Overrated PG problem...

by FHWANG007 on Jul 24, 2008 4:40 PM PDT

I'm tired of all these posts about our lack of a "real" point guard. For every team with a good PG, I can show you a good team without a good PG, and conversely, for every bad team with a PG, i can show you a bad team with a PG. Granted, we would be a better team with a true established bona fide point guard, but so would every team; these players aren't everywhere.

I'm going to outline why I believe the PG problem is overrated:

1. It's not like we won't be able to score.

Everyone is acting as if our offense will go into utter chaos. Like "O no, ellis can't run the point. how is he gonna be effective/run the offense/score/do anything?" Trust me, ellis will shoot over 45% and score about 20+ a game. And Maggette will drive and play his 1-on-5 basketball and get his buckets, and Jax will heave shots like there's no tomorrow. It's not like Baron distributes the ball like CP3 or Nash either...

We'll be able to score 105+ points a game again, which is damn good considering he lose the bearded one. Not last year, but still a top 5 offense in the league.

2. Team with scorers don't need that good of PGs. Boston. Denver. Dallas before Kidd. Lakers, Houston, and others only have decent PGs. It helps a lot to have the parkers and billups of the world, but isn't necessary.

3. Monta isn't playing point for more than 20 minutes. We brought in several people to do that. Plus, Maggette and Jax will handle the ball a lot, if not as much as Monta.

In another words...we'll be fine. I'd rather worry about our youth than our PG.

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

0 recs | Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

AGREED!

by onedub on Jul 24, 2008 5:42 PM PDT 0 recs

scoring will be a problem

baron got everyone the ball where they want it and i dont think monta can do that because he will be thinking of scoring. a lot of biedrins’ points came from a dime off baron. i think with williams on board, nellie will start monta at point guard for a few minutes and then play him at the 2 for a big chunk of the game.

by ADOBO on Jul 24, 2008 8:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

"Baron got everyone the ball where they want it"

beacuse a lot of them could got create for themselves. Think about it…

by streetballer on Jul 25, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up 0 recs

could NOT

by streetballer on Jul 25, 2008 4:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

WELL FIGHTING OVER IT WONT DO MUCH

we’ll just have to wait and see. besides, same players right?

by ADOBO on Jul 25, 2008 4:21 PM PDT up 0 recs

1. It’s not like we won’t be able to score.

Actually, that’s something of a worry. When Baron was out last year, we had problems scoring. Our offensive efficiency dropped about 8%. That’s the difference between 50 win team and 35 win team. I do expect with the prior knowledge that Baron isn’t around things won’t be so lopsided, but it’s probably a mistake to just pencil in everyone’s PPG as if the PG position has nothing to do with it.

Baron was one of the better distributors in the game. As good as Nash? No, but among the better passing point guards out there. He had really, really nice court vision and didn’t pause.

I’m not sure the comparison with other teams hold much water. Rondo isn’t a scoring dynamo, but he’s a legitimate point guard, pass first who has been a BIG plus to his team. Once you learn to look past ppg, you’d see that his lack of star billing doesn’t mean that he’s not very, very helpful. Harris was a pretty good point for Dallas as well. The Lakers ran the triangle offense, an offense that functions without the real point guard. Houston? Houston had trouble scoring points at times. They were in the bottom third of the league in terms of offense. They won largely because they were in the top 4 in defense.

Essentially, we’ve brought in ONE guy to help handle the point, not several. It may well all work out, but it’s still the biggest questionmark surrounding this team.

by jae on Jul 24, 2008 6:09 PM PDT 0 recs

Problem with that statement

Baron out last year meant nobody to replace him. No real point guards, as you’ve pointed out.

Baron out this year means maggette in. which makes up for a lot of the offense. Not to mention we have backup PGs now.

Another thing: harris’ vision is not that great. trust me. and with rondo, his “legitimate point guard” skills were so good that rivers benched him for much of the finals in favor of posey or house, two non-passers.

by FHWANG007 on Jul 24, 2008 6:57 PM PDT up 0 recs

Ray could step in at PG as well

And Pierce and KG are both great distributors for their positions.

Of couse, the same can be said for Jax and Biedrins. AB has actually shown flashes of very nice court vision — one of the things that excites me about him going forward. (Assuming he doesn’t go play in Russia ;-P)

I basically agree with the premise of this diary. The late ‘70s/early ‘80s Denver Nuggets, the most prolific offensive team in my lifetime (possibly ever) never really had a true PG. Nor did the powerhouse Celtics teams of the 60s, post-Cousy, or the powerhouse Celtics teams of the ‘80s, post Archibald. (DJ was the de facto PG, but he was less of a “true” point than Monta, and Bird generally led the team in assists).

If “true PG” is defined as a guy who brings the ball up nearly every time down floor, and averages at least 8 dimes a game, I’m pretty sure the number of NBA champions without a true PG outnumber the ones with, by a decent margin.

The +/- numbers may show that the team suffered last year without BD, but I suspect that’s largely because the offense had been designed around him. Monta, Maggette, Harrington, Jackson, Biedrins, Buki, Belli: that’s a crapload of scoring, handling, and passing ability. I think we’ll miss BD’s leadership and dynamism, but I’m too worried about replacing his on-court production (especially when you consider the 5-10 minutes a game where he got gassed, stopped taking it to the rim, launched lazy threes, etc.). Defense and rebounding are way bigger concerns for me than scoring points.

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 24, 2008 8:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

DJ was the de facto PG, but he was less of a "true" point than Monta, and Bird generally led the team in assists).

If we had Bird or Garnett we’d be ok with foyle as point guard but we don’t have so we need someone who can distribute without throwning the ball away.Marcus Williams? Can he grow the beard?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 24, 2008 10:50 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well, to some degree, those Nuggets teams (and the 60s Celtics) predated the widespread near universal adoption of a designated point guard. It’s something of an accident of history that the All-Star team has two guards and two forwards. It’s a holdover from days when there wasn’t as much distinction. But as the game evolved, the PF became less like a SF and more like a center and the SG and SF jobs converged more and more with PG being a specialist.

Obviously, there’s no rule that you need to have 5 completely separate positions. And in fact when I see people posting their depth (usually hypothetical) depth charts, I find it a bit odd because we’ve seen that Nellie has little regard for this, playing 3 or 4 more or less interchangeable wings at a time. Hell, most teams don’t stick with 5 slots and simply rotate in and out of each one. There are multiple ways to play the game successfully. Hell, the triangle doesn’t really use the typical point guard and, given enough talent elsewhere on the court, it can clearly win championships. The key seems to be having an overwhelming talent somewhere else on the court who commands attention, but also sees the court and orchestrates things in a manner now typically designated for the point guard.

I still worry about how we’ll fair because Nellie has employed a true point guard for most of his career and has had the most success with guys who are very, very good lead distributors from the point position. Sure, he’s credited with inventing the “point forward”. But people get confused by this and somehow make the (il-)logical leap that this means he doesn’t need a point guard. That test hasn’t really been done. He’s had one much (most?) of the time. He’s had Hardaway or Nash or Baron much of the time. What we’re going to see is something more like what he had with the early 80s Bucks team (or perhaps the post-Nash Mavs, where Terry might be considered another combo guard who played point more or less by default).

It could very well work, but I’m still worried. It’s a big change from what we’ve seen for the last couple of years.

by jae on Jul 24, 2008 11:33 PM PDT up 0 recs

Believe it or not...

there is talked about AR at the point for 25% plus of the plays…

by streetballer on Jul 24, 2008 6:22 PM PDT 0 recs

We will still score a bunch

We will be ok with out BooM, he was awesome but on almost every play, every drive to the hoop you could not help but to hold your breath. I am glad that we did not give him that deal. We will be fine monte will be awesome. We will probably struggle for th next year or two.

by DubsFanFromChi-town on Jul 24, 2008 6:23 PM PDT 0 recs

Here's how I see it

I believe we’re a better defensive team than last year. Just by shear size alone, having a regular sized backcourt of Monta/Maggette is going to be defensively better than the Baron/Ellis combo last year. The probable increase in playing time for Brandan Wright (and corresponding less playing time for Harrington) also equates to better help defense and rim protection. Adding Turiaf is huge for us, especially since we had no semblance of a backup center before. For all of you doubters, Turiaf was #5 in the league in blocks per 48 minutes, plus he’s got the bulk to bang with the bigger post guys.

Not only that, we’re a much better rebounding team as well. We’ll be thanking Wright, Hendrix, and Turiaf for that (much better rebounders than Barnes, Baron, and Pietrus from last year).

What does this have to do with our offense? These two improved aspects will spark our fast break. Combined with the fact we have a deep bench, we’ll be running even more than last year. More easy buckets. Easier offense. Less halfcourt sets where Jackson dribbles around too much or Baron takes ridiculous shots. We’ll be more exciting to watch. I can’t wait!

by YaHeard on Jul 24, 2008 6:41 PM PDT 0 recs

Not the first time this issue has been addressed here

Someone posted a topic called “Point God, Point Fraud” that basically covered the PG position’s actual lack of importance in light of truly successful teams. A look at all the championship teams since 1991 shows a long list of starting point guards who are generally not considered the best player on their respective teams or even amongst other guards in the league.

by J-Triumf on Jul 24, 2008 8:57 PM PDT 0 recs

Someone posted a topic called "Point God, Point Fraud" that basically covered the PG position’s actual lack of importance in light of truly successful teams.

But those point guard-less winning teams had the top players of their time, we don’t have either a good point or top players , does anyone have any historical stats for that situation? :>)

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 24, 2008 11:15 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well, yeah

Historically, teams without elite big men don’t win championships.

Unless they have a really elite not-quite-big man (MJ, Bird, Magic, e.g.)

In the absence of that, “top players” (say top 5-10 overall in the NBA) can at least get you within sniffing distance.

Since BD, like that JRich guy, doesn’t fit any of these categories, I’m not sure what your point is. Oh wait, don’t tell me: Mullin has a mental block about winning. He saw the top of the mountain and wet his pants. No, literally. His psychiatrist and urologist both told you so. And a little leprechaun confirmed it. ;-P

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 24, 2008 11:51 PM PDT up 0 recs

I’m not sure what your point is

Tryin to figure out if all these stoked posters are high on something or actually serious about our chances?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol stalkin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 25, 2008 12:04 AM PDT up 0 recs

As with so many things

Probably a little of both…

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 25, 2008 12:23 AM PDT up 0 recs

Show me a bad team with a good PG

All of the better PG’s in the league’s teams made the playoffs this year, or missed the playoffs with the best record ever for a team that missed the playoffs.

CP3 (made it)
Deron (made it)
Nash (made it)
Billups (made it)
Baron (missed w/the best record of any non-playoff team ever)
Jose Calderon (made it)
Tony Parker (made it)
Kidd (made it)

That’s the top 8, and if you include Gilbert in there, his teams have made the playoffs for a while too.

You can say that the best PG’s don’t win championships (and I’d retort that you look at the big men), but the teams with the NBA’s best PG’s almost always make the playoffs.

by dprodigy19 on Jul 24, 2008 11:06 PM PDT 0 recs

YOU FORGOT

rafer! he is one solid point and VERY underrated. he can light it up. i know because he was in my fantasy team and he gave me a lot of points on the board

by ADOBO on Jul 24, 2008 11:29 PM PDT up 0 recs

It’s a fair point, but there are some caveats here.

- CP3, Deron and Nash are three of the best players in basketball. The NBA is a star-driven league… a truly top player, at any position, should be able to get a team with average talent into the playoffs. The Suns and Jazz also both have talented rosters beyond their star points… CP3, to be fair, is pretty much the entire Hornets team.

- Billups is an excellent player. Having said that, there are four Pistons who have legitimate claims to being the best player on the team; of those four, the one that the Pistons have shopped the most energetically this offseason is Billups. They seem to think they’d be a good team without Billups… I agree.

- Tony Parker is an excellent player. He’s not the best player on his team, nor is he an elite passer… his assist totals and ratios are as comparable to Monta’s as they are to Baron’s.

- Calderon had an amazing season. I think Bosh is the best player on that team, and they had a better record the year before, when Calderon played worse in fewer minutes… I don’t think he was the main reason for their success. I do think he helped them win a lot of games, though, and he’s an excellent example of what a good passing point guard can do for a team.

- Jason Kidd joined a playoff-bound Mavs team that played worse once he arrived… he didn’t really help anyone do much of anything this year. However, I don’t think this is a data point against the importance of point guards so much as a data point that Kidd isn’t what he used to be.

Baron is most comparable to the first three guys: he’s not as good as they are, but he is a focal star of a team, in the way that they are. I think our half-court offense will struggle without him, though Maggette’s crashing to the hoop is a useful new weapon. I think it’s quite possible - maybe likely, given the strength of the conference - that we’ll miss the playoffs again. But I do think the original poster has a point… we have a lot of effective weapons in Baron’s absence, and not all of them will be negated just because we have questions at the point.

by onlxn on Jul 24, 2008 11:40 PM PDT up 0 recs

Very nicely said (as always).

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 25, 2008 12:05 AM PDT up 0 recs

Exactly

The biggest problem with this particular argument is that it’s hard to distinguish, which team is benefitting from the PG’s play, as opposed to which PG is benefitting his team’s play.

For example, the Hornets are not a top 10 team int eh west without paul. With paul, they are arguably the best.

However, Stuckey has proven to do well wihtout Billups. San Antonio’s offense continued when parker went down (granted, ginobili handled the duties).

by FHWANG007 on Jul 25, 2008 12:28 AM PDT up 0 recs

well yeah

SA has a system that is ingrained in their players noggins. give the ball to the big guy.

warriors dont fish they hunt!

by VonteegoCummings on Jul 25, 2008 12:33 AM PDT up 0 recs

SA is not a good example

even when Parker is healthy and on the floor, they do not run the offense exclusively through him, they run the offense through Duncan and Ginobili often. Parker is a good example of what Monte can develop into as a PG, but the Warriors don’t have the same passing capabilities from the other positions that the Spurs do.

by Hac Man on Jul 25, 2008 10:55 AM PDT up 0 recs

Several

Kidd doesn’t count. The Mavs did worse with him, and the Nets were terrible when he was there.

I also agreed that a real point guard helps every team, but look at the teams without a point guard that can win. the finals: rondo (who was benched for most of it) vs. fisher. u got denver, houston, portland, and a slew of other teams without PGs. Other than Baron, the players you named all have another player on the Olympic team. Meaning that they already had one of the top 15 players in the game with them. (Duncan declined, and Howard declined. Not to mention Dirk’s not bad). The only team that is “carried’ by their point guard is Paul. You could replace all the other guards with an average PG like devin harris, and they would all still make the playoffs. That is a statement of the make-up of the team, and not the PG.

by FHWANG007 on Jul 25, 2008 12:11 AM PDT up 0 recs

definitely agree

i think our main concern is that we lost Baron and that we relied on him so much to create for himself as well as others.

He wasn’t nash or CP3 when it comes to distributing but he was close IMO. the only reason he wouldn’t get as many assists as those guys is because 1) the talent around him 2) We just needed him to score more than dish. he was totally cappable of getting 20 points 10+ assists and he did a lot, but when JRich left he got more into going for 25-30 pts. 5-7 assists.

I think Monta can play the 1 i think he needs to play the 1 i don’t think that is as much of a concern as losing are best play maker.

The way i see it is that we can make up for Baron’s playmaking with Monta doing more, Jackson continuing to make plays, and now Marcus Williams getting in there and creating.

The way we make up for Baron’s scoring is easy. We aquired Corey Maggette. The man can flat out score and i love it because he gets to the basket and he gets to the free throw line.

Monta can be a point guard kind of like gilbert where he is a scorer, he isn’t a pure point, but he knows how to drive and dish, he will draw attention and know when to pass it, he doesn’t possess the 3 like gilbert, but he will drive a lot and pull up from mid range a lot. if he can score 20-25 and get 5, 6 assists??? would we be happy? i think so. with jackson and williams getting some assists as well.

by Agent Zero on Jul 24, 2008 11:17 PM PDT 0 recs

it's a half truth..........................

if you study NBA offenses, it’s less about position and more about who you run your offense through and the decision making of that player.

the reason why the post up player usually trumps the traditional PG is less about offense and more about his additional merits defensively.

by the evil monkey on Jul 24, 2008 11:38 PM PDT 0 recs

ARE YOU A COACH?

sounds like you know it all

by ADOBO on Jul 24, 2008 11:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

what people fail to see

is nellie ball requires a supertsar point guard to make the “organized chaos work.” ok ok teams win with sub standard point guards but with the style of ball we play it is imperative that we have a point guard that sees things before it develops. This is the main reason why Im not as giddy as 80% of GSOmers here…WE ARE PLAYING NELLIE BALL. I mean cmon Monta (based on last year of course, hopefully he has worked on it) cant even split defenders with regularity. Run past defenders yes..Nellie ball is unique and shouldnt be categorized with all of those examples given by the distinguished gentleman who authored this post.

warriors dont fish they hunt!

by VonteegoCummings on Jul 25, 2008 12:02 AM PDT 0 recs

As JAE points out

Those great Nellie-helmed Bucks teams didn’t have a unitary floor general to organize the chaos. The 82-83 team that swept Bird’s Celtics in 4 games in the playoffs was led in assists by a scoring SF (4.5 apg) and a hard-nosed defensive SG (3.9 apg).

Neither did any of the Auerbach-helmed teams that Nellie learned his organized-chaos-schemes from. A few of those teams were led in assists by Bill Russell.

Basically, Nellie’s a lot more adaptable as a coach than people give him credit for.

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 25, 2008 12:21 AM PDT up 0 recs

sup sleepy

not sure but ddnt nellie had a big man on those bucks teams? (you have to excuse me because growing up in the islands, all i saw were a steady diet of celtics-lakers tiffs) and we all know what happened after terry took over from nash.

nellie quitting at some point during the season is a very big possibility, especially if this monta experiment doesnt work.

warriors dont fish they hunt!

by VonteegoCummings on Jul 25, 2008 12:30 AM PDT up 0 recs

actually they did -- that's when Nelson first came up with the point forward concept

not sure who the point forward was on the 82-83 team, but from 1984-1987, Paul Pressey led the team in assists every year (roughly 7 apg/game).

by Hac Man on Jul 25, 2008 10:51 AM PDT up 0 recs

I used to think he was adaptable

and he might have been more so when he was a younger coach, but then I saw what he tried to do with the Knicks ;)

by Hac Man on Jul 25, 2008 10:52 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah

1982/3 and 83/84 were Pressey’s first two NBA seasons; it wasn’t until 84/85 that he became a major rotation player for them. The SF and SG I was referring to were Marques Johnson and Sidney Moncrief, respectively. As you say, Pressey was more a do-it-all point forward type than a true PG.

You’re probably right that Nellie’s become more inflexible as he’s aged. (Don’t we all). This year should be a pretty stiff test. If he fails miserably, I’m totally game for a switch to Keith Smart. All the reviews I’ve heard of Smart’s coaching skills have been pretty stellar.

Sign ^^^^ !!

by Sleepy Freud on Jul 25, 2008 12:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

assumptions do not equal reality

People can look at the Warriors offense for the past couple of years, and assume it is a one on 5, 3 point shooting, pass it around the horn type of offense. They would look at Baron’s declining assist averages and guess that “hey we don’t need a true point”.

They would only be partially correct.

Baron initiated the offense 99% of the time, and as other people have mentioned, the Warriors simply stalled when he wasn’t on the floor. Part of it was due to the fact that since he was the Warriors top dog, everyone looked to him for leadership and deferred to him so much, that they would get complacent and rely on Baron to save them time and time again. Baron bailing out an offense by driving or shooting with a few seconds on the shot clock was the last option, it happened too often last season. People have expressed optimism that with him gone, it will allow other people to grow. Possibly. Vision is born not taught. Ellis can pass on occasion, but got to the basket so easily last season just by putting his head down. His spectacular assists (few and far between) were the result of every defender expecting him not to pass.

If you watched Ellis when he was handed PG duties, it was clear that he was thinking too much. Even just bringing the ball up was an adventure with him, as he would often times just dribble off his foot or throw lazy passes. When the Warriors needed to get serious w/o Baron on the floor, it would usually be Ellis bringing up the ball then handing to Jax at the top of the key for him to initiate.

So that means Jax can handle the load. No, not really. Jax can do a passable job as a secondary ball handler, but had so many other duties on last year’s team (defended the other team’s top guy or PF on occasion, 3 point chucker, etc.) that he got tired and his high dribble became susceptible to being picked. Even when he’s on, he basically went with three options: chuck from deep, drive and throw the ball up (and try and get the foul call), or run the two man game with Andris.

Maggette as the answer? based on his past history, very doubtful. The opposing team might as well crowd the paint once he gets the ball because he’s usually not giving it back up.

I’ll watch the Warriors grand experiment this year, but honestly I think its a 50:50 chance as to whether the Mad Scientist Nellie can fashion an offense out of this mix of players. He’ll have to adjust his traditional offense drastically or he can pull an old trick and just quit in the middle of the season.

by Hac Man on Jul 25, 2008 12:02 AM PDT 0 recs

+100000000

if it was 8pm and i was as smart as you i wouldve said the same exact thing word for word. although i could translate this in tagalog if need be.

warriors dont fish they hunt!

by VonteegoCummings on Jul 25, 2008 12:18 AM PDT up 0 recs

Good summation… I pretty much agree with all of this. I think the Monta experiment is very much worthwhile, but I also think there’s a good chance that it could fail.

Worth pointing out that 5-10% of Warriors possessions last year ended with Baron throwing up an ill-advised shot, early in the clock. That’s a significant part of his decision-making that we definitely won’t miss… I’m pretty sure Monta won’t do that. But certainly overall the loss of Baron is a big one for this offense.

by onlxn on Jul 25, 2008 12:19 AM PDT up 0 recs

True, but...

Everybody assumes that without Baron, it’s like we don’t have Maggette. There’s just no way that our offense cannot produce 105 points a game. Even that is a steep fall-off (about 6 points a game, which is 5%).

Also, athough Baron ran the offense, the pure number of fast breaks and possessions gave him 1-2 more assists per game than most other players. It helped that he played almost 40 minutes a game too. Per 48 minutes a game, he is actually an average PG in terms of passing/assists.

by FHWANG007 on Jul 25, 2008 12:20 AM PDT up 0 recs

It depends on the pace. I expect it to remain high, but it will slow somewhat when Maggs is in because his strength includes getting to the line. That slows the pace of the game, even if it’s a highly efficient way of scoring. The flip side is that it may make the Warriors appear to be a better defensive team, at least in terms of keeping scores down, simply because the pace will stall a bit.

I’m a numbers fanatic, but there were many things that Baron did that were beyond the numbers. Things just tended to go right when he was in more often than not and things tended to go wrong when he wasn’t there. It’s a purely subjective assessment that he was responsible for this (though the scoring margins indicate this was happening). I attribute much of this “right” to him simply because I could see the good passes, the rapid decision making, the point guard skills that may not always result in an assist, but were making the offense run smoothly when he was in. We’re going to have to find another way to find this “right” without him. Not impossible, but it’s not a given that it will happen either.

by jae on Jul 25, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up 0 recs

Baron was a playmaker

there is no one on the current roster except for Marcus Williams that can be considered that. Monta is a scorer first, Maggette is a scorer first. CJ doesn’t really show any semblance of PG these days.

A playmaker gets the ball to people in scoring positions so they can make the baskets. Monta got so many easy buckets last season by sprinting ahead and cherry picking. Do you think he’ll get the same this season? If he’s the PG, no—because he has to linger back and get the ball and bring it up. Again, this is unless Nelson gets creative and goes back to his first season strategy of letting everyone and anyone bring up the ball, and letting the PG (Monta) pick up the ball at halfcourt.

You can’t simply assume that if you have a collection of decent to good offensive players that they will automatically be able to operate at the same offensive pace or efficiency.

by Hac Man on Jul 25, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up 0 recs