PDA

View Full Version : Reasons why Granger should come off the bench



Isaac
12-28-2007, 04:26 PM
1.) Danny plays a lot better when he isn't on the floor with Jermaine. He seems to be too passive when JO is on the floor, and when he does pick his spots to be aggressive he forces it, acting as if its the last time he's going to get the ball.

2.) I did not see the Wizards game, but other then that one Danny has not played very well or shot it that well since the Orlando game. He looks more like he did last year then he did for the first part of this year. I think he could really benifit playing with the second unit and being more of a focus offensively could light his spark again.

3.) Marquis and Jamaal need to play together more often. I think we should start Marquis in Danny's place, stay with me for a second. Ever since we discovered that Diener sucks, we have been using Quis as the backup point guard. I feel like he is at his best with Jamaal on the court because he can be sneakier. The less he is noticed by the defense the better he is. I know we then have an issue with the backup point guard spot, but I feel like Andre Owens has shown to be a good game manager who doesn't make that many mistakes. The added scoring punch of Granger off the bench would take pressure off the backup point guard position, and Owens is also a good PG defender.

I would also bring Murphy off the bench and start Foster, but that's another story.

Kstat
12-28-2007, 04:32 PM
do you really want Dunleavy to start at small forward? He got passed around the league and used like a punch bowl in Golden State that way.

Offense or not, Granger is the only thing Indiana has that can be confused for a defensive swingman. You don't bring those off the bench if you only have one.

naptownmenace
12-28-2007, 04:57 PM
Unfortunately, Kstat is right. I say unfortunately not because it's Kstat but because we only have one decent defender at SF and it's Danny.

However, Danny struggles guarding the quick swingmen like Wade, Butler, Durant, and Joe Johnson. Honestly I'd rather Danny just play better and stay in the starting lineup... is that possible?

Isaac
12-28-2007, 05:20 PM
do you really want Dunleavy to start at small forward? He got passed around the league and used like a punch bowl in Golden State that way.

Yeah you're right. Dunleavy's breakout can be largely attributed to playing the 2.


Offense or not, Granger is the only thing Indiana has that can be confused for a defensive swingman. You don't bring those off the bench if you only have one.

I think Shawne Williams is close. He has good lateral quickness and seems to have a pretty good defensive IQ. I know it is far out and never going to happen, but I would like to see Shawne start next to Dunleavy. I would love to see more Marquis and Jamaal, but I think its more important for Granger to get back in the flow he was in earlier, and bringing him off the bench may help.

I know I'm grasping at straws here, but I think this is a very versatile basketball team with more lineup possibilities then are being used and I hope Obie hasn't locked himself in to these lineups he's been using.

andreialta
12-28-2007, 05:22 PM
Danny to go off the bench is really the worst thing this team needs.. The morale of Danny will be so low, and i dont think he would be effective.

I say less playing time or more quick off the bench players to replace the starters. but i dont agree with him coming off the bench.

Naptown_Seth
12-28-2007, 05:26 PM
do you really want Dunleavy to start at small forward? He got passed around the league and used like a punch bowl in Golden State that way.

Offense or not, Granger is the only thing Indiana has that can be confused for a defensive swingman. You don't bring those off the bench if you only have one.
Actually yes I do want Dun at SF. He's way too slow at SG and that's how he's been getting beat. His problem in GS had more to do with his own ability to hit the outside jumper and be a playmaker than that SF was wrong for him.

Right now the Pacers are seeing more success with Quis or Rush at SG and Dun at SF.

Kstat
12-28-2007, 05:35 PM
Actually yes I do want Dun at SF. He's way too slow at SG and that's how he's been getting beat. His problem in GS had more to do with his own ability to hit the outside jumper and be a playmaker than that SF was wrong for him.

Right now the Pacers are seeing more success with Quis or Rush at SG and Dun at SF.

Dunleavy had a lot more problems getting posted up by small forwards than he did with shooting guards blowing by him.

NapTonius Monk
12-28-2007, 05:49 PM
I agree. Danny should probably come off the bench. I would hope his psyche is strong enough to take that, but the truth is, he doesn't play that well with Jermaine. Shawne or Rush would fit well, I think. Danny is just so tentative with JO. I don't know why, but he plays his best when he's the 1st option.

Kofi
12-28-2007, 05:59 PM
It's likely a respect thing. Danny knows J.O.'s been here a lot longer than he has, and he doesn't want to feel like he's stepping on his toes. He's the anti-Artest.

Evan_The_Dude
12-28-2007, 06:06 PM
So when Danny comes off the bench, then who guards the opposing teams best perimeter player? Lets keep in mind that Danny is 6'9" and the other best possible option is Daniels at 6'6". With all of Danny's shooting troubles, he's still managing to be the 2nd leading scorer on this team. If those points come when Jermaine isn't on the floor, I call that a good thing because that means we have scoring without Jermaine in. Defensively, we'd be idiots to start anybody but Danny at that position. O'Brien stresses defense first, so there you go. No Danny off bench for you.

Trader Joe
12-28-2007, 06:39 PM
Danny's issue since day one has been his aggressiveness or I suppose you could say confidence. The tools are there, he just doesn't ever seem to believe enough in himself. Also his poor decision making at times still holds him back defensively.

Alpolloloco
12-28-2007, 10:11 PM
Why not bring JO off the bench instead of DG?

Kaufman
12-28-2007, 10:43 PM
Reminds one a lot of the days when Jalen Rose would always defer to Reggie... Similarly I think probably here we see Danny treating JO the same way...

NuffSaid
12-29-2007, 12:26 AM
Granger seems to me to be the type of player who needs to know what players are being run for him rather than just improvising and taking what the defense gives him. It doesn't seem to be his strong suit to be a playmaker and in JOB's offense, you have to be able to create shots opportunities for yourself off ball movement. In transition offense that isn't as big a problem because you're PG should create those opportunities for you when he kicks the ball back out for you as the trailor along the perimeter, but you've got to know what you want to do with the ball especially if you're going to penetrate and drive the ball to the rack. Unfortunately, Granger seems to miss alot of those baskets in transition play.

Something else to consider and unless I've missed my offensive assignments, Granger seems to be the 5th option out there - Tinsley, Dunleavy, JO and Murphy are 1 thru 4 respectively - and not many plays are being run for him which makes it very difficult for him to get his game going because he has to be creative. So, by bringing him off the bench and making him the first or second option, a role he's more accustomed to performing from, I think will help him if for no other reason than he'll know his role, he'll know exactly what's expected of him, and he won't be so pressured into having to score based strictly off his creativity which isn't always there.

I think Dunleavy at the 3 would work better because he has been and can be more creative! Plus, that's pretty much where he's had more success offensively all season.

Now, here's the problem in both situations: Where do you find the playing time for Williams? Consider the following:

Center: Murphy/Foster/JO/Harrison

PF: JO/Ike/Murphy

SF: Dunleavy/Granger/Williams

PG: Tinsley/Owens/Quis/Deiner

SG: Rush/Quis

Dunleavy has to start! He's no good coming off the bench.

I'd like to see Foster start, but he lacks offense. Having him out there w/JO only leaves the defense to double-up on JO.

Quis prefers to come off the bench and you have to respect a player who knows his role! But that means you'd have to put him at PG if you're to pair him w/Rush at the 2 which is fine. Quis would retain his 6th Man role and you'd keep a dribble penetrator on the floor with both units; Tinsley being the other w/the starters. Still, that creates another slight problem: When would Owens see playing time? If you keep Quis at the 2 and make Owens your new B/U-PG, that particular problem is resolved, but we still haven't solved the problem of finding playing time for Williams.

The only real solution is to play Granger/Williams at SF, Dunleavy/Rush at SG and Tinsley/Quis at PG.

Center: Murphy/Foster/JO/Harrison

PF: JO/Ike/Murphy

SF: Granger/Williams

PG: Tinsley/Quis/Owens/Deiner

SG: Dunleavy/Rush

But as you can see, that puts Granger right back as the starting SF.

Critiques and suggestions are always welcomed. :)

d_c
12-29-2007, 01:24 AM
Dunleavy had a lot more problems getting posted up by small forwards than he did with shooting guards blowing by him.

Dunleavy's issue in the past wasn't defense, as it's always been understood that he's going to be a bad defensive player no matter who he's guarding.

The problem with Dunleavy in the past has been simple: He wasn't putting the ball in the basket very efficiently and was not much of an overall offensive threat. This year he's shooting the ball much better. Hate to simplify it that much, but that was his issue at GS.

But defensively, yeah, the Pacers definitely need Granger in the starting lineup. He can be streaky offensively from game to game, but you live with that.

Peck
12-29-2007, 03:02 AM
Why not bring JO off the bench instead of DG?

I was going to ask this but you beat me to it.

CableKC
12-29-2007, 03:22 AM
I was going to ask this but you beat me to it.
I think that we would shortly hear a "I think it's time to part ways" speech from JONeal after this happened.

Peck
12-29-2007, 03:49 AM
I think that we would shortly hear a "I think it's time to part ways" speech from JONeal after this happened.

Is that supposed to change my mind?:devil:

Naptown_Seth
12-29-2007, 05:42 AM
Is that supposed to change my mind?:devil:
No, but considering all the "but Danny is the defender" talk I don't see how JO off the bench even gets a faint hint of being thought about being mentioned. Danny is not as good on defense as JO. JO isn't a 1 on 1 stopper, but neither is Danny. JO is the best help defender and cleans up a lot of messes. Danny's defense is much like his offense, peppered with all-star athletic highlights that suggest greatness but fundamentally filled with tons of mistakes that hold him back from that greatness.

Danny will bite a fake, he's even lost his man. Shawne is a better overall defender than Danny despite DG having apparently stronger skills at his disposal. DG seems more likely for a highlight play, but also more likely to get burned badly.

NuffSaid
12-29-2007, 06:58 AM
Naptown Seth,

Agreed. Hence, the only way Williams gets any real playing time is to start him at SF and bring Granger off the bench. I know this doesn't set well with alot of Pacers fans, but if anyone noticed Williams was the only one among Granger, Dunleavy and himself to slow down Prince.

So, if I were JOB I'd take the gamble and either start Williams over Granger this one time against the Pistons today, or if you really want to confuse matters for the defense start Granger (SG) and Williams (SF) and Owens (PG). Reason: Put your strongest defensive unit out there to counter the Pistons' strongest offensive unit. It's a gamble I'd be willing to take for at least one quarter.

D-BONE
12-29-2007, 09:30 AM
I haven't researched this at all, but how about we trade Danny, Dun, and Diogu?

Maybe we could get back a player or two that could help immediately. Let Williams, Quis, and Rush rotate the remaining SG/SF minutes.

In theory it seems like those 3 might fetch some interest. Although maybe the rest of the league has come to the same concluson as me-neither of them will ever be a difference maker.

Evan_The_Dude
12-29-2007, 10:16 AM
Maybe I'm crazy but think about this... Who do you think we could realistically trade Danny Granger for at this point that could help our team? Looking through the teams, there's a lot of players that could fit in here, but not many that make sense on the flip side. But one stands out big time. Ron Artest. I know, I know he's looney, but having a players coach that's a disciplinarian goes a long way.

We give Sacramento Danny whom is still a developing player, and we get back a polished defensive specialist that can also put the ball in the hole and also happens to average 4 assists per contest (which would be important here). We wouldn't really have to do much to make the salaries match since Ronnie is pretty underpaid. I'd welcome Ron back with open arms since I know the circumstances of why he wanted to go so bad had a little bit to do with Rick Carlisle. I know there's a few on here that have said something similar to what I'm saying now about Ron.

I look at it this way. Outgoing is a solid defensive guy that is inconsistent and indecisive offensively that will get better over time... This works for Sacramento's future. On the bench we have a decent defender and pretty good offensive player in Shawne Williams that will get better with time. Incoming is a solid defender, solid scorer (and a guaranteed 2nd option), and we get a certain toughness edge and swagger that we seriously lack. Not to mention that Ron can be back here with his daughter and his other family. I think this swap benefits both teams and both players. I honestly do want to see Ron back here, but do I think it will happen? Did Mark Jackson end up here twice?

For the record, Ron is probably the only guy I'd really want to trade Danny for. We need to gain offense and not lose defense, but if we can gain offense and gain defense it's all good for us. We sort of look like last seasons Golden State team. We're an ok team right now, but we're as good as we are and we need a player or 2 that can come in and give us that push.

McKeyFan
12-29-2007, 03:32 PM
Maybe I'm crazy but think about this... Who do you think we could realistically trade Danny Granger for at this point that could help our team? Looking through the teams, there's a lot of players that could fit in here, but not many that make sense on the flip side. But one stands out big time. Ron Artest. I know, I know he's looney, but having a players coach that's a disciplinarian goes a long way.

That would be like a dog eating its own vomit.

Kraft
12-30-2007, 03:22 PM
I think this discussion just highlights the fact that the roster is horribly unbalanced and some sort of move needs to be made -- not because the Pacers are just an average team but because it'd be wise for the now and for the future.

Just look at the grouping ... at least how I see them ...

At center, Jeff Foster and David Harrison both warrant playing time.

At power forward, Jermaine O'Neal, Ike Diogu and even Troy Murphy warrant playing time.

At small forward, Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavy and Shawne Williams all should be playing serious minutes.

But ...

At shooting guard, Marquis Daniels should get reasonable bench minutes. And Kareem Rush should get some spot time because he can shoot.

At point guard, there's Jamaal ... and nothing.

The tally? Eight players in the post/wing that need to be playing at least 15 minutes a game. But in the backcourt? Two ... and some spot minutes for Rush.

That's bad roster management. Someone tell Larry.

I think the team needs to put some heavy work into finding a move that swaps one of these young players for similar young players on the perimeter. Honestly, I wouldn't care who it was ... Danny, Shawne, Diogu, Dunleavy ... as long as you get someone back that can help on the outside.

D-BONE
12-30-2007, 04:32 PM
I think this discussion just highlights the fact that the roster is horribly unbalanced and some sort of move needs to be made -- not because the Pacers are just an average team but because it'd be wise for the now and for the future.

Just look at the grouping ... at least how I see them ...

At center, Jeff Foster and David Harrison both warrant playing time.

At power forward, Jermaine O'Neal, Ike Diogu and even Troy Murphy warrant playing time.

At small forward, Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavy and Shawne Williams all should be playing serious minutes.

But ...

At shooting guard, Marquis Daniels should get reasonable bench minutes. And Kareem Rush should get some spot time because he can shoot.

At point guard, there's Jamaal ... and nothing.

The tally? Eight players in the post/wing that need to be playing at least 15 minutes a game. But in the backcourt? Two ... and some spot minutes for Rush.

That's bad roster management. Someone tell Larry.

I think the team needs to put some heavy work into finding a move that swaps one of these young players for a similar young players on the perimeter. Honestly, I wouldn't care who it was ... Danny, Shawne, Diogu, Dunleavy ... as long as you get someone back that can help on the outside.

I am so with you on this. We need some moves. There are some new faces on the roster since last season, but the distribution inequalities are the same. Did they really think that was going to fix anything?

I can wait until the deadline for a move myself if necessary to get the best deal, but TPTB have to make up their minds what direction they will follow in the trade blueprint. Look to move a vet, higher priced guy or one of the younger guys? The former would PROBABLY indicate a youth oriented deal bordering on or constintuting a traditional rebuild. The latter would mean they think they can win in the short term.

Honestly, I can see arguments on both sides of this. What's most important to me is that they are being aggressive and proactive about this. In the past, I think they've been too much wait and see, reactive in the area of player movement.