State of the point
by dubzfan on Jul 20, 2009 9:39 PM PDT
Email
Print
After watching the summer league games I have been torn on Curry. He is a very smart player, good defender and a deadly shooter when he is hot. But he also has very poor shot selection and I really did not see him be a facilitator. I was impressed with how many steals he got and shocked me on defense with how active he was. On the glass it seemed like the ball bounced his way more often then he went after it. On the other hand we still have not seen what Ellis can do playing point for us fulltime and who knows, maybe he is the point guard of the future and Curry is the shooting guard. I think we exagerate it when we talk about him like a franchise player. He did not show me anything in the summer league I wanted to see. I still have hope for him and I think he will be a solid player but he won't be an all star or lead a team. Leave that to Ellis and Randolph. Now it was only summer league and he will have much more weapons in the regular season with Jackson, Randolph, Ellis, Biedrins, Maggette, Azebuike, Morrow etc. It's possible that Curry is a great off the bench player in his career aswell. I will be honest though, heading into the draft I really wanted Flynn. But he did not fall to us and at that point I knew Curry was on his way. He is a big risk becuase we wanted a pure point guard , maybe he will become that in time but he may have to change his thinking from taking a ton of shots and dishing when needed to becoming a balanced player. He still has alot to do in terms of being our point guard. We don't have room for another player taking fifteen or twenty shots a game when we already have Ellis, Randolph, Jackson, and Maggette. But his and our future can only get brighter. No matter who starts at point I am sure that this year we will once again be a team in the playoff hunt. With a great bench, two all stars in the making, a coach on his way to a milestone and the best fans in the league the Warriors will be back this year.
We Believe 2.0
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why would Curry start over Azibuike and Morrow?
Curry can shoot, but AM and KA were 1 and 2 in NBA 3pt% last year, they shoot pretty well too.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Jul 20, 2009 10:05 PM PDT reply actions
Shot selection
This is what Steph needs to work on, take better/smarter shots.
It is the shoes!!!
by LighTz707OuT on Jul 20, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions
because there's more than 3 pt%
We need a floor leader on the court. Curry could be that player.
Plus, though Buike and Morrow hit a high percentage from 3 last year, they also didn’t hit a particularly high total number of 3’s, so their top 5 status is a little deceptive.
by eastbayglory on Jul 21, 2009 5:09 AM PDT up reply actions
I’d say efficiency is much more important than hit totals when it comes to long-range shooting. The more you hit usually correlates to many more attempts (and many more misses as a result). Would you rather have a guy take 200 threes and make 60 or take 100 threes and make 40?
“I’d say efficiency is much more important than hit totals when it comes to long-range shooting.”
They’re both important factors, especially when you’re talking about above average shooters. Every shot they take helps the team. More shots = very good thing. More efficiency = very good thing.
by Missing Barry on Jul 21, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
More shots = very good thing?
That’s called volume shooting. I wouldn’t even call that a good thing unless you’re only taking smart shots and hitting them consistently (see: efficiency). If attempting many threes is a “very good thing,” Jamal Crawford would’ve been our best shooter last season just for chucking 6 threes a game.
Yes, both are obviously important to shooting threes. However, efficiency does a lot more in contributing to winning basketball than volume shooting. Most of the time when it comes to shooters you’ll get either an efficient shooter or a volume shooter. Very rarely will you get both. With that said, I’ll take the efficient shooter any day.
You completely missed the point of my post. I specifically said if a player shoots above average (or if you want to put it, scores efficiently), more shots = very good thing. Each shot that player takes helps the team. How much more efficiently that player scores than his teammates determines how much each shot helps his team win. Combine the two, multiplying how many shots he takes by how much each one helps the team and you get the players scoring contribution. Hence, both factors are important.
On the flip side, if said player shoots below average (or scores inefficiently), like Jamal Crawford, you can do a similar thing. How many shots do they take and how much less efficiently do they shoot? Multiply the shots by how inefficient they are to find how much they hurt the team.
Essentially I was comparing two players who both score efficiently. Do you want the player that scores more efficiently or the one who shoots more often? It depends on how strong each player is in each factor.
by Missing Barry on Jul 21, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with your point now that you explain your arguement
But you missed the point of my initial reply since we’re talking about two different groups of players. You included only above average shooters in your arguement, I included shooters in general. I was responding to the claim that Morrow and Buike’s top 5 shooting status is suspect because they “didn’t hit a particularly high total of threes,” reasoning that I think is a bunch of crap honestly. So I pointed out that efficiency is more important than how many a shots a player actually makes with the assumption that we’re ranking anyone who can chuck the three.
Yeah, it seems we’re more or less on the same page now, I just thought because we’re talking about Morrow and Buike being two of the top shooters in the league, it was ok to limit the group we’re discussing to good shooters (those same top shooters in the league). I think when comparing the best shooters, the amount of shots they take should be an important factor we consider, so I agree with eastbayglory’s point that they aren’t necessarily as good as their ranking indicates (though obviously they are good shooters).
by Missing Barry on Jul 22, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m not too sure about that. Of 60 players who made at least 100 threes last season, only about 20 of them shot over .400 from behind the arc, and only one player at exactly .450. If we use the statistical law of large numbers, these 60 players should be making closer to .500 based on their larger sample sizes if they were truely “elite” shooters. This just proves the trend that players who take more threes are more likely to miss and really decrease their efficiency.
It’s possible to have both efficiency with volume shooting, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a guy in the next few years who will lead the league in both percentage and makes. It’s really up to individual taste to see which is more important in determining who is elite and who isn’t.
“If we use the statistical law of large numbers, these 60 players should be making closer to .500 based on their larger sample sizes if they were truely "elite" shooters. This just proves the trend that players who take more threes are more likely to miss and really decrease their efficiency.”
Really not following what you’re trying to say here. Good shooters should shoot close to .500 from 3? I’m not sure I see any evidence that taking more 3’s decreases a players shooting %, though I can certainly see some reasoning why that would happen (more shots coud = higher difficulty shots).
In the end it’s still about the rate at which you shoot (number of shots taken) and efficiency of each shot. If you figure out how many more shots a player takes than average, and how much more each individual shot helps than average, all you have to do is multiply them to get a players total contribution (shooting-wise) above an average player. So when talking about the best shooters, my opinion is we should credit the player’s whose total shooting contribution are highest.
by Missing Barry on Jul 22, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions
My grasp on statistics isn't really that great, so my reasoning will probably have a few flaws to it:
Really not following what you’re trying to say here. Good shooters should shoot close to .500 from 3?
When flipping a coin, you’ll either get heads or tails with a 50% probability of getting either result. Shooting a basketball follows the same probability; you either make it or you miss, 50% chance both ways. When performing the trials initially, numbers will not result in exactly 50-50 thanks to a smaller sample size. You may get 1 of 10 or even 9 of 10 in your first 10 attempts.
But the law of large numbers in statistics suggest that over time the number of heads or tails (or in shooting, makes or misses) should logically come closer to 50-50 as the number of trials increase. For whatever reason, players who take more shots don’t follow this trend and often won’t come close to making 50% of them. This apparently shows that players who take more shots miss a lot more than they should. As you said, there is a confounding variable like shot difficulty, but players who consistently shoot a lot of contested 20 footers shouldn’t be considered good shooters anyway.
In the end, I could agree to this:
So when talking about the best shooters, my opinion is we should credit the player’s whose total shooting contribution are highest.
Though “total shooting contribution” is a very tough/vague value to measure, that’s probably the best way to look at it besides looking at percentage or 3PTM/A.
Well, you have some grasp of the concepts, but shooting a basketball isn’t a 50-50 probability situation. If it was, you’d be right. There are only two possible outcomes, true, but the chances of them happening are not equal. Jason Kapono and Steve Kerr have the highest career 3-point % in basketball history at 45.4%, so the probability of a miss is greater than a make.
“Though "total shooting contribution" is a very tough/vague value to measure, that’s probably the best way to look at it besides looking at percentage or 3PTM/A.”
It takes a bit of effort, and surely isn’t an easy thing to calculate with the available information we have, but the math for it really isn’t that hard. Come up with some “replacement level” for 3-point % and 3-point shooting rate – that is, the perform we’d expect out of whoever would substitute in for the person we’re trying to measure, maybe set league average for the position as replacement level? Then take the difference between the player you want to measure and the hypothetical “replacement player”, do a little simple multiplication and bingo, you got your shooting contribution of the player in relation to what you’d expect without said player. Effort…yes, difficult? Not really.
Of course, we run into some problems with our assumptions, like how freely available is said “replacement player”? We also don’t take into account team context – on a team with an efficient offense the shot rate is less important relative to the shooting %, whereas on a team with an inefficient offense the shot rate is more important relative to the shooting %. I’m sure with some thought I could think of some more problems…but you get the idea. It would still be a good starting point for evaluating players, though.
by Missing Barry on Jul 22, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly, but to this I would only like to add
there is a lot more area outside of the hoop than inside, so the probability that it hits the exact mark and swishes through is like .1%? and the probability that it hits the rim and bounces in is about 5%? So if you shoot over 5.1% you are an above average shooter!
Ok obviously I am being a little facetious here, but there is no way that it is a 50/50 event. Go throw a random sample of 100 basketballs up in the air while you are standing around a 3 point line and see if 50 of them go in the basketball hoop.
Realistically though, you can miss left, right, short, long (too high up for the backboard to bounce it in), air ball it completely. So assuming you could throw a ball plus or minus 3’’ of where you wanted it to land, the chances of it going in are 1/4??? then you must account for the backboard and the fact that some people can do better and some people cant do 3’’ either way. Plus, you are taking the average of paid professionals who make their living shooting a basketball. Take your average Joe and he makes about 10% or less copletely unguarded. Thats not exactly 50/50.
None of us knows diddley!
Until we see Curry play in November, none of us has a CLUE as to how he’s going to perform.
Hardaway was totally under the radar until he started playing, then BAM a rookie star.
Richmond – under the radar then Rookie of the Year
Curry could absolutely blow up and be a superstar. Or he could be Monte Ellis in his rookie season. Sit awhile then show flashes when he gets PT. Or he could crap out and be Acie Law.
CJ factor & expenses help Curry
Curry is going to play, and play PG at least a significant amount if not most of his PT, and the likelihood of GS not matching Watson’s Magic offer helps his case:
Carrying four point guards is probably excessive for the Warriors, who, according to a team source, are looking to cut expenses by carrying 14 players instead of the maximum 15. Law is already set to make just over $2 million. If Watson gets a deal in that ballpark, the Warriors would be paying more than $4 million for a third-string player. MT (Oak Tribune)
Had CJ not gotten a better offer he might have been bleeding minutes away from Curry at the PG. As it stands if Watson departs for Orlando Curry will be the primary backup to Monta and get significant burn. Hoping or expecting Curry to step in as the starting PG this season would be an astronomical stretch except in an injury situation. He is not bursting on the scene as a relative unknown and hasn’t had the depth of experience (nor killer cross-over) that other rookie PGs had.
In many ways, backing up Monta would be the perfect scenario for Curry – even better than a backup QB in the NFL. He’s going to have less pressure to perform out of the gate, yet will play regularly. He’ll be measured against a combo guard learning the PG position rather than an experienced NBA PG, and he’ll play with veterans in supporting roles at SG & SF.
That GS is looking to cut payroll isn’t surprising – most teams are considering same. But that bodes doubly well for Curry as the dubs won’t likely bring in a Miller or another alternative at PG that would be more expensive ( or competitive ) than CJ. Law is either an expiring contract for subsequent dealing or an inexpensive 3rd string backup all year. Either way Curry shouldn’t be hearing footsteps behind him, and should be pretty comfortable in his role.
by hardcore on Jul 20, 2009 11:34 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I actually think Curry will be a bust.
I think he’ll end up being a decent shooter but won’t live up to all the hype of him being such a great college player coming into the league. I wouldn’t get mad if he proved me wrong, though. I hope he ends up being a great pick for the Warriors. I’ve seen people compare him to Steve Nash; not a lot of athleticism, but can shoot the ball and pass. I don’t really have a sure expectation for him, I call him a bust now but I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up becoming a star.
Stephen Curry and Anthony Morrow, finalists in the 2010 NBA Three Point contest?
by Precise Films Productions on Jul 20, 2009 11:39 PM PDT reply actions
That’s the safest, most conservative way to call a player a bust. Curry’s too good to be a bust. He’s super composed, has NBA genes, and understands the game. He won’t be a bust. I rarely make predictions but this time I will. He won’t be a bust.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 21, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
He hasn't played a single NBA game yet
its not fair to call someone a bust if they haven’t played a game. Yes his shot selection needs improvement but all rookies need improvements. It may seem his assists were low because his teammates kept missing easy shots.
Stop.......... Hammertime!!!!!
by MR. Bigshot 123 on Jul 21, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions
"It may seem his assists were low because his teammates kept missing easy shots."
but dude his turnovers were high, throughout his years in college he has been turnover prone… i’m not going to say curry is a bust. However, IMO he has been disappointing thus far.
but dude, when the ball is in your hands most of the time, you’re gonna have a higher turnover number.
look at who lead the league in TO’s last year
SF/SG Stephen Jackson , GSW 3.9
G Dwyane Wade , MIA 3.4
PG Deron Williams , UTA 3.4
PG Steve Nash , PHX 3.4
PG *Russell Westbrook , OKC 3.3
Cap’n lead the league last year, but that was a result of putting the ball in the hands of veteran with bad handles who isn’t a point guard.
then you have dwade who has to dominate the ball.
then the next 3 are PGs…who the last time i check, were considered good point guards.
by hellafornia on Jul 22, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
"then the next 3 are PGs…who the last time i check, were considered good point guards"
the thing is D. Wills and Steve Nash both have good assist to turnover perctages(proly russel westbrook too, but i dont really pay attention to the OKC), becuase they both average about 10 Assist or more to about 3 Turnovers… wich is a good assist to turnover rate. But in 3 years of college Curry only averaged 3.7 assist to 3.03 turnovers… wich is a low amount of assist and a high amount of turnovers. Those stats basically indicate that there is a 50% chance he will toss a turn over, becuase his assist to turnover rate is basically 1 to 1. That is a horrible rate for a PG.
I think pretty much everyone gets your argument for a poor A/TO ratio. It certainly is horrible for a PG. The real question, and this is where it gets difficult, is what to expect from him in the future? Will his college A/T ratio translate into the pros? Will his game change now that he’s not in the situation he was in at Davidson (being more talented than everyone on the court AND having terrible teammates)? Everyone likes to point to the past as part of their argument, but the past is only relevant in what it can tell us about the future, which is what we really care about. Unfortunately, predicting the future is hard. :)
by Missing Barry on Jul 22, 2009 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I think that he will become a starter eventually this season
It’s just a matter of when unless we are like tearing it up early. I think if he is playing well we have a better shot of winning with him in the lineup.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
THIS DOESN'T MATTER
These kinds of posts bother me a little because they don’t get to the core of the issue. The starting 5 of the Warriors will always be fluid, minutes in the rotation is more the question to consider.
It will change over the year. Lets just hope that Curry plays into the starting line-up, because, though I love Buike and Morrow, no team with them starting is ever going to win anything big in this league. Sorry to hurt everybody’s feelings!! They are nice role players, but I’d imagine by the end of the year, Curry will be playing 25 per and they’ll be playing about 20. Plus, Ellis is not a point. He doesn’t have the instincts or the charisma, which is fine, he’s a baller and a true scorer.
i guess...
but really Curry isnt a pointguard either… in college he had a horrible assist to turnover ratio, and was just a scorer really. Even in summer league he had a bad assist to turnover ratio… i watched the summer league games, i dont see why you guys think he has such good court vision or a high bbiq, he just seemed very average. Personally i dont think he is going to starting 5 this season, he isnt really NBA ready physically. IMO he well be lucky to be ahead of bellani in the rotation… IF DON NELSON EVEN PLAYS HIM. Lets not forget don nelson doesnt give rookies much playtime.
playing the rookies
Nelson will play rookies – see Timmy, Mitch, CWebb, … just last season he started a rookie PG in the opener hoping he’d spark the team. If a rookie is the best option he’ll play him.
I do think Curry probably needs a significant amount of work at PG before he really learns to do it effectively at an NBA level, but he does seem to have the natural traits the PG’s tend to have – the vision and understanding of the game to effectively get teammates involved by creating good shots for them. I don’t think looking at his college AST/TO ratio is useful at all, if you ever watched Davidson play, it was Curry and a bunch of terrible players. Curry forcing things and taking a bad shot was a better scenario than his teammates shots of any kind.
by Missing Barry on Jul 21, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I heard he actually had pretty good strength measures at the combine workouts.
But yeah, I am a little skeptical of his good court vision/passing ability personally, I haven’t seen it nearly as much as people say it exists. There’s a good chance it comes from him making his name as a shooting guard, but when I watch him play point he looks like he’s forcing it, and he would be more comfortable at SG.
I don’t think he gets much playing time initially either, but we’ll see. He is Nelson’s guy, so some time this year he will probably get a shot.
“I heard he actually had pretty good strength measures at the combine workouts.”
T-rex arms!
by Missing Barry on Jul 22, 2009 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Why is everyone so down on Curry? Once he gets to know his teammates well, he’ll be good and get lots of assists.
Nelli can spot his PG when he sees one and that’s why he’s all over Curry.
i absolutely 100% agree with you
Stop.......... Hammertime!!!!!
by MR. Bigshot 123 on Jul 21, 2009 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Curry
The reason there down on Curry is because they can’t evaluate talent:
I think most people are just being swayed by the low shooting %, they failed to see what he really brings to the table:
What we need right now is someone who has the ability to run the team, a true floor general, that has the ability to see the court, the knack for making the great pass, and control the ball and tempo, and that is exactly what I seen in supper league, his assists would have been triple what it was if he had been playing with people who were making their shots.
Also, he has the ability to get to the basket almost anytime he wants and is a good finisher.
The other option is his long range shooting, he’s well known for his outside shot, so he is always a triple threat with the ball in his hands:
But what I see as his main attribute is his BBIQ and mental toughness, he can handle the pressure, run a team, make the great play, were in for some exciting basketball, no need to be down on Curry for goodness saks, this guy is the bomb!!
Point guard is one of the hardest positions to learn in the NBA.
So looking at Curry’s summer-league performance (when, incidentally, he seemed to be a lot better on the ball than off of it) and having a full-fledged panic attack is just silly.
Do not expect Curry to step in and be the second coming of Jason Kidd, or, heck, for that matter, Tim Hardaway.
Give him some room to learn. The transition from small-college ball to the NBA is big enough.
The issue isn’t whether he’s an NBA-quality starting point at the end of training camp, by midseason, or heck, even by next summer. The question is only if he develops into one over the next couple of years.
by Ronaldinho on Jul 22, 2009 10:18 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
True
But why do we want to wait a couple MORE years? We have waited long enough and we have “developed” players for 15 years. Look where that got us.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
Impatience is a stupid strategy
The problem is not that we have “developed” enough players. The problem is, in fact, quite the opposite. We haven’t developed enough.
Monta, Biedrins, and Randolph are the players the Warriors have developed. Not coincidentally, they’re our three most valuable players.
The “win now” mentality says go after big free agents … which almost invariably means overpaying them. That’s how we got Maggette, after all.
Ultimately, whether we won a championship or not recently should have ZERO impact on the player moves we make today. Whether we’ve made the playoffs 14 times in the last 15 or once in the last 15 years should have zero impact on the moves we make today.
Part of the problem is that the team has made some poor choices about which players to develop over the last 15 years. Clearly, the team failed to develop Dunleavy into a good enough player. Likewise Murphy. But what you are suggesting is, basically, arguing against Curry because of what happened to Dunleavy. Isn’t that pretty dumb?
Sure, if there’s a big trade or FA signing that could bring us wins, now, that might be a wise decision (depending on how much we had to give up). But it’s not like Jennings is a sure-fire rookie starter PG. He’s a player who’s going to need to develop, too.
In case you didn’t notice, there wasn’t a ready-right-now, sure-fire above-average NBA PG available in the draft, period … much less at #7. (Rubio is going to need a few years, too …)
I never said Jennings would start
But your right point guards do take some time to develop but I am just so tired of having a team that has been bad for so long. I think this team will have a winning record but after what Cohan and Rowell have put us through I think we deserve better then that. We will see how Curry does but it was questionable that we drafted a player who takes so many shots compared to a pass first type player but only time will tell if these players will be any good.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
PG Curry
No problem here, it will take several years for his game to develop and to get into his prime.
But I just want to be the first one on record to say that Curry will take over the point and lead this team like a pro in his first season, there is something about his quite confidence and demeanor on the count that shows me that he is a fierce competitor and a winner.
I think it will take less than a month for him to settle into the leading PG roll.
I think his shooting was an aberration, he was pressing to come up big for the fans, that will even out, I expect he will ignite the crowds with his style of play and abilty to control the tempo.
I have either gone blind all of a sudden out of endless hope, or I am seeing another star in the makings. I just don’t see many players that have all his qualities in one package: the shooting, the driving, the passing, the mental toughness, the control: and he’s just starting out.
Sky’s the limit: his disappointing shooting performance will turn out to be his biggest blessing.
Yeah everyone
always says it’s just summer league when someone does good so why is it different if a top pick doesn’t shoot well it’s just summer league. Everyone was keying in on Curry and while he wasn’t a superstar he played ok as a PG and showed a little ability of the many skills he has. Not all the top players in the league dominated in summer league, many players take time to adjust to the NBA. Curry is in a different situation having a dad playing in the NBA for 16 seasons always being around the NBA life style all his life, so some adjustments for other rookies won’t bother him as much. I think Curry will still take a month or 2 before he starts really playing pretty good for us as a rookie, but i trust Nellies judgement on Curry so i feel Curry will eventually become a top PG in the NBA. I hope that Curry along with Randolph become house held names in the NBA. I think if Curry reaches his potential he could average 20 to 24 points with 10 to 11 assists with 2 steals and 4 or 5 rebounds.
Curry
Those are superstar numbers: and some of his best skills don’t show on the stat sheet, his ability to control the tempo of a game, I never seen a rookie what was so cool and complete like this for a new PG guard.
In three years he will be an all star:
Your hear it right here first from Da Grump!!!
Yeah those are
superstar numbers but isn’t that his ceiling, and then he could still grow 2 more inches so he will be a tall PG. I’m hopeful everything works out with Curry cause we might have got a Future All NBA talent in June
Those are superstar numbers?
Numbers? He don’t have any numbers, kid has not played one game yet! At least wait til the end of his rookie year and then talk about his numbers. Worked for Marco and Rudolf so it will work for Curr-bury.
" I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 22, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Septic =)
Do you think we don’t know that he hasn’t PLAYED AN NBA GAME YET rotfl =)
These are projected numbers, that a fellow poster made, I merrily pointed out those were superstar numbers and said in a few years I can see that:
You always looking to rain an everyone’s party, must be a misrable lief eh =)
I merrily pointed out those were superstar numbers
Perhaps a touch too merrily? ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 23, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I merrily pointed out those were superstar numbers
haha, yeah I’m pretty sure superstar numbers are what you find in the NBA record books not what some guy pulls outta his ass?
" I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 24, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
must be a misrable lief eh =)
Naw, reality is great, try it sometime.
" I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 23, 2009 9:07 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
