The Official Dwayne Wade <<<<<< you thread

Harden went 5 for 19

Incredible

Freeza wrote:

ElG

What is your boy doing

Klay is being Klay

Jimmy Butler sitting out on his own request is the stuff of dreams

Luca wrote:Jimmy Butler sitting out on his own request is the stuff of dreams

He wad hungover. Just like half the other players.

Freeza wrote:

Luca wrote:Jimmy Butler sitting out on his own request is the stuff of dreams

He wad hungover. Just like half the other players.

Either way, its kind of hilarious. Lou Will tweeted at him saying 'like really bro?'

Luca wrote:

Freeza wrote:

Luca wrote:Jimmy Butler sitting out on his own request is the stuff of dreams

He wad hungover. Just like half the other players.

Either way, its kind of hilarious. Lou Will tweeted at him saying 'like really bro?'

Imagine Lou not getting in and then one of the players don’t wanna play

Poor Lou, but then again. Nobody wants to watch another Harden-like player in an All Star game.

I think there is a big sense of achievement to be named an All Star, particularly for someone like Lou Will who hasn't been there before. It's a big thing career wise and I'm sure it even factors into contract talks, like his 6th man award came into play

Whereas players like Jimmy, he has been there, fat contract, he definitely wants to be named an all star, just doesn't care to play

Anyways, Chris Paul should've been there and if they continue to go with the team captain format, then they should really get rid of having an equal number of players from the East and the West

I feel so out of touch with other Americans now.

I worked(production mode) during the all star game so I didnt see it, but was this:


really considered bad? It was done in a jazzy and sultry style. Hell, if you have ever been to a jazz club thats how they sing. It sounded great to me.

It looks like the guys were laughing because it was sexy, not that it was bad.

Probably one of the worst national anthems I ever heard

Bring back this:

Betty La Fea wrote:I feel so out of touch with other Americans now.

I worked(production mode) during the all star game so I didnt see it, but was this:


really considered bad? It was done in a jazzy and sultry style. Hell, if you have ever been to a jazz club thats how they sing. It sounded great to me.

It looks like the guys were laughing because it was sexy, not that it was bad.

As a non-American I absolutely hate your national song. Mainly because it’s played in front of god damn everything.

This was amazing because it was really bad. She couldn’t hit a single note all song. It was a sexy version that wouldn’t have worked either way, but damn she didn’t do well.

It was plain weird, and I’m all for it. Rather watch that. National anthems before matches where there’s international players is weird.

Luca wrote:Probably one of the worst national anthems I ever heard

Bring back this:

Why was it bad to you?

Because of the style?

I mean Marvin Gaye did the same thing in his style


Only difference is people there were young enough to know his style enough to appreciate it.

Freeza wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:I feel so out of touch with other Americans now.

I worked(production mode) during the all star game so I didnt see it, but was this:


really considered bad? It was done in a jazzy and sultry style. Hell, if you have ever been to a jazz club thats how they sing. It sounded great to me.

It looks like the guys were laughing because it was sexy, not that it was bad.

As a non-American I absolutely hate your national song. Mainly because it’s played in front of god damn everything.

This was amazing because it was really bad. She couldn’t hit a single note all song. It was a sexy version that wouldn’t have worked either way, but damn she didn’t do well.

It was plain weird, and I’m all for it. Rather watch that. National anthems before matches where there’s international players is weird.

It seems she hit the notes in the intended fashion if you listen to her moments with bass accompanyment. Its not opera where everything is set. Jazz is predacated on off beat(African) rhythmic styling and off-note "Blue" not styling patterns.

Its seems like people are mad not at her singing, but in the style in which she choose to sing it. Even Jazz singing greats like Elle Fitzgerald, who had pitch perfect singing, would occasionally sing songs off key for dramatic effect. It adds a sultry factory because arousal occurs in a speed/tonal drawl.

Her singing style has put food on the table for many jazz singers worldwide. This seems more like America being in a state of forgetting one of our biggest classical art forms.

Kind of tough to compare Fergie with Marvin Gaye though



But if you did really like it, then by all means, I'm not here to judge anyone's taste in singing or music

Luca wrote:Kind of tough to compare Fergie with Marvin Gaye though



But if you did really like it, then by all means, I'm not here to judge anyone's taste in singing or music

That version right here isnt done in a Jazz style.

If the 24hr media existed in 1983 Marvin gaye would be getting the exact same treatment that Fergie is getting because you can bet your last dollar the parents of Baby Boomers were not feeling that.

Its easier to appreciate the one in your video because thats an accepted standard of the song. Its very straight forward, every not on the dot. What Fergie and Marvin do is take risks with it.Marvin did it perfectly in soul, and I felt Fergie did the same in her Jazz Nighclub style lol.

Fergie puts a little sexiness to it. Drawls the tone, she takes you on a journey

Marvin Gaye is a great singer. Fergie is not. It has nothing about appreciating a style.

This was all bad. I have no emotional attachment to the song, just thought she was horrible.

On the other hand Marvin Gaye sings that version incredible. Hits all intended notes and doesn't sound weird.


I have absolutely no idea how you think this one sounds great

Freeza wrote:Marvin Gaye is a great singer. Fergie is not. It has nothing about appreciating a style.

This was all bad. I have no emotional attachment to the song, just thought she was horrible.

On the other hand Marvin Gaye sings that version incredible. Hits all intended notes and doesn't sound weird.


I have absolutely no idea how you think this one sounds great

Do you think the weird factor comes from Marvin signing it in a style that is more recognized for the masses now?

I would wager the vast majority of music listeners now either listened to, or had parents who listened to music, greatly inspired by soul and Rnb style. Fergie doesnt have that same prerequisite with her performance because those of us who attend jazz clubs, or grew up with that style of jazz, are relatively in smaller numbers due to niche and age(this generation is dying in America).

It sound really good to me. It was sexy too. I think that is why a lot of the guys, especially curry's, reaction was what it was when the screen panned to them. Its like: "$HIT...This is kinda hot."..Makes you feel shy

Well Charles Barkley did say "I needed a cigarette after that".

I just think she did some weird choices. She doesn't have the voice for the runs she decided to do and it just ended up sounding like that drunk woman in a karaoke bar trying to seduce you at 5am

Freeza wrote:Well Charles Barkley did say "I needed a cigarette after that".

I just think she did some weird choices. She doesn't have the voice for the runs she decided to do and it just ended up sounding like that drunk woman in a karaoke bar trying to seduce you at 5am

If the woman looks like fergie I am game

Betty La Fea wrote:

Freeza wrote:Marvin Gaye is a great singer. Fergie is not. It has nothing about appreciating a style.

This was all bad. I have no emotional attachment to the song, just thought she was horrible.

On the other hand Marvin Gaye sings that version incredible. Hits all intended notes and doesn't sound weird.


I have absolutely no idea how you think this one sounds great

I think that is why a lot of the guys, especially curry's, reaction was what it was when the screen panned to them. Its like: "$HIT...This is kinda hot."..Makes you feel shy

lol I can assure you that is not why the lads reacted in that way.

Thoughts on this 1-16 playoffs format change they spoke about during all star?

By all rights it should happen but realistically i think it's just lip service tbh.

The stumbling blocks we have to get through for it to happen.

1. The issue of East v West travel

2. Having to completely change the regular season schedule to prevent uneven seedings.

3. Having to extend the regular season because of the change to the playoffs.

4. Expecting the East teams to actually vote on it lmao.

If we somehow get through this it would be great for it to happen as we get the 16 best teams equalling to more unique matchups and the best matchups.

Not to mention it puts an increased priority on the regular season as you can't rely on being in a crap conference to make the finals, as for example the Cavs would be the 7th seed right now out of 16.

But i can't see the NBA getting around those 4 stumbling blocks tbh.

They need 5 east teams to vote for. Will never happen. They know they're shit.

I think they should delete these conferences all together. Travel is a poor excuse at times. Travel is not the same problem it used to be.

Bill Simmons had a great suggestion to solving this that would never happen

Seeds 1-7 are guaranteed. 1. seed get to pick their own opponents.

Meanwhile 8 seed is determined in a 1 game knockout tournament between the rest of the teams. Winner gets the first pick of the second round for winning + a MLE

It also doesn't make sense as to why right now they're thinking of implementing it now when all 16 playoff bound teams are above .500. I understood this talk when teams in the L'East were getting in with subpar records but now it just is what it is

But, I also think maybe its a proactive and ok move because imagine if LeBron goes to the West. What is the East really left with as a conference?

Luca wrote:It also doesn't make sense as to why right now they're thinking of implementing it now when all 16 playoff bound teams are above .500. I understood this talk when teams in the L'East were getting in with subpar records but now it just is what it is

But, I also think maybe its a proactive and ok move because imagine if LeBron goes to the West. What is the East really left with as a conference?

Records can be trusted in the current system. West teams has to face Rockets, Warriors more times per season. But yeah, it should be a somewhat fair schedule for this to work. Can't have west teams facing GSW 4 times while easst face them 2 times.

Still think it should happen even if the East was good tbh.

1-16 will always be better than conferences IMO, as because it will provide better and more unique match ups consistently than conferences will.

Ain't nobody got time for same matchups every year anymore.

Freeza wrote:

Luca wrote:It also doesn't make sense as to why right now they're thinking of implementing it now when all 16 playoff bound teams are above .500. I understood this talk when teams in the L'East were getting in with subpar records but now it just is what it is

But, I also think maybe its a proactive and ok move because imagine if LeBron goes to the West. What is the East really left with as a conference?

Records can be trusted in the current system. West teams has to face Rockets, Warriors more times per season. But yeah, it should be a somewhat fair schedule for this to work. Can't have west teams facing GSW 4 times while easst face them 2 times.

That's what i meant by changing the schedule, if you are to do 1-16 you have to make it an even playing field.

So the regular season has to change too.

Freeza wrote:

Luca wrote:It also doesn't make sense as to why right now they're thinking of implementing it now when all 16 playoff bound teams are above .500. I understood this talk when teams in the L'East were getting in with subpar records but now it just is what it is

But, I also think maybe its a proactive and ok move because imagine if LeBron goes to the West. What is the East really left with as a conference?

Records can be trusted in the current system. West teams has to face Rockets, Warriors more times per season. But yeah, it should be a somewhat fair schedule for this to work. Can't have west teams facing GSW 4 times while easst face them 2 times.

Yeah, I feel like the whole 'super max' contract was a way to entice players to stay put and not mega cuck to one team (which the West has better markets), but given how they began the season earlier to cut down on travel/playing fatigue from players by including less back to back games then I would be for it. It could be as simple as playing the same team twice in a row, away

But we'll see what happens. It's about making the most competitive and interesting playoff layout so I like it but I never struggle to enjoy watching playoff basketball, except for maybe the Cavs megacucking teams 4-0, but as do the Warriors