PDA

View Full Version : The Danny Granger Bandwagon Thread / Poll



BoomBaby33
01-01-2008, 12:07 PM
OK. I have been thinking about this for the last few weeks, as Danny has been in a slump. Its easy to complain about his play when he is not playing at his best, but I thought this would be the time to review everyone's thoughts about Danny.

At first glance (his first 2 years in the league), he has seemed like he is ready to take over this team defensively and offensively. 32 games into this season, he seems to be regressing, especially defensively. Maybe its TPTB expecting too much out of him. Maybe its his confidence. Who knows, but I think he should be farther ahead of where he is by now. Has he hit his ceiling?

He can't finish at the rim very well yet. Defensively, he is over rated at this point - his foot speed leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly, I'm becoming disappointed. Maybe we should package him with JO to get a top tier perimeter player.

What does everybody else think? Do we keep him or not?

Mourning
01-01-2008, 12:17 PM
We keep him. Reasons:

- Rookiecontract
- I believe his numbers look dissappointing mainly because he gets the hardest defensive assignments in by far the most games. That defensive energy has to have its consequences for his offensive game aswell
- He just looks like a different player when JO is in the game. And as much as I like JO, I would prefer to try to package him instead of Danny if only to be able resign most of our other youngsters.
- He's still pretty young and hasn't reached his peak yet.
- I think some of the expectations from some of us fans are way too high from him to ever be able to fullfill those.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Hicks
01-01-2008, 12:28 PM
Keep him as long as you can without a re-commitment, then decide what he's worth to you and act accordingly.

I'm sorry to say the more I see Danny this year the less confident I am that he'll be a consistent player. I'm more than happy to give him another year to figure it out though.

BoomBaby33
01-01-2008, 12:40 PM
We keep him. Reasons:

- Rookiecontract
- I believe his numbers look dissappointing mainly because he gets the hardest defensive assignments in by far the most games. That defensive energy has to have its consequences for his offensive game aswell
- He just looks like a different player when JO is in the game. And as much as I like JO, I would prefer to try to package him instead of Danny if only to be able resign most of our other youngsters.
- He's still pretty young and hasn't reached his peak yet.
- I think some of the expectations from some of us fans are way too high from him to ever be able to fullfill those.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

This is a great point. I noticed that especially when JO was injured and came back. When JO was out of the lineup, Danny seemed to step up his game tremendously. When JO came back, Danny fell back into the same old passive Danny.

Maybe I should have posed the poll question this way: can Danny lead this team? I'm just frustrated how he disappears at times.

Danny seems to be a follower and not a leader with JO. Maybe trading JO will be the key for Danny, ala Iverson being traded from Philly, and Iggy stepping it up.

BoomBaby33
01-01-2008, 12:45 PM
Keep him as long as you can without a re-commitment, then decide what he's worth to you and act accordingly.

I'm sorry to say the more I see Danny this year the less confident I am that he'll be a consistent player. I'm more than happy to give him another year to figure it out though.

Consistency is the key with him. Can he be consistent enough to (help) lead this team with JO? Maybe he has already hit his ceiling, at least playing with JO.

His value is really high right now though, ala what Ike was last year when we traded for him, and it seems like Ike maybe has hit his ceiling too.

odeez
01-01-2008, 01:00 PM
He does seem to be a different player with JO in the game. The whole team plays differently when JO is there. He takes the most shots. When it was on Danny and Dun to score and they knew it, they played better. I would like to see Danny play without JO again before say trade him. Something will have to give at some point, maybe this year?

BlueNGold
01-01-2008, 01:50 PM
We keep him. Reasons:

- Rookiecontract
- I believe his numbers look dissappointing mainly because he gets the hardest defensive assignments in by far the most games. That defensive energy has to have its consequences for his offensive game aswell
- He just looks like a different player when JO is in the game. And as much as I like JO, I would prefer to try to package him instead of Danny if only to be able resign most of our other youngsters.
- He's still pretty young and hasn't reached his peak yet.
- I think some of the expectations from some of us fans are way too high from him to ever be able to fullfill those.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Excellent post. I said review his contract, but much of this mirrors my sentiments. Since he's a good citizen, he is even more likely to stay.

The only reason I said review his contract is because of Shawne Williams and so much can change before now and then. I would prefer to see more quickness than either can bring at SG, and more size than either can bring at PF...so IMO they are competing for the SF position.

Young
01-01-2008, 02:40 PM
We keep him. Reasons:

- Rookiecontract
- I believe his numbers look dissappointing mainly because he gets the hardest defensive assignments in by far the most games. That defensive energy has to have its consequences for his offensive game aswell
- He just looks like a different player when JO is in the game. And as much as I like JO, I would prefer to try to package him instead of Danny if only to be able resign most of our other youngsters.
- He's still pretty young and hasn't reached his peak yet.
- I think some of the expectations from some of us fans are way too high from him to ever be able to fullfill those.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Pretty much I agree with this.

I mean defiantly don't want to overpay for him. I think an extension in the 45-50 million dollar range is fair.

Naptown_Seth
01-01-2008, 05:03 PM
I still think his consistency is tied directly to awareness and confidence. Those things will click, and then he will be a take over type of player.

No way it's just when JO is out there, he's like this all the time. I think it's more about so many other top players at once, rather than JO specifically.

Danny really needs to almost be thrown to the wolves where he is the only good player and where the expectations are low. Let him be forced to take over, learn the game from that aspect where he's in control, and then be reintroduced to a team situation.

Right now there's just not room for him to be pushed out of the next, so to speak.


But I also realize that he's got good value and this team needs other interests addressed.

Rajah Brown
01-01-2008, 06:00 PM
Didn't answer the poll as the choices aren't ideal. As far as I'm
concerned, some simply have overblown expectations of Granger.
He's a self-made player, not some elite, uber-talented kid. Ideally,
he's a very good role player. Expecting more from him isn't really
fair to him.

As far as his future with the Pacers, he's a very economical asset
right now who could be used via trade in the right situation to
entice another team to take an undesireable contract and/or
give up an asset that would better balance out the Pacers
roster/talent.

If he sticks around, then great. If not, good luck elsewhere. Doesn't
really matter much to me.

Putnam
01-01-2008, 08:17 PM
I didn't choose the first option because the Pippin comparison is pointless. But I want Granger to be a Pacer for his whole career.

If he never gets any better, I still want him to be a Pacer as long as possible. He doesn't have to be a #1 option and he doesn't have to have a breakout season.

He's a solid asset. He may never do more than give 35 minutes and score 16 points a game. I'll take that.

NuffSaid
01-02-2008, 12:17 AM
You keep him and review his status at the end of the season. However, if you want to get the maximum performance out of him the best thing to do is to bring him off the bench where he can be the #1 scoring option among the reserves.

Alpolloloco
01-02-2008, 02:19 AM
I didn't choose the first option because the Pippin comparison is pointless. But I want Granger to be a Pacer for his whole career.

If he never gets any better, I still want him to be a Pacer as long as possible. He doesn't have to be a #1 option and he doesn't have to have a breakout season.

He's a solid asset. He may never do more than give 35 minutes and score 16 points a game. I'll take that.

These are my exact thoughts too!

If he can maintain his current level at 16-6 I'm more than happy but with JO gone and a real 1st option at the guard position (who can defend the perimeter too ... or is that too much too asked?) I think Danny can be a solid 2nd or 3rd option on offense and a fine defensive player too!

Trader Joe
01-02-2008, 02:47 AM
Generally I'd say who is really upset that we have a third year SF averaging 16 and 6 already? Certainly not me.

Take a look at Josh Howard. To me he and Granger are nearly identical players and so far Granger's career has nearly mimicked Howard's progress. Wasn't until his fourth year that it all finally "clicked" for Howard and now in his 5th year in the league he is averaging 21 and 7. I really don't think its unreasonable to see Granger peaking in the same manner and time frame in his career.

In short, he's not Pippen, but then again who is? I'll take a Josh Howard type player on my team any day of the week.

croz24
01-02-2008, 04:03 AM
TRADE HIM ASAP!!! granger is worth a late lotto at the worst and clearly will never develop into a 'star' that most on here think. i've suggested before a deal such as danny to miami for d. cook and a 1st at year's end. the pacers could definitely get great value in return if they trade him before next year. after that, i only see his value decreasing...

Rajah Brown
01-02-2008, 09:26 AM
I'm curious. For those who want him in Indy for his entire career,
why is that ?

Because he's a 'good guy' ? Because drafting him was the only
really indisuptably smart move TBTP has made in recent years ?

I don't get it. We aren't talking about Reggie Miller here. What's
the sentimental attachment to the kid ?

Putnam
01-02-2008, 10:18 AM
I'm curious. For those who want him in Indy for his entire career,
why is that ?

Because he's a 'good guy' ? Because drafting him was the only
really indisuptably smart move TBTP has made in recent years ?

I don't get it. We aren't talking about Reggie Miller here. What's
the sentimental attachment to the kid ?


I think Granger is a solid performer who can do a reliable job for years to come. He may not be a star, but we don't need to have a star small forward.

You have to start somewhere in order to move forward. The Pacers have plenty of problems and issues, and they need to solve most of them before they are going to be winners. But you can't keep solving the same problem over and over again. You need to solve one and then put it behind you and move on.

Are the Pacers solid at the point guard, with confidence that they've got talent, character, health and depth at that position they can count on from night to night for years to come?

No. We like what Tinsley is doing this year, but right now he is on the bench and the back-ups are very questionable.

Ask the same question about every other position in the line-up and you get the same uncertainty at the 2, the 4 and the 5. We like several of our players, but we aren't sure they're solid for years to come.

Only at the small forward position can we check the box and say, "Problem solved" and then move on to the next one.

Rajah Brown is correct in saying Granger is not Reggie Miller. But maybe Granger is Derrick McKey. So let's rejoice therefore and stop trying to acquire Detlef Schrempf.

esabyrn333
01-02-2008, 11:10 AM
I think we have Detlif Shimf playing the Two. Meaning I believe Dunleavy and Danny are both solid sf not all stars but solid team guys.

tdubb03
01-02-2008, 01:31 PM
I'm surprised no one's voted for the Pippen comparison.

JayRedd
01-02-2008, 04:10 PM
I don't get it. We aren't talking about Reggie Miller here. What's the sentimental attachment to the kid ?

Getting him is the only positive thing to happen to the franchise since 2004.

Rajah Brown
01-02-2008, 05:00 PM
Jay-

That's what I figured. Hopefully, TBTP is professional enough to
get beyond that if a deal including/requiring DG presents itself
at some point that's too good to pass up.

Evan_The_Dude
01-02-2008, 06:46 PM
The only thing that makes Danny slightly expendable is Shawne Williams. If Williams shows that he's ready, and there's a deal out there that we can use Danny in to get us a player that we really really need, then we let Danny go. But what we SHOULDN'T do is get greedy and take what we have for granted. At lot of teams would kill to have a 3rd year guy averaging 16 & 6 while guarding the opposing teams best perimeter player.

Shade
01-02-2008, 09:25 PM
Whatever happened to Granger's vaunted defense?

Am I the only one who doesn't see it?

Kofi
01-02-2008, 11:09 PM
If we could get a guard of comparable talent level and upside, then I'd have no problem with shipping him out. Someone like a Randy Foye, for example.

Trader Joe
01-03-2008, 12:34 AM
Whatever happened to Granger's vaunted defense?

Am I the only one who doesn't see it?
I think that was more hype than anything else as well as the draft people comparing him to Pippen. His offense and rebounding were always more impressive in college.

BoomBaby33
01-03-2008, 08:52 AM
The only thing that makes Danny slightly expendable is Shawne Williams. If Williams shows that he's ready, and there's a deal out there that we can use Danny in to get us a player that we really really need, then we let Danny go. But what we SHOULDN'T do is get greedy and take what we have for granted. At lot of teams would kill to have a 3rd year guy averaging 16 & 6 while guarding the opposing teams best perimeter player.

I totally agree with this assessment. Look, Im a huge DG fan (witness my screen name), and he is great for the fan base in that he is a good citizen. But, when Shawne Williams figures out how to play defense, he can be better than Danny on the perimeter. (Shade - your not the only one that sees this - thats why I started this thread). Shawne has way better foot speed than Danny. And #4 is definitely a better shooter, and he takes the ball to the rim with way more confidence, aggression, and success IMO.

Watching Rudy Gay take Danny to school last night is really starting to get to be old already. Danny was holding his own jock against JRich and Gerald Wallace the other day. If you noticed, Obie had Rush guarding Gay at the end of the game, rather than Danny.

I'm just saying Danny is good, but not as good as we think he is, or as good as he could be. I was thinking about it during last night's game, Danny seems to be the Mike Dunleavy of the Golden State days, he lacks confidence and agressiveness. In a couple not so popular words, I think "He's soft". To be great, he needs to work on his lateral foot speed and protecting the ball, and how many times do you see him drive straight into a guy under the basket for a charging foul. JO may take the most charges, but I think Danny is probably up there in commiting them, as well.