Page 36 of 115 FirstFirst ... 263233343536373839404686 ... LastLast
Results 876 to 900 of 2866
  1. #876
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    40,489
    At this point, Sam pretty much has to be a legit All-Star to make him the better pick than Clarke. Brandon's already a good NBA-caliber rotation player and still have room to improve. I'm obviously hoping Luka makes that jump, but there's something to be said about just picking guys who are good players and not worrying about age. Look at Brogdon and Murray as another example -- one which I think led to the Spurs picking White the next year. There's a difference between actual upside and theoretical upside. Like Murray's theoretical upside might be higher than White's because he's longer and a bit faster. But that supposes Murray becomes a much better player in like every facet to a point that is just not realistic. He's not better than White and in most likelihoods, that will not change. I think Sam's theoretical upside is higher than Clarke's, but I am much less sure that the actual upside is.

    But yeah, I do think I'm being bullish on Toppin and that may be unwarranted. I'm seeing a guy who is dominating his level of ball and can do so without dominating the ball. That means he can work with the young guards on the team, and his range and handles makes it to where he can fit with Poeltl. I think Toppin could even slide up to center in small-ball lineups, so in the event Samanic becomes a rotation player, I could see all of the young players sharing the court for stretches. I'd worry about the holes in his game later. First, the defense should be good with White, Johnson and Poeltl. And the team needs a go-to scorer more than they need an ace. The D will improve by not playing Forbes and by having guys buy in, but the offense relies too much on inconsistent players.
    Clarke is a 12/6 guy, but Samanic has to be an all star to surpass him? Okaaaaay. Butthurt much when the Spurs don’t draft “your guy”?

    The reality is that when guys are drafted at 23, most of their development is done. His numbers may bump up with usage, because that’s normal, but he’ll likely wind up being what he is right now...a guy. There isn’t anything special about Brandon Clarke.

  2. #877
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Clarke is a 12/6 guy, but Samanic has to be an all star to surpass him? Okaaaaay. Butthurt much when the Spurs don’t draft “your guy”?

    The reality is that when guys are drafted at 23, most of their development is done. His numbers may bump up with usage, because that’s normal, but he’ll likely wind up being what he is right now...a guy. There isn’t anything special about Brandon Clarke.
    I get that you're the edgy Pro-Spurs fan, but I think you should look at what I'm saying rather than looking for a place to get a shot in. A 12/6 rookie is actually really good, especially for one who isn't starting and getting tons of touches. To put it into perspective, his TS% is higher than any of the regular-rotation players from the season. He was better than Poeltl, who is older and has had more time with NBA coaching. The idea that passing him up wouldn't require a ton of development is wrong-headed. Regardless, let's say in 2022-2023, Sam becomes a 15/7 guy. That's a non-All Star, but it's certainly not a JAG like you'd probably think. And let's say he hits those numbers in a relatively efficient way, so him being a chucker wouldn't be part of this. AND let's say Clarke doesn't get any better for some reason nor gets more minutes to up his raw number. Yeah, if you draft a guy and wait two years just for him to become a slightly better player, it's not a great use of an investment. I dunno what to tell you. If you're going to take a project, then you have to get clearly more to justify the time spent, not just slightly more.

    The idea that Clarke is who he is and that that guy is not very impressive is just horribly thought out. Even if that were the case, he'd've been exactly what the Spurs needed. I'm hoping Sam becomes a guy who can be the best player on the team, but it definitely doesn't HAVE to work out that way, just like it didn't work out that Murray had more potential than White or that Milutinov was going to become this good future big to justify on passing up guys in the draft. The Spurs get things wrong from time to time, and sometimes it's obvious enough to know even in the first year. Sometimes it's not, though, like White over Jordan Bell. Time will tell, but time right now says Clarke was the better pick, potential included.

  3. #878
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Post Count
    418
    I get that you're the edgy Pro-Spurs fan, but I think you should look at what I'm saying rather than looking for a place to get a shot in. A 12/6 rookie is actually really good, especially for one who isn't starting and getting tons of touches. To put it into perspective, his TS% is higher than any of the regular-rotation players from the season. He was better than Poeltl, who is older and has had more time with NBA coaching. The idea that passing him up wouldn't require a ton of development is wrong-headed. Regardless, let's say in 2022-2023, Sam becomes a 15/7 guy. That's a non-All Star, but it's certainly not a JAG like you'd probably think. And let's say he hits those numbers in a relatively efficient way, so him being a chucker wouldn't be part of this. AND let's say Clarke doesn't get any better for some reason nor gets more minutes to up his raw number. Yeah, if you draft a guy and wait two years just for him to become a slightly better player, it's not a great use of an investment. I dunno what to tell you. If you're going to take a project, then you have to get clearly more to justify the time spent, not just slightly more.

    The idea that Clarke is who he is and that that guy is not very impressive is just horribly thought out. Even if that were the case, he'd've been exactly what the Spurs needed. I'm hoping Sam becomes a guy who can be the best player on the team, but it definitely doesn't HAVE to work out that way, just like it didn't work out that Murray had more potential than White or that Milutinov was going to become this good future big to justify on passing up guys in the draft. The Spurs get things wrong from time to time, and sometimes it's obvious enough to know even in the first year. Sometimes it's not, though, like White over Jordan Bell. Time will tell, but time right now says Clarke was the better pick, potential included.
    Time right now says nothing. Nobody knows, what kind of player Samanic will be when he‘s 23.

  4. #879
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,620
    I just don't think that's an opinion. They don't work that way. Their defining move was drafting a center when they already had a HoF center. They literally don't care about that and are perfectly happy to play guys out of position if need be. They'd be much more inclined to draft Wiseman and start him next to Poeltl than they would be to pass up on Wiseman because Jakob's there. And again, you're ignoring that Jakob won't even be there, because he's a free agent who's at least going to look at other teams. By no means would that prevent the Spurs from drafting the top talent in the draft. I think you can disagree on his talent (I don't know much about him and haven't been in love with the little I've seen), but I think the opinion that the Spurs draft around players is objectively false.

    I also think it's weird to think the Spurs have "invested" a lot in Poeltl when they don't even start him when healthy. You might mean that they'll keep him because he was part of the Kawhi trade and that letting him go would be losing out on some of the value they got from their future HoFer. But at some point they'd have to let that go. If they think Wiseman is the best player in the draft, then passing up on him to not look bad for moving on from Poeltl would be a worse mistake than taking that bad package from Toronto in the first place.
    If nothing else, I dont believe there are any generational centers at the top (if we land a top 4 pick) to warrant picking a center. Wiseman I believe would just be a marginal improvement

  5. #880
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    40,489
    Call me crazy. I just don’t think that you pass on a 6”10” kid, especially with a non lottery pick, who can handle the ball well, including crossing over on the move, pass, and shoot, although not with range yet, and who has a 38” vertical, for a 5th year senior transfer who’s 23, and has no great single skill.

  6. #881
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Time right now says nothing. Nobody knows, what kind of player Samanic will be when he‘s 23.
    That's not the way it works. When Sam is 23, Clarke with be 27, and four years of Spurs seasons will have gone by. That's a lot of opportunity cost, and that ignores that Brandon will be in his physical prime. Age really isn't all that important. Wiggins is still younger than Derrick White. I get drafting players for the future, but that doesn't mean how they are in the present doesn't matter. The biggest benefit to drafting players is having them on cheap contracts. Even if they're better on their second contracts, it may not be worth it to have them over a lesser guy who gave four solid years from jumpstreet. And this ignores that even if Luka is a good player at 23, he may not remain a Spur due to contract or personality. No reason to overcount those eggs.

  7. #882
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Call me crazy. I just don’t think that you pass on a 6”10” kid, especially with a non lottery pick, who can handle the ball well, including crossing over on the move, pass, and shoot, although not with range yet, and who has a 38” vertical, for a 5th year senior transfer who’s 23, and has no great single skill.
    K Crazy. It's not hard to see when that fifth-year senior was pretty clearly the second-best player in college that year. Sometimes you just outthink yourself and try to zag when you shoulda just gone straight.

  8. #883
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,620
    Meh. Clarke has not been impressive the times I've watched him, especially during our bubble game vs them

  9. #884
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Post Count
    418
    That's not the way it works. When Sam is 23, Clarke with be 27, and four years of Spurs seasons will have gone by. That's a lot of opportunity cost, and that ignores that Brandon will be in his physical prime. Age really isn't all that important. Wiggins is still younger than Derrick White. I get drafting players for the future, but that doesn't mean how they are in the present doesn't matter. The biggest benefit to drafting players is having them on cheap contracts. Even if they're better on their second contracts, it may not be worth it to have them over a lesser guy who gave four solid years from jumpstreet. And this ignores that even if Luka is a good player at 23, he may not remain a Spur due to contract or personality. No reason to overcount those eggs.
    that‘s not how it works. the development curve isn‘t constantly raising. and you‘re betting that almost 24 year old Clarke will continue to get better. can be, but hasn‘t to be.

  10. #885
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    40,489
    K Crazy. It's not hard to see when that fifth-year senior was pretty clearly the second-best player in college that year. Sometimes you just outthink yourself and try to zag when you shoulda just gone straight.
    Best in college doesn’t mean best NBA prospect.

    Alfrederick mother ing Hughes.

    Devin Booker scored 10pts, grabbed 2 boards, and dished 1 assist at UK. Guess you would have passed on him, too, since he wasn’t the best player in college.

  11. #886
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    that‘s not how it works. the development curve isn‘t constantly raising. and you‘re betting that almost 24 year old Clarke will continue to get better. can be, but hasn‘t to be.
    Not really though. Most players are in their physical prime in their mid to late 20s. Like yes, Clarke could get some degenerative condition that saps his muscles at a young age. But it's completely reasonable to assume that he'll follow everyone else's curve. That is not the same thing as saying that Clarke will improve at the same rate than Samanic does. I don't know that. I am saying that he'll likely be at the plateau of his career, whether that's due to him getting better or saying the same. The same should be true for Sam too in that he'll likely peak in his mid to late 20s as well. By then, Clarke would be in his early 30s and probably on the decline if his skills haven't increased to a point where he's able to compensate for losing burst. But then we're talking about third contracts at that time, and the gap by which Sam has to be better than Clarke to justify that much time would be huge.

    Just to be clear, Clarke is way, way better than Sam right now. There are plenty of players in the NBA right now who are older than Clarke and aren't as good and never will be as good as Clarke already is. If Sam has Clarke's impact at 23, that'd be a victory for the Spurs. As I said, Clarke and Jakob are pretty similar, with Brandon being more aggressive/dynamic and Poeltl being bigger. People are perfectly happy with his development and projection despite him being older and more importantly having three more years of NBA coaching than Clarke does. It's not pessimistic to think Sam still won't be the better player in three years, or even seven.

  12. #887
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Best in college doesn’t mean best NBA prospect.

    Alfrederick mother ing Hughes.

    Devin Booker scored 10pts, grabbed 2 boards, and dished 1 assist at UK. Guess you would have passed on him, too, since he wasn’t the best player in college.
    You're not helping your case. "Sometimes players bust" -- we know that. Sometimes players don't live up to their potential, and sometimes even if they do it ends up not being worth it.

    I didn't say Clarke should've gone in the top three or even top 10. But the Spurs drafted at 19. He was easily BPA then, at a position of need, with a skill-set the team needed. I get that the Spurs believe in Sam. But that doesn't mean they weren't wrong or that it doesn't make sense to question their logic.

  13. #888
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    40,489
    You're not helping your case. "Sometimes players bust" -- we know that. Sometimes players don't live up to their potential, and sometimes even if they do it ends up not being worth it.

    I didn't say Clarke should've gone in the top three or even top 10. But the Spurs drafted at 19. He was easily BPA then, at a position of need, with a skill-set the team needed. I get that the Spurs believe in Sam. But that doesn't mean they weren't wrong or that it doesn't make sense to question their logic.
    Just the last ten years, and I’m only going to comb the first ten picks, even though the pick you’re crying about is #19. This is also just american players.

    2010
    Evan Turner #2
    Wesley Johnson #4
    Ekpe Udoh #6

    2011
    Derrick Williams #2

    2012
    MKG #2
    Thomas Robinson #5

    2013
    Anthony Bennett #1
    Cody Zeller #4
    Alex Len #5
    Nerlens Noel #6
    Ben McLemore #7

    2014
    Nick Stauskas #8
    Noah Vonleh #9

    2015
    Jahlil Okafor #3
    Willy Cauley-Stein #6
    Stanley Johnson #8
    Frank Kaminsky #9
    Justice Winslow #10

    2016
    Kris Dunn #5
    Marquees Chriss #9

    I’ll stop there, since the last drafts haven’t really shown their quality yet.

    It’s more than just one guy. Highly regarded college players Drafted in the top 10 bust out every year, let alone later than that in the draft, like, say, pick #19.

  14. #889
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Just the last ten years, and I’m only going to comb the first ten picks, even though the pick you’re crying about is #19. This is also just american players.

    2010
    Evan Turner #2
    Wesley Johnson #4
    Ekpe Udoh #6

    2011
    Derrick Williams #2

    2012
    MKG #2
    Thomas Robinson #5

    2013
    Anthony Bennett #1
    Cody Zeller #4
    Alex Len #5
    Nerlens Noel #6
    Ben McLemore #7

    2014
    Nick Stauskas #8
    Noah Vonleh #9

    2015
    Jahlil Okafor #3
    Willy Cauley-Stein #6
    Stanley Johnson #8
    Frank Kaminsky #9
    Justice Winslow #10

    2016
    Kris Dunn #5
    Marquees Chriss #9

    I’ll stop there, since the last drafts haven’t really shown their quality yet.

    It’s more than just one guy. Highly regarded college players Drafted in the top 10 bust out every year, let alone later than that in the draft, like, say, pick #19.
    Most of those guys weren't regarded for their production. They were regarded for their potential. Seriously man, you're missing the script. Why do you think listing a bunch of freshman who were hyped but busted argues against picking a 23-year-old that was anti-hyped because folks assumed he had a low ceiling and was taking advantage of younger players?

    Again, you're too obsessed with the edgy shtick to make sense. Saying some players bust -- saying a lot of players bust -- isn't an argument for anything. If anything, you're making my case for me to pissing all over the idea of youth and potential trumping production. And you focused on high picks in order to be lazy when I'm "whining" about not using a non-lottery pick on a player. Like come on man. Not good work by you at all.

  15. #890
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    40,489
    You’re the one that brought up college production as a criteria. Don’t cry when it gets put back in your face, Mutombo style.

    When you’re drafting outside the lottery, you go for the highest ceiling, period, even if it comes hand in hand with the lowest floor.

  16. #891
    Believe. JuneJive's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    648

    When you’re drafting outside the lottery, you go for the highest ceiling, period, even if it comes hand in hand with the lowest floor.
    This pretty much sums it up.

  17. #892
    Veteran Degoat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    3,698
    Derrick White was an older rookie and look how he’s developed, the notion that younger players have a high ceiling is kinda BS imo. Lonzo ball had a higher ceiling then DWhite did in the 2017 nba draft but thank god we got DWhite instead of a guy who “had a higher ceiling.”

  18. #893
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,620
    Yalls heads are so far up your asses that you havent come to the realization that there are NO end all, be all method to selecting players. Thats why scouts get paid the big bucks. But even then, the best scouts make mistakes too. There are way too many variables to consider. Chinook may be right TO AN EXTENT and extatic may be right TO AN EXTENT. It all depends on the player and the cir stance.

  19. #894
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    You’re the one that brought up college production as a criteria. Don’t cry when it gets put back in your face, Mutombo style.
    Not at all. You don't seem to get the difference between a guy who was legit dominate in college and players who scored well but weren't that good. Clarke's season was only under the radar because Zion was there too. It was absolutely insane. Saying "well Chriss scored a whole bunch too and failed" is wrong for multiple reasons. The most obvious one is that Chriss was nowhere near the player Clarke was in college. Dunn, who is at least a four-year player, wasn't close to that player. Okafor was closer, but Clarke was still way better. Basically, Clarke dominated on nearly the level Wiseman did, but he sustained it for a season.

    The other big reason though is the finding counter examples isn't the same thing as arguing against a point. For literally any criterion, you can find examples of it not working out. Ignoring that you completely whiffed on the basic scope of the discussion by bringing in top-10 picks, you can argue that taking athletes is bad because of guys like Chriss and Wiggins. You can argue that taking guys from good programs is bad because of players like Valentine and Davis. You can argue that taking character guys is wrong by listing folks who didn't seem like they were going to have issues who end up being PoSs.

    Anyway

    When you’re drafting outside the lottery, you go for the highest ceiling, period, even if it comes hand in hand with the lowest floor.
    Yeah, no. Teams outside the lottery very often draft for floor. That's because those teams are playoff teams with cap space already allocated and often want a player to come in and fill a rotation spot for cheap. I don't know if you think literally every player SA has drafted in the past two decades has been the highest-ceiling player, but I doubt even PatFO would agree with you. Potential is what teams at the top of the board draft for almost exclusively. But once you get past the top of the draft, teams have a lot of different priorities to setting their boards.

  20. #895
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Yalls heads are so far up your asses that you havent come to the realization that there are NO end all, be all method to selecting players. Thats why scouts get paid the big bucks. But even then, the best scouts make mistakes too. There are way too many variables to consider. Chinook may be right TO AN EXTENT and extatic may be right TO AN EXTENT. It all depends on the player and the cir stance.
    Appreciate your attempt to mediate, but I can't ride with it. This isn't about players or cir stances. Whether Sam is a better pick than Clarke for the long haul is unknown. I am totally rooting for that to be the case. The issue is how floors, ceilings and progression arcs fit into the overall value structure of draft picks. Arguing that having an absolutely higher ceiling is more desirable regardless of progression arc is wrong. There's no splitting the difference there.

    The value Luka and Brandon will provide to teams is based on a few factors: how good they are over the course of their careers, how fast they can become good, and how much they cost relative to their impact (and along with this is how many of those years are those players on their original teams and how many of those years were good and if they were traded, how much they got back in a trade -- I just decided to go with three factors out of convenience). It's not enough to be better in four years. They have to be better enough to justify waiting and missing out on solid production. That's just math. There are complicating factors that go into that, but they don't change the nature of the relationship.

    And the age thing is still being overblown. Wiggins is younger than White, but realistically, White has more room to grow because he's been in the NBA less time. Wiggins' progression arc is further along, despite his youth and despite the fact that he sucks.
    Last edited by Chinook; 08-10-2020 at 03:38 PM.

  21. #896
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,620
    "Arguing that having an absolutely higher ceiling is more desirable regardless of progression arc is wrong."

    It CAN be right if the coaches and development staff have confidence they can bring out the best out of that raw player.

    This argument is tiresome so no need to reply lol

    I just cant wait to find out where we pick and whom we pick. That's literally the only excitement I have right now about the Spurs aside from watching Keldon develop

  22. #897
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,620
    Scouts/ teams calculate risk tolerance. The best organizations make decisions off of risks they can live with if it fails. That's why there are backup plans B, C, D, and so forth.

    Hardly ever does a great organization put all their eggs in one basket.

  23. #898
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,620
    I would argue that the Spurs feeling confident in signing Trey Lyles (or Marcus Morris if that had panned out well) was the reasoning they did not go after Brandon Clarke. Clarke's surefire production would probably only be a marginal improvement or maybe comparable production to Trey (or Marcus), hence why they were willing to pass up on him to draft Samanic.

    Hence, this is why I say that great organizations always have backup plans.

    As much hate Trey gets around here, he is a pretty solid player with room to grow.

    You have to look at the bigger picture.

  24. #899
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    "Arguing that having an absolutely higher ceiling is more desirable regardless of progression arc is wrong."

    It CAN be right if the coaches and development staff have confidence they can bring out the best out of that raw player.
    The statement you quoted is absolute, so it can't be applied situationally. Maybe this is just my fault for wording it poorly, but what you're using as a counter example is actually talking about progression arc. Using 2K-style numbers for simplicity. Situation: There are two players, A and B. A staff thinks Player A has Ovl of 79 and a Pot of 83 and Player B Ovl of 70 and Pot of 90. What you're saying is that it's possible that Player B can be the right choice no matter what because they are confident in their ability to develop Player B to reach that Pot. I don't think I'm getting you wrong there, but tell me if I am.

    What I'm saying is that if that that staff has to have a sense of how long that both players have to reach their potentials. If A gets to 83 in year two and B gets there in year five or six and then gets to 90 in year eight or nine, it's not clear that even they would want to pick B over A. The arc itself matters. Picking A gets 83-level play for three cheap years. Almost all of the time Player B is at that level, he's being paid like a 83-ovl player and is thus providing less value for his production. Maybe in those four years A was better than B, the GM can put together a contending roster with that extra cap space. Or maybe B walks because they want to get 83-level money but the team isn't in a position to pay that much. If both players walk after their first contract, then the team got way more value for A than B. But even if they make it to two contracts, you can still argue that A was the better pick, because the team had a solid player for longer, and that gave them more flexibility. To complicate matters, even the best staff is only somewhat certain in their progression. B might develop way faster, A might have more potential than believed or one or the other could bust. That discounts the value of the more volatile asset, because present value is worth more than future value.

    I'm not saying that chunk of text definitely applies to these players. But point remains that how quickly a guy can develop is definitely important to projecting that player's ceiling, and when it comes to what teams get from their draft picks, picking a whole bunch of players that are only good once they're on their second deals is not viable financially, higher ceiling or no. You need cheap guys producing, unless you have legit MVP candidates on the roster.

  25. #900
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    65
    Call me crazy. I just don’t think that you pass on a 6”10” kid, especially with a non lottery pick, who can handle the ball well, including crossing over on the move, pass, and shoot, although not with range yet, and who has a 38” vertical, for a 5th year senior transfer who’s 23, and has no great single skill.
    Good point. And don't forget his post game. He's shown some pretty good moves in the post. It's way to early to judge him.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •