|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 14:24:15 GMT -5
PR is only the latest to say this, so I'm not picking on him, but can we all just stop this nonsense? We've REPEATEDLY had guards on our roster that can "make sure your team gets good shots on every possession," can "control the pace" and can "make shots." The Wallace/Sapp combo fit that bill. So did Chris Wright. So did Markel Starks. None was perfect in all areas; I'm not saying they were. But do people forget what happened when teams tried to press a Chris Wright-led team (before his injury)? What nonsense do you mean? I responded to boston's post and made reference to the fact that JT3, as he has stated various times, does not like the label PG and does not use a traditional PG role in his offensive "system." Paraphrasing him answering a reporter's question regarding X player as PG, "do you mean the guard who makes the first pass in the half-court?" Specifically: "Recruiting Lykes is busting several of JT3's recruiting checklist items. It's good to have job security at $3M so you can try to see if that square peg really, really does not fit in that round hole." There are no busted recruiting checklist items because we HAVE consistently recruited penetrating point guards, and we have had traditional PGs on our roster. Chris Wright is the most prominent example.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 14:22:12 GMT -5
We were in on lead guards the past couple of years. Didn't get them. Again, that may be a failure of recruiting, but it's not a failure of philosophy. So, at some point, after you strike out and when you look at the options, you say to yourself that you expect in 15-16 that you'll have a sophomore Tre that will have gotten significant minutes his freshmen year ready to provide steady (if unspectacular) play for 20 MPG. And you have a senior in DSR that, while not a pure, penetrating PG, can certainly play the secondary minutes at that position. And you are bringing in a freshman in Johnson and have someone like LJ (or Paul) that can handle the ball-handling in a pinch. So, after you don't get your top targets, you ask yourself whether or not the folks out there are better options. In retrospect they would have been, but that's really because Tre was so bad. Not because DSR was your secondary option. Would we rather have gotten a decent PG as a freshman this year instead of Agau? I think definitely yes. But that's hindsight. I disagree with most of what you said and unfortunately I think its the philosophy that JT3 has. The we have other guys that "can" handle PG duties is a bad one. None of these guys can drive and dribble and none can stay in front of true PG. To bring this on topic every "upset" that happened yesterday the lower seeded team had the better PG. The PG is the #1 most important position in the game now and its not close. I am not talk a guy that can handle a press. I am talking about the guy that can penetrate, dish and play D. You have to over recruit PG not under recruit if but I don't think JT3 values it enough. I agree Tre is supposed to be that guy and so far he is a recruiting miss which happens, but your philosophy of taking Agau over another pure PG is baffling to me. You just cant put all your eggs of the most important position in a guy who was not an elite prospect. I think this team could have been slightly better if Agau wouldve played, but been significantly better if we had anyone that could drive and defend. It's not a question of taking Agau "over" another pure PG. It's a question of what PGs were available that we could have had. At some point, the available talent at that position is low enough that using a scholarship (for four years) doesn't outweigh your ability to improve at another position. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 14:20:36 GMT -5
You're right. I'm glad JT3 is finally getting away from his habit of trying to have non-traditional PG's run the team. How much longer do we have to suffer through the parade of players like Jon Wallace, Chris Wright and Markel Starks playing PG for Georgetown? I like those players and want more. The point is they are not PGs and JT3 does not play with a traditional PG. He has said so various times. But, that might be changing. Those posters who would like a more traditional PG playing a PG role can only hope. What the hell is Chris Wright if he isn't a PG?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 13:30:33 GMT -5
Right. Everyone can see that Tre was awful this year, but I won't believe anyone that says they thought he would be this bad as a sophomore after his play as a freshman unless they can show me a time-stamped post. He went from a decent back-up to unplayable, which was completely unexpected. Why do we only have 1 true PG on the roster? Don't say anything about DSR being a PG, he's never really been one. Its not like Tre was some huge recruit, even if everyone thought he was going to be better than he has been so far. The PG is the most important player in the game now and to only have 1 on roster is inexcusable. We were in on lead guards the past couple of years. Didn't get them. Again, that may be a failure of recruiting, but it's not a failure of philosophy. So, at some point, after you strike out and when you look at the options, you say to yourself that you expect in 15-16 that you'll have a sophomore Tre that will have gotten significant minutes his freshmen year ready to provide steady (if unspectacular) play for 20 MPG. And you have a senior in DSR that, while not a pure, penetrating PG, can certainly play the secondary minutes at that position. And you are bringing in a freshman in Johnson and have someone like LJ (or Paul) that can handle the ball-handling in a pinch. So, after you don't get your top targets, you ask yourself whether or not the folks out there are better options. In retrospect they would have been, but that's really because Tre was so bad. Not because DSR was your secondary option. Would we rather have gotten a decent PG as a freshman this year instead of Agau? I think definitely yes. But that's hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 13:21:26 GMT -5
The thing about Cuse is that if you've never seen the zone, you're going to have a hard time passing or penetrating through it. It's just different from what you've seen before, even if you've played teams that play some zone. Which means you have to hit a bunch of threes. So, they're always going to be a threat to win a game or two in the NCAAT. But their style of play also makes it hard for them to win a bunch because someone is going to get hot from three. N.B.: As "Commissioner" of my bracket, I give everyone a free point in whatever game Syracuse is in. You pick against them and lose? You still get a point. Funny thing though was that Dayton did a good job in the first half in breaking down the zone. The Flyers missed 4 or 5 layups and dunks in that half. Agree. But they didn't get a lot of those hi-low uncontested dunks that you often see by teams that can break down the Cuse zone well. So, because they weren't quite as comfortable, they got a lot of layups that were contested. And the thing is, against that zone, you get the contest from strange places that you aren't used to as a big man going up. I'm not saying Dayton couldn't (or shouldn't) have made them. Just that this is all part of what you see from a team that hasn't seen it before. And you can't really prepare for it from tape or simulate it in practice.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 12:59:55 GMT -5
The thing about Cuse is that if you've never seen the zone, you're going to have a hard time passing or penetrating through it. It's just different from what you've seen before, even if you've played teams that play some zone. Which means you have to hit a bunch of threes.
So, they're always going to be a threat to win a game or two in the NCAAT. But their style of play also makes it hard for them to win a bunch because someone is going to get hot from three.
N.B.: As "Commissioner" of my bracket, I give everyone a free point in whatever game Syracuse is in. You pick against them and lose? You still get a point.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 11:29:11 GMT -5
One, I think Yale beats Duke. They are for real. The second Gtown related item, thank god for Drew & Baylor. They may have taken the title for NCAA March bust from our mantle. Two years, two upsets by 14 seeds. You think so? I was shocked by that game. Baylor didnt take advantage of any advantage they had. I think Coach K wont make the same mistake. The underdog role will work against Duke, Im sure, but they will score tons. Yale absolutely can out-rebound Duke, just as they did Baylor. They were right with them on the boards at Duke, and 12 of Duke's boards were Amile Jefferson. Duke is a different team without him. Combine that with the fact that Yale's strength is in the interior (Duke's weakness) and I think Yale will be able to score plenty. What happens if Plumlee gets in foul trouble? (That kid who is Yale's PG hit some clutch shots and was money at the line, but he actually didn't shoot well overall from three. He probably won't get as many opportunities to shoot FTs, but he can certainly play close to as well.) And as that article points out, Duke came out with that 1-3-1 at Duke that flummoxed them. They'll be fully prepared. Can they defend Duke? Probably not. But they may be able to defend Duke better than Duke can defend them. Let's put it this way: unless Duke shoots the lights out from three (which is certainly possible), I think it's a game all the way through. And the underdog (particularly a veteran one) plays with house money and with all the crowd emotion down the stretch. To me it's a pick-em.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 10:47:36 GMT -5
PR is only the latest to say this, so I'm not picking on him, but can we all just stop this nonsense? We've REPEATEDLY had guards on our roster that can "make sure your team gets good shots on every possession," can "control the pace" and can "make shots." The Wallace/Sapp combo fit that bill. So did Chris Wright. So did Markel Starks. None was perfect in all areas; I'm not saying they were. But do people forget what happened when teams tried to press a Chris Wright-led team (before his injury)? When people complain about DSR, it's rightly because of his perimeter defense and his inability to break down a defender. Fair enough. But let's not allege that we're not trying to get guys that can do that. A failure to get that guy (or develop him) isn't a sign of stubbornness or a failure in philosophy. It's a different kind of failure, but let's not re-characterize it to fit some other narrative. Shoot, some would reasonably argue that LJ became that guy by the end of the year. And can be that guy next year. Sure, you need a steady ball-handler to handle pressure. And you need players that can handle the ball in the half-court and direct traffic. That generally is your lead guard. But the guy that gets the ball with 10 seconds on the shot clock and needs to do the right thing? That can be someone at positions 1-4 on the court, right? It can be LJ (playing the 1 or the 2 or the 3). On Duke, those guys are Allen and Ingram, and neither is a PG. Same at Oklahoma with Hield. That's just two prominent and successful teams that come to mind. Remember when Markel took on and beat the press of the soon-to-be national champion Louisville Cardinals in 2013? Only one turnover against one of the best defensive pressure teams in recent memory. Right. And I don't think it's unfair to say that the staff thought that Tre may be a guy that would develop into someone that had excellent handle, could deal with a press, and (given his seeming quickness) could take guys off the dribble when need be. Hasn't happened. May never happen. May well have been an error in recruiting judgment. But it's not a flaw in philosophy. Or a lack of understanding the "modern" game.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 9:49:32 GMT -5
I hope JTIII and staff are not just watching these first weekend games, but really analyzing teams that are successful versus those that aren't. I would take tape of Arizona v. Wich St., Little Rock v. Purdue, and Yale v. Baylor and see if there are some themes that arise. I think the Purdue tape could be most revealing. That was a very good team all year that didn't have shot creators and couldn't close down the stretch in a lot of games despite being huge across the frontline (Haas, Hammons & Swanigan). I think Painter overcoaches a bit and his players played scared at the end. You do that and then allow teams to hit desperation shots and that is March. I felt like I was watching the Hoyas in March. I think the general theme in those upsets was that all three defend and rebound the heck out of it. I believe all three are top 25 defensive teams, and it showed. UALR was outrebounded, but not by a ton given that the game went 50 minutes. And second, if you're not going to have top, top tier talent, the best way to win in the NCAAT is to have a veteran team. Young teams win when they're way better than the competition or have transcendent individual players. But otherwise, it's the veteran teams that get it done, more often than not. EDIT: Just to support the point: Five of the top six guys in minutes on Yale are juniors or seniors (four are seniors). Wichita State's top three in minutes are seniors (including, of course, their two great guards). Three of the top five on Little Rock are seniors (the other two are juniors). If you don't have top, top talent, it's very difficult to win with a young team. That's simply the reality.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2016 9:13:14 GMT -5
Watching Purdue kick that game away just re-enforces how important it is that a team have a capable point guard. It got so bad for Purdue that they were not even putting a point guard on the floor at the end of the game when they needed someone to control the pace and get them into their offense. It killed Georgetown all year and killed Purdue last night. You don't need a star at the point, but you need a capable player who can defend on the perimeter and make sure your team gets good shots on every possession . If that player can also make shots then that is great, but not as important as the first two qualities. But that's not how JT3 views it, but you know that. He doesn't even recognize what a traditional PG is. Maybe, after 10 years of try, try again, Stubborn Thompson the Third is adjusting? Recruiting Lykes is busting several of JT3's recruiting checklist items. It's good to have job security at $3M so you can try to see if that square peg really, really does not fit in that round hole. PR is only the latest to say this, so I'm not picking on him, but can we all just stop this nonsense? We've REPEATEDLY had guards on our roster that can "make sure your team gets good shots on every possession," can "control the pace" and can "make shots." The Wallace/Sapp combo fit that bill. So did Chris Wright. So did Markel Starks. None was perfect in all areas; I'm not saying they were. But do people forget what happened when teams tried to press a Chris Wright-led team (before his injury)? When people complain about DSR, it's rightly because of his perimeter defense and his inability to break down a defender. Fair enough. But let's not allege that we're not trying to get guys that can do that. A failure to get that guy (or develop him) isn't a sign of stubbornness or a failure in philosophy. It's a different kind of failure, but let's not re-characterize it to fit some other narrative. Shoot, some would reasonably argue that LJ became that guy by the end of the year. And can be that guy next year. Sure, you need a steady ball-handler to handle pressure. And you need players that can handle the ball in the half-court and direct traffic. That generally is your lead guard. But the guy that gets the ball with 10 seconds on the shot clock and needs to do the right thing? That can be someone at positions 1-4 on the court, right? It can be LJ (playing the 1 or the 2 or the 3). On Duke, those guys are Allen and Ingram, and neither is a PG. Same at Oklahoma with Hield. That's just two prominent and successful teams that come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 17, 2016 14:12:25 GMT -5
Duke is a worse defense team than we are. They are like 110th in kenpom. Difference is that they get the calls offensively, can score and have a great home court advantage. I watch Duke and I agree they are an awful defensive team. I also see a lot of similarities between them and the Hoyas of this year. Ingram and Allen remind me of Copeland and LJ, with the big difference being that the Duke offense is set up to maximize the abilities of those two. They open the floor and let those two attack every time they get the ball. I have to believe that if Georgetown played a similar system they are playing in the tournament now and not sitting home watching. No doubt Copeland is not the player that Ingram is, but he should be better than most of the players defending him if he was given space and freedom to attack. The two other big differences is Duke doesn't turn it over all the time and they don't foul nearly as often. Part of why they don't foul is that they don't even attempt to play defense most of the time, they just try to outscore you. Duke can't play D, that's for sure. But let's be real here: When they spread the court, they have two first round NBA picks out there, both of whom can shoot or drive. Maybe they remind someone of Copeland, but Copeland isn't there right now. Ike had all the space he needed the entire year; he doesn't have the skill to beat anyone of the dribble right now, and too often, he couldn't shoot. I'm not knocking our guys, and I sure hope they get there next year, but the skill set is very different. By the end of the year, LJ certainly was doing similar things as Duke's guys, and hopefully he can build further on that. But let's be real here.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 17, 2016 9:39:59 GMT -5
I would not necessarily have had a problem with Mourning playing a bit more. But, keep in mind, one of the reasons why Copeland played so much is because he was basically the only front court player who actually could manage to get through a game without fouling too much (even if he didn't defend well). These are our players by how many fouls they committed per every 40 minutes: Copeland: 2.6 Campbell: 2.7 DSR: 2.7 Cameron: 3.3 Peak: 5.7 Derrickson: 5.7 Hayes: 6.0 Govan: 7.0 Johnson: 7.0 Mourning: 9.9 Williams: 15.7 As you'll see Mourning fouled a huge amount, which is a liability on defense, since each of those fouls potentially led to 2 free throws for the opponent. It's not simply about offense, as much as some want to focus on that above all else. Holy crap, that's a lot of fouls. More than half the roster averaging fouling out if they played a full game! Sheesh! It really is striking when portrayed like that. We basically had three guys split every available minute at the five (Hayes, Govan, and Mourning), right? Probably just a handful of minutes the entire year that didn't go to one of those three guys. And look at their fouling rates.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 15, 2016 14:55:49 GMT -5
We've not done well relative to seeding in the NCAAs. That's an understatement -- particularly if you don't include 2006-2007 (and this study DOES include those years.) But isn't it telling that of those programs, every single coach except for one (Texas) is still employed? (Oklahoma and Pitt, I believe, are the other two that have had multiple coaches make disappointing appearances in that time frame.) Should K be fired? Bill Self? Mark Few? And so on.... When you make lots of appearances, and you make those appearances as very high seeds, you're almost certain to disappoint over the long term relative to your seeding. It's essentially a mathematical certainty. Have we disappointed even given that? Yes. But this is a silly metric.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 14, 2016 11:53:46 GMT -5
Gonzaga is 1 pt favorites against Seton Hall. Hate to say it, but I think the BE got hosed again this year. I see no way Nova gets far in that bracket, and SH had an awesome run, and got rewarded with 6 seed to play against Gonzaga in Denver. Butler and Providence are basically playing toss up games. I think Xavier is our best shot. I thought the BE did fine overall. Nova got hosed in terms of who their one seed is. But it really doesn't matter in terms of getting to the S16. And once you get there (and they better get there!), you've done what you need to do and you take your chances -- you're going to have to play two good teams regardless unless you get lucky. And Xavier could have been dropped a line but wasn't. As for SH, I think the Committee this year simply didn't overvalue the post-season tournaments. Michigan State didn't get bumped to a one either. Virginia didn't get bumped down (even though they lost in their final). And someone like SH didn't get any extra bump. We've been the recipient of that extra bump for BET results in the past. But I actually like this better. I guess you could say that Nova DID get bumped because of their tournament result, but I think that was just as much a factor of who they lost to than anything else. We've got two high seeds. And two teams (SH and Provy) that can beat absolutely anyone if they get the right matchup and their good players play great. (I don't expect as much from Butler, but they're obviously capable.) Three teams in the S16 would be a great result, given the size of our league. Two wouldn't be a disaster by any means. Either is eminently achievable.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 14, 2016 10:50:42 GMT -5
Watching tournament games this week the one thing that the really good teams do that we hardly ever did was push the ball up court after defensive stops or turnovers. Granted we didn't have a lot of those especially against better BE teams but we always seemed to be more anxious to "set up" our offense than get a quick score. DSR especially was reluctant to get a fast break going. I noticed that Seton Hall, Nova, UNC, and Kentucky always looked for that fast break before settling for a set offense. This also hurt us defensively because opponents didn't have to worry about getting back on defense and so could be more aggressive driving to the hoop. Am I wrong on this? Anyone else notice it not just this year but the last few years? Anyone else find themselves screaming at the TV after a rebound or turnover for the Hoyas to "RUN!". I think it's three things. First, as you note, DSR is not that quick with the ball, generally. And he often comes back to the rebounder to get the ball rather than look for the rebounder to outlet to him. Catching the ball coming back toward your own basket makes a successful fast break often impossible. Second, and this can't be overstated, our passing (aside from DSR) was simply abysmal. Outletting the ball successfully requires an underappreciated amount of vision and accuracy; our bigs didn't have either this year. Finally, we didn't create a ton of live-ball turnovers! That's the easiest time to run a break, and our defense wasn't sufficiently able to create them. Many, many times you could catch JTIII on the sideline waiving his arms in the universal coaching signal for "push the Editeding ball up the court." So, I think the staff absolutely recognized the same thing. We can argue about whether the team was too methodical once they got into their half-court set. Or we can argue about whether they practice the fast break enough (which seems silly to speculate about one way or the other). But it seemed clear that the staff was trying to get them to push it within games. As with many other things, we simply didn't have the skills on the court to properly execute it.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 13, 2016 11:12:50 GMT -5
At least for me, aside from the D, the area I thought he disappointed in was in knocking down wide-open threes. It seemed like in many of our losses (including the final loss with Nova) he had the opportunity to hit one or more daggers. He made his share of tough ones. But he never seemed to shoot the wide-ones at even a nominally higher percentage this year. Maybe that's just my incorrect perception. And maybe literally every shooter knocks down contested threes at a roughly similar rate as open ones. I dont know. But it did feel like in the early to mid stages of our bigger losses, he missed a lot of open onez. Of course, the whole team did! I don't really blame him for bad shooting against the best teams. Those teams have the best perimeter defenders. And he struggles with that unless he is having one of his "make everything" days. He doesn't have the quickness or size to create enough separation consistently. We really needed other guys to step up and create open looks for him in those games. Which is why playing a more screen based system may have worked better for him.. like I whined about with Hollis coaches have to get their best shooters shots if they're struggling to get them on their own.. Teams move on I know but sitting here today I'm not sure where the team makes up for what DSR did provide.. He was far & away the top assist man and ball handler.. He was the team's volume shooter also, who'll make up for those shots next season? A lot of open questions for the off-season.. I agree. Having a set or two for DSR would have made good sense. We know III isn't opposed to it because he basically did that for LJ as the season went on. So, it's a bit odd that he never did for DSR. In any event, if DSR didn't shoot the open ones any better, getting him open looks may ultimately have not helped! If LJ stays, and if we replace DSR's minutes with minutes from a competent defender/penetrator/shooter (not even a "plus" in those areas...just competent in all three), I don't think it's an enormous problem. We'd make up the offensive difference by greatly improving the defense. But those are huge ifs. They don't exist on the current roster, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 13, 2016 10:52:05 GMT -5
Good. Edited them. They deserve every bad thing they get. It's particularly joyful that they left in search of financial ritches, and their finances are now in tatters. I don't have the same ire for the other defectors; BC alone was duplicitous and had a real choice. Not only that but they continue to screw UConn to this day. I have no love for UConn of course. But they were a longtime partner; they assisted in creating the BE brand and carried lots of water for BC when BC sucked. And they still screw them. Again: Edited them.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 13, 2016 10:31:10 GMT -5
Good points you made in regards to DSR, FLHoya. Am I setting the bar too high? Frankly where DSR disappointed me was in what I would say a good chunk of matchups against the elite BE teams, when the team needed him more than ever, he would come up with those 1 for 11 from the floor type of days (or somewhere around those numbers). Not in all those games certainly, but in a couple too many for my tastes. I'm a huge fan of DSR and wanted him to go out on a high so I'm probably just demonstrating my disappointment for him more than anyone. Also his three-point fg% never got to the level in which I thought it could be. He never got to that elite 40% level like Hollis or Jon Wallace (although he is easily a better all-around player than Wallace). Who would have thought Peak would have gotten to such a level in his second season while DSR never managed over four. By the way just like last season I feel III played DSR about a couple minutes too long per game. At least for me, aside from the D, the area I thought he disappointed in was in knocking down wide-open threes. It seemed like in many of our losses (including the final loss with Nova) he had the opportunity to hit one or more daggers. He made his share of tough ones. But he never seemed to shoot the wide-ones at even a nominally higher percentage this year. Maybe that's just my incorrect perception. And maybe literally every shooter knocks down contested threes at a roughly similar rate as open ones. I dont know. But it did feel like in the early to mid stages of our bigger losses, he missed a lot of open onez. Of course, the whole team did! I don't really blame him for bad shooting against the best teams. Those teams have the best perimeter defenders. And he struggles with that unless he is having one of his "make everything" days. He doesn't have the quickness or size to create enough separation consistently. We really needed other guys to step up and create open looks for him in those games.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 12, 2016 8:56:54 GMT -5
Good question, is it due to the JT3's demeanor and it rubs off of on the team in the same fashion? One can only speculate about it. Yeah JTIII is no barrel of laughs like Boeheim, Coach K, Bill Self, Jay Wright.. . Ridiculous. We aren't having "fun" because we aren't winning. It's not the other way around. DSR pulled up for threes and took quick shots in all sorts of situations. Ike takes quick contested shots all the time. For that matter, so does Tre (to the chagrin of most here). We "enjoy" LJ because he is very successful doing what he does. None of this has anything to do with the demeanor of the coach. This year, we ran PNR and spread the court for dribble-drives and kicks just like everyone else. We simply didn't have the players to execute.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 10, 2016 18:30:43 GMT -5
It's really the 1-4 from two that is as big a problem. 2-9 isn't good. But he was 2-2 (I think) to start. And if he makes that ninth one, he is at 33% for the game. That's wouldn't have been a problematic percentage. Even thst isnt good, and he DIDN'T make that third one to even get there. But the point is that it is harder to pull the plug or decide not to shoot in that context. I think the strategy, PR, was to match their smaller size. I think so too, but when you have a player like Reggie who averaged 19 minutes at the beginning of the season and can go hot from 3, his "specialty", then you give him a whirl for some minutes. And, it's not like Tre's defense is the difference between the two. Anyway, on to the off-season... I agree. I would have given it a whirl also. The only difference defensively is that you can press with Tre...can't really do that with Reggie. And we were pressing the whole game (for better or for worse).
|
|