|
On June 17 2017 04:40 ZenithM wrote:
That's why players are coming out in strength in the media outright denying that they're playing for a superteam. It doesn't change the facts though. Warriors were huge favorites to win this series. And they will be the favorite to win next season, probably regardless of whatever crazy off-season moves happen.
Only Lebron. Green's reaction was in sarcasm to Lebron. Im not aware of any others seriously chiming in on this issue. Could you name anyone else?
On June 17 2017 03:06 ZenithM wrote:
Come on now, Curry is dangerous from 30 feet and Durant is Durant. Klay scored 37 in one quarter, can single-handedly win games by making literally every shot he takes out of nowhere. I'm just saying that GSW is a superteam, end of story, no "nuances" to it. The reverse narrative that suddenly GS is actually not a superteam is just preposterous. We can all rave about teamwork, motion offense, gameplan and all that. You don't do what GS does with midtier players. A lot of it comes down to players actually making the shots, not just getting the looks.
There are plenty other teams whose players have remarkable individual records but they do not necessarily translate into team excellence. And "getting the looks" has a lot to do with how the team as a unit is constructed,especially for midtier players. Put Livingston in the Lakers and I doubt he'll be as useful. Or Mills in the Knicks. This is what andrewlt was emphasizing when he talked about team/player development.
On June 17 2017 04:40 ZenithM wrote:
I mean, you can craft whatever definition of superteam you need to fit only the teams you want and not the others, I get it. This "superteam" word is only used to diminish the achievements of the team, like they had some sort of cheat code or something... It doesn't change the facts though. Warriors were huge favorites to win this series. And they will be the favorite to win next season, probably regardless of whatever crazy off-season moves happen.
- Only as a reaction by the fans/media/public in general to the intention of players forming superteams, specifically the Lebron type.
- No one begrudged the second peat Bull with MJ/Pip/Kukoc/Rodman, nor Kobe/Shaq Lakers even though they were genuinely perceived as a team that could dominate for a decade after their first three-peat, nor 2007 Spurs.
- The cheat code occurred because superstar who are in their primes and are perceived to be competitive AGAINST each other, join together with the intent of tilting the balance largely in their favor. This is not an arbitrary definition. The superteam is a created with the intention to "cheat" the natural order of the competitive spirit of the game (I have already wrote elsewhere regarding the moral and pragmatic dimension of this)
- Which is why the 2015 is NOT a superteam. No one drafted Curry, Klay, and Green thinkiing "motherfucker we're gonna destroy the league with our jumpshooting team". Theirs, along with SAS, and hopefully eventually the Bucks and Rockets, are a product of the evolution of the league and not something forced to dominate the league from the get go - Lebron/Wade/Bosh explicitly said this so themselves (remember "not one, not two...")
- Pertaining to GSW 2017, the team itself is blameless for acquiring Durant. They managed their team properly, and opportunity arouse to get the best FA signing, and they did.
- Durant himself could be blamed ONLY IF you recognize that Lebron paved the way for it to happen. You cannot blame Durant for taking the "hardest road" while excusing Lebron when his moves have been way more blatant.
|
Like I get some of what you say, but to someone who follows this thread but never posts you just come across as a HUGE Lebron hater. Which is your prerogative ofc.
Fwiw I always thought lebron/wade/bosh was in some ways a response to the Boston thing and generally think of that as the first example of three good players intentionally joining up.
|
On June 16 2017 13:10 cLutZ wrote:
I'm sorry, but the Spurs in 2013-14 were written off as dead going into the season. That Duncan is awesome, Kawhi got good, and the Spurs system makes old AF Parker & Ginobili look good even when they are dead doesn't magically change that for the next two years.
Written off as dead? They were picked first or second in the stacked west by pretty much everyone, and then Kawhi took 'the leap' and went from super quality player relative to what it took to get him from Indiana, to outright star. Plus, who the fuck cares what a team was picked to do preseason? I care how they actually perform after 82+playoffs, and that Spurs team was really fucking good.
I wouldn't call them a 'superteam' the way you guys are defining it but they weren't some sorry ass squad, and they weren't anywhere near as surprising a champ as the Mavs.
Also after all of this followup I still have no idea why Twinkle was trying to invoke draft pick positions for players like it means GSW isn't disgustingly talented. Player development is a thing, and GSW appears to be good at it(or players outperform their draft position, it happens, Green would be the only one to be doing so at an insane margin and he simultaneously appears to be the most role-player-esque of the group, shocker). Mass credit to their organization but it doesn't mean they aren't still a stacked team even if they home grew that shit.
Draw parallels to other sports if you want. Yankees of that late 90s/early 2000s run was a ton of home grown talent, doesn't mean they weren't talented because they developed them in their own farm system instead of signing monster FA's. Tom Brady is the fucking GOAT for crying out loud, him being a 7th round draft pick is a trivia answer and fun quirk of history about how talent scouting is clearly not perfect, it doesn't mean he isn't a beast.
|
I'm trying to figure out what exactly you guys are arguing about.
|
On June 17 2017 10:00 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 13:10 cLutZ wrote:
I'm sorry, but the Spurs in 2013-14 were written off as dead going into the season. That Duncan is awesome, Kawhi got good, and the Spurs system makes old AF Parker & Ginobili look good even when they are dead doesn't magically change that for the next two years. Written off as dead? They were picked first or second in the stacked west by pretty much everyone, and then Kawhi took 'the leap' and went from super quality player relative to what it took to get him from Indiana, to outright star. Plus, who the fuck cares what a team was picked to do preseason? I care how they actually perform after 82+playoffs, and that Spurs team was really fucking good. I wouldn't call them a 'superteam' the way you guys are defining it but they weren't some sorry ass squad, and they weren't anywhere near as surprising a champ as the Mavs. Also after all of this followup I still have no idea why Twinkle was trying to invoke draft pick positions for players like it means GSW isn't disgustingly talented. Player development is a thing, and GSW appears to be good at it(or players outperform their draft position, it happens, Green would be the only one to be doing so at an insane margin and he simultaneously appears to be the most role-player-esque of the group, shocker). Mass credit to their organization but it doesn't mean they aren't still a stacked team even if they home grew that shit. Draw parallels to other sports if you want. Yankees of that late 90s/early 2000s run was a ton of home grown talent, doesn't mean they weren't talented because they developed them in their own farm system instead of signing monster FA's. Tom Brady is the fucking GOAT for crying out loud, him being a 7th round draft pick is a trivia answer and fun quirk of history about how talent scouting is clearly not perfect, it doesn't mean he isn't a beast.
TIL, 3rd in the West, 5th overall. People best remembered them getting reverse swept after being 2-0 on the Thunder.
syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1339452.
|
On June 17 2017 07:40 Atreides wrote:
Like I get some of what you say, but to someone who follows this thread but never posts you just come across as a HUGE Lebron hater. Which is your prerogative ofc.
Fwiw I always thought lebron/wade/bosh was in some ways a response to the Boston thing and generally think of that as the first example of three good players intentionally joining up.
I get that, and I respect your opinion of me, after all, its difficult to discern intentions based on our limited discussion here. I guess Im in a ohase where as a Lebron fan, all the Lebron cultists' and Bronsexuals' blind worship of Lebron is annoying and I feel I have to provide a more level-headed appreciation of his game, In the end, what matters to me is the enjoyment of high quality game and excellent players, whether they come in the form of Lebron, KD, Kawhi, or Giannis.
Also, that may be true, but the significant difference is that KD/PP/RA are beyond their primes already.
On June 17 2017 10:59 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 10:00 red_ wrote:On June 16 2017 13:10 cLutZ wrote:
I'm sorry, but the Spurs in 2013-14 were written off as dead going into the season. That Duncan is awesome, Kawhi got good, and the Spurs system makes old AF Parker & Ginobili look good even when they are dead doesn't magically change that for the next two years. Written off as dead? They were picked first or second in the stacked west by pretty much everyone, and then Kawhi took 'the leap' and went from super quality player relative to what it took to get him from Indiana, to outright star. Plus, who the fuck cares what a team was picked to do preseason? I care how they actually perform after 82+playoffs, and that Spurs team was really fucking good. I wouldn't call them a 'superteam' the way you guys are defining it but they weren't some sorry ass squad, and they weren't anywhere near as surprising a champ as the Mavs. Also after all of this followup I still have no idea why Twinkle was trying to invoke draft pick positions for players like it means GSW isn't disgustingly talented. Player development is a thing, and GSW appears to be good at it(or players outperform their draft position, it happens, Green would be the only one to be doing so at an insane margin and he simultaneously appears to be the most role-player-esque of the group, shocker). Mass credit to their organization but it doesn't mean they aren't still a stacked team even if they home grew that shit. Draw parallels to other sports if you want. Yankees of that late 90s/early 2000s run was a ton of home grown talent, doesn't mean they weren't talented because they developed them in their own farm system instead of signing monster FA's. Tom Brady is the fucking GOAT for crying out loud, him being a 7th round draft pick is a trivia answer and fun quirk of history about how talent scouting is clearly not perfect, it doesn't mean he isn't a beast. TIL, 3rd in the West, 5th overall. People best remembered them getting reverse swept after being 2-0 on the Thunder. syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1339452.
Only because the Spurs are a perennial 55-60 team almost the entire Duncan era. But no one would consider them a superteam, and Duncan's age was clearly showing already.
|
Rumors:
Boston-Sixers-Chicago on a three team mega deal, could move #1 pick for #3 and future #1
Players involved Butler, Okafor, Fultz.
If it pushes through, Sixers Fultz-Simmons-Okafor will be fire next season.
And Celtics gets Butler-Johnson/Fox??
|
On June 17 2017 11:54 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 07:40 Atreides wrote:
Like I get some of what you say, but to someone who follows this thread but never posts you just come across as a HUGE Lebron hater. Which is your prerogative ofc.
Fwiw I always thought lebron/wade/bosh was in some ways a response to the Boston thing and generally think of that as the first example of three good players intentionally joining up. I get that, and I respect your opinion of me, after all, its difficult to discern intentions based on our limited discussion here. I guess Im in a ohase where as a Lebron fan, all the Lebron cultists' and Bronsexuals' blind worship of Lebron is annoying and I feel I have to provide a more level-headed appreciation of his game, In the end, what matters to me is the enjoyment of high quality game and excellent players, whether they come in the form of Lebron, KD, Kawhi, or Giannis. Also, that may be true, but the significant difference is that KD/PP/RA are beyond their primes already. Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 10:59 cLutZ wrote:On June 17 2017 10:00 red_ wrote:On June 16 2017 13:10 cLutZ wrote:
I'm sorry, but the Spurs in 2013-14 were written off as dead going into the season. That Duncan is awesome, Kawhi got good, and the Spurs system makes old AF Parker & Ginobili look good even when they are dead doesn't magically change that for the next two years. Written off as dead? They were picked first or second in the stacked west by pretty much everyone, and then Kawhi took 'the leap' and went from super quality player relative to what it took to get him from Indiana, to outright star. Plus, who the fuck cares what a team was picked to do preseason? I care how they actually perform after 82+playoffs, and that Spurs team was really fucking good. I wouldn't call them a 'superteam' the way you guys are defining it but they weren't some sorry ass squad, and they weren't anywhere near as surprising a champ as the Mavs. Also after all of this followup I still have no idea why Twinkle was trying to invoke draft pick positions for players like it means GSW isn't disgustingly talented. Player development is a thing, and GSW appears to be good at it(or players outperform their draft position, it happens, Green would be the only one to be doing so at an insane margin and he simultaneously appears to be the most role-player-esque of the group, shocker). Mass credit to their organization but it doesn't mean they aren't still a stacked team even if they home grew that shit. Draw parallels to other sports if you want. Yankees of that late 90s/early 2000s run was a ton of home grown talent, doesn't mean they weren't talented because they developed them in their own farm system instead of signing monster FA's. Tom Brady is the fucking GOAT for crying out loud, him being a 7th round draft pick is a trivia answer and fun quirk of history about how talent scouting is clearly not perfect, it doesn't mean he isn't a beast. TIL, 3rd in the West, 5th overall. People best remembered them getting reverse swept after being 2-0 on the Thunder. syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1339452. Only because the Spurs are a perennial 55-60 team almost the entire Duncan era. But no one would consider them a superteam, and Duncan's age was clearly showing already.
My point, yes. The Spurs basically from 2008 on until they won in 14 were basically "too old". In 2012 people were claiming they "are back" as they were 10-0 in the West until OKC won 4 straight, then got pretty whooped by Miami. At the end of that season the Spurs were considered a tier below much like the Celtics or Rockets this year.
|
How many live games have people in here seen of LBJ, Leonard, KD, Curry, and Westbrook in the past 4 years.
I've seen LBJ about 10 times. Curry twice. KD twice. Westbrook 3 times and Leonard 1 time.
I think LBJ is still the best in the world by a slim margin, but i have not seen the other players enough to state for 100% certain. I have seen enough games of eastern conference teams that i'd say LBJ is the best player in the eastern conference by a big margin.
i think live game observation is a critical component in player evaluation.
|
On June 17 2017 15:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
How many live games have people in here seen of LBJ, Leonard, KD, Curry, and Westbrook in the past 4 years.
I've seen LBJ about 10 times. Curry twice. KD twice. Westbrook 3 times and Leonard 1 time.
I think LBJ is still the best in the world by a slim margin, but i have not seen the other players enough to state for 100% certain. I have seen enough games of eastern conference teams that i'd say LBJ is the best player in the eastern conference by a big margin.
i think live game observation is a critical component in player evaluation.
This is too funny to pass up.
In an era of abundant live television/livestream broadacst, analysts and sports journalists going the full spectrum ranging from ESPN Simmons to SAS/Skip and all the other two-bit "journalists", comprehensive scouting reports, predraft combines and thorough physicals, advanced metrics and big data anuhlitics, to frothy social media that lets us know when Klay is high, what Lebron is jamming to, where and what Booker ate for dinner, and all the other impertinent and irreverent sports drama, all available through this magical world of the cyber - please, oh pretty please, educate us unwashed plebeians what "critical component in player evaluation" can be gleaned through live games that are not available in any of the above? And might I also inquire as to which seats provide the best viewpoint in conducting such evaluations?
|
On June 17 2017 04:58 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 03:06 ZenithM wrote:On June 17 2017 00:04 andrewlt wrote:On June 16 2017 20:48 ZenithM wrote:C1. Lebron's 2017 Cavs is a superteam, as well as 2010 Heat (the first one arguably)
C2. GSW + Durant is a superteam, with a few nuances, but a superteam nonetheless Which "nuances" are you talking about? Seems to me that GSW Durant Edition is the most glaring example you can think of. Two MVPs in their primes, a defensive superstar and the best two-way guard? If we're pushing it, they might literally have the #1 at each of the 1-to-4 positions. More realistically #1, #2, #2, #3. But you'll certainly find people saying that Klay is the best SG, that Durant is better than Lebron (some say it in this very thread), and that Draymond is the best PF (if you decide to shift AD to center for some reason). Players on teams with great teamwork get overrated as individual players (see GSW, Spurs). Klay has great defense, but his offense comes and goes so much that he'd struggle on most other teams. Draymond has great defense but a huge part of his game is calling defensive assignments and making plays for other people in offense, something that doesn't necessarily translate well to another team. They are low draft picks for stars with skill sets that are highly leveraged to GSW's style of play. Even Steph Curry's success is partly a product of Kerr's system. This was a middling playoff team with Mark Jackson, remember? Food for thought, if the Cavs had the same level of teamwork as GSW, how close would the finals be? Who would actually be the better team? Come on now, Curry is dangerous from 30 feet and Durant is Durant. Klay scored 37 in one quarter, can single-handedly win games by making literally every shot he takes out of nowhere. I'm just saying that GSW is a superteam, end of story, no "nuances" to it. The reverse narrative that suddenly GS is actually not a superteam is just preposterous. We can all rave about teamwork, motion offense, gameplan and all that. You don't do what GS does with midtier players. A lot of it comes down to players actually making the shots, not just getting the looks. There is a huge difference between a superteam that forms from multiple superstars joining the same team versus a superteam that forms from a bunch of homegrown players getting better together. The second path is available to every single team in the league. With the exception of Durant, GSW did do it with midtier players. They made their midtier players great. Every single team in the league has the potential to do that. Make your midtier players great. Plenty of players take a leap every year. What I take exception is this narrative that it takes a historical joining of players on one team to beat Lebron. Two of the "superteams" that beat him (GSW, Spurs) did it with mostly homegrown stars. Teams developing their own drafted players is not some crazy freak occurrence.
What midtier players? You mean according to their draft rank? A few years ago these guys were still developing. Before the title, Green was in his 2nd year, Klay in his 3rd. The guy you could argue seemed destined to be midtier is Curry, but he had some injuries early on in his career iirc that might have slowed down his progression.
Now it's obvious that GSW is a team that makes these guys thrive and use their talent to its fullest, but the result is still there, it's the best team in the league, and I still stand by my belief that most of these guys are also individually great.
Out of the 4 GSW main guys, the only one who wouldn't do as well in a random team is Draymond. He wouldn't even be considered a star, just a defensive role player. That's GSW's true master stroke for me.
|
Defensive role player?! Don't sleep on Green's offensive game because he isn't a great scorer. He's a big Jason Kidd out there.
|
On June 17 2017 16:24 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 15:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
How many live games have people in here seen of LBJ, Leonard, KD, Curry, and Westbrook in the past 4 years.
I've seen LBJ about 10 times. Curry twice. KD twice. Westbrook 3 times and Leonard 1 time.
I think LBJ is still the best in the world by a slim margin, but i have not seen the other players enough to state for 100% certain. I have seen enough games of eastern conference teams that i'd say LBJ is the best player in the eastern conference by a big margin.
i think live game observation is a critical component in player evaluation. This is too funny to pass up. In an era of abundant live television/livestream broadacst, analysts and sports journalists going the full spectrum ranging from ESPN Simmons to SAS/Skip and all the other two-bit "journalists", comprehensive scouting reports, predraft combines and thorough physicals, advanced metrics and big data anuhlitics, to frothy social media that lets us know when Klay is high, what Lebron is jamming to, where and what Booker ate for dinner, and all the other impertinent and irreverent sports drama, all available through this magical world of the cyber - please, oh pretty please, educate us unwashed plebeians what "critical component in player evaluation" can be gleaned through live games that are not available in any of the above? And might I also inquire as to which seats provide the best viewpoint in conducting such evaluations?
i like to be within 15 rows of the court. however, any where in the building and then later going home and watching it on TV still provides more information. obviously the closer to the action the more info the LIVE experience adds.
anyhow, you want snarky , fuck you attitude.. here you go.
i didn't fully appreciate LBJ's game until i went to the Air Canada Centre 2 hours before game time. If the difference between the top 5 players were large it'd be easy to say who is the best. I think the difference between these guys is small enough that live game evaluation is crucial.
my uncle has scouted for 3 NHL teams. every scout will tell you that you get the most info by actually being there. When Dana White looks for new fighting talent his attitude is... "tv is ok" .. "physically being at ringside tells you far more." This also applies to the NBA and every other sport.
when advanced scouts stop going to the building and just sit on their couch .. .. lemme know.
more and many diverse forms of information are valuable.... and 1 of those forms includes live game observation.
|
On June 17 2017 20:29 RowdierBob wrote:
Defensive role player?! Don't sleep on Green's offensive game because he isn't a great scorer. He's a big Jason Kidd out there.
He's a good passer, but that's his only tool. Another team than GSW might have easily slept on the passing part, and then they'd be looking at a subpar offensive player.
I find it funny that the one moment I concede that a GSW player's individual abilities are elevated by his team using him to full potential, someone answers that he's an elite indivual piece... I'm the one who made that point in the first place.
|
On June 17 2017 22:58 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 16:24 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 17 2017 15:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
How many live games have people in here seen of LBJ, Leonard, KD, Curry, and Westbrook in the past 4 years.
I've seen LBJ about 10 times. Curry twice. KD twice. Westbrook 3 times and Leonard 1 time.
I think LBJ is still the best in the world by a slim margin, but i have not seen the other players enough to state for 100% certain. I have seen enough games of eastern conference teams that i'd say LBJ is the best player in the eastern conference by a big margin.
i think live game observation is a critical component in player evaluation. This is too funny to pass up. In an era of abundant live television/livestream broadacst, analysts and sports journalists going the full spectrum ranging from ESPN Simmons to SAS/Skip and all the other two-bit "journalists", comprehensive scouting reports, predraft combines and thorough physicals, advanced metrics and big data anuhlitics, to frothy social media that lets us know when Klay is high, what Lebron is jamming to, where and what Booker ate for dinner, and all the other impertinent and irreverent sports drama, all available through this magical world of the cyber - please, oh pretty please, educate us unwashed plebeians what "critical component in player evaluation" can be gleaned through live games that are not available in any of the above? And might I also inquire as to which seats provide the best viewpoint in conducting such evaluations? i like to be within 15 rows of the court. however, any where in the building and then later going home and watching it on TV still provides more information. obviously the closer to the action the more info the LIVE experience adds. anyhow, you want snarky , fuck you attitude.. here you go. i didn't fully appreciate LBJ's game until i went to the Air Canada Centre 2 hours before game time. If the difference between the top 5 players were large it'd be easy to say who is the best. I think the difference between these guys is small enough that live game evaluation is crucial. my uncle has scouted for 3 NHL teams. every scout will tell you that you get the most info by actually being there. When Dana White looks for new fighting talent his attitude is... "tv is ok" .. "physically being at ringside tells you far more." This also applies to the NBA and every other sport. when advanced scouts stop going to the building and just sit on their couch .. .. lemme know. more and many diverse forms of information are valuable.... and 1 of those forms includes live game observation.
This is the most elaborate (only in the sense that an inebriated man finds the space between his door and the living room couch elaborate) use of the English language in order to say exactly nothing. No other configuration of English words delivered a more dedicate, precise, and effective utterance of senselessness.
Let me simplify this for you: When you claimed "critical component in player evaluation", I did not exactly expect some multiverse-forming, life-changing, zero-dividing truth to be revealed before us. A little sensible explanation would have been enough.
Instead, what do we get? A verbal diarrhea of self-repetitions, anecdotes, humblebrags, logical fallacies, weasel words, incoherent rambling, internal contradictions, hollow statement, and complete nonsense. You could have made better use of the three hours you spent composing your reply by typing down "I don't know what I'm talking about" in all of ten seconds and we would all have gone on with our lives with little remark.
If you are still confused, let me simplify it even further:
i didn't fully appreciate LBJ's game until i went to the Air Canada Centre 2 hours before game time. If the difference between the top 5 players were large it'd be easy to say who is the best. I think the difference between these guys is small enough that live game evaluation is crucial.
What is this difference then that can only be seen by watching the game live in person instead of the other platforms I mentioned before (such as live tv/net broadcast, youtube, advanced analytics, expert analysis and punditry, comprehensive scouting reports, industry-standard physical evaluation, and social media posts)?
I'm not saying that there aren't. as there might very well be. All I'm saying is that since YOU claimed there are "critical component in player evaluation" available through watching the game in person that is nor available elsewhere, YOU provide the evidence for such. In this case, you have failed to do so. Merely saying so doesn't make it so.
my uncle has scouted for 3 NHL teams. every scout will tell you that you get the most info by actually being there. When Dana White looks for new fighting talent his attitude is... "tv is ok" .. "physically being at ringside tells you far more." This also applies to the NBA and every other sport.
This is neither here nor there. I could also go to great lengths about my uncle and and talk about how he scouts and evaluates which wrestler in WWE is the best. Mighty Mouse would also have you know about Dana to "Don't believe his lies". I think I've made my point clear on this specific retort. BESIDES, did I not already include "comprehensive scouting" in one of the methods to evaluate players? So unless we (not general "we" but actual you and me) are scouts, it is best that we leave the actual scout-level evaluation to professional scouts, and make our informed opinion based on their reports. Besides again, this still does not answer the question of What "critical component in player evaluation have you gathered by being physically being present during games that you cannot otherwise? You just said your uncle says so, Dana White says so, etc. etc, so it must be true.
when advanced scouts stop going to the building and just sit on their couch .. .. lemme know.
Oh dear god! This is the same as above, only bolder and more aneurysm-inducing in its sheer asininity.
more and many diverse forms of information are valuable.... and 1 of those forms includes live game observation.
I'm stretching a bit on this one, but since I've gone this far, I might as well. This one is is poorly-constructed. I think you meant to write "more and many diverse forms methods of information-gathering are valuable.... and 1 of those forms includes live game observation." And then again, you run the same problem of doing wild ramblings instead of supporting your claim.
Listen kiddo, I don't mean to be harsh, but unless you really have some support for your claim, learn from this exchange and suck it in. I mean you no harm, and you should take none. Let's go and enjoy the rest of the day.
PS.
I know you are a kid for many reasons, such as but not limited to, your diction, grammar, punctuation, and writing style, the quality of your arguments, and not very many Americans in their twenties and older would refer to Lebron James as LBJ. So please don't tell me you're not a kid anymore.
|
^^ lolol topkek
☐ Not REKT
☑ REKT
☑ REKTangle
☑ SHREKT
☑ eREKTile dysfunction
☑ REKT-it Ralph
☑ Tyrannosaurus REKT
User was temp banned for this post.
|
wow, that was the last nail to the JimmyJCoffin!
|
As wonderful as that prose was, it was awfully wordy to say, you have to actually explain things instead of just repeat them.
|
hello I'm over 20 and I refer to lebron as leflop and lebreezy
I am at the age where LBJ refers to the president that police actioned Vietnam real good
|
On June 18 2017 05:05 andyrau wrote:
hello I'm over 20 and I refer to lebron as leflop and lebreezy
I am at the age where LBJ refers to the president that police actioned Vietnam real good
Wat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
