PDA

View Full Version : Dunleavy or Granger?



LG33
01-06-2008, 01:13 PM
The question is simple - Who's scoring is more important to the team, and why? Take into account what the players offer besides scoring when considering your response.

Record in games in which they have scored 20 or more points:
Granger 9-3
Dunleavy 7-4

Do we need them both to score 20 consistently, or is it more important that one of them reaches a score of scores more frequently?

Mourning
01-06-2008, 01:38 PM
I think they are equally important exactly because they offer other stuff besides the scoring.

Dun Dun brings extra playmaking, intelligence just too mention some of the things, while Danny brings extra defensive wingspin and is about the only effective defensive player on the swingspots.

They both are equally important.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Arcadian
01-06-2008, 01:43 PM
I'd say equal at this point although I think Danny still needs to score to be have a good game.
So maybe Danny.

More importantly, I've noticed every time JO leads the team in scoring neither one of these players do.

Mourning
01-06-2008, 01:52 PM
I'd say equal at this point although I think Danny still needs to score to be have a good game.
So maybe Danny.

More importantly, I've noticed every time JO leads the team in scoring neither one of these players do.

It's because both of them are then just not moving, not taking shots or are shooting badly, so JO is FORCED to shoot a lot... :rolleyes:.
















yeah, I was beying sarcastic.

Oneal07
01-06-2008, 02:02 PM
Danny is a better defender!!! Not lockdown, but is better!!! We need Both to play well overall!!!

If we can get JO, Danny and Mike to play well all the time. We would be winning more games. Remember also Jamaal is out

Mourning
01-06-2008, 02:15 PM
Danny is a better defender!!! Not lockdown, but is better!!! We need Both to play well overall!!!

If we can get JO, Danny and Mike to play well all the time. We would be winning more games. Remember also Jamaal is out


True words spoken. I hope that is possible though, really hope so as it would be truly great for this team.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

JayRedd
01-06-2008, 02:29 PM
More importantly, I've noticed every time JO leads the team in scoring neither one of these players do.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Nice.

kester99
01-06-2008, 03:11 PM
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Nice.

Nah. He's right. I went back thru the boxscores. Good catch, Arc. ;)

On a more serious note, Dunleavy consistently pulls more assists. Danny tops him in blocks, and fouls, unfortunately...118 vs 82 total for the season. Danny has the most fouls of any Pacer....although on a per minute basis, Harrison, Diogu, Williams, Foster, Murph and O'Neal (in that order) foul at a higher clip.

Just shows where Danny can continue to improve. We need both wings to be deadly.

Hicks
01-06-2008, 03:13 PM
I voted Danny because he disappears more than Mike when his shot isn't falling. He's an X-factor right now. Also, not only do you get the points on the board when his shot's falling, but those are the nights where he attacks the basket more, and you see a hop in his step on defense, which can lead to blocks, steals, deflections.

Putnam
01-06-2008, 03:43 PM
We need SOMEBODY to do it every night.

It doesn't have to be the same guy every night.

What thrills me the most is seeing a different player excel from night to night. It could be Daniels. It could be Rush, It could be Williams. It could be Murphy.

It is gonna be Granger or Dunleavy more often than anyone else. But there are five players on the court all the time and it could be any one of them.

I want a game strategy that gets everything the opponent allows.

LG33
01-06-2008, 04:41 PM
I said Mike because he's more of a defensive liability, but I think we need him more now that Tinsley is out because of his passing.

idioteque
01-06-2008, 04:45 PM
I'm starting to become afraid that Granger's ceiling is Dunleavy with a little more defense and athleticism.

kester99
01-06-2008, 04:55 PM
I'm starting to become afraid that Granger's ceiling is Dunleavy with a little more defense and athleticism.

I don't think that would be a bad thing. And I'm not even sure we've seen Dunleavy's ceiling yet.

Bottom line (or one of them) here is that if we keep this group mostly together, and not trade 2 or 3 of them, we will start reaping the rewards that come with continuity. Look at Detroit's first five. Greater than the sum of their parts because they've played so much together. We haven't even come close to seeing that kind of effect here yet.

Which is why I don't talk trade seriously. The flashes of brilliance that Danny, Dun and JT have shown in the up-tempo game could be something we see more and more...I hope I hope I hope.

CableKC
01-06-2008, 05:03 PM
To make this more interesting....you should have added JONeal to the poll.

Who should lead the team in scoring on a regular basis going forward?

Our #1 scoring option prior to this season ( JONeal )...our Future ( Granger )...or whatever Dunleavy does.

Naptown_Seth
01-06-2008, 05:06 PM
I voted Danny because despite his defense (which is overrated right now due to awareness) he struggles to impact games away from scoring, while Dun clearly is productive just by touching the ball every time down.

Dun is almost always involved in some way, Danny typically is only involved if he is scoring.


I voted Danny because he disappears more than Mike when his shot isn't falling. He's an X-factor right now. Also, not only do you get the points on the board when his shot's falling, but those are the nights where he attacks the basket more, and you see a hop in his step on defense, which can lead to blocks, steals, deflections.
Exactly

Alpolloloco
01-06-2008, 05:14 PM
I voted Danny because despite his defense (which is overrated right now due to awareness) he struggles to impact games away from scoring, while Dun clearly is productive just by touching the ball every time down.

Dun is almost always involved in some way, Danny typically is only involved if he is scoring.

I don't think Danny's D is overrated, and some of us even underrate it!

Untill now Shawne hasn't convinced me one bit as a future defensive stopper, while Danny has shown flashes of great defense.

JayRedd
01-06-2008, 05:36 PM
Danny has shown flashes of great defense.

I must have blinked.

He's never impressed me for even a full quarter. Too many missed assignments and rotations, let alone his inability to really stop penetration. He just has too many possessions where he seems disinterested.

As for the overall topic, I voted Mike. Like the 2nd Quarter against Atlanta or in New York a few weeks back, the team just explodes when he goes on his little scoring runs. I don't have any proof, but it seems like every time he makes a nice look to a cutter for a bucket and then, say, hits a three next time down, we heat up. Next thing you know dudes are getting deflections, MDJ is getting to the rim for a lay-in and then sticking one of those awkward, step-back 15 footers off the dribble that somehow goes in. Then other dudes start hitting threes and Quis or Jamaal start getting into the paint. Him doing well just sparkplugs the whole team.

Now that I think about it, I say we trade Danny. Mike's quite a bit better than him, they play the same position, and we could get someone pretty good for Danny. Plus we have Quisy for a few more years to back up Mike, and Shawne is okay too.

It's time.

Trade the Gift.

Mourning
01-06-2008, 05:38 PM
Danny has the most fouls of any Pacer....although on a per minute basis, Harrison, Diogu, Williams, Foster, Murph and O'Neal (in that order) foul at a higher clip.

Just shows where Danny can continue to improve. We need both wings to be deadly.

Maybe that's because on most nights Danny has to guard the opponents top SF or SG, so to me it's totally logical that he makes a lot of fouls.

I aggree that we need both wingplayers to make their respective contributions (more) consistantly if the team wants to reach the play-offs let stand have even a shimmer of a chance of advancing in it.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Alpolloloco
01-06-2008, 05:42 PM
I must have blinked. He's never impressed me for even a full quarter. Too many missed assignments and rotations, let alone his inability to really stop penetration. He just has too many possessions where he seems disinterested.

As for the overall topic, I voted Mike. Like the 2nd Quarter against Atlanta or in New York a few weeks back, the team just explodes when he goes on his little scoring runs. I don't have any proof, but it seems like every time he makes a nice look to a cutter for a bucket and then, say, hits a three next time down, we heat up. Next thing you know dudes are getting deflections, MDJ is getting to the rim for a lay-in and then sticking one of those awkward, step-back 15 footers off the dribble that somehow goes in.

Now that I think about it, I say we trade Danny. Mike's quite a bit better than him, they play the same position, and we could get someone pretty good for Danny. Plus we have Quisy for a few more years to back him up, and Shawne is okay too.

It's time. Trade the Gift.

Nah I'd rather trade Williams. Danny is a class act while Shawne already has a police record.

Claptonrocks
01-06-2008, 05:49 PM
They both need to score for this team to be effective.......

JayRedd
01-06-2008, 05:50 PM
Nah I'd rather trade Williams. Danny is a class act while Shawne already has a police record.

Cool. Trade em both then. Mike's a lot better than either one.

Mourning
01-06-2008, 05:51 PM
Now that I think about it, I say we trade Danny. Mike's quite a bit better than him, they play the same position, and we could get someone pretty good for Danny. Plus we have Quisy for a few more years to back up Mike, and Shawne is okay too.

It's time.

Trade the Gift.

While Dannie is far from flawless and Mike is not as bad a defender as some make him out to be I still shrug about the thought of Mike having to defend the James, Bryants, Dengs, Ginobili's, Ray Allen's, McGrady's, Richardson, etc of this world.

So, unless we get a top defender for Granger I really am hesistant of such an idea.

But, maybe you are beying sarcastic, I'm not sure :).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

JayRedd
01-06-2008, 06:02 PM
While Dannie is far from flawless and Mike is not as bad a defender as some make him out to be I still shrug about the thought of Mike having to defend the James, Bryants, Dengs, Ginobili's, Ray Allen's, McGrady's, Richardson, etc of this world.

So, unless we get a top defender for Granger I really am hesistant of such an idea.

But, maybe you are beying sarcastic, I'm not sure :).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Nope. For once I'm not.

Obviously, Mike isn't gonna be our go to defender on the perimeter. We need to find someone else to do that. But it's not like we have anyone doing it now either. Danny's big and strong, but he's not much of challenge for the elite swing men in this League. (And please don't put ever put Jason Richardson on that list again.)

I just don't see much reason to extend Danny at, say 4 years/$50 million when we already have Dunleavy signed for less. You can't pay two SFs $10 million-ish per year. It's just dumb.

If we're so worried about defense all of the sudden, then get a PG that can help out. And maybe sign a SG. That would be novel. Danny for someone with a both-ways skill set of, say, Corey Maggette would be fine.

Mourning
01-06-2008, 06:25 PM
Nope. For once I'm not.

Obviously, Mike isn't gonna be our go to defender on the perimeter. We need to find someone else to do that. But it's not like we have anyone doing it now either. Danny's big and strong, but he's not much of challenge for the elite swing men in this League. (And please don't put ever put Jason Richardson on that list again.)

I just don't see much reason to extend Danny at, say 4 years/$50 million when we already have Dunleavy signed for less. You can't pay two SFs $10 million-ish per year. It's just dumb.

If we're so worried about defense all of the sudden, then get a PG that can help out. And maybe sign a SG. That would be novel. Danny for someone with a both-ways skill set of, say, Corey Maggette would be fine.

Ok. Well not much to really disaggree with. Few points though.

I will aggree that Danny isn't a premier defender, but I would say he is by far the best what we have at the swingman positions in this role (though Rush seems to be doing pretty well defensively aswell as of late, can't see him playing more then 20 minutes a game unless it's forced because of say things like injuries).

Sure, he generally doesn't lock down the elite swingmen he faces, but they aren't considered elite for nothing so the group of players who actually CAN lock them down or slow them down considerably is going to be rather small.

I think Danny is also suffering from the fact that he a lot of times has to not only defend the opposing teams first offensive option, but is also expected to create a sizable offensive output himself (scoring). Then I think he can also become a better defender by a decent margin (but, maybe I am wrong here) to easily put him in the "good defenders" group. Players who don't lock down the opposing elite players totally, but can certainly slow them down or very frequently frustrate them into bad shooting nights.

Let Mike defend the players Danny is defending and I think those players have career nights against the Pacers more then often. I don't think he is awfull on defense, but nevertheless at best he still is average at that part of the game. I dunno getting back a good SG who could defend would make me consider moving Danny, but that player would have to be better then say a Luther Head or somebody like him.

Then you mention the contract issues. I aggree that it would generally be stupid to pay two of your players at the same position large amounts of salary. However, a lot of games they don't play the same position (logical because they play a lot of the time together)

And does this position of yours also mean dropping JO as he has an albatross contract, which is endangering our ability to resign any of our younger players at all, because we also have another player with a huge contract at the same position(s) he plays at in Murphy?

Offcourse, I would prefer to drop Troy instead of JO, but I doubt anyone in the league could be enticed to take that baite, while I still have some (verrrrry) slim hope for JO in that respect.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

JayRedd
01-06-2008, 07:04 PM
I think we should have traded JO like 12 months ago. But that's sort of beside the point.

To me, there's only three things that matter here: 1) Mike's better than Danny, 2) I believe Mike will continue to be better than Danny, and 3) we only need one starting SF.

So unless you think Danny is gonna be some 5-time All Star, it comes down to money and where to best spend your resources. Next year, we'll be paying a combined $16 million for Dun and Quis. Those two guys (plus Shawne, who's still on a rookie deal through 2010) are more than capable of playing 48 minutes at SF on a winning basketball team, IMO. And they can both play a little fill-in SG (while Shawne can maybe play some fill-in PF).

And since trading either Mike or Marquis is gonna be difficult (contract/soft reputation and injury history, respectively) and trading Danny would give us back a legit asset, why would we not just trade Danny for something we actually need?

Maybe I'm being a little hasty (I did just come to this conclusion five minutes ago), but it just seems to make sense. I just think Mike is better, and I'm not too too worried about the short-term fall-out of making our horrible perimeter defense slightly more horribler. And, presumably, the person we're trading Danny for would be a SG with at least as much individual defensive acumen as Granger.

As for stopping the elites, of course no one does that. Not Bruce Bowen, Gerald Wallace or Ron Artest. But a lot of guys make them work for their points. I don't think Danny makes them work much. He's not even close to other SFs like Richard Jefferson or Tayshaun. I'm guessing every elite perimeter player in the league licks their chops when they know Indy is coming up on their schedule. "Whew...I can drop 30 without tiring myself up for this upcoming West Coast road trip." I really wonder how many starting SFs he's actually better than defensively. As long as we pair Dunleavy with someone as good defensively as Jack or Ricky Davis, I don't think we'll see any drop off (and, hopefully, we will get someone significantly better than those two).

Age is the only reason I'd rather have Danny. But for the next 4-5 years, I expect Mike to stay better. He just has a lot more skills.

rexnom
01-06-2008, 07:49 PM
Hmm...this is an interesting thought. But what is the likelihood of TPTB trading Danny, a good guy who is slowly becoming the face of this franchise. Also, trading marquee guys over and over again shows a lack of vision.

indyman37
01-06-2008, 09:26 PM
Danny. JO seems to think he's huge (in bold).

I found the following quotes interesting but I didn't feel like starting another thread.

"Being a star in this league is a very difficult thing," said Jermaine O'Neal. "You're going to get special attention every single night. You've got to mentally focus in on what you need to do and you're going to have times when you don't feel physically up to par and that wears you down mentally. We need for him to find a way to get himself doing because we need him in a major, major way. …

"We have to help him; we have to boost him up because this is newfound territory for him. I know he wants to be a star in this league and we've got to do our best job to help him get to that position because when you get off to a good start the way he did, teams are really going to focus in on you and they're not allowing him to do some of the things he likes to do. He's going to be fine."

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/preview_080106.html

Rajah Brown
01-06-2008, 10:04 PM
How about we just get Gene Wilder to transplant Duns hoops-IQ into
Danny and Danny's athleticism into Duns. Then keep 'em both !

andreialta
01-06-2008, 10:33 PM
Danny and Dunleavy compliment each other in somewhat of an aspect in the game.

Dun can sumtimes create and feed the ball to danny on a break or danny would be the one driving the lane and when the defense collapse, kicks it out to mike for the open three.

on defense, i think both of them are both subpar, a lot of you say Grangers is a good defender, although he might be better than Mike, i still dont consider him a good defender.

i say equal

Putnam
01-07-2008, 09:18 AM
How about we just get Gene Wilder to transplant Duns hoops-IQ into
Danny and Danny's athleticism into Duns. Then keep 'em both !


Ok. But which one of them gets the enormous schwanstucker?