Page 22 of 36 FirstFirst ... 1218192021222324252632 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 550 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #526
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,983

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is exactly what it says it is. It's a list of how efficient every player scores. IT's not a joke. It isn't something you can't argue. It's simply a list of how efficient every player is.

    This is what's amazing.

    So you find out that LBJ and MJ aren't the two most efficient scorers of all time so that means it doesn't matter how efficient a player can score? Think about what you're saying. =)

    These stats allow chuckers who jack up a lot of shots and shoot low FG% to compensate. They don't take into account that missed shots create rebounding opportunities where the other team gets the ball. OK, so Jordan and Granger have the same "TS". I refuse to admit that means Granger was just as "efficient" as 45. Granger shot 6% less than Jordan in real life, which means that his misses created more opportunities for a defense to rebound the ball and score.

  2. #527
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He doesn't have to mention Granger by name for Granger to directly be involved in his idea. If you're starting Lance at PG, benching Hill, and bringing Danny in to start at SF, then Danny is very involved in this scenario. The discussion just shifts from Danny vs. Lance to Danny vs. Hill.

    It gets to a point where it just seems like people are trying to come up with any idea to get Danny back into the starting lineup. Lance is playing great, so let's try to move Hill out of the lineup instead. What has Hill done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup? He's been a clutch stud since moving into the starting position late in the 2011-12 season. Hill is a better player than Granger right now until proven otherwise. So even if Lance by chance became the PG (I don't see that happening), Hill should still be his back court mate with Paul staying at SF.

    Is this about doing what's best for the team, or is it about trying to come up with any possible way to get Danny back into the starting lineup? It's fair to wonder.
    Fair to wonder... but you would be incorrect.

    It was about what I think would be best for the team in a given hypothetical scenario, in this case where Lance answers my big ifs and where Danny is healthy and productive like I've previously seen him be. In that case, I like Lance starting, and also in that case I'd rather roll with Lance/Paul/Granger than Hill/Lance/Paul because I think either works well but that the former strikes me as superior. So friggin' sue me or remove the tinfoil hat already. Yeesh.

  3. #528
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    These stats allow chuckers who jack up a lot of shots and shoot low FG% to compensate. They don't take into account that missed shots create rebounding opportunities where the other team gets the ball. OK, so Jordan and Granger have the same "TS". I refuse to admit that means Granger was just as "efficient" as 45. Granger shot 6% less than Jordan in real life, which means that his misses created more opportunities for a defense to rebound the ball and score.
    Granger shot .006% less than MJ.

    In the same amount of shot attempts as MJ, Granger would have scored nearly the SAME amount of points.

    Think about this - more makes also mean there is a zero chance for an offensive rebound. Right? Ok. So if they score the SAME amount of points per shots, yet one player has more misses, wouldn't that actually create MORE opportunities for the offense? (offensive rebound).
    Last edited by mattie; 11-04-2013 at 12:57 AM.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  4. #529
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,983

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Granger shot .006% less than MJ.

    In the same amount of shot attempts as MJ, Granger would have scored nearly the SAME amount of points.
    I'm confused, are we talking about real FG%?

    Danny Granger career FG%: 43.7%

    Michael Jordan career FG%: 49.7%.

    That's a difference of 6 percentage points.

    I can't believe I'm seriously comparing Danny Granger to 45

  5. #530
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    If you ever try to argue with facts, or argue with infallible evidence, you will irritate people. Stick with your opinions. Let's not go down this road where we try to argue that since MJ was the greatest player of all time, it is impossible that other players could score the ball as efficiently as he could.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  7. #531
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm confused, are we talking about real FG%?

    Danny Granger career FG%: 43.7%

    Michael Jordan career FG%: 49.7%.

    That's a difference of 6 percentage points.

    I can't believe I'm seriously comparing Danny Granger to 45
    TS%
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  8. #532
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Rickey Pierce and Kyle Korver are better than Jordan on this list.

    This list is a way to artificially inflate three point chuckers.
    No, it's just a statistic. Just because Michael Jordan wasn't better than everybody in every single conceivable way possible doesn't mean he wasn't the best player overall. And I think this is the real divide here.

    Some of you seem obsessed with putting the most talented five guys in the starting lineup no matter what, while some of us see the merits of mixing and matching a little bit more even if that means starting somebody who might be slightly inferior in talent. It's fine if you don't agree with it, but could you guys please knock it off with the laughter and the sarcasm over something that could not possibly merit that reaction? It's not like what we're talking about is the equivalent of saying that Brandon Rush is a terrible shooter or that Troy Murphy was a great player.

  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  10. #533
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,983

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you ever try to argue with facts, or argue with infallible evidence, you will irritate people. Stick with your opinions. Let's not go down this road where we try to argue that since MJ was the greatest player of all time, it is impossible that other players could score the ball as efficiently as he could.

    I agree with you. The stats clearly show that Brent Barry was one of the most efficient scorers in NBA history. Better than the likes of Shaq, Dirk, Lebron, Jordan, and Larry Bird.

    I wonder why he's not going into the HOF? Bizarre.

  11. #534
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is simply astounding how many times people want to argue with facts. It would be one thing if people stuck to just arguing over their differing opinions. We all have them, and that's the fun in discussing them. But arguing with undeniable truths? As if you can change reality simply with a smartass comment? Blows my mind.
    Agreed.

  12. #535
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,983

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Some of you seem obsessed with putting the most talented five guys in the starting lineup no matter what, while some of us see the merits of mixing and matching a little bit more even if that means starting somebody who might be slightly inferior in talent. It's fine if you don't agree with it, but could you guys please knock it off with the laughter and the sarcasm over something that could not possibly merit that reaction? It's not like what we're talking about is the equivalent of saying that Brandon Rush is a terrible shooter or that Troy Murphy was a great player.

    Some of you seem obsessed with putting Danny Granger in the starting lineup no matter what, while some of us prefer the past year's worth of inarguable continued success with Lance as the starter. It's fine if you don't agree with it, but could you guys please knock it off with the continued accusations that we aren't paying attention to "facts"?

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  14. #536
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm confused, are we talking about real FG%?

    Danny Granger career FG%: 43.7%

    Michael Jordan career FG%: 49.7%.

    That's a difference of 6 percentage points.

    I can't believe I'm seriously comparing Danny Granger to 45
    I'll break it down:

    Player A shoots 6 shots a game. He makes one shot but scores 10 points.
    Player B shoots 10 shots a game. He makes 5 but scores 10 points.

    Player A gets a chance for an offensive rebound on 5 possessions in which he missed.
    Player B simply goes back and plays defense as his opponent gets the ball back every time.

    They both scored the same amount of points on the same amount of possessions and shots. Yet one, at least theoretically, could have gained an advantage BECAUSE he missed.

    Do you see why FG% is essentially a worthless stat, and TS% and eFG% actually tell us something?

    Edit- I changed the numbers to make it a realistic box score, but noticed both would have the same amount of misses in the scenario. (which might be how it works in real life). The point is, FG% does not help us.
    Last edited by mattie; 11-04-2013 at 01:07 AM.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  15. #537
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,134

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree with you. The stats clearly show that Brent Barry was one of the most efficient scorers in NBA history. Better than the likes of Shaq, Dirk, Lebron, Jordan, and Larry Bird.

    I wonder why he's not going into the HOF? Bizarre.
    No, the stat shows Brent Barry was one of the most efficient scorer for his role on his teams. Not that he was a better scorer or player than Shaq, Dirk, Lebron, Jordan, and Larry Bird. There is more to basketball than shooting percentage.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  17. #538
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,142

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Neither Sollozo or Vnz deserve that. Apologies.
    I was talking about Vnzla. He clearly has an agenda and he is pushing it hard lately.

    I wasn't talking about Sollozzo, though. I may disagree a lot with him but he doesn't have an agenda.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  19. #539
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree with you. The stats clearly show that Brent Barry was one of the most efficient scorers in NBA history. Better than the likes of Shaq, Dirk, Lebron, Jordan, and Larry Bird.

    I wonder why he's not going into the HOF? Bizarre.
    Why are you so resistant to a positive statistic having to do with Danny Granger?

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  21. #540
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,142

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    These stats allow chuckers who jack up a lot of shots and shoot low FG% to compensate. They don't take into account that missed shots create rebounding opportunities where the other team gets the ball. OK, so Jordan and Granger have the same "TS". I refuse to admit that means Granger was just as "efficient" as 45. Granger shot 6% less than Jordan in real life, which means that his misses created more opportunities for a defense to rebound the ball and score.
    No, this list doesn't say that Granger just as efficient as Jordan. This list says that Jordan is a little bit more efficient than Granger which is the truth after all.

    Don't misinterpret the stat, Sollozzo. TS% is exactly what it says it is. It is a stat that measure a player's shooting efficiency. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  23. #541
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Some of you seem obsessed with putting Danny Granger in the starting lineup no matter what, while some of us prefer the past year's worth of inarguable continued success with Lance as the starter. It's fine if you don't agree with it, but could you guys please knock it off with the continued accusations that we aren't paying attention to "facts"?
    I have to be honest, my opinion of you is going down. I tried to explain to you where I'm coming from, and all I get is a post that basically mocks my other post without adding any substance.

    V is a master of selective ignorance and mockery, and it seems you're learning from him. I spent so much time pushing back with him that it brought out my dark side something fierce, and I'm not anxious to do it again. Especially not this soon after doing that with him, and also because I've previously considered you to be a high quality poster. I think this time I'm simply going to let this post show my current feelings, and otherwise I'm just going to suspend arguing with you at all.

    SMH.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  25. #542
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,142

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm confused, are we talking about real FG%?

    Danny Granger career FG%: 43.7%

    Michael Jordan career FG%: 49.7%.

    That's a difference of 6 percentage points.

    I can't believe I'm seriously comparing Danny Granger to 45
    FG% is outdated. It's a stat that became obsolete when the 3 point line was inserted since it fails to take into account that a 3 point shot is worth more than 2 point shot.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  27. #543
    Redemption. docpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Noblesville, IN
    Posts
    1,685

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    I wonder what the arguments will be focused on, once we win an NBA title or two?

    This thread might take the record for # of people either totally missing each other's points, or willfully looking to simply argue for it's own sake.
    Last edited by docpaul; 11-04-2013 at 01:21 AM.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to docpaul For This Useful Post:


  29. #544
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,142

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Some of you seem obsessed with putting Danny Granger in the starting lineup no matter what, while some of us prefer the past year's worth of inarguable continued success with Lance as the starter. It's fine if you don't agree with it, but could you guys please knock it off with the continued accusations that we aren't paying attention to "facts"?
    It has nothing to do with Granger. It has everything to do with Lance.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  30. #545
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Here, since some folks are getting wrapped around the axle a little bit when it comes to TS% versus FG%, I'll try to make it simple as possible.

    Let's suppose if you could make a shot from 3 quarters of the court you get 25 points right? Stupid, but let's say this was a possibility?? Ok. Stay with me.

    Let's say Danny Granger decides he's going to take 10 three quarter shots per game. He makes only ONE shot per game. He gets 25 points. HIS FG% is 10 percent. AWFUL FG percentage right? But he scored 25 points!

    Now. His TS% would be. Well, really high.

    Now MJ shoots 10 shots as well, but all 2 point shots. He makes 5, allowing him to shoot a beautiful 50% from the field. He scores 10 points.

    Now, with Danny's 9 misses per game, he could have gotten the ball back on offensive rebounds. They could have a put back on every attempt. In theory.

    Mean while, MJ could only get an offensive rebound on 5 of HIS misses right?

    So in the scenario, one player scored more points, on LESS makes, and in theory could have given the opposing team LESS opportunities to score. Does this make sense???

    Scoring efficiency is MORE important than your actual field goal percentage. The fact that you made less shots, or had more misses is meaningless if you score more points. Does that make sense???

    I realize this is the most ridiculous scenario ever, but I use it to explain why TS% matters, and just because a player shoots more three's doesn't mean he's hurting his team because he has more total misses.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  31. #546
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,789

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Because we are not the San Antonio Spurs? different team and players.
    Because I'm not talking about comparison of Players and roster nor comparing the Spurs Championship Roster to the Pacers current roster?

    To be clear....so that there is no misunderstanding in what I am trying to post here:

    - Manu was the 6th Man on the roster for the Spurs.
    - Manu didn't actual start for the Spurs but played Starter Minutes
    - Despite being the 1st Player off the Bench, Manu was on the floor when it came to close games and during "crunchtime"

    What I am trying to say here is that Lance could do what Manu did for the Spurs....by playing the same type of role for the Pacers.

    Manu's role on the Team was to be the 6th Man, he wasn't "technically" considered the Starter in the lineup....but played Starter Minutes and CLOSED AND FINISHED Close games.

    What I am suggesting is that:

    Lance's role on the Team SHOULD be the 6th Man, where he isn't "technically" considered a Starter in the lineup....but play Starter Minutes while CLOSED AND FINISHED Close games.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  33. #547
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,134

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I have to be honest, my opinion of you is going down. I tried to explain to you where I'm coming from, and all I get is a post that basically mocks my other post without adding any substance.

    V is a master of selective ignorance and mockery, and it seems you're learning from him. I spent so much time pushing back with him that it brought out my dark side something fierce, and I'm not anxious to do it again. Especially not this soon after doing that with him, and also because I've previously considered you to be a high quality poster. I think this time I'm simply going to let this post show my current feelings, and otherwise I'm just going to suspend arguing with you at all.

    SMH.

    You know, from the end of last season until the beginning of the preseason I was in favor of starting Lance. For a while the only reason I was involved in these arguments was because those who were on the side of Lance were completely disingenuous and dismissive of anything positive towards Granger. I only changed my tune about who should start once I actually saw the bench play, and more specifically how they played with Lance.

  34. #548
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I was talking about Vnzla. He clearly has an agenda and he is pushing it hard lately.

    I wasn't talking about Sollozzo, though. I may disagree a lot with him but he doesn't have an agenda.
    I agree, I was merely apologizing for my uncalled for insult.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  35. #549
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,142

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree, I was merely apologizing for my uncalled for insult.
    Ah, ok.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  36. #550
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,789

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What is the obsession to make Lance a super sub when he can be a super starter?
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Pick your reason:

    1) People think Granger will return to form
    2) People think stretching the floor to free Hibbert and/or West is more important than many other things Lance does...including stretch the floor.
    3) People are closet Lance lovers. They want to see him run wild with the bench...knowing he will have the "ball in his hands"...whatever that means.
    4 ) People think that Lance has a skillset that Granger does not possess ( creating offense for others ) where Lance can utilize that skillset to greatly bolster the offensive effectiveness of the 2nd Unit ( something that I do not think that Granger would be very good at doing ) while playing enough minutes with the Starters to Finish/Close games and thus improving the overall effectiveness of the Team while reducing any heavy reliance on the remaining GH/PG/West/Hibbert ( one of the problems that we had last year ).
    Last edited by CableKC; 11-04-2013 at 02:45 AM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  37. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

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