Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 166
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia

    What's really wrong with our defense

    We keep talking about how this year's team has the worst defensive efficiency in the Pomeroy era, so I thought it might be worthwhile to break it down and analyze the pieces.

    According to Pomeroy, there are four factors that go into defensive efficiency: defensive rebounding percentage (what percentage of available defensive rebounds do you get); free throw rate (how often do you send your opponent to the free throw line); turnover percentage (what percentage of your opponents possessions end up in a turnover; and effective field goal percentage (shooting percentage counting made three-point shots as 1.5 and made two-point shots as 1.0).

    Here's how this year's team stands up to the past dozen Duke teams:

    Code:
    Year	DReb%	ft rate	to%	eFG%
    2012	65.7	30.1	20.0	48.0
    2011	64.9	29.6	21.0	44.5
    2010	59.4	34.0	21.4	43.6
    2009	62.6	31.0	23.5	47.8
    2008	66.0	31.9	24.7	47.5
    2007	63.5	29.5	22.1	46.0
    2006	69.1	27.6	22.5	46.1
    2005	62.7	32.0	21.8	42.2
    2004	60.7	31.9	24.4	44.7
    2003	63.0	37.6	24.4	47.5
    2002	65.5	32.1	25.6	46.0
    2001	62.9	28.3	24.9	45.7
    Our free throw rate is actually the 5th best of the 12 years, and our defensive rebound pct is the 3rd best. But the other two factors are the worst figures we've managed in the past dozen years. Having said that, our turnover pct is not all that different from several of the years, including last season and the 2010 national champs. But I think our defensive eFG% is historically bad (48%). Only three years I charted were even close to as bad (2009, 2008, and 2003), and in all of those years we had much better turnover rates.

    So I broke it down further, looking at our D against threes, twos, and total overall. The last column in the table below is what percentage of our opponents' shots were three-pointers.

    Code:
    Year	3 made	3 att	3 pct	2 made  2 att	2 pct	totmade tot att	tot pct % threes
    2012	88	269	0.327	405	849	0.477	493	1118	0.441	0.317
    2011	176	543	0.324	720	1667	0.432	896	2210	0.405	0.326
    2010	158	559	0.283	725	1643	0.441	883	2202	0.401	0.340
    2009	183	542	0.338	722	1544	0.468	905	2086	0.434	0.351
    2008	167	507	0.329	713	1518	0.470	880	2025	0.435	0.334
    2007	139	441	0.315	626	1371	0.457	765	1812	0.422	0.322
    2006	143	471	0.304	809	1744	0.464	952	2215	0.430	0.270
    2005	128	420	0.305	655	1586	0.413	783	2006	0.390	0.265
    2004	176	543	0.324	702	1614	0.435	878	2157	0.407	0.336
    2003	164	474	0.346	675	1415	0.477	839	1889	0.444	0.335
    2002	168	555	0.303	724	1559	0.464	892	2114	0.422	0.356
    2001	207	602	0.344	821	1869	0.439	1028	2471	0.416	0.322
    2000	197	551	0.358	737	1688	0.437	934	2239	0.417	0.326
    1999	191	635	0.301	781	1849	0.422	972	2484	0.391	0.343
    1998	156	512	0.305	685	1532	0.447	841	2044	0.411	0.334
    1997	149	438	0.340	640	1433	0.447	789	1871	0.422	0.306
    Our three-point defense seems OK. Six of the past 16 Duke teams were worse and two others were practically identical, so we're middle of the pack for a Duke team in defending the three. So far, so good. Except opponents try fewer threes against us this year than all but three of the past 16 seasons (2006, 2005, and 1997), which suggests the key lies in two-point shots. Where this year's team is tied for worst among the past 16 years in stopping the two-pointer.

    I assume this means we're giving up a lot more dunks and layups than usual. Which I suppose I should have been able to guess without all the charts. Combine that with the low turnover rate, and it spells bad D, like we saw in the 2nd half against Florida State today.

    How can we fix it? I don't know. Perhaps we should pack it in more, clog up the middle and force people to take more threes with people running at them, sort of like we saw from UVa. Maybe we need to take more chances and force more turnovers. Or possibly we just need to get better at rotating and/or stopping the penetration of opposing PGs.

    Frankly, I was hoping for more illumination from the numbers, but you can't force the data. Since I did the work, I'm posting the charts, and maybe someone else will have a better idea.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    We keep talking about how this year's team has the worst defensive efficiency in the Pomeroy era, so I thought it might be worthwhile to break it down and analyze the pieces.

    According to Pomeroy, there are four factors that go into defensive efficiency: defensive rebounding percentage (what percentage of available defensive rebounds do you get); free throw rate (how often do you send your opponent to the free throw line); turnover percentage (what percentage of your opponents possessions end up in a turnover; and effective field goal percentage (shooting percentage counting made three-point shots as 1.5 and made two-point shots as 1.0).

    Here's how this year's team stands up to the past dozen Duke teams:

    Code:
    Year	DReb%	ft rate	to%	eFG%
    2012	65.7	30.1	20.0	48.0
    2011	64.9	29.6	21.0	44.5
    2010	59.4	34.0	21.4	43.6
    2009	62.6	31.0	23.5	47.8
    2008	66.0	31.9	24.7	47.5
    2007	63.5	29.5	22.1	46.0
    2006	69.1	27.6	22.5	46.1
    2005	62.7	32.0	21.8	42.2
    2004	60.7	31.9	24.4	44.7
    2003	63.0	37.6	24.4	47.5
    2002	65.5	32.1	25.6	46.0
    2001	62.9	28.3	24.9	45.7
    Our free throw rate is actually the 5th best of the 12 years, and our defensive rebound pct is the 3rd best. But the other two factors are the worst figures we've managed in the past dozen years. Having said that, our turnover pct is not all that different from several of the years, including last season and the 2010 national champs. But I think our defensive eFG% is historically bad (48%). Only three years I charted were even close to as bad (2009, 2008, and 2003), and in all of those years we had much better turnover rates.

    So I broke it down further, looking at our D against threes, twos, and total overall. The last column in the table below is what percentage of our opponents' shots were three-pointers.

    Code:
    Year	3 made	3 att	3 pct	2 made  2 att	2 pct	totmade tot att	tot pct % threes
    2012	88	269	0.327	405	849	0.477	493	1118	0.441	0.317
    2011	176	543	0.324	720	1667	0.432	896	2210	0.405	0.326
    2010	158	559	0.283	725	1643	0.441	883	2202	0.401	0.340
    2009	183	542	0.338	722	1544	0.468	905	2086	0.434	0.351
    2008	167	507	0.329	713	1518	0.470	880	2025	0.435	0.334
    2007	139	441	0.315	626	1371	0.457	765	1812	0.422	0.322
    2006	143	471	0.304	809	1744	0.464	952	2215	0.430	0.270
    2005	128	420	0.305	655	1586	0.413	783	2006	0.390	0.265
    2004	176	543	0.324	702	1614	0.435	878	2157	0.407	0.336
    2003	164	474	0.346	675	1415	0.477	839	1889	0.444	0.335
    2002	168	555	0.303	724	1559	0.464	892	2114	0.422	0.356
    2001	207	602	0.344	821	1869	0.439	1028	2471	0.416	0.322
    2000	197	551	0.358	737	1688	0.437	934	2239	0.417	0.326
    1999	191	635	0.301	781	1849	0.422	972	2484	0.391	0.343
    1998	156	512	0.305	685	1532	0.447	841	2044	0.411	0.334
    1997	149	438	0.340	640	1433	0.447	789	1871	0.422	0.306
    Our three-point defense seems OK. Six of the past 16 Duke teams were worse and two others were practically identical, so we're middle of the pack for a Duke team in defending the three. So far, so good. Except opponents try fewer threes against us this year than all but three of the past 16 seasons (2006, 2005, and 1997), which suggests the key lies in two-point shots. Where this year's team is tied for worst among the past 16 years in stopping the two-pointer.

    I assume this means we're giving up a lot more dunks and layups than usual. Which I suppose I should have been able to guess without all the charts. Combine that with the low turnover rate, and it spells bad D, like we saw in the 2nd half against Florida State today.

    How can we fix it? I don't know. Perhaps we should pack it in more, clog up the middle and force people to take more threes with people running at them, sort of like we saw from UVa. Maybe we need to take more chances and force more turnovers. Or possibly we just need to get better at rotating and/or stopping the penetration of opposing PGs.

    Frankly, I was hoping for more illumination from the numbers, but you can't force the data. Since I did the work, I'm posting the charts, and maybe someone else will have a better idea.
    Great work. The one thing I would say that really angers me is when I see Mason for instance just give up a lay up without trying to foul the guy. He does some lazy late shot block where he has absolutely no chance at preventing the layup. I think there should be a policy on the team that the #1 priority is that the other team does not get layups. If you have to foul them to put them on the line, do it. Frankly I'd like to see our bigs give a few hard fouls to the other team to let them know that you will get punished if you go to the rim. Duke has 4 bigs that can play. There is no reason why our bigs should be worrying about foul trouble.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Good stuff Kedsy. Thanks.

    Good to see the eyeballs validated that it's our 2 point D as opposed to 3 point D, rebounding, etc. that is the problem. But then the question becomes: what aspect of our 2 point D is the real problem, because most shots taken are 2 pointers. Is it failure to stop dribble penetration, is it failure to recover/close onto shooters by our perimeter guys, poor play against screen/roll, is it failure by our bigs to stop post moves? My eyeballs tell me that it really has been a combination of things, different problems on different nights, different guys having better and worse nights, without a whole lot of rhyme or reason to it. I bet that is a source of frustration for the staff if they perceive what I do.

    To me, our inability to stay in front on the perimeter has probably been a more glaring problem than some of the others, but I can't say that it has been the direct result of more baskets surrendered than any other particular problem. The numbers I have compiled in the charting threads shed some light, but they, like the Pomeroy numbers (though much less sophisticated than KenPom obviously) don't tell the whole story.

    The best way to tell the real story is to go play-by-play and attribute each hoop to a particular problem and to a particular player(s) who caused the problem. I did that for our game earlier this year vs. Washington, and there is a thread on that, but it would need to be done over a series of games, or even better, the whole year, and it's just too time-consuming for anyone unless it would be their paying job to break it down like that. I guess that's why teams hire video coordinators -- that's what it takes to really drill down into this stuff. If I have time I may do it for this game, since everyone is so upset about the D we played, and I'm curious myself.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    How can we fix it? I don't know. Perhaps we should pack it in more, clog up the middle and force people to take more threes with people running at them, sort of like we saw from UVa. Maybe we need to take more chances and force more turnovers. Or possibly we just need to get better at rotating and/or stopping the penetration of opposing PGs.
    It's interesting to look at 2010. We had the worst defensive rebounding rate of the dozen years I charted, the 2nd worst free throw rate, and the 2nd worst turnover percentage. Yet we had the 4th best adjusted defensive efficiency in the land. Why? Because our defensive eFG% was our 2nd best over the past twelve seasons. Our defense against two-pointers was decent but not great (7th best in the past 16 years), but the reason our defensive eFG% was so good was we stopped the three-pointer at an astonishing rate, compared to the other Duke teams I looked at.

    It's really cool. We were OK at stopping twos, but not that great, and we more or less sucked at every other component of defensive efficiency -- except we were amazing at just one thing. And that one thing made our defense good enough to win the national championship.

    So maybe there's hope for this year's team. Let's get amazing at one thing, and perhaps the rest will follow...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nashville
    I think it confirms what we see with the eye test: too many lay-ups, and no turnovers. It's not like teams ever really hit threes against us, so to have an eFG% that high means we're really doing a bad job of giving up high-percentage shots inside the arc.

    The decent FT rate and rebounding percentage are somewhat of a testament to our big guys not being a major part of the problem, I think. It all boils down to our inability to effectively pressure the ball and keep guards out of the lane, and our lack of length to bother shots once they get there. Bad rotations and ball-screen defense aren't helping things either.

  6. #6
    And to add another point to what Kedsy said about the 2010 team being really good at one aspect and weak elsewhere and how that can be effective. It wasn't the only championship team to play like that. As a disclaimer, the era is obviously quite different and teams played quite differently, but the following is a nice illustration.

    The team with by far the worst eFG% allowed for a Duke team since the advent of the 3-point line is actually the 1991-92 team. And they weren't great at defensive rebounding or forcing turnovers either but had an extremely low free throw rate. I can only guess by browsing through the stats of the other top teams for context, but this probably wasn't a top 10 defensive squad like the 2010 team, but it obviously did enough.

    (Although that comparison only goes so far, since the '92 squad is probably one of the greatest offenses in NCAA history. They had by far the best offensive eFG% for any Duke team and it might the best of any NCAA team in the last 25 years.)

  7. #7
    Good summary, not sure if this fits the stats and def. eff., but I view it as a team defense question with the problem often being the second rotation, if not the first. And I think this has a lot to do with playing three guards and two bigs. A defender like Singler can cover and provide a great deal of help side d.
    Last edited by tele; 01-22-2012 at 07:33 AM.

  8. #8
    Nice post breaking down what many have concluded without the hard data.

    I think several people here have thought that this team isn't quick/athletic enough to stay in front of the ball handler with extended man-to-man pressure defense. It seems to me that the only possible solution (or at least the most logical one) is to gravitate back to our 2010 style of defense (i.e. more of a packed in and contain).

    Also if we are going to do this it might make the most sense to start both Plumlees and bring Kelly off of the bench b/c they are better rebounders and can take up more space in the paint that Ryan can.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg_Newton View Post
    I think it confirms what we see with the eye test: too many lay-ups, and no turnovers. It's not like teams ever really hit threes against us, so to have an eFG% that high means we're really doing a bad job of giving up high-percentage shots inside the arc.

    The decent FT rate and rebounding percentage are somewhat of a testament to our big guys not being a major part of the problem, I think. It all boils down to our inability to effectively pressure the ball and keep guards out of the lane, and our lack of length to bother shots once they get there. Bad rotations and ball-screen defense aren't helping things either.
    Quote Originally Posted by tele View Post
    Good summary, not sure if this fits the stats and def. eff., but I view it as a team defense question with the problem often being the second rotation, if not the first. And I think this has a lot to do with playing three guards and two bigs. A defender like Singler can cover and provide a great deal of help side d.
    Went to the game yesterday, first one I've seen in person. As others have commented, it was one of the better college games of the season in terms of overall quality of play and competitiveness.

    The morning after, I'm struck with a few observations that fit well with the analysis and comments in this thread:
    Florida State is a physically mature team with big, long, strong, quick athletes
    This year's Duke team does not have that caliber of athletes in abundance
    We are especially lacking in not having a versatile, athletic player anywhere between 6'4" and 6'10"
    Once an opposing team like FSU can penetrate our perimeter they overmatch our interior defense with a drive or good passing resulting in high quality shots, often lay-ups or dunks

    Don't have any ready prescription for this type of defensive weakness; we have to play with the players we have.
    Would certainly help to have shot a little better ourselves and win the game by just out-scoring the Seminoles.

    I'm afraid our flaws on defense could lead to a real ceiling as to what this team can achieve.
    We'll see what Coach K and the staff can do to adjust and improve.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Everyone says we don't have the athletes to be an elite team. I still contend it's the chemistry and lack of leadership. We don't talk ( communicate) with each other on the court like teams in the past. The help defense suffers because of this lack of playing as a "fist" (K's term). I would gladly welcome a new recruit like say some kid from Las Vegas coming in and developIng into our on court leader because no one seems to be accepting the challenge currently.

  11. #11
    Another factor: what role, if any, does our offense play into all? If a Duke player has an ill-advised drive, gets knocked to the floor, and the other team has a 5 on 4 run-out that results in a layup, it's not necessarily a problem of us being unable to stop penetration, but rather a problem of offensive shot selection, hustling back, what have you. Maybe these happen so infrequently so as to not affect the numbers. Still, I'm curious as to how offensive productivity (we make the 2d FT; we make the FG) might affect the defensive end.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Devilsfan View Post
    ...I still contend it's the chemistry and lack of leadership. ....
    Who is our Billy King, our Wojo, our Shane Battier, our Zoubek? Who's the player who relishes playing D? TT?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW View Post
    I think several people here have thought that this team isn't quick/athletic enough to stay in front of the ball handler with extended man-to-man pressure defense. It seems to me that the only possible solution (or at least the most logical one) is to gravitate back to our 2010 style of defense (i.e. more of a packed in and contain).
    Was thinking the same thing. Seems to me our on ball defense far outside of the 3 point arc is not generating much by way of turnovers. Our whole defense seems to break down if the on ball defender is beaten. Since the opposing guards seem to have figured out to just drive around the on ball defender and go 5 on 4, the on ball pressure also doesn't seem to be as disruptive to the opponent's offense as in past years.

    A this point I'd try sagging just below the arc by the guards, with the bigs packing it in. Shouldn't be as much of an adjustment since most of our guys did it in 2010.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia

    oops

    OK, I made a slight mistake. I put opposing Defensive rebound percentage in the table rather than our defensive rebounding percentage.

    Here's the correct table:

    Code:
    Year	DReb%	ft rate	to %	eFG%
    2012	68.5	30.1	20.0	48.0
    2011	66.8	29.6	21.0	44.5
    2010	67.5	34.0	21.4	43.6
    2009	66.8	31.0	23.5	47.8
    2008	66.2	40.6	17.1	47.5
    2007	69.6	31.9	24.7	46.0
    2006	62.2	27.6	22.5	46.1
    2005	63.2	32.0	21.8	42.2
    2004	62.9	31.9	24.4	44.7
    2003	65.1	37.6	24.4	47.5
    2002	65.9	32.1	25.6	46.0
    2001	63.8	28.3	24.9	45.7
    It actually doesn't change much. This year's team actually has the 2nd best defensive rebounding percentage of the twelve years (rather than 3rd as I reported above). Although the best Duke defensive rebounding team of the past dozen years was the 2007 team, which gave me a little shiver.

    The only substantive difference caused by my mistake is my analysis of the 2010 team. They were tied for 3rd best defensive rebounding pct, rather than the worst. Their free throw rate and turnover pct were both still 2nd worst, though, so for the most part my observation about that team still holds.

    Sorry about the mixup.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by TampaDuke View Post
    A this point I'd try sagging just below the arc by the guards, with the bigs packing it in. Shouldn't be as much of an adjustment since most of our guys did it in 2010.
    That was my original thought, too. But this morning, I wonder if our guards are tall enough to pull it off. Looking at the numbers, the 2010 team was only average (for a Duke team) at stopping the two, and if we played the same sort of D that team did, perhaps we can move our numbers stopping the two from awful to average. But that team stopped the three at by far the best rate of any Duke team in the past twelve years. We also featured a starting perimeter of 6'2, 6'5, 6'8. Our tallest perimeter now is 6'2, 6'5, 6'5. When Quinn or Tyler play, we're usually 6'0, 6'2, 6'5. And frankly I don't think Seth or Quinn are as tall as they're listed. If we're laying off the shooters and then running at them if they look like they're going to shoot, 6'0, 6'2, 6'5 is a LOT less likely to bother the shot than 6'2, 6'5, 6'8. So, I'm not sure the 2010 style would work for us this year.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    That was my original thought, too. But this morning, I wonder if our guards are tall enough to pull it off. Looking at the numbers, the 2010 team was only average (for a Duke team) at stopping the two, and if we played the same sort of D that team did, perhaps we can move our numbers stopping the two from awful to average. But that team stopped the three at by far the best rate of any Duke team in the past twelve years. We also featured a starting perimeter of 6'2, 6'5, 6'8. Our tallest perimeter now is 6'2, 6'5, 6'5. When Quinn or Tyler play, we're usually 6'0, 6'2, 6'5. And frankly I don't think Seth or Quinn are as tall as they're listed. If we're laying off the shooters and then running at them if they look like they're going to shoot, 6'0, 6'2, 6'5 is a LOT less likely to bother the shot than 6'2, 6'5, 6'8. So, I'm not sure the 2010 style would work for us this year.
    Good points.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Reilly View Post
    Who is our Billy King, our Wojo, our Shane Battier, our Zoubek? Who's the player who relishes playing D? TT?
    I think Miles could become that man in the backcourt, and TT up top. Still think Seth could become a top-notch thief on the perimeter too -- he has very quick hands.
    "Enjoy every sandwich" -- Warren Zevon

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    That was my original thought, too. But this morning, I wonder if our guards are tall enough to pull it off. Looking at the numbers, the 2010 team was only average (for a Duke team) at stopping the two, and if we played the same sort of D that team did, perhaps we can move our numbers stopping the two from awful to average. But that team stopped the three at by far the best rate of any Duke team in the past twelve years. We also featured a starting perimeter of 6'2, 6'5, 6'8. Our tallest perimeter now is 6'2, 6'5, 6'5. When Quinn or Tyler play, we're usually 6'0, 6'2, 6'5. And frankly I don't think Seth or Quinn are as tall as they're listed. If we're laying off the shooters and then running at them if they look like they're going to shoot, 6'0, 6'2, 6'5 is a LOT less likely to bother the shot than 6'2, 6'5, 6'8. So, I'm not sure the 2010 style would work for us this year.
    That would be a problem and I suppose the only possible solution would be:

    PG - Rivers 6'4"
    SG - Dawkins 6'4"
    SF - Gbinjie 6'7"
    PF - Plumlee 6'10"
    C - Plumlee 6'10"

  19. #19

    I think that the real problem is

    not enough big players that K thinks are ready to play.

    We have Mason and Miles as bigs, 10 fouls. I see Ryan as inside out, as a big 5 more fouls.
    So against FSU we had to be careful not to get fouls inside in the second half and it hurt the defense.

    This problem will continue unless he plays Josh or Michael more.

    In 2010 we had 4 bigs, Brian, Lance and the Plumless. Kyle could and did play inside, as did Ryan some. 6 players, 30 fouls.

    SoCal

  20. #20

    Tinkering

    Quote Originally Posted by TampaDuke View Post
    Good points.
    Agreed, the relative size of our guards make run outs to 3 point shooters an issue. A possible maxim: You can be long and a little slower, or short and very quick and forge an effective strategy. If you are short and not that quick you have a weakness waiting to be exploited.

    The guard heights of the primary contenders in the ACC:

    UNC (now w/o Strickland): 6' 4", 6' 6", 6' 8"
    Fla St: 6' 5", 6' 5", 6' 5"
    NC State: 6' 5", 6' 5", 6' 6"
    Virginia: 5' 11", 6'1, 6' 6"

    The only team with shorter guards (UVa) we managed to eke out a victory at home against and handled their guards fairly well. It was Scott who wore us down a bit.

    We are going to figure out how we handle bigger guards in conference long before we are 'exposed' in the tourney one way or the other, as the games most meaningful to creating separation in the conference race all involve big guards for the rest of the year.

    In fact UNC may well have one of the tallest starting five's in college basketball history. At least they aren't also loaded with quick penetrators which is a relief.

    This teams greatest strength thus far is the athleticism of the brothers Plum. They have masked a lot of our guard defensive liabilities as they have controlled the interior fairly well even though they are often having to rotate and cover incessantly due to our need to play up on opposing guards and having them dribble by into the lane. At times it's not enough as it was way to easy for both Fla. State and Virginia to get the ball deep in the paint for their best scorers (Scott and James) in the second half, once they realized their advantage there.

    Man if Mason leaves next year we are really going to see how we can operate without those two cleaning the glass, creating defensive headaches, and getting up and down the court at amazing speed for their size.

    Let the tinkering continue...!


    PS - Great stat work Kedsy, good to have objective measures even if they aren't conclusive.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-03-2011, 03:17 PM
  2. What's wrong with this picture?
    By Deladev in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 11:17 AM
  3. Is something wrong with Miles??? NO!!
    By redick4pres in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 01-22-2011, 06:14 AM
  4. We're in the wrong division
    By Olympic Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-14-2009, 01:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •