Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Veterans Share Their Favorite Sports Memories

The UCLA Assistant Basketball Coach Saga

While Rick Neuheisel  has had issues with his assistant coaches the last few seasons, Ben Howland may be putting together a perfect team.  From Jon Gold on the hire of new assistant coach Corey McCray:

I think it's a great hire and one that's been a long time coming. Look, Ben Howland is Ben Howland, and whoever sits in that assistant chair needs to know his role with the team is going to be a specific one. Now they have the X's and O's guy in Garson, the ultimate player-staff go-between in Phil Mathews, who handled that role well last year, and now an ace recruiter. Or at least, that's all the indications I get from people who know the recruiting scene much better than I do. Many people have told me off the record that this could be the single most important hire in the country this offseason, simply because it's Howland becoming self-aware and realizing his limitations as a recruiter. Despite landing some good talent the last couple years - Josh Smith, Honeycutt, etc. - UCLA has also whiffed on a lot, including at the point guard position and especially on the east coast and midwest, so McCray's contacts and recruiting ability could put the Bruins over the top. This year, obviously, the eye is on Jordan Adams and Shaq Goodwin, and really, if McCray led to either, it would be worth it.

This is very interesting take.   Let's delve into it after the jump.

Star-divide

Putting aside Garson, the take on Matthews is really interesting.  It cannot be denied that the 2009-10 team had major personality issues and bad chemistry.  In contrast in 2010-11 the team got along well, with some of the same personalities in key roles. First Reeves Nelson.   If Matthews was the one that got the players to tolerate Nelson's  "rough edges" he deserves a lot of credit.  As Stover said of Nelson:

"He's a really emotional person and it comes out the wrong way sometimes, but he always means the best," Stover said

Or as Reeves himself said:

"I do feel more comfortable with this team this year because these guys are all my friends, not just my teammates," he said.

The other interesting person is, of course, Jerime Anderson.  I talked about Anderson attitude at length in an earlier post.  Anderson's attitude his junior year was great and very different from his first two years.  Matthew's effect here, if that was his role, was very positive indeed. 

One more note on Matthews, he was the lead on recruiting of De'End Parker.  If Parker is good, Matthews really earned his pay and then some. 

Switching to the "ace recruiter".  BN documented the positive effects of former ace recruiter Kerry Keating often but the void since he left has also been documented

As Gold mentioned UCLA whiffed at some of the big PG prospects but it goes deeper than that.  You compare UCLA to Washington and Arizona: UCLA was arguably the best team in the Pac-10 matching up starters only (especially if Jones is healthy and counting Smith as a starter).  But in a hypothetical game of second units last year, Washington and Arizona would have blown UCLA away.   

By the numbers, the UCLA second five averaged a meager 11.7 points per game and only 7.4 Rebounds.  Arizona's second five, which all played in every game, averaged 30.7 PPG and 15.1 Rebounds.  Washington‘s second five, which had to fill in for an injured starter much of the year, was even better averaging 34.7 and 13.2.

Of course stats never tell the whole story but let me put it this way.  The tenth man for Arizona was 6'11" Kyryl Natyazhko  who played in every game and shot 50% from the floor.  UCLA's tenth man was Blake Arnet who only played in 7 games and did not have a FG make for the season.  The Huskies' starting PG Gaddy got hurt and they moved their shooting guard (Isiah Thomas) to PG and he was all Pac-10.  Isiah's backup, more or less the third string PG to start the year, Venoy Overton, was #2 in the conference in assist to turnover ratio.  UCLA's starting PG Jones got hurt not once but twice hurting his finger and wrist, yet UCLA had little choice but to keep playing him because the third string PG was arguably Blake Arnet.  I understand if Jones could not play at all Lee would have been the backup PG.  However, in the one half that Jones could not play at all, the first half of the Washington game, Blake Arnet played for his only time all year in the first half of a game.  Thus Blake would have seen more action had Jones been unable to play.

Our bad bench is because our recruiting has not been as strong as it should be and to be blunt had some misses.  Hopefully McCray can turn this around really quickly and Matthew's recruit (Parker) can contribute right away. 

There is some reason for optimism regarding the assistant coach situation in basketball and more importantly the long term health of the program. 

Go Bruins!          

Comment 48 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

DC, it seems like you don't think so highly

of Blake Arnet, which I know can’t possibly be true since we both know that he’s got a sweet 3-pointer and one of the top 20 or 30 best human beings in the world.

by Jyaan on Jun 14, 2011 5:58 AM PDT reply actions  

LOL

You are right, I was a bit harsh as he is young. With LeBron’s troubles, he could be moving up the basketball list.

Seriously, our bench problems go deeper than Blake. Needing Blake, or having to play a hurt Jones, because of Blake was just an example that was not debatable as would be the merits/problems of the other players on our bench.

by DCBruins on Jun 14, 2011 6:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

That's just never going to get old, is it?

lol

And as DC mentions, with LeBron’s latest flame-out, maybe we should amend Arnet’s stats to the top 19-29 overall.

greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Jun 14, 2011 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

Not really

since LeBron was not on that list to begin with…

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Jun 14, 2011 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

Can someone PLEASE

post a link to that Blake Arnet post? I was an active member when it got posted and remember having the biggest WTF moment on bruinsnation, but I have a feeling there are a lot of new readers since then that will not get the post that Jyaan alluded to. Top 3 bruinsnation post for sure imo.

by uclabruin34 on Jun 14, 2011 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

Isaiah Thomas

is 5’10.25". He was their starting point guard for three years. He’s not a shooting guard, and was only moved there to try to get Gaddy on the court.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 14, 2011 9:25 AM PDT reply actions  

Gaddy was the Starting PG

I don’t think we are disagree. Thomas past and future was always a PG. Gaddy was the PG to start last year. Thomas moved back from shooting guard to take his place.

However, my point is that when they lost a starting PG, they had Thomas and Overton ready to fill in. They did not miss a beat. When Jones got hurt, we had to play Blake in the only game he was partially unavailble and needed Jones to continue to play even though he was much less effective.

by DCBruins on Jun 14, 2011 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Bench Production

I don’t know if we should expect such big production numbers from our bench. My observation of CBH is that he likes to keep a small rotation and doesn’t give many minutes to freshman (unless they’re highly ranked obviously). So, even if we have a couple guys who might be able to contribute, they aren’t likely to get the minutes unless CBH feels it is necessary.

by King J77 on Jun 14, 2011 12:05 PM PDT reply actions  

A point worth making.

Even Ben’s final four teams ran a 7 or 8 man rotation.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 14, 2011 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

And I like the shorter rotation but

When Michael Roll got hurt off the bench during the Love Season we did not turn to a walk on and there was no danger of needing a walk on to play.

by DCBruins on Jun 14, 2011 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes and No

You are right in that the 10th man for CBH is general not a big producer and his bench has never been as long as UW’s BUT the bench has been better and more productive in other years. Throwing two years ago as just a bad year, the averages of the second five were:

2008-9 18.8 and 10.1 (Bench included future All PAC 10 Roll and Lee)
2007-8 14.1 and 11.5 (Bench included future All Pac 10 Roll and former FF Starting Center Mata)
2006-7 14.7 and 8.9 (Bench included future pro Westbrook and future all PAC 10 Roll)

All were better than last year. Also you look at those benches and they all had one or two future all PAC 10 Players.

by DCBruins on Jun 14, 2011 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

one 'in fairness' comment

is that what guys brought off the bench in different years were different things. This year, for example, bringing Stover off the bench gives you very little scoring but gives you a defensive upgrade over Smith (I take it you’re counting him has a starter despite his extensive experience coming off the bench). This year, your starting 5 were all very capable scorers (and 4 of 5 were offense-first players), so when some of the the bench guys were in it would make sense for them to defer scoring to whichever starters were in the game.

Not doubting the overall premise that we have had deeper benches in the past and need them in the future, but there is a big difference between bringing a young Mike Roll off the bench (couldn’t defend a lick in his early days but could be a zone-busting 3 point specialist) vs bringing a young Tyler Lamb off the bunch to provide hustle and excellent defense. You could argue our defense and defensive intensity actually improved with some of our bench players on the court and helped to wear down other teams; that won’t show up in an analysis of points and rebounds.

by VeniceBruin on Jun 14, 2011 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agree but

The past benches were still better.

The first six man was Lane. At the end of the season Lane was the ninth man. (Lane was playing more minutes than Smith at the begining of the year.)

Stover and Lamb were very good on defense. But both were liabilites on offense. Lamb was the worst shooter on the team. Stover is raw and it shows on offense. For example, I would rather have a Mata shoot free throws.

On Roll, I agree. But you could hide Roll’s defense flaws by putting him on the worst wing, some teams have a weak player at 2 or 3. Also a good interior defense can cover some exterior flaws. Of course defense is a reason he did not or play more.

Compare that to Lamb and Stover. You could really double team off them and ignore both of them on the offensive end. Lamb was 2-18 from 3 in the PAC 10. It is hard to hide them on offense.

Even Anderson who was our best sub was not great as a PG. He had 6 Assists to 8 TOs in the last five games where he was playing mostly for a very hurting Jones. He played 20 minutes in all but one of those games (in which he played 19) and in the last game against FL he played all 23 at PG and did not score and only had 1 assist.

The bench hurt this year. It needs to be better for us to we win the PAC 10 or go forward. I know Stover will get better but it may still be a bit soon. Lamb is the most interesting of the returning group. Some are really high on him.

by DCBruins on Jun 14, 2011 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

right; I agree with you

and also note that sometimes we had some truly weak offensive units on the court, playing 3 on 5 on offense some of the time.

I’ll add that our final four teams all had defensive specialist(s) in the starting lineup – Luc in all 3, Ced in 1, LMR in another – which leads to more reliance on bench players to pick up the scoring load when subbing in for the key offensive guys (e.g. frosh edition DC had major offensive responsibility when JF or AA were sitting on the bench). But, to your point, Luc and Ced were more capable offensive players than Stover and Lamb this year.

We’re all in agreement on the conclusion, just arguing that the box scores (or rather, the points/rebounds numbers you cite) need to be seen in context – this year’s starting lineup was offense-first with mostly defensive guys on the bench.

Count me as high on Lamb. Just need Howland to stop holding him back… ;-)

by VeniceBruin on Jun 14, 2011 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

Lamb

just needs to stop hesitating. If he plays well enough on defense, CBH won’t yank him for missing some shots. He passed on so many open 3’s last year. He just needs to use the flow, trust his instinct and shoot the ball when he’s open like that.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Jun 15, 2011 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree

you could see flashes that, when he wasn’t thinking but was just playing, he has some offensive game.

by VeniceBruin on Jun 15, 2011 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

in fairness... part 2

2 scholarship players not being eligible in the wear twins had a big effect on the bench production and overall team depth. i guess that ties in to the bigger issues of recruiting and transfers out and it, player development etc. personally i’d think of last year more as an anomaly independent of assitant coach issues. the numbers shouldn’t be a surprise, but i am interested to see how this year’steam compares. i wouldnt be surperised if 2nd 5 production douibles this year.

Across The Face

by rb bruin on Jun 14, 2011 2:23 PM PDT reply actions  

I would have to agree

I also think that a large part will be the difference of the Wear twins (out and taking up 2 schollies last year vs in this year).

Last year:
PG Jones (Jr)
SG Lee (Jr)
SF Honeycutt (So)
PF Nelson (So)
C Smith (Fr)

Reserves: Anderson (Jr), Lamb (Fr), Stover (Fr), Lane (So)

This year, this is what I expect:
PG Jones (Sr)
SG Anderson (Sr)
SF Wear, D (So)
PF Nelson (Jr)
C Smith (So)

Reserves: Lamb (So), Stover (So), Wear, T (So), Lane (Jr), Powell (Fr), Parker (Jr)

Last year, we had major difficulties with backing up our big guys… Lane was better early in preseason and Stover better late, so arguably 1 on the bench to go to at any given time. This year, we will have much better depth with a year-older Stover and Travis Wear in addition to Lane (who I’m still hoping will turn into a great player in the 3/4 position).

I see Zeke and Jerime as the starters, unless Lamb passes Jerime up for the 2 guard. Either way, the other will be a reserve that we will use fairly often. Parker may get decent minutes if he proves himself when he gets here. I wouldn’t expect Powell to get many minutes this year unless he is way better than I expect… (prove me wrong!)

Thus, comparing last year where we had Anderson and either Lane/Stover to go to (2 reserves total) vs this year with 2 bigs and 2 smalls that I expect we will rely on (maybe more if Lane, Parker, or Powell exceed expectations), then I’d expect the bench to be much more productive this year overall. Even with the loss of Lee and Honeycutt, our young team is finally maturing and filling out!

by Go Bruinz on Jun 14, 2011 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh and I forgot

Blake Arnet will be a year older, wiser and (if possible) better this year as well!

by Go Bruinz on Jun 14, 2011 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

All will exceed expectations . . . . I hope.

OK, I’ll admit I am very enthusiastic about Lamb, Powell and Parker. I expect Lamb and Powell will get plenty of PT at SG. And I am confident that Lamb and Parker will make major contributions at SF. in fact, I personally believe that Lamb or Parker may start at SF ahead of D. Wear. But if D. Wear starts at SF that just means we have extra depth there too.

CBH may be forced, by the quality of his team, to play play 10 or 11 guys this year. I hope.

by Arturo del Mundo on Jun 14, 2011 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Powell and David Wear

1. I think you are right Powell will have a shot to start by the time the PAC 10 starts. He is the most athletic player on the team.
2. CBH has said David Wear will play SOME 3. That is not the same as saying he is the starting 3 or playing only 3.

The wildcard is Parker. No idea what to make of him.

by DCBruins on Jun 14, 2011 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

how deep do you think CBH goes this year?

I have a hard time believing he’ll suddenly start finding time for 11 guys. I would guess Lane gets squeezed out (or ideally redshirts….?), and that one of Parker and Powell finds themselves with severely limited minutes… though that is under the assumption that a Wear takes up a lot of time at the 3.

by VeniceBruin on Jun 14, 2011 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Tough to say because of the unknowns

Jones was not what we thought going into the season. Much better on Offense and not the player on D we were led to believe.

1. Parker is the player I most want to see. Is he Carlino2 or is he a different kind of Jones (immediate JC contributor in a different way)? On the high end, he starts for us at 3. On the low end, he does not play at all when it matters.

2. Next is Powell. We know he is the best “athlete” since Westbrook. But how will adjust? Can he play three or can we play three guards with him as a small forward. That seems unlikely. Is he like Lee and Westbrook and takes a year to learn what is going on before he plays real minutes. I think it is a different situation and he plays right away but again I have not seen play for UCLA. It is guesswork now.

Lane does seem the odd men out. Everything else seems to depend on two people above.

But you are right we will not play 11 or anywhere close to that many when the PAC 10 starts.

by DCBruins on Jun 14, 2011 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

OK

I agree that playing 11 will probably not happen. I suppose that my suggestion was based primarily on my “wish” that Lane would continue to get meaningful PT. With the Wears on board, Lane may be squeezed out. Too bad.

by Arturo del Mundo on Jun 15, 2011 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's not really too bad.

No offense to Lane, but if he can’t earn a spot in the lineup, perhaps he should consider redshirting. It’s not a knock on him personally, but if he wants to play, he should earn it. He shouldn’t just be guaranteed PT because we’re fond of him and because he got PT last year. We’re serious about winning a national championship… we’re not tee ball. I like Lane and I think with some continued seasoning he could be really good, but he is not good enough to push out either of the Wears from what I’ve heard.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 15, 2011 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Powell doesn't have the fundamentals

or skill level to really challenge for more than spot minutes at the two, where the majority of minutes (probably 30) go to Lamb, and the remaining minutes to JA in a two PG lineup with Jones. Powell will play spot minutes, depending on his development, and we will adjust lineups accordingly.

Parker will probably see 20 minutes at the 3, David Wear will likely see 15, and Lamb will probably see about 5.

At PG, we probably will see Jones for 30 min, Anderson for 10.

At PF, we’ll see Reeves for 25 minutes, plus crunch time, and Travis Wear for 15.

At center, we’ll likely see Smith for as long as he can go, and put in Stover when he’s out.

That gives us a 10 man lineup, including Powell. We shall see how much run he gets, but I don’t anticipate much.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 15, 2011 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

I say that particularly

because the Wears have been with the team a year already, becoming part of the system, and apparently CBH raves about them. I would think Powell and Parker, as new kids on the block, are going to be fighting an uphill battle for minutes.

by VeniceBruin on Jun 15, 2011 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

It is sort of dependant

upon matchups. Against teams that are bigger, we could easily use David at the 3 for more minutes. The best part is we’re pretty variable. Parker in a pinch can play 1-3, and David Wear/Reeves can play 3-5, though we’ll probalby stick with David over Reeves at the 3.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 15, 2011 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Can Reeves play 3?

To play 3 for CBH you need to be able to hit an open 3 and shoot outside. Not sure he can do that. It is why some are speculating about Reeves at 3 but CBH is not among them.

by DCBruins on Jun 15, 2011 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

big rec to the line
It is why some are speculating about Reeves at 3 but CBH is not among them.

Classic.

by VeniceBruin on Jun 15, 2011 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

CBH discussed Reeves playing the three last year

and even besides that, he’ll likely be guarding a 3 sometimes based on matchups anyway. In any case, I never said he’d be playing 3 for significant minutes, indeed I stated that it would be Parker/Wear for the lion’s share.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 15, 2011 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not going after you

but wear did CBH say that? I have never seen that but I certianly don’t claim to see everything. I would be a bit surprised.

I agree that with you that with Wear, Reeves may be better guarding the three but I have not even heard CBH say that.

by DCBruins on Jun 15, 2011 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sorry typing too fast

where not wear, among my many typos recently.

by DCBruins on Jun 15, 2011 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Full disclosure:

this was from a poster I believe on Bruinzone. I’ll try to track the original down. He’s made good contributions and I trust he didn’t make the situation up, but he essentially said Ben and Reeves came into Sandbags (mmmm) and Ben discussed the fact that Reeves might need to play some three, and that was Ben’s hope that he could in the upcoming season (last year). That way he could play Lane at the Four and Smith at the 5.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 15, 2011 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks for Clarifying

It could be true but off the record and informal settings coaches say a lot. The poster could have asked a question like “is there anyway Smith, Lane, and Nelson play together?”

In any case, I have been looking for that because like you I think Reeves would be a better defensive three than I THINK Wear is going to be but I have no support for that. Further, all CBHs comments I have seen and heard make me think that Reeves will never play three.

by DCBruins on Jun 15, 2011 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

LOL Also

Gold writes:

Nelson doesn’t have the skill set to be a true “three,” but he definitely could slide over and guard a three at times if needed. There will be times next year when we see a Nelson/Wear/Smith frontcourt – I wouldn’t be shocked if that was the starting lineup at some point – but I wouldn’t think that Nelson can just become a three.

by DCBruins on Jun 15, 2011 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Your point is right

But Carlino was also a bust event before he transfered. I hope you are right about an improved Bench production and I think you are in the sense it will definitely improve, the question is how much.

by DCBruins on Jun 14, 2011 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

How do you figure?

He didn’t play.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 15, 2011 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think that's the point.

Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.

by KSBruin on Jun 15, 2011 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

But that was more

dependant upon his injury than his skill level. I think he would have been an asset in our guard rotation.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 15, 2011 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Carlino Injury was not a factor

My understanding was:
1. Carlino was not looking like a high-major PG. Either right then or in the future. Carlino was not seriously contesting Anderson for backup minutes.
2. While Carlino is/was a very good shooter, there were serious questions about his ability to play at the speed of the PAC 10. Also, he is/was small to play 2.
3. Of course he would have played in front of Blake but he was at the end of the list of scholarship players. If he was available, Jones would have played almost the same minutes on his very bad hand/finger.
   

by DCBruins on Jun 15, 2011 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

None of these factors make him a bust.

Being on a D-1 team and not playing in less than 10 games does not equal bust, or we would have to consider Stover a bust, as he redshirted. Bust is a summation of one’s career. His concussion kept him sidelined, and by the time he was trying to work back into the rotation, Ben was reluctant to play him.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 15, 2011 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Stover is completely different

Stover had height. Stover had athletic ability. But he was/is so raw on offense he needs time. He is still learning how to play and gaining/weight and strength. It made sense for him to redshirt for his body and with his learning curve.

Carlino is not going to be helped by filling out, unless he grows taller (That would help him as a 2). Carlino did not look good before the concusion either. He came as a PG but prior to the concussion he was a backup 2. And on the depth chart at that point he was buried behind Lamb and Anderson. for backing up Lee.

This year, he would be buried behind Anderson, Lamb and Powell. I think it worked out best for everyone that he transfered.

by DCBruins on Jun 15, 2011 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree on your last point

and I don’t mean to keep hammering on this, but nothing you said makes him a bust. He could have bulked up, and he could have improved his PG skills to the point where he would be starting next year, assuming he was still here. He is not, and the rest is history.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 15, 2011 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

We disagree on talent

I am not sure he would ever have enough talent to play on a UCLA team. Unlike Stover who I can see developing into an important player.

Maybe I am too impatient. But then Carlino was not patient enough to wait to play either.

by DCBruins on Jun 15, 2011 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

McCray "effect" to come into play soon...

I mentioned on the other McCray thread that Jordan Adams of the Atlanta Celtics would be ending his recruitment soon. Looks like it’s a footrace between us and Memphis. We’ll get to see if his connections pay off sooner rather than later. Though once again, just because we hired him doesn’t mean we automatically get his players. Such an idea is silly.

"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden

by OswegoBruin on Jun 14, 2011 5:09 PM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bruins Nation, an unofficial daily online scrap book covering the greatest collegiate athletic program in the nation. Established June 16, 2005. GO BRUINS.

Managers

Uclabear1_small Nestor

Arron_afflalo1_small Tydides

Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small Achilles

377011_2642084725867_1068030137_32302525_1166539782_n_small Ryan Rosenblatt

Telemachus_small Telemachus

Licenseplate_small gbruin

2761_small tasser10

Blue_bellerophon_small Bellerophon

Img_0052_2_small Patroclus

Small DCBruins

Of Counsels

094_small Ajax

Menelaus2_small Menelaus

Small Meriones

Small Odysseus

Associates

Eee_small freesia39

Uclabruins_small AHMB