/2005 - 2:31am

I took the Wonderlic several years ago, no coaching, no trying out sample questions, hadn't even heard of it. I answered 38 of 50 questions as I recall, although I don't know how many I answered right. The questions were all individually easy, but the time factor is crushing. I know how to do these sorts of tests, and that's to sit down and tell yourself to be aggressive. Move, move, move! Normally not my thing but it's the right way to approach this sort of test.

Programmers tend to score high on these tests, and why not? We're invariably good at math and some have good language skills.

But I can see how it could be useful to some extent for NFL players. It measures the speed of your thinking as well as your ability to answer questions. And a QB had better be fast thinking, while at the same time correct, in the NFL, to get his reads right. He may be laid back and slow moving in his usual life, but at game time he has to go into another mode. Show time!

The counterargument that it doesn't really measure intelligence is also valid. There are probably lots of people around that are way smarter than me in that they study an issue in depth, perhaps slowly. That's what getting a Ph. D. is all about, after all. Such people will do badly on the Wonderlic, unless they consciously tell themselves to get aggressive and push themselves to go for speed.

Of course I'll bet a lot of people write the test without knowing that they need to really burn rubber and only later understand how quickly time runs out on this sucker. A strange and evil test.

37
by Fast Eddy (not verified) :: Sun, 10/02/2005 - 2:31am

I took the Wonderlic several years ago, no coaching, no trying out sample questions, hadn't even heard of it. I answered 38 of 50 questions as I recall, although I don't know how many I answered right. The questions were all individually easy, but the time factor is crushing. I know how to do these sorts of tests, and that's to sit down and tell yourself to be aggressive. Move, move, move! Normally not my thing but it's the right way to approach this sort of test.

Programmers tend to score high on these tests, and why not? We're invariably good at math and some have good language skills.

But I can see how it could be useful to some extent for NFL players. It measures the speed of your thinking as well as your ability to answer questions. And a QB had better be fast thinking, while at the same time correct, in the NFL, to get his reads right. He may be laid back and slow moving in his usual life, but at game time he has to go into another mode. Show time!

The counterargument that it doesn't really measure intelligence is also valid. There are probably lots of people around that are way smarter than me in that they study an issue in depth, perhaps slowly. That's what getting a Ph. D. is all about, after all. Such people will do badly on the Wonderlic, unless they consciously tell themselves to get aggressive and push themselves to go for speed.

Of course I'll bet a lot of people write the test without knowing that they need to really burn rubber and only later understand how quickly time runs out on this sucker. A strange and evil test.

38
by Fast Eddy (not verified) :: Sun, 10/02/2005 - 2:35am

Sorry for the double post. I got a blank screen. I then simply hit the refresh button on my browser, and got another blank screen. I then went to FO's home page through my Favorites link, and got back here that way. And voila, a double post. Strange. I did NOT hit the Post button twice.

39
by pgmnyc (not verified) :: Sun, 10/02/2005 - 5:03pm

Hmm, fascinating, but what a dumb experiment/study.

40
by pgmnyc (not verified) :: Sun, 10/02/2005 - 8:36pm

Hmm, fascinating, but what a dumb experiment/study.

41
by Casey (not verified) :: Mon, 10/03/2005 - 12:48am

Wonderlic is not a valid method of judging intelligence. Yes I'm a trained scientist. Or did I just stay at a Holiday Inn last night??

42
by Casey (not verified) :: Mon, 10/03/2005 - 12:55am

Wonderlic is not a valid method of judging intelligence. Yes I'm a trained scientist. Or did I just stay at a Holiday Inn last night??

43
by someone (not verified) :: Wed, 10/05/2005 - 7:40am

Carl and masocc have gone quiet. That's a shame.