Reply With Quote
I'll take it as a compliment. Hmmm, maybe I should get my le changed to Homer, and my Avatar to a can of Duff beer...
And you're a HOMER.You are an asshole.
I'll take it as a compliment. Hmmm, maybe I should get my le changed to Homer, and my Avatar to a can of Duff beer...
Alert. Bakrid Finds Spurs Homers On Spurs Board. News At 11.
I get what you're saying, but he won't admit he's a big-time Homer. Actually he was quite offended by it, because that is why he called me an asshole in the first place. You probably don't find this as amusing as I do, but I thought I'd share anyway.
OK, forget big men. Let's talk Guards! Here are the choices and how I rank them:
Magic, Parker, Ginoboli, Jordan, and Bird.
#1 Ginoboli- Just all around game man, he always plays hurt and does whatever his team needs to win. I've never seen anyone will their team to a win like him. He has got to be first hands down. What guts this man has.
2)Parker- The speedy Parker has changed the game man. The deft shooting touch and unbelievable ball handling just separates him from everyone else on that list. I think by the time his reign is over he may go down as the SINGLE Greatest player of all time.
3)Magic- Was a 6'9 Center trying to play PG man, he was a turnover machine. He's was lucky to get drafted. Plus, he's got Aids man!
4)Bird- Didn't quite have that shooting touch like Ginoboli man. I saw him make a decent pass once or twice but when the game was on the line, I would want to give the ball to Ginoboli over this guy everytime man.
5)MJ- It was always the refs man. They gave him ALL the calls. I bet he would have averaged around 7 points a game if it wasn't for Steve Javie man. Parker could have torched Jordan, in his prime man! I'm telling you, If Ginoboli and Parker got to play against MJ, they would have showed them who was the real deal man.
GO SPURS GO!!
As I said, I'll take is as a compliment. You are a complete Shaq Homer.
LOL! Okay, that was a good one. But, uhhh.... Bird was a forward :P
Dumbass...first of all, what kind idiot takes offense to a trivial side debate?
Secondly...I don't give a flying if you believe me or not...you either can and be a smarter idiot for it, or you can not, and continue to be a dumbass. Actually, I think I am probably over-estimating you by thinking you have choice...
If you cannot figure out how I know what I know, I suggest you pull your dumb head out of your ass, type the words David Robinson in google, and go read his ing biography rather than sitting here and being stupid. Then you can comeback and show me how how he did put as much time in as his contemporaries, and then you can try and prove it by showing improvement as he got older up until his injury.
It's not my fault you are stupid, why should I waste precious moments of my life educating a prick, (and a stupid one to boot)? It's obvious you don't what the you are talking about, and it has been for this entire debate. Your problem, don't take it out on me.
No, you're an asshole...he was just being correct.
Im glad someone finally gave Kevin Mchale some credit.
I still seriously think he should rank 1, if not a very VERY close second on this list to Hakeem/Drob.
Im still going with my previous sentiments about shaq. If this was, who had the most intimidating presence in the post...he'd be a far far away number 1....but since this is a basketball skill post...he is / or was actually, kinda lacking. Lately he has been getting a lot more athletic and has impressed me with his game away from the paint.
That close to what I think of Shaq. His skills have really developed the last few years as he falls further and further away from being the #1 option. If he had developed them earlier in his carreer, there'd be no debate.
Whose offended? Me or you? I just made a simple observation about your posting style, don't sweat it. As far as me having to research your far out claims, you can pretty much forget that. I've no desire to go on any wild goose chases. If you can't simply post a link backing your claim, then I guess I can figure out why.
I guess since you are unwilling to post a link, that gives you more time to tell us about Robinson. So what was he doing when he wasn't quailifying for MENSA, walking the legnth of the court on his hands, or not working hard at developing his game? Please tell us more.
Playing chess, saxaphone, piano, building tv sets, going into the supermarket with his mom and tallying the bill in his head before they would get to the register, gymnastics...anything else you want to know, dumbass? Excuse me, lazy dumbass?
You'd do yourself a whole lot of good just by doing a little googling, but go ahead and keep proving your stupidity, it's much more entertaining.
I don't know, what else do you know about him? Don't hold out on me.
The Unauthorized Biography of David Robinson, by Whottt
If it is so easy to find this stuff on the internet then post a link!!! I'm not wasting my time looking for this ridiculous bull . You should have to prove your own bull , not me.
Maybe, but logically he'd know a lot more about David than you, plus you've basically proved yourself incapable of making a strong argument anyway.
So why go through the effort?
And yes I'm sticking my nose in again
I don't have to prove ...you're the one who is ingorant of the subject matter here, if you elect to remain stupid, it's your problem, not mine. I'm not worried about proving anything to you. I've argued with you a thousand times my friend and this all old news and hardly groundbreaking stuff, youn un. It's only new to you...not to most of this board, and certainly not to me, and there's nothing unauthorized about it.
All I'm looking for is any kind of proof for the one statement, "he didn't have to work hard at developing his game." That is it, and then I'll leave you alone. If you won't post it to satisfy my curriosity then post it to proove me wrong, because I call bull on that statement. As I'm posting this, you are probably editting wikipedia.
Leave me alone or don't. He didn't have to work hard at developing his game, and he didn't. It actually is easily provable that he did less and spent less time developing his game than any of these other guys. I stand by the statement. One day you'll become smarter and realize I am right...it could be today, but it probably won't be, but it could be, if only you were even smart enough to type the words David Robinson in a search engine. Just think, you have the opportunity to become smarter in the palm of your hands right now...but you just won't do it...tsk tsk. I think you have a long stupid life ahead of you
McHale was a great player, but not a Big Man
Less than 18 Points and 7.3 Rebounds donīt look like the numbers of one of the greatest Big Men of the NBA History
At least 20 Points or 10 boards are necessary, but both
Do you actually think your little shtick gets you anywhere in this debate? I'm not baffled by your bull , I see straight through it. Obviously you would rather turn this into a putdown contest of sorts, instead of backing up things you call easily provable facts.Leave me alone or don't. He didn't have to work hard at developing his game, and he didn't. It actually is easily provable that he did less and spent less time developing his game than any of these other guys. I stand by the statement. One day you'll become smarter and realize I am right...it could be today, but it probably won't be, but it could be, if only you were even smart enough to type the words David Robinson in a search engine. Just think, you have the opportunity to become smarter in the palm of your hands right now...but you just won't do it...tsk tsk. I think you have a long stupid life ahead of you
BAkriD, no offense man, but it's not like you're a fountain of information yourself.
You specialize in put downs, calling anyone "homers" or "fools" if they dare disagree that avg. career points decide who is the best.
As I said before, if people want a serious discussion, we need a consensus of:
- What time periods cons ute "Prime" for each big
- What factors determine what is "best"
Of course, we won't ever get consensus on those factors, so this whole debate becomes a pissing contest.
Well, you also have to take into account that in many of his seasons he played the sixth man role. So he didn't play as many minutes as he could have if he were Boston's primary weapon. Plus, he had very good rebounders in Larry Bird and Robert Parish, so boards weren't all to himself.
But it is a valid point that he is not a hefty sized PF/C. He weighed around 225lbs (but so did Buck Williams, and that didn't stop him from pushing his weight around). In today's NBA, if you're PF and don't weigh more than 240, you're in deep trouble against the Brands, the Okafors, the Stoudamires, and the Duncans.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
