Letter to the Editor: Random Thoughts On Georgetown's Season And Reasons For Cautious Optimism
by CasualHoya on Mar 23, 2011 11:05 AM EDT
in Random Ramblings
Email
PrintDear Casual Hoya,
As a lifelong Georgetown fan (I grew up in DC and came of age during the Ewing years), I discovered THE GLOBAL PHENOMENON last fall and have found it to be a fabulous waste of time (Casually). Like most of the regulars on your blog, I am disappointed by the way this season turned out. However, I am much less critical. In my opinion, between the raw talent on this team, the lack of bench strength (especially in the frontcourt), and the style that John Thompson III prefers to implement, I believe this team significantly over-achieved until the fateful first Cincinnati game.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
However, I am also cautiously optimistic about next season.
Letter to the Editor continued after The Jump:
Chris Wright – a very good, natural, undersized two-guard who has worked his tail off to become a good point guard
Jason Clark – a solid, natural two-guard playing the appropriate position
Austin Freeman – a very good natural, undersized small forward in a shooting guard’s body who plays a hybrid guard/forward position
Nate Lubick – a natural, solid college power forward playing the appropriate position
Julian Vaughn – a natural, solid but limited center in a power forward’s body
Hollis Thompson – a natural, very good big wing generally playing in the appropriate position (now)
Jerelle Benimon – a natural, limited, undersized small forward
Markel Starks – a good (potentially very good) natural point guard with shooting guard tendencies
Vee Sanford – a natural, solid shooting guard mostly playing the appropriate position
Moses Ayegba – potentially Julian Vaughn with immensely more athleticism
John Thompson’s system is almost the exact opposite of Jay Wright’s. At their very basic, both teams try to play inside-out to create open shots. Wright, however, does this with aggressive guard play, wanting his guards to dribble-penetrate, causing defenses to collapse, and then feeding open shooters; if defenses don’t collapse, then they drive to the hoop for lay-ups or drop-offs. Thompson ideally wants to play inside out by planting a mobile, versatile big forward at the high post (corner of the free-throw line for the lay people), and running cuts and screens to find drivers or open shooters when the defense collapses. Preferably, the high post player has the skill and athleticism to drive to the hoop if the lane opens up, or he gets a good match-up on a switch, and take the fifteen-footer if his defender cheats off of him.
This year’s Georgetown team was a much better fit for Jay Wright’s style and, consequently, a fairly poor lineup for JT III’s style and system. He has had to adapt his offensive sets to better suit the personnel he had available, and it had been mostly successful, given that it’s not what he’s comfortable doing. Despite the personnel, it’s not really what his players are naturally comfortable with, either. While all of his guards can drive, not one of them (with the possible exception of Markel Starks) is a natural drive-and-dish player. As a result, most drives resulted in mid-range jumpers (Freeman, sometimes Vee, and sometimes Starks), lay-ups (Freeman, Clark, and Wright), or turnovers (Wrecking Ball, anyone?). This year, Wright did a much better job of being a penetrate-dish guard, but he seemed to be fighting himself all season to resist the temptation to simply create his own shots. That is totally understandable, since it's how he has always played.
Thompson has only one player in the regular rotation who is potentially well-suited to the high-post attack, and Nate Lubick was a freshman who wasn’t expected to see more than 15 minutes a game this year. Hollis Thompson could potentially play the high-post, but he’s not a consistent passer yet, and he’s more comfortable playing on the wing. Sims is a solid passer from that position, but his hands are only average receiving the ball, and he presents little threat to shoot or drive from the high post. Vaughn simply dis not have the dexterity to fill that role with any consistency.
Instead, Georgetown was forced to play an outside-in game that commonly involves numerous perimeter passes and cuts, but rarely any easy penetration with the intention of creating open looks for their myriad good shooters. This seems to be due to a combination of the fact that JT III is uncomfortable with a guard-oriented attack, and the fact that the team’s personnel is simply limited in terms of their strengths and talents. Considering all this, I would stipulate that through the first Syracuse game, this team hugely over-performed and played beyond reasonable expectations. Also, the fact that this team didn’t have a single bad loss is a credit to the coaching staff and the players. Interestingly, this is a team whose defense seemed to feed off of its shooting. An interesting note: when they were playing with the highest confidence on offense, they tended to play their most energized, aggressive half-court defense; when they weren’t, their defense flagged.
Given the entire roster, and the style of play this team has been forced to adopt, Chris Wright’s removal from the floor was absolutely devastating. Markel simply isn’t ready to play the point for thirty-five minutes, and Thompson doesn’t trust him to do it. If this were a more typical Thompson team, losing one player, even the point guard, would not be nearly so destructive to the entire flow of the offense. Unfortunately, this is not a typical year, and losing Wright wrecked this team’s flow and confidence. And just as was the case when Wright was on the floor, when they are out of sync on offense, their defense has been spotty at best.
With a fully healthy Chris Wright, I think the Sweet 16 would have been a solid accomplishment. Without him at near full-strength, they just didn’t have the flexibility of personnel or coaching strategy to threaten.
I have too much free time, and felt the need to share these thoughts.
Regards,
hoyaparanormal
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree that JT3 got this team to overperform
Most of the people on this team are not very talented aside from Wright and Freeman.
I’m just going to go ahead and say I’m not at all worried about the program. JT3 can recruit.
High fives only on three pointers.
by TheYellofAllYells on Mar 23, 2011 11:25 AM EDT reply actions
When
our offence was clicking it mostly meant we were hitting instead of bricking three pointers. Bricked 3s have long rebounds and more easily lead to fast break opportunities for our opponents. I believe this more effectively explains why our d was better when our o was good.
Disagree on Talent
I don’t agree that Freeman and Wright were the only talent players.
I think Hollis is by far the most talented players on this years team. If the game plan was to isolate and make shots for hollis, he could have been averaging 30 a game.
Starks is also much better than Freshman or Sophomore Wright. Arguably he also didn’t have the forced turnover issue of Junior year Wright.
I think both Hollis and Markel are better than Wright or Freeman.
That said, I have NO confidence is going over .500 next year. Sims and Benimon both are very weak players. We could have Kobe as our point guard and would have a hard time winning with those guys on the floor. Lubick is going to be solid but he will always face a double team (potential triple of Sims also traps him) and he isn’t good enough to score through that.
Next year will be rough.
Section 101.
by RileysDressLikeAHoyaJersey on Mar 23, 2011 1:25 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Well said
Couldn’t agree more. The team will have three capable and talented players for the upcoming season – Hollis, Markel and Jason. Lubick shows some potential. However, unless some major recruits show up, this will be a difficult season for the team. The fact that heavily recruited players are choosing other teams is of great concern.
Vee could surprise
And don’t forget Vee made some big plays this year in relatively few minutes played.
by Tuomou's Tuomou on Mar 23, 2011 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
JTIII
is the one responsible for receruiting Wright, Freeman & taking Vaughn in as a transfer. Wright and Freeman are simply not well-suited to his system, so I am not sure why — other than the fact that they were big-time players in high school in DC — he recruited them. As you correctly state, his system requires specific kinds of players with specific skills, shouldn’t the coach recruit players who fit into his system?
I, for one, would like to see more kids from cities (as opposed to suburbs), as I felt that this team ultimately lacked the toughness which many continue to associate — perhaps erroneously — with Georgetown basketball. This was, of course, most evident in the team’s inability (unwillingness?) to defend vigorously even when their shots weren’t falling.
System Change is Needed
During JT III tenure I have seen the Hoyas use the Princeton style offense. The Princeton offense is a very rigid system that requires players to think rather than playing instinctively. I agree that the offensive needs a solid big in the middle to work properly, but far too often this year I saw Lubick or Vaughn on the 3-point line with the backs to the basket passing the rock to Austin or Chris. The created an unbalanced offensive flow, which makes us look slow, unauthentic, and untalented. While watching games you could literally see the players over thinking the plays. Now we stand at a time where our reputation equates to slow, over coached, and boring basketball. The perception has permeated throughout the recruiting community and is now effecting our ability to recruit talented high school players.
I always take the scenario of “If I were a 5-Star recruit, where would I want to play?” …. answers like INC, Uconn, Texas, Duke, Kanas, Kentucky, hell even Syracuse… always come in my head before Gtown. Why would a recruit ever want to play in a system that denies instinctive play and freedom on offensive? 18 year olds want to run, dunk, and most importantly win. None of which we do consistantly. I’m not saying we need to replace JT III, but our recent struggles to find players who “fit” the system begs the question whether the system needs to be changed to fit the “player”.
By last December
Both the media and fans had reached a general consensus that “Georgetown doesn’t really run the Princeton offense anymore”. The use of the term “Princeton offense”, as applied to Georgetown, became an indicator that the speaker hadn’t really done his homework on Georgetown. I think this was pretty justified. At no point this season did we really run an offense like the one that was in place from ‘05-’09. That was true whether we were putting up 100+ at Mizzou or barely scoring 54 against Cincy. For whatever reason, some of the discussion here has turned into:
1) the Princeton offense is not good for this program
2) we should not force players who don’t “fit the system” to play within its rigid confines
I didn’t see a program trying to force a particular offense and failing all year. I saw a shooting team with a weak frontcourt. You need a good PG to make that work, and Chris Wright had turned into that by this season. Talented as Austin Freeman is, I think the final verdict is that he was just not good enough to carry the team when Wright played poorly (or was out). We also didn’t have a single “good” player down low. Nate impressed, but played like the freshman he was. Kudos to Vaughn for the hustle, but even at his best he should never have been the go-to big on a top 25 team. This team covered its deficiencies with good shooting. All along we wondered what would happen when we weren’t making it rain, and we found out. I don’t see how trying to force the Princeton offense on the players caused that downward swing – I think it’s simpler than that.
I would also hold off on the idea that we now have a reputation of slow, over-coached, boring basketball, or that we had one going into this season. I also wouldn’t want us to turn into a Kansas, Texas, or Syracuse where we are just letting our 18-year olds run and dunk whenever they feel like it. That will never happen at this school for a variety of reasons – and the schools you mentioned (outside of Duke) have a lot more in common institutionally than just having “playmaker offenses”. We’ve got a pretty promising class coming in, and there’s a lot more to be seen out of this year’s freshmen.
by WarmupEwing on Mar 23, 2011 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
JTIII's system
While your right it is no longer a strict Princeton Offense it is definitely a variation there of that relies on swinging the ball around the perimeter and back door cuts. He definitely implements a specific, structured offense.
And whether or not it is true to real life that Georgetown plays slow, is over-coached, or plays boring basketball that is absolutely the reputation we have. This is hardly a debatable point. Most commentators do not do their homework. They reference the Princeton offense. Everyone sees the half court sets. Again, whether or not all of those ideas are true that is most definitely our reputation.
I am baffled as to why you would not want to turn into one of the elite programs you’ve named. You said you wouldn’t want our 18 year olds running and dunking, throwing “18 year olds” in there as if that’s supposed to be some sort of jab. I would love to have a super athletic team play fast and dunk the ball. Is that some sort of proven losing formula I’m unaware of??
by PaulTagliawho on Mar 23, 2011 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
"Elite Programs"
“Slow”, “over-coached”, and “boring” are the flipsides of “patient”, “precise”, and “disciplined”, which is what just as many people say about us when we’re winning, and our team has been described by the latter set of terms plenty of times over the last two seasons. The negative view holds because of how we’ve finished these seasons. I think that’s more on the players than systemic problems with the program. You reputation suffers when you lose. It may be our reputation – I just don’t think it’s accurate, and it can be improved without changing the overall strategy of the team.
Even if were to balance the positive/negative views of the plan out, though, I would definitely agree with the notion that it keeps certain players away. It does not keep talent away to the point that it prevents us from competing on the top level. This goes to your third point.
Yeah, I’d have fun rooting for a program that has the kind of success enjoyed by those that you mentioned, but I root for Georgetown. Kansas, Kentucky, UConn, UNC, and Syracuse have certain standards for their academics, player commitment, and various other aspects of running a program that will simply never be the case at this school. They also can pay big-money celebrity coaches and operate top-shelf facilities because they earn big money from their football programs, state funding, and generous booster programs. That all goes into being able to routinely get an 18-year old 5-star to put off the NBA for two years so he can ultimately work on his draft stock. Georgetown is never going to have the drive as a school, much less the money, to pump the athletic program up that much and simultaneously turn all the blind eyes a school needs to turn in order to allow that to “run smoothly”.
I don’t think this is such a terrible thing. In college sports, you root for what you have in an athletic department, understanding that you can only change it so much within the school’s governing framework. I’m not saying that we as fans/alumni should just sit tight with what we’re given and not push for improvements when they’re needed; but this isn’t pro sports – we’re not all created equal here.
We can win this way – we have and I think we will again in the near future. I don’t think it’s time to start calling for us to develop a program that this university has never and will never want to create.
by WarmupEwing on Mar 23, 2011 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Overachieving
This open letter stipulates Georgetown “hugely over-performed and played beyond reasonable expectations” through the first Syracuse game. The author’s says that this was so due to the team being forced to play an outside-in game since JTIII isn’t comfortable with a guard oriented attack. The author notes our complete lack of a front court implying that our strengths lay in our guards. Putting all of this together… if one truly believes the team over performed this year it seems they over performed despite the system JTIII implemented… not because of him. This piece seems like an odd way of giving Thompson credit for our season. Players don’t change mid year, but coaching strategies can.
Still, my main issue is the VCU game not the body of work before that. Thompson was on a local radio show this week and was asked if he learned anything from last year’s Ohio upset. He responsded, “No not really. They shot well.” Come on!
agreed
While yes, they both “shot well”, it is a hell of a lot harder to shoot well when you guard the perimeter properly.
"That is crap. It is unfair."
by Iwillpaytheway!! on Mar 23, 2011 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
The only two things those losses had in common
1) We outrebounded the opposition
2) We gave up too many TO’s to win a Tournament game
The second one was the #1 weakness that everyone identified going into the season. You think there was a style of play we could’ve switched to mid-year that cut down on those, or was it more on the players?
3) giving up wide open three pointers/not playing defense
I would argue that 3) was the biggest problem those losses had in common
by PaulTagliawho on Mar 23, 2011 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
We also failed to make teams pay for pressing us
Because we committed backcourt turnovers and even when we did break a press we would lurch into a half court set instead of looking for a fluid opportunity for a basket, which is key because it makes a pressing defense less active if they have to worry about giving up an easy one.
As it was, we had numerous possessions following press breaks where you just KNEW we weren’t going to get a good look and be forced to huck up something. Limited as our bigs were, they deserved more scoring opportunities on the run, especially considering the number of sideline/baseline turnovers made by Hoya guards and forwards.
by Tuomou's Tuomou on Mar 23, 2011 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
No love for Ryan on these Personnel evaluations?
Or Bowen for that matter. He is the one I am really interested in watching next year.
"That is crap. It is unfair."
by Iwillpaytheway!! on Mar 23, 2011 3:08 PM EDT reply actions
it's tough to offer an evaluation on those who didn't play
from what i saw of bowen in his limited minutes, he appears to have mad hops but i have no idea about his grasp of the offense, defense, etc.
Casually.
What is the status of next year's roster?
I count 10 players returning and 4 incoming freshmen with scholarships. The actual roster has to become shorter by 2, I think. Among the 14 players, we have four guards 6-2 to 6-5, four swingmen 6-5 to 6-7, and 6 bigs of 6-8 or taller. This will be the tallest Hoya team in recent memory. Does this fit JTIII’s “system”, whatever that is? Sounds more lke a JTII team to me. If this bigger group can rebound, we wwill have a Big East contender, where defense and rebounding reign supreme. When JTII was coach, he shifted defenses constantly, pressing much of the time, which drove opponents nuts. A roster like this could do that as well. It will seniors, aside from Jason Clark, but that didn’t stop Duke last year. This next group will be a real measure of JTIII’s coaching ability.
9 returning and 4 incoming. at the max 13 but im expecting at least one transfer.
we will definitely be bigger, and a lot younger
Good talk.
Casual Hoya
by Hire Esherick on Mar 23, 2011 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
writing on wall for jb, recruited 3 guys 6’7’’ or taller.
Good talk.
Casual Hoya
by Hire Esherick on Mar 23, 2011 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
i dont get vee love.
i want him to stay but dont get why he is regarded as future
Good talk.
Casual Hoya
by Hire Esherick on Mar 23, 2011 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Vee has his head up while dribbling, nails 3s when no one else can
And has a Huge chip on his shoulder. Then there’s his tear drops!
by Tuomou's Tuomou on Mar 24, 2011 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
I thought Vee Sanford moved well off the dribble, especially when cutting diagonally into the paint. His game seems to resemble Jason Clark. What’s wrong with that? I want him to stay. Besides, who will play guard if Vee leaves – Hollis?
i think vee is coming off the bench next year regardless, unless thompson goes with another three guard lineup.
Good talk.
Casual Hoya
by Hire Esherick on Mar 24, 2011 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Clark is so streaky he is my choice for 6th man
by Tuomou's Tuomou on Mar 24, 2011 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Does it have to be a transfer?
Is there any chance a current/LOI guy has eligibility issues?
by HoyaSmacksYa on Mar 23, 2011 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Nine returning, 4 incoming = Thirteen (aka The Limit)
Clark and Sims
Hollis, Vee and JB
Markel, Nate, Moses, and Bowen
Hopkins, Trawick, Adams, and now Whittington
by HoyaSmacksYa on Mar 24, 2011 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
true
caprio is walk-on so fine with scholarships
Good talk.
Casual Hoya
by Hire Esherick on Mar 24, 2011 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Freeman and Wright not being good fit for JT3 offense = LOL
Freeman and Wright are a good fit for ANY offense. Freeman was the best shooting recruit his year and Wright was one of the highest upside athletic PG prospects when he came to GTown. If we had the exact same recruits as guards this year I would be completely thrilled. If the big men we recruited had been better, we would have been fine.
Again, all of this is irrelevant and we are celebrating right now if Monroe had stayed. Wright, Clark, Freeman, Vaughn, Monroe with Thompson and Lubick off the bench would have been a top 5 team imo.
Agree - But
Greg is gone. Along with him went two great skills, passing and his Kevin-McHale-like up-and-under scoring moves. Hollis Thomson and Jason Clark will be scorers next year, provided Markel Starks can get them the ball. Now colmes the coaching. Who will be setting screens for Clark and Thompson? Which big man will be that critical passer in the middle? Lubick seems like a terrific rebounder, but he’s no passer and I don’[t expect a lot of scoring on the inside. Who will be the inside scorer? Here’s where we depend totally on JTIII.
I'm with ya
Hate to dredge up the loss of Monroe but the day he declared last year cost us a legit shot this year at something special. If we’re going to run the JTIII offence (or whatever it’s called) AND consistently crumple zones like ’Cuse’s, having a big man that can pass/shoot drive from the high post is/was crucial. That was by far the biggest gap in this year’s offense and left us at the mercy of how the 3-point gods were feeling about us on any particular day.
While I’m on the subject (kinda) can I state for the record how much I hate the fact that kids can enter university supposedly for a degree (ha) and are so freely allowed (i.e. without penalty to the schools that consistently recruit/rent/use them) to do their one (or two)-and dones before heading to the NBA (or Italy). I understand the realities of today’s sports economics (i.e. what’s good for CBS/ESPN is good for college b-ball…) but the notion of student-athletes (in D1 b-ball/f-ball) has all become such a farce that it sometimes makes me want to cry. That plus the fact that serial cheaters like Calipari get to leave their smelly legacies behind for raises and better jobs every couple.
Today’s money madness means we’ll never (ever) get it back but oh, how I long for the days when you could count on four-years of classic battles between Patrick Ewing and Chris Mullin, et al… In fact, I just had a peek at the 1985 NBA draft and all but 4 of the top 24 picks were seniors (the other four were juniors). In contrast, in 2010, there were only 2 seniors picked in the top 24, and 13 picks were either fresh or sophs.
"Joy to the fishies in the deep blue sea..."
The only thing I agree with Dick Vitale on:
If your declare for college, it’s a 3-year minimum commitment. This has traditionally worked well for the NFL, but one thing that might thwart this in bball is the option to play in foreign leagues. Worth trying, though.
completely disagree - 18 year olds should be allowed to declare for draft
Either pay the kids in college or let them declare after high school. the current system makes no sense.
It's Not the System
At the height of our winning I posted on Casual (When comparing this team to the 2007 team) that I thought this team was overachieving. One blogger resented that notion, and no one else commented. I maintain that, meaning that as JTII said, the talent on this team was not great and at that time we were playing better than our talent level. We came back to earth, and then fell below. But it wasn’t that our players did not fit the system. Our players fit the system fine. When JTII was asked after the losing streak and subsequent winning streak what changed he basically said he refocused on Defense and Rebounding….Yep….there you go.
I’ll give a pass to the Davidson game. We had a big lead in that game and then some ticky tack fouls on the perimeter allowed them into the bonus early plus Steph Curry and tournament magic and it was still a close game (lost by 4). That happens. The team came to play that game, and just faded (Like Duke last night).
But the last two tournament games have been upsetting. We just haven’t seemed ready or motivated going into the first game. I thought, ‘After last year there is no way we get caught sleeping this year’ and lo and behold we got caught sleeping again. Falling down early to an inferior (although better) opponent, giving them confidence, and then semi putting up a futile fight.
My problem with the offense forever has been that at times it can be very passive. When there is no Green, of Bowman, or Cook (yes that’s right) or Monroe to create a shot it can have problems. When the offense is aggressive, it is great. And has been pretty much every year. And the last two years we have had very good, and at times elite tempo adjusted offenses. I don’t think the offense is the main problem (although a little more aggression would be nice to see when things are not going well).
Since Hibbert and Wallace graduated (During Their Junior and Senior years we were the #6 and #2 teams in tempo adjusted defense), these last three years have had teams with mediocre at best defenses. This year, same thing (although a bit better than last year). In both tournament games, the defense came out flat, allowed a lot of open looks that the other team made giving the other team confidence, our offense started to press and lost patience and the sum total was a bad loss.
Reality is that no matter what you do during the regular season, success is measured in the tournament. And success in the tournament comes from Defense. There’s a reason Butler is in the elite eight again despite losing their only NBA talent. There’s a reason that no matter how much Michigan State played during the regular season no one wants to play them in the tournament during the last 10 years. There’s a reason that Duke lost last night despite having more talent on this team than last years. The common denominator is defense.
If we want to be a great program, and have tournament success it has to start on the defensive end.
I’m a JTIII supporter. I like him as a person. I like how he represents our university, and other than the last three tournaments, has had very good on court success. Where I think he falls down, and I’ve heard others bloggers echo this, is in motivation. I think motivation leads to effort, effort leads to defense. That gives a good base. Then we can argue the offense and the “system” from there. Every year we seem to struggle with teams we are more talented than because we just don’t come to play. We are passive, and even when we have big leads we don’t step on their throats. I think this is in large part due to motivation. JTIII appears to be a cool customer, which is great for a coach….in the NBA. NBA coaches need to be great coordinators. All great college coaches are great motivators. Doesn’t mean you have to yell and scream. Wooden didn’t. But you have to make your players believe. I think this is the area JTIII needs to work on. And I agree with PaulTagliaWho that if after two bad opening round tournament losses he doesn’t see the need to change something then I don’t know what to say.
"Hoyas, down nine to North Carolina. Four minutes to go in the game......."
by Kenny Brunner's Sword on Mar 25, 2011 6:10 PM EDT reply actions
Hail Hail the "old" system
As a Hoya from another era, I couldn’t agree more. I was in McDonough gym in April of 1985 watching a 78.6% shooting performance derail back to back championships. It was not pretty.
One thing that JT2 was so good at was motivation. During those years, noone ever questioned GU heart and they would get after you and the ball like nobody’s business. People feared those teams and though Ewing was a large part it was also because you knew you were going to be defended right from the tip off. Even from “newer” eras, Mourning and Iverson were fierce competitiors whose motors never stopped.
Not sure full court press is going to win any championships and maybe today’s student athlete is a different animal, but I can think of so many times this season where when the team was up against it and people just stopped giving maximum effort.
Athough JTIII is a cool customer, hoping some of the intensity will come back to the Hilltop or else we are destined to be on the outside looking in.
Cheers.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Casual Hoya
Related FanShots on Casual Hoya
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
