Grading the Pack - Regular Season Week 1 (Offense)

The regular season is finally here and Green Bay came away with an impressive 17-9 win over the Seattle Seahawks. Today I am going to break down and grade the entire offensive performance from the week 1 victory as well as provide you some highlights and notes. For those of you who followed during preseason, I am going to split up the offense and the defensive breakdowns during the regular season. In general, the offensive grades will be posted Thursday evening and the defensive grades will be posted Friday evening. As always my grading explanation is at the bottom of the page. Enjoy!

Top 3 Performers

Aaron Rodgers +4.25
Ty Montgomery +2.65
Davante Adams +2.60

Bottom 3 Performers

Lance Kendricks +0.0
Aaron Ripkowski +0.05
Martellus Bennett +0.5

Quarterback

Aaron Rodgers +4.25

Aaron Rodgers started off the season with another Aaron Rodgers-esque performance. Yes he threw a tough interception on the opening drive and no Green Bay didn’t put up a ton of points in this game but Rodgers was sharp throughout. His normal wizardry was on display as he consistently was able to generate free plays by catching Seattle with too many men or by drawing linemen offsides. The touchdown pass to Nelson was a perfect throw and obviously one of the biggest plays in the game. On the final drive of the game Rodgers converted two big third downs, one by scrambling and one with the clinching pass to Bennett. Aaron left some big plays on the field and it certainly wasn’t one of his top games, but he took what was given to him against a very tough Seattle defense.

Running Back

Ty Montgomery +2.65
Jamaal Williams +0.25
Aaron Ripkowski +0.05

When I initially watched the game the running game and Montgomery didn’t stand out to me too much. Then when I looked at the numbers and saw 19 carries for 54 yards and a 2.8 average I thought even less of the performance. Upon further review, however, Montgomery consistently ran with plus vision, found the correct hole and ran hard through arm tackles. More importantly Montgomery held up very well in pass protection and looked great catching the ball. Montgomery is the bell cow of Green Bay’s running game and as Green Bay faces lesser front 7’s, expect him to have some very big days.

Wide Receiver

Davante Adams +2.6
Randall Cobb +2.0
Jordy Nelson +1.15
Trevor Davis +0.1

Davante Adams had an unfortunate knack of running his absolute best routes and getting wide open when he wasn’t the primary read or target on the play. Early in the game Adams absolutely burned Richard Sherman on a slick double move but not until Rodgers already had found a wide open Randall Cobb. Later he came wide open on a misdirection play to Cobb but the design was never set to look Adams’ way. Finally on Rodgers big scramble on 3rd down in the 4th quarter Adams put Sherman on skates and came wide open on the play. While all three top receivers played well, Adams consistently came open the most and should garner more attention in the coming weeks.

Tight End

Martellus Bennett +0.5
Richard Rodgers +0.2
Lance Kendricks +0.0

Let me start by saying one of my absolute favorite plays of the game was Bennett protecting QB1 when he felt Seattle took some liberties on a hit to Rodgers. (Yes I graded this penalty as a positive). Bennett also had some blocks in the run game where he took his defender outside of the screen. Most importantly he caught the game clinching pass from Rodgers. All of that said, Bennett has been very inconsistent in both preseason and in week 1 with his blocking and route running. If Green Bay’s offense wants to reach its potential it’s going to need Bennett to be better in all aspects of the game; specifically in route running. Lance Kendricks looks so average thus far that I’d prefer Richard Rodgers to Kendricks at this point.

Offensive Line

David Bakhtiari +2.5
Jahri Evans +2.05
Lane Taylor +1.2
Kyle Murphy +1.2
Corey Linsley +0.55

This was a really nice performance all-around by the offensive line. The highlight was Kyle Murphy playing his ass off and grading positively in all aspects. Murphy had his hiccups but he showed that he was able to protect his side of the line without much help at all. Jahri Evans would have been the top graded linemen had it not been for two holding penalties. Even with the penalties, he graded out incredibly well and looks to be another Ted Thompson steal. You may ask how the running game could have such a poor average when the offensive line and running back graded out so well. My answer is two-fold:

1.       Seattle played very, very well on defense and credit should be given to them as well.

2.       There were a multitude of plays where four linemen graded out really well on a run play but one linemen graded poorly. Unfortunately it was the play of this one linemen that caused the run to fail. So it was a poor run play but 4/5 linemen graded positively on the play. It happens…

More on Kyle Murphy from Zach: https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/in-the-face-of-adversity-murphy-steps-in-and-provides-relief-at-rt-717?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CheeseheadTv+%28Cheesehead+TV%29

Overall Green Bay’s offense left some plays on the field but this was a solid, consistent performance with very few errors from everyone. The pick from Rodgers was much more a really nice play by Seattle than a horrible decision by Rodgers. Linsley had a really bad snap that lead to a punt and a few pressures caused Green Bay to miss on some big plays. All of that said, it was absolutely a winning performance by the offense against Seattle’s vaunted defense.

Remember to check back for the defensive grades tomorrow!!!

How I Grade

  • Each player starts by getting a zero or neutral grade on a play. If they performed as expected on a play, their grade stays at zero.
  • For a slightly above or below average play, the player gets graded -0.1 or +0.1. The vast majority of grades on the vast majority of plays are graded -0.1, 0, or +0.1.
  • The highest and lowest grades on an individual play are +2.0 and -2.0 respectively. These would be large, game-changing plays.
  • I won’t grade a play negatively if I cannot tell which player was at fault.
  • Most of the time it’s impossible to tell the play, so I’m not grading on the execution of the play call as an NFL coach would.
  • The goal of this exercise is to grade every snap over the course of the season to get a long-term view of which performers are performing well and which are not meeting expectations. This is very similar to what Pro Football Focus tries to achieve. Is it perfect? No. But what you are getting is a consistent grader who is watching specifically Packer games and putting multiple hours into every week to breakdown film and assign grades.
  • Grades are for offense and defense only (including two point conversions). Special teams does not factor in.
  • Preseason does not have All-22 film which makes this exercise even more challenging than usual
  • Bigger plays in the game such as a 4th and 1 or a two-point conversion are weighted higher than say a normal 1st and 10 play to start the game.
  • Lastly, the grades do not necessarily reflect who the best players are on an overall basis. As an example, Morgan Burnett may grade almost two full points below Jermaine Whitehead. Does this mean that Whitehead is the superior player to Burnett? No. It means that given the opportunities each player was given, Whitehead performed at a higher level for this individual game.

Please feel free to ask questions or comment below!

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

Andy is a graduate of UW-Oshkosh and owns & operates the Pack-A-Day Podcast. Andy has taken multiple courses in NFL scouting and is an Editor for Packer Report. Andy grew up in Green Bay and is a lifelong season ticket holder - follow him on Twitter @AndyHermanNFL!

__________________________

NFL Categories: 
0 points
 

Comments (37)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
TKWorldWide's picture

September 14, 2017 at 05:59 pm

You had me at "Murphy playing his ass off"!

0 points
0
0
SteveCheez's picture

September 14, 2017 at 06:53 pm

Interesting that nobody had a negative grade.

0 points
0
0
AndyHerman's picture

September 14, 2017 at 07:26 pm

Steve,

I was interested by this too. If you saw my preseason grades I'm not afraid to downgrade players for poor play. That said this was my first time grading all-22 so it's something I'm going to keep an eye on. When I reviewed pff grades after I completed mine they had fairly positive grades on everyone too. I honestly think it was just a clean performance against a good defense.

-Andy-

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 15, 2017 at 07:23 am

Regardless of the actual scores, it creates a scale with which to differentiate players. I'm all in favor of quantification.

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

September 14, 2017 at 06:58 pm

Adams gets a classroom curve Now? Your in Love with Adams. The packers will pay stats. You just opened the door for McCaffrey, Janis, Davis, Allison, or any other battle in camp. Just unbelievable!

0 points
0
0
AndyHerman's picture

September 14, 2017 at 07:31 pm

Stock,

I have so many questions on your post but hopefully I can help ease some of your concerns.

1) I don't have a crush on any player when grading. I love Josh Jones and I gave him the worst preseason grade of anyone.

2) I grade every player on a play on their own accord. If Adams schools a defender but doesn't get thrown the ball he will still get a positive grade.

3) The Packers pay good players. Not stats. Lane Taylor is a great example.

4) I don't think I opened the door for anybody to make the team, but I'm not sure what this comment means.

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

September 14, 2017 at 10:18 pm

1. ok. 2. I question your grade ,above Nelson and especially Cobb.? 3. Different positions. (Disagree.) Cobb salary is a sticking point with some.(paying good players) I don't believe that is the case, when teams want under the cap. Especially when star players are not resigned. (Lang, etc.) 4. If a player is judged on separation and route running. (per Adams grade) McCaffrey should have made the team. That we now have to question the coach. Adams was nick named Drop Adams. So your grading pertects' the player with "Hands of Stone." Also see Answer #2 again.

0 points
0
0
Turophile's picture

September 15, 2017 at 01:48 am

Stockholder, your post was incomprehensible, terribly laid out and with awful punctuation. Writing stream-of-consciousness stuff is ok, but if you do that, you then need to edit it, tweak it, so it is obvious what you are trying to say.

I don't really have any idea what you are saying in the above post. Your thinking is so disorganised, the sense in your post is lost.

Even though I don't take Andrew's grading as gospel (I still remember T.J.Lang's dislike of PFF grading, even though he tended to get good grades), I still think his weekly grading is a priceless piece. Why ? Because very, very few of us are willing to watch a game again and again to grade each guy on what might add up to as many as 70 snaps. I love reading his thoughts on players.

Disagreeing with Andrew is just fine, that can generate great reading, but try to be as organised as Andrew is, when replying.

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

September 15, 2017 at 07:38 am

Just responding to his 4 numbered points. TJ Lang was a GOOD player. The $$$ got in the way. Being a good player did not keep him in Green Bay. Stats Matter was my point!

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 15, 2017 at 07:55 am

Execution matters...I think that's Andrew's point.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

September 15, 2017 at 05:22 am

Common Stockholder.... Even you have to admit those routes by Adams were some beautiful routes. Your disgust with Adams from the 2015 season will never change your mind or attitude towards him.

If Cobb plays the entire season close to 100% then be ready for many more games like he had in week one. If that's the case then he's worth EVERY dime of his salary. Cobb was HUGE week one for the Packers.

McCaffrey didn't make the Packers. It's week two and he's not coming back. It's time to move on, let it go, and get over it. Pretty sure he made it clear he didn't want to be on the Packers PS anyways, not that it matters at this point.

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

September 15, 2017 at 07:16 am

I saw a couple. But I also saw, stopping to soon. ( Yes A-rod was going the other way. ) And A-Rod trying to force the ball to Adams when covered. Others were open. Cobb twice over the middle. Your words of Cobb being Huge, does not justify Adams being rated ahead of Cobb. (Thats my Bitch for this game) That's what I was referring to in his grades. Not all his grades. McCaffrey was the point against Adams GRADE too. I wasn't a fan of McCaffrey. When you Grade players on Routes. It no longer matters if they CATCH THE BALL! Your Hyping a player.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 15, 2017 at 07:27 am

Just because this particular rubric assigns grades to players doesn't mean that we see things the same way the coaching staff and management does, nor does it really argue toward roster building. The same can be said for PFF grades.

In the end, any kind of quantification is useful in its own right, but suspect at the same time. Enjoy it for what it is.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 15, 2017 at 07:28 am

"Your disgust with Adams from the 2015 season will never change your mind or attitude towards him."

DING! DING! DING!

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

September 15, 2017 at 08:07 am

peripheral treatment? Hyping? Packers Hall of Fame? I only question him earning his pay check! I question how he stacks up to a past WRs. (That earned less!) How do you pay him on this game and grade ? I wouldn't!

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 15, 2017 at 08:19 am

Adams's 2017 cap number is $1.25M. He easily earns that. That's the only contract we can meaningfully talk about right now...all else is speculation.

spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/davante-adams-14463/

Past WR who earned less (than what I presume you think he will get paid, not the $1.25M number) often played in a league where their numbers don't compare to how passing is emphasized in today's league. Adams's next contract will be set by market value, not by our assumptions or preferences.

Nobody here, to my knowledge, has ever used the words "Hall of Fame" in conjunction with Adams except you when demeaning him.

Nobody here has suggested that this grade in any way would be used in figuring his contract...or on a single game performance.

I think you should say 'no' to that third pot of coffee.

0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

September 15, 2017 at 09:06 am

After seeing what the article writer wrote here, and all the illustrations, I'm starting to question whether Rodgers is getting thru all his progressions on a consistent basis. I will caveat that comment by saying he had significant pressure most of the time, so the timing of plays was all over the place.
But when you see Adams as open as he was on some of these plays, you start to wonder why he didn't go to him more often. The offense should have a very good day on turf in ATL, assuming the OL does it's part and holds the point of attack at the LOS. I'm nervous - I don't like Sunday night games when I'm nervous because I usually lose some sleep I can ill afford.

0 points
0
0
Denver's picture

September 14, 2017 at 09:01 pm

Huh?? Not quite following your thinking, stockholder....

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 15, 2017 at 07:33 am

If you preface his comments by closing your eyes and saying three times, "Stockholder has it in for Davante Adams", it starts to congeal a little bit.

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

September 15, 2017 at 10:52 am

I'm not trying to write a book on Adams. You think it's bashing him. You used stats and a Site to back your opinion. Dobber I tried to display that stats are used, with league salaries, in my Bitch. Trouble is you don't see how Adams could effect the Cap for years. I would take Burnett,Perry,Daniels, etc. over Adams any day. The trouble with signing Adams is he's ordinary. Defensive players are harder to find then ORDINARY WRs. Any REBUILDING will show that! Base the defense on Film! Not WRs! Let's say he gets Cobbs $$$$$, even Julio Jones etc. Your hopes are on ADAM'S IFS. You don't pay IFs. Or GRADES! The better players always play big in Big Games! The Seatle game was big. It will help in the play off picture. The majority now is with Adams. I'm not. Based on must win Games Fella. Not Fantasy.

0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

September 15, 2017 at 11:19 am

I agree completely - great defensive players are much harder to find than slightly above average offensive players.
Adams isn't a great player, and likely won't be a number one receiver.
If Jordy retires they will probably go get a No.1, dynamic receiver in the draft.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 15, 2017 at 01:31 pm

"Dobber I tried to display that stats are used, with league salaries, in my Bitch. Trouble is you don't see how Adams could effect the Cap for years."

Somehow you've decided that I think Adams is a #1 WR who should break the bank. That's not true in the least. I've always said that I felt his ceiling is as a complementary WR playing opposite a true #1, and that he could be very good in that role.

I've always said that market value will dictate what Adams earns on his next contract. Good, complementary WR make a lot of money. Many others here have speculated what Adams will get in terms of his next contract if he plays well in 2017. I'd challenge you to find any place where I'd said what I thought he should make or whether the Packers should pay him the way you seem to think I have.

I think you underestimate the understanding that many have around here of the cap and long-term implications of big contracts. We've just spent the last who-knows-how-many days wrapping up Cobb and his big contract. CMIII and ARod are always popping up in terms of past, current, and future value. I don't see any place where you cite specific stats (aside from drops, and there are many comparable or better WR who make a lot of $$ who drop more passes than Adams...stats that I have cited in the past) in support of your arguments.

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

September 16, 2017 at 08:42 am

Didn't decide anything when it comes to you and Adams #1. I decided Adams would not be worth breaking the Bank for. Period. I believe you and others are wrong about his versatility as a CLUTCH WR. And his Value as a complementary WR! I don't have to challenge you because I don't save past comments. Nor do I need to challenge anyone. The drops are what I'm siting that make him ordinary. While others drop passes; their not in specific Routes year after year. Their also not from A-ROD. MM has done his best calling plays that pertect Adams. (To get him going and give him confidence) Your other comparable or better WRS don't. Watch rookies who are making splashes with other clubs. The concentration, temperament, swagger, hands, body usage. While some don't have the YAC . The guys contribute from the get go. Adams didn't! Injuries??? Thats the danger of signing him long term.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 14, 2017 at 07:36 pm

Thanks for the grades on the TEs. Spofford ran a fluff piece on the TEs, praising them to the skies. The article got my dander up. I always take Pakers.com articles with a grain of salt.

0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

September 14, 2017 at 10:09 pm

TGR, Well, we will agree to disagree on whether Spofford's WYMM was a 'fluff piece' on praising the TE's. I always enjoy Spofford's "What you might have missed" segments and didn't think it was over the top praise for the TE's, just pointing out some good blocking on plays that an average watcher (like me) may have missed. Not sure why that would 'get your dander up' but then it seems like everybody this week on CHTV is a bit 'chippy', LOL. :) I suspect we will be seeing a ton of 2 or 3 TE sets this game with the gimpy OL. Hopefully, the WYMM segment on Packers.com will be positive after the game (crosses fingers and toes, throws salt over my shoulder). Let's hope we are both happy after this game! Go, Pack, Go!

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 15, 2017 at 10:07 am

Spock, I always read Spofford's articles and enjoy them since anyone who puts out film and analyzes them is worth gold to me. Andrew here at CHTV is fast becoming my favorite author for that very reason. Now, I will explain my issues with Spofford's latest effort. First, articles like this should help fans gain an understanding of what is happening on the field. I feel that Spofford's article and the headline was designed to give the impression that the TEs were outstanding against Seattle. I thought the TEs were just passable. Packers.com isn't really known for being hard-hitting analysis. So this article fails my biggest criterion. Kendricks in particular was very pedestrian yet one might draw the opposite conclusion from reading Spofford's article, and that bugs me.

There is no mention of Bennett's whiffs in blocking. I saw two such whiffs. Much of Bennett's benefit to our offense is that he is a much better blocker than Cook, and gives us the ability to run or pass when he is on the field. I think he does that (see play 1 for example) or will anyway. Play #1 in the article shows Bennett making a fine block on Wright, who can only try a weak arm tackle after Bennett turns him away from the hole. Nice, and I'd give Bennett a plus on this play. Just what I'm looking for from Bennett. Play 2 shows RR allowing Seattle's Garvin to cross his face and flow to the hole, helping to clog the running lane for Jamaal Williams on his 3 yard gain. RR does get a push and Garvin isn't able to disengage, so I'd give RR a small positive for his block, but it ain't anything to write home about. Play 3 is a mere presence play. Bennett leaks out over the middle and Wright takes a false step towards Bennett, leaving Adams wide open. Not much here - RR and Kendricks can leak out just as well and Kendricks has enough running ability that his presence probably would have been enough to cause Wright's false step (see play 4). Not sure if RR's presence would have sufficed. Play 4: Kendricks does indeed hit Avril with a nice chip block, so I give Kendricks a plus. Kendrick's then leaks out into the flat and Wright comes up to cover him since he is all alone, giving a better passing lane for AR to hit Adams for 21 on this 3rd and 17, but almost any TE would have influenced Wright and attracted Wright's attentiion on this play. Maybe a TE like Mulligan or RR might have allowed Wright to drop back deeper into his zone responsibility. Kendrick's chip was solid, so a I give him a plus, but this was solid scheming by the coaches and recognition by AR. Play 5: Bennett dominates a CB and pushes him out of the play. Well, TEs should make this block - Bennett outweighs the CB by 75 pounds. Looks to me like Bennett blatantly holds the CB: he has his left hand outside the CB's pads and actually covers up Griffen's name on the back of his jersey with his hand. Bennett is hugging this CB to him and pushing him back. A ten yard Offensive holding penalty putting us back to the 16 would have really taken momentum away after recovering Wilson's fumble on the 6. What I see in play 5 is Bakh's truly excellent block on Sheldon Richardson (turns him and seals him off from the hole - big plus when you manhandle Richardson), Monty getting hit by Chancellor at the 1 and half or 2 but still powering in for the TD, Taylor kicking out on Bennett, and Linsley sort of getting in Wright's way (I wouldn't call it a solid block!). Spofford is terrible on this play: he specifically mentions Taylor's and Linsley's block and fails to mention the best and hardest to do block, namely Bakh's.

Spofford's analysis of Play 5 is just lousy: anyone who read it and didn't watch the video closely to form their own conclusion imo simply would draw the wrong conclusions. That isn't what I am looking for from my sport writers.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-wymm/article-1/What-You-M...

0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

September 17, 2017 at 01:34 pm

TGR, Thanks for the explanation(s). Your knowledge of the game is so much more than mine and you see things I don't and probably never will. Given what you've explained I now understand why you had issue with the article. I appreciate the time you took to break this down.

0 points
0
0
GBPDAN1's picture

September 14, 2017 at 10:28 pm

Thanks for the dedication to provide this information.

I see you have Murphy grading well. I watched the first half again and Murphy had 3 bad hurries and 1 sack that stalled drives. I'm guessing he graded negatively in the first half and very positively in the second half?

0 points
0
0
AndyHerman's picture

September 15, 2017 at 01:39 am

Thanks Dan!

I did like Murphy's overall performance quite a bit. I did have a pretty big demerit for the sack that stalled the drive. I also had in my notes that I thought he looked better as the game went along. He really settled in and started to get comfortable.

-Andy-

0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

September 15, 2017 at 08:50 am

I also thought he played well, given the fact you didn't really hear his name much after the early sacks. Now the question is.....who's better, Spriggs or Murphy? Looks like Murphy gets the early nod in this one.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

September 15, 2017 at 07:19 am

It's not a huge deal to me, but I guess I'm one of the few who did not like Bennett's personal foul... at all. (Didn't like Cobb's weak-ass taunting penalty either). I think if I were the coach, both of them would have gotten a "talking to" on the sideline about that.

I totally get it and I fully agree that we want guys playing with fire and a hardnosed, badass attitude. I just don't see why you can't have the right attitude without being a dumbass who costs the team 15 yards.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 15, 2017 at 07:36 am

I suspect Bennett did get a "talking-to", but it was likely followed with a wink and a pat on the back.

...or maybe it was more like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb8ISnmSae0

0 points
0
0
SteveCheez's picture

September 15, 2017 at 07:34 am

At least he did it when it still left us in 1st-and-10, not putting us back to 1st-and-25. At that point I figured we'd run out the clock anyway, not much difference what yard line it was on.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 15, 2017 at 10:12 am

Steve, AR scrambled, so the clock would have been running. Bennett's penalty causes the clock to stop. If we're playing the clock, keeping the clock running is paramount. So, Bennett's action was incredibly stupid.

0 points
0
0
SteveCheez's picture

September 15, 2017 at 10:49 am

Regrettably, I overlooked that part.

0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

September 15, 2017 at 11:09 am

Benmett definitely needs more consistency, but his block on Montgomery's TD was unlike anything I'd seen since Chewy. Great, great play.

As for his penalty when defending Rodgers, I completely disagree. It set us back big yardage at a critcal point in the game. Calling that a plus play is sheer lunacy.

Keep your head in the game, Martellus.

0 points
0
0
Archie's picture

September 15, 2017 at 03:59 pm

Adams is not fast as a #1 WR, is not that big and has trouble making catches, but what he did better in week 1 than I have seen before is he showed great quickness getting away from his cover. His cover eventually and invariably catches back up. So he is a short to intermediate type WR which is not a #1 WR. He is not all that different from Cobb other than Cobb is more clutch and has even shorter arms. GB needs to get AROD a big, fast, large radius WR. Should happen in next draft. Get a def stud in R1, a WR1 in R2 and then go all OL the rest of the day. Our achilles heel is our OL back-ups, they a time bomb waiting to happen. AROD was lucky to get out of SEA game with his legs intact.

0 points
0
0