You just said Center height while playing on the perimeter. Both did that
You know exactly what I was talking about, this dude is damn near dunking from the freethrow line in games after taking it coast to coast

You just said Center height while playing on the perimeter. Both did that

You ain't lying!!old nikkas was out there dunking on nikkas in chuck taylors....that aint easy


I said he was betterYou know exactly what I was talking about, this dude is damn near dunking from the freethrow line in games after taking it coast to coast![]()
I said he was better
It's not about being better, he's not the same as them, his athleticism is a huge step up over them especially defensively. He's an evolution which is what I was saying.
Can he play an entire game on the block...back to basket?
Shaq was an evolution as well. Hell, you can say Shaq was a physical evolution as opposed to a simple skill set change of modern players.

Or maybe he's just talking sense. That ever cross your mind?Such a smug, unctuous arrogant character.
Shyt on your own legacy as a player to defend a superteam, brethren.

nikka do you know how to read/count?Humans evolve in 30 years?![]()

Or maybe he's just talking sense. That ever cross your mind?![]()
Think you're arguing semantics. I highly doubt he means that human beings have evolved in such a short span of time. The game has evolved. The way we expect people 6'8 and higher to play and maneuver has changed.Yea cellular technology
He specifically said human evolution and in context with everything else he stated, let's not play dumb because the same argument has been said here
Im just in awe of it tho, to be honest. In a few decades we've physically "evolved" but only in athletics![]()
He's just regurgitating flawed, oversimplified and unimaginative sarcasm. Many pundits, some respected and others not as respected, have shytted on his take.


This is probably the most nonsensical thing I've read this week, and that's saying something because believe you me I've read some bullshyt. How exactly is it flawed? And even if it was "unimaginative", what's the difference if it was or wasn't? - that leads me to believe that you aren't viewing this shyt in an objective manner. Many pundits also agree with Kerr too, that point of bringing them up is what exactly?
What is wrong with his reasoning? Cause from where I'm sitting he's completely right.![]()
