Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

RoethlisbergerBen04.jpg

» Under Pressure: Letting Ben Down

As usual, the Steelers find themselves with one of the highest sack rates in the league. This year, though, it might not be Ben Roethlisberger's fault.

23 Sep 2006

Can You Have Must-Win Games in Week 3?

by Ryan Wilson

The NFL regular season is two weeks old and television analysts, newspaper columnists and talk radio hosts are already calling this week's games "must wins" for certain teams. Heading into the season, the Washington Redskins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Carolina Panthers, Miami Dolphins and Kansas City Chiefs were all favorites to make the playoffs – or at least be in the conversation – and SI.com's Dr. Z even had the Dolphins beating the Panthers in the Super Bowl. A lot can change in a fortnight. All of these teams are 0-2 and while it's too early to write them off completely, history suggests it is very difficult to make it to the postseason after spotting the rest of the league two games. So is Week 3 must-win for teams already two down in the loss column?

Since 1993, only two teams -- the Buffalo Bills and the Detroit Lions -- started the season with three straight losses and made it to the postseason while 48 teams earned playoff births after a 1-2 start.

In 1998, the Bills finished the regular season by winning 10 of 13 games after losing the first three by nine points. Buffalo lost to Miami in the AFC wild card game.

After a 3-6 start, the 1995 Lions won their next seven before losing the wild card game to the Eagles.

Even though it's early, this week's results will determine, in large part, which teams will be playoff-bound and which teams will get a head start on preparing for off-season free agency and the NFL draft.

Regression analysis can predict how many total regular-season wins a team can expect given its record after the first three weeks of the season. This gives us a better idea of each team's playoff chances. Using data from 1993-2005, we estimated a model that predicted total regular-season wins based on a team's record through the first three weeks of the season and its total wins from last season. The results show that a team going winless in 2005 and starting 2006 0-3 will, on average, finish the season 3-10. The Oakland Raiders didn't go 0-16 last season, but there's a real chance they might this year, and if nothing else, this result should offer the organization and its fans hope for 2007: Don't give up; three wins is a possibility.

More interesting were the results for the five teams noted as playoff contenders in the opening paragraph. Given the collective 0-2 starts and factoring in last season's performance, the model predicts, on average, a six-win season if any of these teams drop to 0-3.

Predicted Regular Season Wins after 0-3 Start
Team PredWins06 PredWinsRange TotWins
WAS 6.3 5-7 10
KC 6.3 5-7 10
CAR 6.4 6-7 11
TB 6.4 6-7 11
MIA 5.8 5-7 9

Predicted Regular Season Wins after 1-2 Start
Team PredWins06 PredWinsRange TotWins
WAS 7.9 7-9 10
KC 7.9 7-9 10
CAR 8.1 7-9 11
TB 8.1 7-9 11
MIA 7.6 7-9 9

The fact that 0-3 teams average six wins over the course of the season isn't surprising. But if these teams can manage a victory in Week 3 the chances of making the playoffs increase from two percent to 33 percent.

Percent of Teams Making Playoffs Based on Record through Week 3
Record Playoffs
0-3 2.1%
1-2 33.1%
2-1 58.3%
3-0 65.3%

At 1-2, the post-season is a long shot, but still in the realm of possibility; a 0-3 start is a death knell.

Based on the projected win totals in the tables above, seven or eight means the postseason is almost certainly out of the question, and for Tampa Bay or Carolina, Week 3 could certainly be described as a "must-win." Both teams are two games back in the NFC South behind the resurgent Falcons and the very surprising Saints. On Tuesday morning, either the Bucs or the Panthers will be three whole games behind the winner of Monday Night Football.

Miami can also get back on track by defeating the hapless Tennessee Titans but it still could be too late. The Dolphins are currently last in the division after losing to the Bills at home a week ago, and with the Patriots already 2-0 (both division wins), making the playoffs will require as much luck as skill at this point.

The Redskins are in a less precarious situation, but not by much. Washington faces the winless Houston Texans this week, but luckily, every other team in the division is 1-1 and the Redskins have five more division games on their schedule.

Kansas City lost its starting quarterback in Week 1 and that, coupled with new head coach Herm Edwards brining his clock management skills with him from New York, has put the Chiefs in a 0-2 hole. Luckily, the team is on its bye this week, but if Trent Green isn't ready soon, Kansas City will have to make a playoff run with backup Damon Huard, who prior to 2006, started a whopping six games in his nine-year career.

The national sports media have earned a reputation for gross overstatements and hyperbole and for the most part it's well deserved. In this case, however, the early season "must-win" mantra looks to be a real live phenomenon, and one that's likely to sink the postseason hopes of a few preseason favorites.

Posted by: P. Ryan Wilson on 23 Sep 2006

35 comments, Last at 26 Mar 2009, 7:03am by colt

Comments

1
by ZS (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 12:04am

I'd like to see Houston or Oakland's numbers in something like this. How many projected wins would the Texans get if they could upset the Redskins? Four? Five?

2
by michael (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 12:04am

As a Chiefs' fan, I am stoically accepting that this year will be as ugly as Joan Rivers in a thong. I'm not sure why Herm Edwards was supposed to be the answer, but in the long run it could be a good thing. The collapse will be accelerated instead of being a long, drawn-out decline and the rebuilding can commence.

3
by Bobman (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 12:48am

Joan Rivers in a thong? mmmmm, you're reading my mind. Wait, in your fantasy, is her jaw wired shut? That's the only way it works for me. Baling wire, wrapped around and around. And around. ;-)

4
by Bencoder (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 1:02am

Things are looking really good for San Diego this season. It could literally turn into a Seahawks-style cakewalk into the playoffs for the bolts.

5
by Bobman (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 2:52am

The other side of that easy-schedule coin is Jax or Indy last year. Yes, the soft sked does allow a team to rack up a lot of wins, which they may or may not have won with a tougher sked. And maybe secure HFA throughout the playoffs (ahem). But like the AFC's presumptive favorite (Indy) or upstart (Jax) in 2005, they can always run into the team of destiny buzzsaw (Pitt) or a battle-hardened playoff old-timer like NE once the playoffs roll around.

As an Indy fan, I'll always take the softer sked and withstand the slings and arrows of skeptics come post-season, so long as my team has a shot in the playoffs and is relatively healthy. Being battle-hardened but injured makes me more nervous. If I was a Bolts fan, I'd like LT and Shawne to go through a creampuff schedule without injuries, rather than having them nicked and limping after defeating a docket of playoff contenders. Looks like that may happen, esp with the rest of the div limping a bit early on.

6
by Paging Roger Cossack (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 3:12am

The results show that a team going winless in 2005 and starting 2006 0-3 will, on average, finish the season 3-11.

This meant 3-13, right? Unless we moved back a few ages.

It's kinda surprising that a 3-0 team doesn't have that much better a chance of making the postseason than a 2-1 team, but obviously there are a lot of factors at play there.

7
by Jake (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 4:48am

Doesn't this study kind of confuse why 0-3 teams don't make the playoffs?

0-3 is a big hole, but most of the reason 0-3 teams don't go on to make the playoffs is because they stink in the first place.

I'd be much more interested in a study that analyzed how much of a whole starting 0-3 puts teams of equal strength in.

8
by Becephalus (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 7:03am

Lol but 7 if teams like CAR and TB keep losing at some point you have to accept the fact that they really just aren't good teams this year. You can run that argument both ways you know.

9
by Eorr (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 9:14am

These types of analyses always bother me. To echo a previous post saying that 0-3 teams are 0-3 because they are not very good. The real question is what do 3 games tell us that 2 do not. These things have an air of faulty logic because the 2 losses are basically a sunk cost, ans you are not looking at the 0-2 and 0-3 in isolation. Is a team that goes W-L-L any better than a L-L-W or L-W-L all these teams are 2-1 but they are all completely different teams with different opponents.

I don't know if that made any sense it just reminds me of how humans say to themselves that a coin has to land heads because it just landed on tails 20 times in a row. What are the chances it lands on heads? 50% not .5^21. What if a team has to play 3 really hard teams and then has the easiest schedule in the league.

Sorry for the semi incoherent rambling, I haven't been able to sleep.

10
by P. Ryan Wilson :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 9:50am

#6,

3-11 after starting the season 0-2.

#7,

When predicting regular season wins in the model I included last season's wins as a variable on the assumption that there's a correlation between teams that are good this year and were good last season. That kinda gets at bad teams don't win as many games as good teams because, well, they're bad.

11
by Fiver (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 9:56am

Eorr, if you haven't been able to fall sleep yet and it's 8:14am, then I think you should give it up for the night.

Anyway, yeah, he brings up an interesting idea: wonder if a comparison of the order of Wins and Losses could reveal anything. For instance, can anything be said of a team that loses more games early in the season as opposed to late? Does LLW tell us something different about a team than WLL? There might be something to be found there, although it could fall apart into trying to define momentum or something similarly useless.

Anyway, I enjoyed this article. Really helps crystallize for me that Week 3 is the point of no return in the NFL.

12
by Travis (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 10:48am

For some teams, though, this season's injuries/retirements have a lot more of an impact than last season's record. I'm thinking specifically of the 1999 Broncos, Falcons, and Jets, all of whom won 12+ games the year before, but lost their starting QB by Week 1, and started 0-3 or worse.

13
by P. Ryan Wilson :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 10:53am

Travis,

Yep, you're right; I don't disagree. This is one of the limitations of trying to model real life -- the model is woefully simple. I recognize this (and accept it). Your suggestions are good ones, and if I had a lot more time and a lot more data, I would've included those variables.

14
by al (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 11:52am

There are three teams that have gone on from an 0-3 start to make the playoffs since '93: The Chargers started 0-4 in, I believe, 1994 and finished the season on a tear.

15
by DavidH (not verified) :: Sun, 09/24/2006 - 11:59am

14:
1992

16
by Andyf (not verified) :: Mon, 09/25/2006 - 12:44pm

As a few have pointed out, there are two separate effects. One is: you get to being 0-3 by sucking, and sucky teams don't make playoffs. The second is: once you're 0-3, it becomes "mechanically" harder to get to the playoffs. How big is each effect?

Actually, FO now has a whole-season playoff simulator. I'd suggest try running it with 32 teams of equal abilities, all randomly winning home games at a rate of 58% and away at 42% (or whatever the number is over the past five years, that's my recollection.) Run many seaons through the simulator. Check the playoff-making history of all teams that start 0-3 in all of these simulated seasons. Since all teams are equal, this removes the first effect and tells you about the second.

17
by Josh B (not verified) :: Mon, 09/25/2006 - 2:35pm

Building on #9, this analysis doesn't answer the two real questions: 1) is a loss in week 3 more significant than a loss in other weeks and 2) is the loss in Week 3 (or week x) more significant based on the team's previous record?

My guess is that an analysis that looked at how a team's probability of making the playoffs changed after a win or loss in each week of the season, adjusted for previous record, would eliminate "0-2 going into week 3" as having any real bearing on the importance of a week 3 game.

18
by dan (not verified) :: Mon, 09/25/2006 - 7:24pm

Sort of on the same line as 17, what are the numbers for making the playoffs after going 0-3, 1-2, 2-1, and 3-0 in a) any three straight weeks, and b) any three random weeks?

I mean, we're talking about nearly a fifth of a team's games here. My gut reaction is to assume that the playoff chances for a team that wins or loses in any three weeks aren't all that different than the ones presented here.

If I could see those numbers, and know that they're wrong (that going 0-3 in the first three weeks is significantly worse than going 0-3 in any set of three weeks) this would strike me as more important.

19
by Andrew (not verified) :: Tue, 09/26/2006 - 11:40am

Ryan:

Actually, the real test is in Week 2 and avoiding going 0-2.

Looking at the NFL since 1990 with the 12 team playoff format, if you start 0-2, you only have an 12.5% chance of making the playoffs (16 teams in 128 chances).

If you limit the sample to post-1995 (i.e. including the effects of free agency, the salary cap, and the expansion of teams to 30+), we have 92 0-2 teams through 2005, and just 9 made the playoffs, or a 9.8% chance. So the increasingly competitive nature of the NFL in the past 11 seasons makes it more difficult for 0-2 teams to recover.

If you limit the sample to teams with a previous year record of .500 or better, the stats don't look any better. Since 1995, 39 teams had .500 or better records and then started 0-2. Only 4 made the playoffs.

Finally, if you look at teams that had prior records of at least 10 wins, there were 14 since 1995 to start 0-2 the next year, and just 2 made the playoffs.

This suggests that we should expect at most only 1 or 2 of the 11 0-2 teams to turn their season around. The distribution of season win totals for these 0-2 teams since 1990 is a normal distribution centered on 6 wins, with a standard deviation of 2 wins. Most of these teams are going to finish with 3 to 9 wins.

The prior season record of these teams is a normal distribution centered on 7 wins with a standard deviation of 2 wins. Most finished the prior season with 4 to 10 wins.

So the average team starting 0-2 is marginally worse than the year before, and can expect to win only 3 to 9 of their next 14 games.

Most importantly, only 6 of these 128 teams since 1990 have put themselves in a position to win a Super Bowl by getting at least 11 wins in their next 14 games - the 92 Chargers, 93 Cowboys, 96 Patriots, 98 Jets, 2001 Patriots and 2003 Eagles.

Does winning in Week 3 after starting 0-2 really help? 33 teams since 1995 started 0-2 and then won their third game. 7 of these teams went to the playoffs, or 21.2%. This is certainly a boost, but not nearly the boost to playoff hopes given by winning a game in Week 1 or 2.

For 2006, this tells us that 1 of the Dolphins, Panthers, Packers, or Redskins is possibly still a good shot to make the playoffs (the jury is still out on the Raiders and Chiefs), but given that having a prior winning record before going 0-2 does nothing to increase your playoff chances versus having a prior losing record, based solely on win probabilities from record, it is surprisingly as likely to be the Packers as it is the trendy preseaon picks of the Panthers or Dolphins.

20
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 09/26/2006 - 12:36pm

Andrew:

I doubt that's true, actually. Look at the postseason percentage chances of teams that started off with a win in week 1, and a loss in week 2 and 3. I'd bet it's near 20%. (Using 'teams starting off 1-1' doubles the statistics, which you don't really want to do).

Incidentally, this all really looks like it's the equivalent of saying "you need to be 11-5 or better to go to the playoffs". The chance of a 11-5 team (with a true 11/16 winning percentage) going 0-3 is ~3%, which is not too far from the 2.1% listed. The chance of a 11-5 team going 0-2 is 9.7%. Pretty darned close.

The problem with just writing off teams at 0-2 is that waiting for the 3rd game gives you a huge boost in discriminating power.

21
by Andrew (not verified) :: Tue, 09/26/2006 - 2:01pm

Pat:

Ryan notes that teams that are 1-2 after 3 weeks have a 33% chance of obtaining a playoff berth. If the teams that are 1-2 after starting 0-2 have only a 21% chance, it follows that teams starting W-L-L and L-W-L are more likely than 33% to make the playoffs in order for the chances of all 1-2 teams to hit 33%.

This says starting L-L-W is worse than starting W-L-L or L-W-L. I will try culling through those teams to find what their result is sometime, but it does take time, so it won't be this second.

22
by Travis (not verified) :: Tue, 09/26/2006 - 3:31pm

Re: 20, 21

I've run the data, and it seems any team starting out 1-2, regardless of the order of the games, has a playoff percentage around 25%.

Since 1993:

Pattern-# of teams-# of playoff teams-Percentage
WWW 68 48 70.6%
WWL 38 19 50.0%
WLW 43 26 60.5%
LWW 53 28 52.8%
WLL 49 12 24.5%
LWL 38 11 28.9%
LLW 40 10 25.0%
LLL 68 2 2.9%
397 156 39.3%

Since 2002 (the current playoff format):
WWW 24 16 66.7%
WWL 7 2 28.6%
WLW 14 9 64.3%
LWW 18 9 50.0%
WLL 19 5 26.3%
LWL 15 4 26.7%
LLW 11 3 27.3%
LLL 20 0 0.0%
128 48 37.5%

Since 1990 (6 playoff teams from each conference):
WWW 83 63 75.9%
WWL 44 21 47.7%
WLW 52 32 61.5%
LWW 61 33 54.1%
WLL 61 15 24.6%
LWL 51 11 21.6%
LLW 50 14 28.0%
LLL 79 3 3.8%
481 192 39.9%

Since 1978 (16 game schedule):
WWW 133 102 76.7%
WWL 79 39 49.4%
WLW 92 54 58.7%
LWW 99 53 53.5%
WTL 1 1 100.0%
LTW 1 0 0.0%
WLL 103 25 24.3%
LWL 95 19 20.0%
LLW 89 20 22.5%
LLL 125 5 4.0%
817 318 38.9%

23
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 09/26/2006 - 5:31pm

I’ve run the data, and it seems any team starting out 1-2, regardless of the order of the games, has a playoff percentage around 25%.

I doubted the order of the games has any importance at all. It'd be kindof amazing if it did - the weeks really shouldn't be special.

The benefit of "0-3" vs "0-2" is that basically each year, you end up with about 5-10 or so 0-2 teams. Which means with a 10% chance of making the playoffs, you've got a pretty decent chance of mistaking one of those teams as out of it. There are usually only about 3-5 0-3 teams, and with a 2-3% chance to make the playoffs, it's a pretty good lock that they all won't make it.

24
by Travis (not verified) :: Tue, 09/26/2006 - 5:50pm

I doubted the order of the games has any importance at all. It’d be kindof amazing if it did - the weeks really shouldn’t be special.

Yeah, the only case I can see the order of the wins being special would be if a team had its first two games on the road and its third game at home. That doesn't seem to be the case for any of the recent playoff teams that started 0-2, however.

25
by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 09/27/2006 - 1:16am

Pat #23:

The benefit of “0-3″ vs “0-2″ is that basically each year, you end up with about 5-10 or so 0-2 teams. Which means with a 10% chance of making the playoffs, you’ve got a pretty decent chance of mistaking one of those teams as out of it.

The distribution of incidences since 1983 (as far back as I've gone so far is) for the number of teams starting 0-2 is:

4 - 0
5 - 1
6 - 3
7 - 5
8 - 7
9 - 2
10 - 2
11 - 2
12 - 0

The last time just 5 teams started 0-2 was 1983. With the expansion of the league, I doubt we'll ever see that again. The trend has been towards more 0-2 teams in the past 10 years. The overall average from 1983 on (excluding 1987) is 7.86. However, from 1983 to 1994 it was 7.09. From 1995 to 2006 it was 8.58.

As far as the likelihood of making the playoffs goes, these have tended to become more sporadic after a long streak from 1989 to 1996 of at least one such team making it.

1984 - Redskins

Then: 1989 - Steelers (Redskins excluded with 10 wins by tiebreakers), 1990 - Eagles, Oilers, 1991 - Falcons, 1992 - Chargers (Packers excluded with 9 wins by tiebreakers), 1993 - Steelers, Cowboys, 1994 - Patriots, 1995 - Lions, 1996 - Patriots

1998 - Jets, Bills Cardinals

Then: 2001 - Patriots, 2002 - Steelers, Falcons, 2003 - Eagles

1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2004, and 2005 saw no 0-2 teams make the playoffs. So 9 of 23 years saw no team make it, and in 5 of 11 years since 1995, no team has made it. With the bumper crop of 11 this year, we are due, in a non-deterministic sense, for someone to emerge.

However, the emergence of one team from the grave of 0-2 roughly every other year is not worth worrying about in terms of writing them all off until shown otherwise much later in the season.

26
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 09/27/2006 - 10:45am

I did say 5-10 0-2 teams. That's pretty much spot on.

However, the emergence of one team from the grave of 0-2 roughly every other year is not worth worrying about in terms of writing them all off until shown otherwise much later in the season.

That... really doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would you write everyone off, when you're likely going to be wrong about one, when you can wait a week and write off only the correct ones?

The total chance of getting a "false negative" writing off 0-2 teams is pretty high. Probably about 80% in a year. The chance of getting a false negative writing off 0-3 teams is very, very low.

27
by Travis (not verified) :: Wed, 09/27/2006 - 11:04am

Then: 1989 - Steelers (Redskins excluded with 10 wins by tiebreakers), 1990 - Eagles, Oilers, 1991 - Falcons, 1992 - Chargers (Packers excluded with 9 wins by tiebreakers), 1993 - Steelers, Cowboys, 1994 - Patriots, 1995 - Lions, 1996 - Patriots

Also the 9-6 1987 Colts and the 8-8 1990 Saints.

Between 1978-1982, 5 teams that started 0-2 made the playoffs: the 1978 Eagles, 1980 Browns and Rams, 1981 Jets (started 0-3), and the 1982 Bucs (started 0-3 in a 9 game season).

Before then, you have to go all the way back to the 1967 Browns.

28
by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 09/27/2006 - 2:02pm

Travis:

I was discounting 1982 and 1987, because the strikes screwed up the play of the season and make the records unreliable for projection purposes. You are right that I missed the Saints in 1990.

It really does seem like there were a lot of these type of teams in the 1989-1996 period, and not nearly so many before or since. I can't help but think this result might be from the uncertainties introduced by the constant changes during that period (playoff expansion, free agency, salary cap, league expansion). The period stands out as highly atypical when you look at the results, the large number of prior year playoff teams starting 0-2 and returning to the playoffs - 90 Oilers and Eagles, 93 Steelers and Cowboys - only the 94 Oilers (Moon departed) and Raiders (lost by tiebreakers to the Chiefs) missed the following year.

29
by Travis (not verified) :: Wed, 09/27/2006 - 4:46pm

It really does seem like there were a lot of these type of teams in the 1989-1996 period, and not nearly so many before or since.

The best reason I can think of for the relative percentage of 0-2 making the playoffs was the playoff expansion to 12 teams in 1990, while the number of teams in the NFL remained constant at 28 until 1995 (and the Panthers and Jaguars didn't get good until a year later).

30
by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 09/27/2006 - 10:37pm

Travis:

Which is why I say limit the numbers to looking at what's happened since 1995 with league expansion and the salary cap and free agency in full effect regarding rosters. Since 1995, its been a bleaker picture for 0-2 teams, and there have been more of them per year.

31
by Travis (not verified) :: Wed, 09/27/2006 - 11:51pm

Re: 30

Interestingly, 4 of the 9 0-2 playoff teams switched QBs soon after the second game, with dramatic results:

1998 Bills - Rob Johnson to Flutie (switch came in Game 5, with the Bills 1-3).

1998 Jets - Foley to Testaverde (Foley missed Games 3 and 4, both Jet wins; Foley started Game 5, a loss; Testaverde became the permanent starter Game 6).

2001 Patriots - Bledsoe to Brady (Bledsoe injured at end of Game 2).

2002 Steelers - Stewart to Maddox (switch came midway through Game 3).

The other 0-2's can partly be explained away - 3 opened with consecutive road games against .500-or-better teams (1995 Lions, 1996 Patriots, 1998 Cardinals), one had 2 straight down-to-the-last-play games (2002 Falcons), and the other opened with the last 2 Super Bowl champions at home (2003 Eagles).

32
by Jake (not verified) :: Wed, 09/27/2006 - 11:57pm

Couldn't order matter because of structural changes in a team?

Teams that are without a player to open the season are going to play more games with that player than a team who loses a player early in the first two weeks of the season. Steve Smith vs. Trent Green. You'd expect teams that lose early to get better and teams that lose the a little later to keep losing.

33
by A Nonny Moose (not verified) :: Thu, 03/19/2009 - 3:29am

For some teams, though, this season's injuries/retirements have a lot more of an impact than last season's record. I'm thinking specifically of the 1999 Broncos, Falcons, and Jets, all of whom won 12+ games the year before, but lost their starting QB by Week 1, and started 0-3 or worse.

34
by A Nonny Moose (not verified) :: Thu, 03/19/2009 - 3:30am

he best reason I can think of for the relative percentage of 0-2 making the playoffs was the playoff expansion to 12 teams in 1990, while the number of teams in the NFL remained constant at 28 until 1995
cobro

35
by colt (not verified) :: Thu, 03/26/2009 - 7:03am

Thanks for taking the time to post such a detailed and informative article.

I clicked on this blog while searching some reference material on travelling to a new location. I liked your post

Keep writing