PDA

View Full Version : Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2



denyfizle
03-04-2009, 07:53 AM
Agree? Disagree? Check it out.

http://www.examiner.com/x-3586-Indiana-Pacers-Examiner~y2009m3d3-NBA-P4P-1-LeBron-or-Kobe-Who-is-basketballs-Manny-Pacquiao

BKK
03-04-2009, 08:22 AM
call me a hater but as usual what is Iverson doing on that list?

Country Boy
03-04-2009, 08:23 AM
Any attempt to rank players is subjective, or is it objective? Yeah I would put Danny in the top 25 players, but since I don't remember whether that is subjectively or objectively, I could be wrong. At any rate, he is our best player.

count55
03-04-2009, 08:38 AM
Subjective...meaning that it belongs to the mind of the subject (author), as opposed to object of fact.

Country Boy
03-04-2009, 09:25 AM
Subjective...meaning that it belongs to the mind of the subject (author), as opposed to object of fact.

Thanks count! I understand the difference in the two, I was trying to point out the fallacy of trying to rank players as who is "best".

Spirit
03-04-2009, 09:57 AM
Granger should atleast be top 15

OakMoses
03-04-2009, 10:06 AM
Strongly disagree once you get past #3. Allen Iverson is not a top 20 player anymore, maybe not even a top 50. There are not 7 players better than Dwight Howard. Chauncey Billups has been great for Denver, but he's not the 7th best player in the NBA. Steve Nash is not better than Deron Williams. Amare and Shaq are both too high.

BRushWithDeath
03-04-2009, 11:16 AM
Granger isn't a top 20 player.


1. LeBron James
2. Kobe Bryant



3. Dwyane Wade



4. Chris Paul
5. Dwight Howard

6. Tim Duncan
7. Kevin Garnett
8. Brandon Roy
9. Kevin Durant
10. Dirk Nowitzki
11. Pau Gasol
12. Yao Ming


13. Deron Williams
14. Paul Pierce
15. Chris Bosh


16. Joe Johnson
17. Devin Harris
18. Tony Parker
19. Amare Stoudemire
20. Al Jefferson


21. Carmelo Anthony
22. Manu Ginobli
23. Ray Allen
24. David West
25. Steve Nash

idioteque
03-04-2009, 11:45 AM
22. Manu Ginobli
23. Ray Allen
24. David West
25. Steve Nash

Danny Granger is better than all of these players. Everyone overrates Manu, Ray at 5 years younger was better than DG but not now, David West is good but not that good, and Steve Nash is declining.

At this point in their careers, I would take Danny over MOST of the people on anyone's Top 20 list. Sure there are a few no brainers, but not a whole lot.

pizza guy
03-04-2009, 01:29 PM
How is Shaq #10? Sure, he's still Shaq and if he asked me in person, he'd be #1, that's for sure. But, seriously, #10? Not anymore. I think Paul Pierce and Shaq should switch places on that list.

Can't really argue with Granger's spot, though I wouldn't argue if he were higher either.

Billups and Wade should switch spots. Garnett isn't that high anymore, though he belongs on the list.

--pizza

duke dynamite
03-04-2009, 01:31 PM
Granger isn't a top 20 player.


Why?

BRushWithDeath
03-04-2009, 01:55 PM
Why?

Because there are more than 20 better players.

duke dynamite
03-04-2009, 01:58 PM
Because there are more than 20 better players.
I think Danny is better than Al Jefferson. On your list I do think that Pau and Yao are a little high. Pau is good now because he compliments the play of Bryant and vice-versa. If he were still with the Grizz, his value wouldn't be so high.

Don't worry, this is just my opinion, I am not trying to call you out.

Noodle
03-04-2009, 02:22 PM
If Roy and Durant are #8 and #9, than Granger is not far behind. I would argue Granger is better than Roy. Roy can't score or protect the rim like Danny. Durant and Granger are at the same level right now. Durant will be better next season.

Players below Danny on that list.
-Nash
-Manu
-West
-Allen
-Anthony
-Gasol
-Johnson
-Harris
-Pierce
-Jefferson
-Roy

In my opinion, Granger is #14, Roy #15, Durant #13
Parker and Amare are far down on that list. Yao is right on at #12. Gasol is way overrated.

danman
03-04-2009, 02:26 PM
call me a hater but as usual what is Iverson doing on that list?

Reputation and past glories. I like Iverson but putting him in the top 20 is a laugh.

42% shooting, 29% on threes. Once upon a time, his 10+ free throws per game was the one thing haters ignored in his performance. But now he gets 6. Once upon a time, a pretty good defender when he was in the mood. Currently, he's average on a good day.

On performance, he's a 7 million dollar player at best. He might do a bit better because he can put butts in the seats. But in this economy, that's not a lock.

If he doesn't retire, his pride is going to take a hit on his next contract.

special ed
03-04-2009, 02:33 PM
I, too, will go with the "subjective", as opposed to object of fact.
One question that arises in my mind: How does one explain the recent success of the Pacers without a "Top 20" player? Or, along the same lines, the success of the Pistons without the Answer?
One thing that comes to mind is the coaching and how both coaches adjust without their supposed "Top 20" players. It could be said that since OB has less options (sans Granger), guys who normally don't get the green light are experiencing a lot more freedom and, in turn, gaining confidence. Maybe the same could be said about Coach Curry?
Should be interesting to see the Pacers upon Danny's return and how the younger guys play.

DisapointedPacerFan
03-04-2009, 04:39 PM
Kobe should be first, then LeBron. But other than that, I agree with his position.

croz24
03-04-2009, 04:52 PM
typically, when a top 10-15 player goes down to injury, the team he's on does not get better in their absence.

MyFavMartin
03-04-2009, 07:48 PM
Does Durant play defense?

Does Nowitzki?

Is Durant a better player now?

Granger's leadership and toughness are off the charts and will be invaluable when the Ps get to the playoffs.

Naptown_Seth
03-04-2009, 07:59 PM
Reputation and past glories. I like Iverson but putting him in the top 20 is a laugh.

42% shooting, 29% on threes. Once upon a time, his 10+ free throws per game was the one thing haters ignored in his performance. But now he gets 6. Once upon a time, a pretty good defender when he was in the mood. Currently, he's average on a good day.

On performance, he's a 7 million dollar player at best. He might do a bit better because he can put butts in the seats. But in this economy, that's not a lock.

If he doesn't retire, his pride is going to take a hit on his next contract.
Agree. I've never cared for his game to be honest, but he did get to the line and that's a double win. You're getting points and their getting into foul trouble. Not to mention getting into the team bonus early so that every stupid foul on the other end of the court walks you the other way for more free points.

But he's never been a great shooter and had to be praised when his assists got into the 9 range. He always liked to play defense away from the ball, he was a homerun play defender. Loved jumping the passing lane or picking a pocket out top, also loved leaving his man to cross the court and try to backdoor steal the post feed.

The thing with all that is it's pretty individualistic and he never really was good at involving others. People said "look at his teammates" but frankly I saw Jordan make plenty of stiffs look pretty decent. AI didn't do that. Instead he just dominated the ball twice as hard.

Pacersfan46
03-04-2009, 09:35 PM
Agree. I've never cared for his game to be honest, but he did get to the line and that's a double win. You're getting points and their getting into foul trouble. Not to mention getting into the team bonus early so that every stupid foul on the other end of the court walks you the other way for more free points.

But he's never been a great shooter and had to be praised when his assists got into the 9 range. He always liked to play defense away from the ball, he was a homerun play defender. Loved jumping the passing lane or picking a pocket out top, also loved leaving his man to cross the court and try to backdoor steal the post feed.

The thing with all that is it's pretty individualistic and he never really was good at involving others. People said "look at his teammates" but frankly I saw Jordan make plenty of stiffs look pretty decent. AI didn't do that. Instead he just dominated the ball twice as hard.

I agree with a lot of this, Iverson was never my type of player. Fun to watch, but I'd have been annoyed if he was on my favorite team.

The year Jordan retired to play baseball, the Bulls won 55 games without him. I don't think Iverson has ever been on a team that would win 55 games without him being on the roster.

-- Steve --

smj887
03-05-2009, 03:25 AM
I, too, will go with the "subjective", as opposed to object of fact.
One question that arises in my mind: How does one explain the recent success of the Pacers without a "Top 20" player? Or, along the same lines, the success of the Pistons without the Answer?
One thing that comes to mind is the coaching and how both coaches adjust without their supposed "Top 20" players. It could be said that since OB has less options (sans Granger), guys who normally don't get the green light are experiencing a lot more freedom and, in turn, gaining confidence. Maybe the same could be said about Coach Curry?
Should be interesting to see the Pacers upon Danny's return and how the younger guys play.

I'll ignore the Iverson scenario, because I think he's a shell of his former self.

Teams in all sports lose stars to injuries all the time and keep rolling. The Celtics lost Garnett to the knee injury but have been fine. Is Tom Brady not a Top 20 player anymore since the Patriots finished with one of the AFC's better records?

I think a lot of it has to do with teams looking past them. "Oh, they don't have their star, we can rest on this one." It applies a lot more to basketball, especially at this point of the season, where some guys are running out of gas.

Also, there's the general sense the players have that they need to step up and fill the void. First it was Daniels, then Murphy, lately here it's been Jack. They know they have to play better to account for Granger being out, and combined with some teams' not taking them seriously as an opponent, it's no wonder they're able to win.

Plus, it forces the guys to run the offense without a security net, so you're going to see a better performance. Someone walking a tight rope might fall during a trial, but take away their net and I think the odds of messing up drop significantly. There's no more margin for error. There's no "feed Danny the rock," so the other teams can't just say "Make sure to cover Danny." Teams don't know who's going to step up, and it's making the Pacers more difficult to play.

Not to mention giving the younger guys some minutes, as you said.

croz24
03-05-2009, 04:59 AM
I'll ignore the Iverson scenario, because I think he's a shell of his former self.

Teams in all sports lose stars to injuries all the time and keep rolling. The Celtics lost Garnett to the knee injury but have been fine. Is Tom Brady not a Top 20 player anymore since the Patriots finished with one of the AFC's better records?

I think a lot of it has to do with teams looking past them. "Oh, they don't have their star, we can rest on this one." It applies a lot more to basketball, especially at this point of the season, where some guys are running out of gas.

Also, there's the general sense the players have that they need to step up and fill the void. First it was Daniels, then Murphy, lately here it's been Jack. They know they have to play better to account for Granger being out, and combined with some teams' not taking them seriously as an opponent, it's no wonder they're able to win.

Plus, it forces the guys to run the offense without a security net, so you're going to see a better performance. Someone walking a tight rope might fall during a trial, but take away their net and I think the odds of messing up drop significantly. There's no more margin for error. There's no "feed Danny the rock," so the other teams can't just say "Make sure to cover Danny." Teams don't know who's going to step up, and it's making the Pacers more difficult to play.

Not to mention giving the younger guys some minutes, as you said.

please don't bring tom brady into this conversation. the pat's record this year is more proof that it's the patriot's/belichick's system that is winning them superbowls rather than tom brady. most predicted the pats to continue their winning ways when brady went down for this very reason. i'll give you brady as being a top 2-3 nfl qb, but i won't give you brady being a top 20 player in the nfl.

cgg
03-05-2009, 07:59 AM
please don't bring tom brady into this conversation. the pat's record this year is more proof that it's the patriot's/belichick's system that is winning them superbowls rather than tom brady. most predicted the pats to continue their winning ways when brady went down for this very reason. i'll give you brady as being a top 2-3 nfl qb, but i won't give you brady being a top 20 player in the nfl.

I don't know much about football. Who's this Tom Brady guy?

MyFavMartin
03-05-2009, 06:46 PM
I don't know much about football. Who's this Tom Brady guy?

He was Giselle's 2nd choice. ;)

MyFavMartin
03-05-2009, 06:50 PM
Granger isn't a top 20 player.


1. LeBron James
2. Kobe Bryant



3. Dwyane Wade



4. Chris Paul
5. Dwight Howard

6. Tim Duncan
7. Kevin Garnett
8. Brandon Roy
9. Kevin Durant
10. Dirk Nowitzki
11. Pau Gasol
12. Yao Ming


13. Deron Williams
14. Paul Pierce
15. Chris Bosh


16. Joe Johnson
17. Devin Harris
18. Tony Parker
19. Amare Stoudemire
20. Al Jefferson


21. Carmelo Anthony
22. Manu Ginobli
23. Ray Allen
24. David West
25. Steve Nash


I'd have Danny at #9 on the list.

Naptown_Seth
03-05-2009, 07:10 PM
The year Jordan retired to play baseball, the Bulls won 55 games without him. I don't think Iverson has ever been on a team that would win 55 games without him being on the roster.

I know you aren't disagreeing really, but this point was in defense of AI so...

How many won 55 with him? 1, and that team had all-star Ratliff on it followed by all-star Dikembe when Ratliff got hurt at the AS break. It's obviously forgotten that AI spent that year with another AS on the court with him all the time.

Plus Jordan came back and they won 72 (well, after his half season thing where he was not in game shape to start), so it's relative.

And then there's still a chance Denver is going to do that this very season despite the handicap of starting off with him. (1-2, so playing a 54 win pace with CB instead of AI)


AI joined the Sixers after they won only 18 games. His rookie year: they won 22. Wow, thanks for the help. His sophmore year, 31 wins. And that's a team with a young Stackhouse pre-AS with Detroit even (ie, still talented) and Coleman still healthy enough to make a solid impact.

SIDE RANT
And the coach for that 31 win team - my other overrated pet peeve, Larry Brown. He turned them around alright. Well, after they totally overturned the roster that is. Brown's only improved one team - the Clippers. Every other team got big time additions to it before they won more games. Carlisle takes over a Pistons team LED BY STACK, not 2nd fiddle to AI, and they win 50 and go to the 2nd round.
END RANT

Jordan's Bulls won 27 games the year before, 38 with him. Not only that, but when he missed most of his sophmore year (18 games total) they fell back to 30 wins.
Oakley, Paxson, Corzine, Banks (Gene) and Sellars were the top minutes guys for a team that Mike led to 40 wins

BRushWithDeath
03-05-2009, 07:16 PM
I'd have Danny at #9 on the list.

There is very little argument to be made that he is in the top 20 but I'd listen. There is zero argument that he is in the top 10. Zero.