Basketball Philosophy with Bill Russell

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]When I say who outplayed the other, I don't mean who put up the better individual numbers, I mean who played the best all around basketball which includes intangibles such as clutch play, letting your teammates shine and making them better, in other words, contributing the most to your team winning.

Who do you believe did that more in those match ups? Russell or Wilt?

I guess to simplify it, what do you think would be the result if you have them identical rosters for their entire careers?



I'm just trying to understand why he argues with me whenever I say Russell outplayed Wilt in a certain series if he ranks Wilt over Russell?[/QUOTE]

In terms of "clutch" play, IMHO, and H2H, Chamberlain was considerably more clutch. Take a look at their game seven's. Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg, but he outrebounded him by a 28.5 rpg to 24.5 rpg margin. AND, we have Wilt's FG% numbers for all four games...an astonishing .652. We only have Russell's for two games (as far as I know anyway), and Russell was at .391 in those two games.

But, Wilt also had a 50-35 game against Russell in a must-win game five of the '60 series. Not only that, and this is significant,...Wilt, in a clinching game five loss in '66, put up a 46-34 game (Russell had an 18-31 game.) In the following season, when Russell was faced with the same situation, he could only muster a FOUR point game (on 2-5 shooting) with 21 rebounds. How about Wilt in that same game? 29 points (with 22 coming in the first half), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, and 13 assists.

Intangibles? No player in NBA history more exemplifies "intangibles" than Russell.

Making his teammates better? No question, Russell. Not a knock on Wilt, though. I think players like Russell, Magic, and Duncan were the best ever at that...while players like MJ, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt certainly made their teams better...but not necessarily their teammates better. You can find many examples for all four of them, where they played brilliantly, but their teammates played horribly.

Equal rosters? This is interesting. Clearly, if both players were saddled with poor rosters (as Wilt was for about half of his career), then I think Chamberlain's individual dominance would overwhelm Russell. BUT, with equally great rosters, I am not so sure. Russell PROVED that he could win with great rosters. Wilt, for a variety of reasons (and many not his fault) could only win two titles with good-to-great rosters in his last eight seasons. Granted, Wilt faced GREAT teams in those last eight seasons, and once again, there were legitimate excuses for not winning in some of them, AND, in those two titles, his team's were overwhelming...but still, 2-8 makes you wonder.

I will say this, though. Had Wilt and Russell had equal rosters in their ten years in the league together, I am convinced that Russell would not have had a 9-1 edge in rings in that period. Wilt's '67 season confirmed that.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Reeds' supposed injuries were never mentioned. Good enough for me.[/QUOTE]

Of course it's good enough for you. You're not interested in the truth. If you'd been watching then, you'd have known. If you picked up a paper, you would have known.


[QUOTE=jlauber][QUOTE]Originally Posted by jlauber
BTW, I still haven't read your FG% numbers from the '64 Finals. I suspect that either you can't find them, or they will confirm what I already have an educated estimate at...that Wilt probably outshot Russell by some 200 points. In any case, you told me that you could find anything in five minutes.


Lie. You

^ It's just sad, you've SHOWN him the TRUTH, in his own words, and he still clings to the FANTASY de jour.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Of course it's good enough for you. You're not interested in the truth. If you'd been watching then, you'd have known. If you picked up a paper, you would have known.




:roll:

Me finding a particular bit of knowledge I told you you should have checked yourself in less than five minutes = me telling you I could find anything on the internet in five minutes?

[SIZE="6"]LIE[/SIZE]

You've got a serious problem with misrepresenting the truth. Now I know why [I]you[/I] brought up the word "deceit."

And I didn't bother to look. I will not be manipulated into doing your research for you that you didn't bother to do before making a statement just because you're too sorry to do it. I didn't make a statement I didn't verify first. (Because I NEVER do.) I've been gathering information for paying clients. [SIZE="5"]LOL[/SIZE] at the idea that I run and do your bidding.

[B]Get off yourself.[/B][/QUOTE]

I didn't think so...

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]why argue with jlauber, regulator and Shaq...he only has one agenda and despite all the knowledge he's acquired, it still seems like he is a bit of a liar, or at best delusional.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to. I only responded in the first place because he referenced me. Truth has no meaning for him.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Those old posts tell me all I need to know. Either he watched that era and came to the conclusion that Russell sucked, which makes him an idiot, or he lied from the start about his age etc, which also makes him an idiot.[/QUOTE]

Regarding the former, I got him to expose his agenda HERE the first time he got into it with me:

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][QUOTE=jlauber]The more RESEARCH I do on this topic, the more inclined I am to come away believing that Russell was the most OVER-RATED player in NBA history.[/QUOTE]

And now we see the agenda. You put up a pretense that Russell’s great, but he’s really the most overrated player in NBA history.[/QUOTE]

First it was "a friend" who said he was a roleplayer, but then the truth came out. As it always does.

Regarding the latter, the choice of words in using "old timer" still has me curious, and it has of yet not been addressed.

[QUOTE=jlauber]As for Regulator "embarrassing" me...let's see, he had to go back to posts I made six years, to find MINOR issues. Wilt with either FIVE or SEVEN 50 point games against Russell (and 24 of 40+ including a high of 62) is not significant. Nor did I make that claim HERE. AND, as I have stated previously, I would have to see where I gleaned that info from.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][QUOTE=jlauber]“not to diminish guys like Russell and West, two great defenders...but defense back then was nowhere near as good as it is today.” – July 22, 2005[/QUOTE]

:wtf:

[QUOTE=jlauber]“I know that this is getting away from the original post some, but most people tend to diminish Wilt's accomplishments because he was so much bigger, taller, stronger, and more athletic than his opposing centers. And it is true, that when Wilt was scoring 50 ppg, it was Russell at 6-9 and Bellamy at 6-11, and the rest were pretty much 6-8 or 6-9 "stiffs." – January 24, 2006[/QUOTE]

:wtf:

[QUOTE=jlauber]“Wilt's competition in that 61-62 season was not stellar. Basically only Russell and Bellamy were anywhere near his ability...and neither could approach him in terms of statistical domination.” – May 5, 2007[/QUOTE]

:wtf:

[QUOTE=jlauber]“I know both you and I will get some flak from "old-timers" about how great some of them were . . . , but realistically, todays basketball players, although many lacking in fundamental skills, are far superior to the players of the 60's.”[/QUOTE]

:wtf:

I myself find it downright MIND-BOGGLING that you could make such statements and yet no one had the sense enough to call attention to this disparity between this and what you would later say. It’s like there must have been no analytical thinkers. It never even OCCURRED to anyone that there was a discrepancy between the above statements and statements like this:

[QUOTE=jlauber]“Centers of the 60's and 70's, so many in the HOF BTW, [had] size, athletic ability and certainly the skills of today's centers.”[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jlauber]“Look, if you want to believe that today's CENTERS, almost all of which YOU have NEVER heard of, are better than the GREATS from the 60's, 70's, and 80's...go right ahead.”[/QUOTE]

First your take is that modern players “far superior” to players of the past, and then you do a complete 180 with no one thinking anything of it.

[QUOTE=jlauber]“I am getting sick-and-tired of the assertion of the quality of players he faced.” – November 9, 2008[/QUOTE]

I find this statement downright baffling considering you were guilty of disparaging them yourself.

[QUOTE=jlauber]“the athletes are better today, no question”[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jlauber]“My personal opinion on athletics today is that, yes, today's athletes are generally bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, and better fed than those of 20 years ago or more.” – August 30, 2007[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jlauber]“You say today's big men are bigger, more athletic, and more skilled. Yes, they are slightly bigger. More athletic? Prove it.” – November 9, 2008[/QUOTE]

Two days later:

[QUOTE=jlauber]“The arguement that today's players and athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, better fed, have better equipment, better medical care, and yes, even better illegal performance enhancers, is indisputeable.”[/QUOTE]

Wait... first your demand for proof that modern athletes are more athletic than in the past, then two days later you say it’s indisputable? What? So vacillating.

[QUOTE=jlauber]“The players of today are generally, and probably considerably, bigger, stronger, faster than previous eras (obviously the further back you go, the bigger the differences.)”[/QUOTE]

Can’t even stay consistent for a couple of days. Speaking of consistency, though:

[QUOTE=jlauber]“There is no doubt in my mind that Wilt would be an all-star player today. I certainly wouldn't expect him to score 50 ppg, or grab 27 rpg...but perhaps 30 and 18, in his prime, would have been possible...which would place him above all the centers of today. I think someone on this forum said, or read something to the effect, that Wilt was a cross between Garnett and Shaq. That would be worth about $40 mil a year today.

How many other basketball players could you say that about? Perhaps Russell would be another Ben Wallace, albeit a better passer...but that is not saying much. Sure, West, Robertson, and maybe a handful of others would be good players today, but all-stars?”[/QUOTE]

WOW.

:eek:

Let me reiterate: Russell would be “another Ben Wallace with better passing, which isn’t saying much,” (a sentiment which you have expressed on NUMEROUS occasions in the past) and West, Robertson and [I]maybe[/I] a handful of others “would be good players today, but all stars?” You are on [B]RECORD[/B] as stating that some of the greatest players ever to have played the game would be [I]good[/I], but you [B]question[/B] whether they would be [B]all stars[/B] in the modern era. This is only a slight step up from the people who claim they would be benchwarmers today. Except, of course, Wilt, who would not only be an all star, but the best center in the league.

Defend Wilt to the hilt but throw his contemporaries under the bus.

:facepalm

You should APOLOGIZE to people like PHILA, who fights against this, and has been CONSISTENT for every post I’ve read of his. At the same time I was DEFENDING Wilt and the competition he played against against people who bashed them on various forums across the internet, lo and behold, jlauber is ON RECORD as being AMONG that number—yet paradoxically still praising Wilt, somehow not grasping the inherent contradiction in stating that while Wilt was the best, it’s doubtful as to whether [I]anyone else[/I] of that era would be an all star in the modern game. Perpetrating THE VERY STEREOTYPE that I made a point to officially debunk 2 5/6 years ago in that post I linked to what I’d been hearing for YEARS by actually giving an in-depth look and providing FACTS. I’ve been CONSISTENT. I have NEVER ONCE at any point in life disparaged the players of the past, but have tried to educate people who don’t know as much about the men who paved the way for the game today.

I think of Wilt fans such as Judd Vance (Air Judden), who put together what is to this day the best Wilt site I’ve ever seen—which every Wilt fan I have ever seen has referred to at some point or other, and he NEVER made any statements like those you’re ON RECORD as making.[/QUOTE]

Address this. I'd [SIZE="5"]LOVE[/SIZE] to hear just how your opinion changed to that extent, and I'm sure others would too.

[QUOTE=PHILA]The playing conditions as well.


[I]'"How many layups do you think there were in the last Laker game? Forty-eight. People will tell you guys shoot better now. No doubt they shoot a little better, but not like you'd think from looking at the percentages. Mike Cooper is shooting 59 percent. You want to bet some money he'd outshoot Jerry West? I'll bet my house against him (Cooper) on Dolph Schayes. I'll take Larry Costello and give you any Laker with the exception of Wilkes.

Players just get to the basket (layups) more. It ups their percentage. There's no defense inside. When I played, if the other team ran a fast break two or three times, the coach would assign a forward to break back on defense as soon as the ball went up. I never see a coach doing that now. There were no uncontested layups.

My last two or three years I shot 69 to 73 percent. You think I was a better shooter? No, the defenses got worse and I was able to dunk every damn ball I wanted to. It was easier to get there. When I played against guys like Johnny Kerr . . . He was 6-10 and couldn't jump, but I'll tell you, you didn't get to the basket on him."'

-Wilt Chamberlain, [/I][I]1982[/I]

[I]
"It's a run up and down the court and dunk the ball game now. These are speed merchants and jumping fools. That's why their shooting percentages are going way up. I led the league 11 times in field goal percentage and my lifetime average was 54%. There are now five billion guys shooting over 54%. Can you imagine playing when your hands are so cold and the ball is as hard as a brick? I can remember going to Detroit and playing the old Detroit Arena and there's about 3000 people in this big old huge thing. Every time they opened the door, the wind blows through. I can vividly remember Paul Arizin blowing into his hands and the smoke was blowing out of his nose. Guys were shooting 37%, and these were great shooters. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to put that into perspective."

-[/I][I]Wilt Chamberlain, [/I][I]1985[/I]




From [B]The Big O: my life, my times, my game[/B]. (2003)

[I]"While there's no shortage of charismatic young guys who can jump and dunk, nobody has captured the public's imagination the way Michael did. Nor are there any rivalries like Magic's Lakers against Bird's Celtics in the 1980s, or Michael's Bulls against Isiah Thomas's Bad Boys. Meanwhile, in its drive to accrue television money and ticket revenues, the league has abandoned free television in favor of cable deals. They've priced out most people from seeing a game - except corporate America.

In the last two years, professional basketball has seen two major trends: one, an influx of European player who coaches and commentators say are extremely well versed in the fundamentals and understand the game; two, the hyping of physically gifted high schoolers who eschew college for a chance at the pros.

Watch an NBA game tonight. You'll see players who can't make a reverse pivot. Can't make a crossover dribble. And the NBA's answer hasn't been additional coaching for these young guys. Rather it's been to welcone top-notch high schoolers with open arms and shoe contracts and their own commercials.

The best players get to sit on the bench for three years or so, and if they have the work ethic and commitment (like Kobe Bryant or Jermaine O'Neal), they'll work hard and begin to figure things out for themselves.

Maybe I am coming from a different mindset. The current NBA is a multi million dollar business. Teams travel in their own private planes, with luxury seats and individual DVD players set up for each team member. When I played, the job wasn't a routine one, but there was a routine to it. Every city was an adventure. [B]The courts weren't like today's lacquered, standardized basketball courts.[/B] [B]There were screws sticking up out of the old Cow Palace floor in San Francisco.[/B] Boston Garden's parquet was noted for, among other things, its [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=9m45s"]dead spots[/URL]. Celtics players used to lead you to them, and when you dribbled on a dead piece of wood, they'd be waiting; the ball would bounce low, or spring off to the side, and a Celtic would pounce.

[B]
We ushered in the modern era of basketball. [/B]You wouldn't have the game of basketball as we know it without us. We were cornerstones in building the game and the way it is played today. Today's player, whether he knows it or not, wouldn't be where he is without us.

[B]We had Bill Russell & Wilt, the two most dominant players in the history of the game. [/B]Jerry West was the best clutch player I ever saw, the best shooter, and one of the best competitors. His biggest talent, perhaps, was emerging at the right moment to take advantage of a well-timed pick or pass. Jerry hated to lose so much that you could see it transform him. Jerry and I were friends, but our rivalry was intense.

People always ask who was better: Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan? But they forget that those three never played against one another in matchups. Wilt Chamberlain played against Bill Russell. I guarded Jerry West. Our rivalry was especially entertaining, both to watch and to be a part of, because I played with such efficiency and calculated focus, while Jerry was a great shooter. Bob Ryan, the renowned basketball writer for the Boston Globe has said that I developed more skills than any other basketball player he ever saw, whereas Jerry may have had more desire.


I played against some of the greatest defenders in the history of the game - Russell, Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy - but still the scoring was a lot higher than it is today. Some so-called experts will tell you it's because of the coaches and athletes. [B]I've seen basketball analysts say that the principles of help defense are more advanced now and take advantage of all the athleticism. I say that's bull.[/B] [B]If Jerry West was on his game, you couldn't stop him. I don't care what defense you were in. [/B]

I don't want to sound like a dinosaur: "In my day we knew how to play, to dunk; we had to walk uphill both ways to get to the basketball court, and then when we dribbled, we the ball rolled down the hill." Dunking's been part of the game for a long time. Many players I knew when I used to play at the Dust Bowl could dunk a ball. Gus Johnson tore down rims more than 30 years ago. I could list guy after guy who was a great dunker. It never meant anything to me but two points. A lot of them never dunked because it embarrassed a defender, and he'd take it out on them the next play. I rarely dunked, but I did do it once in a while in practice, just to show people I could.

But it you can dunk a ball, you are now the greatest player in the world. Gone by the wayside is the ability to make a play or think about the game of basketball. [B]Street lingo today translates "skills" as the ability to dribble the ball behind your back or off your knee.[/B] But knowing how to run a good fast break is a skill. So is busting your hump and getting out on the wing and filling the lane at the proper angle. [B]Teams don't run the way we did anymore.[/B]

Knowing how to rub off a defender when you use a pick is a skill. Knowing how to feel a defender with your body and read the court to see where help is coming from is a skill. Knowing how to stay in control, pace yourself, and not use all your energy too early or give away all your tricks, that's a skill. Setting solid picks and knowing how to get yourself open from them; knowing how to hit a guy with a pass the exact moment he frees himself and how to get him the ball in a place and at a time that allows him to shoot in rhythm; getting position low on the post; boxing out; playing solid man to man defense while also knowing where the ball is - those are skills. Certain players in the game today have them - Jason Kidd and Tim Duncan are two, off the top of my head. But most younger players don't, not by a long shot.

Shaquille O'Neal is one of the greatest players of all time. He's big, strong, and fast. Shaq's go-to shot is a dunk. There's no doubt he would have gotten his share of dunks on Bill Russell. There were times he'd get position close to the basket, and there's nothing anyone could do about that. Bill was six ten, and had long enough arms where he might have been able to front Shaq. He may have been able to deny him the ball from the side. He was smart enough and competitive enough that he could have played against him. [B]Bill could exploit anything, make you rely on the weakest parts of your game.[/B] Shaq doesn't have much of a jumper. He has a jump hook shot but doesn't have the full kind of hook that would be unstoppable. (Hell, his jump hook might be unstoppable if he used it more.)"
[/I]




NBA teams didn't always have priority at the home venue if there was a scheduling conflict (regular season or playoffs). Imagine shooting a long distance high arc shot in such a building as below in 1967, where you can see a rookie Phil Jackson make a move against Chicago's Bob Boozer.

[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/262tzi9.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Excellent post. IMHO, these are certainly some of the main reasons why the players of the 60's (and probably before) shot as poorly, on average, as they did. Also, as GOAT stated, the BALL was NOT uniform. I have also read where the fans use to shake the basket structures. In addition, players not only routinely played back-to-backs, in some instances, they played 5+ straight games (Wilt had that in '62, as well as numerous 4-in-a-rows.) Cold, breezy arenas. Just so many negatives.

Damn, I feel bad for JL. He's like the little fat kid in grade school who gets constantly picked on.

If the dude wants to think Wilt is his savior, let him. No matter how many stats and facts you've got on your side, sometimes people can't handle the truth. At that point there's nothing you can do about it. Let them live in their own little fantasy world.

BTW - fantastic posts by both Regul8r and Shaqattack.

Will rep when I can.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I'm not going to. I only responded in the first place because he referenced me. Truth has no meaning for him.



Regarding the former, I got him to expose his agenda HERE the first time he got into it with me:



First it was "a friend" who said he was a roleplayer, but then the truth came out. As it always does.

Regarding the latter, the choice of words in using "old timer" still has me curious, and it has of yet not been addressed.





Address this. I'd [SIZE="5"]LOVE[/SIZE] to hear just how your opinion changed to that extent, and I'm sure others would too.[/QUOTE]

I HAVE addressed ALL of those, and HERE, MANY times. Why don't you post all of them, as well? My opinions have changed in the last 5-6 years, and they will probably continue to evolve, as well.

You amaze me. Once again, I wouldn't waste five minutes looking up your posts, and yet, you will obviously spend HOURS and even DAYS looking up mine. And, it will not change ANY of my CURRENT opinions, either.

Of course, you can't find Wilt's FG% in the '64 Finals, which also amazes me. In any case, I think I have a cyber-stalker on my hands. Not sure if I should be flattered.

BTW, would you mind posting my ENTIRE posts above. I have started MANY of them off with "the players of today are generally bigger, stronger, faster,etc." It would be nice to read the ENTIRE post. AND, the LINK as well. I look at some of those quotes, and I sense someone who is distorting my take by OMITTING the rest of the post.

what the f*ck?

offense doesn't equal the second you take the shot, also the time a play is ran

whoever came up with that idea is a dumbazz

at any point of time, one team is playing offense while the other is playing defense, both are equally important

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]why argue with jlauber, regulator and Shaq...he only has one agenda and despite all the knowledge he's acquired, it still seems like he is a bit of a liar, or at best delusional.

The guy disappeared for months after Reg embarrassed him, then came back on a rep gaining (through IM promises) mission...that tell's you a lot.

Those old posts tell me all I need to know. Either he watched that era and came to the conclusion that Russell sucked, which makes him an idiot, or he lied from the start about his age etc, which also makes him an idiot.[/QUOTE]

Be fair. This turn the world on who you disagree with is not cool. You disagree with him and that's all it is. Why must you always go at the person? Those that study a lot will have differences based on preconceptions. The more you know, the more you hype who you like. With GOAT its Russell, I think Regulator its Russell too, Shaq - Kareem, and JLauder - Wilt (Russell was ranked #1 with him since I've been on tho but he likes Wilt better which makes sense). You all are pretty much set in your ways.

Since he is talking about a different era, well an era that most of you have your favorite player in, it's good that he talks a lot about it. Others will be educated and learn something more about that time period. Its a real good time to educate and build. Since I know yall know this, JLauder a little better at handling disagreements than yal are and he's more accessible on each point. We know his preferred topic but he answers questions about everything, and in a civil manner I might add. Since his post are long, there are more opportunities to see inconsistencies. And his GOAT list is not set in stone either. I disagree with his list but we all have a different top ten. You know he's not crazy or delusional. You just disagree.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Be fair. This turn the world on who you disagree with is not cool. You disagree with him and that's all it is. Why must you always go at the person? Those that study a lot will have differences based on preconceptions. The more you know, the more you hype who you like. With GOAT its Russell, I think Regulator its Russell too, Shaq - Kareem, and JLauder - Wilt (Russell was ranked #1 with him since I've been on tho but he likes Wilt better which makes sense). You all are pretty much set in your ways.

Since he is talking about a different era, well an era that most of you have your favorite player in, it's good that he talks a lot about it. Others will be educated and learn something more about that time period. Its a real good time to educate and build. Since I know yall know this, JLauder a little better at handling disagreements than yal are and he's more accessible on each point. We know his preferred topic but he answers questions about everything, and in a civil manner I might add. Since his post are long, there are more opportunities to see inconsistencies. And his GOAT list is not set in stone either. I disagree with his list but we all have a different top ten. You know he's not crazy or delusional. You just disagree.[/QUOTE]

Read the things he's wrote, me and you disagree, that's fine, I respect your opinion and feel you show respect to mine, he just makes crap up and as Regul8tor exposed, probably not just about basketball. I have no problem with Jlauber's list or anyone's that's not what this is about.

Jlauber, shaqattack raises a question I've wondered myself as I've followed your conversations. On the one hand, you rank Russell higher, but on the other, it seems generally the case that you argue for Wilt and against Russell. If I hadn't seen your rankings, I'd be certain that you rank Wilt above Russ. Given that you rank Russell, i'd expect more of your arguments to sound like "I do value Russ' contributions to the team even more than Wilt's (or certainly no less), but I feel people tend to rag on Wilt a little excessively. Let me explain...."

So my question is, who do you rank higher, and why? Clearly both players are out-of-this-world talented, and few would rank either outside of their top 5 or 10. (Incidentally, ranking someone 10th out of roughly 4000 NBA players all-time places them in the 99.775th percentile; so it's hard to call that much of an insult, right?) I've assumed you've been addressing perceived slights to Wilt, and so you've been defensive of him. If we set that aside for a moment, who would you rank higher, Wilt or Russ?

One last thought: I think you tend to call Wilt the greatest individual player and Russell the greatest team player. if, however, we combine those categories, who do you rank higher overall?

So.. again, who do you rank higher overall and why, keeping in mind that it's not necessarily an insult to either to call the other greater?

[QUOTE=PHILA]

[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/262tzi9.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
They were having a dance off or something? WTF is up with the rest of the players? :oldlol:

The JLFakkit ownage here is staggering. Must be kept alive. :pimp: