saintfool
Dead sexy
no one expects the knicks to win. they've been so bad for so long...
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Cliff Clavin
- Start date
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
And they're still very bad. First round exits are going to be par for the course with this team until Amare and Melo are gone.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I hate that I've turned into a Melo/Knicks apologist, but what were the questions supposed to be? "Melo, why didn't you pull off a historic 1st round upset, even without Lin, Shumpert, BDiddy, a sick Tyson Chandler, and an injured Amare?"Even if the Knicks were at full strength, they'd be underdogs vs. the Heat. They've be decimated by injuries. Winning 1 game was an achievement.
They got Pondexter back, who has actually been a decent player for them off the bench. He's taken Sam Young's role. They thought Jeremy Pargo would be their backup PG, but he couldn't cut it.
JMon348
Footballguy
Oh that's who they got back? I thought it was a straight salary dump. Was surprised to see him out there in crunch time over Mayo and Allen. Still I think I'd rather have Vasquez.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Perhaps the most stunning development of the 2012 NBA playoffs so far came last night during the 6 PM Sportscenter when I learned that Mike Bibby is only 33 years old. If you have given me an over/under of 36 I would have taken the over. Had to rewind three times to make sure I heard it correctly. Man, that guy aged fast.
saintfool
Dead sexy
i don't understand how that man has a job in this league. he's been on fumes for years now.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I hope those guys are able to go tomorrow. They're saying they're going to play. I guess the question is how limited they might be. I'd hate for this series to end with those two not able to play to their fullest.
Dought Man
Footballguy
"Melo, why was a team with Amare, Melo and the DPOY Chandler only able to scrape into the playoffs of the crappy Eastern conference?"
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Amare, Melo, and Lin were all hurt for long stretches. After the coaching change, the Knicks were 18-6.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
18-6 not counting the playoffs, you mean.It's a fair question to ask. When some NBA analyst whose name escapes me projected the Knicks to barely finish over .500 this year, and I agreed with him in this thread, the both of us were dismissed by many posters. But it's not like injuries to that roster, on this schedule, were hard to project. Everyone knew they were coming, and yet most people still expected them to be one of the better teams in the East even before they unearthed Lin.Asking why they couldn't beat the Heat is kind of silly, granted, but asking why the heck they were playing the Heat in the first round of the NBA playoffs to begin with is not.Also, they didn't just lose to the Heat. They got rolled. Yeah they won one game at home when the Heat seemed totally disinterested, but every other game was either a comfortable win or a total beatdown.Amare, Melo, and Lin were all hurt for long stretches. After the coaching change, the Knicks were 18-6.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Again, no Lin, Shumpert (their defensive specialist) out, Amare out/injured, Davis out, and Chandler was sick early in the series. They would have been dogs even if healthy, so why are we surprised that they got handled with all the injuries?There is no doubt the Knicks underachieved under D'Antoni. Under Woodson for the final 24 games, they were among the best teams in the NBA. I wasn't one who believed the Knicks were going to challenge the Bulls or Heat in the preseason, but if healthy next year I think they're in the next tier with Indy and Orlando.18-6 not counting the playoffs, you mean.It's a fair question to ask. When some NBA analyst whose name escapes me projected the Knicks to barely finish over .500 this year, and I agreed with him in this thread, the both of us were dismissed by many posters. But it's not like injuries to that roster, on this schedule, were hard to project. Everyone knew they were coming, and yet most people still expected them to be one of the better teams in the East even before they unearthed Lin.Asking why they couldn't beat the Heat is kind of silly, granted, but asking why the heck they were playing the Heat in the first round of the NBA playoffs to begin with is not.Also, they didn't just lose to the Heat. They got rolled. Yeah they won one game at home when the Heat seemed totally disinterested, but every other game was either a comfortable win or a total beatdown.Amare, Melo, and Lin were all hurt for long stretches. After the coaching change, the Knicks were 18-6.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Hollinger the day D'Antoni was fired, Knicks record was 18-24: "Changing coaches won't help Knicks"Knicks record for the remainder of the regular season: 18-6.
Hack Attack
Footballguy
He originally projected just above .500 and fight for the a low playoff spot. Right as the season ends but I'm guessing his projections had nothing to do with D'Antoni getting fired/quitting and them finishing the year 18-6 under Woodson. Under D'Antoni they were quite under his projections. Then Woodson takes over and his theory that it wouldn't change anything. Obviously the Knicks out performed that. So in the end they really under performed his D'Antoni projection and quite out performed his Woodson projection so just because that happened to hit his over all projection from sheer luck, not sure he deserves props for being right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Seems clear Hollinger didn't peg the Knicks with either coach, just got lucky the two coaches together hit his mark.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Yep. I think the Knicks situation is fascinating b/c on the surface it appears to be a fantastic case illustrating the over reliance of some writers on advanced statistics. Hollinger is my favorite ESPN writer, but IMO his analysis overlooks non-statistical dynamics that are fundamental. That doesn't mean I'm an advanced stat hater - quiet the contrary. Bill James' theory on closers is similarly flawed.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
This ridiculous argument shows that you really don't get the concept of projections and statistical analysis.A projection is supposed to be a mean. Obviously it can't predict everything that will happen to a player or a team in a given time frame. There will be some things that go better than the projection assumes (in the Knicks' case, Lin, Shumpert, Novak) and some that will go worse (the D'Antoni drama, injuries maybe although probably not). That's how projections work. Saying that he got the right result but that he failed to predict the peaks and valleys and therefore was "wrong" TOTALLY misses the point of projections.Bottom line, despite all the howls of protest in the preseason, he nailed the Knicks this year.Also, let's not get carried away with the praise for the Knicks 18-6 (now 19-10) finish under Woodson. Anyone who was watching the NBA this year knows the final month or so was a total joke because of the compressed schedule and the fact that most teams were locked into a playoff spot early and others were tanking. The Knicks were one of the few teams that had a strong motivation to win almost all of their last 20 or so games. Plus their schedule was fairly soft at the tail end, having just completed their last long road trip just before Woodson took over. No back-to-back-to-backs under him, only one road trip longer than two games and that was a three gamer to Jersey, Cleveland and Atlanta.Yep. I think the Knicks situation is fascinating b/c on the surface it appears to be a fantastic case illustrating the over reliance of some writers on advanced statistics. Hollinger is my favorite ESPN writer, but IMO his analysis overlooks non-statistical dynamics that are fundamental. That doesn't mean I'm an advanced stat hater - quiet the contrary. Bill James' theory on closers is similarly flawed.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
This ridiculous argument shows that you really don't get the concept of projections and statistical analysis.A projection is supposed to be a mean. Obviously it can't predict everything that will happen to a player or a team in a given time frame. There will be some things that go better than the projection assumes (in the Knicks' case, Lin, Shumpert, Novak) and some that will go worse (the D'Antoni drama, injuries maybe although probably not). That's how projections work. Saying that he got the right result but that he failed to predict the peaks and valleys and therefore was "wrong" TOTALLY misses the point of projections.Yep. I think the Knicks situation is fascinating b/c on the surface it appears to be a fantastic case illustrating the over reliance of some writers on advanced statistics. Hollinger is my favorite ESPN writer, but IMO his analysis overlooks non-statistical dynamics that are fundamental. That doesn't mean I'm an advanced stat hater - quiet the contrary. Bill James' theory on closers is similarly flawed.
Bottom line, despite all the howls of protest in the preseason, he nailed the Knicks this year.
Also, let's not get carried away with the praise for the Knicks 18-6 (now 19-10) finish under Woodson. Anyone who was watching the NBA this year knows the final month or so was a total joke because of the compressed schedule and the fact that most teams were locked into a playoff spot early and others were tanking. The Knicks were one of the few teams that had a strong motivation to win almost all of their last 20 or so games. Plus their schedule was fairly soft at the tail end, having just completed their last long road trip just before Woodson took over. No back-to-back-to-backs under him, only one road trip longer than two games and that was a three gamer to Jersey, Cleveland and Atlanta.
Hollinger's piece suggested that the Knicks would not improve under Woodson. They were a .429 team when he wrote the piece, and were a .750 team for the remainder of the season. Your takeaway is that Hollinger "nailed" the Knicks?TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I was talking about his preseason prediction. The one he was trashed for that turned out to be right. The one you keep ignoring when you point to his article about whether or not Woodson would help the Knicks.You're totally right to criticize the latter article. If anything, it showed the folly of applying stats-based analysis to small sample sizes, especially at the tail end of an NBA season where motivations vary significantly from team to team. And its failure also, yes, showed that there are aspects to coaching changes that stats can't capture.This ridiculous argument shows that you really don't get the concept of projections and statistical analysis.A projection is supposed to be a mean. Obviously it can't predict everything that will happen to a player or a team in a given time frame. There will be some things that go better than the projection assumes (in the Knicks' case, Lin, Shumpert, Novak) and some that will go worse (the D'Antoni drama, injuries maybe although probably not). That's how projections work. Saying that he got the right result but that he failed to predict the peaks and valleys and therefore was "wrong" TOTALLY misses the point of projections.Yep. I think the Knicks situation is fascinating b/c on the surface it appears to be a fantastic case illustrating the over reliance of some writers on advanced statistics. Hollinger is my favorite ESPN writer, but IMO his analysis overlooks non-statistical dynamics that are fundamental. That doesn't mean I'm an advanced stat hater - quiet the contrary. Bill James' theory on closers is similarly flawed.
Bottom line, despite all the howls of protest in the preseason, he nailed the Knicks this year.
Also, let's not get carried away with the praise for the Knicks 18-6 (now 19-10) finish under Woodson. Anyone who was watching the NBA this year knows the final month or so was a total joke because of the compressed schedule and the fact that most teams were locked into a playoff spot early and others were tanking. The Knicks were one of the few teams that had a strong motivation to win almost all of their last 20 or so games. Plus their schedule was fairly soft at the tail end, having just completed their last long road trip just before Woodson took over. No back-to-back-to-backs under him, only one road trip longer than two games and that was a three gamer to Jersey, Cleveland and Atlanta.
But bottom line is that he was right about the 2011-2012 Knicks and most everyone else was wrong. The fact that he was wrong about a subset of that prediction doesn't change the final result.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
Kobe with stomach problems?? His status to be updated 90 minutes prior to the game.....could be huge.
(hey, a Denver fan can at least hope here)
(hey, a Denver fan can at least hope here)
Premier
Footballguy
'TobiasFunke said:I was talking about his preseason prediction. The one he was trashed for that turned out to be right. The one you keep ignoring when you point to his article about whether or not Woodson would help the Knicks.You're totally right to criticize the latter article. If anything, it showed the folly of applying stats-based analysis to small sample sizes, especially at the tail end of an NBA season where motivations vary significantly from team to team. And its failure also, yes, showed that there are aspects to coaching changes that stats can't capture.'tommyGunZ said:'TobiasFunke said:This ridiculous argument shows that you really don't get the concept of projections and statistical analysis.A projection is supposed to be a mean. Obviously it can't predict everything that will happen to a player or a team in a given time frame. There will be some things that go better than the projection assumes (in the Knicks' case, Lin, Shumpert, Novak) and some that will go worse (the D'Antoni drama, injuries maybe although probably not). That's how projections work. Saying that he got the right result but that he failed to predict the peaks and valleys and therefore was "wrong" TOTALLY misses the point of projections.'tommyGunZ said:Yep. I think the Knicks situation is fascinating b/c on the surface it appears to be a fantastic case illustrating the over reliance of some writers on advanced statistics. Hollinger is my favorite ESPN writer, but IMO his analysis overlooks non-statistical dynamics that are fundamental. That doesn't mean I'm an advanced stat hater - quiet the contrary. Bill James' theory on closers is similarly flawed.'Hack Attack said:'tommyGunZ said:
Bottom line, despite all the howls of protest in the preseason, he nailed the Knicks this year.
Also, let's not get carried away with the praise for the Knicks 18-6 (now 19-10) finish under Woodson. Anyone who was watching the NBA this year knows the final month or so was a total joke because of the compressed schedule and the fact that most teams were locked into a playoff spot early and others were tanking. The Knicks were one of the few teams that had a strong motivation to win almost all of their last 20 or so games. Plus their schedule was fairly soft at the tail end, having just completed their last long road trip just before Woodson took over. No back-to-back-to-backs under him, only one road trip longer than two games and that was a three gamer to Jersey, Cleveland and Atlanta.
But bottom line is that he was right about the 2011-2012 Knicks and most everyone else was wrong. The fact that he was wrong about a subset of that prediction doesn't change the final result.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Who were all of the folks predicting a Knicks title this year?'TobiasFunke said:I was talking about his preseason prediction. The one he was trashed for that turned out to be right. The one you keep ignoring when you point to his article about whether or not Woodson would help the Knicks.You're totally right to criticize the latter article. If anything, it showed the folly of applying stats-based analysis to small sample sizes, especially at the tail end of an NBA season where motivations vary significantly from team to team. And its failure also, yes, showed that there are aspects to coaching changes that stats can't capture.'tommyGunZ said:'TobiasFunke said:This ridiculous argument shows that you really don't get the concept of projections and statistical analysis.A projection is supposed to be a mean. Obviously it can't predict everything that will happen to a player or a team in a given time frame. There will be some things that go better than the projection assumes (in the Knicks' case, Lin, Shumpert, Novak) and some that will go worse (the D'Antoni drama, injuries maybe although probably not). That's how projections work. Saying that he got the right result but that he failed to predict the peaks and valleys and therefore was "wrong" TOTALLY misses the point of projections.'tommyGunZ said:Yep. I think the Knicks situation is fascinating b/c on the surface it appears to be a fantastic case illustrating the over reliance of some writers on advanced statistics. Hollinger is my favorite ESPN writer, but IMO his analysis overlooks non-statistical dynamics that are fundamental. That doesn't mean I'm an advanced stat hater - quiet the contrary. Bill James' theory on closers is similarly flawed.'Hack Attack said:'tommyGunZ said:
Bottom line, despite all the howls of protest in the preseason, he nailed the Knicks this year.
Also, let's not get carried away with the praise for the Knicks 18-6 (now 19-10) finish under Woodson. Anyone who was watching the NBA this year knows the final month or so was a total joke because of the compressed schedule and the fact that most teams were locked into a playoff spot early and others were tanking. The Knicks were one of the few teams that had a strong motivation to win almost all of their last 20 or so games. Plus their schedule was fairly soft at the tail end, having just completed their last long road trip just before Woodson took over. No back-to-back-to-backs under him, only one road trip longer than two games and that was a three gamer to Jersey, Cleveland and Atlanta.
But bottom line is that he was right about the 2011-2012 Knicks and most everyone else was wrong. The fact that he was wrong about a subset of that prediction doesn't change the final result.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
There weren't many of those, but if I'm remembering correctly most people had them pegged to finish easily above .500 and in the second tier of teams in the East after the Bulls and Heat. I definitely remember defending his projection in this thread and having people tell me that there was no way that the Melo-Amare-Chandler Knicks wouldn't significantly improve on last year's winning percentage (.512). They did clock in at .545 this year, which is a mild improvement I guess. so give them credit for that. I think they beat Hollinger's projection by a game?ETA: ESPN's preseason power rankings had them at #6Who were all of the folks predicting a Knicks title this year?'TobiasFunke said:I was talking about his preseason prediction. The one he was trashed for that turned out to be right. The one you keep ignoring when you point to his article about whether or not Woodson would help the Knicks.You're totally right to criticize the latter article. If anything, it showed the folly of applying stats-based analysis to small sample sizes, especially at the tail end of an NBA season where motivations vary significantly from team to team. And its failure also, yes, showed that there are aspects to coaching changes that stats can't capture.'tommyGunZ said:'TobiasFunke said:This ridiculous argument shows that you really don't get the concept of projections and statistical analysis.A projection is supposed to be a mean. Obviously it can't predict everything that will happen to a player or a team in a given time frame. There will be some things that go better than the projection assumes (in the Knicks' case, Lin, Shumpert, Novak) and some that will go worse (the D'Antoni drama, injuries maybe although probably not). That's how projections work. Saying that he got the right result but that he failed to predict the peaks and valleys and therefore was "wrong" TOTALLY misses the point of projections.'tommyGunZ said:Yep. I think the Knicks situation is fascinating b/c on the surface it appears to be a fantastic case illustrating the over reliance of some writers on advanced statistics. Hollinger is my favorite ESPN writer, but IMO his analysis overlooks non-statistical dynamics that are fundamental. That doesn't mean I'm an advanced stat hater - quiet the contrary. Bill James' theory on closers is similarly flawed.'Hack Attack said:'tommyGunZ said:
Bottom line, despite all the howls of protest in the preseason, he nailed the Knicks this year.
Also, let's not get carried away with the praise for the Knicks 18-6 (now 19-10) finish under Woodson. Anyone who was watching the NBA this year knows the final month or so was a total joke because of the compressed schedule and the fact that most teams were locked into a playoff spot early and others were tanking. The Knicks were one of the few teams that had a strong motivation to win almost all of their last 20 or so games. Plus their schedule was fairly soft at the tail end, having just completed their last long road trip just before Woodson took over. No back-to-back-to-backs under him, only one road trip longer than two games and that was a three gamer to Jersey, Cleveland and Atlanta.
But bottom line is that he was right about the 2011-2012 Knicks and most everyone else was wrong. The fact that he was wrong about a subset of that prediction doesn't change the final result.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
2 games. And they finished 4 games out of 4th place in the Eastern conference, despite all of the injuries and the coaching change. Does Hollinger's analysis project injuries and coaching changes?There weren't many of those, but if I'm remembering correctly most people had them pegged to finish easily above .500 and in the second tier of teams in the East after the Bulls and Heat. I definitely remember defending his projection in this thread and having people tell me that there was no way that the Melo-Amare-Chandler Knicks wouldn't significantly improve on last year's winning percentage (.512). They did clock in at .545 this year, which is a mild improvement I guess. so give them credit for that. I think they beat Hollinger's projection by a game?Who were all of the folks predicting a Knicks title this year?'TobiasFunke said:I was talking about his preseason prediction. The one he was trashed for that turned out to be right. The one you keep ignoring when you point to his article about whether or not Woodson would help the Knicks.You're totally right to criticize the latter article. If anything, it showed the folly of applying stats-based analysis to small sample sizes, especially at the tail end of an NBA season where motivations vary significantly from team to team. And its failure also, yes, showed that there are aspects to coaching changes that stats can't capture.'tommyGunZ said:'TobiasFunke said:This ridiculous argument shows that you really don't get the concept of projections and statistical analysis.A projection is supposed to be a mean. Obviously it can't predict everything that will happen to a player or a team in a given time frame. There will be some things that go better than the projection assumes (in the Knicks' case, Lin, Shumpert, Novak) and some that will go worse (the D'Antoni drama, injuries maybe although probably not). That's how projections work. Saying that he got the right result but that he failed to predict the peaks and valleys and therefore was "wrong" TOTALLY misses the point of projections.'tommyGunZ said:Yep. I think the Knicks situation is fascinating b/c on the surface it appears to be a fantastic case illustrating the over reliance of some writers on advanced statistics. Hollinger is my favorite ESPN writer, but IMO his analysis overlooks non-statistical dynamics that are fundamental. That doesn't mean I'm an advanced stat hater - quiet the contrary. Bill James' theory on closers is similarly flawed.'Hack Attack said:'tommyGunZ said:
Bottom line, despite all the howls of protest in the preseason, he nailed the Knicks this year.
Also, let's not get carried away with the praise for the Knicks 18-6 (now 19-10) finish under Woodson. Anyone who was watching the NBA this year knows the final month or so was a total joke because of the compressed schedule and the fact that most teams were locked into a playoff spot early and others were tanking. The Knicks were one of the few teams that had a strong motivation to win almost all of their last 20 or so games. Plus their schedule was fairly soft at the tail end, having just completed their last long road trip just before Woodson took over. No back-to-back-to-backs under him, only one road trip longer than two games and that was a three gamer to Jersey, Cleveland and Atlanta.
But bottom line is that he was right about the 2011-2012 Knicks and most everyone else was wrong. The fact that he was wrong about a subset of that prediction doesn't change the final result.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Again, projections are intended to be a mean and you assume some things being better than expected and others worse, so that it will average out to something around the projection. The coaching drama would fall under "worse," just as Lin/Novak/Shumpert would fall under "better." The injuries were probably about what you would expect.
Last edited by a moderator:
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
Knicks are irrelevant.
Go take a hike with them.
Go take a hike with them.
Yo Mama
Footballguy
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Or go to the cops and end up with a big settlement.If you can't stop Kobe, give him bad food.
Dought Man
Footballguy
If the Lakers lose game 6, I'm wondering how many times the Lakers will go to the free throw line in game 7. O/U set at 45
Kev4029
Footballguy
Sounds like Chris Andersen got busted for child porn. Seems like that dude has had a lot of demons in his life.
Last edited by a moderator:
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
I am guessing he was just out drinking last night and is hung over or perhaps he has a stomach virus or perhaps he saw the Bulls/Utah game where Jordan is sicker than a dog and being held up by Pippen before hitting the game winner and just wants to be like Mike.Or unless there is something we don't know about, like maybe Bynum lipping off to him and Kobe going into the "fine win one without me then," mode.I bet Kobe plays and drops 40 and this is coming from a Denver fan.If you can't stop Kobe, give him bad food.
Last edited by a moderator:
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
It's Karma.
Britney Spears
guest speaker
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
Unbelievable if the Bulls pull this game and series out down Rose & Noah.
If that happens, wouldn't be surprised to see Doug Collins canned.
If that happens, wouldn't be surprised to see Doug Collins canned.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Thanks FB for introducing us to Dwight Howard's agent's blog.Also
at using Shaq as a contrast to childish/petulant/immature behavior.
Britney Spears
guest speaker
Wow, CJ Watson just gave the series away.
John Bender
Footballguy
Crazy finish. Good game
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
An awful 5 seconds by Asik.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Sixers shoot 39.7%... beat the Rose-less Bulls to move on to the second round.They will have to hit 44%+ to even be considered a serious threat to any team remaining.32.1%Now they shoot 39% with Joakim Noah out.So damn bipolar.76ers shoot 59% from the field.
Britney Spears
guest speaker
He never should have been in that position.
timschochet
Footballguy
KG looks great tonight. He looks like the young KG out there.
Um, yeah. Not sure you can rip Asik for Watson's ridiculous decision and then Ronnie Brewer sneaking up on the free throw instead of being back on defense. Thibs is a wizard for getting that group as far as they did. And can Boozer please be amnestied at this point? What a waste he is.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
When he is charged with something, you bet I will. I have zero patience for this kind of charge, but right now, unless you have seen something I haven't, the police went there as part of an investigation, took some computers as evidence, Bird cooperated, and no arrests have been made. Another person lives in the house, so we will see where that goes, but I for one (as in the Trey Martin thread) believe we should perhaps see where this goes before passing judgment.So...we know how Thugget fans talk about Kobe ever since he was accused of rape. Will we see the same reaction?
That being said, I fully support Denver for distancing themselves from him and removing him from the bench--that clearly would have sent the wrong message to have him there. I just wonder if the Nugs were tipped that something like this was coming for him to drop off the face of the court like he has. Many fans on the Denver message boards were shocked he didn't at least get 2 minutes on fan appreciation night. And what I have noticed is he makes all these weird faces in the background as his teammates are being interviewed--not funny faces--like really odd snarling type faces.
You always hoped he could hold it together, but this is just not in any way excusable and if true, he hopefully gets all that is coming his way.
timschochet
Footballguy
Amd when KG goes out, the Hawks go on a run and now they're only down by 1.
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
Yes, he can be. But I don't think he will be this offseason. I think they'll wait until Mirotic comes from overseas (if he does).I personally don't see them starting Taj Gibson.
timschochet
Footballguy
What a terrible shot by Josh Smith. Wow.
Britney Spears
guest speaker
But he was willing to shoot at least.
timschochet
Footballguy
Why make the second shot? No time outs left. Not smart.
Similar threads
