In their primes: Paul Pierce or Mitch Richmond?

[HelterSkelter]

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb53/FcukThePolice/Paul_Pierce_Kansas_Slam_Dunk.jpghttp://www.nba.com/media/act_mitch_richmond.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/NBA_Superstars2002/images/Player-pics/Paul_Pierce12.jpghttps://www.nbrpa.com/news/featurearchive/images/mitch_top.jpg



BTW, i'm really flattered that my "in their primes" threads has been imitated recently. :oldlol:

[jaydacris]

pierce, not close for me!

[iggy>]

isiah rider> :pimp:

[JonnyBigBoss]

Did Mitch Richmond fake injuries during finals, get carried off the court in the sitting position, get put in a wheelchair only to come back 2 minutes layer and play like nothing happened?

If not then Mitch is my vote.

[west]

Did Mitch Richmond fake injuries during finals, get carried off the court in the sitting position, get put in a wheelchair only to come back 2 minutes layer and play like nothing happened?

If not then Mitch is my vote.
we are talking about who is/was the better player not the better person:rolleyes:

[04mzwach]

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb53/FcukThePolice/Paul_Pierce_Kansas_Slam_Dunk.jpghttp://www.nba.com/media/act_mitch_richmond.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/NBA_Superstars2002/images/Player-pics/Paul_Pierce12.jpghttps://www.nbrpa.com/news/featurearchive/images/mitch_top.jpg



BTW, i'm really flattered that my "in their primes" threads has been imitated recently. :oldlol:
PRIME threads have been around for a while. Don't get flattered. :no:

[baseketball4life]

Pierce

[Lebron23]

Paul Pierce

[TheWitness]

Did Mitch Richmond fake injuries during finals, get carried off the court in the sitting position, get put in a wheelchair only to come back 2 minutes layer and play like nothing happened?

If not then Mitch is my vote.


LOL then mich is the winner!

:rockon: :rockon:

[Kevin_Garnett_5]

Did Mitch Richmond fake injuries during finals, get carried off the court in the sitting position, get put in a wheelchair only to come back 2 minutes layer and play like nothing happened?

If not then Mitch is my vote. :cry: :cry:......:oldlol:

Pierce.

[Force]

Richmond is a first ballot HOFer imo and very underrated. His post up game was SICK and was a deadly shooter. Unbelievably strong too. I think Pierce had the better overall skill set but it's pretty hard to say.

I'm a bit torn on this. It's even, maybe Pierce slightly.

[L.Kizzle]

Mitch Richmond

[rhythmic]

Mitch Richmond.
One of the best shooters/scorers, very underrated defender.
Just wish he had the opportunity to play with a contender during his prime years.

[scandisk_]

Mitch Richmond

this

:banana:

[KyrieTheFuture]

Mitch Richmond's son went to my highschool with me. I can assure you his son did not have his talent.

[StateOfMind12]

Mitch Richmond
And this is why everybody accuses you of being a Pierce hater.

The answer is Pierce and quite frankly it isn't close. Their comparable scorers and shooters but nothing more.

[Freedom Kid7]

I'd have to give it to Pierce. Pierce could defend much better than any of the guys from Run TMC.

[ImmortalD24]

Paul Pierce

[L.Kizzle]

And this is why everybody accuses you of being a Pierce hater.

The answer is Pierce and quite frankly it isn't close. Their comparable scorers and shooters but nothing more.
Mitch was a good defender, better than Pierce.

[StateOfMind12]

Mitch was a good defender, better than Pierce.
http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/lol/grand/nxkih3.jpg.gif

[rhythmic]

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/lol/grand/nxkih3.jpg.gif

:facepalm Like seriously, nothing is more irritating then kids trying to be sarcastic when they don't have a clue about someone.

Mitch Richmond was one of the best man-to-man defenders at his position. Ask Jordan, or any other SG who played against him back in the day. The guy was very strong. Pierce on crap teams his entire career would be a hell of a lot less relevant then he is today. :rolleyes:

I'd also take Mitch over Pierce on my team, I agree with L.Kizzle.

[Boston C's]

give me pierce...top 10 SF to ever play...love the rock but ill take pierce but not by a landslide...btw kizzle you do underrate pierce pretty greatly but at the same time stateofmind i see that you sometimes overrate him as well...i almost feel bad for mitch...if he had a great team and was on a championship team where he was a solid contributor his all time ranking would probably be boosted greatly

[jalbert009]

The Truth is Paul Pierce! :pimp:

[Cali Syndicate]

The Rock, bitch! And I'n not talking about Dwayne Johnson!

[Mach_3]

[quote=rhythmic

[fsvr54]

Mitch is the most underrated player ever

[CelticBaller]

Pierce has been also one of the most underrated player this past decade

Pierce

[WockaVodka]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[Cali Syndicate]

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/lol/grand/nxkih3.jpg.gif

Listen to what Phil Jackson says here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbtn4B5GH-M&t=1m12s

Mitch was highly underrated.

In his prime, he was better than PP.

[kNIOKAS]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[Xiao Yao You]

Pierce

[StateOfMind12]

Listen to what Phil Jackson says here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbtn4B5GH-M&t=1m12s

Mitch was highly underrated.

In his prime, he was better than PP.
I never said Richmond was a bad, poor, below average, or an average defender. I just don't think he was better than Pierce on that end which he wasn't. Pierce was all-defensive selection worthy during his prime defensively but since Pierce was underrated all decade he was never selected. It just goes to show you how pointless these All-NBA selections are.

Richmond falls short in comparison to Pierce when it comes to playmaking, creating their shot off the dribble, making big time/clutch shots, and rebounding as well so I think Pierce is quite easily better than Richmond.

Richmond is underrated but so is Pierce.

[Kevin_Garnett_5]

Pierce...easily.

[Haymaker]

Mitch was the epitome of consistency. He was a deadly shooter but he lacked that superstar fire that Pierce have. I'd take Pierce in his prime.

[Cali Syndicate]

I never said Richmond was a bad, poor, below average, or an average defender. I just don't think he was better than Pierce on that end which he wasn't. Pierce was all-defensive selection worthy during his prime defensively but since Pierce was underrated all decade he was never selected. It just goes to show you how pointless these All-NBA selections are.

Richmond falls short in comparison to Pierce when it comes to playmaking, creating their shot off the dribble, making big time/clutch shots, and rebounding as well so I think Pierce is quite easily better than Richmond.

Richmond is underrated but so is Pierce.

I might agree with Pierce being the better play maker but that would be a slight advantage. Probably goes for the clutch element too. But overall scoring? IDK, Mitch was pretty good. 20ppg for 10 straight seasons is no fluke. Scored at a decent clip too.

Defensively, I don't agree but whatever. He lacked athleticism but he was strong and had sound fundamentals. Pierce had the height and length where he could guard both 2 guards and wings giving him a bit more versatility but pound for pound, I don't see Pierce being any better than Mitch was.

As for rebounding, forwards are typically better at grabbing rebounds than guards so. Not really a game breaker in this comparison.

Pierce might have some statistical advantages over Mitch but reason I say Mitch is 'cause this guy was just flat out consistent. And this consistency came season after season after season with little to no help. That carries a lot of weight for me. With team mates to lessen the defensive focus, Mitch could have been a perennial 50% scorer, which he was nearly doing as a Warrior.

[kNIOKAS]

I might agree with Pierce being the better play maker but that would be a slight advantage. Probably goes for the clutch element too. But overall scoring? IDK, Mitch was pretty good. 20ppg for 10 straight seasons is no fluke. Scored at a decent clip too.

Defensively, I don't agree but whatever. He lacked athleticism but he was strong and had sound fundamentals. Pierce had the height and length where he could guard both 2 guards and wings giving him a bit more versatility but pound for pound, I don't see Pierce being any better than Mitch was.

As for rebounding, forwards are typically better at grabbing rebounds than guards so. Not really a game breaker in this comparison.

Pierce might have some statistical advantages over Mitch but reason I say Mitch is 'cause this guy was just flat out consistent. And this consistency came season after season after season with little to no help. That carries a lot of weight for me. With team mates to lessen the defensive focus, Mitch could have been a perennial 50% scorer, which he was nearly doing as a Warrior.
Pierce is just as consistent... Doing it big since the first years in the league. Plus, he has the accolades and moments. Both seem to have quite similar numbers though, both underrated.
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/mitch_richmond/index.html
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/paul_pierce/career_stats.html

[magic chiongson]

mitch richmond is underrated. for about a decade he was the 2nd best SG in the league(sometimes 3rd behind reggie miller). had he been in the same position pierce was at when boston's big three was formed he'd be ranked way higher in all-time lists

[jbryan1984]

Pierce, not only in terms of achievements but he is just the better player. Mitch Richmond was a big fish in a small pond for many years. I am not saying he wasn't great, he was but Pierce is the better all around player imo.

[Rnbizzle]

The Truth.

[iguana]

Everyone that happened to watch Richmond on his prime would say that Richmond was better

[Real Men Wear Green]

Everyone that happened to watch Richmond on his prime would say that Richmond was better
Which would be something like five people in sacramento. Pierce, thanks.

[Bigsmoke]

Listen to what Phil Jackson says here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbtn4B5GH-M&t=1m12s

Mitch was highly underrated.

In his prime, he was better than PP.

I can't really think of anything Mitch is better than Pierce at.

He had a couple a play when he defended Jordan well and get this crazy myth that he was this amazing defender in his past.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I can't really think of anything Mitch is better than Pierce at.

Exactly. It's not like he was averaging 30 or something.

[L.Kizzle]

Exactly. It's not like he was averaging 30 or something.
Only Jordan was gettin 30 ppg in the 90s.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Only Jordan was gettin 30 ppg in the 90s.
So? Point is, there is no statistical superiority for your side to point at and he certainly wasn't winning anything, so what is Richmond's case based on?

[SacJB Shady]

TMC= The big 3. Imagine them with C web.

[ballerz]

Pierce, quite easily

[Calabis]

pierce, not close for me!

LMAO...dude never saw Richmond play....this statement is basically full retard mode

[JohnnySic]

Richmond was good but he is not in PP's league. Joe Johnson is a closer comparison, talent-wise.

[Ketchup]

Richmond was good but he is not in PP's league. Joe Johnson is a closer comparison, talent-wise.

:oldlol:

Celtic fans are really trying to make this out as if it's not close.

There isn't a single thing at basketball that Joe Johnson does better than Mitch Richmond. Not one.

Back to the initial comparison, I'd say it's a tie. They're very similar players.

[Calabis]

Richmond was good but he is not in PP's league. Joe Johnson is a closer comparison, talent-wise.

:facepalm

Again you have no clue....Joe Johnson is nowhere near the player Richmond...is. Its comical...people go you tube a highlight real, then make a comparison. Richmond was a stud, who played on bad teams, surround his ass with Garnett, Rondo and those stacked Celtics teams, and he would light shit up....dude played on crappy Kings teams and was the only thing opposing teams concentrated on.....huge difference. Pierce and Richmond are very close...its that simple

[bluechox2]

mitch

[Real Men Wear Green]

:facepalm

Again you have no clue....Joe Johnson is nowhere near the player Richmond...is. Its comical...people go you tube a highlight real, then make a comparison. Richmond was a stud, who played on bad teams, surround his ass with Garnett, Rondo and those stacked Celtics teams, and he would light shit up....dude played on crappy Kings teams and was the only thing opposing teams concentrated on.....huge difference. Pierce and Richmond are very close...its that simple
Richmond wouldn't have fit as well with the Champ Celtics. He was a pure SG who at 6'5, 215 only averaged 5 or more boards twice in his career and you absolutely could not ask to guard LeBron James. They may have won a title with Richmond in Pierce's place but it's something we can't be sure of and it's a fact that Richmond wouldn't have fit as well lacking Pierce's versatility. Which is the true important difference between the two of them in terms of ability. Not getting into the area of who was more clutch (an argument that would favor the Finals MVP), Pierce could play both 2 and 3 both offensively as well as defensively whereas Richmond was only a shooting guard.

[JohnnySic]

Again you have no clue....Joe Johnson is nowhere near the player Richmond...is. Its comical...people go you tube a highlight real, then make a comparison. Richmond was a stud, who played on bad teams, surround his ass with Garnett, Rondo and those stacked Celtics teams, and he would light shit up....dude played on crappy Kings teams and was the only thing opposing teams concentrated on.....huge difference. Pierce and Richmond are very close...its that simple
Why do people assume that someone never saw a player play, just because their opinion of said player is different? :confusedshrug:

I was arround for Mitch Richmond. I saw his entire career. Great player, did everything well. In the 90's, only MJ and Drexler were clearly better shooting guards (Reggie Lewis, Reggie Miller, and peak Nick Anderson were arguable cases).

But he is not on PP's level. PP was an underapprecaited superstar and was a 27/6/5 player going up against swarming double and triple teams night after night when his best teammates were Antoine Walker and/or Ricky Davis.

And when I brought up Joe Johnson, it was to state that its a closer comparison. not a perfect one.

MR was an all-star.
PP was/is a superstar.
Big difference.

:coleman:

[Ketchup]

Why do people assume that someone never saw a player play, just because their opinion of said player is different? :confusedshrug:

I was arround for Mitch Richmond. I saw his entire career. Great player, did everything well. In the 90's, only MJ and Drexler were clearly better shooting guards (Reggie Lewis, Reggie Miller, and peak Nick Anderson were arguable cases).

But he is not on PP's level. PP was an underapprecaited superstar and was a 27/6/5 player going up against swarming double and triple teams night after night when his best teammates were Antoine Walker and/or Ricky Davis.

And when I brought up Joe Johnson, it was to state that its a closer comparison. not a perfect one.

MR was an all-star.
PP was/is a superstar.
Big difference.

:coleman:

No... Just no...

It's not that your opinion is different, it's wrong.
Paul Pierce was never a superstar, never. Has he ever been top 2 at his position? What kind of superstar only makes 4 all NBA teams? Never happening to make a 1st team selection by the way.

Richmond has 5 of them, playing on lousy teams, he still managed to get them. Going as high as the 2nd team a few times, and he could have even had a 1st all team selection one year. And this is who you think should be compared to Joe Johnson?
Reggie Miller was never better than him either, nor were Reggie Lewis or Nick Anderson. The latter two not being even close to his level, and even Miller wasn't the same caliber.

[Ketchup]

Richmond wouldn't have fit as well with the Champ Celtics. He was a pure SG who at 6'5, 215 only averaged 5 or more boards twice in his career and you absolutely could not ask to guard LeBron James. They may have won a title with Richmond in Pierce's place but it's something we can't be sure of and it's a fact that Richmond wouldn't have fit as well lacking Pierce's versatility. Which is the true important difference between the two of them in terms of ability. Not getting into the area of who was more clutch (an argument that would favor the Finals MVP), Pierce could play both 2 and 3 both offensively as well as defensively whereas Richmond was only a shooting guard.

I disagree with Richmond not having the versatility of Pierce. He was a bull in the post, had a great outside shot, and was deceptive with the way he got around you. Mitch was like a hybrid of Ray and Pierce in that sense. Great at spotting up for the shot, not as good as Pierce of the dribble, but he had that same approach in terms of setting his shot up.

I think basketball has slightly changed in a way where smaller players are now able to play that SF role. We've seen on occasions guys at 6'5 playing that role. Hell, watching my Heat I've even seen Wade play minutes there. I think Mitch would slot in fine as a temp SF, even as a longer term option, since he was very strong.

[JohnnySic]

Reggie Miller was never better than him either, nor were Reggie Lewis or Nick Anderson. The latter two not being even close to his level, and even Miller wasn't the same caliber.
False.

Miller was in the same category as Richmond. Probably not better, but its like comparing Rudy Gay and Danny Granger. Take your pick.

Reggie Lewis was an outstanding 2-way player and team captain who could give you 20-5-5 while defending the Jordans and Drexlers of the world and handling it quite well. Anderson was a similar 2-way player before his career collapsed after those 4 misses.

I dont put Richmond much above those players if at all in the cases of Lewis and Miller.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I disagree with Richmond not having the versatility of Pierce. He was a bull in the post, had a great outside shot, and was deceptive with the way he got around you. Mitch was like a hybrid of Ray and Pierce in that sense. Great at spotting up for the shot, not as good as Pierce of the dribble, but he had that same approach in terms of setting his shot up.

I think basketball has slightly changed in a way where smaller players are now able to play that SF role. We've seen on occasions guys at 6'5 playing that role. Hell, watching my Heat I've even seen Wade play minutes there. I think Mitch would slot in fine as a temp SF, even as a longer term option, since he was very strong.
Richmond was 6'5 and 215. He could not guard James, Anthony, McGrady, and so many other big SFs. Any elite scorer can score regardless of position, it's on D where a mismatch is going to suffer. We see smallball played at times thanks to the decrease in low-post scorers but you still are going to have a problem if you are guarding a big scoring wing with a smaller, lighter player. No one is going to shut down a guy like LeBron but Pierce's ability to keep the damage he caused contained was vital to the Celtics' defeat of the Cavs. Replace Pierce with Richmond in the Celtic starting line-up and who is going to challenge James? That higher level of versatility was important for the Cs and is important for basketball in general.

[Ketchup]

False.

Miller was in the same category as Richmond. Probably not better, but its like comparing Rudy Gay and Danny Granger. Take your pick.

Reggie Lewis was an outstanding 2-way player and team captain who could give you 20-5-5 while defending the Jordans and Drexlers of the world and handling it quite well. Anderson was a similar 2-way player before his career collapsed after those 4 misses.

I dont put Richmond much above those players if at all in the cases of Lewis and Miller.

So you think Reggie Miller and Paul Pierce are equally comparable as players seeing as you haven't bothered to disagree with the other part of the post? Interesting to know.

[Ketchup]

Richmond was 6'5 and 215. He could not guard James, Anthony, McGrady, and so many other big SFs. Any elite scorer can score regardless of position, it's on D where a mismatch is going to suffer. We see smallball played at times thanks to the decrease in low-post scorers but you still are going to have a problem if you are guarding a big scoring wing with a smaller, lighter player. No one is going to shut down a guy like LeBron but Pierce's ability to keep the damage he caused contained was vital to the Celtics' defeat of the Cavs. Replace Pierce with Richmond in the Celtic starting line-up and who is going to challenge James? That higher level of versatility was important for the Cs and is important for basketball in general.

Isn't Pierce like 6'6 and 225lbs?
Mitch was a very capable defender. He guarded Jordan quite well and I remember he used to match up with Anfernee Hardaway, who is a mirror image athletically of McGrady.
Pierce was never considered some wonder defender before KG came along, where as Richmond always got a lot of props for his defense, and rightfully so, since he was a good defender, but he was renowned for being physical on that end of the court.
In terms of strength at his position, I'd say he's top 3 at the SG spot with Wade and Jordan. Maybe even stronger than Jordan.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Isn't Pierce like 6'6 and 225lbs?
Mitch was a very capable defender. He guarded Jordan quite well and I remember he used to match up with Anfernee Hardaway, who is a mirror image athletically of McGrady.
Pierce was never considered some wonder defender before KG came along, where as Richmond always got a lot of props for his defense, and rightfully so, since he was a good defender, but he was renowned for being physical on that end of the court.
In terms of strength at his position, I'd say he's top 3 at the SG spot with Wade and Jordan. Maybe even stronger than Jordan.
Pierce is 6'7 and 230+. Pierce guarded Bryant in the game where Bryant set the record for missed shots long before Garnett joined up and has always been a good defender. The hallmark of Jim O'Brien's team was defense and Pierce did his part. Richmond was strong for an SG but "strong for an SG" doesn't overcome the 3 inches and 40-50 lbs. he would be surrendering to LeBron James. The 2 Finals runs don't happen if the Celtics don't beat James' Cavs so you have to consider how the Celtics defend James with Allen and Richmond at the wings. And it wouldn't be happening. The only athletic area where Richmond stood out was strength, where he'd still be nowhere near James. That wouldn't work out at all.

[D.J.]

It's much closer than most think but it's still Pierce. Better defender, better in the post(though Mitch was no slouch in either area).

[code green]

Pierce all day.

[pauk]

Mitch Richmond, grew up watching this super jumpshooter. In essence they were pretty much similar, Mitch was just a bit of a better shooter though.

[bizil]

I think I would roll with PP. Pierce has more size and is more of a SF-swingman type, which adds that versatility element. Pierce has point forward type skills. Mitch was a beast and an underrated all around player who had a HOF worthy career. At one point, he was arguably the 2nd or 3rd best SG in the world. Who had a nasty scoring skillset with NO WEAKNESSES! I haven't seen many pure shooters at the SG spot who had as many other ways to score as Mitch. Ray Ray might be the only one, but Mitch had a better postup game than Ray.

[Scholar]

BTW, i'm really flattered that my "in their primes" threads has been imitated recently. :oldlol:

:facepalm Yes, you're the inventor of "in-their-primes" comparisons, right?

I was doing shit like that when I was 10 years old. 1 year later, I'm going to hear this shit from you? Oh, hell no!

[Meticode]

I'm not sure why this is asked? While Pierce can garner hate because of his faking antics, he obviously had the better prime. He was a closer as well. Even with Rondo, Garnett, and Allen on the team he was the closer. One of the clutchest players in the league.

[PejaNowitzki]

Mitch Richmond. Dude was an absolute beast, killer shot, terrific defender, good ball-handler, one of the most underrated stars of the past 30 years.


Jordan rated Richmond as one of his worst matchups. He always played Jordan tough, on both ends of the floor.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbtn4B5GH-M



Old School Warriors vs Spurs in the playoffs with Richmond lighting shit up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IntYVmykdfY

[PejaNowitzki]

Why do people assume that someone never saw a player play, just because their opinion of said player is different? :confusedshrug:

I was arround for Mitch Richmond. I saw his entire career. Great player, did everything well. In the 90's, only MJ and Drexler were clearly better shooting guards (Reggie Lewis, Reggie Miller, and peak Nick Anderson were arguable cases).

But he is not on PP's level. PP was an underapprecaited superstar and was a 27/6/5 player going up against swarming double and triple teams night after night when his best teammates were Antoine Walker and/or Ricky Davis.

And when I brought up Joe Johnson, it was to state that its a closer comparison. not a perfect one.

MR was an all-star.
PP was/is a superstar.
Big difference.

:coleman:



Jordan disagrees with you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbtn4B5GH-M

3:54 mark.


:lebronamazed:

[Ketchup]

It's much closer than most think but it's still Pierce. Better defender, better in the post(though Mitch was no slouch in either area).

Pierce wasn't a better defender. Not close really.

[Force]

Mitch had a much better shot. They both had post games. Tough call. I was always a big fan of The Rock.

[Legends66NBA7]

Well, it also depends what rules they are playing under.

Richmond would benefit just like every other perimeter player under the post-05 rules and his scoring would go up by a lot too.

Can't really go wrong with either player.

[D.J.]

Pierce wasn't a better defender. Not close really.


Yes he was. Pierce could also guard opposing 2's and 3's. Not to mention Pierce was actually a good shot blocker from his position. He averaged 1 BPG twice, something Mitch never sniffed.

[Ketchup]

Yes he was. Pierce could also guard opposing 2's and 3's. Not to mention Pierce was actually a good shot blocker from his position. He averaged 1 BPG twice, something Mitch never sniffed.

Pierce was considered a poor defender before KG got on the team. Then suddenly he got this reputation.

I'm not going to bother. I remember your posts from before, and you really don't know too much about basketball.

[StateOfMind12]

Pierce was considered a poor defender before KG got on the team. Then suddenly he got this reputation.
:facepalm Pierce was a fine defender before KG arrived. Pierce was just underrated so nobody ever took notice of him and defense is always overlooked so Pierce's defense was definitely going to be underrated as well but if you watched PP play before KG and Ray he played great defense especially in that 2002 season when he led that team to the ECF.

[Ketchup]

:facepalm Pierce was a fine defender before KG arrived. Pierce was just underrated so nobody ever took notice of him and defense is always overlooked so Pierce's defense was definitely going to be underrated as well but if you watched PP play before KG and Ray he played great defense especially in that 2002 season when he led that team to the ECF.

I remember specific discussions on here, with articles provided from sports writers berating Pierce's defense, and then I found it hysterical the change in tune when KG got there of the board and media.
He was always considered over zealous and handsy much like Mario Chalmers in the sense that he was too lazy to stay in front of his man.

[Hank]

Mitch

[D.J.]

I'm not going to bother. I remember your posts from before, and you really don't know too much about basketball.


Considering you have less than 700 posts in almost 3 years, I don't think you've seen me post all that much. All you are is a gimmick account.

[Legends66NBA7]

Considering you have less than 700 posts in almost 3 years, I don't think you've seen me post all that much. All you are is a gimmick account.

He's the old poster, plowking.

I've seen (plowking) has over 16,000 posts or something on here. I don't know what history he has with you though.

[D.J.]

He's the old poster, plowking.

I've seen (plowking) has over 16,000 posts or something on here. I don't know what history he has with you though.


:confusedshrug:

[Legends66NBA7]

:confusedshrug:

Eh, he might have been pulling your chain or just trolling.