The Chemistry Experiment
J.A. Adande says it’s hard for Allen Iverson to find great chemistry:
The Detroit Pistons became the NBA’s greatest chemistry experiment when they traded Chauncey Billups to Denver for Allen Iverson in November. General manager Joe Dumars wanted to get with the trend of clearing salary cap space for the free-agent bonanza of 2010, only he couldn’t sell a Knicks-like stripping of the roster to a fan base that has seen the Pistons reach the Eastern Conference finals for six consecutive years. It’s not too often you can dump salary and get an eight-time All-Star and former MVP in return. Of course, there isn’t a single player as difficult to incorporate into a new system as Iverson.
His most successful season in Philadelphia came after the Sixers got rid of Jerry Stackhouse, Derrick Coleman, Larry Hughes and Jim Jackson. They let Iverson have the offensive stage to himself, while everyone else played defense and grabbed rebounds. The experiment with Carmelo Anthony in Denver didn’t work out. He dominated the ball too much, played at a speed no one else could keep up with, and didn’t do enough to get everyone else involved.
An alternative explanation to these chemistry-based accounts would note that Iverson simply isn’t that effective as a basketball player. Given his small size, it requires extraordinarily unusual skills for Iverson to be as effective as he is, but the fact remains that “effective as he is” just isn’t as effective as his superstar status would warrant. The successful 2001 Philadelphia 76ers team that went to the NBA finals was, at 56-26, a pretty weak Finals contender. What’s more, the Iverson-led offense wasn’t very good—13th most efficient out of 29 teams in the league. Their strength was defense, where they ranked as fifth-best, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone argue that Iverson (as opposed to, say, Dikembe Mutombo) was the lynchpin of that defense.
58 Responses to “The Chemistry Experiment”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 8th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
George Lynch was the.. uh… lynchpin… of that defense. That dude was 110% hustle, and great at cleaning up AI’s garbage.
If there were a 1-on-1 professional basketball league, I have no doubt AI would own it every year. Since there’s not, he’ll continue to be a fading superstar whose skillset can’t succeed in the team game.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Maybe a guy like A.I. needs to go somewhere where there is a genuine superstar that even he will naturally defer to. Boston maybe? Cleveland?
January 8th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Petey arriving in 3… 2…
January 8th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I think you’ve pushed the argument too far. AI might not have been that important to the defense, but his ability to generate offense was v. important in that it allowed that defense to matter.
Does anyone know what the PERs of his teammates look like as compared to other Finalists? Or even other teams that year?
January 8th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I’ve always enjoyed watching Iverson, but after the failure of the Denver experiment, I’m resigned to think of him as our generation’s George Gervin–a magnificent (and uber-popular) scoring talent that was spellbinding to watch, but unable to make the kind of big-time competitive impact you would expect from a true superstar.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Calvin Murphy was smaller, but he was effective.
If Iverson weren’t juvenile and pathologically selfish, he could adapt to other teams’ systems. Shortage of athletic talent is not his problem.
It’s all mental. There are many great athletic talents in sports history who had vacancies in the attic.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Matt, a correction about the 2001 Sixers team. The defensive lynchpin of that team was Theo Ratliff and the team was just blazing hot until he got hurt in February. That’s when the trade took place to bring in Mutombo, as it was thought he might be the only one with potential to handle shack in the finals. The team was never the same after the trade, but taking a game from a Lakers team with Kobe and Shaq both in their primes is still quite a feat. I’ve always remembered that team fondly, not for AI, but the supporting cast. Eric Snow, Tony Kukoc, Aaron McKie (NBA sixth man of the year), Lynch and Ratliff (when he was healthy)….that squad had amazing chemistry and zero eqo issues with AI jacking up 25-30 shots a game.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I think the underlying explanation of the trade is that they wanted to make room for Rodney Stuckey going forward. Iverson is a rent-a-player. I wouldn’t expect him to stay around long.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
First, I just want to say that anyone who doesn’t like Alan Iverson doesn’t like basketball. I know you’re not saying that, Matt, and I’m not accusing any particular commenter or anything. But Alan Iverson is basketball in elemental form, a guy of tiny stature who just has more game than you can imagine.
And his Finals performance, though unsuccessful from a team standpoint, should be legendary, and I don’t know why he doesn’t get that credit.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
“Petey arriving in 3… 2…”
Matthew is just trolling. Shouldn’t be fed…
January 8th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
So far, Denver is doing great with Billups running the offense; Detroit so-so with Iverson. But over time, Detroit should get better. If not, Iverson’s rep is set. I trust Joe Dumars, and hope the Iverson experiment, if you can call it that, works out for the Pistons. Or do they have to trade Hamilton as well? MoTowners deserve something good.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
The comparison of the 6-0 Iverson to the 5-9″ Calvin Murphy is insightful. In 1978, the Houston Rockets lost three of their biggest stars, Rudy Tomjanovich, Moses Malone, and Mike Newlin, to injuries, so Murphy shouldered the offensive load. He wound up leading the league in field goal attempts, shooting a credible .491 from the floor (and .918 from the foul line) on his way to a 25.6 scoring average. It was a valiant effort that kept that year’s Rockets from winding up one of the worst teams ever, but they still ended 28-54.
If basketball had a height limit, Iverson and Murphy would be Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan, just as if football had a height limit, Doug Flutie would have been the greatest quarterback in NFL history.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
If you’re going to talk about short players–who win!–Isaiah Thomas! Can’t coach, but could take over games on the floor.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
“I’ve always enjoyed watching Iverson, but after the failure of the Denver experiment, I’m resigned to think of him as our generation’s George Gervin–a magnificent (and uber-popular) scoring talent that was spellbinding to watch, but unable to make the kind of big-time competitive impact you would expect from a true superstar.”
Well, Iverson is well ahead of Gervin as a scorer, but here’s the thing:
The list of success stories basically begins and ends with Michael Jordan.
I still have irrational exuberance around the chances of this year’s Pistons. It’s the strongest roster Iverson’s ever had, and he can still reliably deform the defense with dribble penetration, which is what a title winner around him would look like. If you get your teammates playing 4 on 3, good things can happen.
I think folks are sleeping on this team. Iverson and Rasheed are a year too old, and the young guys are a year too young, but they just have to get it all together for two months.
But maybe it doesn’t happen. Who knows. The talents Iverson brings are not the easiest talents to get maximum value out of on the basketball court.
—–
And SCMT,
I’ve fallen in love with Kwame Brown. He’s had three brilliant games this year – one at the Spurs, one at the Lakers, and one last night against the Blazers. He was superior to Greg Oden last night.
For the Pistons to go deep, he’s going to have to be an epic cake-slayer.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
If there were a 1-on-1 professional basketball league, I have no doubt AI would own it every year.
Well, no, because he’s not a great defender. I can’t remember who did the informal survey a few years ago, but there was actually a consensus around one player for 1-on-1: Vince Carter.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
What’s more, the Iverson-led offense wasn’t very good—13th most efficient out of 29 teams in the league. Their strength was defense, where they ranked as fifth-best, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone argue that Iverson (as opposed to, say, Dikembe Mutombo) was the lynchpin of that defense.
So Iverson was able to take a team built nearly entirely on defense and transform them into a middle of the pack offensive team? That’s damn impressive.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
I agree that it’s hard to max out AI’s talent on a team…which leads me to wondering what that team would look like. Jordan could win with a rent-a-Center…would AI need a dominant post presence? Or would he thrive in a crazy version of the D’Antoni system?
January 8th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Petey you did not ice the part where the Blazers without Brnadon Roy win the game right? And the part where Aldridge scored 26.
If that was Kwame Brown playign brilliantly you have a pretty low bar
January 8th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
and zero eqo issues with AI jacking up 25-30 shots a game
they couldn’t have ego issues about it because none of em could shoot all that well (except McKie and he was cold for the finals). iirc the Sixers would’ve made it competitive if any of them could hit three-pointers.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
To add, before he picked up his standard 2 1st quarter rookie fouls Oden had 2 touches and 2 emphatic dunks, then foul trouble kept him onm the bench most of the game, message to other cneters is get your time in now, next year when they quit calling rookie touch fouls on him Oden is gonna be a BEAST
January 8th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
“I agree that it’s hard to max out AI’s talent on a team…which leads me to wondering what that team would look like. Jordan could win with a rent-a-Center…would AI need a dominant post presence? Or would he thrive in a crazy version of the D’Antoni system?”
Surround him with good defenders who can knock down open shots. That’s the whole secret.
My biggest disappointment in the Denver experiment was Nene’s inability to stay on the court during Iverson’s tenure. Nene was a perfect big man for Iverson to operate with inside – catch, collect, and dunk, while defending the post well. If opposing bigs try to stop his dribble, Iverson punishes them by shoveling to Nene.
Tyson Chandler would work as a big.
In Detroit, I’m a big fan of Arron Afflalo on the floor with Iverson, since Afflalo can defend the perimeter well and knock down the open 3 on the offensive end.
Bowen and Posey have always been guys I’ve dreamed of having on an Iverson squad, for similar reasons.
Rasheed is actually a very nice fit – he defends the post well, and is always ready to catch and shoot.
Three point shooters are always a good way to take best advantage of guys who can generate a double team, so I’m jealous at the way NOH is building around CP3, and the way ORL is building around Howard. Iverson has never had enough snipers surrounding him to make oppositions properly pay for running guys at him.
—–
“Jordan could win with a rent-a-Center”
Well, for the second three-peat. He still needed Cartwright’s modest contributions at the beginning of his reign.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
“Petey you did not ice the part where the Blazers without Brnadon Roy win the game right?”
Well, we didn’t have Rasheed and Rip, and we were on the road…
It went back and forth down the stretch. Damn good game. Our key guys had to play abnormally heavy minutes. Didn’t pull it out after winning seven straight. I’ll live with winning seven of eight.
“And the part where Aldridge scored 26. If that was Kwame Brown playign brilliantly you have a pretty low bar”
Every aspiring team expect LAL/BOS/CLE has a key weakness. Our is the lack of a reliable third big behind Rasheed and McDyess. So a quality performance from Kwame Brown, Amir Johnson, or Jason Maxiell cheers my heart. And Kwame brought it last night. LaMarcus is going to get his, but Oden and Pryzbilla got destroyed by Kwame, the cake-slayer.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Iverson needs a big point guard. He can defend point, but can’t really play it. He needs a point guard who can cover the opposing 2-guard. Eric Snow, on the 2001 76ers, was a 6′4″ point.
He needs a great defense. He is actually an asset if his teammates can make up for his failed steals.
He needs people who hit the boards and get loose balls. He needs guys willing to thrive on garbage. Most other good offensive players don’t want to score exclusively off the offensive glass or dump offs when a guy is triple teamed (double teams weren’t enough to spring most of his ‘01 teammates). He distorts defenses like no other player.
Well, these things were true a few years back. I haven’t seen much of him lately. The way he played, everyone in Philly expected him to come apart someday.
BTW, Mutumbo was a big step down for that team. Theo Ratliff was a better defender by that point in Mutumbo’s career, and could run. They had by far the best record in the league when Ratliff went down.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Dammit, it’s “linchpin.”
January 8th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I guess the Rick Barry Warriors team that won the title is before your time. He was 6-8, and at the time he didn’t live exclusively on the perimeter like he did in later years, but he wasn’t really a big man.
I’d say that was the biggest disparity between the best player and the rest on any championship team in my lifetime.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Allow me to simply note that I love Allen Iverson and I always will.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
We’re getting confused here between what Iverson *is* and what Iverson *was*. Iverson *was* a truly elite player, one of the 10 best in the league at his peak. There are not a lot of guys who you could have plugged into that Sixers team and had them be above-average offensively. But nowadays, he’s not quick enough anymore to be as disruptive as he used to be, and he’s gotten more efficient, but he’s still not that efficient. His defense is worse and he doesn’t have the stamina that used to make him so incredible. He’s an above-average shooting guard, but he’s not going to carry a team anymore. And his style makes it very hard for him to contribute if he’s not carrying the team.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
The basketball court has become far too small for all the meat on it. My modest suggestion is that basketball should be played with 4 man teams. I think AI would agree.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
It’s a little dishonest to take a guy who is past his prime like AI and pretend like the guy you see now is the guy you saw five years ago when he was at his peak. AI in his prime was a force to be reckoned with, the guy was flat-out unstoppable.
Yes, Yglesias is a baby, and probably can’t remember back that far, but in that case he should learn to keep his trap shut about things he doesn’t know about.
Fact is AI always had bad teams. The Denver experiment failed because AI is not a point guard! Yet George Karl felt the need to play him at point, which just isn’t going to work.
Detroit trading for AI was not a real attempt to improve the team. Billups is a great point guard, and they got back someone who is not a great point guard, and plays the same position as Rip Hamilton. Detroit trading for AI was a straight salary dump, because AI’s twenty million salary comes off the books at the end of this season.
Detroit should be better, yes, but don’t discount that the rest of the guys have bascially half given up since the Billups trade. Rasheed, Rip and Prince. Those guys are excellent players, but it’s not like they don’t have a history of coasting on their laurels. And they are not stupid either – they know AI in Detroit is a one year thing.
Anyway, AI was great, now he’s just good, but pretending like he was never that good is just idiocy of the highest order. Anyone who saw him score 50 against the Lakers in the Finals, or just take over All-Star games against the best players in the world, or cross Michael Jordan over, would never say stupid shit like “the Iverson led offense wasn’t very good” and try to blame that on AI when his fellow offensive players – Snow, Ratliff or Mutumbo, McKie, etc – were all pretty much defensive specialists and sort of sucked on offense.
Best little guys ever – Isiah, CP3, Bob Cousy, Allen Iverson.
Oh yeah – Iverson is a sure fire Hall of Famer, no question. Despite what Yglesias would have you believe.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
“they know AI in Detroit is a one year thing.”
Odds are better than 50/50 that Dumars brings back Iverson, Rasheed, and McDyess on one year deals, and saves his cap space for 2010.
So the window is actually two years.
And Tay is playing his heart out this year.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
“Bowen and Posey have always been guys I’ve dreamed of having on an Iverson squad, for similar reasons.”
They would indeed be very nice fits- Shane Battier would be another one of those lock-down defense, lights out shooter types that AI would thrive with.
I’d also love to see Iverson play with Shawn Marion-great defender, the ultimate garbage-man, a decent shooter and can run his ass off.
Slightly OT- I didn’t expect the Elton Brand trade to be such a dud. The Sixers don’t seem to know how to use him. If they could get a shooter like Mike Miller or Jason Kapono, they could still be a pretty filthy team.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I think Theo Ratliff, with his 4 blocks per game was the main defensive presence, I think he made first team NBA defensive that year or the next, but just thinking about that team, with Snow, McKie, Lynch, and Mutombo…that has to be one of the great all time defensive teams. I seem to remember Iverson getting a ton of steals. Everyone else was so sound defensively he could run around like a maniac and double and get in passing lanes.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
the Iverson-led offense wasn’t very good—13th most efficient out of 29 teams in the league. Their strength was defense, where they ranked as fifth-best, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone argue that Iverson (as opposed to, say, Dikembe Mutombo) was the lynchpin of that defense.
But Matt, you’ve got to realize, without Iverson we would’ve been the 29th most efficient team in the league. There were absolutely no scorers there. We were relying on people like Aaron McKie, Jumaine Jones. Even LeBron couldn’t take a roster that offensively poor and make it a good offensive team.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:27 am
You really have to do a full apology for this one, because you know nothing about the 2000-2001 76ers. Before the Mutombo trade they were 41-14. After it they were 15-12. Then they struggled in the playoffs, with two series going the full 7 games. They had no choice because Ratliff got hurt. But Mutombo was hardly the linchpin of the defense – Lynch, McKie, Snow, Tyrone Hill, Ratliff were all better, and the team was simply never as good as they were with Theo in the middle because he could actually move from side to side. Further, Iverson led the league in steals that year IIRC. Because the team defense was so good he was able to play every passing lane and create turnovers.
You have this “Iverson sucks” chip on your shoulder but he deserved every bit of that MVP that year. Nobody else on that team save Aaron McKie and Kukoc every third night could throw the ball in the ocean. That Iverson made them a top-15 offense is nothing short of amazing.
January 9th, 2009 at 3:10 am
Petey says: “Odds are better than 50/50 that Dumars brings back Iverson, Rasheed, and McDyess on one year deals, and saves his cap space for 2010.”
Huh? Why would these players choose to sign one-year contracts when they could get longer deals elsewhere? Loyalty and “let’s make one more run” isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.
January 9th, 2009 at 4:30 am
dday, top 15 is not good, in a 29 (now 30) team league that is middle of the road. To me, a star would make his team better. In terms of big time scoring, the late period Bulls were only Jordon, Pip, and Kukoc, yet, they were a force on both ends of the floor. The question is not if Iverson took that team far, its if he was the only person would could do it, and in that way, no, he was not. A large number of big time score first guards could have taken that group far in a very weak east and more than a few (like say Ray Allen) would have probably fit better by giving the team more ball protection, better shooting, and fewer matchup issues. Its not a question of if Iverson sucks – at his best he was above average – but is he really a true Hall of Famer. No matter how you cut it, no, he was not.
January 9th, 2009 at 5:17 am
Dave Berri’s Wages of Wins did a hatchet job on AI. Here’s the basic criticism of Berri’s work (from Wikipedia): “Perhaps the simplest argument against Wins Produced is that Berri has committed an ecological fallacy when regressing individual statistics on team wins, assuming that successful stats at the team level are indicative of success at the individual level. This mistake ends up over-crediting efficiency at the expense of shot “creation” on offense, because the ability to “create” shots is assumed at the team level (while it shouldn’t be at the individual level); likewise, it over-credits defensive rebounders by giving them the full weight for a defensive stop whether they played a large role in forcing a miss or not (the NBA doesn’t track individual defensive stops beyond blocks and steals).”
AI can get reliably get his own shots. He doesn’t make them as efficiently as Steve Kerr or Dwight Howard but there are so many factors in even getting a shot (inbounding the ball, keeping your dribble, avoiding a blocked shot) that can derail a chance before the ball is on it’s way down to the hoop — AI never gets credit for avoiding any of that stuff, just blame for being a relatively low FG% volume shooter. I think AI has hit two game winners for the Pistons and missed a third. He gets the ball in situation for a reason.
Note: McDyess took a LOT less money to come back to Detroit this year when Denver waived him after the Billups trade. He’s as unselfish as them come.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:23 am
“Huh? Why would these players choose to sign one-year contracts when they could get longer deals elsewhere? Loyalty and “let’s make one more run” isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.”
I’m not sure any of the three could get more than the MLE on the open market. (Perhaps Rasheed could, but perhaps not.)
So if Dumars gives Rasheed and Iverson both $12m for one year, it seems like it’d be worth it for the players, and would preserve Dumars’ bullets for 2010.
Obviously, this would break down if there is an ‘09 FA he wants to go after, but I’d say whoever gets Carlos Boozer’s next contract is going to have buyer’s remorse.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:34 am
“Iverson needs a big point guard. He can defend point, but can’t really play it.”
The thing is that Iverson, kinda like Brandon Roy, ends up playing point down the stretch and for other major chucks of the game. Last year in Denver, he ran point for about half the possessions he was on the floor, and via some forensic accounting, you can see that Denver outscored the opposition by a larger margin when he was running point than when he was playing off the ball.
The whole point of playing him with another ball handler is to preserve him for late in games, since his dribble penetration requires extreme expenditures of energy. If he initiated the offense for 38mpg, he’d lose a lot of effectiveness, especially at his current age.
But yes, he definitely requires a backcourt mate with height who can defend.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Iverson is a legend. You can argue about his effectiveness and whether he would have won a championship if he’d been on a team with Shaq or Kevin Pittsnogle or the Duke of Windsor, but anyone who watched him play in Philly knows he was one of the all time greats regardless of any game theory or bizarre mathematical regressions you want to perform.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:53 am
. The question is not if Iverson took that team far, its if he was the only person would could do it, and in that way, no, he was not. A large number of big time score first guards could have taken that group far in a very weak east and more than a few (like say Ray Allen) would have probably fit better by giving the team more ball protection, better shooting, and fewer matchup issues.
This is absolute fucking nonsense!
What has Ray Allen ever accomplished when he was the only star on a team?
I was a huge Iverson fan from his Georgetown days till the end of his run in Philly. He’s too slow today, but in his prime, he was a handfull of spot-up jump shooters away from winnig multiple rings.
One thing that really hurt his effectiveness however, was his bad habit of hoisting fadeaway threes. He’d make a move on someone and 70% of the time it’d work but if it didn’t he’d kinda give up and hoist a three (or long jumper) which would inevitably lead to a long rebound and easy bucket for the other team. If it wasn’t for crappy shots like that, his career shooting percentage (and win totals) would be much higher.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:32 am
I am a long suffering Sixers fan, and I won’t argue that Iverson is a unique player in NBA history….a legend even. However, he was an incredibly difficult guy to build a team around. The reason for that is it was incredibly difficult to find quality players who could prosper with him on the floor at the same time. Forget about chucking shots for a second, the dude absolutely dominated the ball on offense, what elite (or even good) player would want to play on a team where they barely get to touch the ball. His moves, his speed, his shot making ability was incredible, but he was a nightmare to build a team around. That’s why the 2001 team was so unique, you had guys playing their hearts out on D, while happily settling for scraps on the offensive end. They may not have been the most talented supporting cast ever, but they completely bought into their roles and it’s the only time I’ve seen a team with Iverson on it actually look like a team. To give credit where it’s due, he was amazing that year, absolutely unstobable on many nights.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
All this talk about Iverson not being a Hall of Famer – see the guy saying “he’s not, he’s just not” – is pure fantasy, when the man will clearly be a first ballot Hall of Famer kind of guy. So you’re just fighting against reality. Maybe he isn’t your kind of Hall of Famer, in your own little fantasy world, but in the real world, the dude will be in the Hall, and he will be honored by his fellow players for it in a big way.
Fact is, this is the same kind of talk you heard about Paul Pierce before this past year – just a scorer, not a winner, doesn’t make his teammates better. Of course, once Pierce actually had good teammates, he won a Championship and got all these accolades and is not rightly talked about as one of the very best players in the league.
AI never was on a very good team in his prime, and most of the time was on dreadful ones. The idea that he somehow could have elevated dreadful teams into championship contenders on his own just doesn’t make sense.
January 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I don’t really know much about the NBA, but I *do* know that you, O King of Typos Which I Suspect Are Caused By Poorly-Trained Speech-Recognition Software, should be typing “…general manager Joe Dooooooooomaaaaars!…” It’s much more fun to say.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:01 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:14 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:58 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:53 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Great quality stuff.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:44 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra