PDA

View Full Version : Could Danny take this team to the promise land?



vnzla81
02-06-2010, 07:17 PM
I been asking this to myself for a long time and I want to see you guys opinions about this, Could Danny Granger be the guy who take this team to a championship, is he wired to be a leader? I been saying that Danny is at best the second best player in a championship, he could be the Pippen to a Jordan, were can we get a "Batman"? draft? trade? how?

OakMoses
02-06-2010, 07:54 PM
By himself, no. When paired with another player of equal talent plus a top-notch surrounding cast, maybe.

Will Galen
02-06-2010, 07:59 PM
This team, right now, nope. But this team in a few years, yes.

vnzla81
02-06-2010, 08:02 PM
This team, right now, nope. But this team in a few years, yes.

Im talking about him being the main guy of the team, the one who takes the last shot and drives the team night in and night out, can he do that? is he overrated? are we expecting to much of him?

Anthem
02-06-2010, 08:10 PM
Im talking about him being the main guy of the team, the one who takes the last shot and drives the team night in and night out, can he do that? is he overrated? are we expecting to much of him?
He did pretty well last year at taking the last shot.

Last night I thought he didn't look particularly great, but he had 25 points. He's the best scorer in Pacer history, and (except for the recent infatuation with 3s) a pretty high-efficiency guy to boot. If Rush and Roy pan out, and we can get a good PF and PG, I can see us consistently making deep playoff runs. Other than that? We'll have to see.

BlueNGold
02-06-2010, 08:45 PM
Im talking about him being the main guy of the team, the one who takes the last shot and drives the team night in and night out, can he do that? is he overrated? are we expecting to much of him?

I really like him (obviously), but he's a notch below Mello and DWade and maybe a couple notches below Kobe and Lebron. It will not happen.

sportfireman
02-06-2010, 09:34 PM
Nope.........unless the promise land is a lottery pick.:rolleyes:

Will Galen
02-06-2010, 09:37 PM
Im talking about him being the main guy of the team, the one who takes the last shot and drives the team night in and night out, can he do that? is he overrated? are we expecting to much of him?

Last year he made the most winning shots in the whole NBA, SO YES!

D-BONE
02-06-2010, 09:42 PM
The team as currently constructed-no. Is this a rhetorical question? I don't think there's a lot of people here who see him on par with Jordan, Wade, Magic, Bird, etc.

You can't oversimplify this though. Look at the casts that have also surrounded those great talents. Put Granger with the right group of players and he could contribute, potentially as a leading scorer who could hit some big shots. As Anthem points out, he's shown reasonable succes in that situation.

So, no he'll never be a guy who can take a team on his back and win single handedly. But isn't that really a bit of a myth anyway? How many guys are there that have truly done that? Put one guy of same or better level next to him and some solid role players and he might be capable.

sunsun
02-06-2010, 09:45 PM
i don't know, but i prefer to say yes if we changed our coach。

vnzla81
02-06-2010, 09:47 PM
So, no he'll never be a guy who can take a team on his back and win single handedly. But isn't that really a bit of a myth anyway? How many guys are there that have truly done that?

Lebron did it with a crappy team three years ago and he might do it this year.



Put one guy of same or better level next to him and some solid role players and he might be capable

I agree with this, get a guy with equal talent and is possible.

D-BONE
02-06-2010, 10:01 PM
Lebron did it with a crappy team three years ago and he might do it this year.

Fair enough. Technically still hasn't won it though. I would expect that to change, of course.

sportfireman
02-06-2010, 10:03 PM
I love Danny and his game......while he may have the talent to take us there, he IMO lacks the killer instinct, the drive (Jordan, Bird, Kobe, Wade, etc.....) to take us on his own.....with some other player just as good as he is.....then yes.


Danny's killer instinct comes out when he gets angry....he's laid back most of the time. Laid back doesn't win championships unless your loaded with talent. He needs a killer instinct and you can't go and buy one of those, you're born with it.

vnzla81
02-06-2010, 10:05 PM
Fair enough. Technically still hasn't won it though. I would expect that to change, of course.

yeah I think that is going to change this year, just imagine switching Lebron to the Lakers and Kobe to cleveland, the Lakers could win five championships in a heartbeat

ksuttonjr76
02-06-2010, 11:01 PM
I'll hold my vote until we get a new coach. He has the talent to do it, but I don't see him being the player who can single-handedly do it every night. Realistically, those type of players don't come along that often anyways. Mentally...he needs that killer instinct.

graphic-er
02-06-2010, 11:10 PM
I think the lack of a killer instinct is his main flaw. The great player want to punish everyone they come across. Tonight Lebron was jacking up 35fters just to show up the knicks.

LoneGranger33
02-06-2010, 11:16 PM
Championship? I'd be happy just making the playoffs (which Granger hasn't done since his rookie year). Playoffs? I just hope we can win a game.

vnzla81
02-06-2010, 11:21 PM
I think the lack of a killer instinct is his main flaw. The great player want to punish everyone they come across. Tonight Lebron was jacking up 35fters just to show up the knicks.

my thing is that are we really hoping for him to be the player he is not?
he is what he is, why are we expecting him to carry this franchise if he is not that kind of guy? like I said before to me he is more Like a Rashard Lewis than Lebron or Melo.

D-BONE
02-06-2010, 11:29 PM
my thing is that are we really hoping for him to be the player he is not?
he is what he is, why are we expecting him to carry this franchise if he is not that kind of guy? like I said before to me he is more Like a Rashard Lewis than Lebron or Melo.

I don't know who you mean when you say we. You'd be hardpressed to find anyone here who considers him a Lebron or Melo-level player. I don't think the Pacers assess him that way either, but I may be wrong. I think they see him as being most effective with another top-flight player and strong role players.

graphic-er
02-06-2010, 11:33 PM
I'd say he is a top 5 Small forward, meaning he has all the skills needed. Just not there mentally.

vnzla81
02-06-2010, 11:34 PM
I don't know who you mean when you say we. You'd be hardpressed to find anyone here who considers him a Lebron or Melo-level player. I don't think the Pacers assess him that way either, but I may be wrong. I think they see him as being most effective with another top-flight player and strong role players.

Im saying we because as you can see the pacers feel that he is their franchise player and should build around him. The we is also because we get mad when he does not have a 20 point game or when he is not taking over in the 4th quarter, that is the reason why I said we. And trust me there is more than one guy who think that he is the next coming.:)

esabyrn333
02-06-2010, 11:41 PM
Get enough talent around him and sure he can. no one can do it by themselves its a team sport.

If we are going to win a championship we are going to have to do it the same way Detroit did it with a bunch of good guys that play together.

Not a superstar with a cast of role players around him

Pacersfan46
02-07-2010, 01:24 AM
He isn't versatile enough. He's different than Reggie Miller, of course, but some similarities are there. Mainly the most similar point is that his best and only major asset is his shooting ability. Neither one can boast being above average at setting up teammates, rebounding or on defense. The only real difference is Danny is a better shot blocker and more athletic. Reggie had a flair for the dramatic. There are differences, but a lot of similarities in skill sets.

Neither one was good enough all around to survive or thrive in this league by carrying a team. Reggie needed a cast of borderline All Stars around him. I would guess Danny will need the same, at the very least.

-- Steve --

ksuttonjr76
02-07-2010, 09:29 AM
Im saying we because as you can see the pacers feel that he is their franchise player and should build around him. The we is also because we get mad when he does not have a 20 point game or when he is not taking over in the 4th quarter, that is the reason why I said we. And trust me there is more than one guy who think that he is the next coming.:)

Putting words in people's mouths. Building around is not the same as saying he's a superstar on the level of Melo, Wade, Lebron, etc. It's no different than saying you want to build around Amare, Rose, Roy, Durant, Jefferson, Devin Harrs, etc. Good players, but none of them has proven that they carry a whole team by themselves.

BRushWithDeath
02-07-2010, 10:27 AM
He'd easily be the worst best player on a championship team in history. Not happening.

ajbry
02-07-2010, 10:44 AM
Putting words in people's mouths. Building around is not the same as saying he's a superstar on the level of Melo, Wade, Lebron, etc. It's no different than saying you want to build around Amare, Rose, Roy, Durant, Jefferson, Devin Harrs, etc. Good players, but none of them has proven that they carry a whole team by themselves.

Danny Granger isn't on the same level as Amare, Rose, Roy, and Durant.

BRushWithDeath
02-07-2010, 10:47 AM
Danny Granger isn't on the same level as Amare, Rose, Roy, and Durant.

Not even close. And Durant isn't on that same level either. He's above it.

Will Galen
02-07-2010, 10:57 AM
Danny Granger isn't on the same level as Amare, Rose, Roy, and Durant.

Agree, but I think he was arguably above them all last year. This year Danny's really slacked off.

I think Danny could rise up again, but I don't know if he can reach Durant level, probably not. Durant is continuing to climb and now I think only Kobe and LeBron are better then him.

odeez
02-07-2010, 11:49 AM
Danny Granger Stats this year and last:

Year Team G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG

08-09 IND 67 66 36.2 0.447 0.404 0.878 0.7 4.4 5.1 2.7 1.0 1.4 2.46 3.09 25.8

09-10 IND 34 34 36.2 0.406 0.343 0.846 0.9 4.8 5.6 2.8 1.5 1.0 2.65 3.03 22.3

Stats via NBA.com


IMO Danny can't take us to the promise land by himself. I think he would be much better playing along side another All-Star type, either a PF or PG. Last year I did think maybe he could be that guy, last year he played much better and looked to be headed even higher. The team in general played better. DG showed the ability to get to the line a lot more. I have to look at the numbers to see the difference. This year, as we all know he is taking too many threes and relying on his shot more than driving the ball. Though lately he has shown a bit more interior scoring.

IMO, some of the over shooting from three had to do with his foot and I think this has effected his outside shot. But when you think about it more, it shouldn't matter. He should recognize that he needs to move closer to the basket and force his defender to play defense. When he is out there chucking threes, it's giving the defense a free pass almost, especially if he misses. Last year he seemed to recognize this and put more pressure on the defense. The great ones find the best shots and know when to go to the rim when their shot isn't falling. They know how to be vocal and lead their team. Danny is a quiet type, more reserved. Maybe he just isn't the guy to lead us, but I am not going to dismiss him as a leader, we aren't in the locker room.

But again the question is can he lead us to the promise land? And I think the answer is not by himself. I don't think he can be compared with Durant, he is on another level in terms of scoring, the most natural scorer in the league. But DG can help lead us there playing along side another player, preferably a PF who score and defend the paint, draw double teams and free up some space for DG to roam. All and all I think Danny is doing exactly what he should be doing, he has improved every year except this one. He has been the reason we are in a lot of the games we win, but obviously he can't do it by himself. We need another star!

Pacemaker
02-07-2010, 12:23 PM
Im talking about him being the main guy of the team, the one who takes the last shot and drives the team night in and night out, can he do that? is he overrated? are we expecting to much of him?

Right now Danny is not cutting it !

DaveP63
02-07-2010, 05:20 PM
There's not a hope in hell unless we get a lot of help in here. Then it wouldn't really be him doing it, would it?

idioteque
02-07-2010, 05:30 PM
It's a nonsensical question. Take away Danny and give us MJ in his prime, with this current Pacers team. I'm not sure he could get us past Orlando, Boston, or LA. This team is just no good.

BlueNGold
02-07-2010, 05:51 PM
Not even close. And Durant isn't on that same level either. He's above it.

Yep. Granger < Rose < Amare < Roy << Durant

Durant is on an entirely different level than those guys...who are all really pretty close. I would not argue if people swapped around the 4 on the left a bit...

Lance George
02-07-2010, 06:08 PM
He's good enough to be the best player on a championship team, but it would take one hell of a supporting cast with great chemistry to get it done.

BlueNGold
02-07-2010, 06:20 PM
He's good enough to be the best player on a championship team, but it would take one hell of a supporting cast with great chemistry to get it done.

It would have to be a perfect situation where the league had a down period. For example, Kobe and the Lakers would have to not exist in their present form....because several of their players are better than Danny....or very close to being that good.

croxia
02-07-2010, 07:10 PM
I think Danny is more fit as 2nd option in this team than first option.
Danny is different from king james and melo type. He has not only lack of penetration skill ,but also post and face up. We should try to find someone who will lead this team as a 1st option.
Danny should try to do his best following pippen's role in bulls system.

ksuttonjr76
02-07-2010, 11:00 PM
Wow...the confidence in this team is soooo overwhelming. How about we jettisioned the whole team, and start fresh?:skeptical

ksuttonjr76
02-07-2010, 11:03 PM
Danny Granger isn't on the same level as Amare, Rose, Roy, and Durant.

You're right. He's better than Rose, Amare, and Roy when he wants to be. This year's Granger is a complete stranger to me. As for Durant, he's getting hitting a new stride this year.

Hicks
02-07-2010, 11:53 PM
If we get a team with 3 or 4 guys as good as Danny, then sure, but he won't be leading us LeBron-style to the Finals.

d_c
02-08-2010, 02:19 AM
You're right. He's better than Rose, Amare, and Roy when he wants to be. This year's Granger is a complete stranger to me. As for Durant, he's getting hitting a new stride this year.

Granger isn't as good as any of those guys, not even when he "wants" to be.

Amare is a multiple time all-star. He's a guy who once averaged 30 and 11 IN THE PLAYOFFS.... against teams like the Mavs and Spurs. Brandon Roy is now a two time all-star in his 4th year in the league and he is going to drag a completely injury riddled Blazer team to the playoffs by sheer force of will. Derrick Rose is an all-star in his second season at 21 years of age while playing a position that is harder to fill than the one Granger plays.

Granger is a very good player, but prior to this year, he's just had one pretty good year and one all-star year. This year, he's been hurt, he has poor teammates and opposing teams recognize that he's pretty good and they're going at him harder than before. He's having a tough time because of stuff like that. It's not because he doesn't "want" to be good.

What he's facing this season is what guys like Carmelo and Paul Pierce have faced season after season and shows you how hard it is to be as good as they are for how long as they have. Plenty of guys have had one or two really good years. It's the guys who have produced year after year through all the burdens, expectations and physical demands of an 82 game season that are the true stars of the league. Granger has yet to reach that level.

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 02:28 AM
Granger isn't as good as any of those guys, not even when he "wants" to be.

Amare is a multiple time all-star. He's a guy who once averaged 30 and 11 IN THE PLAYOFFS.... against teams like the Mavs and Spurs. Brandon Roy is now a two time all-star in his 4th year in the league and he is going to drag a completely injury riddled Blazer team to the playoffs by sheer force of will. Derrick Rose is an all-star in his second season at 21 years of age while playing a position that is harder to fill than the one Granger plays.

Granger is a very good player, but prior to this year, he's just had one pretty good year and one all-star year. This year, he's been hurt, he has poor teammates and opposing teams recognize that he's pretty good and they're going at him harder than before. He's having a tough time because of stuff like that. It's not because he doesn't "want" to be good.

What he's facing this season is what guys like Carmelo and Paul Pierce have faced season after season and shows you how hard it is to be as good as they are for how long as they have. Plenty of guys have had one or two really good years. It's the guys who have produced year after year through all the burdens, expectations and physical demands of an 82 game season that are the true stars of the league. Granger has yet to reach that level.

Okay...you're right. Let's get rid of Granger in his 5th season, because he's been to the all-star once, and can't take a descent team to the playoffs under bad coaching. You stick with your opinion that's not as good as those "other guys", and I'll stick with my opinion he's better.

d_c
02-08-2010, 02:32 AM
Okay...you're right. Let's get rid of Granger in his 5th season, because he's been to the all-star once, and can't take a descent team to the playoffs under bad coaching. You stick with your opinion that's not as good as those "other guys", and I'll stick with my opinion he's better.

When did I say to get rid of Granger in my post? I said those other players were better, and they have the credentials and accomplishments to prove it.

JOB's bad coaching have gotten to the playoffs before, even with teams that weren't all that talented. Yes, it has happened before. It really has. It was in the NBA. It's in the official records. It's not forged. No joke. Recordwise, he's the second best coach the 76ers have had since the Barkley era ended in Philly, which was quite awhile ago.

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 02:38 AM
When did I say to get rid of Granger in my post? I said those other players were better, and they have the credentials and accomplishments to prove it.

JOB's bad coaching have gotten to the playoffs before, even with teams that weren't all that talented. Yes, it has happened before. Recordwise, he's the second best coach the 76ers have had since the Barkley era ended in Philly, which was quite awhile ago.

2nd best coach in Philly...worst coach for the past 20 years in Indy. We need JOB to coach NOW.

d_c
02-08-2010, 02:45 AM
2nd best coach in Philly...worst coach for the past 20 years in Indy. We need JOB to coach NOW.

This is also the worst roster Indy has had in the past 20 years, so the record right now it no surprise. Heck if JOB really is doing that poor a job, consider it a blessing because building around 36 win seasons and late lottery picks are a low percentage play.

A reminder for you that Bird's entire plan revolves around changing the players, not the coach. If he honestly thought it'd be worthwhile to make the owners spend some more money on a coach for (the possibility of) a few more meaningless wins, he'd have canned JOB by now.

But he sees the bigger picture and the bigger problem of a talent poor roster, which is why he's more concerned with getting new players rather than making what amounts to a meaningless coaching change at this time.

Unclebuck
02-08-2010, 10:13 AM
I think the better and more direct question is can Danny be the best player on a championship team?

Hicks
02-08-2010, 10:26 AM
I think the better and more direct question is can Danny be the best player on a championship team?

If he's head and shoulders better than our 2nd best? No. If it's a team with 3-4 guys of relatively equal quality, and Danny is one of them? Yes.

Putnam
02-08-2010, 10:26 AM
A Pacers championship is on the horizon!





The horizon is an imaginary place in the distance that recedes as one approaches it and can never, in fact, be reached.










.

Unclebuck
02-08-2010, 10:31 AM
If he's head and shoulders better than our 2nd best? No. If it's a team with 3-4 guys of relatively equal quality, and Danny is one of them? Yes.

Yeah, I agree if it is like a Pistons team from '04 then yes. If it is like the Cavs from this season and Danny is Lebron - no

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 11:27 AM
This is also the worst roster Indy has had in the past 20 years, so the record right now it no surprise. Heck if JOB really is doing that poor a job, consider it a blessing because building around 36 win seasons and late lottery picks are a low percentage play.

A reminder for you that Bird's entire plan revolves around changing the players, not the coach. If he honestly thought it'd be worthwhile to make the owners spend some more money on a coach for (the possibility of) a few more meaningless wins, he'd have canned JOB by now.

But he sees the bigger picture and the bigger problem of a talent poor roster, which is why he's more concerned with getting new players rather than making what amounts to a meaningless coaching change at this time.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I think this is one of the better rosters in the past 20 years, and I STRONGLY believe that the coach is not playing to the strengths of the team. This team is good enough to get into the playoffs (especially in the weak eastern conference), and learn from the experience to get better for future seasons. We have good PGs in Price and TJ Ford (he's just in the wrong system), solid defensive/scoring SGs in Rush and D. Jones, a solid "all-star" in Granger w/Dunleavy filling out the 6th man role, maybe Tyler (he's been injuried most of this season, so I'm reserving judgement) backed up by Jones/McRoberts, and Roy (if he improves next season as much as he did this season, then he WILL be force in the paint). IMHO, the only thing that this team is really missing is a solid backup C, scrappy PF, and/or pass-first PG. Historically, Indiana has been a good team due to depth, not a single man taking over the game night in and night out. Indiana can continue that tradition with the current roster and just adding 1-2 players.

As for the coaching change, Rick should have never been fired in the first place. Rick took a bunch of nobodies to playoffs the year of the brawl.

BRushWithDeath
02-08-2010, 11:50 AM
I think the better and more direct question is can Danny be the best player on a championship team?

What I said earlier:



He'd easily be the worst best player on a championship team in history. Not happening.


That includes the '04 Pistons which had a far superior Chauncey Billups and likely 1 or 2 other players who were better as well.

d_c
02-08-2010, 11:58 AM
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I think this is one of the better rosters in the past 20 years

LOL. Are you serious? Are you freaking serious?

I don't even know how to respond to that. The Pacers have had teams that have made the Conference Finals several times in the past 20 years.

This roster features Troy Murphy as the 2nd best player, a guy who has never made the playoffs after 9 seasons in the league. You call that one of the best roster of the past 20 seasons?

Bird is looking to completely overhaul this so called best roster of the past 20 years. Wake up dude.

d_c
02-08-2010, 12:01 PM
That includes the '04 Pistons which had a far superior Chauncey Billups and likely 1 or 2 other players who were better as well.

It also featured 3 starters drafted in the lottery, two of whom were top 5 picks.

lil lebowsky
02-08-2010, 12:03 PM
I said No to this question. While I think that Danny is a good player, i just don't think that he makes others better. Can he score? Yea he can, he can shoot the three and he's a tough player, but he does not handle the ball well enough or take it to the basket like I think a leader should. To me Danny is an above average player, but he's not in the same league as the Lebron's, Melo's, Kobe's, or other top flight shooting guards in the league. To me Danny is more of an Andre Igoudala type of player, who can be counted on to get you 20 pt.'s a game, and is a great piece to a good team, just not a leader or guy that is the man on a good team.

I think that he needs to work on his ball handling and passing in order to take the next step to stardom. Some players just don't have that quality, though. I would really like for him to pattern his game a bit after Kevin Durant or Brandon Roy. Those guys have a similar skill set, but they drive and dish much more than Granger. Danny seems to be a bit one dimensional at this point in his career, and while he is a great player, I just don't think that he will ever be the leader on a championship type of team.

Go Pacers!

vnzla81
02-08-2010, 12:05 PM
[QUOTE=ksuttonjr76;956751]Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I think this is one of the better rosters in the past 20 years
QUOTE]

:jawdrop::spitout::wtf::50cent:

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 12:20 PM
LOL. Are you serious? Are you freaking serious?

I don't even know how to respond to that. The Pacers have had teams that have made the Conference Finals several times in the past 20 years.

This roster features Troy Murphy as the 2nd best player, a guy who has never made the playoffs after 9 seasons in the league. You call that one of the best roster of the past 20 seasons?

Bird is looking to completely overhaul this so called best roster of the past 20 years. Wake up dude.

I don't recall mentioning Murphy's name, and I have been consistent in saying "The talent is there...the coach is not". Also, I said "one of the BETTER" rosters in 20 years. Read...

Hicks
02-08-2010, 12:23 PM
That includes the '04 Pistons which had a far superior Chauncey Billups and likely 1 or 2 other players who were better as well.

I don't agree with that at all. Nothing else to say, really; I just didn't want my silence to be confused with agreement while this statement is out there.

Hicks
02-08-2010, 12:26 PM
I don't recall mentioning Murphy's name, and I have been consistent in saying "The talent is there...the coach is not". Also, I said "one of the BETTER" rosters in 20 years. Read...

Whether you say one of the better, or one of the best, it's just not true.

Not when 89-90 through 09-10 covers all those playoff teams, semifinals teams, ECF teams, and a Finals team.

The only roster I would immediately think was worse was the 07-08 team (w/ Tinsley and JO not playing, Flip Murray/Diener at the point, etc.).

d_c
02-08-2010, 12:48 PM
I don't recall mentioning Murphy's name, and I have been consistent in saying "The talent is there...the coach is not". Also, I said "one of the BETTER" rosters in 20 years. Read...

You didn't mention Murphy, and that's your mistake, not mine. Not mentioning the 2nd best player on the roster is a huge omission when discussing how good a team is. I don't even like Troy Murphy as a player that much, but right now he is the 2nd best player on your roster. It's not even debatable.

I'd say this is one of the top 20 Pacer rosters of the past 20 seasons. Probably ranks around #20.

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 01:29 PM
You didn't mention Murphy, and that's your mistake, not mine. Not mentioning the 2nd best player on the roster is a huge omission when discussing how good a team is. I don't even like Troy Murphy as a player that much, but right now he is the 2nd best player on your roster. It's not even debatable.

I'd say this is one of the top 20 Pacer rosters of the past 20 seasons. Probably ranks around #20.

It's not an omission if I believe he's a secondary reason to why I think the team is underachieving. Personally, I have never been a fan of stretch-PFs, because it leaves one player trying to gather offensive rebounds. Especially in this offense where most of the players are camping around the 3PT line. This team lacks fundamental basketball knowledge and plays, and that I blame on the coach. If you believe that this is the 20th best team in Pacers history, then why are we even having this discussion? We should be lobbying for the Simons to sell the team, so we don't have to worry about a bunch of losers under a losing, stubborn coach.

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 01:40 PM
Whether you say one of the better, or one of the best, it's just not true.

Not when 89-90 through 09-10 covers all those playoff teams, semifinals teams, ECF teams, and a Finals team.

The only roster I would immediately think was worse was the 07-08 team (w/ Tinsley and JO not playing, Flip Murray/Diener at the point, etc.).

Well, we need to get those coaches to coach this team. I'm not sold that this team is bad when everything points back to the coach making poor decisions, or is improperly handling the rotation minutes for players who should be getting PT.

Of course, some people had Hibbert and Rush labeled as busts last year and Indiana was stupid for trading Bayless to Rush, but now...how often do you hear THOSE comments?

d_c
02-08-2010, 01:42 PM
If you believe that this is the 20th best team in Pacers history, then why are we even having this discussion? We should be lobbying for the Simons to sell the team, so we don't have to worry about a bunch of losers under a losing, stubborn coach.

Because most people here recognize this is a losing situation with poor talent and a coach who was probably brought in to be thrown away at the end of his contract.

Appreciate the fact that the Pacers have been a very well run team for many years, that they achieved the rare NBA feat of pretty much rebuilding a very good team on the fly and showing a high level of consistency.

Now they've hit the point that a whole lot of NBA teams eventually do: A point where they have to rebuild. Granger is great. A very nice building block to have around. Can he take the Pacers to the promiseland? No. They need a lot more talent. History shows that you need high lottery picks to get to the promiseland (which currently don't have). Contrary to popular belief, the 2004 Pistons are just another example of that, not an exception.

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 01:59 PM
Because most people here recognize this is a losing situation with poor talent and a coach who was probably brought in to be thrown away at the end of his contract.

Appreciate the fact that the Pacers have been a very well run team for many years, that they achieved the rare NBA feat of pretty much rebuilding a very good team on the fly and showing a high level of consistency.

Now they've hit the point that a whole lot of NBA teams eventually do: A point where they have to rebuild. Granger is great. A very nice building block to have around. Can he take the Pacers to the promiseland? No. They need a lot more talent. History shows that you need high lottery picks to get to the promiseland (which currently don't have). Contrary to popular belief, the 2004 Pistons are just another example of that, not an exception.

Poor talent, huh? So what percentage of this team is "poor" talent? The only thing that I'll appreiciate is when Bird holds a news conference to announce that JOB has been fired. I watched a lot of basketball in my time, and I don't remember ever being this critical of a coach as I have been about JOB.

d_c
02-08-2010, 02:16 PM
Poor talent, huh? So what percentage of this team is "poor" talent? The only thing that I'll appreiciate is when Bird holds a news conference to announce that JOB has been fired. I watched a lot of basketball in my time, and I don't remember ever being this critical of a coach as I have been about JOB.

About 75% of this roster won't be around when the Pacers are once again competitive. I suppose you can say the Pacers have good talent, but that would be in a league where they don't play against anyone. When compared to the teams who currently hold the 8 playoff seeds in the east, the Pacers come up short. They have less talent than those teams.

Again, if you think Bird's plan revolves around who is coaching the team, you completely miss the point of what he's trying to do. The NBA isn't a league that revolves around who the coach and the system. It's about the players and the talent, and that's what Bird is focused on fixing.

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 02:51 PM
About 75% of this roster won't be around when the Pacers are once again competitive. I suppose you can say the Pacers have good talent, but that would be in a league where they don't play against anyone. When compared to the teams who currently hold the 8 playoff seeds in the east, the Pacers come up short. They have less talent than those teams.

Again, if you think Bird's plan revolves around who is coaching the team, you completely miss the point of what he's trying to do. The NBA isn't a league that revolves around who the coach and the system. It's about the players and the talent, and that's what Bird is focused on fixing.

Woooooowwwww...so, a coach and his system doesn't have anything to do with a team's success? Okay...:bs:. How about we draw names out of a hat for our next coach?

d_c
02-08-2010, 03:18 PM
Woooooowwwww...so, a coach and his system doesn't have anything to do with a team's success? Okay...:bs:. How about we draw names out of a hat for our next coach?

I said players and talent matter more than coaching and systems in the NBA. It's a players' league where the players and talent come first. Always has been. Coaching matters too, but every single year Phil Jackson won one of his championships, he had the best players and the best rosters. That was the case for 10 out of 10 of his championship teams.

Every team that is consistently a winning team in the NBA is a talented one. If you don't have talent, you don't win no matter who the coach is or what their system tries to implement.

The best coach and the best system probably gets around a .500 record with this roster. Who cares? Certainly, the best coach in the league won't waste his time trying to prove that he can win 41 games with this roster (as opposed to the 36 games JOB won the previous two years).

The best coach in the league wants to take over a team that previously lost in the finals or conference finals and turn them into a team that wins the finals. They don't care about turning talent poor teams like this Pacers' squad into .500 teams. If you want to attract that kind of coach, then first get a better roster.

BRushWithDeath
02-08-2010, 03:39 PM
I don't agree with that at all. Nothing else to say, really; I just didn't want my silence to be confused with agreement while this statement is out there.

Billups is unquestionably better than Granger. '04 Billups was far better than '09-'10 Billups. '04 Hamilton was almost assuredly better than Granger. '04 Sheed and '04 Prince were at least as good. '04 Ben Wallace is more valuable to winning even than '08-'09 Granger. And I don't expect to see '08-'09 Granger again. So, my theory that Granger would be the worst best player on a championship team in history holds true in my opinion. Because I'd give Billups that title now. And he was far better than Granger.

Hicks
02-08-2010, 03:52 PM
Billups is unquestionably better than Granger. '04 Billups was far better than '09-'10 Billups. '04 Hamilton was almost assuredly better than Granger. '04 Sheed and '04 Prince were at least as good. '04 Ben Wallace is more valuable to winning even than '08-'09 Granger. And I don't expect to see '08-'09 Granger again. So, my theory that Granger would be the worst best player on a championship team in history holds true in my opinion. Because I'd give Billups that title now. And he was far better than Granger.

Well, you've declared it, so I guess it's the truth.

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 07:49 PM
I said players and talent matter more than coaching and systems in the NBA. It's a players' league where the players and talent come first. Always has been. Coaching matters too, but every single year Phil Jackson won one of his championships, he had the best players and the best rosters. That was the case for 10 out of 10 of his championship teams.

Every team that is consistently a winning team in the NBA is a talented one. If you don't have talent, you don't win no matter who the coach is or what their system tries to implement.

The best coach and the best system probably gets around a .500 record with this roster. Who cares? Certainly, the best coach in the league won't waste his time trying to prove that he can win 41 games with this roster (as opposed to the 36 games JOB won the previous two years).

The best coach in the league wants to take over a team that previously lost in the finals or conference finals and turn them into a team that wins the finals. They don't care about turning talent poor teams like this Pacers' squad into .500 teams. If you want to attract that kind of coach, then first get a better roster.

Riddle me this Batman...at what point do Indiana says it has "good enough talent" to have a "good" coach? Also, how is it that a good team can't be coached to be a great team?

Pacersfan46
02-08-2010, 08:11 PM
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I think this is one of the better rosters in the past 20 years

:laugh:

Either you're young, and have no idea what this team has been like in the last 20 years, or you just have a bad memory. Something.

We have the lowest winning percentage right now this franchise has seen since 88-89 season. Working on having the worst record in the last 20 years, but one of the better rosters? Sure. That's crazy.

We might not even make the win total (33 wins) of the 98-99 team that only played 50 games.

-- Steve --

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 08:56 PM
:laugh:

Either you're young, and have no idea what this team has been like in the last 20 years, or you just have a bad memory. Something.

We have the lowest winning percentage right now this franchise has seen since 88-89 season. Working on having the worst record in the last 20 years, but one of the better rosters? Sure. That's crazy.

We might not even make the win total (33 wins) of the 98-99 team that only played 50 games.

-- Steve --

Am I only one who looks BEYOND the W/L record and looks at the players? Am I only one who believes that the team is being improperly used, and we do have the right components to be better than our record indicates? I've been watching the Pacers (and basketball) for a little over 20 years, so my memory is perfectly fine. When I look at this team, I see a team that SHOULDN'T be losing as much as they do. The team that I see should be playing for the 7th/8th seed, and a competitive 1st round matchup. Of course, most people are brainwashed to think if you're losing, then you suck before analyzing WHY they're losing. As MANY threads that are created complaining about how JOB coaches and should be fired, yet I'm the crazy one when for believing that this team has enough talent to compete better than they are now.

Mr. Sobchak
02-08-2010, 10:12 PM
Am I only one who looks BEYOND the W/L record and looks at the players? Am I only one who believes that the team is being improperly used, and we do have the right components to be better than our record indicates? I've been watching the Pacers (and basketball) for a little over 20 years, so my memory is perfectly fine. When I look at this team, I see a team that SHOULDN'T be losing as much as they do. The team that I see should be playing for the 7th/8th seed, and a competitive 1st round matchup. Of course, most people are brainwashed to think if you're losing, then you suck before analyzing WHY they're losing. As MANY threads that are created complaining about how JOB coaches and should be fired, yet I'm the crazy one when for believing that this team has enough talent to compete better than they are now.

Playing for the 7th/8th seed is not one of our best teams of the past 20 years. Even so, I highly doubt this team coached by Larry Brown could do that well...

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 10:44 PM
Playing for the 7th/8th seed is not one of our best teams of the past 20 years. Even so, I highly doubt this team coached by Larry Brown could do that well...

Well, we're not going to be playing for the 3rd - 6th seed overnight. Most championship teams slowly make their ways into the playoffs as an uphill battle. You make the playoffs and lose...make minor player adjustments. Make playoffs and lose again...make another adjustment. Eventually, you'll tweak the team into championship contention. The Boston Celtics are the only team of recent memories that jumped from a non-playoff team to winning it all.

d_c
02-09-2010, 01:41 AM
Riddle me this Batman...at what point do Indiana says it has "good enough talent" to have a "good" coach? Also, how is it that a good team can't be coached to be a great team?

I dunno how you want to exactly quantify it, but a team with Murphy as the 2nd best player isn't good enough talent.

What do you define to be a good team that can be coached into a great team? You mean a coach that can make a team that normally wins 45 games (under an average coach) into a 55 win team? There aren't many coaches who can do that.

But that doesn't even apply here because this isn't a good team. It's a bad team that a really good coach might be able to coach into a an average team, but what really good coach who is established is going to want to waste his time with that?

d_c
02-09-2010, 01:43 AM
Well, we're not going to be playing for the 3rd - 6th seed overnight. Most championship teams slowly make their ways into the playoffs as an uphill battle. You make the playoffs and lose...make minor player adjustments. Make playoffs and lose again...make another adjustment. Eventually, you'll tweak the team into championship contention. The Boston Celtics are the only team of recent memories that jumped from a non-playoff team to winning it all.

Most championship teams first collect the necessary talent and then slowly make their way into the playoffs in some kind of uphill battle. The Lakers, Spurs, Pistons, Heat. They all got the talent first and then developed it.