PDA

View Full Version : Is Danny/Shawne at the 2/3 a long-term solution?



Anthem
11-28-2007, 03:52 PM
I know I started the Shawne thread, but I really wanted a poll.

I've really enjoyed seeing Danny and Shawne on the court together. The difficulty for me is that both seem to be pure small forwards, with each having a limited ability to slide to a different position. We're kind of playing Danny at the 2, and last night we saw some (although not a ton) of Shawne at the 4. We've also got Jermaine/Foster/Murphy at 4, as well as an interesting prospect in Ike. So my gut reaction would be that if they're going to play together, that one (probably Danny) is a 2 and the other (probably Shawne) is a 3. Their skills seem to complement each other well, and they can both shoot (which is a pretty big bonus).

My question: is that a long-term solution? Or will we continually be hurt by "real" shooting guards that are too fast for Danny?

Putnam
11-28-2007, 04:06 PM
I said they belong at the 3 and 4. But I really don't believe in those enumerations.

Danny and Shawne belong on the court, and as Shawne comes along they belong on the court together for increasing minutes.

It is not like they are both catchers on a baseball team. There is plenty of room on the floor for both of them.

Matched with a true point guard, a really tough big man in the middle and an outside shooting threat, Danny and Shawne can both be very effective.

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe those two guys are the foundation of the team's future and it is wiser to build around them than to try and squeeze them into cookie-cutter roles.

mike_D
11-28-2007, 04:31 PM
I said they belong at the 3 and 4. But I really don't believe in those enumerations.

Danny and Shawne belong on the court, and as Shawne comes along they belong on the court together for increasing minutes.

It is not like they are both catchers on a baseball team. There is plenty of room on the floor for both of them.

Matched with a true point guard, a really tough big man in the middle and an outside shooting threat, Danny and Shawne can both be very effective.

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe those two guys are the foundation of the team's future and it is wiser to build around them than to try and squeeze them into cookie-cutter roles.



I don't think its that big of a deal anymore.Years ago you wouldn't want guys like Williams or Granger playing the four, in todays NBA your seeing teams go with powerforwards who play like smallforwards. I think Granger is more then Capable of playing powerforward in college he played alot inside, and I think hes strong enough to guard most powerforwards.Granger has also improved his perimeter game to the point where we can also play him at the two spot and get away with it.

Williams I believe is a true smallforward, I've that since the minute I saw him at Memphis. I'm not going to say he can't play powerforward, because we have seen him play that role this season, and he'll get stronger but I prefer him to play small forward. I dont think they'll get in eachothers way, a matter of fact I think they compliment eachother very well.

Todays NBA is all about versatility and putting players in different spots to create mismatches, We have two guys on our team that should be very good in that type of role.

timid
11-28-2007, 05:10 PM
I don't think its that big of a deal anymore.Years ago you wouldn't want guys like Williams or Granger playing the four, in todays NBA your seeing teams go with powerforwards who play like smallforwards. I think Granger is more then Capable of playing powerforward in college he played alot inside, and I think hes strong enough to guard most powerforwards.Granger has also improved his perimeter game to the point where we can also play him at the two spot and get away with it.

Williams I believe is a true smallforward, I've that since the minute I saw him at Memphis. I'm not going to say he can't play powerforward, because we have seen him play that role this season, and he'll get stronger but I prefer him to play small forward. I dont think they'll get in eachothers way, a matter of fact I think they compliment eachother very well.

Todays NBA is all about versatility and putting players in different spots to create mismatches, We have two guys on our team that should be very good in that type of role.

I agree.......If a guy can play, get them on the court......It really matters the most on the defensive end when it comes to guarding other SG's and both of them can guard 2's and 3's....

They can both shoot well enough to play the 2 and they both have great size....

I would put either or at the "2".....Although I really don't think it matters..

croz24
11-28-2007, 05:13 PM
more like eric gordon/danny granger at the 2/3...

Hoop
11-28-2007, 05:52 PM
I voted "No, but I think they are a long-term solution at the 3/4", but I'd be happy with Danny and Shawne at the 2/3 also.

I think people get to caught up in preconceived stereotypical heights that certain positions have been historically. Why can't a 6'9"-6'10" guy be a 2 or 3 depending on skill set or a 6'8" guy be a 4 or 5.

Anthem
11-28-2007, 06:05 PM
more like eric gordon/danny granger at the 2/3...
We're not getting Eric Gordon.

I wish, but it's simply not going to happen.

Anthem
11-28-2007, 06:09 PM
I voted "No, but I think they are a long-term solution at the 3/4", but I'd be happy with Danny and Shawne at the 2/3 also.

I think people get to caught up in preconceived stereotypical heights that certain positions have been historically. Why can't a 6'9"-6'10" guy be a 2 or 3 depending on skill set or a 6'8" guy be a 4 or 5.
It's about who you guard.

From my perspective, I'd rather see them at 2/3 because that gives a place for Ike. If Shawne's the future at 4, I'd like to move Ike for a guard.

CableKC
11-28-2007, 06:14 PM
My answer is No....they are a good short-term solution...but not a long-term solution.

Anthem
11-28-2007, 06:16 PM
My answer is No....they are a good short-term solution...but not a long-term solution.
Is either a career backup, in your mind, or does one of them get moved?

JayRedd
11-28-2007, 06:22 PM
It's about who you guard.

From my perspective, I'd rather see them at 2/3 because that gives a place for Ike.

Well, I wish I was six inches taller...but I'm just not.

Neither Danny nor Shawne will ever be able to defend quick penetrating guards, IMO. Nor are either of them particularly adept at handling the ball in the back court or initiating the offense.

They're just not guards.

Shawne might have some poor-man's Shawn Marion in him...so they could maybe go 3/4, but I'd have to see more out of him first and we'd have to commit to complete small ball for that to ever be an ideal option.

FlavaDave
11-28-2007, 06:27 PM
Will Danny have trouble guarding quick 2's? Maybe. But quick 2's will have trouble guarding Granger, no?

Hoop
11-28-2007, 06:37 PM
It's about who you guard.

From my perspective, I'd rather see them at 2/3 because that gives a place for Ike. If Shawne's the future at 4, I'd like to move Ike for a guard.I agree it's all about who can guard who, but they have to guard us too.

Why is everyone so eager to make a trade. We need good bench players too. We're not going to magically get a star for a borderline starter. Why get rid of Danny, Shawne or Ike, lets keep all 3 and wait a while and see what happens. There have already been so many changes to this team the last 3 or 4 years. I'd like to stand pat the rest of this season to see what we have.

LAPacer
11-28-2007, 06:42 PM
Is either a career backup, in your mind, or does one of them get moved?

I agree with CableKC. No. I think that we have a unique situation where we have alot of tall and skilled wing players. That will help us win alot of games, but not go deep in the playoffs. I would move one of Dunleavy, Shawne, or Danny, for an upgrade to the center or PG spot.

Rajah Brown
11-28-2007, 10:45 PM
Hoop-

You make a good point. Patience is a virtue when it comes to hanging
onto young guys as they develop even if there's some duplication at
a position.

But it's all about timing. The Pacers need a young, dynamic talent at
either of the G spots. If and when one is available (or a draft slot that
enables grabbing one), passing him up to wait awhile longer may well be
a mistake. You never know if that caliber a player/prospect will be
available again.

And coincindentally, next June's draft will likely be the best for G's in a
decade or so. Doesn't mean the Pacers necessarily need to move someone
to try and position accordingly. But it might.

BlueNGold
11-28-2007, 11:12 PM
I said they were not compatible in the same starting lineup, but I could be wrong. One of them will need to pack on some real beef.

I just think there are too many teams in the league with two big front court starters. For example, the Celtics, NJ, Knicks, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc..the list goes on... would all have a taller and/or bigger and stronger PF. Does anyone really think Shawne can guard Kevin Garnett...or Rasheed Wallace...or Zach Randolph?

Anthem
11-28-2007, 11:16 PM
Hoop-

You make a good point. Patience is a virtue when it comes to hanging
onto young guys as they develop even if there's some duplication at
a position.

But it's all about timing. The Pacers need a young, dynamic talent at
either of the G spots. If and when one is available (or a draft slot that
enables grabbing one), passing him up to wait awhile longer may well be
a mistake. You never know if that caliber a player/prospect will be
available again.

And coincindentally, next June's draft will likely be the best for G's in a
decade or so. Doesn't mean the Pacers necessarily need to move someone
to try and position accordingly. But it might.
I can't imagine we'll be much higher in the draft than 16 (as in, we absolutely won't pick in the 17-30 range), so that pick plus Ike might get a pretty good pick.