PDA

View Full Version : Granger to play aggressive, David Harrison and Scott Pollard comment on Ref, and Keith signs about to sign with a Greek team..



GrangerRanger
07-27-2007, 05:29 PM
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_070727.html


Danny Granger recently sat down with Rotorob.com's Rob Blackstien for a lengthy Q&A during his second annual youth basketball camp and said he hopes the Pacers can get back to "hard-nosed basketball" in 2007-08.
"We have to get back into playing Indiana basketball, tthat hard-nosed basketball of guys diving on the floor for loose balls," he said. "I think we kind of got away from that last year, and we need to bring it back to the type of team it was when Reggie Miller was there. So, if we bring that back, we’ll be alright.



Granger

"I don’t know what direction we are heading in for sure … that’s kind of still up in the air. That really has a lot to deal with whether or not the team makes trades. I think either way we go we will be OK since we already have veterans and we can always bring in more, but we also have young guys on the team too. If it was up to me though, I really think we should even it out — bring in some veterans and bring in some young guys. "

During the process of the camp, and the interview, Granger made a major impression on RotoRob.

"Let me just say that Danny was one of the best people I have got a chance to talk to so far," the interviewer wrote. "Not only did he take time to talk to anyone that happened to call his name out at the camp, but he was there every day to give the kids one-on-one instruction, do media interviews, sign autographs for the kids and their families. He even went out and made time to visit people in a nearby hospital. If I wasn’t already a Granger fan before this (which I was since he went to UNM and I had a class with him), I certainly would be now. With players such as Allen Iverson seeming to take over the NBA with their thug mentality and seeming to need street credit, it was really good to sit down and have an intelligent conversation with a player for once.

"With the NBA already pricing the average fan out of the game, and the never-ending circus that seems to follow some players around, I think it is safe to say that Danny Granger is a role model for kids to look up to."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHITE RUNNING OUT OF CHANCES
There likely will be no shortage of teams interested in giving James White another look. What he must figure out is how to change his tendency to make a negative first impression.


White

White recently was cut for the second time in less than two years, this time by San Antonio. The former Cincinnati swingman has now failed to take advantage of two golden opportunities. The Pacers originally thought so highly of him they traded a pair of second-round picks to acquire his draft rights in 2006, but White didn't make it out of training camp after being clearly outplayed by unheralded Rawle Marshall.

He landed with the Spurs, a seemingly ideal situation for a gifted young player, but White appeared in just six games and managed to play himself off the roster this summer. In his brief NBA time, White has failed to build the bridge between athlete and player.

For their part, the Pacers wouldn't mind taking another look at White, although they have no more room for a guaranteed contract on the roster; the payroll already is pushing the 2007-08 Luxury Tax threshold. With Mike Dunleavy and Kareem Rush at shooting guard and Danny Granger, Marquis Daniels and Shawne Williams at small forward, they're pretty well-stocked at those two positions.

White still is too young and talented to be down to his last chance. But he's getting close.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNOTES …
David Harrison told The Denver Post he remembered getting hit with "at least four technicals" by former NBA official Tim Donaghy, the man at the center of the league's current gambling probe, but the Pacers center didn't have any reason to suspect anything untoward. "I know that people will label him a (jerk) but I didn't have a problem with him." Harrison told the newspaper, "He wasn't the worst ref in the league. Man, I probably deserved every technical he gave me. But at the end of the day, he's not doing right either."

Former Pacers center Scot Pollard told the Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World he felt much the same way. “I could say I don’t like him that much, but there’s a long list of refs I don’t like very much,” said Pollard. “When I first heard of this, it’s not like I said, ‘I know who that is.’ He didn’t stand out in my mind.” A free agent, Pollard said he doesn't expect to return to Cleveland.

Having joined one former Maccabi Tel Aviv teammate (Sarunas Jasikecivius) when he returned to the NBA last season, Maceo Baston will team up with another (Anthony Parker) in Toronto. The Pacers opted not to match Toronto's reported two-year, $4 million offer sheet on the restricted free agent. He hopes to show more of an overall game with the Raptors. "I can bring all the intangibles; shot blocking, charges, altering shots, deflections," he said. "(But) my offensive game is not too shabby either. People underestimate my offensive skills in terms of jump shooting, mid-range jumper, penetrating."

This week's signing of free agent Travis Diener as the backup point guard apparently encouraged Keith McLeod to expand his professional horizons. McLeod, who averaged 4.2 points and 2.0 assists in 22 games with the Pacers last season, reportedly is close to signing with the prominent Greek team Olympiakos, although a handful of NBA teams remain interested.

I think I mentioned a few times that Keith wasn't that good. :rolleyes:

Anyway, thought I'd make a thread over this because it has a great deal of information.

Kegboy
07-27-2007, 05:38 PM
although they have no more room for a guaranteed contract on the roster

Uh, don't we have $2 mil? We still need to sign a mystery PF.

Not that I'm a James White fan, or I feel that bad about the mistake we made trading for him, but this seems to be in bad taste, ripping the guy on the team's official website. Just because the best team in the league doesn't have room for you, doesn't mean you're "running out of chances."

GrangerRanger
07-27-2007, 05:42 PM
Yeah, that sucks.

Wanna know something that sucks even worse? I just noticed a weird typo in the title of this thread. :censored:

Naptown_Seth
07-27-2007, 05:48 PM
I assumed McLeod was fluent in sign language and made his press announcements this way. ;)

blanket
07-27-2007, 05:50 PM
Yeah, that sucks.

Wanna know something that sucks even worse? I just noticed a weird typo in the title of this thread. :censored:

You mean Scott Pollard?

;)

GrangerRanger
07-27-2007, 05:53 PM
Sh..

Don't draw attention to it.:(

*Runs away and hides in a dark corner.*

blanket
07-27-2007, 05:53 PM
Uh, don't we have $2 mil? We still need to sign a mystery PF.

until we waive Armstrong to avoid guaranteeing the remainder of his contract, we're still on the hook for about $1.5M.

JayRedd
07-27-2007, 06:17 PM
With Mike Dunleavy and Kareem Rush at shooting guard...they're pretty well-stocked at those two positions.



:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

d_c
07-27-2007, 06:54 PM
If it's not already evident to a few people, Mike Dunleavy is not a SG. He's not even close to being close to being a SG.

I didn't watch the Pacers much last year, but I would guess that they had to play him at SG because Daniels was injured and they didn't have any other competent player to put at that spot. The Pacers basically had 2 SFs in the starting lineup after that 8 player trade.

Dunleavy is a SF who can play some minutes as a "point forward" bringing the ball up court. He can masquerade as a PF in certain matchups against teams that don't have players who can punish him inside.

He is not a SG for 2 reasons: 1) He's simply not enough of a threat to score the ball and 2) He can't guard most opposing SGs.

Graham Mernatsi
07-27-2007, 09:46 PM
Sh..

Don't draw attention to it.:(

*Runs away and hides in a dark corner.*
:arrgh:

Oneal07
07-27-2007, 11:18 PM
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


While I know why your laughing. It may not be as bad as you think

docpaul
07-28-2007, 07:42 AM
Uh, don't we have $2 mil? We still need to sign a mystery PF.

Not that I'm a James White fan, or I feel that bad about the mistake we made trading for him, but this seems to be in bad taste, ripping the guy on the team's official website. Just because the best team in the league doesn't have room for you, doesn't mean you're "running out of chances."

I wonder if the P's are looking at Andray Blatche from the Wizards? He's an up and coming PF that has a little bit of Bosh's, a little bit of Jermaine's game. He's a bright up and comer that'll probably be had for the MLE... shrug.

Unclebuck
07-28-2007, 10:06 AM
Dunleavy is more of a shooting guard than he is a power forward. I think Dunleavy can play some shooting guard - it depends on who the small forward is

Kegboy
07-28-2007, 10:15 AM
I wonder if the P's are looking at Andray Blatche from the Wizards? He's an up and coming PF that has a little bit of Bosh's, a little bit of Jermaine's game. He's a bright up and comer that'll probably be had for the MLE... shrug.

No way Washington's letting him go, and absolutely no way we're gonna use the MLE.

d_c
07-28-2007, 12:20 PM
Dunleavy is more of a shooting guard than he is a power forward. I think Dunleavy can play some shooting guard - it depends on who the small forward is

If Dunleavy is playing SG, then the SF he plays next to needs to be able to shoot the ball well and have good quickness. And if that's the case, it's very likely that said SF will be more more of a SG than Dunleavy.

If you start two legit bigmen up front along with Granger as the SF and Dunleavy as the SG, that's simply way too slow of a lineup. You're giving up way too much in terms of athleticism and Dunleavy's greatest weakness is the inability to take advantage of his size against smaller players, so you're not really playing with a size advantage.

Dunleavy against some slow PFs will at least have enough of a ballhandling and quickness advantage to drive around them. If that PF doesn't have the offensive skill to punish him on the inside, then you can minimize how much he gets abused defensively. He'd have more of an advantage on the offensive end against these types than against 6'5" SGs, in which case he really has no advantage.

Naptown_Seth
07-28-2007, 12:38 PM
Granger is quicker than Dunleavy, Granger clearly shoots the 3 MUCH better than Dunleavy. That makes Granger more of a SG than Dunleavy, and Granger isn't a SG.

Dunleavy can score the ball inside the arc and does have some ball handling skills, but taking back another SF in that GS trade when you were thin at SG and sending your starting SG out the door no less made no sense and still doesn't.

Ironic though that they acquired Jackson to thin up the SF logjam and fill out the SG depth originally, then basically went back and undid the entire thing (including the part where they had just gotten rid of an expensive SF contract with Bender).

GrangerRanger
07-28-2007, 12:42 PM
No way Washington's letting him go, and absolutely no way we're gonna use the MLE.

Because we spent it on Travis? You know that right?

Mourning
07-28-2007, 02:12 PM
Because we spent it on Travis? You know that right?

Only part of it...

more like the LLE+

We just don't have the financial room to use the full MLE, because it would make us go into luxurytax land. And I can understand the owners not wanting to go there.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

GrangerRanger
07-28-2007, 02:54 PM
We used up 4 million, and 900 thousand dollars. What player are we going to get for 100 thousand? :hmm:

Kegboy
07-28-2007, 03:07 PM
Granger is quicker than Dunleavy, Granger clearly shoots the 3 MUCH better than Dunleavy. That makes Granger more of a SG than Dunleavy, and Granger isn't a SG.

Dunleavy can score the ball inside the arc and does have some ball handling skills, but taking back another SF in that GS trade when you were thin at SG and sending your starting SG out the door no less made no sense and still doesn't.

Ironic though that they acquired Jackson to thin up the SF logjam and fill out the SG depth originally, then basically went back and undid the entire thing (including the part where they had just gotten rid of an expensive SF contract with Bender).

I didn't have a problem with trading Jack for Dun, because some of us, like Anthem and I, thought we'd make another trade to balance the lineup. Problem is, it's 6 months later and we still haven't. :loser2:

tora tora
07-28-2007, 03:10 PM
I think Dunleavy can play some shooting guard
Dunleavy + shoots = :arrgh:

pianoman
07-28-2007, 03:20 PM
I want to see a lineup of
C-Foster
Pf-Shawne
Sf-Granger
SG-Dunleavy
pg-Rush
on the floor at some point in some games. It would probrably be our fastest 5 out on the court and they could run like Phoenix.

loborick
07-28-2007, 06:47 PM
I have a couple of friends whose kids went to the DG camp in Albuquerque, and they were blown away. We gives every kid personal attention. In fact, he remembered one of their names from last year! Talk about being blown away!

DG is one of the few athletes around that I would be OK to let me kid idolize. He is the epitomy of class.

rexnom
07-28-2007, 07:58 PM
I have a couple of friends whose kids went to the DG camp in Albuquerque, and they were blown away. We gives every kid personal attention. In fact, he remembered one of their names from last year! Talk about being blown away!

DG is one of the few athletes around that I would be OK to let me kid idolize. He is the epitomy of class.
Everyone loves Danny, here, but I don't know...next year is year 3...isn't it supposed to click next year? Isn't next year supposed to be the year?

Hicks
07-28-2007, 08:41 PM
If he doesn't become a #1 option, he doesn't become a #1 option. You still keep him for years to come because he's going to at least be a great #3 option. Between that and his good behavior all-around, we should hold onto him as long as we can. If he becomes more than a #3 guy on a good team, that's gravy. I'll still wear my jersey proudly.

Robertmto
07-29-2007, 12:54 AM
I wonder if the P's are looking at Andray Blatche from the Wizards? He's an up and coming PF that has a little bit of Bosh's, a little bit of Jermaine's game. He's a bright up and comer that'll probably be had for the MLE... shrug.

Grunfeld will outbid anyone for him.

Robertmto
07-29-2007, 12:59 AM
We used up 4 million, and 900 thousand dollars. What player are we going to get for 100 thousand? :hmm:

i guess i could suit up...

JayRedd
07-29-2007, 01:32 PM
Everyone loves Danny, here, but I don't know...next year is year 3...isn't it supposed to click next year? Isn't next year supposed to be the year?

Either that, or we will finally know why 16 other teams said, "No thanks."

GrangerRanger
07-29-2007, 01:39 PM
Either that, or we will finally know why 16 other teams said, "No thanks."

I don't know where you get your information from but that is everything but true. Larry Bird even said "That I like my young core of guys and apparently so does the rest of the league. I just don't know if I am ready to trade them off yet." He never ever, not once, put Danny on the trading block or asked a team if they wanted him. So, how can they say No Thanks? Wtf..

Hicks
07-29-2007, 02:09 PM
Either that, or we will finally know why 16 other teams said, "No thanks."

So wait, a draft pick is a bad one in the 1st round if they don't become your star player? Seriously? Now if we're talking top-10 maybe or top-5 I'd understand, but the entire first round? Since when is Danny not being our star make it a bad pick and/or explain why he dropped so low? That baffles me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Y2J
07-29-2007, 02:39 PM
Granger's short comings are way, way overblown here. He went from being overrated his rookie season (next Pippen) to underrated now. You people simply expected too much, too soon. Danny averaged 14 per game last year, his second season, and he did it with some solid shooting percentages. Thats better than most #17 picks will ever produce. He probably should take it to the rim more, but as long as he's hitting 40% from downtown I have no problem with him lighting it up from outside either. He still looks like a future 20 per game scorer to me.

rexnom
07-29-2007, 04:22 PM
Granger's short comings are way, way overblown here. He went from being overrated his rookie season (next Pippen) to underrated now. You people simply expected too much, too soon. Danny averaged 14 per game last year, his second season, and he did it with some solid shooting percentages. Thats better than most #17 picks will ever produce. He probably should take it to the rim more, but as long as he's hitting 40% from downtown I have no problem with him lighting it up from outside either. He still looks like a future 20 per game scorer to me.
I'm a HUGE Danny fan. I'm just saying that I better be seeing 16-18ppg from him next year or I'm selling my stock. Danny played the most minutes of ANY Pacer last year and that will probably stay true for next season.

To me, being a #3 option is unacceptable because on this team he is supposed to be the second best scorer. Of course, this could show an overall flaw in the design of the team where the number one guy (JO) is really a number two guy...and so on.

This is all assuming we stay pat, of course. Also, this is the criteria which I will use to judge Danny next year. Right now, I'm still waiting. It's just that by the end of the season next year Danny will be 25 years old. If we weren't suppose to have high expectations then they shouldn't have sold him as the savior of the franchise.

With all that being said, I fully expect Danny to blossom and flourish next year. I don't even think his sophomore campaign was that bad. I think he's right on track. I just hope that I'll be saying the same things next year.

Tom White
07-29-2007, 04:57 PM
Larry Bird even said "That I like my young core of guys and apparently so does the rest of the league. I just don't know if I am ready to trade them off yet."

When and where did Bird say this about the rest of the league liking the younger players, and not knowing if he was willing to trade any of them?

I don't recall seeing that before.

Got a link?

Tom White
07-29-2007, 05:04 PM
If we weren't suppose to have high expectations then they shouldn't have sold him as the savior of the franchise.

Who in the world EVER tried to sell Granger as the SAVIOR of the franchise? That simply never (as in ever) happened.

rexnom
07-29-2007, 05:12 PM
Who in the world EVER tried to sell Granger as the SAVIOR of the franchise? That simply never (as in ever) happened.
Let me rephrase. Perhaps not savior but Granger was definitely sold as the new hope of the franchise. Maybe I've seen episode 4 a few too many times but I certainly pinned many of my hopes on his future.

JayRedd
07-29-2007, 05:13 PM
So wait, a draft pick is a bad one in the 1st round if they don't become your star player? Seriously? Now if we're talking top-10 maybe or top-5 I'd understand, but the entire first round? Since when is Danny not being our star make it a bad pick and/or explain why he dropped so low? That baffles me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Yeah, I think you are. Probably my fault in how I put it though.

I'm not saying in any way that Danny is not a good player or that taking him wasn't a great pick.

My only point is that the general Pacer Nation response to getting Granger at 17 was "Holy Crap!!! How did someone so good fall so far to us?" Obviously, a lot of it had to do with knee concerns at the time, but fortunately that hasn't been an issue. A lot of us thought we had a bonafide stud. Some thought he was gonna be an All Star. And a few even had ridiculous expectations, such as those "Next Pippen" claims.

I was definitely one of those who thought we found a true gem. I don't think I ever had quite Pippen-level delusion, but certainly I certainly thought we were getting someone on the Luol Deng/Josh Howard-level. And he very well still could be just that.

Like rexnom was saying though, this upcoming season will probably show us whether or not our high hopes are still reasonable. He definitely turned the corner last year, which follows the same path as Howard, Deng, RJ, Caron Butler and Tayshaun (who are the five SFs he reminds me of). And we'll know by next June whether or not he was still a "steal" at pick 17....or if we just have a pretty good NBA player that would start for half the teams in the League, which would make it a little more reasonable that 16 teams didn't pick him.

But if it doesn't all "click" for him this year, (when he's 25 years old), then he's probably just not quite as good as we were hoping he'll become. I mean, he's already good enough to be a good 1st Round pick, but what we'll find out by June is whether or not he's the guy we want to be our starting SF for the next 7-8 years.

And for the record, I think he will make the "leap," although I still question whether he'll ever be as good as Howard/Deng/RJ.

Y2J
07-29-2007, 07:08 PM
Danny's 2nd year scoring numbers vs the 2nd year scoring numbers of some other notable SF's...

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8289/untitledba2.gif

Pretty comparable. In fact, Danny is the best overall shooter of the bunch.

If Danny is our #2 option, I see about 19 ppg, 7 rpg, 2 apg on 47/40/85 shooting. If everyone can stay healthy I think we'll be a lot better than people realize. I also like Marquis a lot, I think he himself can be a mid-to-high teens scorer if he can stay healthy for once.

dohman
07-29-2007, 07:19 PM
I just hope danny does not rely on the 3 next year attacks the rim. I doubt with the amount of 3's he will be shooting next year that his % will stay as high as it is now.

sixthman
07-29-2007, 07:32 PM
We used up 4 million, and 900 thousand dollars. What player are we going to get for 100 thousand? :hmm:

Travis Diener's total contract may be worth about 4.9 million, but only this year's salary counts against the exceptions we have available. Apparently Diener's salary for this year is a a little over 1.5 million.

GrangerRanger
07-29-2007, 08:05 PM
When and where did Bird say this about the rest of the league liking the younger players, and not knowing if he was willing to trade any of them?

I don't recall seeing that before.

Got a link?

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/draft_070627.html



"Will we try to get into the draft? We probably will. We've had a lot of discussions about it, a lot of calls, but we like our core of young players and so does everybody else in the league. They're trying to get them and trade draft picks and we don't know if we want to go that route. We've got a lot of young players on this team and if you don't have the veterans around them it can cost you down the road. We like our team."

Of course my quote in my post wasn't exact. It just took me a while to find this. It's been so long.

Tom White
07-29-2007, 08:32 PM
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/draft_070627.html



Of course my quote in my post wasn't exact. It just took me a while to find this. It's been so long.

Thanks for posting that link.

I remember the part about Bird saying the Pacers would get a shooter, but missed the later quotes.

The absolute truth is that I get sick of Bird pretty quickly, so I probably just stopped reading the article before I got to the part about other teams being interested in the younger players.

Naptown_Seth
07-30-2007, 01:36 PM
I don't know where you get your information from but that is everything but true. Larry Bird even said "That I like my young core of guys and apparently so does the rest of the league. I just don't know if I am ready to trade them off yet." He never ever, not once, put Danny on the trading block or asked a team if they wanted him. So, how can they say No Thanks? Wtf..
He meant "no thanks" in terms of passing on him in the draft, not putting him on the trade block. Where did you get your information that he was drafted higher than 17th?

Naptown_Seth
07-30-2007, 01:43 PM
And for the record, I think he will make the "leap," although I still question whether he'll ever be as good as Howard/Deng/RJ.
I agree with this AND your points about him needing to make good on the progression as well. I do think he's come along nicely so far. Some fans have turned "coming along" into "ready right now" and that's not the case. When I criticized ASPECTS of his game last year, faults that are natural in a young, developing player, some fans freaked out and ripped into me for unfairly bashing him.

Obviously that's not how I feel. When he screws up on defensive/offensive awareness that doesn't mean he won't ever get it, it simply means the fans that thought "give the ball to Danny, he'll get it done" were jumping the gun quite a bit (and plenty of fans WERE reacting that way).

He's climbing the mountain, he's got the goods to get near the top IMO, but you have to hit the halfway point before you reach the top and the view is quite different halfway up. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend it's the postcard photo just yet.

2 years in his progression looks statistically similar to Pippen still. I sure hope that continues, but even if it doesn't and he ends up just a solid starter, that's pretty nice from a #17 pick.


BTW, based on the contradiction of his college degree and apparent intelligence vs his on-court mishaps of awareness, my suspicion isn't that he's dumb but that he overthinks the game, or perhaps gets focused on the wrong things at times. That implies that there will be a moments where he starts to "get it" and then not only becomes a good player, but a very clever one too. I think it's been a mis-application of brain power rather than a lack of it.

rexnom
07-30-2007, 01:49 PM
I agree with this AND your points about him needing to make good on the progression as well. I do think he's come along nicely so far. Some fans have turned "coming along" into "ready right now" and that's not the case. When I criticized ASPECTS of his game last year, faults that are natural in a young, developing player, some fans freaked out and ripped into me for unfairly bashing him.

Obviously that's not how I feel. When he screws up on defensive/offensive awareness that doesn't mean he won't ever get it, it simply means the fans that thought "give the ball to Danny, he'll get it done" were jumping the gun quite a bit (and plenty of fans WERE reacting that way).

He's climbing the mountain, he's got the goods to get near the top IMO, but you have to hit the halfway point before you reach the top and the view is quite different halfway up. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend it's the postcard photo just yet.

2 years in his progression looks statistically similar to Pippen still. I sure hope that continues, but even if it doesn't and he ends up just a solid starter, that's pretty nice from a #17 pick.


BTW, based on the contradiction of his college degree and apparent intelligence vs his on-court mishaps of awareness, my suspicion isn't that he's dumb but that he overthinks the game, or perhaps gets focused on the wrong things at times. That implies that there will be a moments where he starts to "get it" and then not only becomes a good player, but a very clever one too. I think it's been a mis-application of brain power rather than a lack of it.
But is Granger just a #17 pick? Hasn't he become something else to this franchise? Of course he's nice for a 17 pick, but aren't most of us hoping that his potential is much greater than that?

JayRedd
07-30-2007, 01:59 PM
BTW, based on the contradiction of his college degree and apparent intelligence vs his on-court mishaps of awareness, my suspicion isn't that he's dumb but that he overthinks the game, or perhaps gets focused on the wrong things at times. That implies that there will be a moments where he starts to "get it" and then not only becomes a good player, but a very clever one too. I think it's been a mis-application of brain power rather than a lack of it.

More than any physical or skill limitations, this is what seems to be "holding him back" so far in my eyes. It's that deer-in-the-headlights look that he often gets. By that, I don't mean he looks afraid or even unconfident in his abilities. It looks like he just has a lot of different things running through his head, which leads to delayed decision-making and sometimes flat-out unispired play.

I remember thinking Luol had this problem early too, but he started to overcome it in Year 2, and had almost completely shed it by the end of last season. Now he looks completely instinctual out there and just makes whatever play should be made (most of the time, obviously). It doesn't mean always being ultra-agressive in trying to score or whatever, it just means not overthinking and relying on the talent and understanding of the game that has been ingrained into your brain, which no matter how smart/skilled/confident you are, is going to take a little time.

It basically all comes down to a learned mentality that an old coach of mine used to always repeat ad nauseum: Do everything quickly, but never hurry.

That, moreso than any statistical progression, is what I'll be watching for from Danny in the first half of this upcoming season. The sooner he can start just playing "unconsciously," the sooner we'll actually know what he really do have here.

Shade
07-30-2007, 02:16 PM
With Mike Dunleavy and Kareem Rush at shooting guard and Danny Granger, Marquis Daniels and Shawne Williams at small forward, they're pretty well-stocked at those two positions.

Dun @ SG = :shakehead
Quis @ SF = :wtf:

Shade
07-30-2007, 02:20 PM
Dunleavy is more of a shooting guard than he is a power forward. I think Dunleavy can play some shooting guard - it depends on who the small forward is

Dun is neither; he's a SF. Which makes the fact that we traded for him, especially at the salary he's making, all the more ridiculous.