[mad]

Dick dick

[slacker00]

dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick

[mad]

there is no way onlooka makes it threw the thread and remembrs the original question.

LMAO,
Tits =
Shit = shit

shit shit shit shit rooster

[mad]

How come you can say rooster but not dick?

[bigboydan]

are you sure you guys aren't trying to spell "prick"

[Illusion]

How come you can say rooster but not dick?

Dick is a harmless word and should be allowed. Everytime I type Andy Roddick dick pops up (no pund intended)

[onlooker]

Funny stuff guys. Here you go Brick.

ESPN.com came to me with a question: Which player would you choose to start a team, Adam Morrison or J.J. Redick?

My first reaction was … why do we have to choose? Can't we just enjoy two of the finest skill players in the game and marvel at their talents?


When you choose, you have to put down one player. When you choose, you automatically have to separate. Why would we want to separate these two? They should grace the cover of every magazine together. We shouldn't feel the need to separate or choose.

But the question still stands.

Well, let me ask you a question. Which player would you choose, Magic Johnson or Larry Bird? The truth is, it really doesn't matter. You will win with either one -- and win at the very highest level. You will get a great competitor and a player who can make the unusual seem routine. When either is on the floor, you can expect something great.

On the college level, that is true of Redick and Morrison. Both are supremely skilled shooters and scorers with every shot in the book. Both are incredible competitors and will not allow their teams to lose. Both are graceful and multi-faceted off the floor. Both are well-read and thoughtful people who belie the stereotypes of an athlete.

With all that said, if you point a gun to my temple and make me choose, I will take Redick. No player in college basketball has answered the bell more often under tougher circumstances than he has. While he may miss, he always answers the bell and never chokes. He takes a pounding, but winds up dishing out more with his skill level than defenders can lay on him physically. He has a great pace and quickness of action to his game, and he has a cold heart and a calculating mind as a competitor. He never panics, but always delivers under pressure. He is college basketball's version of Tiger Woods, and he handles that awesome responsibility with great dignity. Redick is a target, but he is the one who usually hits the bull's-eye.

Usually, when one is so proficient, the contemporary thought is that there has been nobody better. Well, I have racked my brain for shooters who were better than Redick on the college level. The closest one I can come up with is Mark Price of Georgia Tech, but I don't think Price was better than Redick. He may have been a better player, but not a better shooter. The only one I can point to statistically is Arizona's Salim Stoudamire, who hit shots at an uncanny percentage and with similar difficulty. Stoudamire may have been just as good, and has a good argument for being better. Indiana's Steve Alford would be right there with Redick, but better? It's a close call to choose one over the other.

Listen, Morrison makes a great case, too. He is the new John Havlicek, and … aw, go ahead and pull the trigger. I don't want to choose.

[pags11]

good stuff guys...