PDA

View Full Version : Granger will be better then Artest at D



aceace
03-29-2006, 08:34 PM
I've seen enough great defensive plays in his 20-25 minutes per game. I just watched him catch and stop Josh Childress who had an open path to the basket. He blocks shots better then Artest and has great quick hands. I can only laugh at the 13 gm's who passed on him. Bogut,Williams and Paul where the only logical choices before a chance to take Danny. Villenueva is having a good season also (surprise) and could be mentioned with Granger. I believe he is clearly the best defensive player in last years draft class.

Will Galen
03-29-2006, 08:36 PM
Haha!

Hicks
03-29-2006, 08:59 PM
Will I think he can be with that length and brain of his.

ghost
03-29-2006, 09:03 PM
Will I think he can be with that length and brain of his.

Yes, he has very long brains.

Jermaniac
03-29-2006, 09:07 PM
Doubt it.

#31
03-29-2006, 09:09 PM
He wont be better, but he will be the same... (can any SF/SG be better than Ron defensively)

pizza guy
03-29-2006, 09:29 PM
That fast break that Danny stopped had me thinking. Danny defends the fast break as well as anyone I've ever seen, if not better. Even a two-on-one, Danny has a way of being in the way. He's got great length, quickness, and an amazing basketball IQ and those three combined make not only a wonderful defensive player, but a complete package.

As good as Artest? Who knows? It is still his rookie season and he's getting comments like these, who's to say he won't be that good?

jcouts
03-29-2006, 09:29 PM
Granger will actually be playing, not sitting on suspensions...so I'd say that gives him some sort of advantage in some strange way

His defense will be somewhere in between that of Ron and Pippen. But, not as good as either head to head.

SoupIsGood
03-29-2006, 09:31 PM
Granger will be better than Artest overall. His unselfishness on offense and the slightly better time he has guarding quick players helps this a lot I think....

317Kim
03-29-2006, 09:33 PM
Don't forget the fact that Danny isn't physco!!

Jermaniac
03-29-2006, 10:52 PM
Granger will be better than Artest overall. His unselfishness on offense and the slightly better time he has guarding quick players helps this a lot I think....He for sure will be better then Ron overall but defensivley I just cant see it.

indytoad
03-29-2006, 10:55 PM
I'd like to think so, but I've seen so many Pacers rookies start out well and turn into ego-driven iso-machines who think their only role is to score 25 to have much faith in any other outcome for Granger. Which is too bad, because he's probably my favorite player at the moment.

IndyToad
Wait up

pizza guy
03-29-2006, 10:59 PM
I really don't see that from Granger. I know, ego can get to anybody, but I think, given Danny's background and solid personality, he's not going to fall into that trap.

Let's not forget, I'm generally an optimistic person, so, that's my optimistic viewpoint.

HulkSmash!
03-29-2006, 11:04 PM
Danny Granger was offered an academic scholarship to Yale.

Ron Artest can barely read or write.

Any questions?

HulkSmash!
03-29-2006, 11:09 PM
THIS IS YOUR BRAIN
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/nba-history/images/draft2005/DannyGranger_295_050628.jpg

THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/pete_mcentegart/07/15/ten.spot/p1_artest.jpg

ANY QUESTIONS?

Evan_The_Dude
03-29-2006, 11:26 PM
THIS IS YOUR BRAIN
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/nba-history/images/draft2005/DannyGranger_295_050628.jpg

THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/pete_mcentegart/07/15/ten.spot/p1_artest.jpg

ANY QUESTIONS?


:laugh: :laugh:

rexnom
03-29-2006, 11:48 PM
Again...I heart Danny Granger shirts. Possible variations: I heart DG, I heart Danny, I heart Danny G., I heart Danger.

SoupIsGood
03-30-2006, 12:10 AM
He for sure will be better then Ron overall but defensivley I just cant see it.

Yeah, I mean there aint much getting better than ron defensively.

PostArtestEra
03-30-2006, 12:16 AM
It might be a stretch to say he'll be better than one of the best perimeter defenders ever, but I think he'll definitely be a main stay on the all team defense for years.

rexnom
03-30-2006, 12:19 AM
Yeah, I mean there aint much getting better than ron defensively.

Yeah. I mean, Tayshaun Prince, for example, is not exactly a poor defender, but he is no Ron Artest. Ron has a certain passion about playing defense. He doesn't want you to score on him. It's an insult to him if you score on him. It's this crazy comptetive thing. Actually reminds me a bit of Jordan who took playing very seriously. What's sad is that Ronnie is all kinds of crazy that don't involve competition that MJ was not.

Diesel_81
03-30-2006, 12:24 AM
I think Granger will be a more versatile defender, I think he can guard the sg/sf/pf positions, and we all know he can block shots. One big difference between Artest and Granger is Artest used to scare the crap out of the opposition and played a very physical brand of defense, which is rare for a perimeter defender. Granger defends more like a Shawn Marion/Pippen type where he's a pest to the opposition and he's all over the court.

Kaufman
03-30-2006, 12:29 AM
Does anyone think DG can be a #1 guy - meaning a franchise, face of the team type of guy? Kind of like a Reggie, or Barkley, or Ewing, or Mullin kind of guy that you think of when you think of that team (maybe from that era, at least). Or is DG a supporting cast kind of guy at best? I myself don't know but I wonder. I think he's my favorite Pacer at this time, and I know lots of people also share in this sentiment. I'm just curious about what you all think about his ability to carry a team on HIS shoulders ---

PacerMan
03-30-2006, 12:37 AM
Ron was/is a lock down one on one defender. On HIS man. He was NEVER a good team defender. He would give other guys open paths to the hoop rather than move over to help and chance leaving his man open for a shot. God forbid his man should score, ok for other teammatess man to score. Pissed me off on more than a few occasions and I heard it ticked Donnie/Larry off for a long time too.
Danny is a very good on the ball defender. And an excellent TEAM defender.
Believe it or not. :)

Bball
03-30-2006, 12:38 AM
Does anyone think DG can be a #1 guy - meaning a franchise, face of the team type of guy? Kind of like a Reggie, or Barkley, or Ewing, or Mullin kind of guy that you think of when you think of that team (maybe from that era, at least). Or is DG a supporting cast kind of guy at best? I myself don't know but I wonder. I think he's my favorite Pacer at this time, and I know lots of people also share in this sentiment. I'm just curious about what you all think about his ability to carry a team on HIS shoulders ---

Oh my.... I was contemplating making a new thread and asking an almost identical question.

I guess there are two of us wondering the same thing...

Is Granger on a track to naturally fill a void and become a real leader that everyone (fans, players, etc) can be raised up by OR is he destined to be a role player who simply goes to work and does his job with grit and determination and plays 'the right way'?

JO has left the door open for this to happen because he's not filled the void created by Reggie's (and Artest's) departure, and right now there is a vacuum waiting to be filled... by someone...

IMHO...

-Bball

SoupIsGood
03-30-2006, 12:42 AM
Oh my.... I was contemplating making a new thread and asking an almost identical question.

I guess there are two of us wondering the same thing...

Is Granger on a track to naturally fill a void and become a real leader that everyone (fans, players, etc) can be raised up by OR is he destined to be a role player who simply goes to work and does his job with grit and determination and plays 'the right way'?

JO has left the door open for this to happen because he's not filled the void created by Reggie's (and Artest's) departure, and right now there is a vacuum waiting to be filled... by someone...

IMHO...

-Bball

Assuming the rest of his game progresses naturally, the only thing keeping Danny from being a franchise-type of player is his scoring. And when you look at his work ethic and how his scoring ability has improved all season, I really could see him being a good scorer sometime....

He would be a great leader, just great.

Kaufman
03-30-2006, 12:49 AM
Assuming the rest of his game progresses naturally, the only thing keeping Danny from being a franchise-type of player is his scoring. And when you look at his work ethic and how his scoring ability has improved all season, I really could see him being a good scorer sometime....

He would be a great leader, just great.

I don't know that all of that is true though --- a few names come to mind when thinking of great players and great scorers who for various reasons didn't become team leaders - Grant Hill comes to mind, Scottie Pippen another guy in my thinking. And those things might be related to personality, as far as why they didn't become the go - to guys.

BBall, go for it - open a new thread!

SoupIsGood
03-30-2006, 12:52 AM
I don't know that all of that is true though --- a few names come to mind when thinking of great players and great scorers who for various reasons didn't become team leaders - Grant Hill comes to mind, Scottie Pippen another guy in my thinking. And those things might be related to personality, as far as why they didn't become the go - to guys.

BBall, go for it - open a new thread!

I think Danny has the right personality, though. Maybe the ideal personality. I see him as similar to Tim Duncan, in possible leadership ability, not basketball ability obviously. Not extremely vocal, but does the dirty work and sets a great example, and earns the respect of his teammates.

rexnom
03-30-2006, 01:29 AM
I think Danny has the right personality, though. Maybe the ideal personality. I see him as similar to Tim Duncan, in possible leadership ability, not basketball ability obviously. Not extremely vocal, but does the dirty work and sets a great example, and earns the respect of his teammates.

I was thinking of TD too. Leading by example. Danny will probably always need another scorer with him. Like Duncan couldn't have won the championship last year without Ginobili. However, if the guy keeps improving, the sky is the limit and we all know it.

I wonder how he was at New Mexico.

HulkSmash!
03-30-2006, 01:32 AM
Grangers doesnt have the offensive game to be a #1 guy, but he's perfect as the #2/#3 guy, where his main focus isn't neccesarily scoring, but his overall contributions.

317Kim
03-30-2006, 06:38 AM
THIS IS YOUR BRAIN
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/nba-history/images/draft2005/DannyGranger_295_050628.jpg

THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/pete_mcentegart/07/15/ten.spot/p1_artest.jpg

ANY QUESTIONS?

:lmao:

I just made an I ♥ Danger shirt. It has the number 33 on the back and DANNY GRANGER on top of that.

loborick
03-30-2006, 11:06 AM
I was thinking of TD too. Leading by example. Danny will probably always need another scorer with him. Like Duncan couldn't have won the championship last year without Ginobili. However, if the guy keeps improving, the sky is the limit and we all know it.

I wonder how he was at New Mexico.

Danny was the unquestioned leader of the team, by example and vocally. Everyone looked to DG for direction, and he gave it. And he can be a big scorer when needed. The best thing about Danny here at UNM was he did whatever was needed for the team to win. Score, play defense, rebound...he did it all.

SoThenRobbieSaid
03-30-2006, 12:34 PM
Academic scholarship to Yale is quite impressive.
However...
Ron was a Mathematics major at SJU. Can you imagine having Mr. Artest as your prof? I think Ron would make a good teacher *shrugs*

Hicks
03-30-2006, 01:28 PM
Being a Math major doesn't make you necessarily in league with someone who was able to go to Yale.

Since86
03-30-2006, 03:48 PM
Danny Granger was offered an academic scholarship to Yale.

Ron Artest can barely read or write.

Any questions?

You do realize that Ron has his math degree from St. John's don't you?

Just because the guy has mental stability problems, doesn't mean he has a low IQ, or even as far as saying his illiterate.

Some of the smartest people in the world have zero common sense, and no personality to boot.

Since86
03-30-2006, 03:49 PM
Being a Math major doesn't make you necessarily in league with someone who was able to go to Yale.

Clearly shows he isn't illiterate though.

PacerMan
03-30-2006, 04:00 PM
Being a Math major doesn't make you necessarily in league with someone who was able to go to Yale.

Or be a prof.

PacerMan
03-30-2006, 04:02 PM
You do realize that Ron has his math degree from St. John's don't you?

Just because the guy has mental stability problems, doesn't mean he has a low IQ, or even as far as saying his illiterate.

Some of the smartest people in the world have zero common sense, and no personality to boot.

You do realize that he was a THE star basketball player at St.Johns don't you?
Just because a jock graduates with a degree doesn't mean he actually learned anything, maybe even not proof of being literate. :)
You are right in your points too.

rexnom
03-30-2006, 04:04 PM
You do realize that Ron has his math degree from St. John's don't you?

Just because the guy has mental stability problems, doesn't mean he has a low IQ, or even as far as saying his illiterate.

Some of the smartest people in the world have zero common sense, and no personality to boot.

Wait, wait. Hold on. I thought he left after freshman year. How does he have a degree? Also, don't you think that it's possible that he might have been given a little bit of a boost academically to stay on the team? It's not like that's infrequent in college basketball. That being said, I don't think Ron has a low IQ. I think he is very intelligent and personality wise he was always my favorite pacer. I also don't think this academic scholarship to Yale (which I'm wondering about because Ivies don't offer merit-based scholarships usually) means too much. I mean, obviously the kid is smart. But that he got in to Yale doesn't tell me that. The way that he plays does. He already plays smarter basketball than most of the players on our team.

About the UNM play, that is exactly what I wanted to hear. I figured he was a Duncan-type. Duncan isn't the huge scorer that, say, Stoudamire was last year, but in the WCF Duncan helped out whenever SA needed him to in whatever way he could. Meanwhile, I don't think the guy has played at 100% since their 2003 championship.

Since86
03-30-2006, 04:05 PM
You do realize that he was a THE star basketball player at St.Johns don't you?
Just because a jock graduates with a degree doesn't mean he actually learned anything, maybe even not proof of being literate. :)
You are right in your points too.


He left for the NBA before he graduated.;)

He went back for it. Now you can say that he had the money to pay his professors, but it says a lot about a player making seven figures to go back for a piece of paper.

rexnom
03-30-2006, 04:06 PM
He left for the NBA before he graduated.;)

He went back for it. Now you can say that he had the money to pay his professors, but it says a lot about a player making seven figures to go back for a piece of paper.

Good for him. Ronnie would do that, he is a good guy in general. He just gets a bad rap for his passion on the court.

Kaufman
03-30-2006, 05:03 PM
I have now figured out who DG reminds me of. Drum roll please....



Derrick McKey.

I was a DMc fan by the way. And DMc wasn't a bad scorer, if he wanted to score.

aceace
03-30-2006, 07:07 PM
I have now figured out who DG reminds me of. Drum roll please....



Derrick McKey.

I was a DMc fan by the way. And DMc wasn't a bad scorer, if he wanted to score.C'mon Latka:D, no way he is like McKey(Ok maybe a little). I just looked at Grangers and Pippens rookie stats and they are nearly identical. Pippen didn't start games until his 2nd year 30 games in. Granger is a much better shooter from 3 which is huge now days. This is also big .... both wear 33 hmmmm

Suaveness
03-30-2006, 08:32 PM
How can you even know how intelligent someone is unless you actually know the guy? I don't get it.

D-BONE
03-30-2006, 09:14 PM
DG-Mckey and DG-Pippen comparisons. Actually, I think you can kind of compare all of them defensively. Guard multiple postions, long arms, active hands, all three in the same ball-park build, stature-wise I think, and all very effective.

The offensive part difference is that Pippen was more agressive looking for his offense than McKey. However I always felt had DMc sought out more O, he had a lot of talent. I suspect DG mindset will be more along the line of Scottie than Derrick as far as scoring.

At any rate, I think there's some validity to both comparisons. Thus, that also suggests DG might be a better #2 guy on offense. Can't say definitively at this point, but if I had to wager a guess now, I'd probably go with the natural second option. Hopefully his all around impact would rival that of Pippen's though.

Tim
03-31-2006, 02:32 AM
As far as defense, Danger can match Artest as long as you leave strength out of it.

Artest is a freaking wall, people bounce off of him. Danny could add 25 pounds and Artest would still have the advantage.


As far as an overall player, or franchise player. It will not happen if a team doesn't take the gamble and make Danger the first option. I don't see that happening here because the Pacers are going to try to make JO and Peja work out.

I would love to see Danger stay in Indy during the summer and have him learn the plays to the point that he is our next Big Al, the jumper is nice but I think there is more there as far as driving the lane and post up.

HulkSmash!
03-31-2006, 02:51 AM
Granger isn't a 1st option. He's skilled offensively. but not that skilled. He'd be best suited as a #2 option in my opinion.