PDA

View Full Version : Danny at the 4



SoupIsGood
10-21-2005, 12:06 AM
I think Frank brought this up in the game thread. With Rick looking to make Danny a 3/4, and not a 3/2, despite what our needs roster-wise would dictate, AND the rebounding, blocking, and low post scoring (sort of) skills that Danny has shown so far.....

Is there any chance his best position is Power Forward?

He's a shade under 6' 9, although if he could add a bit more bulk, he might not be -drastically- undersized.


Opinions?

Anthem
10-21-2005, 12:12 AM
Not sure I understand the question.

What would our roster needs dictate?

SoupIsGood
10-21-2005, 12:13 AM
Not sure I understand the question.

What would our roster needs dictate?

Oops.

Just pretend I didn't write that part. :blush:

Unclebuck
10-21-2005, 12:14 AM
I remember saying at the forum party in early July that Granger would play a lot of power forward. After seeing Danny play and knowing the Pacers injury situation, I think He'll get more minutes at power forward than he'll get at small forward.

8.9_seconds
10-21-2005, 12:17 AM
I think that Danny is a Magic Johnson Type, not in the PG sense, but he'll play were he's needed to play. Now to classify him, I would say SF, you can cover all bases there, I think that a 3 can play in either a 2 or 4 spot. I mean this by just as a classification for a program or roster.

If he can improve his outside shooting, I would rather he be a SF too. I think that having him as an option for the PF is nice, but shouldn't be his go to postion automatically. Now, if he can emerge from the PF as an awesome player, more power to him............

So I guess that I really didn't answer anything, but that Danny can Really play anywhere needed within the 2-4 region.

Frank Slade
10-21-2005, 12:39 AM
I remember saying at the forum party in early July that Granger would play a lot of power forward. After seeing Danny play and knowing the Pacers injury situation, I think He'll get more minutes at power forward than he'll get at small forward.

Yep looks likd DG will get some nice minutes at the 4, his versatilty really almost transcends one position but he seems to be a nice fit at the 4 what a great added benefit he will be , he actually could give a Artest and JO both a breather.. or at times be on the court all at the same time.

pizza guy
10-21-2005, 12:47 AM
That's probably the best comparison I've seen yet. Magic could just flat play the game. He wasn't a specialist at one thing or another, just a basketball player, and truthfully so were Jordan and Bird. Now, that's pretty lofty company for a rookie that has yet to score an official point that counts for anything, but, it's sort of how I feel about DG. I'm not saying he's the "next great superstar" or anything, just that his game is like that of those guys because of all-around talent and ability. He's not just a scorer, not just a passer, not just a rebounder or shot blocker, he's a little bit of everything rolled into one 6'8" package. Now, should he develope that and grow above "good at everything" to "great at everything," we've got a franchise player.

I love watching him play, he seems to be around the ball all the time. Whether he's a 2, 3, 4, or whatever, he wants the ball and knows what to do when he's got it. Guys like this are hard to classify because they've learned multiple positions. I just read an article about football players with this ability to play different spots. They were dubbed "Swiss Army Players," and that's what I feel DG is. He's there for whatever you need.

ChicagoJ
10-21-2005, 01:09 AM
I still think we need a dependable SF, and since that's his best/ natural position, we should leave him there.

317Kim
10-21-2005, 06:26 AM
I think whatever works for him. He got another double double last night! :woohoo:Danny!

Kaufman
10-21-2005, 08:25 AM
I'm for playing a guy at his natural position. You don't ask the janitor at school to teach a few classes, in between cleaning out the bathroom? Then why ask a guy to play a position he's not naturally talented at?

naptownmenace
10-21-2005, 08:54 AM
I posted this yesterday and to summerize, Danny is a lot like Shawn Marion.

His natural position is SF but because of his combination of speed, strength, and basketball IQ the transition to PF is an easy one. Shawn sure didn't seem to miss much by switching to PF, in fact his rebounding numbers and blocks increased while still maintaining his normal 2 steals per game.

I think that Danny's best position might be PF. He poses a huge mismatch on offense for his defender and he can hold his own defensively against many of the PF in the league.

Another player he reminds me of is Robert Horry - a SF that learned that he plays his best when matched up with other PFs.

sixthman
10-21-2005, 08:57 AM
I'm for playing a guy at his natural position. You don't ask the janitor at school to teach a few classes, in between cleaning out the bathroom? Then why ask a guy to play a position he's not naturally talented at?

False analogy. If it is turning out Danny is a baller who can make the team better when he plays at any of four positions, you make sure he plays whenever he can help the team.

Kaufman
10-21-2005, 09:30 AM
No I agree with that, but I think he's most affective in the 3. I'm not sure that with his frame, he'll be that good of a 4. I don't see that guy guarding most of the bigger 4s in the league. And I don't know that he'll be able to post a lot of them either.

sixthman
10-21-2005, 09:40 AM
No I agree with that, but I think he's most affective in the 3. I'm not sure that with his frame, he'll be that good of a 4. I don't see that guy guarding most of the bigger 4s in the league. And I don't know that he'll be able to post a lot of them either.

I think Naptown Menace probably nailed it:


His natural position is SF but because of his combination of speed, strength, and basketball IQ the transition to PF is an easy one. Shawn [Marion) sure didn't seem to miss much by switching to PF, in fact his rebounding numbers and blocks increased while still maintaining his normal 2 steals per game.

I think that Danny's best position might be PF. He poses a huge mismatch on offense for his defender and he can hold his own defensively against many of the PF in the league.

Another player he reminds me of is Robert Horry - a SF that learned that he plays his best when matched up with other PFs.

ChicagoJ
10-21-2005, 10:38 AM
I haven't seen enough of Granger yet - we call that "overloaded at work".

There's actually a top-secret project here to either (1) clone me, or (2) change the speed of the earth's revolution to make a 36-hour day.

I digress...

I'm concerned about Granger defending the big PFs - the Duncans of the world.

I assume you guys are proposing JO at center.

IMO, JO/Granger/Artest as a starting frontcourt is a bit undersized.

Not as bad as a Foster/JO/Artest starting frontcourt, but too small, IMO.

I'd still prefer Harrison in the mix than shifting both JO and Granger.

Unclebuck
10-21-2005, 11:25 AM
Slick last night was salivating at watching a front line of J.O., Bender and Granger

owl
10-21-2005, 11:48 AM
And have Ron guard the 2.


owl

Frank Slade
10-21-2005, 01:08 PM
And have Ron guard the 2.


owl

This is possible i think he is no stranger to guarding the 2 guard or even small quicker combo guard somtimes . Once Ron gets into the season, I suspect the added bulk will dissapear. So the story line of Artest at the 4 has now faded with the pleasant emergence of Granger at that spot, if this lineup has any length of success. what does this mean for Jax? less minutes? and if so how much less?

Just something to think about..

Believe_in_blue
10-21-2005, 01:46 PM
It all depends on if Granger keeps playing well into the regular season and if bender stays healthy. If this happens, IMO it doesn't matter who gets what mintutes where, we will be a better basketball team.

Kaufman
10-21-2005, 07:01 PM
I think that Granger is going to push someone's minutes way waaaay down, hopefully the team will be able to handle that. Has anyone considered Granger playing a 2 guard sort of role? I know he's a boarder but I also think he's a shooter... I don't know what his defense is quite like.

Anthem
10-21-2005, 08:08 PM
Jay, did I understand you right? You think a frontline of Foster/JO is smaller than a frontline of JO/Granger?

Naptown Seth
10-22-2005, 04:22 AM
Granger reminds me of Andrei Kirilenko a bit. Same size, same skill-set. Grangers not quite, and will probably never be, the shot blocker AK is, however he is a better rebounder and has shown more offensive skills.

Jim R
10-22-2005, 08:48 AM
I think Frank brought this up in the game thread. With Rick looking to make Danny a 3/4, and not a 3/2, despite what our needs roster-wise would dictate, AND the rebounding, blocking, and low post scoring (sort of) skills that Danny has shown so far.....

Is there any chance his best position is Power Forward?

He's a shade under 6' 9, although if he could add a bit more bulk, he might not be -drastically- undersized.


Opinions?

Ultimately, he'll be a SF who can post, much like what Artest is. With Granger's length and bounce he'll have the inches to create mismatches, and as he gains strength he'll be helped in the low post on both ends.

Where he gets into trouble is with the dribble. He gets done in two or three dribbles what should take one or two. Granger has had problems reading the defense as it collapses on his dribble from the perimeter. What makes the low post a good option for him is it limits his options. He still has options, but from there he can definitely focus on using one dribble (if any at all) to get separation, which he can get vertically.

As he improves his shot from the perimeter, defenses will have to close out tighter. He'll have to do more with his first dribble. As he improves his efficiency with the ball, he'll have more room to create separation from his man with that dribble.

This is often a natural progression, not unlike what Artest went though, even though he tends to just pound the ball for the sake of pounding it--backing down defenders from 18 feet. Artest was either a low post threat or a catch and shoot guy (not that he was hugely accurate a couple of years ago). He's improved his ability to score off one dribble, as well as his range.

It's better to be a "combo" 3/4 (any position) than a 'tweener 3/4. A combo 3/4 means a player has the natural position of a SF but can also produce as a PF against PF's. That could be Artest. A 'tweener 3/4 doesn't really have a position, Croshere, maybe Bender but he has the potential to a combo 4/3. Kevin Garnett is a combo 4/3.

If Granger can progress into a combo 3/4 and do it without eccentricities of Artest, that will provide the Pacers with a big chip to deal.

Unclebuck
10-22-2005, 09:43 AM
I canot ever forseee the day when Granger will play shooting guard. If Jax, Fred, AJ and Saras all get injured, I see Ron playing shooting guard before Granger does. He's best inside or in the midrange area.

As far as whose minutes will be cut, Croshere

ChicagoJ
10-22-2005, 10:09 AM
Jay, did I understand you right? You think a frontline of Foster/JO is smaller than a frontline of JO/Granger?

It depends on who's guarding who.

But generally I think Foster is tremendously undersized at "C".

There's no doubt, if JO and Granger are manning the 4/5 spots, that I'd feel better with JO guarding the 5 (I've always maintained that JO is our best post defender not named Harrison and he unlike Harrison so far, he can do it by staying out of foul trouble) and Granger guarding the 4. I'm never a fan of Foster guarding the "5" and JO the "4". Well, I'm not a big fan of Foster simply because I generally think he plays smaller than he really is.

Now if you flip those around, with JO guarding the "5" and Foster guarding the "4" - well I still think Granger is going to play "bigger" than Foster because unlike Foster, Granger can put a body on people and he isn't relying entirely on his lateral quickness and explosive jumping just to stay in the league.

Regardless, I've been moving away from the "JO is this team's center" mantra for a long time now. This team needs a healthy Harrison and a big-bodied backup (think: a player like Pollard except he can actually play more than 500 minutes per season). JO is an excellent low-post defender, but I'd like to put less physical beating on his body.

<< DON'T LET PECK SEE THIS NEXT PART >>

For what its worth, I'm starting to come full-circle on Brad Miller. Yes, I still believe he breaks down frequently, and I expect him to break down again this season.

But when JO played beside him, JO didn't break down. I'd rather have a broken down Brad Miller than a broken down JO.

Pacers#1Fan
10-22-2005, 01:05 PM
I know Granger can play the 2 and the 3. I think he may be able to handle the 4. He is very long and very athletic so I think he could do well in almost any situation Bird throws at him. If he is going to play the 4 extensively this season I would like to see him get a little stronger. I think he will be found.

Unclebuck
10-22-2005, 01:07 PM
It depends on who's guarding who.

But generally I think Foster is tremendously undersized at "C".

There's no doubt, if JO and Granger are manning the 4/5 spots, that I'd feel better with JO guarding the 5 (I've always maintained that JO is our best post defender not named Harrison and he unlike Harrison so far, he can do it by staying out of foul trouble) and Granger guarding the 4. I'm never a fan of Foster guarding the "5" and JO the "4". Well, I'm not a big fan of Foster simply because I generally think he plays smaller than he really is.

Now if you flip those around, with JO guarding the "5" and Foster guarding the "4" - well I still think Granger is going to play "bigger" than Foster because unlike Foster, Granger can put a body on people and he isn't relying entirely on his lateral quickness and explosive jumping just to stay in the league.

Regardless, I've been moving away from the "JO is this team's center" mantra for a long time now. This team needs a healthy Harrison and a big-bodied backup (think: a player like Pollard except he can actually play more than 500 minutes per season). JO is an excellent low-post defender, but I'd like to put less physical beating on his body.




"Low-post defender" I am not sure I know what you mean by that term. If you are talking about one-on-one defense against Duncan, KG, Shaq, Sheed, or any other low post player. If that is what you mean, then I disagree agree with you completely. Foster is much better (Foster is not good on Shaq, but neither is J.O, so let's not get sidetracked on a Shaq discussion) at guarding all those guys. J.O is not as good as Jeff in this area.

Jay you know the next argument I'm going to use and I already know how you're going to respond. If J.O is so much better than Jeff in guarding the low post players, then how come Jeff always guards them and J.O almost never guards the better low post player. Now Jay I know you are going to say the reason is because the coaching staff doesn't want J.O to get into foul trouble. Decent point, but then how come in the last 6 minutes of a game Jeff is still always guarding those low post players.

On the other hand Jay if you mean "low post defender" as in guarding the basket area, coming over to block shots, helping out on penetration, then I agree with you J.O is very good at this, and Jeff not so much.

BlueNGold
10-22-2005, 07:28 PM
I canot ever forseee the day when Granger will play shooting guard. If Jax, Fred, AJ and Saras all get injured, I see Ron playing shooting guard before Granger does. He's best inside or in the midrange area.

As far as whose minutes will be cut, Croshere
I don't see DG at SG either, although he might do ok. I really like the idea of Ron playing SG to free up Granger for more minutes as SF. Ron and JO are still the two best players on the team and should be on the floor 30+ minutes...but they need DG on the floor as much as possible. Sacrificing Jax's time may be worth it...particularly when Jax is streaky.

ChicagoJ
10-22-2005, 08:01 PM
Jay you know the next argument I'm going to use and I already know how you're going to respond. If J.O is so much better than Jeff in guarding the low post players, then how come Jeff always guards them and J.O almost never guards the better low post player. Now Jay I know you are going to say the reason is because the coaching staff doesn't want J.O to get into foul trouble. Decent point, but then how come in the last 6 minutes of a game Jeff is still always guarding those low post players.

Yeah, but he's playing in front of the guy. That's not post defense, that's a matchup zone. You like that, I absolutely hate it. JO *can* play behind the guy quite well.

Jeff isn't playing those guys because he's better at it. Rather, thats our best way to keep JO healthy.

But don't take my word on it...



"After so much adversity last season, they’ve plugged along and filled the holes and kept their heads above water … The key is if Jermaine O’Neal can hold up through the whole season. He plays so hard and takes such a beating, they can’t lose him for an extended period of time … If they have a weakness it’s their big guys. They have some bangers and rebounders but O’Neal is their scorer. Injuries have been creeping up on him the last few years and that could derail them … Carlisle is one of the best Xs and Os coach … The guys on the bench got so much playing time last year; they can have a good role again with that experience … They’re a team that’s going to be challenging for the division title."
-- Eastern Conference scout


http://www.nba.com/preview2005/ind.html (http://www.nba.com/preview2005/ind.html)

Will Galen
10-22-2005, 08:48 PM
I think Frank brought this up in the game thread. With Rick looking to make Danny a 3/4, and not a 3/2, despite what our needs roster-wise would dictate, AND the rebounding, blocking, and low post scoring (sort of) skills that Danny has shown so far.....

Is there any chance his best position is Power Forward?

He's a shade under 6' 9, although if he could add a bit more bulk, he might not be -drastically- undersized.


Opinions?

The Chicago pre draft camp had him as 6'7 1/2 in his socking feet. It had him as 6'8 1/2 in shoes. Some players wear shoes with 1/2 inch soles, others have up to 1 and 1/2 inch soles. So it's safe to say Danny is 6'8 to 6'9, depending on the shoes of course.

Frank Slade
10-22-2005, 11:28 PM
The Chicago pre draft camp had him as 6'7 1/2 in his socking feet. It had him as 6'8 1/2 in shoes. Some players wear shoes with 1/2 inch soles, others have up to 1 and 1/2 inch soles. So it's safe to say Danny is 6'8 to 6'9, depending on the shoes of course.

Right that is what I have been saying he is really a very tall 6'8 or a short 6'9 a nice size for the 3 or 4 , I dont know if he has a post up game but it may even pay dividends to develop one over time with those long arms and matching up against some shorter 3's ..... :drool: that would be nice.

Kegboy
10-23-2005, 06:26 AM
There's actually a top-secret project here to either (1) clone me, or (2) change the speed of the earth's revolution to make a 36-hour day.

You too, huh? :console: