PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical question - Could Granger be a short term solution at PF in today's NBA?



CableKC
01-18-2010, 07:26 PM
Although this topic has ( in some way ) been discussed, I wanted to explore it more in depth given the possiblility that Murphy could :pray: be traded to the Cavs. In today's more "athletic" and "mobile" NBA.....does it make sense to play Granger at the PF spot either as a Starter or a regular Backup?

Defensively ( at least for our current makeup until we get a more solid PF Low-Post defender ), a lineup that include Inferno/BRush/Granger/Hibbert is fairly solid. Clearly, our lineup would be way more athletic then before.

When looking at the makeup of the NBA as a whole.....it would seem that although there are still some traditional Low-Post scoring Big Men ( think ZBo, Aldridge, Brand, etc. ) ...is the trend in the NBA moving more towards having more athletic and quicker Big Men that can score in the post while venturing outside the paint ( think Anthony Randolph, Josh Smith, Dirk, Bosh )?

I guess the reason I bring this up is because of JO'Bs concern on matchups. Although it mainly pertains to Hibbert.....having a more mobile player at the PF spot that can score inside and out ( like Granger ) would be helpful.

I don't really want to turn this into a "Why Murphy isn't a consistent defender at the PF spot" or ( Seth's favorite topic ) a "Why McRoberts...doesn't play more minutes is a crime" debate.....I just want to discuss whether Granger could be a short term option at the PF spot ( either as a Starter or key backup ) for the next 1.5 seasons or not. Unless something drastically changes or Bird drafts a PF like Patterson ( as Seth suggests ), I don't think that we'd be able to acquire that type of PF that we all hope would fill our needs anytime soon.

sportfireman
01-18-2010, 07:50 PM
he could but it seems danny's not as well built to bang and i dont think its in his nature to be that physical or that aggressive. you have to have a want, drive, desire, and the body to go out there and bang and bump every other night. remember danny had to be coached into driving the ball more. he's a lil more laid back.

Infinite MAN_force
01-18-2010, 07:55 PM
From an offensive standpoint it creates a big time mismatch because most PFs are going to have a really hard time guarding granger, even the really good ones. On the other end, Granger has proven to be fairly effective gaurding guys like Bosh and Garnett. The big, strong, banging low post PFs will give him trouble, but overall I think it has been a net positive for the team.

With a guy like Roy in the middle, who is starting to turn into enough of a low post threat to consistently draw a double team, surrounding him with 4 perimeter players and spacing the floor has shown to be a good strategy. It has worked pretty well for the Magic. Granger is as much of a PF as Rashard Lewis, and a better overall player to boot.

BlueNGold
01-18-2010, 07:59 PM
I love the idea. Yes, Danny can handle the PF position against 75% of the NBA with no problem at all. In fact, he was the PF during the historic 5 game winning streak.

What happens when you place Danny at PF is amazing. He improves the defense by being in a position to more fully utilize his abilities to block shots and rebound. For instance, he had 16 boards against GS while playing PF. He is quick and athletic for a PF and helps Hibbert in so many ways it makes me almost cry that he's not playing the position full time.

On offense, he is a mismatch nightmare for the opposition. It's worse than the matchup nightmares Amare Stoudemire causes. Danny can shoot it from 30 feet or drive right to the rim. He will force some teams to play small...and maybe not their best talent. It will help this team win if he plays that position.

As for head to head matchups with Pau Gasol, I think he lacks the height. Against Tim Duncan and Zach Randolph he lacks the strength and length a bit. Yes, some PF's will require a bigger Pacer. But that's only about 20% of the games. By far most games he's a big positive at that position...and for a team hovering in the .300's, it would be huge improvement.

JohnnyBGoode
01-18-2010, 08:05 PM
I love the idea. Yes, Danny can handle the PF position against 75% of the NBA with no problem at all. In fact, he was the PF during the historic 5 game winning streak.

What happens when you place Danny at PF is amazing. He improves the defense by being in a position to more fully utilize his abilities to block shots and rebound. For instance, he had 16 boards against GS while playing PF. He is quick and athletic for a PF and helps Hibbert in so many ways it makes me almost cry that he's not playing the position full time.

On offense, he is a mismatch nightmare for the opposition. It's worse than the matchup nightmares Amare Stoudemire causes. Danny can shoot it from 30 feet or drive right to the rim. He will force some teams to play small...and maybe not their best talent. It will help this team win if he plays that position.

As for head to head matchups with Pau Gasol, I think he lacks the height. Against Tim Duncan and Zach Randolph he lacks the strength and length a bit. Yes, some PF's will require a bigger Pacer. But that's only about 20% of the games. By far most games he's a big positive at that position...and for a team hovering in the .300's, it would be huge improvement.

Hold on now! This is hilarious. ON one side of your mouth you say that stretch PFs are not what you need to win in the playoffs and out of the other side you think Danny would be a great PF. Which is it? I thought you wanted only the Dale Davis type players at the PF spot. Now I get it, you want any player that doesn't go by the name Murphy at that spot. Hate is not good for your health BG.

Sookie
01-18-2010, 08:07 PM
He's the best PF on the team. Whether he should be playing out of position or not is a question.

Personally, with the way JOB likes to play, I think small ball with Granger at the four works best.

JohnnyBGoode
01-18-2010, 08:09 PM
He's the best PF on the team. Whether he should be playing out of position or not is a question.

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

sportfireman
01-18-2010, 08:12 PM
He's the best PF on the team. Whether he should be playing out of position or not is a question.

thats what the thread is asking us...................:hmm:

Infinite MAN_force
01-18-2010, 08:13 PM
Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Do you have anything to contribute besides whining on behalf of Troy Murphy? Just curious.

JohnnyBGoode
01-18-2010, 08:18 PM
Do you have anything to contribute besides whining on behalf of Troy Murphy? Just curious.

Thinking that Danny is the answer at PF is contributing?

Whining? I fail to see the logic in posters repeating the same old bs about Murphy and passing it on as fact. WTF is an empty stat, anyway?

Infinite MAN_force
01-18-2010, 08:23 PM
Thinking that Danny is the answer at PF is contributing?

Whining? I fail to see the logic in posters repeating the same old bs about Murphy and passing it on as fact. WTF is an empty stat, anyway?

There is a word for posters that only harp on one topic incessantly and constantly derail threads. A Troll.

This topic is about Granger, not Murphy. The Murphy situation is simple, He is a terrible fit next to Hibbert. Hibbert is the future, Murphy is not. End of story.

Anthem
01-18-2010, 08:27 PM
Granger's mismatch as a PF isn't that he can shoot the 3, it's that he can drive the ball on any PF in the league. He's also far better than Troy, defensively.

Still, I don't like it. You may get some short-term success from it, but in the long term Danny's gonna take a beating and age prematurely. That's not what you want to do to your star. Put him in a position to succeed. Don't JO him.

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2010, 08:29 PM
Cable, as you know from following the prospect thread it seems like a lot of "PF" prospects lately are really more like SFish type players, so with that trend Danny does work.

But, let's say for a second that I'm coaching. Obviously I'm using McRoberts a lot. He's quick, good hops and strong. Luckily for Danny McBob doesn't work the low post on offense so he won't get killed there, but on the glass he's going to suffer and on over the top passes McBob has an advantage. Josh is quick enough to not be exploited on face up drives given Danny's handles.

Danny beats him with 3s, but then that's Troy's method and now you are giving up the DEF rebounds too.

The point being that Josh isn't even a top notch PF, just that he's far closer to a traditional one. Not every team is buying into the small method that's popular, though obviously some are, so you are going to see plenty of nights where Danny is facing a skilled PF. Picture a Duncan/Blair combo vs Roy/Danny. They get destroyed on the glass and have trouble denying post position too.

I think as the trends swing toward small you'll see teams coming back to find an advantage with a more traditional power guy at the 4. And as that happens Danny's in trouble, and also getting beat up.

I see that change potentially beginning a lot sooner than 1.5 years. You know that I like Patterson, but there are also guys like Lawal, Booker, Favors that aren't in love with the face up game. Love isn't, Blair isn't.

So there is actually a fairly noticeable influx of traditional PF caliber talent coming in that I think will end up seeing coaches use that for an advantage.



Now, ultimately I guess the question is what are we doing to get by "until", as in until the team can be "finished". From that standpoint it might be that we just have to keep waiting for 2 years and that Danny at the PF might be part of that crutch. I don't think it would go well in the long term, but if you are giving up getting a true PF in order to fix something else like PG (Wall instead of a PF for example) then you bite the bullet and accept the long nights to come.

I'd rather have Danny at PF with some DJones SF help, or even the height of Dun at PF to help with rebounds a bit, than to have more double PG stuff with 2 of Watson/Price/Head on the court together, especially if that also means Rush pushed down to SF.

Going a bit small at PF isn't so bad if you have some size at the 2-3 to help with.

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2010, 08:31 PM
it's that he can drive the ball on any PF in the league
No way Anthem. Not the quicker ones like Aldridge or Thomas, or even McBob. There are several slow footed guys, but not every PF that isn't a pure face up is too slow to stop Danny. His handles just aren't good enough.

Heck, we aren't that far removed from when he couldn't beat SFs with his dribble. ;)

BlueNGold
01-18-2010, 08:37 PM
Hold on now! This is hilarious. ON one side of your mouth you say that stretch PFs are not what you need to win in the playoffs and out of the other side you think Danny would be a great PF. Which is it? I thought you wanted only the Dale Davis type players at the PF spot. Now I get it, you want any player that doesn't go by the name Murphy at that spot. Hate is not good for your health BG.

Jumping to conclusions again, huh?

In no way am I saying that Danny Granger is an ideal PF. However, unlike Troy, Danny can block shots and defend. Unlike Troy, Danny is mobile and athletic enough to help Hibbert protect the paint. Unlike Troy, Danny creates very difficult mismatch problems for the opponent. The fact he is far better than Troy in nearly every aspect of the game otherwise is only part of the reason he would be by far the best PF on this team.

On offense, Granger is much more than a stretch 4 because he is a major threat for driving to the bucket. Nobody is concerned about Troy going up in traffic and flushing it.

Seriously, try to think through this a little.

Anthem
01-18-2010, 08:38 PM
No way Anthem. Not the quicker ones like Aldridge or Thomas, or even McBob.
Is Aldridge THAT much quicker than Bosh? Because he had absolutely no trouble going around Bosh.

Back to the topic at hand, I think both you and I would be comfortable with Danny getting a few minutes here or there as a backup PF in a pinch, depending on situational matchups. If Danny's your third option at the 4, then that's fine. Occasional second option is ok too. But we don't want him starting as a long-term thing. Is that about right?

Los Angeles
01-18-2010, 08:39 PM
Every time I see Danny at the four, I turn the channel. He is a fantastic player and we are abusing his body and wasting his talent by forcing him to play bigger than he is.

It is a mistake on every level. Danny Granger is NOT a power forward.

BlueNGold
01-18-2010, 08:42 PM
Granger's mismatch as a PF isn't that he can shoot the 3, it's that he can drive the ball on any PF in the league. He's also far better than Troy, defensively.

Still, I don't like it. You may get some short-term success from it, but in the long term Danny's gonna take a beating and age prematurely. That's not what you want to do to your star. Put him in a position to succeed. Don't JO him.

Good point, but against a bigger front line (25% of the time max), you swap him out for another big. If anything, he could be used to force other teams to matchup on occasion to what may be our advantage.

JohnnyBGoode
01-18-2010, 08:57 PM
Jumping to conclusions again, huh?

In no way am I saying that Danny Granger is an ideal PF. However, unlike Troy, Danny can block shots and defend. Unlike Troy, Danny is mobile and athletic enough to help Hibbert protect the paint. Unlike Troy, Danny creates very difficult mismatch problems for the opponent. The fact he is far better than Troy in nearly every aspect of the game otherwise is only part of the reason he would be by far the best PF on this team.

On offense, Granger is much more than a stretch 4 because he is a major threat for driving to the bucket. Nobody is concerned about Troy going up in traffic and flushing it.

Seriously, try to think through this a little.

I am using logic and not feelings. The next time Danny defends the paint or takes some one off the dribble let me know, will you? BTW, what about all of the "fake" rebounds that Troy now gets. Do you really think that Danny will suddenly start getting 12 boards a game?

Infinite MAN_force
01-18-2010, 09:00 PM
Would playing the 4 really shorten Granger's career? Its a pretty physical game no matter what position you play, I guess I am not totally convinced its not somewhat of a myth, but I am open to the possibility.

I don't think JO's problem had as much to do with him playing the center as it did him beefing up more than his skinny legs could handle, and just being fragile in general.

JohnnyBGoode
01-18-2010, 09:03 PM
There is a word for posters that only harp on one topic incessantly and constantly derail threads. A Troll.

This topic is about Granger, not Murphy. The Murphy situation is simple, He is a terrible fit next to Hibbert. Hibbert is the future, Murphy is not. End of story.

UM, Murphy plays PF at the present time and he is pertinent to the thread.

Don't give me that bs about harping incessantly about one topic, there has been many many many threads and posts about Murphy and how he is worthless. Don't try to lay that on me. In fact you are a leader in Troy bashing, so I guess your definition of a troll fits you to a T. How about all of the posts about McBoob? How about all of the posts of Hibby? It is not your position on this board to make judgements as who is a troll so chill out and look into the mirror.

BlueNGold
01-18-2010, 09:10 PM
UM, Murphy plays PF at the present time and he is pertinent to the thread.

Don't give me that bs about harping incessantly about one topic, there has been many many many threads and posts about Murphy and how he is worthless. Don't try to lay that on me. In fact you are a leader in Troy bashing, so I guess your definition of a troll fits you to a T. How about all of the posts about McBoob? How about all of the posts of Hibby? It is not your position on this board to make judgements as who is a troll so chill out and look into the mirror.

Hey, I'm the leader...not Infinite Man Force or any of the other 5 million Murphy bashers...:D

Back OT...I would not be too concerned about Granger getting banged up...but it is something to think about and be very careful about. He should not be used to guard bangers...that's for sure. The fact is, if this league is so filled with stretch fours, I don't see any problem at all with him handling those softies...

McKeyFan
01-18-2010, 09:10 PM
Would playing the 4 really shorten Granger's career? Its a pretty physical game no matter what position you play, I guess I am not totally convinced its not somewhat of a myth, but I am open to the possibility.

I don't think JO's problem had as much to do with him playing the center as it did him beefing up more than his skinny legs could handle, and just being fragile in general.

Yeah, I am also not convinced that Granger at 4 is such a career killer.

Couldn't you also argue that the 3 position involves more high flying, thus making you more vulnerable to injuries?

imawhat
01-18-2010, 09:24 PM
Every time I see Danny at the four, I turn the channel. He is a fantastic player and we are abusing his body and wasting his talent by forcing him to play bigger than he is.

I don't buy the abusing his body angle at all.

Dennis Rodman is 6'7" and spent a majority of his career around 220 lbs. He's shorter and smaller than Danny Granger and spent a majority of his minutes at Power Forward in an era when post play was much more abusive, physical and damaging than it is now. If Rodman could do it then, Danny sure as heck could do it now.

I think the abuse/damage becomes more of an issue when you ask a player to gain/carry weight in a way that is unnatural (i.e. Jermaine playing well above his ideal weight).

Playing him in the starting lineup next to Hibbert only changes one thing: who he's guarding. Danny's a very underrated post defender (possibly the best on the team) and would have no trouble on the perimeter with face-up players. I think he's easily our best defensive solution there. In our offensive system he's the perfect "stretch" forward, and is a bigger mismatch at the 4 than he is at the 3.

*edit*-By the way, I say this only as it relates to our current team. I'd prefer seeing Danny at the 3 with someone like Tim Duncan at the 4, but I think our best lineup is easily the combination of Price (or Watson)/Rush/Dahntay/Granger/Hibbert.

CableKC
01-18-2010, 09:25 PM
From an offensive standpoint it creates a big time mismatch because most PFs are going to have a really hard time guarding granger, even the really good ones. On the other end, Granger has proven to be fairly effective gaurding guys like Bosh and Garnett. The big, strong, banging low post PFs will give him trouble, but overall I think it has been a net positive for the team.

With a guy like Roy in the middle, who is starting to turn into enough of a low post threat to consistently draw a double team, surrounding him with 4 perimeter players and spacing the floor has shown to be a good strategy. It has worked pretty well for the Magic. Granger is as much of a PF as Rashard Lewis, and a better overall player to boot.
I'm going to borrow one of JO'Bs favorite reasons for playing certain Players as opposed to others.....I'd guess that if there were certain matchup concerns where it would be more beneficial to have a stronger PF option on the floor to matchup against the opposing Team....that we'd play Hansbrough more as the PF on the floor next to Hibbert and just have Granger guard the opposing SF.

I guess we could have Granger handle most of his minutes at the PF spot and then switch him over to the SF spot based off of matchups. :shrug:

IndyPacer
01-18-2010, 09:33 PM
He will end up injured playing at PF. Remeber Jermaine playing at C? Even "bulking up" didn't help prevent him from developing chronic, long-term injuries. Granger belongs at SF.

CableKC
01-18-2010, 09:38 PM
Every time I see Danny at the four, I turn the channel. He is a fantastic player and we are abusing his body and wasting his talent by forcing him to play bigger than he is.

It is a mistake on every level. Danny Granger is NOT a power forward.
I agree as well...my overall preference is that we do not play Granger at the PF spot at all. The problem is that there are certain realities that we will have to live with.....assuming that there are no significant changes to the roster for the immediate future ( while including Hansbrough and any possible Big Man that we'd draft over the next 2 seasons ).....there maybe times/scenarios/matchups where Granger ( despite not being a true PF ) maybe the best Player that we have that can impact both ends of the floor as the PF in the lineup.

My thought is that Granger will likely ( and should ) play the majority of his minutes at the SF spot.....but I think that we will see more and more minutes of him at the PF spot ( especially when we play Teams with more mobile and athletic Frontcourts ) over the next 2 seasons ( especially as long as JO'B is our Coach ) until the 2011-2012 season. By then, we will likely have a new Coach ( therefore a likely change in how the Offense/Defense is run ) and when Hansbrough and whoever we likely draft in the next 2 seasons are ready to take over the primary minutes in the Frontcourt.

Keep in mind that this does not IMHO mean that he will exclusively play at the PF spot....I just think it means that he will still primarily play his minutes at the SF spot....but with an expected increase of minutes at the PF spot. Believe me, I'd wish that we'd have the luxury of having enough talent where we can have a True PF start at the PF spot next to Hibbert and Granger ( meaning Hansbrough isn't at that point....yet )...but I think that there are times when having a more athletic/defensive lineup of AJ/BRush/Inferno/Granger/Hibbert ( one that isn't truly "Small Ball" but what I would consider "Medium Ball" ) would greatly benefit us.

Infinite MAN_force
01-18-2010, 09:41 PM
He will end up injured playing at PF. Remeber Jermaine playing at C? Even "bulking up" didn't help prevent him from developing chronic, long-term injuries. Granger belongs at SF.

I think a lot of peoples argument is that the "bulking up" was actually what caused the problem.

I mean is playing Jeff Green or Rashard Lewis at the four spot really destroying their careers? I think of those guys as being more like natural SFs.

BlueNGold
01-18-2010, 09:44 PM
He will end up injured playing at PF. Remeber Jermaine playing at C? Even "bulking up" didn't help prevent him from developing chronic, long-term injuries. Granger belongs at SF.

Jermaine has an extremely narrow base banging against the likes of Dwight Howard, Duncan, Shaq, Big Z, etc. In fact, bulking up probably had something to do with JO's base falling apart.

Danny isn't going to be given those assignments or anything close to it...I hope. Personally, I do not advocate him facing guys like Zach and Duncan...but I have no problem with him guarding Rashard Lewis, Charlie V, Josh Smith and maybe Al Harrington. The fact is, Lebron, Mello, Ron Artest and probably others are a lot more physical than many of those players.

Hicks
01-18-2010, 10:09 PM
If I were the coach, and I had the doctors et al telling me it would cause significantly more wear/tear on Granger's body, I'd use him at the 4 sparingly.

However, if they did not reach that conclusion, let's face it, in today's NBA Granger might be a a terrific modern 4.

I appreciate a low post 4 who bruisers and bangs, but if you look around the league, the 4 position is being treated much differently than it used to be.

A Gasol/Bynum is the exception, not the rule. And of course that only exists because of the Memphis once-in-a-lifetime giveaway type of trade, and you won't often see that again. Before that it was Odom/Bynum.

Garnett/Perkins comes close, but KG was never a heavily-used low post guy. He's often playing from mid range.

New Orleans has somewhat of a double-PF lineup of West/Okafor.

San Antonio is Bonner/Duncan. Dallas is Nowitzki/Dampier. Utah has Boozer/Okur.

Orlando has Lewis/Howard. Cleveland has Varajao/O'Neal (before that starting of course Ilgauskas at the 5). Atlanta is Smith/Horford. Charlotte is Diaw/Muhammad. Miami is Beasley/O'Neal. Detroit Villanueva/Wallace. Toronto with Bosh/Bargnani. Chicago Thomas/Noah. New York with Harrington/Lee. Washington with Jamison/Heywood. Philadelphia with Young/Dalembert. New Jersey with Yi/Lopez. Milwaukee I'm drawing a blank on who starts next to Bogut.

Denver has Martin/Nene. Portland would be using Aldridge/Oden. Houston I believe now uses Scola at the 5 (though he'll be the 4 when Yao returns). OKC with Green/Krstic.

Then you have Memphis, Sacramento, and LAC breaking the trend with Randolph/Gasol, Thompson/Hawes, and Camby/Kamen.

GS would probably be Randolph/Biedrins. Minnesota has essentially two PFs in Love/Jefferson.

That's a ton of teams that don't have "Dale Davis sized" power forwards starting for them, and/or they don't have low post scoring games.

Los Angeles
01-18-2010, 10:44 PM
OK, so let's take "body abusing" off the table and only talk about his skills on offense and defense.

The modern NBA gets it wrong. The last PF with a J that won a championship was Rasheed with Detroit. Before then? I have no memory of it. It's not a winning way to play. Just because Kobe understands how to play small forward and would do pretty well at it compared to most everyone else in the league does not mean move him over to the 3. He's a shooting guard. A big shooting guard, but a shooting guard none the less. It's his strongest position. Always has been, always will be.

Danny Granger is a 3. It's only a testament to his tremendously well-rounded game that we even dare to suggest that he move over. But mark my words: moving him over to power forward would be like making Tony Romo spot the ball. Doesn't matter if he's good at it. Doesn't matter if he's done it before. You don't do that with your starting quarterback.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QVuQ5aw0HAQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QVuQ5aw0HAQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Hicks
01-18-2010, 10:46 PM
Bonnor/Duncan 2007 champions.

2008, Garnett is at least as much of a non-post scorer than he is a post man.

Los Angeles
01-18-2010, 10:48 PM
Bonnor/Duncan 2007 champions.

2008, Garnett is at least as much of a non-post scorer than he is a post man.

Duncan is the absolute, carved in stone perfect power forward. You proved my point with that example.

Hicks
01-18-2010, 10:51 PM
2006, Shaq/Haslem, who shoots mid range jumpers.

At least one of the 2000/2001/2002 Laker teams started Robert Horry, IIRC. One of them had an old Horace Grant, who I don't recall scoring, but maybe I'm wrong.

96-98 Bulls had Rodman/Kukoc at the 4 spot.

'94 Rockets w/ 6'9" 225lbs Otis Thorp.

vnzla81
01-18-2010, 10:51 PM
I rather bring a guy like AK47 to play PF;) and let Danny play his natural position at the 3

Hicks
01-18-2010, 10:51 PM
Duncan is the absolute, carved in stone perfect power forward. You proved my point with that example.

Duncan suffers from "JO-itis" in that he's clearly a center who insists on being called a power forward. Unless you want to claim Bonner is a center, which is truly laughable IMO. Bonner is more like Austin Croshere than he is a center.

Los Angeles
01-18-2010, 10:52 PM
2006, Shaq/Haslem, who shoots mid range jumpers.

At least one of the 2000/2001/2002 Laker teams started Robert Horry, IIRC. One of them had an old Horace Grant, who I don't recall scoring, but maybe I'm wrong.

96-98 Bulls had Rodman/Kukoc at the 4 spot.

'94 Rockets w/ 6'9" 225lbs Otis Thorp.

You're completely losing me.

I don't see how Danny compares to any of these players.

Hicks
01-18-2010, 10:56 PM
You're completely losing me.

I don't see how Danny compares to any of these players.

In response to:


The last PF with a J that won a championship was Rasheed with Detroit. Before then? I have no memory of it.

Haslem = shooting jumpshots, not banging in the low post on offense
Horry = jumpshooter / Grant = weakest example, but he wasn't a low post presence being the point
Kukoc = jumpshooter / Rodman = smaller than Danny in height/weight and even worse than a jumpshooter would be offensively

Honestly, you completely lost me back when you compared sliding Danny to the 4 to Tony Romo's botched snap. That's 2 + 2 = Pineapple territory to me.

Los Angeles
01-18-2010, 10:56 PM
I think where we're losing each other is that you're talking about 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th (bonner) best players on these teams playing "fill the gap" roles.

I find it horrifying that we've forced our absolute best player in years out of his natural position just to be a "filling the gap" guy. That's my main point.

Kobe ain't a point guard either, even though he's great at that, too. you get some other guy to fill that gap and let Kobe do his thing at his natural position.

Same with Danny.

imawhat
01-18-2010, 10:58 PM
OK, so let's take "body abusing" off the table and only talk about his skills on offense and defense.

The modern NBA gets it wrong. The last PF with a J that won a championship was Rasheed with Detroit. Before then? I have no memory of it. It's not a winning way to play. Just because Kobe understands how to play small forward and would do pretty well at it compared to most everyone else in the league does not mean move him over to the 3. He's a shooting guard. A big shooting guard, but a shooting guard none the less. It's his strongest position. Always has been, always will be.

Danny Granger is a 3.....


I think this is as good 'a time as any to ask. What are the skill set differences, offensively and defensively, between a 3 and a 4 in today's game?

Btw, you move (IMO) Kobe to the 3 if it gets Jordan on the court with him. Or more practically, you move Gasol to PF if that gets Bynum on the court with him. You do what gets your best lineup on the floor, even if that means playing someone out of position. It might be different in a few years with changed personnel, but our best lineup includes Danny at the 4.

Hicks
01-18-2010, 11:02 PM
I think where we're losing each other is that you're talking about 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th (bonner) best players on these teams playing "fill the gap" roles.

I find it horrifying that we've forced our absolute best player in years out of his natural position just to be a "filling the gap" guy. That's my main point.

Kobe ain't a point guard either, even though he's great at that, too. you get some other guy to fill that gap and let Kobe do his thing at his natural position.

Same with Danny.

I don't see that it matters if it's your best guy or not. It's not like we're asking him to play center or point guard or regardless something he can't do (and do well). I think he IS a power forward almost as much as he is a small forward. That's part of how talented he is with regards to his body and skills.

Also, don't forget that he played PF in college.

Los Angeles
01-18-2010, 11:08 PM
I think this is as good 'a time as any to ask. What are the skill set differences, offensively and defensively, between a 3 and a 4?

This is really a trick question because of all of the hair-brained coaching strategies going on in today's game. And of course, you have amazing players like Lebron James or Magic Johnson who just absolutely refuse to be fit into a box. so I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat regarding skills, especially when I already know that you've forgotten more about the game than I will ever learn. :laugh:

Put the two forwards next to each other. Make them run down the court a couple of times.

Power Forward = the bigger, stronger one.
Small forward = the faster, leaner one.

It's not Danny's fault that he can do the power forward's defensive job better than our promising rookie or our offense-only vet. but for pete's sake, get someone else to fill that gap. we need Danny working his magic on offense, and that's hard to do when you're one of the last ones getting up the court because you've been guarding the low post.

BlueNGold
01-18-2010, 11:10 PM
Hicks - in 2007, the Spurs had both Franscisco Elson and Fabricio Oberto. They were the guys starting and playing big minutes, not Bonner.

Elson - 70 games, 41 starts, 19mpg
Oberto - 79 games, 33 starts, 17.3mpg
Bonner - 56 games, 0 starts, 11mpg

Elson and Oberto had a total of zero 3 pointers...and they average 6'11" converting 56 and 51% from scoring in the paint.

LA has it absolutely correct that size matters. The question though, what will help this team win and not risk our best player's health? In today's NBA, there should be no problem playing Danny at the 4 75% of all games then swapping in a big guy to handle the trees when necessary.

CableKC
01-18-2010, 11:18 PM
However, if they did not reach that conclusion, let's face it, in today's NBA Granger might be a a terrific modern 4.
This is where I guess I was trying to head with the purpose of this thread. Granger MAYBE considered a "modern-day" PF in today's NBA...one that is versatile, quick, athletic enough to score from all over the floor while being a solid enough defender to provide some defense in the Low-Post while being quick enough to defend an opposing PF that likes to shoot from the perimeter. But the reality ( as you pointed out in your post ) is that we won't be able to find a PF that can be a "jack of all trades" when it comes to defending and scoring ( inside and out ) at a high level.

Maybe the best that we can hope for is to have 2 different types of PFs.....one that can guard the more mobile and atheltic PFs ( aka the "modern-day" PF....as in Granger ) and another one that can guard the stronger and tougher Low-Post Scoring PFs ( aka the "traditional" PFs ). As you suggested.....this may mean that Granger ( at times ) would be the guy guarding the opposing PF filling the role of the "modern-day" PF....and other times where he may fill the role of the "traditional" SF while Hansbrough ( or :pray: Patterson ) fills the "traditional" PF role in our line up.

Hicks
01-18-2010, 11:19 PM
we need Danny working his magic on offense, and that's hard to do when you're one of the last ones getting up the court because you've been guarding the low post.

I guess I don't understand what being a couple seconds later down the floor has to do with the bulk of Danny's "magic" on offense. It's not as if he gets the bulk of his points on the fast break. No matter where he is coming from on the other end of the floor, he's often getting his looks in the half-court.

Once he's in the half-court, we'd still be asking him to shoot jump shots and attack the basket, and it'll be easier for him to attack the 4's of this league when he starts outside than it is for him to attack the 3's from out there.

Hicks
01-18-2010, 11:21 PM
Hicks - in 2007, the Spurs had both Franscisco Elson and Fabricio Oberto. They were the guys starting and playing big minutes, not Bonner.

Elson - 70 games, 41 starts, 19mpg
Oberto - 79 games, 33 starts, 17.3mpg
Bonner - 56 games, 0 starts, 11mpg

Elson and Oberto had a total of zero 3 pointers...and they average 6'11" converting 56 and 51% from scoring in the paint.

Yeah, you're right; I spaced on that one.


LA has it absolutely correct that size matters. The question though, what will help this team win and not risk our best player's health? In today's NBA, there should be no problem playing Danny at the 4 75% of all games then swapping in a big guy to handle the trees when necessary.

That's just it; Danny HAS the size. He may not be bulky, but the dude is very strong for his build and he is 6'9".

I'd feel differently about sliding a guy like Jalen Rose to the 4; Jalen couldn't do it. I truly believe Danny can.

vapacersfan
01-18-2010, 11:25 PM
OK, so let's take "body abusing" off the table and only talk about his skills on offense and defense.

The modern NBA gets it wrong. The last PF with a J that won a championship was Rasheed with Detroit. Before then? I have no memory of it. It's not a winning way to play. Just because Kobe understands how to play small forward and would do pretty well at it compared to most everyone else in the league does not mean move him over to the 3. He's a shooting guard. A big shooting guard, but a shooting guard none the less. It's his strongest position. Always has been, always will be.

Danny Granger is a 3. It's only a testament to his tremendously well-rounded game that we even dare to suggest that he move over. But mark my words: moving him over to power forward would be like making Tony Romo spot the ball. Doesn't matter if he's good at it. Doesn't matter if he's done it before. You don't do that with your starting quarterback.

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QVuQ5aw0HAQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

As a Redskins fan I LOVE that video :D

Hicks
01-18-2010, 11:26 PM
I mean when I think about what a PF needs and/or what you want him to have:

Most of the time, must be at least 6'9". Check.
Must be strong, long, or both. Check. Don't forget that while Danny is 6'9", the dude has a 7'2" wingspan.
Must be able to guard the post. Check.
Shot blocking is valued. Check.
Rebounding. Check.

Low post offense? Not really, though he's not exactly Jeff Foster when you get him the ball down there, either. He makes up for this deficiency by bring his scoring game that serves him well at the 3 and works at least as well when a 4 is on him, often better. He can finish around the rim.

Ultiamtely, while low post game is the #1 preferred skill, at the end of the day the question is "can he give you points" and Danny certainly can. And not just in a "float around waiting for 3's" sort of way.

Honestly, Danny's wingspan is often forgotten, unspoken, and/or underrated around here. The dude has sick length, allowing him to play even bigger than 6'9".

CableKC
01-18-2010, 11:30 PM
I find it horrifying that we've forced our absolute best player in years out of his natural position just to be a "filling the gap" guy. That's my main point.

Kobe ain't a point guard either, even though he's great at that, too. you get some other guy to fill that gap and let Kobe do his thing at his natural position.

Same with Danny.
Until we draft or acquire another "Forward that is better suited to play SF but can ( if needed ) play some PF minutes due to his athleticsm, strength and defense", we maybe forced to play Granger at the PF spot ( at times ). I, too, don't like that idea.....but there maybe times ( at least for the immediate future ) when we do play a Team where the Frontcourt is just too mobile and athletic for Hansbrough to handle ( que Seth ;) ).

Again, as Hicks and I were suggesting, Granger at the PF spot would likely be on a situational and not a permanent basis.

BlueNGold
01-18-2010, 11:31 PM
Yeah, you're right; I spaced on that one.



That's just it; Danny HAS the size. He may not be bulky, but the dude is very strong for his build and he is 6'9".

I'd feel differently about sliding a guy like Jalen Rose to the 4; Jalen couldn't do it. I truly believe Danny can.

Yep. I might add that unlike Al Harrington, Danny has the length and athleticism to block shots. He also has a better nose for the ball than Harrington and could help a lot on the boards. We sacrifice so much having him guard the perimeter...especially when Rush and D Jones are quicker and more capable defenders IMO.

Hicks
01-18-2010, 11:36 PM
I would add that if we were talking about Mike Dunleavy I would be playing the role of Los Angeles in this thread because I have 0 faith in Mike trying to play the 4. Mike should only play the 3.

Certain guys can legitimately play more than 1 position very well without hurting their game. Jalen could be a 2 just as much as a 3. 1? Eh, not so much.

Los Angeles
01-18-2010, 11:38 PM
Regarding two seconds of the shot clock: We take most of our shots at the beginning of the clock. yes, we set the offense and THEN chuck it, so it's not technically a fast break but our quick set-up time is essential to getting a man open for an early look look. If we don't get down the court, we face a set defense more often, and we end up really suffering for it. Anyway ...

Hicks, you make many very valid points but in the end they all lie on the periphery of the issue. I don't disagree that Danny CAN play the 4. He's shown that he CAN. I disagree that he SHOULD. I'm not hearing a reasonable argument that we'd be better off as a team with Danny at the 4. I think we'd be better off as a team with a better low post defender. You want that to be Danny, and I don't. I think it's a terrible waste of his energy. I think our team is better off in the long run developing Tyler.

I told myself to drop the wear-and-tear issue, but I just can't stay away. How many games has he missed over the years from gimpy knees? how many from foot problems? But we want him guarding the low post? I don't know. He's our best player. Please don't make Romo spot the ball.

Hicks
01-19-2010, 12:03 AM
Hicks, you make many very valid points but in the end they all lie on the periphery of the issue. I don't disagree that Danny CAN play the 4. He's shown that he CAN.

Gotcha.


I disagree that he SHOULD. I'm not hearing a reasonable argument that we'd be better off as a team with Danny at the 4. I think we'd be better off as a team with a better low post defender. You want that to be Danny, and I don't. I think it's a terrible waste of his energy. I think our team is better off in the long run developing Tyler.

Long-term, I would prefer Tyler as well (if he deserves it; jury still out), or if not him another person who would otherwise allow/demand Danny stay at the 3.

In the meantime, with the team as it is now, I think Danny is our best power forward, and I do think he makes us a better team there.

Troy and Roy together is a defensive disaster, whereas Danny helps Roy by not requiring Roy to play as much help defense and allowing Roy to focus on guarding his man in the post (which I think he's decent at).

Generally speaking, so long as Troy Murphy is our 'best' power forward, replacing him with Granger means our center plays better D, our center has less foul trouble, and it means we guard the 4 one-on-one better, it means we're faster as a team on both sides of the ball, it means we're more athletic on both sides of the ball, it means we're getting more shot blocking, and it makes us more dangerous offensively because Danny spaces for Roy as much as Troy can, but he can also draw fouls and attack the basket (Troy basically can't).

Summary: Better for our team D, better individual D at the 4, better for our team O, better individual O at the 4. That's a ton of major reasons it makes the team better in the short term.

If/when Tyler deserves it, or someone else deserves it, by all means put Danny back at the 3.

But as long as the best options at PF are either Troy Murphy or Danny Granger, you take Danny Granger.

Hicks
01-19-2010, 12:07 AM
In the long term, you either have another guy play the 4 (Tyler or whomever), or you find another guy like Danny and interchange the two. Shawne Williams was supposed to be that guy. Similar size and strength, and Shawne could play either position as well.

In fact, I think Bird went on record saying he thought Shawne could be a 4.

If Shawne didn't have his demons, and assuming his game improved, we'd probably be starting Danny/Shawne at the 3/4 by now, and we would have fit right in with the current trend in the league.

:sigh: Too bad that crashed and burned.

Actually, now that I think about it, keep an eye on any guys in this draft who have a body similar to Danny or Shawne; we might try to go that route again.

CableKC
01-19-2010, 12:51 AM
Of course, this all comes down to the Coach and whether he will "play down" to the competition. Why can't we dictate how we want to play? If we have a dominate Low-Post scoring Frontcourt that is simply owning the opposing Team that is using a more athletic Frontcourt....why do we have to "play down" to them and use a more mobile Frontcourt?

The Lakers doesn't always play Odom at the PF spot whenever they play a Team with a super mobile/athletic Frontcourt.....they usually throw Gasol and Bynum at the opposing Frontcourt and do what they always do. Of course, the Lakers are an exception when they have one of the best Players in the league.

Hicks
01-19-2010, 12:57 AM
Of course, this all comes down to the Coach and whether he will "play down" to the competition. Why can't we dictate how we want to play? If we have a dominate Low-Post scoring Frontcourt that is simply owning the opposing Team that is using a more athletic Frontcourt....why do we have to "play down" to them and use a more mobile Frontcourt?

The Lakers doesn't always play Odom at the PF spot whenever they play a Team with a super mobile/athletic Frontcourt.....they usually throw Gasol and Bynum at the opposing Frontcourt and do what they always do. Of course, the Lakers are an exception when they have one of the best Players in the league.

Because we don't have the roster to do that with two bigs at the same time. Roy is our only low post threat.

I think Tyler can get there if he really works on adding/refining his moves, but right now he's only really a post threat if we get him the ball during a fast break (as odd as that may sound; but it's what he was good at @ NC and during the summer league; being the first down the floor, posting his man while everyone else is still in transition, being fed, quickly spinning and going to work).

So it's Roy and then nobody.

CableKC
01-19-2010, 01:35 AM
Because we don't have the roster to do that with two bigs at the same time. Roy is our only low post threat.

I think Tyler can get there if he really works on adding/refining his moves, but right now he's only really a post threat if we get him the ball during a fast break (as odd as that may sound; but it's what he was good at @ NC and during the summer league; being the first down the floor, posting his man while everyone else is still in transition, being fed, quickly spinning and going to work).

So it's Roy and then nobody.
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of something to consider going into the draft and going forward into the future. If we were to draft a starting quality PF that is fairly solid scorer and defender in the Low-Post ( aka a more "traditional" PF ); why can't we stick to having more of a traditional SF ( Granger ), traditional Low-Post Scoring/Defending PF and a traditional Center ( Hibbert ) in the Frontcourt?

This is straying from the main topic.....but along those lines....and this pertains as much to Hibbert as it does to whoever we pair with him in the Frontcourt.....why does Matchups always have to dictate who we play?

I don't like that Hibbert is slow as molasses and is uncomfortable straying from the perimeter and ( as a result ) his minutes have gone up and down based off of matchups. But Hibbert is Hibbert.....he's never going to be faster, mobile or more athletic. At what point do we conclude that....like it or not....all of our Starters aren't always going to fit into the mold of properly defending all opposing Players....but regardless of that...we will play our best Players at those positions ( warts and all ).

Hicks
01-19-2010, 01:41 AM
I agree with you on Roy; the only reason I'd sit him is fatigue or foul trouble. Otherwise, I just try to exploit him and try to minimize the damage elsewhere.

Mourning
01-19-2010, 02:04 AM
he could but it seems danny's not as well built to bang



and the body to go out there and bang and bump every other night.

This. I don't want Danny at PF, unless there's a "light" opposing PF in the game or the opposing PF is extremely slow and cumbersome.

IndyPacer
01-19-2010, 07:56 AM
I think a lot of peoples argument is that the "bulking up" was actually what caused the problem.

I mean is playing Jeff Green or Rashard Lewis at the four spot really destroying their careers? I think of those guys as being more like natural SFs.

Jermaine was already getting beat up before bulking up. They tried to add some muscle to his frame hoping he could become more durable, but he was never built for banging inside with rugged centers in the first place.

I'm fine with switching things around against other guys who are really SFs themselves, but I'm very much Granger playing regularly as our starting SF.

IndyPacer
01-19-2010, 08:15 AM
Jermaine has an extremely narrow base banging against the likes of Dwight Howard, Duncan, Shaq, Big Z, etc. In fact, bulking up probably had something to do with JO's base falling apart.

Danny isn't going to be given those assignments or anything close to it...I hope. Personally, I do not advocate him facing guys like Zach and Duncan...but I have no problem with him guarding Rashard Lewis, Charlie V, Josh Smith and maybe Al Harrington. The fact is, Lebron, Mello, Ron Artest and probably others are a lot more physical than many of those players.

Jermaine bulked up because he was already getting banged up. If I remember correctly, he hated getting beat up every game against naturally larger and stronger players. Jermaine used to be quite quick and gave Amare fits with his versatility once upon a time. Injuries from being ground down inside (and of course the infamous brawl incident) totally changed the direction of his career (for the worse).

I am OK with Granger at PF in situations in which the other team is also essentially playing a SF at PF. I want him at his natural position the rest of the time. He's too valuable to the team to risk additional injuries. The short-term solution of playing Jermaine at center banging inside led to a long-term problem of our franchise player no longer producing because he was plagued with injuries and still had that huge contract. Someone else needs to regularly start at PF. If we don't have such a player, it's a good time to start looking for one.

cinotimz
01-19-2010, 08:41 AM
I think whats really at issue here is the traditional pigeon-holing of players that we have grown so accustomed to.

PG's are usually distributors that dont shoot much and hang out at the top of the key.

The shooting guards and shooting/small forwards hang out on each of the wings and shoot.

The Power Forward primarily plays defense, rebounds and set picks.

And the center is a big guy with a decent back-to-the-basket game.

Problem is the game is rarely played that way these days and those sorts of sets are not used much either. But we in Indiana tend to be diehard traditionalists, so...

Brad8888
01-19-2010, 11:59 AM
It is a shame that there is even a need to discuss Danny at the 4, let alone play him there.

Yes, he creates significant mismatches there, but he is long and lean with his 6'9. He is more vulnerable to contact related injuries against teams with bulkier 4's and 5's.

If Danny were to concentrate on being a 3 on both ends of the court, which is his natural position, I believe we would be better off.

We have the hopefully soon to depart Murphy, the currently dizzy and very inexperienced and young Psycho T, the too small to be a 5 yet too slow to be a 4 Solo, and the decently skilled very young and inexperienced player with the size and hops to actually play the 4 who shall remain both nameless and perpetually in street clothes.

So, we really have no option to do anything but to play Danny at the 4 and hope he can physically last until we hopefully get a 4 in a trade either for Murphy or possibly Foster (though I would like him to retire here), or pretty much ignore the issue at the 4 until our big contracts expire.

Who knows if Granger is the right call? I sure don't.

graphic-er
01-19-2010, 01:26 PM
Danny should totally be playing the 4 on defense. In JOB offense it is the perfect compliment. If he plays the 4 on defense then he doesn't have to move around as much, thus saving more energy for motion on offense. He has shown that he is a very good low post defender. He shut down Garnett and Bosh.

On offense Danny is good against 4's because he is quicker. Earlier in the season we seen Danny drive it from the top and get stuck in traffic, ball would get poke away by smaller quicker players. he got blocked a few times by players who had no business blocking his hot.

If late in the game, i'd prefer Danny playing at the 4.

ChicagoJ
01-19-2010, 01:39 PM
I think whats really at issue here is the traditional pigeon-holing of players that we have grown so accustomed to.

PG's are usually distributors that dont shoot much and hang out at the top of the key.

The shooting guards and shooting/small forwards hang out on each of the wings and shoot.

The Power Forward primarily plays defense, rebounds and set picks.

And the center is a big guy with a decent back-to-the-basket game.

Problem is the game is rarely played that way these days and those sorts of sets are not used much either. But we in Indiana tend to be diehard traditionalists, so...

Its funny, we're getting back to "two guards, two forwards, and a center." Which was the tradition before the tradition.

Infinite MAN_force
01-19-2010, 01:44 PM
Well, the good news is I think we will get a chance to find out. If Troy getting traded is a foregone conclusion at this point, we already know what starting lineup Obrien is going to use, and it will include Danny at the four.

Watson
Rush
Dunleavy
Granger
Hibbert

Whether you think it is a good idea long term or not, I do think its our best lineup currently and gives us our best chance to win going forward this season.

ChicagoJ
01-19-2010, 01:58 PM
Well, the good news is I think we will get a chance to find out. If Troy getting traded is a foregone conclusion at this point, we already know what starting lineup Obrien is going to use, and it will include Danny at the four.

Watson
Rush
Dunleavy
Granger
Hibbert

Whether you think it is a good idea long term or not, I do think its our best lineup currently and gives us our best chance to win going forward this season.

I'd rather this lineup that some of the other choices. Both Dunleavy and Granger are natural forwards and I'd rather have Danny play PF (but not bulk up) and Dunn at SF instead of SG.

In Jim's offense, the difference between SG, SF, and PF is minimal and interchangeable. So its the matchup at the defensive end that matters. I don't want Dunleavy chasing around guys that much smaller and quicker than he is. That worries me more than Danny defending a PF -- and Danny "can" guard" ~75% of them without causing us to worry so for the other 25% then sit down Dunleavy and put in Tyler.

Peck
01-19-2010, 02:20 PM
I've come to the belief that Troy Murphy will be here for probably all of his contract.

If O'Brien and Bird are both still here then I have a feeling that Troy will be offered another, slightly less contract.

It is no longer just on O'Brien now. This HAS to be with Birds blessing.

vnzla81
01-19-2010, 02:42 PM
I've come to the belief that Troy Murphy will be here for probably all of his contract.

If O'Brien and Bird are both still here then I have a feeling that Troy will be offered another, slightly less contract.

It is no longer just on O'Brien now. This HAS to be with Birds blessing.

here is a comment from Chad Ford about that


Scott (Indy)


Any Pacer rumors out there? Murphy rumors (in particular)? What would they be asking for him? Cap space or something more substantial?

Chad Ford (1:33 PM)


Same two: Murphy and Jeff Foster. I expect that, given the level of interest I'm hearing from other GMs, they'll figure out some way to pry them away from the Pacers. Cap relief, draft picks or young players. Some combination of those three.

Peck
01-19-2010, 03:10 PM
I hope you are right but I have lost my optimism for that very thing.

D-BONE
01-19-2010, 08:39 PM
Yes again to DG at PF.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?p=943253#post943253

JohnnyBGoode
01-20-2010, 11:32 AM
Now tell me that again that Danny is better than Troy at the PF spot.

Let's seen now : 2-16 and 2 freakin rebounds and you people think he is the answer at the PF spot. BTW, your shining star at center grabbed a total of 4 rebounds. Check Granger's stats for the year, Troy is better in most categories except the number of free throws, and yet he is considered an upgrade over Troy at the PF spot. If anything the Pacers should be looking to unload Danny to acquire a SF-SG who can actually create on offense and take over games in crunch time. Danny the 3 pt chucker is such a drag on this team, period.