Reply With Quote
I mean Jam Stone has a case if they were playing H.O.R.S.E.
Otherwise, i'd like for him to tell me that that the defensive schemes for both teams were the same for the guards and centers. lol
lol those are because of the lopsided wins they got in Houston against Houston.
These stats have to be put in context. The spurs guards were left more wide open, and they were daring them to shoot. San Antonio couldn't allow for that, since houston had better perimeter shooting.
Last edited by Ignignokt; 02-15-2015 at 03:51 PM.
I mean Jam Stone has a case if they were playing H.O.R.S.E.
Otherwise, i'd like for him to tell me that that the defensive schemes for both teams were the same for the guards and centers. lol
Where are you getting this bull from? 35%? Robinson shot 45% in the 1995 WCF.
Looks like he dropped his college algebra class too soon too tbh
Still, Hakeem's teammates shot worse than David's. Rockets' 3 point shooting wasn't a big advantage that series like you make it seem. Dream just ted on Robinson's legacy.
I'll go game by game:
GM 1 Houston wins
Houston minus Hakeem: 24-for-61 FG (39.3%), 5-for-16 3PT (31.3%)
San Antonio minus David: 28-for-61 FG (45.9%), 2-for-8 3PT (25%)
GM 2 Houston wins
HMH: 24-for-49 FG (49%), 9-for-19 3PT (47.4%)
SMD: 27-for-68 FG (39.7%), 4-for-18 3PT (22.2%)
GM 3 San Antonio wins
HMH: 20-for-48 FG (41.6%), 12-for-28 3PT (42.9%)
SMD: 26-for-60 FG (43.3%), 9-for-19 3PT (47.4%)
GM 4 San Antonio wins
HMH: 21-for-53 FG (39.6%), 3-for-16 3PT (18.8%)
SMD: 33-for-78 FG (42.3%), 4-for-12 3PT (33%)
GM 5 Houston wins
HMH: 21-for-51 FG (41.2%), 6-for-17 3PT (35.3%)
SMD: 27-for-55 FG (49.1%), 2-for-6 3PT (33%)
GM 6 Houston wins
HMH: 21-for-56 FG (37.5%), 8-for-29 3PT (27.6%)
SMD: 30-for-57 FG (52.6%), 2-for-7 3PT (28.6%)
Game 2 was the only game the Rockets supporting cast definitely outperformed the Spurs supporting cast.
It wasn't just the games 3 and 4 Spurs wins. With the exception of game 4, David's teammates outperformed Hakeem's teammates from the floor. The three point percentages were not much different. The difference was the much greater number of three point attempts Houston took. In that sense, yes, Hakeem's teammates (particularly Horry and Smith for a few games, but surprisingly not Drexler or Cassell) did space the floor more for Hakeem. The reality however was that all those three point attempts made for a bunch of misses and low FG shooting. While a number of the Spurs players did score well. In fact, look at particular games 5 and 6 where Hakeem destroyed David and how David's teammates scored the ball from the field.
Now take the top 3 secondary players for each team:
Houston (Drexler, Horry, Smith): 86-for-200 FG (43%), 30-for-86 3PT (34.9%), 40.8 PPG
San Antonio (Sean, Avery, Del Negro): 106-for-218 FG (48.6%), 10-for-27 3PT (37%), 44.5 PPG
Games 3 and 4 did not skew the overall series numbers the way you think they did.
You are correct. I made a mistake. I double checked the other numbers to make sure I didn't make other mistakes. The other numbers should be accurate. It does show David wasn't as bad shooting the ball. He did have a pair of games where he shot the ball very well. Then 3 games where he shot under 40%, including a 5-for-17 (29%) game in game 1. But yes I made a mistake and I apologize. The point remains the same. Hakeem severely outplayed David in the series. And if you go game by game, as far as scoring goes, Hakeem whooped David every game with the exception of game 4.
And just for s and giggles, this exercise of adding a collection of numbers (like points) and then dividing that number by another number (like number of games) is simple arithmetic, not algebra. I made a poor arithmetic mistake. It doesn't take algebra to add numbers and use division.
Oh good, I thought it took PDEs and harmonic analysis to compute shooting percentages
I know you be like
BUT THE PERCENTAGES
THE PERCENTAGES
OOGA BOOGA!!
but the reason san anto shot better was because they were left wide open and houston focused their d on stopping robinson. It was the opposite for the spurs, they didn't double hakeem and focused equally on both the post and perimeter.
What proves my point is that Houston shot on average 2x more three point shots than the spurs. The spurs didn't attempt that many shots because the fact is that they didn't rely on the 3, and were not solid from it. Most of the shots from the spurs came from inside the arch and on fast breaks. The spurs were more of a run and gun team, they scored more on transition.
shots from 3pt range
Hou: 125
SA:70
Shots made from 3pt range
Hou:43
SA:23
So Hou shot 34% from 3 and SA 32% but they made twice more 3's.
The reason the FG% is more skewed in san antonios favor is because Houston shot almost twice as many shots from 3.
Right, but the only two games where there was a big difference in three pointers made were games 2 and 6. And even in each of those games, those three pointers made were offset by the two pointers made by the Spurs.
Game 2: Houston makes 5 more three pointers (15 more points), San Antonio makes 8 more two pointers (16 more points)
Game 6: Houston makes 6 more three pointers (18 more points), San Antonio makes 15 more two pointers (30 more points)
You can add game 5 as well, Houston 12 more points on three pointers, San Antonio 20 more points in two pointers. In every single game of the series, any advantage Houston got in more points by made three pointers, San Antonio countered by scoring more points on made two pointers. The advantage you think was there is a facade. Now that's not to say there isn't some mental advantage or momentum swing by big three pointers made. But it didn't end up being the difference. We know where the difference in the series came from. The center position.
And this began with your notion that David's supporting cast couldn't shoot. Fact is, David's supporting cast actually scored more and at a more efficient rate than Hakeem's cast. No, they didn't have quite the three point threats Hakeem had. But, they weren't the reason the Spurs lost. Hakeem was dropping an efficient 40 points every other game. He completely outplayed David. This is not news to anybody.
Why do people give Robinson so much for losing to Olajuwon? Ewing's the one who actually shot 36% in his series against Hakeem. Robinson got outplayed pretty badly, but he didn't completely the bed like Ewing did against a far inferior Rockets team whose second best player was Vernon Maxwell.
Didn’t have to, I watched him regularly during his prime. And no, as skilled as he was, he’s not a guard, and cannot play like a guard, especially that of today’s wing players.
No, that was a comment, not an argument. A strawman argument has to be an argument. I have never heard of strawman comments.
Then Duncan playing in today’s game when he’s out of prime is related to him playing in his prime is related to the topic. See? Related.
Like I said before, just b/c you can’t see the similarities doesn’t mean they aren’t similar.
Then the entire point of the back and forth is moot, because I clearly said in my off-hand comment that Hakeem wouldn’t be as successful in TODAY’s game as he was in the 90s, and obviously, a huge part of that has to deal with the today’s guards (wings) and defense.
I actually don’t, I actually think the Rockets would beat the Bulls rather easily even if Jordan was there. I actually think the Bulls wouldn’t make the finals 8 years in a row because the team would burn out. But in the historical context, it does raise questions.
As well as the wings of today? Yes, I don’t think Hakeem would be able to dribble and drive to the capacity of today’s wings, even average ones.
I listed the games. I don’t have archives, but I remember Antonio Davis guarding Hakeem in those games.
You still haven’t listed any facts to support your claim that Smits is much more agile and mobile than Yao.
You said something about strawman arguments earlier?
Numbers clearly show that Noah and Mutombo are comparable, and no, Howard is the better offensive player, Matiejunas is the more skilled. There are huge differences between the two. Rony Seikaly was a more skilled offensive player than Shaq, but Shaq is a million times better an offensive player than Seikaly ever was.
Why?
Explain. I would say you have trouble distinguishing between better offensive player with more skilled offensive player.
And yet only 24.9% of his shots come within 10 feet of the basket.
Hakeem would be used as a second fiddle now? How is that relevant to the topic, something you are so anal about?
Yeah, guarding Dwight Howard wasn't a major contribution.How, but playing 23 minutes a game and putting up 4.2 fouls a game? Sure he was a great defender in that series, which is consistent with what I said a big man in today’s game is primarily used for, but he wasn’t the type of player to have the offense go through him.
I am not sure if you understand my point, I am not saying bigs are useless in todays’ game, I am saying bigs are having a far more diminished role in today’s game, and a huge part of that is on the offensive end. I recalled saying earlier that bigs are now more important in the defensive cog, facilitator and high post passing role. The years or running an offense through a big in the low blocks is dead because it stifles ball movement and allow teams to defend you much more effectively, and a large part due to the zone.
Because the rest of the centers are even worse? It’s like call Jamaal Magloire an allstar.
This is the part I disagree with, bigs are no longer the most important position in the league. It’s very important from a defensive and passing perspective, but the league has changed the rules to tip the advantage to wing players.
With Conley shooting about the same as them. In the 90s, the FGA would tip more towards the bigs and Conley would’ve gotten less shots.
Yeah, he shouldn’t even be getting the ball. Mutombo was horrible offensively. Just like how Noah is 7th on his team in FGA with a comparably bad offensive game. Also notice how bad those Nuggets were on offense.So in 1993, when Mutombo had the 4th highest FGA on the team, you call that "force feeding" him the ball?
That’s more than 10% decrease in FGA and almost a 50% decrease in FTA. That’s significant.
Of course, it’s a huge deal, no question. Having an offensively flexible big like Millsap, who can shoot with great consistency from 16+ is a huge asset, as opposed to having Smith the chucker.
ORTGs actually take into account possessions.
They both suck, and great that they missed games because they would have taken shots away from Davis, which would undermine your point.
Great advice. I will take it into consideration.
I have some advice for you too, me not stating something doesn’t mean I disagree with it.
Then state those numbers. You want to say pace is a contributor I should have taken, then show the pace.
It was specific, and your answer is it depends despite you earlier, clearly stated that a primary player having better players will lead to better stats. You stated it, I didn’t.
But now, you are arguing otherwise, saying switching Brown for Barkley caused Olajuwon’s numbers to dipped. You are contradicting yourself. So you are either incorrect in one instance, or incorrect in another (well, or incorrect in both).
You already did. And the Raptors stunk that year because they couldn’t score, not because they couldn’t defend. (GSW was another story though).
And just because they sucked didn’t mean they didn’t benefit from it, they were playing against other teams that can use the zone as well.
And both of their skilled bigs are averaging less than 14 shots a game, as opposed to skilled bigs in the 90s that shot 20 a game.
Ahh .. the tried and true you said it so you have to prove it, all I have to say is no I don’t agree as if you have never stated anything in the thread like Smits > Yao with nothing to back it up. Boils down to it, it really a coward’s way out, but regardless.
http://www.quora.com/2012-13-NBA-Sea...efense-so-good
Thibodeau’s defense has been copied and used a few seasons, and one of the major things is to close down on the shooters, same with Popovich’s defense.
Also an article about how the Bucks is utilizing length and athleticism to cover more ground.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/mi...or-the-future/
Can't find too many detailed videos on youtube, but this is what I found:
The reason the numbers were somewhat similar was because the Spurs shooters were left wide open time after time as the Rockets were crowding Robinson all game long (watch the videos). On defense, the Spurs were neither doubling Hakeem nor guarding their man, when they finally forced Hakeem to pass, they would leave the Rockets shooters wide opened for shots. It was frustrating to watch.
Over the course of the series, the Rockets shot 44 for 127 from three, the spurs 23 from 72. In other words, the Spurs shot and made about half of what the Rockets made, and you don't think that had an impact on spacing, which allowed the Rockets to crowd Robinson? Avery Johnson taking 79 shots itself is a problem, because the Rockets were leaving him wide open the entire game. This is the guy who proved to everyone he can shoot because he nailed a wide opened 15 footer against the Knicks. You and I can nail a wide open 15 footer.
Overall, obviously the Spurs supporting casts would score more than the Rockets supporting casts, because the Spurs were running singles on Hakeem, and the Rockets were doubling and tripling Robinson all series long. That's the function of the defenses played.
You want more proof robinson was doubled and tripled throughout? He shot 71 FTA in the series, with the next most Elliott at 29. Hakeem had 29 fouls in the series (expected, because he is the primary defender on Robinson), and yet other players like Drexler (21), Cassell (20), elie (20), Horry (10), and Jones (19) all fouled at an extremely high rate as well. It possibly couldn't have been them fouling their man, because Eliott only shot 29 FTs the entire series (that's less than 5 a game), and nobody else even had more than 20FTas. Other than Jones, the other 4 Rockets with high foul rates were largely perimeter players, and the only logical conclusion is that they picked up the fouls by doubling Robinson (also based on what I recalled).
So no, the defenses were entirely different, and the Spurs players SHOULD shoot better than the Rockets players, and they only did it, but marginally so.
Go find game 6 clips.
It's convenient you post only game 1. After Hakeem kept dropping 40 points on close to 60% shooting, you think the Spurs kept playing him the same way? If you find game 6 clips, you'll see not only is Hakeem double teamed most of the time, they often threw 3 defenders at him and he still scored. Game 1 doesn't tell you much because early on in a playoff series is the feeling out process and teams adjust depending on what happens those first few games.
Post the clips then.
I also posted stats that strongly support my memory.
Hakeem dominated that serie against David... Never understood Spurs fans trying to spin dat tbh... I mean being dominated by the big who had the most 3/4 years dominant of any big in recent history is nothing to ashamed of. David had an amazing career and btw some amazing peak years. Hakeem was just in another world that year. Props to him, David got his ring later.
Robinson moved on, Spurs fans should do the same
No. I will not. You seem particularly adept at spending hours of mindless research for your messageboard machinations. I'm certain you are well educated on how to use youtube and its search feature. Simply type in any number of permutations of "spurs," "rockets," "1995," "wcf," and "game 6" and find the clips yourself. You found clips of game 1. I'm confident in your ability to find clips of game 6.
You don't understand the foundation of your own argument. What's the purpose of having dribbling/driving skills? It's to attack the basket and break down the defense. Of course Olajuwon's dribbling/driving skills are nowhere near those of a guard, but you're forgetting that he's a center being guarded by other centers.
His dribbling/driving skills were easily good enough to go past his defender and force the defense to collapse.
Sorry, but no. All you've done is state the two things you're trying to compare. That doesn't make them related to the topic.
If you think it's related, you need to explain how current Duncan's performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.
I think that if Olajuwon played today, he's have fewer points but more assists. I also think that he'd have a much more successful career.
Who cares if you listed the games. All that does is prove they played in the same game. It also says that Olajuwon started and Davis came off the bench. I'm sure that at some point, Davis did guard Olajuwon, but the onus is on you to prove that he guarded Olajuwon often enough to support your argument.
Sure I did. I told you go to youtuble and watch their highlights.
Numbers clearly show that Noah and Mutombo have comparable stats. You're incorrectly interpreting them as saying that Noah and Mutombo have comparable offensive games.
100% wrong. Motiejunas is more skilled than Howard AND the better offensive player. Look at how they get their points. Motiejunas gets a lot of isolation plays in the post, and he's capable of stretching the defense by hitting 3 pointers. Dwight's points come from offensive rebounds and pick & roll lobs. In other words, Dwight's teammates are creating opportunities for him.
This thread has always had a 1on1 component. I don't know why, but it has. If you don't believe me, go back and read.
You're correlating stats with ability. That's how you're misusing them.
That's not surprising. His one-legged fadeaway in the post will usually take him beyong 10 feet from the basket.
You need to improve your focus. You're losing track of your arguments. However, since they're pathetic arguments anyway, you're not losing much.
I said Gasol was the 2nd fiddle, but that doesn't change the fact that he was drafted early and eventually played a major role on a championship team. I was proving that GM's aren't stupid when they use high draft picks on bigs.
I never said anything to the contrary. In case you're wondering, there's a perfect example of a strawman argument. However, you're still wrong. He eventually became proficient enough in the post to be the center of an offense. He even made the all-star team, but he got injured and never recovered.
You originally said he wasn't a major contributor in the 2009 playoffs. I pointed out that guarding Dwight Howard was a major contribution.
I understand your point, but it's wrong. You base your opinion based on the dearth of offensively gifted big men. I base my opinion on the nature of the game. Memphis runs the bulk of their offense through the post (M.Gasol/Randolph). Look at Anthony Davis. As good as he is now, he's only in his 3rd year. You don't think he'll be good enough to be the centerpiece of an offense?
That's simply because there haven't been many offensively skilled bigs. But by virtue of their size, they're still effective defensively. When Yao was playing, the Rockets ran their offense through him.
Nope, it's not dead. It's on hiatus, waiting for a big who is skilled enough to be the centerpiece of an offense.
The last time Shaq made an all-star team, it was 2009 and he was 36 years old. He averaged 18 ppg and was named to the all-nba 3rd team. Do you really think that a prime Shaq would have trouble in today's game?
Ok, so what's your argument? That the crop of centers in the league in 2006 was so bad that a 33 year old Shaq was named to the all-nba 1st team by default? But if a prime Shaq were to play in 2006, he'd struggle?
That's fine. But you should realize that since the drafting tendencies of most GM's disagree with you, you're probably wrong.
Conley shoots about the same as them individually. But both Gasol and Randolph both play in the post so about 27 fga comes from a post-oriented offense.
In 1995, Olajuwon averaged 21.5 fga and 7.5 fta. Drexler averaged 15 fga and 5.5 fta. In 1994, Olajuwon averaged 21.2 fga and 6.8 fta. Maxwell averaged 13 fga and 2.5 fta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX89ijwRFV8
Here you go. In case you don't want to watch it, Mutombo got the ball in the post 4 times. He had 3 hook shots and an up and under move.
1.6 fga decrease. 0.8 decrease in fta. Sorry, that's not significant. Once again, you're looking at things out of context.
Ok, then don't attribute the Hawks' success to Horford averaging less shots.
They actually don't. A player's ORTG is based on production per 100 possessions.
Not necessarily. Some of Davis' highest FGA games this season have come with both Holiday and Gordon playing.
Of course not. But by failing to consider mitigating cir stances, you're missing out on the big picture. And that will undermine your argument.
It's your argument, not mine. If you want to make the argument, then consider pace.
No, your question wasn't specific. Not even close. Not all "better" players are "better" to the same degree.
And I'm pretty sure that I said something about "roles" which you ignored. That makes a big difference.
I haven't changed my argument at all. You think all better players are equal. I don't, because I understand that if a teammate is good enough, it'll change the dynamic of the offense. That's why I gave you the Chucky Brown/Otis Thorpe/Tim Duncan scenario.
Yeah....there's a difference between a team that "can use zone" and a team that "uses zone".
Memphis has 2 offensively skilled bigs. Teams in the 90's had 1. Look at the aggregate.
I've told you to go to youtube and look it up. But it's pretty clear you refuse to do that b/c you know I'm right.
So you're saying defenses in the 90's didn't close out on shooters?
You have a tendency of not reading the articles you link. As a result, you're unaware that they don't support your argument.
Here are the relevant paragraphs from the article:
So in summation, you asserted that players from this era would be able to double team the ball handler and then close out on open shooters faster than in the 90's. And as support, you provided an article that says that Milwaukee tries to do this with a rookie Jabari Parker and a 2nd year Antetokounmpo (using a rookie and 2nd year player to make an argument about "this era" is weak). And the article further states that although Milwaukee tries to run a defense that relies on their athleticism, they are still one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA while playing the league's 3rd easiest schedule.
All in all, I'm not quite sure it supports your argument. However, it supports my argument about Motiejunas. Here's an excerpt:
If you removed the backboard, Duncan would be fkd!
I don't think they have it in them.Robinson moved on, Spurs fans should do the same
I couldn't find it, and the stats (those that you just ignored) backed me up.
If you can't find it, then just say so.
And you are forgetting the mechanism in a drive and kick to break down a zone defense isn’t to have a center to do it against another center.
No arguments over this, just that he is not, and has never exhibited the ability to do so to break down the zone like modern wing players do.
Same player, related.
Define more successful.
I think he’d have few points and more assists, but then you were arguing that since Davis is averaging 24.5ppg, Hakeem would have averaged more than that, and close to his prime numbers. Which one is it? Will he average the same, more or less points?
This was my original quote, and both your viewpoint and my original post can be consistent.
Hakeem played 31 minutes, both Smits and Dale Davis played only 28 minutes due to foul trouble. It reasons that Antonio Davis, being a primarily defensive player, would have guarded Hakeem, either one on one, or as a help defender to some degree.
That’s not any type of fact. It’s purely subjective, and I don’t agree with it.
I didn’t say they have comparable offensive games, I said they have the comparably effective offensive games. My original statement was:
Pick and roll lobs and offense rebound points count less than isolation plays now?
Howard averaged 18.2 ppg for his career, with a career high of 22.9. He had a career Orating of 110, with a high of 113. Motiejunas averages 7.6 with a high of 11.6, with oratings of 105 and 108. Even his per 100 possession highs of 23.2 points and per 36 minute highs of 16.7 points pales in comparison to Howard’s (32 and 21.9). Even if you factor in assists, Motiejunas is no where close to as effective as Howard on offense.
But we are talking about Mutombo and Noah now, and we have been specifically talking about being an offensive threat, not a 1on1 player.
No I am not, you are confusing skills with better. I am the coach, player A gets me better chances at points even though he doesn’t have the skills of player B, I go to player A for points.
It is what it is, and 10 feet + is mid range. Unless you want to talk about Dirk camping in the paint and violate 3 seconds on his fade away shots.
So how would a second fiddle dominate today’s game? Which was my original statement (see quoted above). You talking about losing focus now? You seem to have trouble following the original argument, which all subsequent arguments should relate to.
He wasn’t, with his constant foul trouble and playing half a game. And no, we have been talking constantly about how Hakeem wouldn’t dominate in today’s game, referring over and over again to his offensive game, and even talking about how today’s bigs provide help on defense and passing, and yet you like to talk about Bynum as a defensive player. Follow your own advice and focus.
Yes, with his 4.2 fouls a game.
He already is the centerpiece of the offense, and his team sucks.
And Gasol and Randolph is getting a lot less shots than they would have if they played in the 90s.
And the Rockets weren’t successful, which leads to the original point of how Hakeem wouldn’t be able to dominate in today’s game, because if everything went through him, the team wouldn’t be as successful, and if not everything ran though him, he wouldn’t put up those phenomenal stats that he did.
Well, I agree on the hiatus part, but It’s until the rules change back to big friendly.
Not 3-peat successful though. That style of play would not yield that type of success.
Compared to 2001, yeah. The Lakers wouldn’t be as successful (15-1, three peats).
GMs who’s overtly tanking and sucking at their jobs?
You really want to compare two players to one player? Then add up all the perimeter player shots.
Point being? 21.5 is greater than 15?
What’s your point? That Mutombo in the best game of his career posted up 4 times? Here is another youtube video:
Noah drive and kicked, shot a (n ugly) 22 footer, posted and passed, drove and passed, faced up and got a sweeping hook, posted up with a lefty hook, drove the lane for layups (both left and right hands), jump hooks, outlet passes, leading the break, pick and rolls, passes to the post, looks way more offensively skilled than Mutombo.
Yes, 10% and 50% drops are not significant.
It’s a major part of it, spreading the ball around the court, and opening up the offense to allow better spacing is a major reason why the Hawks are much more successful this year than last.
A metric that tracks a players output per 100 possessions is taking possessions into account by normalizing it. It was a response to :
Orating already normalized it.
Sample size.
Such as going into specific games where Davis had high FGAs?
I don’t consider pace to be important in the instance.
Then your response would be “depends”, instead of going around in circles that contradicts your own points.
As in Hakeem would play a different role in today’s game that doesn’t have him shoot 20 FGA a game would reduce his offensive output?
I don’t consider them equal, I consider better players as better though. Your one and only example of each contradicts each other. You are basically, better supporting players allow the primary player to put up better stats, except when they don’t, which isn’t a point.
Raptors were 15th in DRTG that year, middle of the pack. They were horrible on offense though.
Yeah, and a team that can use zone will be better than the same team that cannot use zone.
As in when Charles Barkley joined Hakeem and Hakeem’s stats decreased?
That’s not a fact, it’s an opinion by looking at a youtube video. I don’t agree with it.
You were saying something about strawman arguments? So what is it this time? All close out are equal, only when they are not?So you're saying defenses in the 90's didn't close out on shooters?
Absolutely taking paragraphs out of context. The primary point is that athletes help close out on shooters and defend in a zone environment, but Bucks struggled because they are young and inexperienced and have trouble with rebounds.
As of now, the Bucks are 4th in D Rating by heavily defending the ball side and utilizing the zone as a weapon.
Great for him, still not scoring points often enough to be a better offensive player than Howard.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
