Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 219 of 227 FirstFirst ... 119169209217218219220221 ... LastLast
Results 3,271 to 3,285 of 3396
  1. #3271
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    12,962
    Actually, it's the opposite. I'm talking about the winners of a basketball game, you're talking about an exhibition showcase like the All-Star when you don't value the actual basketball skillset and competitiveness.

    As for impact, sure it's one of the biggest factors. But impact is a mental trait, not a skill.

    And yes, if you have all the skills but no impact, there's no point. But to have an impact in basketball you also need to be part of an impactful team, it's not entirely up to you.

    Tracy McGrady was a very impactful player but his teams were below par. He didn't amount to anything great as part of a team. Does that make him an inferior player to someone who had the luxury of being part in a better team with more impactful teammates?

    As for Kobe, sure he was a super athletic guy when it comes to the average person, but when it comes to the NBA, he's not one of those guys who you'll say that his athleticism sets him apart. He was closer to the top than above average obviously, but he was more of a finesse player than an athletic guard like Wade or Carter were for example.


    How do you even measure impact? How would you rank impactfulness?

    And how does your Top 10 look like? How does your Top 20 look like?

    Why are you laughing at the Drexler choice? He's one of the greatest to ever play the game and ticks all the boxes.

  2. #3272
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    A guy like Shaq would still dominate regardless.
    Not saying he wont dominate thats obvious just saying his team might not win.

  3. #3273
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    4,053
    The dude is dead. And y’all still comparing the 2. You morons didn’t appreciate the great Kobe Bryant while he was alive and now you’re doing the same with the great LeBron James.

    Honestly, the world can do away with half of you rather than Kobe. I would trade half of you guys to get Kobe back if I could.

  4. #3274
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,239
    Lol espn was just talking about that. They think guards has dominated the league over the years with a bigs sprinkled in here and there. They even talked about build a championship worthy team around Joel as your best player. It boiled down to needing a top guard.
    Last edited by ldawg; 02-13-2020 at 12:19 PM.

  5. #3275
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,239
    For the record Lebron is not a guard just have or had the skills to play the position.

  6. #3276
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,239
    Quote Originally Posted by LaVar Ball View Post
    The dude is dead. And y’all still comparing the 2. You morons didn’t appreciate the great Kobe Bryant while he was alive and now you’re doing the same with the great LeBron James.

    Honestly, the world can do away with half of you rather than Kobe. I would trade half of you guys to get Kobe back if I could.
    Your looking at it from the wrong angle. Its an honor to be be in the topic of all time greats.

  7. #3277
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by LaVar Ball View Post
    The dude is dead. And y’all still comparing the 2. You morons didn’t appreciate the great Kobe Bryant while he was alive and now you’re doing the same with the great LeBron James.

    Honestly, the world can do away with half of you rather than Kobe. I would trade half of you guys to get Kobe back if I could.
    if you don't like it you know where the door is

  8. #3278
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,395
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Actually, it's the opposite. I'm talking about the winners of a basketball game, you're talking about an exhibition showcase like the All-Star when you don't value the actual basketball skillset and competitiveness.

    As for impact, sure it's one of the biggest factors. But impact is a mental trait, not a skill.

    And yes, if you have all the skills but no impact, there's no point. But to have an impact in basketball you also need to be part of an impactful team, it's not entirely up to you.

    Tracy McGrady was a very impactful player but his teams were below par. He didn't amount to anything great as part of a team. Does that make him an inferior player to someone who had the luxury of being part in a better team with more impactful teammates?

    As for Kobe, sure he was a super athletic guy when it comes to the average person, but when it comes to the NBA, he's not one of those guys who you'll say that his athleticism sets him apart. He was closer to the top than above average obviously, but he was more of a finesse player than an athletic guard like Wade or Carter were for example.


    How do you even measure impact? How would you rank impactfulness?

    And how does your Top 10 look like? How does your Top 20 look like?

    Why are you laughing at the Drexler choice? He's one of the greatest to ever play the game and ticks all the boxes.
    I typed a response to this and it got deleted so I'll hit the high points.

    I don't think you can only have an impact on basketball if you are part of an impactful team. Tracy McGrady is a perfect example, even though he wasn't on dominant teams it was very apparent he was an impactful player, and virtually all advanced stats say so.

    The reason I'm laughing at Clyde Drexler is because you were criticizing LeBron for leaving Cleveland to join a stacked Heat team to win his titles and then rank Clyde, a person who had an extremely talented supporting cast in the Blazers and who did not play well in the playoffs many times, then when the Blazers started falling out of contention asked to be traded to a contender, got traded to a team that had a Top 2-3 player in the league who had just won the Title the season before and won as a second banana, and then formed a super team with Hakeem and Barkley and couldn't win and then retired at 35, the same age as LeBron now (who is still playing at a very high level), ahead of LeBron?

    If not all rings are created equal there's no way Clyde's should be viewed the same as any of LeBron's. Then there's also the fact that LeBron is simply a far better basketball player in terms of impact.


    That being said, my Top 10 is (in no particular order):

    MJ, LeBron, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Magic, Bird, Wilt, and Kobe (with Russell just on the outside). The next tier would be guys like West, Big O, Wade, KD, Dr. J, Barkley, Dirk, KG, Malone, Moses, and D-Rob. I also think when it's all said and done, CP3, Harden, Giannis, and Kawhi will all be looked at as better than Clyde. That puts him just inside the Top 30 all-time, which is still extremely good. But was he at the level of guys who could elevate their teams near single handedly? No, I don't think so.

  9. #3279
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    2,477
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Be proud you can say you saw bron improve to his greatest level on ur team. Also be proud you'll never be dumb enough to think a player stopped improving as a teenager in the NBA
    Very proud brother!!
    <a href=https://images.app.goo.gl/RaiMUpUeDMoeqDZt7 target=_blank>https://images.app.goo.gl/RaiMUpUeDMoeqDZt7</a>

    8/24/2

  10. #3280
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    2,477
    Remember seeing someone say LeBron can’t post up, he’s currently the most efficient post up player in the league
    <a href=https://images.app.goo.gl/RaiMUpUeDMoeqDZt7 target=_blank>https://images.app.goo.gl/RaiMUpUeDMoeqDZt7</a>

    8/24/2

  11. #3281
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,632
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Teams win rings, yet everyone is like "this player hasn't won a ring, he's not an all time great" or "this player has won a championship so that must mean he's great".

    Teams win by playing against other teams. Those other teams aren't of the same quality all the time. Not all championships or Finals runs are equal.
    Only Jordan himself can compare to Shaq’s Finals runs. It went on for 3 straight. No disrespect to Russel. Shaq had a 20 year old kid Kobe as his help. Who’s the best 20-23 year old in the league today? Shaq did have a future GOAT but he was still only 20. Getting 3 rings with a kid is more impressive then a team of veterans winning. Shaq was also younger then Jordan when he started his winning dominance. Shaq averaged 38 points and 17 rebounds in a Finals series.

    Winning is what made Jordan the Jordan of Basketball.

  12. #3282
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostonjorge View Post
    Only Jordan himself can compare to Shaq’s Finals runs. It went on for 3 straight. No disrespect to Russel. Shaq had a 20 year old kid Kobe as his help. Who’s the best 20-23 year old in the league today? Shaq did have a future GOAT but he was still only 20. Getting 3 rings with a kid is more impressive then a team of veterans winning. Shaq was also younger then Jordan when he started his winning dominance. Shaq averaged 38 points and 17 rebounds in a Finals series.

    Winning is what made Jordan the Jordan of Basketball.
    Mj was the clear cut best player on his team in all 6 rings.

  13. #3283
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    12,962
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The reason I'm laughing at Clyde Drexler is because you were criticizing LeBron for leaving Cleveland to join a stacked Heat team to win his titles and then rank Clyde, a person who had an extremely talented supporting cast in the Blazers and who did not play well in the playoffs many times, then when the Blazers started falling out of contention asked to be traded to a contender, got traded to a team that had a Top 2-3 player in the league who had just won the Title the season before and won as a second banana, and then formed a super team with Hakeem and Barkley and couldn't win and then retired at 35, the same age as LeBron now (who is still playing at a very high level), ahead of LeBron?

    If not all rings are created equal there's no way Clyde's should be viewed the same as any of LeBron's. Then there's also the fact that LeBron is simply a far better basketball player in terms of impact.
    First of all, you're talking to someone who you know doesn't give much value to championships when it comes to comparing players.

    I'm not going to say that Mitch Richmond is better than Reggie Miller because he ended up winning a ring at an old age for example, but his ring has no bearing as to why I may say he's a better SG than Allan Houston (who was one of my favorites mind you).

    As for Drexler, you're laughing at him for what exactly? It still doesn't make sense other than show that you don't really know the guy other than his old age.

    He joined the Rockets who were defending champions, right. But they were in turmoil that year. And his arrival ignited their season and he was their most important player, not Hakeem, in their 2nd title of the 90s. Take Drexler out of the Rockets in 95 and they are probably a first round exit in the playoffs.

    He was by far the best SG in the West for about 10 years and people were even comparing him to Michael Jordan. During the prime of both, no 10 or 20 years after he had retired against different competition and under different rules. As peers, Drexler was compared to Jordan and not many were convinced that Jordan was miles ahead of Drexler, it was a tough call with Jordan obviously being the higher rated one, but it's not like comparing Lebron to Wilson Chandler as you're making it sound.

    Drexler led the Portland Blazers to 2 NBA Finals in a very tough Western Conference and lost to the strongest teams of the league at the time. His Portland team was never supposed to make the NBA Finals. Not because they weren't the strongest team, but because there were at least 6-7 teamst hat were stronger or on similar terms.
    They were good, but not heads and shoulders better than their competition. The same cannot be said about Lebron's team who hasn't really had any strong opposition in the Playoffs (which also means easier to put up better numbers, which he was going for as well) and his team was a lock for the NBA Finals due to lack of any serious competition.

    Lebron's post season record is laughable when context is applied. No other superstar in NBA history has so much failure combined with so many people trying to twist around it. I mean Jerry West and Elgin Baylor have a bad track in NBA Finals but no one in their right mind can claim that they are losers because they kept losing to the most stacked team of all time. In fact, they should be applauded for making the Finals more competitive than expected.

    And the shame for Drexler and his legacy is that their best team probably was in 1991 and they didn't reach the NBA Finals. And they had beaten the Bulls 2-0 in RS that time. Bulls were stronger in 1992 than 1991 also. Blazers could have won the league in 1991 and remarkably, you'd have a different opinion on Drexler if that was the case. It'd be the same opinion for me on ther other hand.

  14. #3284
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,395
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    First of all, you're talking to someone who you know doesn't give much value to championships when it comes to comparing players.

    I'm not going to say that Mitch Richmond is better than Reggie Miller because he ended up winning a ring at an old age for example, but his ring has no bearing as to why I may say he's a better SG than Allan Houston (who was one of my favorites mind you).

    As for Drexler, you're laughing at him for what exactly? It still doesn't make sense other than show that you don't really know the guy other than his old age.

    He joined the Rockets who were defending champions, right. But they were in turmoil that year. And his arrival ignited their season and he was their most important player, not Hakeem, in their 2nd title of the 90s. Take Drexler out of the Rockets in 95 and they are probably a first round exit in the playoffs.

    He was by far the best SG in the West for about 10 years and people were even comparing him to Michael Jordan. During the prime of both, no 10 or 20 years after he had retired against different competition and under different rules. As peers, Drexler was compared to Jordan and not many were convinced that Jordan was miles ahead of Drexler, it was a tough call with Jordan obviously being the higher rated one, but it's not like comparing Lebron to Wilson Chandler as you're making it sound.

    Drexler led the Portland Blazers to 2 NBA Finals in a very tough Western Conference and lost to the strongest teams of the league at the time. His Portland team was never supposed to make the NBA Finals. Not because they weren't the strongest team, but because there were at least 6-7 teamst hat were stronger or on similar terms.

    They were good, but not heads and shoulders better than their competition. The same cannot be said about Lebron's team who hasn't really had any strong opposition in the Playoffs (which also means easier to put up better numbers, which he was going for as well) and his team was a lock for the NBA Finals due to lack of any serious competition.

    Lebron's post season record is laughable when context is applied. No other superstar in NBA history has so much failure combined with so many people trying to twist around it. I mean Jerry West and Elgin Baylor have a bad track in NBA Finals but no one in their right mind can claim that they are losers because they kept losing to the most stacked team of all time. In fact, they should be applauded for making the Finals more competitive than expected.

    And the shame for Drexler and his legacy is that their best team probably was in 1991 and they didn't reach the NBA Finals. And they had beaten the Bulls 2-0 in RS that time. Bulls were stronger in 1992 than 1991 also. Blazers could have won the league in 1991 and remarkably, you'd have a different opinion on Drexler if that was the case. It'd be the same opinion for me on ther other hand.
    First Bolded: If you don't give much value to championships when evaluating players how come you went on a rant about how weak LeBron's rings were?

    Second Bolded: Side note: Allan Houston was also one of my absolute favorite players.

    Third Bolded: No, Clyde Drexler was not their most important player. This shows the simplicity of your thought process. Yes, he was absolutely integral and sparked their turnaround that season, but he was still not as important as Hakeem, particularly in the playoffs where Hakeem scored 33 PPG to Drexler's 20. In the same way the Rockets probably lose in the 1st round without Drexler, they don't even make the playoffs if they had Drexler but no Hakeem.

    Fourth Bolded: Drexler was compared to Jordan because he played SG and was in the West on a very good team and the other superstars of the league like Magic, Bird, and Isiah were on their way out. The comparison was firmly shut after Jordan dominated Clyde in the Finals, and nobody brought it up again. The comparison was about as valid as everyone calling Grant Hill the "next Jordan"

    Fifth Bolded: This is a lie. They were absolute expected to make the Finals. I actually still have the 1991-1992 Sports Illustrated NBA Preview magazine which had a Finals prediction of 4-2 Bulls over Blazers. The final sentence read "the Blazers have a better team, but the Bulls have Michael Jordan". The Blazers were absolutely title contenders, in fact they were favorites to defeat the Lakers in the 1991 WCF and are widely considered to have "chocked" that year. Those Blazers teams are also frequently listed on the "best teams to never win a title" lists.

    Sixth Bolded: No, my opinion of Clyde wouldn't change. The problem is, your opinion was never going to change after 2004.


    You talk about everyone making excuses for LeBron and here you are making a mountain of excuses for Clyde. You're actually peddling the ridiculousness that he just wasn't on that good a team despite the fact his 1992 team featured 5 players besides himself who made an All-Star team at some point in their careers and every single one of them were between the ages of 27-31 on that team. He lost in the Finals twice with a team that talented.

    Do you really want to compare that to LeBron's first Cleveland supporting cast that went to the Finals?


    I'm a Blazer fan. I have all the DVDs of those teams. I know exactly how good they were or were not. Obviously, you don't to act like they were a run of the mill team. Those Portland teams were absolutely supposed to make the Finals. Here are some previews for those seasons:

    https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs...005-story.html

    Blazers were tied for the 5th best odds to win the title in 1990.

    Here was a 1991 preview of the Blazers with the prediction:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-1e8ef2abd7fb/

    It's all mental for Portland now. The talent is second to none, diverse and deadly. But the Blazers have to overcome a rather childish preoccupation with the officiating. There's no team in the West that should beat them. Maybe not in the East either. First.

    Here's another review of the Blazers from 1991:

    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...506-story.html

    1. PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS

    Outlook: Still the team to beat in the West, even after the Lakers exposed the weakness of their half-court style of play in the playoffs.




    Those Blazers teams were absolutely considered the top of the Western conference from about 1990-1993. Saying otherwise is absolutely revisionist history. So you talk about everyone making excuses for LeBron and here you are, making all kinds of excuses for Clyde, including flat out fabricating how little talent he had around him.
    Last edited by valade16; 02-14-2020 at 11:42 AM.

  15. #3285
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    12,962
    I didn't say they were crap, I said there were 6-7 other teams on par and that getting to the NBA Finals was an accomplishment, not a given.

    Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Jazz, Suns, Spurs, Celtics, Knicks while you had the dark horses in the Cavaliers and Rockets... All these teams were on a similar level to the Blazers, or slightly below.

    Maybe the Blazers were better than most of these but not by a fine margin. They were definitely not the unanimous #1 team. You could claim that Lakers, Pistons, Bulls or some other team in a given season from 89 to 93, was able to win it and no one would bat an eyelid. Could you say the same in the 2010s? Miami Heat was the unanimous #1 pick for anyone in the first four seasons after 2010, yet the Spurs and Mavs won one. Don't think anyone genuinely expected the Spurs in 2014. The Thunder were an exciting team in 2012 but an inexperienced one. You could have expected them later on, but not in 2012. Who else? Us chokers in New York? Ageing Boston? The Lakers? Mavericks themselves were an outlier. No one in their right mind could have said that the Miami Heat weren't the unanimous favorites for the NBA title for 4 years in a row. As it was the case with the Golden State Warriors after that. The competition at the top is just not at the same level anymore.

    I also said that their 1991 team was their best and in 1992 they definitely faced a better Bulls team than they could have met in 1991.

    As for Drexler vs Jordan, the discussion wasn't done because Bird, Thomas and Magic were retiring. It was done in the late 80s. Ignoring (as everyone does) that Bird was playing with a bad back that would have forced retirement to most players since 1985, Magic and Thomas were at their absolute best during that time and Jordan was emerging as the next superstar in the late 80s. As was Drexler. Both had the same deficiency. Their team couldn't advance in the playoffs.

    In fact, the first time both of these guys were hyped was in the 1988 MVP race. Michael Jordan had won it, Drexler was 5th behind Bird, Magic and Barkley. Ahead of Nique, Hakeem, Karl Malone and Isiah Thomas. 1988.

    This is Clyde Drexler playing in a small market vs Michael Jordan who is getting endorsements all over the place. This is Clyde Drexler who's not a vocal person vs larger than life Michael Jordan. I mean, I don't have to tell you how it is.

    And I didn't imply that Hakeem was not an important player for Houston lol. Of course he was. But Drexler didn't force a move to a title contender, he forced a move to Houston which is his home town and where he played college ball as well. And they were a 6th seed, not really a title contender by any stretch. They beat everyone on the road. Utah, Phoenix, Spurs .The #3, #2 and #1 seeds respectively. Then beat the #1 seed of the East. Without Clyde Drexler, they couldn't have done that in the 1995 season. That's what I mean.


    The other day you were speaking about impact. I could give you names such as Chris Webber, Jason Kidd, Chauncey Billups that have had a positive impact wherever they went, transforming their new teams into contenders. It's not really a unique trait but it definitely separates a star player from your average player. Point is, you can name several players that have this type of impact and it sometimes has more to do with the team's style and meshing well with the club culture than just being above everyone in terms of quality.


    As for your bias towards anything I say about modern players. Let me just add that I believe there's a lot of talent in today's sport as well as in the last 15 years. But an important number of the elite players that have been part of the NBA in this time have been, well, lackluster. I've been watching Lebron since he came to the league and I've rarely said "wow". It's more like "whoa", with some power moves, but that's about it. He lacks flair, flamboyance, elegance or skill. It all looks so forced. He doesn't have Grant Hill's charisma on the ball, doesn't have Drexler's elegance on the air, doesn't have Kobe's determination. It's just run towards the basket and go for the kill. Or with Durant it's mostly take a jumper from wherever at whatever speed he was going. It's still impressive for both players on its own, but it just doesn't feel right. Just like watching Harden jack up threes isn't really my cup of tea. It's not like he only does that. Of course, he's one of the greatest but not the extremely top, for me exactly because he's not mysterious in any way. He's not going to wow you. And if you want to be at the very top, I gotta see something wow, not just the same thing over and over and the defence simply letting him be because the rules dictate so.

    That block on Iguodala, exactly what I was looking for. But it's an outlier. It doesn't sum up his career, it's just an asterisk. His passing is great, but not on the scale of Magic, Bird, Penny etc. It's great, but not really amazing. And we live in a time where flying over the rim doesn't really surprise us anymore.


    When it's all said and done, it's just gonna be one big inflated legacy for Lebron. No one in their right mind should be considering him a greater player than Larry Bird for example and most don't even have Larry Bird in their top 5. Yet they have Lebron in their top 3 because media has brainwashed people into accepting that by keeping a false argument going in the claim that Lebron is better or on par with Jordan.

    There's a paradox with Lebron's ~GOAT status. He has been the best player of the last decade by a fine margin and there's no one near him. Who is the #2 of the decade? Durant? Curry? It cannot be Kawhi.

    He's unrivaled due to his longevity and the fact that he teammed up with the only person who was able to rival him, so he must be compared with the greatest ever otherwise they'll just be stating the obvious all the time. That Lebron is the best of his era. Full stop. But it's the media, there cannot be a full stop, they need to compare him to Michael Jordan. Initially they compared him to Kobe of course which was also a bad one but whatever.

    The same paradox applied to Michael Jordan who took over a league divided between Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. Had their rivalry's impact not be crucial for the survival and explosion of the NBA, the argument would be that if Larry or Magic wasn't around, the other would have had a much better legacy in terms of MVPs and championships.
    Then we have Jordan who completely obliterated any competition. And if you check the era he dominated in, the 90s, it remains by far the most top heavy stacked era. It's the decade that features the most of the top 50 players of all time. Can we say that about the 2010s? I mean you can accept arguments for Curry, Durant, Wade (who was his teammate), Kobe of course, maybe Kawhi Leonard, Duncan in his twilight years and a few others who mostly played in the 2000s. Anthony Davis would be trying to cement his place there but the odds aren't that great.

    There just isn't any comparison to be made.

    Take any of the top 15 players from each 90s season and put them in the modern game and they're all likely MVP candidates. The opposite cannot be said. There just cannot be any comparison between Jordan and Lebron but the media got to make it because there's no one else. I get the 'what if' game is fun, but it's been going on for a long while.

    I don't even recall as much noise for Kobe being the next Jordan or GOAT as the media hype that's been going on for Lebron has been. But he actually was the next icon like Jordan for the NBA and we could see that unfortunately from how his passing away has been greeted by the players. Kobe was a charismatic person, similar to Jordan. He talks, you listen. With Lebron you cannot get that vibe. It all just seems forced.

    It may feel odd, but I've seen more kids be excited about Curry shooting from anywhere than what I've seen for Lebron. Lebron's impact on the world around basketball is that he's a great player, but not that great. He doesn't have the substance that makes people glued on their television to see what he's up to next. And that's the magic of basketball all time greats.
    Watching Hakeem shake a giant like David Robinson, watching Jordan freeze time in the air, watching Shaq posterize Mutombo, watching McHale dancing around with a basketball in the post, watching Magic smile while he's Showtiming about, watching Bird with his flashy moves, watching Drexler glide on the air with a behind the back lay up, watching Doctor J swing the ball in the air while he's going for the kill, watching Iverson cross over Michael Jordan, watching . Not watching Lebron hold the bal and run towards an empty lane...

    There's no all time great that's so vanilla as Lebron is. He's really the odd one out. I mean even looking at any Top 10 plays in Lebron's career videos doesn't give you the vibe of an elite player. Almost nothing for a title or series deciding game apart from the afformentioned block on Iguodala. Which is also something I could find on a Tayshaun Prince video as well. For instance, checking for Jordan, Magic, Bird and so many other greats, you will definitely see some gems when the ball is like a hot potato.

    Maybe in the next 10-15 years sanity will hit the basketball media and they'll be more prudent with their Lebron love and start calling things as they are.

Posting Permissions

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