AtTheDriveIn

He's also nine time more injury prone. Oh, I went there. Bynum can't stay on the court to show his talent. Hawes is also a damn good offensive player. He's a lot more versatile than Bynum is, to say the least.

Year You Became a Fan: 2004 Why You Became a Fan: Originally, for Steve Francis, but then stayed a fan for Darko when he joined. And then stayed as a fan just because I couldn't bothered looking for a new team to like. Favorite Magic Player, All-Time: Darko Milicic Favorite Magic Coach, All-Time: Stan. Favorite Magic Moment: This one time when Dwight dunked it. It was just an emotional moment for me. Amount of Magic Games Attended: 0

No..

Ouch, I think the Kings felt that one. Sorry, but a 'trio' starring Fisher and Odom cannot be better than Martin and Evans. And although the potential to be good is there for Bynum, from a production standpoint, at the moment, he's nothing better than Hawes. In fact, I'd argue that Hawes is a better player overall. To be honest, I don't think you really thought this one through. Martin, a 26 points per game scorer, plus Hawes and Evans; one a more than capable center and the other a promising young rookie aren't worse than 35 year old Fisher, and 'I only play sometimes' Odom. I don't think it would really be a question; the Sacarmento three are much, much better than the Lakers second three. To BFT: Good list, first of all. I remember last years one that you did on NBAD too. So these are fun to read. However, I can't help but to think that some of the placings are really far off. First of all, let's talk about the T'Wolves and the Grizzlies three. What separates them? OJ Mayo and Rudy Gay are both great player, but so are Al Jefferson (probably twice the player Gay or Mayo are at this stage) and Kevin Love - who, by the end of last season, was averaging 16/10 in under 30 minutes a game in March and was consistently over 10 rebounds a game since January - and then the stories about who you prefer out of Randolph or Flynn. I'll be honest, I've been a Randolph sympathizer for a while; I don't understand some of the hate he gets, but I'll still take a more than capable Flynn over him, even if the production may not be the same. With these two teams, I don't feel like you're overrating Memphis, because I think they're right where they should be, but I think that you're underrating Minnesota. They're very capable, but outside of these three (and maybe Mike Miller last season), Minnesota really doesn't have anyone and that's been cause of the problem for them.

.. this can't have been a serious question.

Arco Arena sold out for 700 straight games or something; though, by capacity, only Orlando has a smaller stadium. Still, it's impressive to sell out so many games in a row. I think they even retired a jersey to the fans sometime this decade (?). I was a casual fan of them as well. The 2000-04 Kings were some of the best passing teams the league had ever seen. They had a good to great passer at ever position in their starting lineup. It all started with Bibby and Christie in the backcourt, then Peja, back when he was more than just a limping shooter that he is now, and Chris Webber and Vlade Divac rounded it out, both being amongst the top big man passers of the decade. They led the league in assists for all of them years, if I'm not mistake, by a considerable margin as well. That was a damn impressive team; it's a shame they never managed to put it together to win a championship.

And that's why you're so incredibly stupid.

lol, definitely suspicious. It's just impossible that skill and a great team effort had anything to with Orlando winning.

What does shooting have to do with overall game? Michael Redd, during his better seasons was good for 23 points, 4 boards, 3 assists on 46% FG, and 38% 3PT on more shots than Miller ever took in a season; Meanwhile, Reggie Miller was good for 21 points, 3 rebounds and 3 assists on 47% FG and 40% 3PT. How are they any different? On the court, they do the same thing and they have the same role. Ditto for Kevin Martin, whom I wont get into right now. The problem is that because Reggie was the first shooter and the first player to regularly used the three point shot to his advantage, some idiots have this warped vision of Reggie as some sort of superstar when in fact, he wasn't much better than the aforementioned guys, Michael Redd and Kevin Martin. He was a great team leader and a great player, no doubt, but better than Iverson? Please. When Michael Redd and Martin finish their careers (assuming they keep putting up the numbers they are, of course), both will have a chance at looking at the #10 spot in my opinion. BTW, where's Ray Allen? No mention in the 10?

I have a few nice ones. My collection at the moment: Paco Rabanne - 1 Million - $114.95 http://www.fragrantica.com/images/perfume/nd.3747.jpg Calvin Klein (Mens) - In2u - $59.95 http://perfumeseessencias.com/catalog/images/calvin_klein_ck_in_2u_him.jpg Bvlgari - BLV - Not sure of the price http://www.perfumeemporium.com/BigPics_w/BvlgariBlv_w.jpg Ferrari - $49.95 http://indianautosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ferrari-perfume.jpg Versace - Man - Over $100 http://www.fragrantica.com/images/perfume/nd.644.jpg Any Joop is also really nice and they're fairly cheap as far as sweet perfumes go.

Without some sort of legitimate argument to back your opinion, your opinion looks like a joke than anything right now. Reggie Miller, aside from being a wonderful shooter, isn't a superstar level of player like Iverson was. He's on level with current guys like Michael Redd or Kevin Martin. He did nothing on the court that was any more impressive than these two.

You guys are well under the cap because of Presti and his reluctance to add players simply for the sake of fresh faces. He didn't make any 'splashes' and the Thunder still look like a strong future team regardless through the Draft and finding players with good morale and work ethic.

Pierce was never really a winner until he got some help, much like the others mentioned in his range; Dantley and English. Pierce led a 49 win team past 43 and 50 win teams, respectively to reach the Conference Finals. Good effort, really. Commendable, definitely. But, the season after, 43 wins, the season after that, 36 with basically the same team (except for the last season where Antoine Walker left and Ricky David replaced him). It was only when he got Garnett and Allen that he became a 'winner'. If Dantley or English are going to get crticism for never being able to win, then why should Pierce be praised because he won a championship on the back of two other hall of famers. Both Dantley and English are individually better players than Pierce, as well.

I don't know what games you were watching, but I've always consider Tim Duncan to be the first option down the court on every play. I think Gregg Poppovich would agree with me as everything the Spurs do run from the inside out, or from Duncan to other players. That's the definition of being an 'option' offensively. It's not about who scores the most points, rather it's about first going to what works the best in your offense and then finding other options if your first option, for reasons like double-teaming, or being trapped etc., is caught in a situation where he can't create. Duncan, for 3 and a half quarters of the game, is the teams main option, and the one player that all his teammates are looking for. It's obvious when you watch games. Unless they're running some set isolation play, or was a pick and pop/roll with either of their bigs, they're always going to Duncan to see what he's up to before proceeding with anything else on the court. The obvious reasons they don't go to Duncan in clutch situations is that with the banning of the handcheck, it's much easier for guards to score points in a hurry now. Take Monta Ellis, for example, blazing speed, no real strong mid-range or three point game, but is still scoring 20 points per game on getting to the rim and passing by his defender with ease. It's because when you have a Tony Parker or someone as crafty as Manu Ginobili, it's easier to create from the outside in. However, if you continually do it, then come clutch time, the defense will have figured you out, but no defense can ever really figure out an effective post-offense for the other quarters, which is why teams who have established guys in the post go to them first. Also, obviously not all, but most post-players are notoriously poor defenders and in situations where they need to come up with two points, they may only be able to give you one because defenses will just collapse and not allow a shot to go up or a pass to get out of the post. As to whether or not big men should be consider first options; of course they should. When you have a dominant player inside, you don't not go to them. Even O'Neal now can still score plenty of points when you give him the ball. That's the effectiveness of post players.

G: Jameer Nelson – 4 G: Brandon Roy – 6 F: Hedo Turkoglu – 5 F: Anthony Randolph - 3 C: Brad Miller – 3 Bench: Jeff Teague – 2 Bench: Danilo Gallinari – 2 Bench: Mike Miller - 2 Jerry Sloan as Head Coach. He like the tough, hard working types like Nelson, Roy, etc and has a lot of versatility out on the court at any time with the eight players.

No it doesn't. The rules on hand-checking made the NBA a guard's game a long time ago. Dwight > Yao, btw.

Very little substance in the Bargnani video. I watched him clank a few threes, shoot a few free throws and receive an impressive pass from Bellinelli. Overall, it tells me nothing about what kind of player he is. I have to say though, his free throw form is beautiful, especially for a big player; they're usually a little more awkward, but Bargnani's is a nice, flowing shot. If I got anything out of that, it's that I remembered that I like how he shoots free throws. Watching the Portugal gametrack of Bargnani; he seemed to do a little more in that game, nailed a nice fake and go three at the beginning; vied for position inside (although didn't get the ball much) and did what he normally does on the perimeter. Though it still feels like he's not in some sort of takeover mentality which makes or breaks 'superstar' potential players. I'm keen to see him up against France in the Qualifying game for the European Championship. Might find a stream or hope that it comes on TV. Might get to see Bargnani go up against Turiaf or Batum or Weis.

Alex English Adrian Dantley are the other two I would put on your list before Pierce. LeBron as well and maybe a few others players who are in the league right now of they pan out properly.

Yeah, I remember that. That was just ridiculous. There's not many players ever that can jump as high as Moon can.

Built Ford Tough on Insidehoops is the only person I know who's been to as many forums as I have. We follow eachother around basically. It's good fun. Bilt, who's now on OTR as well has been someone who's been around all the sites I have; probably a good year and a half now maybe. Then there's Andre who used to post a lot at NBAD, but then disappeared. Apart from them, Real Deal. I remember at NBAD, when I was a Global Moderator over there, there was a dispute in one of the forums with Warren2theG, who was saying stuff about his this [undisclosed] forum was so much better than us and how we were so stupid (granted, we started like four days before he joined). And when I told him to leave it alone, he messaged me saying the same stuff, so I banned him. He was the first person I ever banned.. haha.

Nope. We just have the minimum to offer now. Spent our money on Bass and Barnes.

The Knowing. In the beginning, and until the ending, all I was thinking was; 'wow Nicholas Cage actually made a movie thats really really good for once'.. and then the ending came. And I went from that to 'omg, he managed to land himself in another [expletive] movie'. That movie had so much potential, but the aliens at the end taking the kids away and putting them on a new earth in white clothes (white is the colour of innocence, not re-birth!!) absolutely wrecked it. I cried about that for about four days straight to my girlfriend. Such a horrid ending to a movie with such great potential.

Oh okay. Well, would you mind commenting on some of the players I mentioned and giving your opinion on them?

I think it's funny how Cleveland have the best off-season by signing Anthony Parker, Jamario Moon and drafting Danny Green, but the only person whom the Spurs signed was 'RJ', never mind drafting a lottery pick talent, DeJuan Blair, never mind that they got a 10/10 Antonio McDyess, who just seems suited to this team and certainly never mind that they also got Theo Ratliff. No, Cleveland signing Danny Green, Jamario Moon and Anthony Parker is just the best off season ever! The Spurs signed just as much talent and brought back even more than what Cleveland have. So it doesn't even matter that you think Jamario Moon and Danny Green are worth something (which they, like, so totally arE!!!). The fact of the matter is, your off-season was a little better than average because you got O'Neal, but the other players hardly matter, but that could dramatically disappear if O'Neal shows up out of shape and unhealthy, which is very possible with him. And Artest isn't just an 'improvement' over Ariza, too, by the way. You're kidding yourself if you actually believe that. But it's not unexpected from a Cleveland fan. Always trying to one-up anything to do with the Lakers.