Iverson is a chucker, so is Marbury. They have quite a number of assists strictly because THEY WERE GUARDS TO HANDLES THE BALL A LOT.Nuh uh. Kobe's a chucker. Chucker's don't pass.
His career apg even factors in his rookie year when Del Harris wouldn't play him. Yet he still trumps Jim.
Kobe fans got three moves:
1) Kobe got 5 rings (ignoring Shaq and MVPau)
2) Kobe scored more (Then Malone > Jordan, and Magic, and Bird, etc ...)
3) Quoting some players with an IQ of 72 because some media guys were asking about Kobe to write a story.
With the contract and 48, every gd laker fan has bailed on Kobe tbh except for Duece, Rxpimp. Kool and the parrot.
What does gd means? Because every good good laker fan has bailed on Kobe, and there are no exceptions.
God damn tbh.
Here's a summary I have gathered.
- mvp's don't matter since it's a media award, but hold up lemme post a bunch of media quotes
-the two seasons deuce keeps referring to for statistical greatness are two of the most forgettable seasons in recent laker history
-uses free throw % and assist figures to compare a guard to a big
-some people don't realize defense is a thing
-argument basically boils down to ppg
-says "nobody can refute my post" when he's just spamming quotes of athletes
Kevin Murphy leads the D League in PPG. How's he doing in the NBA? Oh that's right... he's been waived more than the US Flag.
Sounds about right.
I rank them based on how they would fare against players today. If we were ranking runners, we'd consider times, even though technology and training has greatly improved, we still consider the runner with the fastest time to be the best runner.
The same should be true for the NBA. We should consider the abilities of the players. It's not fair to old timers but then that's why we move forward. We cannot always consider Bill Russell as a top 5 player of all time just because he dominated in the onset of the game. You have to eventually compare him to others on a talent level, and we are doing that when we put MJ at number 1. We are saying that MJ was more dominant than Wilt or Bill Russell even though Wilt's stats say otherwise and Bill's rings say otherwise. You cannot have it both ways.
I agree with that, mostly.Almost all big men wouldn't put up stats they would in today's game because of the shift into a perimeter offense and interior defense (due to offensive and defense rule changes), but I won't rank Kareem, Hakeem, or Moses lower because of that. They simply performed with their given set of rules and their compe ion. I am sure Wilt or Russell will not put up the stats they put up back in the day in today's game, but I am not sure if they will be top 10 players today (my guess is yes, because I am guessing they would be able to adapt), but that is another question.
I don't think it's a stretch at all. If you watch games from back then, ball movement wasn't that great and handles were suspect at best. A decent PG today could dominate the game back then.Because players today got more training, better medicine, and knowledge of the game. The game has advanced, the environment has changed, much like the Newton analogy. I think it is a stretch to say D-leaguers will beat all the teams in the 60s, but I get your point.
You're using subjective terms to say "big stats". We know Wilt could not grab 55 boards in today's game because there aren't that many to go around usually. We know no big man is gong to score 100 points again because of the intentional foul. He'd be put on the line and he'd shoot 50% at best which makes him a liability. He'd be on the bench in crucial moments. In everything, when it first starts there are those who dominate it but as it gains in popularity and everyone is doing it, the talent is more diluted yet a greater talent overall is seen. A good example would be the 1st Dream Team vs the world. It was a joke. These days it's a compe ion, because the world has improved. I would not say we have players today better than those on the original Dream Team, but the world has better players. With the NBA, the Celtics and Lakers were the dream teams, the Globetrotters, and everyone else was the Generals. It's not so much the case now. I don't think you can use those easy mode games to judge the players ability compared to hard mode games of today.There's huge parity, big money with the game enticed better scouting and such. League rule changes no longer allow one team to have 8 HoFers, and the talent is much well distributed over the entire league.
Kobe scored 81, Robinson scored 71, Rodman had a string of 30+ rebound games, but they aren't 3 feet taller than anybody else. Wilt fought it out with other guys who weren't 7' tall, but they were a good 6'10, 6'11. Ben Wallace is 6'10", but he was one of the best defensive big man in the league for a long time, Duncan's 6'11". Will Wilt score 100 points or grab 55 rebounds in today's game? I doubt it, but he would be able to put up great stats because of his athleticism and general knowledge of the game.
He'd be a stiff but he'd be bigger than anyone else so he'd just block telegraphed shots and rebound and score at the rim. Take him back to the beginning of the game and he's a force.Hasheem Thabeet was a stiff now, and he'd be a stiff back then. I think you are underestimating the importance of understanding of the game. Look at a guy like Stromile Swift, extremely athletic even by today's standards, but wasn't able to do anything, because he was dumb as a rock. Look at a guy like Larry Bird, not so athletic, but his knowledge of the game allowed him to dominate. Russell was a very smart player, and while he likely won't average 25 rpg and block 6 shots, he'd be able to be a defensive anchor and an offensive kickstarter.
Well, we differ on this then. Jesse Owens will always be one of the best runner of all time.
Jordan maximized his abilities against he compe ion, and still dominated despite the advancement in the entire league, that is the impressive part. FYI, I don't have Jordan as the definitive #1, he's in the conversation along with Kareem for me. But I have not locked this down.
I can't agree on that, a player like Frazier and Earl the Pearl had great handles, and they played in the 60s/70s
Wilt actually shot 28 for 32 for FTs (or something to that effect) in those games. Hack-a-Wilt was used back then as well.
As for the Dream Team comparisons, the original Dream Team would still dominate any international teams, including the US one today. And the other teams weren't that bad in the day. The Hawks, Warriors, Knicks, Pistons and Royals were decent teams.
You are making it sound like everybody were 5'10" back then. Most centers were 6'9" and above, and with the way they like exaggerate the players' heights now aday, isn't that different from what we have now.
Thabeet is a stiff now, and he'd be a stiff then. In fact, he probably won't see the floor much back in those racist days because he's black.
A lot of players maximize their skills vs the compe ion. A lot of players have dominated despite the advancements of their times. Humans have't evolved into better basketball playing primates however, so the stiffer the compe ion, the more noteworthy the domination.
I can't agree on that, a player like Frazier and Earl the Pearl had great handles, and they played in the 60s/70s
See the ball handling? That's Cousy, supposedly one of the best. That's a Finals game. Chris Paul would pick his pocket on every trip. Earl Monroe and Clyde Frazier weren't on every team, so the overall ball handling ability on the NBA teams was much much lower than it is today.
Wilt had a horrible FT%. In his best FT% season he shot 61%. Sure you can cherry pick a small sample size but what good does it do as a whole? The fact is Wilt was a free throw liability. Hacking him when you cannot score at the other end is futile though and Wilt's compe ion often could not score at the other end.Wilt actually shot 28 for 32 for FTs (or something to that effect) in those games. Hack-a-Wilt was used back then as well.
Decent by what standards? The original Dream Team would not beat other countries by 50+ points night in and night out. Are you denying that the world has gotten better at basketball? What's your point here?As for the Dream Team comparisons, the original Dream Team would still dominate any international teams, including the US one today. And the other teams weren't that bad in the day. The Hawks, Warriors, Knicks, Pistons and Royals were decent teams.
How many Thabeet size guys were waived back then? If you were sweeping floors at an IGA at his size and you were found, you'd be put into the NBA.You are making it sound like everybody were 5'10" back then. Most centers were 6'9" and above, and with the way they like exaggerate the players' heights now aday, isn't that different from what we have now.
If Bill Russell sees the floor, so would he. If he can make an NBA roster today, he's a shoo in back then.Thabeet is a stiff now, and he'd be a stiff then. In fact, he probably won't see the floor much back in those racist days because he's black.
If Tiger Woods overcomes Jack's record, he's the best golfer ever... most likely. We don't talk about technology and trainers though...
So to call it like it is, the 76ers of today would win multiple les in the Cousy era.
But people do improve with better compe ion, and the best, most athletic ones always adapt. We see the league transitioning from a rough and tumble era in the late 90's/early 00s to a fast paced perimeter based league of today, and the best of the best adapted and still dominated (Duncan, Kobe, Dirk). By the same lines of logic, I am sure players like Russell and Wilt can adapt and prosper in today's league.
Earl and Clyde were both on the same team, and they didn't pick steals every possession against players who were notably worse than Cousy. Ball handling is obviously better nowadays than back then, but then again, the best players adapt.
You mentioned that nobody can score 100 points in todays game anymore, and cited Wilt's FT% as a huge liability, so I mentioned he shot 28/32. Shaq's FT% was as bad as Wilt, didn't stop him from dropping 61 points.
My point is that Dream Team would still be dominating, though not the same degree, just like Russell and Wilt would be dominating in today's game, just not averaging 50ppg or 25 rpg like they did back then.
There certainly more than 8 guys that were 7-footers back in the day, but not all of them made it to the NBA.
Rodman was a bag boy at a supermarket before he was noticed, and that was in the 80s, so picking random guys off IGA isn't a bad idea afterall.
I don't follow golf, and no, the 76ers wouldn't win multiple les in the Cousy era.
That's speculation that's unwarranted. The Wilt and Russell that we are aware of were not at that level.
Steals weren't recorded before the 72-73 season, however his steals were about 1.3 per game, that we know of. Chris Paul averages about 2.5 a game. That's a full steal and then some, against much better ball handlers.Earl and Clyde were both on the same team, and they didn't pick steals every possession against players who were notably worse than Cousy. Ball handling is obviously better nowadays than back then, but then again, the best players adapt.
61 points is 39 points from being 100. I said no big can score that. Defenses and schemes won't allow it. How is 61 the same as 100? If it's the same, then David Robinson scored 71... so?You mentioned that nobody can score 100 points in todays game anymore, and cited Wilt's FT% as a huge liability, so I mentioned he shot 28/32. Shaq's FT% was as bad as Wilt, didn't stop him from dropping 61 points.
Though not to the same degree, ergo the world has improved, which further illustrates my point that today's talent is much more refined from a basketball standpoint than the talent of Bill and Wilt's era. I don't get what you are trying to argue against. It seems you're just agreeing with me, but disagreeing with me.My point is that Dream Team would still be dominating, though not the same degree, just like Russell and Wilt would be dominating in today's game, just not averaging 50ppg or 25 rpg like they did back then.
How about you cite some examples of the 7 footers who tried out but didn't make it? I can show you dozens of them that aren't playing in the NBA today, but who probably would have started in the 60's.There certainly more than 8 guys that were 7-footers back in the day, but not all of them made it to the NBA.
Do you have a point here?Rodman was a bag boy at a supermarket before he was noticed, and that was in the 80s, so picking random guys off IGA isn't a bad idea afterall.
Says you. The ball play in that era was extremely sloppy, no one had handles.I don't follow golf, and no, the 76ers wouldn't win multiple les in the Cousy era.
So is saying the 6ers will win multiple championships in Cousy's era. This entire back and forth is speculation. Come on, we are talking about a different dimension of existence here.
Doesn't mean he will pick the pocket every time. I played against people who are heads and shoulders better than me, I get picked a lot, but not every time.
Shaq's not as good as Wilt. Shaq led the league in scoring once, Wilt did it 8 times or something like that. Also, I agree Wilt will not score 100 points in today's game, I am saying that he will still be dominant.
I agree the levels have improved. I don't agree that players should be penalized in their rankings because they played in the older days. Their dominance should still be taken into account when ranking them.
Because the league wasn't covered as much back then? I won't be able to recall a player who was cut 60 years ago when nobody was even covering then back then.
Yeah, a direct response to your quip that IGA prospects suck. Rodman was picked up from a supermarket in a modern day league. My point was, what was your point?
Goes back to your point about speculation.
Fact: Ball handling is a huge part of success in the NBA
Fact: Today's average guard can handle the ball much better than even the best ball handlers of the 60's
Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater ball handling
Fact: Ball movement today is much more complex today than it was in the 60's
Fact: Better ball movement is a huge part of success in the NBA
Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater ball movement
Fact: The average NBA guard can shoot from outside much better than the average guard in the 60's
Fact: Better outside shooting is a huge part of success in the NBA
Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater outside shooting
Fact: The overall talent level in the NBA is much greater today than it was in the 60's (perhaps because there's a much bigger pool to draw from)
Fact: Better overall talent is a huge part of success in the NBA
Accepting those two facts, success in the NBA should be much greater if you have much greater overall talent
Ergo, individual players today are, on average, much better than individual players in the 60's at ball handling, ball movement and overall basketball talent.
So then it stands to reason that a dominant player of today's game is much better than a dominant player in the 60's era.
Anecdote that doesn't add to the debate. You are not an NBA player. You likely don't compete against NBA players.Doesn't mean he will pick the pocket every time. I played against people who are heads and shoulders better than me, I get picked a lot, but not every time.
Why won't Wilt score 100pts in today's game? You seemed to be arguing against that same assertion earlier. I don't need to show that Wilt wouldn't be a force today, I just need to show that Wilt would not be recognized as a dominant force since his stats are pretty much the sole reason for the recognition anyhow. You remove those, you remove Wilt.Shaq's not as good as Wilt. Shaq led the league in scoring once, Wilt did it 8 times or something like that. Also, I agree Wilt will not score 100 points in today's game, I am saying that he will still be dominant.
It depends on how you're ranking them. If that ranking means you'd have a stronger team with the top players from all eras, then the ranking is flawed. If it just means the top players from whatever era they played, there's really no ranking going on, just recognition of being a top player of your era.I agree the levels have improved. I don't agree that players should be penalized in their rankings because they played in the older days. Their dominance should still be taken into account when ranking them.
You said "more than 8". I just asked you to tell me one of them. Since you cannot recall even one of them, how can you recall that there were more than eight of them?Because the league wasn't covered as much back then? I won't be able to recall a player who was cut 60 years ago when nobody was even covering then back then.
I didn't say IGA prospects suck. I said "if you were sweeping floors at an IGA at his size and you were found, you'd be put into the NBA". Where in that sentence does it say IGA prospects suck?Yeah, a direct response to your quip that IGA prospects suck. Rodman was picked up from a supermarket in a modern day league. My point was, what was your point?
I don't recall reading that Rodman bagged groceries. He played college ball. Do you mean John Starks?
"After graduating high school in 1979, Rodman's future appeared uncertain. He found work where he could, including a janitor position at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport. In his off-time, though, he could be found at local basketball courts, where the now 6-7 player, was a force.
Through a family friend, Rodman's exploits soon caught the attention of the coaches at Cooke County Junior College in Gainesville, Texas, who offered Rodman the chance to attend the school. He accepted and to nobody's surprise, proved to be a dominant player for the program.
But Rodman couldn't keep up with the schoolwork and after a year, flunked out. Still, his play hadn't gone unnoticed, and he was soon invited to enroll at Southeastern Oklahoma State.
Rodman's on-the-court tenacity overwhelmed opponents, and during his three years at the school he averaged close to 26 points and 16 rebounds per game. In the 1986 NBA draft, the Detroit Pistons made the gangly but overly athletic 25-year-old Rodman a second round pick."
http://www.biography.com/people/dennis-rodman-20683617
You can watch footage from that era to validate it. I posted a video of a Finals match to illustrate how the ball handling sucks relative to today's standard.Goes back to your point about speculation.
Last edited by Sybok; 03-25-2014 at 01:52 PM.
There are two opposing forces at work as to comparing an average (or top-level in this case) NBA player from this era vs. 50 years ago.
On one hand, there were only 8 teams back then, so you were looking at the 100 or so best basketball players in the US.
On the other hand, top-level players now have mainly been playing basketball and training for almost their entire lives. This includes offseasons when the 1960s players would have to take side jobs to make a decent living. Today's players also have advantages in science like nutrition, training, etc.
I come down on the side of today's players. Sure there are 30 teams, but you now have the best players from all over the globe in the league and I believe the average player in today's NBA is far better than an average player from the 1960s. This doesn't apply to this thread's debate about the very best players though.
Not sure if you can quantify both of them as facts. It's generally observed so, but I wouldn't call them facts.
See above.
See above. Especially when considering FT% hasn't changed much in 60 years. Teams have more complex offense to get better shots, I can accept that, but they are still not facts.
Again, I am not sure if we can quantify these as facts. I would pretty much agree with all of them, doesn't make them facts. And it doesn't really speak to how Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell won't even be top 10 players in today's games. We are talking about average players here, not the best of them.
The tallest person in a group who averages 5'7" in height is not necessarily shorter than the tallest person in a group who averages 6'7"
As it stands, pure speculation. I have cited examples of very good ball handlers and defenders in the 60's 70's that do not dominate the opposition to the degree Wilt and Russell did.
Neither does saying Cousy will get picked by Paul every single time down the court. Because that is pure speculation, and an unlikely one at that.
Untrue, Wilt averaging 30/15/3 in today's game would still be considered one of the best players. My assertion is that in today's league, Wilt will at least be as dominant as an all-nba level player based on his display of athleticism and skill back in his day.
Why is it flawed?
You would say there were not more than 8 people in the entire USA that were more than 7 feet back in the 60s? Michael Crichton was 6'9" and in the m, didn't play in the NBA.
Probably got players mixed up. Larry Bird was a garbageman for a while as well. But your assertion that any Joe Blow who is tall enough would be picked up as an NBA player back in the 60s is flawed. I am just pointing out that that may not be a bad system afterall.
I am not saying those players were great and equal to today's players, what I am saying is that Russell and Wilt would still be successful in today's NBA based on their athleticism and smarts for the game. Again, you can see highlights of them playing ball in the day.
Once again, Wilt played against Kareem, Kareem played against Hakeem, and Hakeem played against Shaq. None of them were particularly dominating the other in any of these scenarios, and yet they are all top 10 players of all time.
If you and I both accept them as generally true, they are facts for all intents and purposes. If you'd prefer a pedantic approach then there are no facts as we live in a solipsistic existence.
But you don't just play against the tallest guy.
The tallest person in a group who averages 5'7" in height is not necessarily shorter than the tallest person in a group who averages 6'7"
Very good ball handlers for their time. It's a subjective statement that has to be qualified. There wasn't a player in the early 60's that could handle the ball like Allen Iverson or Chris Paul or Tony Parker. They didn't exist because it wasn't part of the game.As it stands, pure speculation. I have cited examples of very good ball handlers and defenders in the 60's 70's that do not dominate the opposition to the degree Wilt and Russell did.
If Chris Paul can pick Kyrie Irving or John Wall, Cousey wouldn't stand a chance. Look how he handles the ball. When he rotates, the ball is out in front of him. A double team would take that away from him every time.Neither does saying Cousy will get picked by Paul every single time down the court. Because that is pure speculation, and an unlikely one at that.
You just pulled those numbers out of thin air. Wilt averaged 30 over his career. He wouldn't average that today, you already conceded this. Wilt would have to score most of his points at the rim. There's a 3 second violation today. There's goaltending which Wilt did relentlessly. Wilt could not get up 50 shots in a game today. There are other bigs today who could stop that or at least limit it. Shaq would have challenged Wilt on offense. Wilt was a monster, no doubt, but without his stats he's just another noted big guy in the league, not better than Shaq except probably on defense. Wilt was 7'1. He dwarfed the little white guys and most of the blacks on other teams. He was heavier than David, but David was also 7'1. Yao Ming was much taller than both. Imagine Yao in the early 60's. He catches, he dunks, he hits his FTs. He blocks every shot at the rim with no goal tending calls. He gets every rebound because his compe ion is 2' shorter than him. He gets monster numbers and he's now a legend.Untrue, Wilt averaging 30/15/3 in today's game would still be considered one of the best players. My assertion is that in today's league, Wilt will at least be as dominant as an all-nba level player based on his display of athleticism and skill back in his day.
Think about Wilt's era: He could goal tend, they could lob shots over the backboard to him from out of bounds, he could leave the FT line and throw himself a pass off the backboard, no 5 second rule. Shaq comes along and has all those rules, but the league has to change up the defensive rules to bring back some balance. The league now disallows total domination by a freakishly large and athletic center. When it starts to occur, they change rules.
Because a team with a prime Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would not be than a team with a prime Shaq and a prime Hakeem. The fact that you only consider them vs the compe ion of their era is evidence enough that you've not picked those with the highest level of basketball skill and ability, but have an individual "greatest of their era" list. Had Russell not feasted on weak talent in the early days, he's just another decent big.Why is it flawed?
You said there were more than 8. Don't try to shift the burden of proof to me.You would say there were not more than 8 people in the entire USA that were more than 7 feet back in the 60s? Michael Crichton was 6'9" and in the m, didn't play in the NBA.
So then make your point about the the IGA again? John Starks played ball before he bagged groceries.Probably got players mixed up. Larry Bird was a garbageman for a while as well. But your assertion that any Joe Blow who is tall enough would be picked up as an NBA player back in the 60s is flawed. I am just pointing out that that may not be a bad system afterall.
Kevin Durant is successful in today's NBA. He's not in the top 10.I am not saying those players were great and equal to today's players, what I am saying is that Russell and Wilt would still be successful in today's NBA based on their athleticism and smarts for the game. Again, you can see highlights of them playing ball in the day.
These people played these others while one was at sunset and the other at sunrise.Once again, Wilt played against Kareem, Kareem played against Hakeem, and Hakeem played against Shaq. None of them were particularly dominating the other in any of these scenarios, and yet they are all top 10 players of all time.
But they would still be opinions. I am not here to argue philosophy, and I have to admit that I am quite ignorant of the subject, but those are not facts, those are viewpoints we both agree on.
Point is, we are comparing the best of both eras, and the logic of saying that the best in a weaker league must be worse than the best of a stronger league is flawed.
Again, you are penalizing the old timers for playing against weaker compe ion, but ignoring the likelihood that people improve and evolve with better compe ion. Cousy and the likes never had to evolve that level of compe ion because it wasn't necessary, but given the cir stances, we have seen the best of the best evolve and adapt. What I am saying is, while you have to take both the negative and positive effects of weaker compe ion into account.
Actually, Wilt made them change the rules. They widened the lane, put in 3 seconds, no lobs behind backboards, etc ... they were all because of Wilt, and Wilt still dominated with those rules. He averaged 30 for his career, but much of it was dragged down because he changed his role to a facilitator. And saying that he won't be much better than Shaq on offense, but better on defense automatically puts him in the top 10, because Shaq is top 10 in pretty much everybody's books.
And Yao, if it wasn't for injuries, would have been a top player in today's league. He actually was for a stretch.
If I read correctly, you just said Wilt is comparable to Shaq on offense, but better on defense. Russell was a team centred guy, much like Duncan actually, but more focus on defense and outlets, so it's difficult to compare him to Hakeem. If I have to pick a team to build around today, I'd likely pick Hakeem, but Russell would be a great choice for a team with enough offensive options.
I don't get this, so you want me to list a bunch of tall guys in the 60s? This is just getting asinine because the point isn't to say there were 8 tall guys that couldn't make the NBA, it's an assumption that given the average height of american men went from 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9" in 2002, and yet there are dozens of 7 footers in the 2000's, so it is reasonable to assume there would be a more than 8 tall guys in the US in the 60s given the population in those days.
And no, I said there were more than 8 tall guys in the states back then, as there were 8 teams, I didn't say there were 8 tall guys who couldn't make the league. Creighton was one guy who was 6'9" and didn't make the league.
Just an interesting fact. Starks didn't make the league before he was bagging groceries, that was my point. What was wrong with picking a tall guy out of IGA to play ball? You seem to view that negatively and mock the process in the 60s, alluding that any random guy tall enough would be pick off the streets to play ball. Well, guess what, they were doing
Too early to say, things like injuries and such would factor into account.
Yeah, and even during sunset, the old guys still handled their own. Which further supports my claims that older timers would be successful in today's league.
Give it a rest fellows.
The Spur offense runs thru Tammy. Not just sometimes. Every time. So he gets a ton of opportunities to pad his assist totals. Thing is, Tammy has also been the focal point of the offense since his rookie year. Kobe barely played his first two years. Fact still remains: even though Kobe is a chucker, apparently he is still a better passer than Tammy. Neal with it son.
kobestans are now saying
a) big men should be compared against guards in assists
b) more assists = better passing
c) passing out of a double team that leads to pass for a score is not a good passer.
d) the spurs are one of the leagues top passing teams and Duncan had nothing to do with it
e) you don't know how to read usage rates.
I guess I can understand why you are a kobestan, because you really have to be this stupid to be one.
a) big men should be compared against guards in assists
b) more assists = better passing
c) passing out of a double team that leads to pass for a score is not a good passer.
d) the spurs are one of the leagues top passing teams and Duncan had nothing to do with it
e) you don't know how to read usage rates.
I guess I can understand why you are a kobestan, because you really have to be this stupid to be one.
Hey Mexican't. It's not "superior than" it's "superior to". I realize your only exposure to the English language is when your mother is cleaning their homes, but try to at least not butcher it.
Alberto trying to claim that Kirby is a good passer because homer scorekeepers inflate his already-padded assists
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote